I would like to ask 'why?'

I am not trying to start an argument, but I would like some feedback without inflammatory language and rude comments, from both sides, please. This is about the KJVO issue, but not really the substance, such as readings and the like. It is about the arguments used in favor of using the King James Version alone. Here are a couple of quotes I found rather surprising from someone who I think uses the KJV exclusively and my remarks following:

But isn't this one of the arguments used against MV's? The one I see all the time is an accusation of a lesbian being on the translating team of the NIV (which isn't the whole truth). I also perceive that many who use the KJV exclusively seem to think modern scholars are not as devout as or up to the scholarship level of the KJV scholars. Why is it acceptable for one side to attack translators and then say that the translators don't matter?

The first thing that struck me was the subjective nature of the argument. Do we each now determine truth based on our own experiences? Isn't this statement giving endorsement to pure existentialism? How can one person's experience be binding for others and the measuring stick for others? Also, the second part of the statement in no way points to the King James Version being the only preserved Word of God. To the best of my knowledge all MVs have John 16:13 in them. So why can't MV users use this verse equally as well? Why does it only apply to the KJV?

This statement (or more accurately, verses) was given in support of the authorization from King James for a new translation. Even if the meaning of the verse that KJVOs propose is true (and I am granting that for the rest of my comments on this), why could these verses not equally be used for MVs? After all, the NKJV reads the same as the KJV here, so why is it not valid? Why did it stop being true with the KJV?

I would agree with this statement. But recently an argument was put forth that linked the NASB and NWT because of their same underlying text (they failed to point out how the NWT deliberately departs from the underlying Greek). Why is it okay for one side to link a text with cults and yet claim that it is no big deal if their text is linked with a cult? Does the Critical Text automatically become null and void if Jehovah Witnesses use it to make their own slanted translation?

Here again, why is it okay for the Apocrypha to be included in an Authorized translation, yet it can't be in the Greek? What if the KJV had fallen out of use 50 years after it was written and we just found a few KJV manuscripts. Wouldn't we think that the translators considered it of very high value, if not part of the canon? And also, this statement fails to note that MVs DO NOT include the Apocrypha because the translators do not acknowledge it as Scripture. And why does the inclusion of the Apocrypha nullify the manuscripts that possess it? Why does that same thinking not nullify the KJV (I am not saying that it does, but to be consistent using this logic one would need to)? This person evidently acknowledges that inclusion of some things does not void a text. So in the words of this statement, "What's the difference?"

But aren't they still corrections? The text could not have remained the same if changes in spelling and such were made. Could God not inspire it correctly the first time? And something that I have never really thought of, were there spelling errors and such in the originals that were inspired by God (I haven't thought of it, but to be consistent with this statement one would need to at least acknowledge that it is possibility)? Some of the differences in Greek texts arise from spelling. This person acknowledges that spelling errors and typos are no big deal, so why all the fuss and build-up of all the 'changes' of the Alexandrian texts and such? When we change a spelling in English it could affect the meaning of a word. Why is this okay but not for the Greek? If the Greek has typos from copying why is it not acknowledged that this is where we get many different readings?

I honestly, truly, and sincerely do not want to argue. But I would like to understand why some things are okay for one side but not another. Please, don't just throw up a verse. Explain how you are using a verse or what you are trying to convey by posting it. And yet again, let's please stay calm and civil. I am not intending to defame or indict anybody. I truly want to understand the thinking of the opposing arguments.

God Bless,
Neal

P.S. If something I have said seems to be out of line or inflammatory please let me know and I will change to express my thoughts in a better way.

[ June 07, 2003, 10:55 PM: Message edited by: neal4christ ]