Question To KJV Only Advocates

[Ed Edwards]

Lacy Evans: "My main argument is the absolutely overwhelming
preponderance of the fruit of the KJV when compared
to all other translations in history. "

Here is how you get saved in the overwhelming preponderance
translation:

Romans 10:9 (The Latin Vulgate):
quia si confitearis in ore tuo Dominum Iesum et in corde tuo credideris quod Deus illum excitavit ex mortuis salvus eris

For the first 1,500 years of this translation, 80% of the
Christians in the world were converted by this verse
in this version.

The KJV1769 has only been around for 337 years for only about
20% of the population. Go figure which Bible has the
preponderance.

 

[Martin]

Lacy,

Thanks for taking the time to reply to my post.

You said:
I don't. But neither does anyone else. There are no verses that say that the autographs were inspired either.

==I am glad to see that you have chosen to answer the question. Thanks. As for the idea that there are no verses that state the auographs were inspired...I would disagree (2Tim 3:16-17).
______________________________

You said:
All of us should base our beliefs on Scriptural principals and Biblical precedents, when no direct verse is there.

==I agree.
______________________________

You said:
1) The Bible promises us that the Word will be preserved. (Psalm 12v6-7)

==I agree. History also agrees and, for about 1600 years, there were many faithful translations prior to 1611 and King James I's authorized translation.
_______________________________

You said:
3) The Bible gives us a definition of inspired "Scripture" which pertains exclusively (at least in context) to copies and trranslations. (2 Tim 3:16,17)

==How does 2Tim 3:16-17 apply only to copies and translations. I have no doubt that it does apply to copies/translations but I would also say that it does not exclude the autographs.
___________________________________

You said:
4) The Bible gives us a clear way to look critically at any "prophet" who claims to speak the Word of God. (The same test can apply to inspired Scripture, the cannon, and the Christian revelation in general.)Matt 7:15-20
This "fruit test", IMHO, overwhelmingly proves the KJV to be inspire scripture.

==I agree with what you have labeled as the "fruit test". However I don't see how this "overwhelmingly proves" anything on this academic subject. One can recite fruit accounts that have resulted from most every faithful translation in history. How does this make the 1611 KJV better than the others? You will need to explain this point to me before I can really reply.

_____________________________________

I said:
I am not looking for a comparison between the KJV and other "modern" english translations. Such a comparison is faulty because it starts with the presupposition that the KJV is the only correct english translation. Thus such an argument is circular.

You replied:
It might be circular, but I will say this. It is the same method anyone uses when picking a version "preference". Nobody REALLY compares the NIV, NAS, etc. and the NWT, LB etc to the "originals" because there are no "originals". While I would never start an argument there, it certainly counts for circumstantial evidence.

==I would reject the superior claim of any translation based on such "circumstantial evidence". As for the original autographs...while it is true we do not have them (and probably for good reason...just look at the stain under the bridge a few weeks ago...people would worship these objects). However, thanks to textual criticism we can be morally certain that around 98% of our modern texts is just as the original autographs.

"Nevertheless, our ability to reconstruct what the originals looked like is exceedingly high. The contents of 97-99 percent of the text are certain beyond any reasonable doubt - far better than for any other documents of the same age." -Dr Craig Blomberg, "Jesus and the Gospels" pg 75.

I use Blomberg because he represents the general agreement among New Testament scholars. This view, as expressed by Blomberg, is generally accepted by scholars of all backgrounds.

So God has preserved His Word. However there is no evidence (Biblical or otherwise) that the KJV is "the preserved" English translation. Mainly when we consider the fact that some modern translations do a better job translating certain greek terms (etc).
________________________________

I said:
I am not looking for someone to tell me that it is the "authorized version" since, historically, that has nothing to do with the claimed superior nature of the translation.

You said:
Indeed, this is the same argument that ALL fundamental Christians use when defending our 66 book cannon. There is no Scripture that says, "Thou shalt not regard The Gospel of Peter, etc. as scripture but shalt regard Song of Soloman so."
We base it on History and fruit. We base it on the fact that historically the church has "authorized" those and only those 66 books.

==It was King James I of England (head of the Anglican Church) that authorized the 1611 version. Which, btw, included the "Catholic" Apocrypha. So the "authorized version" of 1611 had more than 66 books in it. That is what I meant by, "historically, that has nothing to do with the claimed superior nature of the translation". I see no reason to accept the idea that King James I, who as far as I can tell was not a Christian, should have been the voice of the church. This is only doubled when I consider that the 1611 version of King James I contained the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha has been rejected as uninspired by the majority of Christians throughout history (and rightly so).

____________________________________

I said:
I am not looking for spurious arguments about how everyone who translated the NIV was "evil" or how the NKJV translators are out to "fool people with their false perversion of the KJV text". Such arguments are wrong because many of the textual scholars who worked on these translations are Godly Christians who, like Martin Luther, wanted a English Bible in the modern language.

You said:
While I respectly disagree with most of that, I would not make it an issue.

==Ok, but I must say I think it is a major issue. Have you read the works of Gail Riplinger? How about "New Age Bible Versions"? The accusations she makes in that book are not only false (for the most part) they represent a gross misunderstanding of textual studies and of those who have been involved.
____________________________________

You said:
My main argument is the absolutly overwhelming preponderance of the fruit of the KJV when compared to all other translations in history.

==Thats fine. However I must say again that other translations can claim the same. The difference maybe that some are not as old as the 1611 KJV, but given time they will be and they will gather more. God preserves His Word. All of the major English translations are good (NASB, KJV, NKJV, etc). I am a bit weary of the NIV and the NLT and I am openly hostile to "The Message" (a popular paraphrase). Those feelings are based on the level of faithfulness to the greek texts (NT). However if we examine the major faithful translations (faithful to the greek) we see large, large agreement. No signficant disagreements whatsoever. So on a textual level I see no reason to believe in the superior nature of the KJV translation. Also, added to that, is the fact that at points the KJV is weak on translation. I know that is not popular but I even hear KJV preachers say something like.."now let me explain what that word is in the greek" and thus admitting that the KJV is not a perfect translation of the greek. All of the translations have weaknesses and all of them have strengths, but of the major I would say that none are better than the other. I would take the NKJV, the KJV, the NASB anyday and not prefer one over the other. They all faithfully preserve God's message.
______________________________

You said:
Is there a Biblical precedent for preservation by atrophy?, for "going to the originals"?, for multiple choice exegesis?

==What do you mean by "multiple choice exegesis"?

The original language is what it was written in. To say that we can ignore or set that aside is not facing the facts. The fact is that the KJV translators, along with the NASB and NKJV translators, had to work with the greek/hebrew texts (and the Latin translations at times). All of what we have comes from that. If it were not for these manuscripts there would be no english Bible today.

In Christ,
Martin.

 

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by Logos1560:
The doctrine of the preservation of the Scriptures does not actually support exclusive-only claims for the KJV.

Of course it doesn't in of itself. What it does do is set us looking for the possibility of an extant inspired scripture.

It is a fact that the KJV is a revision of earlier English Bibles [more of a revision than an original new translation of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages]. Does your view of preservation accept those earlier English Bibles as being the Scriptures in the same sense that is claimed for the KJV?

Not exactly. On the KJVs "kin-folks" I just go back to an MVers old stand by of "More accurate", "More reliable", etc.

Where in the context of 2 Tim. 3:16-17 does it state that the definition pertains exclusively to translations? How do you know whether the Scriptures that Timothy was taught were copies, were translations, were the original epistle written by the apostle Paul, were spoken words from the memory of his mother and grandmother?

Context dictates that it was more likely an inspired Greek OT. Christ quotes "scripture" and refers to "scripture" as well. And he never once is talking about an autograph.

The definition of 2 Timothy 3:16 states specificly how "all Scripture is given," not how all Scripture is preserved or how all Scripture is translated.

I would argue that it states what exactly it is that is given . . . scripture (copies, translations).

The definition may validly be referring to the original giving of the Scriptures by direct revelation and inspiration from God. {/quote]

Impossible unless you believe Timothy's mother was reading autographs to Timothy, "from a child".

Without reading KJV-only assumptions into the verse, how does the verse state that it is exclusively referring to the translating of men under the illumination of the Holy Spirit (who were not being giving any direct revelation or direct inspiration)?

That is not the concuding premise I drew from that verse. I simply said that it proves that Inspired Scriptures are copies/translations, not autographs.

Your "main" argument [the fruit test] does not prove a KJV-only view.

Before I comment, let me say that this is my deep felt conviction and I have studied the issue for many years. I am not trying to divide your church. (Right now I attend a church that is by no means KJVO) In fact I am not trying even to convince you of anything. It matters not to me if you submit to the KJV or some other Bible, or no Bible. If your use of quotation marks around the word "main" was sarcasm rather that just a simple quote, then it was sarcasm misplaced. You're just as entitled to your convictions as the next man. So am I.

A consistent and scriptural view of Bible translation would be true both before and after 1611.

Why do you say that? What is your Biblical precedemnt? Where in Scripture does it say that God cannot raise up scripture from the dry bones of scattered manuscripts, versions, translations, etc. He did it in Greek. why not again in English? Why not again someday in Chinese?

According to your argument, which translation was the word of God before 1611?

My view of Bible translation before 1611 is exactly the same as your view of Bible translation now. We had incomplete, scattered manuscripts, varying in "reliability", and "veracity". Some bibles were better than others but none were perfect. Prior to 1611 I was an MVer.

According to the typical MV argument, which translation was ever the word of God? Let's at least apply the same meanings to our terms. What do you mean by "word of God"?

According to your argument and the actual historical evidence, does the fruit test support the KJV before around 1660?

Not nearly so much as when the KJV had made its way unimpeded into English culture, literature, and more importantly a couple generations worth of pulpits. Do you know anything about agriculture? You don't plant a seed and expect fruit the next day or week. That's city-boy stuff.

The KJV is actually part of the fruit that comes from the work of William Tyndale, Miles Coverdale, the translators of the Geneva Bible.
The KJV is a branch of the same tree as Tyndale's, Coverdale's Bible, Matthew's Bible, Great Bible, Taverner's, Whittingham's, Geneva,
and Bishops' Bibles; Luther's German Bible, and other translations. Whatever qualities you claim for the KJV must also be true of the other English translations of which the KJV is a revision?

No argument here. The immediate predecessors of the KJV were "very reliable" Bibles. Perfect means mature. Christ once nursed Mary's breast. He was perfect then too but he got a lot more perfect. Heb 5:8

Does your KJV-only view seem to cut one branch (the KJV) off the tree from which it came and attempt to make it independent of that tree?

I respect the tree but I eat off the prominent branch with the proven fruit.

Lacy

 

[shannonL]

I'm a missionary in IFB circles. I'm from NC. I live in OH. I'm raising my support in churches all the way from Maine to Fl.
You name it and I've been asked i.e.
-are you a TR man?
-what Bible do you use brother?
-do you study out of the KJ or just preach from it?
I mean I've seen and heard it all.
Alot of Pastors, especially down in dixie use this issue as a litmus test for everything else.
They assume right away that if a fellow is using a more recent version then he probably likes contemporary music. He probably lets his wife wear pants.He probably is into some of the Church Growth stuff. Do yall get what I'm saying?
Now pertaining to those things I will say alot of times they're assumptions are right. (Not saying I agree) just making that observation.
So to alot of people the KJVO position carries more with it than just the Bible issue itself.

I prefer the KJ just because to me it is time tested. It has been around a long time.
I do find it interesting how many versions there are today in english. I think having so many versions has contributed to the dumbing down of God's Word. For example that Word on the Street version is garbage.
Also, the wide acceptance of the NIV has led to the acceptance of the TNIV which (from what I have read of those who are qualified)is a gender neutral Bible. Now that cannot be healthy.
I dislike the NIV because from what I know from my limited understanding it is a Dynamic aquiv. bible. (Just my pref.) Plus I disagree with having it copyrighted.

You can pick on the KJ for being somewhat archaic in places and a translation difficulty here and there but that is about it.

It is sad,very sad that this issue seperates IFB churches. It sure makes it difficult raising support in their circles.
I know plenty of solid IFB missionaries who have lost support from churches all because they were KJ prefering guys and not KJVO guys. That ain't right.

This is simply my preference but I think a church should have a standard text regardless if what version you think it should be.

 

[paidagogos]

QUESTION: How do you, from Scripture alone, support your claims?

This is a prejudiced and silly question. Scripture does not address this point either way. So, one can neither prove nor disprove the superiority or inferiority of the KJV by Scripture alone.

Let's ask the question of a related but similar issue. How can you establish the canon of Scripture by Scripture alone? We do not have every book claiming inspiration for itself. There has been some debate over the canonicity of certain books. Esther does not refer to God even though we can see His working. Luther, for example, thought James should not be included in the NT. Early compilations included or left out certain books. Although I think it is a spurious issue, certain scholars have raised the question of other canonical books in recent times.

IMHO, it is a thoughtless question because it presupposes that one must be able to prove the KJV superior via Scripture alone. One may equally well ask: “Can you provide any version is the Word of God by Scripture alone.” This is not the case and it is absurd to engage in trying to answer this predisposed question.

Sometimes it is fun to answer an inanity with an inanity. Can anyone prove from Scripture alone that one must use Scripture alone to establish the superiority of the KJV?

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by David J:
Good point Logas. It's kind of like when liberals want to claim that we do not need to talk about abortion because every argument has already been presented. Basically they are telling us to shut up. We can not ignore and sugar coat *KJVOism. KJVOism is a false doctrine that is deadly to the child of God.

*Please note that I said KJVOism and not the KJVOist. Average KJVOist are not in the same league as people like Ruckman, Riplinger, Waite, etc…Those who push the KJVO myth with lies and distortions fall under another category that the Bible condemns.

KJVOist should review the evidence and ponder KJVOism. As a KJVOist when I read the AV1611 something inside of me went off and a red flag was raised. I searched for answers and read all kinds of materials. The best source I found that convinced me that KJVOism was false is the AV1611.

It’s dangerous for us to ignore KJVOism. Yes there are many good Christian people caught up in the myth. KJVOism on the surface sounds legitimate because of the way it presented with the emotions and conspiracy theories. So I don’t fault anyone who gets caught up in this myth. I myself was a KJVO for over seven years. I do find fault with someone who has been presented the facts (like Psalm 12:6-7 as found in the AV1611 for example) and cling to the KJVO deceptions rather than accepting the facts.

The bottom line that many KJVOist ignore is there is no scripture to support KJVOism. All the double weasel talk in the world can not cover this known fact. KJVOist should admit that it is a personal preference and stand with us against people like Cloud, Waite, Ruckman, Riplinger, Reagan, Chick, Fuller, etc… because these people advocate a lie. God is not the father of lies and He is not the author of confusion. When KJVOism claims that only the KJV is the perfect Word of God then it is both a lie and causes confusion because of the many revisions that KJV. This is a fact and not an opinion.

The Holy Spirit will never lead anyone to KJVOism because KJVOism is a lie. However the Holy Spirit will lead someone to the KJV because the KJV is a fine translation. Please note that I made a difference between KJVOism which is a lie and KJV which is a proven valid wonderful translation of the Word of the Most High.

I simply don’t understand why KJVOism must attack fine bibles like the NKJV, NASB, and ESV while blind eying its own problems like Peter Ruckman, Riplinger, etc…

As for me I will stand up to KJVOism until the Lord takes me home. I will not bow down and ignore the problems of KJVOism just because some good Christian brothers and sisters are KJVO. I still have many friends who are KJVO and they know my stand BUT unlike KJVOism I do not attack them BUT I do attack the KJVO myth when it is discussed.

Bro, you are adamant and closed minded as evidenced by your post. However, what is this KJVOism that you are cussing? Sounds as if you have a whipping boy and you're flogging him for all you're worth. You're shooting everything in front of you with a scattergun. If it's a lie, then you must define what the lie is. Ruckman and Waite are in different camps. Also, I would contend with you that the ESV (revised RSV) is not a good translation. Upon first blush, it would seem that your animosity is exceeded only by your ignorance.

 

[Logos1560]

Originally posted by paidagogos:
what is this KJVOism ?

Ruckman and Waite are in different camps. [/b]

KJV-onlyism could be defined by the exclusive only statements that holders of that view make for the KJV. While D. A. Waite strongly disagrees with Ruckman's advanced revelation claims and while Waite has claimed that he is not a "KJV-only" advocate, Waite himself has made exclusive only claims for the KJV.

Waite wrote: "There are no good translations except the King James Bible" (CENTRAL SEMINARY REFUTED, p. 129). Waite wrote: "The King James Bible is the only accurate English translation in existence today" (p. 47). Waite wrote: "If you use any other version than the King James Bible you are tampering with the Words of God" (p. 136).
Waite wrote: "The King James Bible is always superior to all others in the English language" (p. 80). Waite wrote: "The only valid Bible is the King James Bible" (p. 131).

Waite's own statements provide a good description of the KJV-only view.

 

[Ed Edwards]

ShannonL: "I prefer the KJ just because to me it is
time tested. It has been around a long time.
I do find it interesting how many versions there
are today in english."

Amen Brother ShannonL - Preach it!

I have three different King James Versions in paper
on the shelves above my computer (two of them are on
my e-Sword, electronic Bibles.
There are lots of KJs in English.

 

[Logos1560]

Originally posted by Lacy Evans:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Logos1560:
The KJV is actually part of the fruit that comes from the work of William Tyndale, Miles Coverdale, the translators of the Geneva Bible.
The KJV is a branch of the same tree as Tyndale's, Coverdale's Bible, Matthew's Bible, Great Bible, Taverner's, Whittingham's, Geneva,
and Bishops' Bibles; Luther's German Bible, and other translations. Whatever qualities you claim for the KJV must also be true of the other English translations of which the KJV is a revision?

No argument here. The immediate predecessors of the KJV were "very reliable" Bibles. Perfect means mature.

Lacy </font>[/QUOTE]By the way, I had put quotations around "main"
because I was quoting your word. I could have put them around "main argument" so that would have been more clear.

Since you responded "no argument," are you saying that if it is affirmed that the KJV is inspired, the same must be affirmed of all the earlier English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision?
If it is affirmed that one translation on this tree is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness, it must be affirmed of all the translations on this tree. If the tree or root is holy, all the branches are also holy (Rom. 11:16).

One reason the KJV has some different renderings than the earlier English Protestant Bibles (Tyndale's to Bishops') is because the KJV translators took some renderings from the 1582 Rheims N. T. How does the influence of the Rheims on the KJV affect your main fruit argument?

 

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by Martin: Lacy,

Thanks for taking the time to reply to my post.

You are welcome, brother.

I am glad to see that you have chosen to answer the question. Thanks. As for the idea that there are no verses that state the auographs were inspired...I would disagree (2Tim 3:16-17).

Those verses say that scripture is inspired. the same "scripture" that Timothy's mother read to him as a child.

agree. History also agrees and, for about 1600 years, there were many faithful translations prior to 1611 and King James I's authorized translation.

My turn to agree. The key is your term "faithful". It is a relative term. In 2 Chronicals 4, King Josiah acted on "faithful" revelation when he broke down the groves and altars. He acted on very "faithful" revelation when he ordered the House of God restored. But when the Book of The Lord was found in the rubble, the revelation went from "faithful" to "perfect". "Faithful" bore fruit. "Perfect" caused revival to break out on an exponentially larger scale. I believe something similar happened when another king acted on "faithful" revelation.

I believe that God can get it close. (Dry bones, all put back together, with flesh and sinews and skin.) and then God can get it perfect by breathing into it.
_______________________________

==How does 2Tim 3:16-17 apply only to copies and translations. I have no doubt that it does apply to copies/translations but I would also say that it does not exclude the autographs.

It doesn't necessarily exclude them. It just is not referring to them here.

I agree with what you have labeled as the "fruit test". However I don't see how this "overwhelmingly proves" anything on this academic subject. One can recite fruit accounts that have resulted from most every faithful translation in history. How does this make the 1611 KJV better than the others? You will need to explain this point to me before I can really reply.

I will challenge you to apply any biblical standard of what constitutes "good fruit" (souls won, personal holiness, saltiness, new (restored) revelation, advance in doctrine, missionary activity, infuence of local churches on society, etc.) to a comparative look at the 1700s and 1800s and any other 200 year period in history. The fruit of the KJv is just as evident as the fruit of the close cannon.

==I would reject the superior claim of any translation based on such "circumstantial evidence".

I would too. I don't base anything on "circumstantial evidence", it just happens to support my convictions.

However, thanks to textual criticism we can be morally certain that around 98% of our modern texts is just as the original autographs.

"Nevertheless, our ability to reconstruct what the originals looked like is exceedingly high. The contents of 97-99 percent of the text are certain beyond any reasonable doubt - far better than for any other documents of the same age." -Dr Craig Blomberg, "Jesus and the Gospels" pg 75.

I use Blomberg because he represents the general agreement among New Testament scholars. This view, as expressed by Blomberg, is generally accepted by scholars of all backgrounds.

But that 2% is what the whole KJVO controversy is about. It puts the Final Authority in the hands of a select few who can sell us their views. My point is, the Autographs were never meant to be the final authority. God never regarded them above any other scripture. (See "original" 10 Commandments, Ex 34:1,27 & Jeremiah's autographs, versions 1,2,&3 Jere 36)

So God has preserved His Word. However there is no evidence (Biblical or otherwise) that the KJV is "the preserved" English translation. Mainly when we consider the fact that some modern translations do a better job translating certain greek terms (etc).

That is an opinion, and not shared by all. There is evidence, Biblical and historical that something is different and special about that Book.

It was King James I of England (head of the Anglican Church) that authorized the 1611 version.

Many claim that the term "Authorized Version" was not coined until 1814. (200 years later) Which would be what one would expect on a farm. You don't know which crop is good for feed and which is good for seed until you see it growing.

Which, btw, included the "Catholic" Apocrypha. So the "authorized version" of 1611 had more than 66 books in it.

Yes or no brother. Honestly. Did the KJV translators, King James himself, any fundamental preachers at the time, or anybody at all, regard the Apocrypha as scripture? Did anyone believe that the 1611 KJV had more than 66 books of SCRIPTURE in it? I think the "acocrypha" argument is very misleading.

It in no way counters my claim that the "closedness" of Cannon was a "later" revelation that fundamnetal Christians adhere to based on fruit rather than a specific Bible verse to prove it.

Ok, but I must say I think it is a major issue. Have you read the works of Gail Riplinger? How about "New Age Bible Versions"? The accusations she makes in that book are not only false (for the most part) they represent a gross misunderstanding of textual studies and of those who have been involved.

I have read just about every major work on the subject.
Sister Ripplinger (or for that matter, Ruckman)is not as bad as she is amde out to be here on the BB. Spit out the seeds.

Thats fine. However I must say again that other translations can claim the same. The difference maybe that some are not as old as the 1611 KJV, but given time they will be and they will gather more.

RV 1850-2005 (Anyone have a copy?) Given time a monkey can become a man, I have been told. I guess we'll see.

God preserves His Word. All of the major English translations are good (NASB, KJV, NKJV, etc). I am a bit weary of the NIV and the NLT and I am openly hostile to "The Message" (a popular paraphrase). Those feelings are based on the level of faithfulness to the greek texts (NT).

All may be "good". All may be "faithful". I have no argument with those statements? If I was on an island with only an NIV, I'd praise God. But I would pray for deliverance so I could eventually check all my NIV verses with the KJV.

However if we examine the major faithful translations (faithful to the greek) we see large, large agreement. No signficant disagreements whatsoever.

Then why do so many preachers "go to the Greek"? And refer to KJV translations as "unhappy"? Why are there so many arguments on the BB which come down to "well that's a bad translation"?

I know that is not popular but I even hear KJV preachers say something like.."now let me explain what that word is in the greek" and thus admitting that the KJV is not a perfect translation of the greek.

That preacher would be, by definition, KJV preferred, not KJV only.

This KJV preacher (me) hasn't cracked a Strongs (Other than to investigate a transliterated Greek word) since 1986 when he was in Bible school.

What do you mean by "multiple choice exegesis"?

I mean that so many preachers today, perhaps unhappy with the plain,and proven English text, go to a Greek dictionary or another version and find a definition or a translation that they "prefer". (I like the Phillips because it says blah blah blah.)

The original language is what it was written in. To say that we can ignore or set that aside is not facing the facts.

Fair enough. But God is not bound by language. The Greek "scriptures" were inspired in Timothy's day, although originally written in Hebrew. No NT writer ever says, "Now the original Hebrew" said such and such. No NT preacher ever corrected their Greek OT withe "the Hebrew". God knows English as well as he knows any other language.

Lacy

 

[Martin]

You said:
This is a prejudiced and silly question. Scripture does not address this point either way. So, one can neither prove nor disprove the superiority or inferiority of the KJV by Scripture alone.

==I agree in part. I agree that one cannot prove the superiority of the KJV via Scripture. However I would never say the KJV is "inferior" in any way. It is one of several faithful english translations.
__________________________________

You said:
Let's ask the question of a related but similar issue. How can you establish the canon of Scripture by Scripture alone? We do not have every book claiming inspiration for itself. There has been some debate over the canonicity of certain books. Esther does not refer to God even though we can see His working. Luther, for example, thought James should not be included in the NT. Early compilations included or left out certain books. Although I think it is a spurious issue, certain scholars have raised the question of other canonical books in recent times.

==Luther is a interesting case on this because I think, from reading his preface to his New Testament and to Romans, he agreed with the Epistle of James. But, I guess that is water under the bridge for Luther.

______________________________________

You said:
it is a thoughtless question because it presupposes that one must be able to prove the KJV superior via Scripture alone.

==The question was meant to prove a point and to get an answer. The point? Those who claim that the KJV is the "superior english translation" have no basis for their claim. Why not? First they certainly have no basis for their claim when comparing the KJV translation to other "modern" translations. All have translation strengths and weaknesses. Second, and this is where the question focused, they have no claim Biblically. Their claim is, at the end of the day, based on personal preference and nothing more.

_________________________________


You said:
One may equally well ask: “Can you provide any version is the Word of God by Scripture alone.” This is not the case and it is absurd to engage in trying to answer this predisposed question.

==The answer to your question is yes. Examine what the OT says about itself, what Jesus and Paul said about the OT. What Peter said about Paul, etc. So Scripture does make claims about its own inspiration.
__________________________________

Martin.

 

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by paidagogos:
Let's ask the question of a related but similar issue. How can you establish the canon of Scripture by Scripture alone? We do not have every book claiming inspiration for itself. There has been some debate over the canonicity of certain books. Esther does not refer to God even though we can see His working. Luther, for example, thought James should not be included in the NT. Early compilations included or left out certain books. Although I think it is a spurious issue, certain scholars have raised the question of other canonical books in recent times.

IMHO, it is a thoughtless question because it presupposes that one must be able to prove the KJV superior via Scripture alone. One may equally well ask: “Can you provide any version is the Word of God by Scripture alone.” This is not the case and it is absurd to engage in trying to answer this predisposed question.

Sometimes it is fun to answer an inanity with an inanity. Can anyone prove from Scripture alone that one must use Scripture alone to establish the superiority of the KJV?

Well said Paidagogos.

 

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by Logos1560:
By the way, I had put quotations around "main"
because I was quoting your word. I could have put them around "main argument" so that would have been more clear.

Thank you brother. I appreciate that. I assumed as much, but it never hurts to ask. There are limitations to debate in a written format.

Lacy

 

[Martin]

Lacy,

You said:
Those verses say that scripture is inspired. the same "scripture" that Timothy's mother read to him as a child.

==Ok, I see your point.
______________________________

You said:
My turn to agree. The key is your term "faithful". It is a relative term. In 2 Chronicals 4, King Josiah acted on "faithful" revelation when he broke down the groves and altars. He acted on very "faithful" revelation when he ordered the House of God restored. But when the Book of The Lord was found in the rubble, the revelation went from "faithful" to "perfect". "Faithful" bore fruit. "Perfect" caused revival to break out on an exponentially larger scale. I believe something similar happened when another king acted on "faithful" revelation.

I believe that God can get it close. (Dry bones, all put back together, with flesh and sinews and skin.) and then God can get it perfect by breathing into it.

==I agree with all of that, 100%. However when it comes to the KJV translation, and comparing it to the various manuscripts, we don't see a perfect translation. Unless, of course, one starts out with the presupposition that the KJV is a perfect translation and that it therefore is above the greek. I can't go along with that.
_______________________________

You said:
I will challenge you to apply any biblical standard of what constitutes "good fruit" (souls won, personal holiness, saltiness, new (restored) revelation, advance in doctrine, missionary activity, infuence of local churches on society, etc.) to a comparative look at the 1700s and 1800s and any other 200 year period in history. The fruit of the KJv is just as evident as the fruit of the close cannon.

==Are those things a direct fruit of the KJV or of other factors? In other words can those things be directly tied to the KJV (as being fruit of it)? If so, how?

_______________________________________

You said:
But that 2% is what the whole KJVO controversy is about. It puts the Final Authority in the hands of a select few who can sell us their views.

==Even if one elects to prefer the KJV over other translations, that does not do away with the 2% that is uncertain. That just, in a way, ignores the issue. Granted that is fine for most and for me personally, but from an academic stand point that will not do. We have to study to become morally certain of that last 2% and I believe that by the grace of God we can. God preserves His Word and has done so throughout history. Despite the many who would have burned every copy they could get their hands on, God has preserved His Word. Today, that 2% or so that we are uncertain about, affects 0% Bible doctrine/truth.
____________________________________

You said:
My point is, the Autographs were never meant to be the final authority. God never regarded them above any other scripture. (See "original" 10 Commandments, Ex 34:1,27 & Jeremiah's autographs, versions 1,2,&3 Jere 36)

==So what is the final authority here? The KJV that appear some 1,550 years after the texts were written? What about those thousands of years?
____________________________________

You said:
Many claim that the term "Authorized Version" was not coined until 1814. (200 years later) Which would be what one would expect on a farm. You don't know which crop is good for feed and which is good for seed until you see it growing.

==No doubt the KJV is a good translation. That is not the issue I am raising.
__________________________

You said:
Yes or no brother. Honestly. Did the KJV translators, King James himself, any fundamental preachers at the time, or anybody at all, regard the Apocrypha as scripture?

==The Catholic Church did but, if I recall my history correctly, the Anglican Church did not. So I must admit it is a bit of a mystery to me why a version that comes from Anglicans had the Apocrypha in it. Unless it was some sort of compromise.
____________________________________

You said:
Did anyone believe that the 1611 KJV had more than 66 books of in it? I think the "acocrypha" argument is very misleading.

==Why? If someone there did not view it as Scripture why put in there? Seems a bit odd.
______________________________________

You said:
I have read just about every major work on the subject.
Sister Ripplinger (or for that matter, Ruckman)is not as bad as she is amde out to be here on the BB. Spit out the seeds.

==I am sure Riplinger is a nice lady but her works are horrible. The one I am most familiar with, "New Age Bible Versions", contains historical errors and a general misunderstanding about textual issues. I don't think she is an evil woman...she is just wrong on this issue.
__________________________________

You said:
All may be "good". All may be "faithful". I have no argument with those statements? If I was on an island with only an NIV, I'd praise God. But I would pray for deliverance so I could eventually check all my NIV verses with the KJV.

==Ok. How do you know that the KJV is the best translation of the texts without examining them (comparing KJV to the texts)? Why compare the NIV to the KJV? Rather I would suggest compare both to the greek/hebrew texts (manuscripts). Sure they are all copies but at least the greek texts is in the same form that Paul (etc) wrote. If we are going to say one set of copies is above all others, for the reason just cited, the greek copies are far superior to all english copies. Without the greek manuscripts (etc) we have no idea what Paul (etc) wrote. The KJV is just as dependent upon greek as the NIV.
__________________________________

You said:
Then why do so many preachers "go to the Greek"? And refer to KJV translations as "unhappy"? Why are there so many arguments on the BB which come down to "well that's a bad translation"?

==The KJV is not a bad translation, but it is not a perfect translation (I say that about all english translations). We have to refer to the greek for that very reason...no english translation is perfect.
__________________________________

You said:
That preacher would be, by definition, KJV preferred, not KJV only.

==That maybe so. However I can't count the number of preachers I have heard who, with thunder, proclaim "if you are not reading the KJV, you are not reading Scripture" (or something along those lines...) .
_______________________________________

You said:
This KJV preacher (me) hasn't cracked a Strongs (Other than to investigate a transliterated Greek word) since 1986 when he was in Bible school.

==Then how do you know the KJV is a better translation than the NASB? If you are not comparing what are you going on?
___________________________________________


You said:
I mean that so many preachers today, perhaps unhappy with the plain,and proven English text, go to a Greek dictionary or another version and find a definition or a translation that they "prefer". (I like the Phillips because it says blah blah blah.)

==That maybe true with some. However I think most are searching for what that greek term means. The meaning of words is a interesting thing. In greek alot of times there are no direct english words. Going to the greek can give us a better understanding of the text. There is no "one-for-one" english translation of the greek. Therefore we have to know the greek to get a better understanding of the text.
________________________________

You said:
Fair enough. But God is not bound by language. The Greek "scriptures" were inspired in Timothy's day, although originally written in Hebrew. No NT writer ever says, "Now the original Hebrew" said such and such. No NT preacher ever corrected their Greek OT withe "the Hebrew". God knows English as well as he knows any other language.

==They understood the importance of the Hebrew (being the original). There is clear evidence of that. Just because they did not handle it the way we do means little.

How do you know the KJV is the superior translation apart from a detailed study of the greek texts?

Martin.

 

[robycop3]

quote: How do you, from Scripture alone, support your claims?

Lacy Evans: I don't. But neither does anyone else. There are no verses that say that the autographs were inspired either.

While I respect you, first as a fellow Christian, then, as a reasonable person trying futilely but honorable to defend an incorrect doctrine, I must disagree with you. Scripture cannot be more inspired than God's speaking directly to people such as He did Job & company, and Moses. HE TOLD MOSES TO WRITE DOWN HIS LAWS. Not only did Moses write down the laws, he gave the background for man's worship of God, as well as writing the story of his people.


All of us should base our beliefs on Scriptural principals and Biblical precedents, when no direct verse is there.

I agree...but there's simply no Biblical precedent for ANY one-versionism; indeed, the oft-cited example of comparing Isaiah 61:1-3 and Isayah 42:7-8 with what JESUS READ ALOUD AND CALLED SCRIPTURE in Luke 4:16-21 points to MULTI-versionism.

1) The Bible promises us that the Word will be preserved. (Psalm 12v6-7)

I REALLY disagree with THAT one, Lacy! A simple reading of those verses in the AV 1611, along with the translators' notes, disproves that theory. It's a carryover from Wilkinson's 1930 book.

Roger was right...he said SOMEONE would bring up the Psalm 12:7 thingie, but I didn't expect it to be YOU.

There are many other verses which TRULY state preservation. In the face of these, the insistence that those Psalms are preservation verses proves only one thing...adherence to the old Wilkinson/Ray/Fuller party line. You really need to move away from THAT one, Lacy.

2) The Bible shows clearly and consistently, God's method of preserving things. (see: http://www.kingdombaptist.org/article428.cfm )

Which has nothing to do with a man-made urban legend.

3) The Bible gives us a definition of inspired "Scripture" which pertains exclusively (at least in context) to copies and trranslations. (2 Tim 3:16,17)

I don't believe anyone here denies that translations of Scripture ARE Scripture.

4) The Bible gives us a clear way to look critically at any "prophet" who claims to speak the Word of God. (The same test can apply to inspired Scripture, the cannon, and the Christian revelation in general.)Matt 7:15-20
This "fruit test", IMHO, overwhelmingly proves the KJV to be inspire scripture.

Again, I doubt if anyone here doesn't believe the KJV is a valid English version of Scripture. But we DO deny its exclusivity, and with solid reasoning, not guesswork.

Those are my main arguments. But I will also answer some other statements you made.

My main argument is the absolutly overwhelming preponderance of the fruit of the KJV when compared to all other translations in history.

And the Latin Vulgate had a much-longer history of being "the" Bible of not just England, but of most of Europe.

The best-bearing fruit tree grows old and bears less & less fruit each year after it passes its "peak".Family fruit growers plant new trees fairly often, to ensure there will be mature fruit-bearing trees when their current ones have ceased bearing enough fruit to justify keeping them. Same with God's word. Once He introduces it into a given language, He keeps it in readable form in that language, so it will always bear fruit. While He introduced it in English only in part till the late 1300s, He's had English versions in the language of the day ever since.

I believe I have Biblical precedents for believing that god will preserve Scripture, that his method of preservation is resurrection, not atrophy, and that fruit will overwhelmingly point to the particular prophet upon whom his favor shines.

Then you should reject the KJVO myth. The KJV has "atrophied" in the sense that its language is no longer current, while His word in English has been "resurrected" in versions whose English is current with the times, and whose text is made from not only the long-known sources, but also from the more recently-discovered sources which are often older than the previously-known ones.

Is there a Biblical precedent for preservation by atrophy?, for "going to the originals"?, for multiple choice exegesis?[/i]

The original writings of the law were kept in the ark, and subsequent Scriptures were kept in the Temple, with other copies made from time to time.

Nice try, Lacy, but you're still on "square One", with NO JUSTIFICATION for KJVO. But as I've often said, there's nothing wrong with PERSONAL PREFERENCE, which at this point in time is all you have.

 

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by Martin:

==I agree with all of that, 100%. However when it comes to the KJV translation, and comparing it to the various manuscripts, we don't see a perfect translation. Unless, of course, one starts out with the presupposition that the KJV is a perfect translation and that it therefore is above the greek. I can't go along with that.

It is also a presupposition that any particular extant Greek version is "above" the KJV when it comes to reliability. When God resurrects something, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

There is no such thing as "the Greek", if you mean one Greek Final Authority. Anyone I have ever met who holds to your view can find as big a percentage of "errors" in any particular Greek Bible extant as they find in English versions.

Are those things a direct fruit of the KJV or of other factors? In other words can those things be directly tied to the KJV (as being fruit of it)? If so, how?

It's really not as hard to see as all that. It almost seems like God went out of his way to erase all subjectivity. For about 300 years, one Bible dominated the greater portion of Christianity. What was the fruit in the church of that time period? How does it compare to any other equal time period?

Even if one elects to prefer the KJV over other translations, that does not do away with the 2% that is uncertain. That just, in a way, ignores the issue. Granted that is fine for most and for me personally, but from an academic stand point that will not do. We have to study to become morally certain of that last 2% and I believe that by the grace of God we can.

Study what? Equally imperfect Greek versions? I have seen much more fruit from studying the KJV and comparing Scripture with "Scripture". It is no accident that I have a Biblical Precedent for doing so. There is no Biblical precedent for studying dead languages. (I am not opposed to it but no Biblical precedent}

So what is the final authority here? The KJV that appear some 1,550 years after the texts were written? What about those thousands of years?

I find it strange that someone who now, currently believes that there is no absolute final authority other that a nebulous "the Greek", would suddenly become concerned that I perhaps believe the same thing about the pre KJV age.

Where was the saviour for 4000 years? Where was the Jewish "Final Authority" prior to the completion and assembly of the OT? God introduces new things, allows them to die and be buried, then raises them back up.

The Catholic Church did but, if I recall my history correctly, the Anglican Church did not. So I must admit it is a bit of a mystery to me why a version that comes from Anglicans had the Apocrypha in it. Unless it was some sort of compromise.

Their reasons are well documented.

http://www.angelfire.com/la/prophet1/apoc.html

Ok. How do you know that the KJV is the best translation of the texts without examining them (comparing KJV to the texts)? Why compare the NIV to the KJV? Rather I would suggest compare both to the greek/hebrew texts (manuscripts).

Which Greek and why?

Sure they are all copies but at least the greek texts is in the same form that Paul (etc) wrote. If we are going to say one set of copies is above all others, for the reason just cited, the greek copies are far superior to all english copies.

But is that the Biblical reason for saying one set of copies is above all others? We can't just make up a bunch of rules as we go!

Without the greek manuscripts (etc) we have no idea what Paul (etc) wrote. The KJV is just as dependent upon greek as the NIV.

Of course we do. We have English, Latin, Spanish, Chinese, and it just keeps on going. If some Klingons happen upon a Klingon translation (there is one, BTW) and it causes a galactic revival to break out we can be sure by the fruit that the Klingon scriptures were inspired.

The KJV is not a bad translation, but it is not a perfect translation (I say that about all english translations). We have to refer to the greek for that very reason...no english translation is perfect.

OK! What if no Greek translation is perfect? Then what?


_______________________________________

You said:
This KJV preacher (me) hasn't cracked a Strongs (Other than to investigate a transliterated Greek word) since 1986 when he was in Bible school.

==Then how do you know the KJV is a better translation than the NASB? If you are not comparing what are you going on?

There is no "one-for-one" english translation of the greek. Therefore we have to know the greek to get a better understanding of the text.

I really don't think God is interested in "one-for-one" translation. that's not even good translation technique. I daresay that no great "insight" has been discovered by careful study of imperfect Greek manuscripts that would not have been equally gained by diligent study of the English KJV.

They understood the importance of the Hebrew (being the original). There is clear evidence of that. Just because they did not handle it the way we do means little.

Only that we have no biblical precedent for handling it so.

How do you know the KJV is the superior translation apart from a detailed study of the greek texts?

Martin.

Again, which Greek texts and why those instead of one of the other 5000? I believe the "Greek texts" to be something like the "Dry Bones" of scripture. Complete, perhaps yet scattered and jumbled.

Name a Greek manuscript. What fruit does it have in comparison to the KJV?

Lacy

 

[Martin]

This will be quick because I have to run, however I could not resist answering your reply.

You said:
It is also a presupposition that any particular extant Greek version is "above" the KJV when it comes to reliability.

==That is different. With the King James you are dealing with a english translation of greek texts and there is no such thing as one-for-one between the two languages. That is one reason there are so many english translations. The greek texts are much, much older than the KJV and thus closer to the originals. Also the greek text(s) are in the original tongue, the KJV is not.
_______________________________________

You said:
There is no such thing as "the Greek", if you mean one Greek Final Authority. Anyone I have ever met who holds to your view can find as big a percentage of "errors" in any particular Greek Bible extant as they find in English versions.

==The "errors" in the greek manuscripts are really moral uncertainty not errors. In other words we are dealing with minor issues of spelling, word order, etc. For the most part these play no important role in the text and only make up about 2% of the text. Thus we are morally certain about 98% of the text. This moral certainty has come from a study of these various texts (etc). The KJV is not, and cannot be, seperated from these studies. To do so, or even to attempt to do so, reflects a gross misunderstanding of textual studies and issues.
____________________________________

You said:
It's really not as hard to see as all that. It almost seems like God went out of his way to erase all subjectivity. For about 300 years, one Bible dominated the greater portion of Christianity. What was the fruit in the church of that time period? How does it compare to any other equal time period?

==That is a highly subjective argument. The KJV was the major english translation during those times. That does not mean that the events that occured in that time were due to the KJV. You have not proven your case. What about the translations (not English of course) that were around in during the days of Luther, Calvin, and others? Why don't you say those are superior?

______________________________________________

You said:
Study what? Equally imperfect Greek versions? I have seen much more fruit from studying the KJV and comparing Scripture with "Scripture". It is no accident that I have a Biblical Precedent for doing so. There is no Biblical precedent for studying dead languages. (I am not opposed to it but no Biblical precedent}

==See above about the texts. As for there being no Biblical precedent, I strongly disagree. The Bible tells us to do what? STUDY! That involves bringing in all the possible information. Not only that our english Bibles, including the KJV, is a product of these very same textual studies. So when you condemn textual studies as without Biblical precedent, you condemn the KJV. Why? Because it, like all translations, is the result of textual studies.
_______________________________________

You said:
Where was the saviour for 4000 years? Where was the Jewish "Final Authority" prior to the completion and assembly of the OT? God introduces new things, allows them to die and be buried, then raises them back up.

==So you are saying that it took God until 1611 to get the New Testament right after having finished it before ad90?

________________________________________
I said:
Ok. How do you know that the KJV is the best translation of the texts without examining them (comparing KJV to the texts)? Why compare the NIV to the KJV? Rather I would suggest compare both to the greek/hebrew texts (manuscripts).

You said:
Which Greek and why?

==That is a dodge. How can you rightly claim that the KJV is the correct translation if you deny textual studies?

________________________________________

You said:
But is that the Biblical reason for saying one set of copies is above all others?

==What is the Biblical reason for saying a 1611 english translation is above the greek?

_______________________________

I said:
Without the greek manuscripts (etc) we have no idea what Paul (etc) wrote. The KJV is just as dependent upon greek as the NIV.

You said:
Of course we do. We have English, Latin, Spanish, Chinese, and it just keeps on going.

==Where do you think those translations came from? Greek manuscripts.
___________________________________

You said:
OK! What if no Greek translation is perfect? Then what?

==Considering that the greek we use today is 98% as the originals, and considering that the 2% that is uncertain contains no major problems, I think that is not a issue. That is one reason I am not saying the KJV is a bad translation. What I am saying is that there is not textual/Biblical reason for saying it is superior to all english translations. It is not perfect (1. because it is a translation from the greek and there is no such thing as a one-for-one greek to english translation, 2. the KJV will reflect at least the 2% textual variants as will the others).
_________________________


You said:
I really don't think God is interested in "one-for-one" translation. that's not even good translation technique. I daresay that no great "insight" has been discovered by careful study of imperfect Greek manuscripts that would not have been equally gained by diligent study of the English KJV.

==That, I am sorry, represents a gross misunderstanding of the textual issues. The fact that there is no one-for-one translation means that there will always be variants in the english translations. That is a fact you can't avoid. Also many a "great insights" have been found by studying the greek. In fact we could say that one such insight was the KJV Bible, the NASB, the NKJV, etc. Again without the textual studies we have nothing.
________________________________

You said:
Name a Greek manuscript. What fruit does it have in comparison to the KJV?

==Well we can talk about the the various translations that have come from these texts (including but not limited to the KJV).

Martin.

 

[robycop3]

Sorry, Lacy, but with all due respect, you're shooting into the dark. There are no two Greek mss exactly alike, the Textus Receptus has been revised umpteen times, with none of these revisions exactly matching the "Majority Texts",and the KJV doesn't exactly match either the TR nor the MTs.

And again...Your "resurrection" theory, if it's true, is yet another bullet in the head of the KJVO myth. While no Baptist who knows some history will deny the KJV has borne its share of fruit, its best "bearing" days are behind it, and the newer versions have risen to the forefront. When a fruit tree ceases to bear enough fruit to justify the gardener's care, he cuts it down. Now while we don't dispose of old Bibles that way, we DO move on to those which will "produce fruit" instead of taking up half of one's witnessing time being transliterated into modern language.

We know God doesn't always perform His wonders instantaneously. The canon of Scripture is an example of this. While there is nowhere to be found a direct command of God's saying, "These 66 books are the collection of all My words to all mankind", He DID say, beginnoing with Moses, that we shall not add to nor subtract from His commands. This automatically helped set the OT canon, which was carefully kept by the Jews. And the early RCC had very exacting, strict standards for declaring any work Scripture, and I'm sure GOD guided their selection. Modern scholars have declared that, by those standards, they would have not selected any differently. But did GOD suddenly make the 66 books Scripture overnight? No, but all those books were preached to the people, along with some others which didn't change any doctrine found in the others.

And did GOD suddenly make modern Israel mighty? No; He took some twenty years to make'em strong enough to win a major battle, and some fifty years to make it the most powerful nation in the area.

My wife was critically injured in December 2000, and God miraculously healed her. His first miracle was that she lived one hour after the accident; His next one was that she lived one day after. His next miracle was that she slowly recovered over the next 2 months in the hospital. Another miracle over that time was that her mental faculties were completely unaffected after spending 35 days unconscious. The only remaining effects of the accident are that she can't turn her head too much nor raise her right arm over her head.

Do we believe God coulda healed her instantly? Absolutely. But He worked at HIS chosen speed, and we thank Him every day that He chose to do what he did. And what GOOD came from this? In the ICU waiting room, several of us Christians gathered 3 times a day for collective prayer for our loved ones, and two others in the waiting room CAME TO JESUS when they observed our example, and one person who was a patient in ICU came to Jesus also. God can make good things from seemingly-bad things!

What I'm getting at is that God often works His wonders slowly, at least from our view, and that they often don't become obvious till He's done. God did NOT retire in 1611; He still supervises all languages, and His own word within those languages. The KJV is just another version in the line of English Bibles, and it is by no means the end of that line.

There's simply no Scriptural justification for the theory that the KJV is the be-all,end-all English Bible version. Indeed, Scripture points away from such a theory.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Logos1560:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by paidagogos:
what is this KJVOism ?

Ruckman and Waite are in different camps.

KJV-onlyism could be defined by the exclusive only statements that holders of that view make for the KJV. While D. A. Waite strongly disagrees with Ruckman's advanced revelation claims and while Waite has claimed that he is not a "KJV-only" advocate, Waite himself has made exclusive only claims for the KJV.

Waite wrote: "There are no good translations except the King James Bible" (CENTRAL SEMINARY REFUTED, p. 129). Waite wrote: "The King James Bible is the only accurate English translation in existence today" (p. 47). Waite wrote: "If you use any other version than the King James Bible you are tampering with the Words of God" (p. 136).
Waite wrote: "The King James Bible is always superior to all others in the English language" (p. 80). Waite wrote: "The only valid Bible is the King James Bible" (p. 131).

Waite's own statements provide a good description of the KJV-only view. [/b]</font>[/QUOTE]Don't you think Waite knows what he believes? It is a mistake, IMHO, to lump him in the same camp as Ruckman. Would you put Edward F. Hills in this camp?

 

[Logos1560]

Originally posted by paidagogos:
[Don't you think Waite knows what he believes? It is a mistake, IMHO, to lump him in the same camp as Ruckman.

I did not say that Waite was in the same camp as Ruckman. My point was that according to Waite's own exclusive only claims about the KJV he holds a KJV-only view. I also noted that Waite opposes Ruckman's advanced revelation claims.

Waite wrote: "I believe that one translation should be set up as a standard" (CENTRAL SEMINARY REFUTED, p. 23). Waite wrote: "In 1611 A. D. the standard came out and was first translated. We call it the Authorized Version" (FOES OF THE KJB, p. 84). In another book, Waite wrote: "I don't make the King James Version the measure" (FUZZY FACTS, p. 60). "Standard" and "measure" seem to be used as synonyms in these statements so that Waite's statements conflict with each other.

Waite wrote: "That is a misleading statement to say that the King James Bible is 'perfect' if you mean 100% 'perfect' and is 'inerrant,' without any errors of any kind, even spelling or typographical--in other words, as 'perfect' as God is" (FOES OF THE KJB, p. 65). Waite wrote: "I do not say that the King James Bible is 'fallible' or 'errant.' I don't believe that there are any translation errors in the king James Bible" (FUZZY FACTS, p. 44).