The Problem with KJV ONLY Advocates

[Logos1560]

An obvious problem with KJV-only advocates is that they argue backwards from a translation (the King James Version) and dig up whatever ancient support (Greek, Latin, etc.) they can that might possibly support the English words of that translation instead of starting with the primary sources themselves and allowing those to determine which English words should be used to communicate the words of God most properly.

A fundamental fallacy in the KJV-only view is the assumption that a lower, lesser, dependent, or secondary authority (a translation) can act as the final authority over a higher or greater primary authority (God's preserved Word in the original languages). The backwards reasoning of the KJV-only view denies the greater authority of the antecedent sources while it tries to assert the authority of the consequent translation.

The extent of authority claimed for the KJV usurps for it a superior or greater appointment and designation than for its underlying original language texts. The KJV-only view reverses the proper order of authority when it implies that a translation printed in 1611 is greater in authority than its underlying, antecedent original languages texts. This reversal is clearly evident in the fact that no meaning is permitted to be understood from the preserved words in the original languages that is not in effect sanctioned by the interpretation of the actual secondary authority [the KJV].

If KJV-only advocates actually begin with the preserved Scriptures in the original languages as the proper and greater authority before 1611 and before coming to its translation into various languages, the KJV-only view’s claim that a translation (the KJV) should now be considered the final authority is denied in the very process.

The Bible does not teach that the Scriptures that God gave in the original languages by inspiration to the prophets and apostles will be nullified and replaced by a subsequent translation in 1611. It is God who chose and determined in which languages He would give the Scriptures by inspiration to the prophets and apostles. Thus, it was God who established the source of authority from which translations were to be made. It is the greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages that grants, substantiates, or establishes the proper derived authority of a translation. God never ordained the irrational, incoherent, ludicrous, or contradictory idea of a supposed absolute infallible translation that does not need to conform to the sources from which it was translated. According to the law of non-contradiction, would a translation need to be compared to and evaluated by its underlying texts from which it was translated and from which it derives its authority or would a translation need to be made irrationally into an independent and final authority?


If a translation is made to have greater authority than its underlying texts, the translators in effect become the final authority. McGrath observed: "Whoever interprets the Word of God in effect has authority over it--whether that interpreter be the pope or a city council" (Reformation Thought, p. 213). Does the Bible teach that God made a group of Church of England scholars the exclusive, perfect textual critics/interpreters who determine infallibly both the text and the translating of His Word? Does the logical ramifications of the KJV-only view elevate the KJV translators above all believers including the prophets and apostles? If the supreme and final judgment to determine the text and translating of the Scriptures belongs to the KJV translators, then it follows that the KJV translators are greater than the Scriptures in the original languages given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles. To attempt to make a translation the final authority implies or infers that the authority of the translation comes from the authority of its translators. Translators do not determine the authority of their renderings. If one translation can be defended based solely on the independent and unverified evidence from its own contents as made by its translators with human effort, study, wisdom, skill, and scholarship without any comparison to its underlying texts, the same principle must apply to other translations.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

By definition, a translation cannot be the translation of nothing. There could not be a translation without a source or sources from which it is translated. A translation without any underlying texts or sources from which to be translated would not by definition be a translation. Likewise, a translation cannot be an exact duplicate of the originals; otherwise, by definition it is not a translation.

A translation is not free from all causes and independent of all sources and authorities. By definition, a translation is of necessity translated from and based on something in another language or languages. The source of a translation would be one of its causes since it would be necessary for the source to exist before a translation could be made from it. Therefore, the correct use and true sense of the term translation indicate that a translation is an effect or consequence that presupposes a cause or causes. Since a translation is an effect, it cannot be the rule or authority greater than its sources and causes. Can an effect surpass the authority of its cause? Can the antecedent be denied and the consequent affirmed? The original language texts cannot be and not be the authority, cause, and foundation for a translation at the same time.

In his commentary on Matthew, Charles Spurgeon observed: “There is no possibility of the effect being higher and better than the cause” (p. 44). Francis Turretin asserted: “That which has a fallible foundation cannot be infallible because the effect cannot be greater in every respect than its cause” (Institutes, I, p. 39).

A cause would need to be first in time, order, and authority over its effect. The necessity of a translation being dependent or being an effect or consequence indicates that it derives or acquires its authority from a greater authority. A translation that is not direct revelation from God is not independent and underived since that translation depends on its antecedent underlying texts for its authority.

So you think all people who are KJVO believe that the KJV is superior to the originals?

I do not believe that.
The KJV is an accurate and faithful translation of the preserved originals.

Modern translations may be accurate and faithful translations but they are not translated from the preserved words but are translated from corrupted texts.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Really? I have read over 100 books written by KJV-only advocates along with many, many posts. Perhaps I have more carefully studied the various KJV-only positions than you have. I clearly and properly understand that KJV-only advocates argue for "word" preservation.

No....not really, not like you appear to think they do.

For instance: The definite direct object marker in Hebrew is NEVER translated...never. It isn't necessary. In fact, the very concept of a "WORD" is not exactly the same at all. They do not argue that the Originals are "word-for-word" preserved as such. That's not even possible when the original language has possession, definiteness, gender etc... all wrapped up in what you and I think in English as one..."WORD"....not so.

One serious problem for their KJV-only theory is the fact that they also try incorrectly and inconsistently to claim that preservation also directly concerns translations

Since you've claimed to have read at least 100 different KJVO books (I don't doubt the validity of your claim)...then since when do you come off saying that:
"KJVO'S" claim thus and so?
They certainly don't ALL agree now do they?
Were there 20 of those "books" you've read which had a different spin on preservation of original "WORDS" like you said?

Or did they all agree completely in argumentation, style, and content....
You also have read so many "POSTS" <---(those are your words)...so, then, when several KJVO'S rebut you, and claim that you are not at all correctly describing their position, do you then simply ignore them?

I've just witnessed at least three nominal KJVO'S posting (on just this thread) who don't seem to think that you've got their position nailed down and wired-tight.........I'm one of 'em...Jordan appears to be one too. Ditto Winman.

I think you are tilting at Ruckmanite windmills which essentially don't even bear mentioning anymore.

[at least one translation--the KJV]

I don't believe the KJV is a "PERFECT" translation..........I think it could be re-translated without harm, somewhat modernized.

without ever showing or demonstrating that the Scriptures teach their claim.

Yeah....I guess not.
You haven't demonstrated that the "Scriptures" don't care a fig for whether the last 11 verses of the gospel of Mark are valid or not,
You haven't demonstrated that the "Scriptures" teach that no one should give a [edited] whether Acts 8: 37 (possibly the most powerful verse in defense of Believer's Baptism) is considered authoritative or not...

You haven't for one second "proven" that the "Scriptures teach" that we don't know whether or not fully 1/20th of an entire <----(the earliest and oldest actually) gospel attests to Christ's having actually risen from the dead!!!

Translations do not actually preserve the exact, specific, same original language words that God gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.

No, they don't....they are (by definition)..."translations". Are there any other tautologies you want to insure your audience is aware of?

How about:
A-is not in fact, not-A?
Do you insist on informing us of anything else we don't know?

The renderings of translations made after the completion of the New Testament [the end of the giving of the Scriptures] are not given by a direct miracle of inspiration.

No...but, no KJVO on this board argues that they were.

You know that by now....
But you'd rather denigrate the KJVO position by insisting on fighting that battle too....

Here's to you:
We concur with your position that Purple-polka-dotted unicorns allied with Schizophrenic Romulans did not actually foment the Red Revolution in Russia in 1917 thus ushering in the dawning of the Cold-war.

Now, since we all agree that Jimmy wasn't the Messiah, can we progress this discussion past the Dark Ages?

It has not been demonstrated that the Scriptures teach that the imperfect, fallible translation decisions of any group of scholars preserve the exact, specific, same words that God gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.

No, it hasn't....

Because, no KJV-Onlyist has argued that.

Again, you're right...Harry Potter is a fiction.
You get a cookie.

 

[Inspector Javert]

So you think all people who are KJVO believe that the KJV is superior to the originals?

No, he doesn't. He knows better.
But it serves his purposes to argue as if they all do.

I do not believe that.

He knows that.
But his Modus Operandii is to paint all KJVO's as Ruckmanites and then demand they prove Universal negatives with phrases like:
"It has not been demonstrated that James I of England was Jesus"....etc.
That's how he gains his faithful.

The KJV is an accurate and faithful translation of the preserved originals.

He doesn't know what a "PRESERVED ORIGINAL" is...he thinks it the same as "AN ORIGINAL".

Either that...or he's dishonest when he mis-represents what most KJVO's believe.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Jordan, he appears to have just bolded this insane statement (probably from his own book):

God never ordained the irrational, incoherent, ludicrous, or contradictory idea of a supposed absolute infallible translation that does not need to conform to the sources from which it was translated.

This is what he is accusing you of believing.

He is going to quote you and I both, or anyone who doesn't acquiesce to his view as accepting this premise he quotes from what is most probably his own book.

He is going to debate you as though you believe those deranged premises.

 

[Rippon]

Modern translations may be accurate and faithful translations but they are not translated from the preserved words but are translated from corrupted texts.

So it's a matter of faith,not cold hard facts that gets you to believe that the TR is a pure stream with no pollutants whatsoever? There were absolutely no scribal errors,no evidence of harmonization,no corrections etc.?

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

So it's a matter of faith,not cold hard facts that gets you to believe that the TR is a pure stream with no pollutants whatsoever? There were absolutely no scribal errors,no evidence of harmonization,no corrections etc.?

Theres more than faith but faith is definately a part of it.

 

[Logos1560]

So you think all people who are KJVO believe that the KJV is superior to the originals?

That is not what I stated nor what I think.

Some KJV-only advocates do fail to consider the logical implications and conclusions that would result from a consistent application of their own various KJV-only claims and assumptions.

There are KJV-only advocates who suggest that they do not consider the KJV to be superior to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages while claiming that the KJV is perfect or that the KJV is the final authority in English.

 

[Logos1560]

But his Modus Operandii is to paint all KJVO's as Ruckmanites .

That is a bogus, false accusation.

 

[Logos1560]

R. B. Ouellette asserted: “What is the practical difference between a ‘divinely inspired Word of God’ and a “divinely preserved Word of God’? None. If God both inspired and preserved His Word, then we can have the confidence that the preserved Word is equal to the inspired Word for all practical purposes today--they are one in the same” (More Sure Word, p. 156). Concerning “preservation and inspiration,“ D. A. Waite wrote: “There is no problem with asserting these things on an equal footing” (Critical Answer to Michael, p. 29). Wendell Runion asserted: “The truth of the matter is, inspiration and preservation are like Siamese twins who are conjoined at birth, with one heart between them” (Northwest News, Summer, 2009, p. 7).

Do many of the holders of a KJV-only view adequately distinguish between preservation and inspiration?

Do they adequately distinguish between preservation of the Scriptures in the original languages and the translation of them into other languages?

Do they separate or distinguish between preservation and inspiration in the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the Geneva Bible? If they [or the KJV translators] could in effect distinguish between them before 1611 in the pre-1611 English Bibles, why can the same thing not be done after 1611 or 1769?

If some holders of a KJV-only view make the word “preserved” mean the same thing as “inspired,” they practically or in effect would seem to hold the same view as Peter Ruckman.


Consider these statements by one moderate KJV defender that were all made in the same book. D. A. Waite wrote: “To have any kind of genuine Bible preservation, you must have the verbal plenary preservation of God’s Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words, not through ‘translations’” (Fundamentalist Deception, p. 98). Waite claimed: “Bible ‘preservation’ that is not ‘perfect’ is not ‘preservation’” (p. 117). Waite also stated: “I believe that in the King James Bible we have God’s Words preserved in English” (p. 110). He also wrote: “I do not use the phrase ’perfectly preserved Word of God when I am talking about the King James Bible” (p. 113).

Are these statements about preservation consistent and clear? Were the words relating to preservation used in the exact same sense in all of these statements? Do these statements adequately distinguish between the preservation of the Scriptures in the original languages and “God’s Words preserved in English?” Would other holders of a KJV-only view accept all four of Waite’s statements?

 

[Logos1560]

preservation

Baptist pastor Glenn Conjurske, a defender of the KJV and a critic of modern translations, observed: “Let it be understood that the only foundation which has ever been professed for this [KJV-only] system is the supposed Bible doctrine of the preservation of the true text of Scripture, and it is precisely this doctrine of preservation which has often been given up in order to accommodate the facts concerning the Textus Receptus and the King James Version” (Olde Paths, Jan., 1997, p. 12).

Conjurske asked: “How can they seriously maintain their doctrine of the preservation in perfection of the true text of Scripture, while they designate as the true text a text which never existed in the world before 1881--a text which was constructed in 1881 [by Scrivener]?“ (pp. 13-14). Conjurske added: “To adopt this text as the true Textus Receptus is in fact to give up their foundation. Whatever this may be, it certainly is not ’preservation.’ It is absolutely inconsistent with the very idea of preservation” (p. 14).

Conjurske asserted: “These men have filled the church of God with disputes about ‘preservation,‘ without ever understanding their own doctrine” (p. 14). Conjurske pointed out that KJV-only people have told believers that “it must be a public and open preservation, of a text which is in common use in the hands of the people of God” (p. 15). Conjurske asserted that “it must be a still greater fairy tale that the true Greek text never existed on the earth at all--not in any manuscript or printed edition whatsoever--until Scrivener constructed it in 1881” (p. 16). Conjurske also wrote: “The fact is, the agreement is not perfect, either between the manuscripts and the printed Textus Receptus, or between the manuscripts themselves, nor between the various printed editions of the Textus Receptus, nor between the King James Version and the manuscripts, nor between the King James Version and any edition of the Textus Receptus” (Feb., 1994, pp. 42-43).

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

R. B. Ouellette asserted: “What is the practical difference between a ‘divinely inspired Word of God’ and a “divinely preserved Word of God’? None. If God both inspired and preserved His Word, then we can have the confidence that the preserved Word is equal to the inspired Word for all practical purposes today--they are one in the same” (More Sure Word, p. 156). Concerning “preservation and inspiration,“ D. A. Waite wrote: “There is no problem with asserting these things on an equal footing” (Critical Answer to Michael, p. 29). Wendell Runion asserted: “The truth of the matter is, inspiration and preservation are like Siamese twins who are conjoined at birth, with one heart between them” (Northwest News, Summer, 2009, p. 7).

Do many of the holders of a KJV-only view adequately distinguish between preservation and inspiration?

Do they adequately distinguish between preservation of the Scriptures in the original languages and the translation of them into other languages?

Do they separate or distinguish between preservation and inspiration in the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the Geneva Bible? If they [or the KJV translators] could in effect distinguish between them before 1611 in the pre-1611 English Bibles, why can the same thing not be done after 1611 or 1769?

If some holders of a KJV-only view make the word “preserved” mean the same thing as “inspired,” they practically or in effect would seem to hold the same view as Peter Ruckman.


Consider these statements by one moderate KJV defender that were all made in the same book. D. A. Waite wrote: “To have any kind of genuine Bible preservation, you must have the verbal plenary preservation of God’s Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words, not through ‘translations’” (Fundamentalist Deception, p. 98). Waite claimed: “Bible ‘preservation’ that is not ‘perfect’ is not ‘preservation’” (p. 117). Waite also stated: “I believe that in the King James Bible we have God’s Words preserved in English” (p. 110). He also wrote: “I do not use the phrase ’perfectly preserved Word of God when I am talking about the King James Bible” (p. 113).

Are these statements about preservation consistent and clear? Were the words relating to preservation used in the exact same sense in all of these statements? Do these statements adequately distinguish between the preservation of the Scriptures in the original languages and “God’s Words preserved in English?” Would other holders of a KJV-only view accept all four of Waite’s statements?

Thank you for showing that there really is little difference between something Inspired and the preservation of something inspired.

I really don't get the point your trying to make.

 

[Logos1560]

Thank you for showing that there really is little difference between something Inspired and the preservation of something inspired.

I really don't get the point your trying to make.

You confirm my point that the KJV-only claim for preservation for the KJV is little different from a claim for inspiration for the KJV.

Some KJV-only advocates will jump to this unproven conclusion that the KJV is supposedly preserved Scripture and thus inspired without showing that the Scriptures teach it.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

You confirm my point that the KJV-only claim for preservation for the KJV is little different from a claim for inspiration for the KJV.

Some KJV-only advocates will jump to this unproven conclusion that the KJV is supposedly preserved Scripture and thus inspired without showing that the Scriptures teach it.

Logos just go back you your little world where you believe in a fallible bible that is in non existent autographs.

You're a bible agnostic and I'm tired of dealing with you.

You still never answered my honest questions..

I'm done nothing will ever change you people who believe in a constantly changing and evolving bible.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

An obvious problem with KJV-only advocates is that they argue backwards from a translation (the King James Version) and dig up whatever ancient support (Greek, Latin, etc.) they can that might possibly support the English words of that translation instead of starting with the primary sources themselves and allowing those to determine which English words should be used to communicate the words of God most properly. So we find them praising most manuscripts when the KJV follows them, but castigating them when it doesn't; praising the ancient Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts when the KJV follows them, damning them (sometimes as Satanic) when it doesn't; loving the Latin Vulgate when the KJV follows it, dismissing it when it doesn't, etc. And so it goes for any difference one finds between the KJV and any modern version. There is no reasoning with them, because the KJV can't be wrong. But why?

And here is the main problem with KJV ONLY advocates: "If the KJV is wrong," they ponder, "then God hasn't preserved his Word perfectly and thus he's a liar and thence the whole world must be damned to hell; THEREFORE the KJV must be right." (I'm exaggerating a bit, but basically this is their primary presumption and the flaw that drives their whole system.) And again, "Remember," they logically argue to themselves, "all translations have differences, and thus either all translations are wrong in some places or one of them is right in every place." Basically this is the same apologetic starting point for the primacy of Christianity over all the others that differ from Christianity. Then they continue: "Of course, all of the translations can't be imperfect, since that would make God a liar." From this they "deduce" that the KJV must be the only perfect one.

So when one comes upon the rare case where the KJV follows no Greek manuscripts, such as in the famous span of the Textus Receptus constructed by Erasmus from the Latin (since his single Greek manuscript of Revelation was defective near the end [even though today we have hundreds of Greek manuscripts of Revelation available to us]) we find their explanations less than satisfactory (to put it kindly).

For example, in Revelation 22:18 we find that the KJV says "For I testify . . ." even though no Greek manuscripts have the word "for." So they say that it's okay to add conjunctions like that if it makes better sense in translation (but God forbid if any modern translators ever ADD words to the word of God where the KJV doesn't -- may the plagues of Revelation fall upon them and damn them!). Or they say that maybe some Latin manuscripts actually preserved the original "for" and that all Greek manuscripts with the original reading eventually perished (i.e. God failed to preserve his word in the Greek manuscript tradition, a conclusion not peculiar at all to them considering their presumption summarized above).

KJV advocates' false presumption determines their many strange arguments to defend their false presumption. Remember, their presumption is that the KJV can't be wrong, or God has failed. Put in these terms, one discovers why many of them take the defense of the KJV to a spiritual level, assuming, as some of them must, eternal rewards due to the eternal nature of the debate (remember: God's eternal attribute of truthfulness is at stake here!), and consequently eternal punishment for those who, they presume, attack God's truthfulness.

This is the problem with KJV ONLY in a nutshell.

Brother Jordan Kurecki, do I have that about right?

http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbonlyblowup.htm

 

[Logos1560]

You're a bible agnostic and I'm tired of dealing with you.

I'm done nothing will ever change you people who believe in a constantly changing and evolving bible.

False accusations are evidently the typical KJV-only response to those who believe the Scriptures but disagree with non-scriptural KJV-only opinions of men. KJV-only advocates avoid the KJV-only burden of proof as they attempt to smear and attack personally any believer that dares to disagree with their KJV-only theory.

My view of Bible translation is the same basic view as that held by the early English translators including the makers of the KJV. Is it being suggested that the makers of the KJV were "bible agnostics"?

If my scripturally based arguments were only directed to the view of Peter Ruckman as was claimed and if the KJV-only posters responding to them also suggest that they reject Ruckman's extreme KJV-only views, why were those posters attacking and distorting my arguments when they would be expected to agree with them?

Nothing I stated suggested that I supposedly believe in a "constantly changing and evolving bible." You disobey the Scriptures as you bear false witness against my belief in the Scriptures and acceptance of what the Scriptures actually state and teach.

I accept, love, and read the KJV for what it is, a good overall translation of the Scriptures in the same sense or in the same way that the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the Geneva Bible are and in the same sense or in the same way that later English Bibles such as the NKJV are. The KJV also can be properly said to be the word of God in English in the same sense that the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the Geneva Bible are and in the same sense that later English Bibles such as the NKJV are.

 

[Logos1560]

http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbonlyblowup.htm

I attempted to link on that web site, but it would not come up.

I have read many of Will Kinney's [brandplucked] unproven KJV-only claims and incorect accusations, and he is not a reliable source of information.

 

[Logos1560]

I don't believe the KJV is a "PERFECT" translation..........I think it could be re-translated without harm, somewhat modernized.

Do you acknowledge that the KJV has errors that are the fault of printers or do you acknowledge that there are also translators' errors in the KJV?

The same original language texts on which the KJV is based have already been re-translated and updated in the NKJV, the Modern KJV by Jay Green, the KJ2000, and Green's Literal Translation. Do you accept them?

The English text of the KJV has been somewhat modernized in the 1833 Webster's Bible, the 1994 21st Century KJV, the 1998 Third Millennium Bible. Do you accept them?

Are you suggesting that you agree with my point that in at least some places another English translation has better, clearer, or more accurate renderings than the KJV when compared to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages?

There are some places where one of the pre-1611 English Bibles, especially the Geneva Bible, is clearer, better, or more accurate than the 1611 KJV.

 

[franklinmonroe]

http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbonlyblowup.htm

Thank you Jordan for providing this link. I've read the article and listened to Will Kinney speak his argument. I'll soon be starting a new topic about some of the things that Mr. Kinney asserts at this link.

 

[robycop3]

There's a complete difference between different Gospels who are written by different authors from different perspectives being different, and what we are dealing with in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

Honestly your logic on this statement is ridiculous and I can't even begin to explain how that comparison is not valid with this.

You don't wanna explain it, of course, cuz it's the SAME. Like all KJVOs, you don't wanna admit it.

Back to the OP...One of the "troubles" with you KJVOs is that, when faces with the insurmountable, irrefutable evidence against the KJVO myth, such as its total lacka Scriptural support, its totally-MAN-MADE origin, and the falsehood of its salient points, you keep trying to make up new excuses to try to justify it to yourselves, if no one else, rather than simply accepting the fact that it's not true and moving on.

At times, you KJVOs remind me of someone afflicted with a fatal illness who goes from doctor to doctor, hoping to find one who'll give him a different diagnosis, in your constant quest to invent new excuses for KJVO. FACT is, the KJVO myth is MAN-MADE AND FALSE, and no matter how many feathers you glue onto the KJVO hippopotamus, IT AINT GONNA FLY!

Merry Christmas To All.(I mean it.)