What's the AUTHORITY for "King-James-Version-Only"?

I'm not Pastor Bob, Salty but I can see this applies to me also!... I am not in the Only camp... That being said the KJV was the trailblazer for the English language... If you have an English Translation the KJV laid the foundation... I like robycop3's comparison to the Model-T and the car he is now driving... But what he fails to realize, if not for the Model-T, he wouldn't be driving the car he now has... To put it bluntly he would be walking or riding a horse... Brother Glen

 

Salty!... That applies to me also... I had no reason for another version, the KJV was in our Christian homes, it was in our church and it is was the Bible everyone brought to church... I grew up with it and it is in my blood... There are brethren who it is there Preference and others who it is Tradition... You other brethren want to fight the KJVO's have at it... Just leave Salty, Pastor Bob and me alone... As long as I have been on this board we always get caught in the crossfire... We didn't start this fire!... Brother Glen

 

Which modern version?

 

I disagree. Using the KJV says a lot to your audience.

 

It certainly has not been replaced. The KJV is alive and well.

 

Unfortunately.

 

Do you feel that the TR and the Kjv are the best Greek/English versions for use, or that the Kjv translators were somehow inspired to do their work in a way beyond other translators?
That inspiration dervives to them because God preserved just them to us?

 

Sadly, this one response tells me everything I need to know.

 

The Kjv is the greatest Englsh translation ever done, based upon its influence and use by the Lord, but does not mean is the only version God uses, nor the best one!

 

I do.

I wouldn't say inspired in the way that the human authors of scripture were inspired. I believe they were far superior in their ability to translate the manuscript evidence than anyone since then. I believe in providential preservation; therefore, I believe God was indeed involved.

I'm sorry, my friend. I 'm not sure what you're asking here.

 

Kjvo holds that since the TR was preserved as the "right and only" Greek text, the Kjv translator product also got secondary inspiration. Do you hold that the Kjv is without any mistakes in it>

 

I do not believe in "double inspiration." I do not believe that the KJV was given by "direct inspiration" as were the originals. I do, however, believe in "derivative inspiration" and that God providentially preserved His Word and that we have it available to us today in English.

Absolutely. The KJV is without any error of fact.

 

Your comment is evidence of KJVOism.

Why qualify your statement with the terminology of error of fact?

Your bottom line is that the KJV (of whatever stripe) has absolutely no errors --right? If so, you believe it is perfect.
If mistakes were shown in the KJV you would have to renounce KJVOism.

 

D. A. Carson : The King James Version Debate : A Plea for Realism

Carson says that non-Byzantine based versions are read by many more folks than have ever read Byzantine-based versions."Will those who appeal to the argument from providence then concede that divine providence is justifying this development? If they do not and instead write the development of as apostasy, they are guilty of gross inconsistency, and so the argument cannot be trusted. If they do concede it, then their present defense of the Byzantine text will have been shown to be erroneous, and so again one will have to conclude that something is wrong with the argument." (p.57)