I discovered this morning that there is a new blog online that takes on the “King James Only” nonsense). For those of you who don’t know what that is, the KJV-only idea is that the KJV itself is the result of a 17th century act of divine inspiration–it is God’s own translation of the original manuscripts of the Bible for English readers. All other English translations are either inferior or products of satanic activity (since they are based on “Alexandrian” manuscripts from that pagan hell-hole, Egypt). Many who hold to KJV-only also believe that the manuscript traditions upon which the English KJV is based are complete and inerrant representations of the original documents of the Bible. PaleoBabble readers got a little taste of this silliness with the “666 in the NIV” post I did a little while back.
This is paleobabble, of course, to anyone who knows anything about the transmission of the biblical texts or who cares about logic. It’s an interesting idea to devote a whole blog to this subject, and the contirbutors are apparently former KJV-only adherents.
Though I have high respect for your blog, and find myself a constant reader, I must disagree with your definitions.
KJV-Only refers to those who will only use the Authorized/ King James Version. What you are describing in your blog is what is referred to as Secondary Inspiration.
Many Christians hold to the Authorized Version because we believe it is the superior English translation using the Greek Text which is superior to the others. Rather than compromising with pseudo-Bible Scholars who hold to a naturalistic view using an eclectic text, we hold to the belief that God dynamically preserved His Word through the Traditional Text.
@johncalvinhall: what you describe are the “KJP”s – King James Preferers. One of my pastors years back was one of those. Holding to an eclectic text is not pseudo-science; it is admitting that one isn’t omniscient, and that no text should be eliminated a priori in considering variants. It’s called honesty.
Tough the KJV is a straight forward translation, any student of the text in their original languages knows of the numerous poorly translated words that make for very different interpretations.The letter from the translators in the front of the KJV states that they recognized their short comings, and that it was up to us to glean the Truth through our own study.The cornerstone of the Protestant movement.And let me tell you, if one takes a Strongs Concordence and gets language specific definitions a very different history/ theology comes into focus.-usdi Agaluga
@MSH: and what you call honesty, Scripture calls arrogance (Isaiah 55:9; 1Cor. 1:27).
In our churches, fellow Christians pose the question, “What is the best translation to use?” Their answer either comes from which version their pastor uses to which one they find most comfortable to read. But the problem lies deeper than personal preference.
When in Bible college, many an argument and debate centered around which Greek text is superior. Though we have many texts floating around (W-H, NA27, UBS4, TR, BYZ, MT, etc.), they all boil down to two: the Eclectic Text and the Traditional Text. One side argues that their text has been accepted for centuries, while the other claims superiority due to the wide acceptance by Bible scholars. Yet, I must also beg the fact that this level of debate is too shallow as well.
The core issue here, is what do you as a Bible student (for we all are students of God’s Word), place your faith in determining the authority of God’s Word? Do we have the Word of God because of man’s intellectual ability to rightly divide the Word of Truth? Or do we accept by faith God’s promises to preserve His Word?
My presuppositions are these (and yes, we ALL have presuppositions):
1. Scripture is to be taken literally, except where the Bible says otherwise.
2. Because of man’s fallen nature, he does not have the ability to intellectually determine or identify Scripture apart from the Holy Spirit.
3. Anyone who claims to be a “Bible Scholar” and rejects the basic tenants of Scripture is not in fellowship with God’s Holy Spirit and cannot be trusted. Their findings must be carefully scrutinized.
With these parameters, 99% of those Bible Scholars everyone loves to quote, are tossed out.
Scripture is never to be subservient to man’s intellect, but rather man’s intellect must be under the authority of God’s Word. And this is where modern humanistic scholars fall short.
Addendum – After re-reading your reply, my comment on “being arrogant” was misplaced.
The problem is not evaluating the variants. The problem is in the base-authority on how we approach Scripture. I use the Critical Apparatus all the time (Logos software and UBS4), but it always falls back on Scriptural Authority.
Please, allow me to give an example:
Luke 2:22 – Is it AUTWN or is it AUTHS?
Though AUTWN could be a viable word (as long as you are referencing women as a whole), the Genitive Plural can also beg the idea that Mary was not the only one who needed to be purified, which then begs the question, “Who else would need to be purified?” Cross referencing Luke 2:22 with Leviticus 12 easily answers the question. The superior reading will have AUTHS.
My apologies for my misquote.
@johncalvinhall: The arguments of the KJV only view simply require omniscience. THAT is arrogance. Which TR? (there were 26 of them)? What about the OT (3/4 of your Bible), where we don’t have “manuscript families” – we have three separate editions of the Hebrew text at the Dead Sea Scroll repository, and a host of other biblical texts that don’t match THOSE among the scrolls? I could go on and on — especially in the OT, where the KJV only crowd never ventures. You have to be omniscience to hold this, and I have a firm grip on my own lack of omniscience. The entire topic is a vainglorious waste of time.
I am sorry you deleted my last post.
This only confirms that you do not have an answer.
No need. You don’t answer to me.
But you will stand before God and give an account for your actions.
Sad to be you.
@johncalvinhall: it confirms I meant what I said — this is a colossal waste of time. If you want to pursue this nonsense, take it the KJV only blog — that’s why they made it. I’ve taught this subject a half dozen times at a college, I’ve been through all the arguments, I work for a software company where we gather and publish the text-critical data, etc etc. It’s nonsense that does require omniscience. Appeals to providence? Give me a break — the same providential God preserved no less than 4 versions of the Old Testament at Qumran. You have to be omniscient to pretend that anyone can discern that *one* of them represents “the” text of the OT. An utter waste of time.