KJVO question

What do the KJVO who believe that God miraculously preserved the KJV, but no other version, base that belief on?
How did they choose the KJV as the version they choose to believe this about?

 

Different KJV-only advocates use different arguments or different forms of the same argument in trying to rationalize or excuse their exclusive only claims for the KJV. Many of them use a two lines [one pure line and one corrupt line], two trees, or two streams of Bibles argument, but they do not demonstrate how that argument leads to exclusive only claims for only one English Bible translation since the other Bibles in their pure stream, pure line, or good tree are not perfect. That may explain why they also use a "purified seven times" argument that suggests a purification process in their so-called pure stream of Bibles.

A few of them appeal to the doctrine of inspiration and 2 Timothy 3:16 as the basis for their claims while most of them appeal to their inconsistent version of a doctrine of preservation.

Some of them will claim that the term scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16 includes translations, but ignoring the "all" they do not say that it means "all translations" are inspired. They try to suggest that the KJV has to be inspired for it to be called Scripture or to be called the word of God.

At least three or four KJV-only authors seem to try to find another way to try to support a new interpretation or understanding of 2 Timothy 3:16. William Grady asserted that “the first and most critical usage [of the word inspiration] is found in Job 32:8” (Given By Inspiration, p. 90). William Grady contended: “Job 32:8 will be seen to reveal the definition and purpose for inspiration.” and he claimed: “As Job is the oldest book in the Bible, we marvel that the first writer of Scripture ‘just happens’ to record the definitive statement on inspiration” (p. 90). Are Grady’s declarations proven to be sound, true, and correct? Peter Ruckman asserted that “the verse in the Old Testament (Job 32:8) is usually ignored by those who write about ‘verbal, plenary inspired, original autographs‘” (Biblical Scholarship, p. 337). In his note at Job 32:8 in his Ruckman Reference Bible, Peter Ruckman claimed: “The verse is a direct cross reference to 2 Timothy 3:16” (p. 759). Concerning 2 Timothy 3:16 and Job 32:8, Jack McElroy also claimed: “Comparing the two helps you understand how the Bible defines the word [inspiration]” (Which Bible Would Jesus Use, p. 241). After citing Job 32:8, Jack McElroy asserted: “According to the Bible, inspiration not only applies to the original autographs but it’s also an ongoing ministry of the Holy Spirit whereby he gives men (including you) understanding of the words of God” (p. 233). Michael Hollner also appealed to Job 32:8 as he claimed: “Here are our promises of preservation, purity, and perfection, even in a translation, for ‘there is a spirit in man, and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding” (Job 32:8) (King James Only Debate, p. 442, 2021 edition). Michael Hollner declared that “they [the KJV translators] were given guidance by the Spirit of God during the translation, thus GIVING THEM UNDERSTANDING for a perfected translation by Holy Ghost inspiration, for ‘the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding’ (Job 32:8, 2 Timothy 3:16) KJV” (p. 391).

Evidently KJV defenders are in discord and strongly disagree among themselves in their own understandings and interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16. Are KJV-only advocates so fragmented and divided over the doctrine of inspiration that Phil Stringer concluded that there is a “’King James Only’ civil war over inspiration” (Unbroken Bible, pp. 9-20)? Modern KJV-only teaching about inspiration is not systematically consistent and coherent. God is not the author of the confusion that could result from the conflicting and contradictory KJV-only claims concerning inspiration. David Cloud wrote: “The King James committee was translating Scripture, not giving Scripture. Ruckman’s position is confusion” (O Timothy, Vol. 12, Issue 5, 1995, p. 3). According to their own writings, a good number of KJV defenders would reject or contradict the recent KJV-only interpretation or understanding of 2 Timothy 3:16 suggested by a few modern KJV-only authors. Even Peter Ruckman himself had evidently understood and interpreted this verse differently in the past than he later did. In a letter written to Robert Sumner in 1971, Peter Ruckman himself had asserted: “Verbal inspiration has to do with 2 Timothy 3:16 and deals with the original autographs, as we all know” (photocopy of letter, p. 2). In 1988, Peter Ruckman wrote: “Although we cannot claim direct inspiration in the original Biblical sense for the King James text, we could claim that the King James text presents an infallible text, preserved without proven error in the language in which God intended for us to have it” [bold type added] (Theological Studies, Book 15, p. 15). Peter Ruckman asserted: “So our position is this: The King James Bible may not claim for itself the original inspiration of God, breathing through the men who spoke when they were copied down by a writer at the time they spoke. However, it can be claimed to be preserved without proven error in the universal language of the world” [bold type added] (p. 23). In his commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, Peter Ruckman wrote: “We do not refer to the AV as the ‘verbally inspired, inerrant Word of God’” (p. 270). Ruckman asserted: “I’ve never said that the King James Bible was inspired, although I’ve broadly intimated it sometimes” (Why I Believe the KJV, p. 8). In his note at Job 32:8, Peter Ruckman wrote: “When we say the KJV is ‘the holy scriptures’ in English (Rom. 1:2), or ‘given by inspiration’ (2 Tim. 3:16), we mean that the Holy Spirit of God guided its translators in their work and then breathed on that Book when they got through with it” (Ruckman Reference Bible, p. 759). Do some of Ruckman’s own understandings seem to conflict with other of his understandings?

G. John Rov claimed: “’The Bible is inspired by God, but only in the originals’ is the double talk of men” (Concealed from Christians, p. 36). John Rov failed to prove his allegation to be true. How is consistently and accurately using the term inspiration (univocally) for the process by which God gave the Scriptures to the prophets and apostles supposedly double talk? Even Peter Ruckman, who may sometimes be considered the most extreme KJV-only advocate, suggested in 1988 that the term inspiration cannot be used for the KJV “in the original Biblical sense”. Is John Rov possibly more extreme or radical in his KJV-only reasoning than Ruckman since Rov claimed that the makers of the KJV translated “under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost” (Concealed from Christians, p. 148)? John Rov claimed that the KJV “alone is the matured, finished Bible carrying the inspiration of God” (p. 70). David Daniels suggested that “it [the KJV] carries the same inspiration as the originals” (51 Reasons, p. 158).

 

They will misapply promises of the lord concerning the originals as being perfect and inspired and apply that to the Kjv, and will also use derived inspiration from the original languages texts

They will elevate the Kjv to just where the Muslims see the Koran, but God never stated any translation would be perfect

 

Perhaps many KJV defenders or KJV-only advocates may assert that they are not claiming any second inspiration or double inspiration when they use the term for the KJV. Therefore, they suggest at times that they are not using the term inspiration (univocally) in the original Biblical sense for the process of the making of the KJV although they may fail to make that clear at other times.

Ralph Yarnell referred to “continuing inspiration,” but he maintained that “there is a vast difference between original inspiration and continuing inspiration” (Fresh Look at the KJB, p. 11). He did not demonstrate that the Scriptures teach his concept of continuing inspiration. Sam Gipp admitted that the KJV “is not inspired in the same fashion as the Originals were” (Is Our English Bible Inspired, p. 69).

Some may be using the term to refer to what has been identified as “derived inspiration.”
Phil Stringer noted: “There is a third group that teaches what they call ‘derivative inspiration’” (Unbroken Bible, p. 16). Charles Kriessman observed: “Derivative inspiration is a belief that translated Bible’s Words derive inspiration from the underlying original Words” (Modern Version Failures, p. 53). David Cloud maintained that he believes that the KJV “has DERIVED its inspiration from the text upon which it was based” (O Timothy, Vol. 11, Issue 11, 1994, p. 3). Lloyd Streeter asserted: “The King James Bible does have a derived inspiration” (Seventy-five Problems, p. 45). Bob Steward claimed: “I believe that inspiration, as it applies to translations is to be counted in a different way. I believe in a derivative and practical inspiration for any translation of the Bible that comes accurately forth from those original manuscripts” (Is the KJB Inspired, pp. 2-3). If some KJV-only advocates in effect indicate that they are not using the term inspiration with but one meaning (univocally) for the process of the giving of the Scriptures to the prophets and apostles and for the process of the making of the KJV, would they be suggesting that they may use the term inspiration analogically or with a proportional meaning (partly the same, partly different)?

At least a couple KJV-only authors suggest that this term inspiration cannot be used analogically. Lloyd Streeter claimed: “Inspiration is not in degrees, nor is it a higher or a lower level” (Seventy-five Problems, p. 47). Lloyd Streeter declared: “There is no lesser inspiration or lower degree of inspiration” (p. 45). Lloyd Streeter contended that saying that the KJV “is not inspired ‘IN THE SAME SENSE’ as the original text is to downplay the inspiration of the Bible” (p. 46).

In contrast, KJV-only author H. D. Williams asserted: “There is no such thing as re-inspiration, double inspiration, derivative inspiration, or advanced revelation for any translation to allow reinscripturation” (Word-for-Word Translating, p. 83). D. A. Waite declared: “I do not believe there is such a thing as ‘derivative inspiration’’’ (Fundamentalist Deception, p. 116). D. A. Waite asserted: “There is no such thing as derivative when you talk about God-breathing (inspiration) of His words” (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 137). H. D. Williams claimed: “Every person holding the view that the King James Bible is inspired, derivatively inspired, derivatively pure, or derivatively perfect is not only linguistically and historically incorrect, he is theologically incorrect” (Pure Words, p. 21). H. D. Williams asserted: “If we attribute purity and inspiration to the translated Words of God in any language, we are in reality claiming double inspiration, double purity, and double Apostolic and prophet-like men who chose them and who wrote them” (p. 63). H. D. Williams contended: “Since the Words of God are unchanging in their original pure, perfect, inspired ’jots and tittles,’ no derivative can be formed” (Pure Words, p. 17).

 

There also seems to be a disagreement among them as to how and why the TR is to be seen having authority over the Kjv, or if it even does!

 

If you are really serious:
https://www.amazon.com/Christians-handbook-manuscript-evidence/dp/1580260764

 

I am not that interested. Just wanted the cliffs notes version.

 

Ok. The KJV corrects the Greek.

 

Luke 1:35, ". . . And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. . ."

Like 4:4, ". . . And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. . . ."

John 3:13, ". . . And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. . . ."

John 13:2, ". . . And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him; . . ."

 

How can the KJV correct the Greek when the Greek supports John 3:13? In this case do not you mean follows the Greek?

These Greek Testaments support the KJV here.

S Stephens 1550 (Estienne 1550)
E Elzevir 1624
G Griesbach 1805
L Lachmann 1842
T Tischendorf 1869
Tr Tregelles 1857
A Alford 1849 as revised in 1871
W Wordsworth 1856 as revised in 1870

 

Also Luke 4:4 the Majority Text and King James agree. Same as John 13:2. How can the KJV correct the Greek when it agrees with it?

 

I am not a KJVonlyist. Luke 1:35 and 1 John 5:7-8 are not in the Majority Text. My point being if the KJV was as the proponents of it being the correct preserved word of God it would correct not only the Greek, but the Hebrew and Aramaic too.

 

And why do these men get so agitated when when we refer to the "King James Version," rather than calling it the "King James Bible?"

 

To them, it's not a version. It's the only Bible.

One old KJV only preacher, who is long dead now, used to get on me all the time about my NASB. I would always poke him a bit, but never really rile him up too much because I was scared he would get too upset and have a cardiac episode. He told me one day "Jesus used the 1611 King James Bible. If it was good enough for him, it's good enough for me ". I grinned real big and told him "You got me. Won't argue with that.".
He grinned. He thought he had won the debate. It worked. He never bothered me again about The 1611.

 

Was this a joke?

 

I've heard that same claim from countless people. That old pastor of yours must have got around! :)

 

Well, that could be said as a joke. But the truth is, if KJVonlyism was correct, the KJV would correct the Greek.

 

He was not my pastor. He was a retired pastor who went to our church.

 

Ask them which is the perfect and correct Kjv edition, 1611, 1769. 1873, 1900?