case for the king james onlyist movement refuted

in this article i wish to examine the case a king james onlyist makes for his belief in the king james bible being the only translation a believer should use... (this was a debate with dr james white)  .. the gentlemen in question is called jack morman, so let us consider his points

 1 .... the king james version is a very accurate translation of the greek and hebrew words which God inspired in the beginning

* these words were given by inspiration verbally ... the faith once delivered... (jude 3)  there is no secondary inspiration that these words were preserved verbally 

* Christ promised in matthew 24 :35 "heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall never pass away" 

* Christ further promises that the holy spirit would guide all believers into the truth concerning these words (john 16 : 13 compared with john 17 :17)

* these preserved words greek and hebrew words would not be difficult to find across the centuries (deut 30 :14) these words would not be hidden in the desert or some other place like a trash bin 

* these words during the manuscript period would be found in multiplication of scripture... would not be hidden (2 corinthians 9 :10 / psalms 147 . 15 / psalms 68 . 11)

then in time 47 translaters divided into 6 companies gathering at oxford, cambridge and westminister would accurately translate these preserved originally inspired hebrew and greek words into the english  

A , V  (king james)

briefly noting the first line ... i would agree that the king James version is a very accurate translation for its time, considering the facts such as changes in the english language as well new manuscript discoveries it can not be classed as "the only accurate translation" and based on the studies of the greek language over the last few centuries one has to admit that the king james is lacking in some very significant areas

for example in the 19th century  a christian discovered a principal in the greek language which has shed som valuable information regarding greek constructions ... it is under the guy name a set of rule called the grandville sharp rule

Basically, Granville Sharp's rule states that when you have two nouns, which are not proper names (such as Cephas, or Paul, or Timothy), which are describing a person, and the two nouns are connected by the word "and," and the first noun has the article ("the") while the second does not, *both nouns are referring to the same person*. In our texts, this is demonstrated by the words "God" and "Savior" at Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. "God" has the article, it is followed by the word for "and," and the word "Savior" does not have the article. Hence, both nouns are being applied to the same person, Jesus Christ. This rule is exceptionless. One must argue solely on theological grounds against these passages. There is truly no real grammatical objection that can be raised. Not that many have not attempted to do so, and are still trying. However, the evidence is overwhelming in favor of the above interpretation. Lets look at some of the evidence from the text itself

here we are introduced to a really important element of the greek language which bring much clarity to several scripture where the king james bible is not so clear in its handling of the texts to which it makes it appear as if there are two person "the great God and the saviour" when in fact it "our great God and saviour" . the new translation at titus 2 :13 and 2 peter 1 :1 and others is more explicit in its handling of the text

 when we come to the next part of his first reason .. the 5 *we are not given the real point here  ... to what is he referring too when he states ... " these words were given by inspiration verbally ... the faith once delivered... (jude 3)  there is no secondary inspiration that these words were preserved verbally "  

is he indicating the originals or a 16 th century translation... just how are we meant to take these statements of his 

if it is directed at the original then we agree in prinicipal as to the fact that God inspired man to write his truth .. not word for word dictation since it was communicated through human experiece, but it is Gods word 

now we have dealt with the real claims in this .. we now turn our attention to the scriptural claims 

point 3 "Christ further promises that the holy spirit would guide all believers into the truth concerning these words (john 16 : 13 compared with john 17 :17)"

is his claim  that Jesus promised the spirit would bring believers into complete harmony on the words of a translation as the passage does not even indicate such a concept

“I did not say these things to you from the beginning, because I was with you. ⁵ But now I am going to him who sent me, and none of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’ ⁶ But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. ⁷ Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. ⁸ And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: ⁹ concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; ¹⁰ concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; ¹¹ concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.

¹² “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. ¹³ When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. ¹⁴ He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. ¹⁵ All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

note, in these words of the lord, Jesus does not speak of the written word of God as being the sole mission of the work of the spirit .. firstly .. the role at this point is actually testifying to the world by the apostles of who christ is and was, what he came to do, secondly ... this reveal a gross use of the bible it is at best eisegetical in nature, at worse unbiblically supported

as for john 17 :17 . this says nothing to a single translation being the truth, and neither does exclude the reality of people coming to the truth through other translations .. all it come point to is that Gods word in essense is truth ... God does not lie 

now lets consider the next point "* these words during the manuscript period would be found in multiplication of scripture... would not be hidden (2 corinthians 9 :10 / psalms 147 . 15 / psalms 68 . 11)" 

this point kind of threw me as it just did not make any real sense, it is as though he is mixing two issue up and arriving at none existent third choice 

let us first make the distinction as it should be made ...   a) manuscript evidence is the foundation which allows us, provides us with the relevent information to make a critical choice on what readings are true and false 
they form the basis of all the great translations ,, including the k j v. niv, esv and many others
b) scripture is the words we read on any given page of the translation in which we are accustomed too ..  the idea that something would not be hidden is beyond the truth of the matter
every historical record has been hidden and recovered at some point in time ... this also goes for the manuscripts which are the foundation for the k j v

now the few  scripture references that are provided here

the first one does not support the conclusion this gentleman has assumed as truth... let us consider the context

   The point is this: whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. ⁷ Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. ⁸ And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that having all sufficiency in all things at all times, you may abound in every good work. ⁹ As it is written,

“He has distributed freely, he has given to the poor;
    his righteousness endures forever.”

¹⁰ He who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will supply and multiply your seed for sowing and increase the harvest of your righteousness. ¹¹ You will be enriched in every way to be generous in every way, which through us will produce thanksgiving to God. ¹² For the ministry of this service is not only supplying the needs of the saints but is also overflowing in many thanksgivings to God. ¹³ By their approval of this service, they will glorify God because of your submission that comes from your confession of the gospel of Christ, and the generosity of your contribution for them and for all others, ¹⁴ while they long for you and pray for you, because of the surpassing grace of God upon you. ¹⁵ Thanks be to God for his inexpressible gift!

^{the context to which the passage is found does not allow for such a presupposition to forced into its words : here paul is deal with avery serious matter poverty of the early church, the context only allows for one interpretation and that is the correct one .... there is nothing about the manuscripts or the true translation ... it is about supplying the needy with the relevent supplies of food and drink .. and prehaps the point of give some spiritual food as a comfort and blessing}
the first psalm .. 147 :15 refers to his law and his preceps, as for psalm 68 :1 it is not a great help for the movement since it does not have any real meaning for this movement

as for the closing word to point one ... it is a historical fact that the king james bible happen in this manner ... but is not the case they welcomed new translations .. as we shall see in the time 

2 ..... I prepose that which shown by most remarkable document .. the A . V  preface known as "the translaters to the reader" that this was likely the most unique gathering of Godly men ever 

to the originals to which they translate ... they say :

"the originals thereof being from heaven and not  earth .... the author being God and not man, the enditer the holy spirit and not the apostles or prophets  ... he scriptures being acknowledged being so full and so perfect"

unlike biblical scholarship today .. these men were not tainted by rationalism, unbelief and uncertianty, 

as to how they approached  their work.... they say

"And in what sort did these assemble? In the trust of their own knowledge, or of their sharpness of wit, or deepness of judgment, as it were in an arm of flesh? At no hand. They trusted in him that hath the key of David, opening and no man shutting..... If you ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the New. These are the two golden pipes, or rather conduits, wherethrough the olive branches empty themselves into the gold..... Neither did we think much to consult the translators or commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek or Latin — no, nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch. Neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered: but having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see.

as to their result and conclusion... they say :

 "Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one .... but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one .... not justly to be excepted against. That hath been our endeavor, that our mark

jeremiah 2 :13

here is the second point .. which we can consider the translators to the reader misapplication to the king james only movent scheme

to which we make two basic points ... a) the translators to the reader section is the basis of their motivations behind the translation .. meaning it is not something that can be used in defense of this movement, and b) even this introduction gives some vital points for discussion that are some what damning to the course of this movement

before we get to some of this information it is wise to understand that this type rhetoric that is offered as apart of the case  "unlike biblical scholarship today .. these men were not tainted by rationalism, unbelief and uncertianty"

this is not a helpful tactic in discussion to smear Godly men of today who are dedicated in providing God words for all believer ... this is a case of fallacy "ad - hominum" attacking the person(s) and not the arguments made for there case

now lets consider the above points given  .. what we will do is give the full speech to which is being spoken of

But it is high time to leave them, and to show in brief what we proposed to ourselves, and what course we held in this our perusal and survey of the Bible. Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, (for then the imputation of Sixtus had been true in some sort, that our people had been fed with gall of Dragons instead of wine, with whey instead of milk:) but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark. To that purpose there were many chosen, that were greater in other men’s eyes than in their own, and that sought the truth rather than their own praise. Again, they came or were thought to come to the work, not exercendi causa (as one saith) but exercitati, that is, learned, not to learn: For the chief overseer and [NOTE: Greek letters omitted] under his Majesty, to whom not only we, but also our whole Church was much bound, knew by his wisdom, which thing also Nazianzen taught so long ago, that it is a preposterous order to teach first and to learn after, yea that [NOTE: Greek letters omitted] to learn and practice together, is neither commendable for the workman, nor safe for the work. [Idem in Apologet.] Therefore such were thought upon, as could say modestly with Saint Jerome, Et Hebreaeum Sermonem ex parte didicimus, et in Latino pene ab ipsis incunabulis etc. detriti sumus. “Both we have learned the Hebrew tongue in part, and in the Latin we have been exercised almost from our very cradle.” S. Jerome maketh no mention of the Greek tongue, wherein yet he did excel, because he translated not the old Testament out of Greek, but out of Hebrew. And in what sort did these assemble? In the trust of their own knowledge, or of their sharpness of wit, or deepness of judgment, as it were in an arm of flesh? At no hand. They trusted in him that hath the key of David, opening and no man shutting; they prayed to the Lord the Father of our Lord, to the effect that S. Augustine did;“O let thy Scriptures be my pure delight, let me not be deceived in them, neither let me deceive by them.” [S. Aug. lib. II. Confess. cap. 2.] In this confidence, and with this devotion did they assemble together; not too many, lest one should trouble another; and yet many, lest many things haply might escape them. If you ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the New. These are the two golden pipes, or rather conduits, where-through the olive branches empty themselves into the gold. Saint Augustine calleth them precedent, or original tongues; [S. August. 3. de doctr. c. 3. etc.] Saint Jerome, fountains. [S. Jerome. ad Suniam et Fretel.] The same Saint Jerome affirmeth, [S. Jerome. ad Lucinium, Dist. 9 ut veterum.] and Gratian hath not spared to put it into his Decree, That “as the credit of the old Books” (he meaneth of the Old Testament) “is to be tried by the Hebrew Volumes, so of the New by the Greek tongue,” he meaneth by the original Greek. If truth be tried by these tongues, then whence should a Translation be made, but out of them? These tongues therefore, the Scriptures we say in those tongues, we set before us to translate, being the tongues wherein God was pleased to speak to his Church by the Prophets and Apostles. Neither did we run over the work with that posting haste that the Septuagint did, if that be true which is reported of them, that they finished it in 72 days; [Joseph. Antiq. lib. 12.] neither were we barred or hindered from going over it again, having once done it, like S. Jerome, if that be true which himself reporteth, that he could no sooner write anything, but presently it was caught from him, and published, and he could not have leave to mend it: [S. Jerome. ad Pammac. pro libr. advers. Iovinian.] neither, to be short, were we the first that fell in hand with translating the Scripture into English, and consequently destitute of former helps, as it is written of Origen, that he was the first in a manner, that put his hand to write Commentaries upon the Scriptures, [Sophoc. in Elect.] and therefore no marvel, if he overshot himself many times. None of these things: the work hath not been huddled up in 72 days, but hath cost the workmen, as light as it seemeth, the pains of twice seven times seventy two days and more: matters of such weight and consequence are to be speeded with maturity: for in a business of movement a man feareth not the blame of convenient slackness. [S. Chrysost. in II. Thess. cap. 2.] Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch; neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered: but having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see.

after taking much time to give us a basic understanding of there process of bring a translation in the english speaking world .. we are told of their textual techniques in how they choose what they would ultimately undertake in making a good translation ... terms such as "we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, (for then the imputation of Sixtus had been true in some sort, that our people had been fed with gall of Dragons instead of wine, with whey instead of milk:) but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark. To that purpose there were many chosen, that were greater in other men’s eyes than in their own, and that sought the truth rather than their own praise" ... these words tell us that they had an ambition which was not over shadow other translation but simply to give a translation which would at the time be easy to follow .. the reason was for making a more applicable translation

but what is more interesting is the following section "Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch; neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered: but having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see." basically they had no problem in consulting other resouce, and even allowing their work to go under revision if needed be

so from this section of the preface we learn that the translators would have been first to consider revision if the urgancy was great

3 mount impassable ...... i prepose there is a huge mount impassible difference between the greek text that underlies the A . V  and that which underlies the modern versions

the a . v text  first  ....  this text represents the vast majority of the 5500 greek manuscripts that we now have .. most of these manuscripts are obviously very much used 

this text has 2900 more words  this text is doctrinely fuller 

this text is cohesive and yet amongst the manuscripts that support this text .. there is just enough difference to let you know that they are not lateral copies or reproductions of each other but they are each individual witnes' representing long lines of transmission into the past

if you were to ask how many were a copy of each other probably less than ten .. kursop leap said  regarding those he looked at :

"almost all are orphan children" .. we've got nearly 5500 manuscripts of the type that underlie the authorised version  there all independant witness' not copies Gordon fee asks "but the question still must be answered : how does one account for its dominance and its general uniformity

how did the byzentine text become dominant ?

and this text spread widely

the modern version text which underlies most of the morern bibles .. the modern version text

this text is represented by two very , very old manuscripts .. codex vaticanus and codex sinaiticus which come from the year 360

it is also supported by not many more than 40 / 50 other manuscript

sthis text has 2900 fewer words, this text is less doctrinely distinct or full 

this text is not is not cohesive

 clos watchell and barbara aland of the monster institute the primary architects of this text say "the papyri and major schools of this text .. say they differ so widely from one another that it is impossible  to establish any direct geneological ties  among them" 

this text did not spread widely .. its mainly an eygyptian text, an alaxandrain type text 

bruce metsgar lists 25 heretical groups and documents that come from alaxandia it was not a good place to get a bible 

this is the fundamental mount impassible issue that we face almost all manuscripts cohesive, doctrinely distinct .. spread widely against a small number of manuscripts not cohesive, not doctrinely distinct did not spread widely 

in this portion of the case we simply need to point out a few fact which can great improve our understanding of the matters
before we get the most crucial points i want to simply point out the fallacy ..." guilt by accosiation"
in the following words from this gentlemen .. like most kjv onlyists

"bruce metsgar lists 25 heretical groups and documents that come from alaxandia it was not a good place to get a bible"

this argument is such a bad one that it can be discredited in the following maaner ....  "the chester beady manuscript is housed in ireland, and because it share the common word "ireland" with northern ireland ... therfore this manuscript is not good based on the wars in this area"
but the fact is we can't discredit something based on where it is found, especially in the case that it may have written a million miles from the place it was found
what about this argument "the manuscripts found in antioch are tarnish and smeered with false hood .. the antiochian area were invaded by false beliefs like work based salvation as well as early gnostic beliefs"
i hope in these examples we can see how fallacious this argument truly is


 now for some points on the manuscripts and the translations

a) the king james bible is based off of only hand full of back ground texts, that being ... the 5 editions of erasmus greek new testament, stephanus greek addition which was just revision of erasmus works, and finally the beza greek addition which was another revision upon erasmus' work

a closer consideration on these texts reveals

* the 5 erasmus editions from 15 16 -1535 ... the basis of this text is that this man travelled with desire to finda wide range of manuscripts for his own textual studies and what would eventually be his first edition of the greek new testament... only only being able to find a handful  (between 6-12) his hopes were not fulfilled but he still pressed forward with what he had been able to gather, the subsequent reproductions of this inital work followed ... possible with slight more input of work
 in 1559  and in 1605 two more editions (revisions were put out by stephanus and beza (the second genleman was a close companian of john calvin) but the importance of these edition was
the first one mention had done 4 edition of his own work on the new testament
the last man named done 9 editions

a key point in this is all three men done the work of a textual critic choosing the best reading, and rejecting others.. to which would become the form that was known to every christian in that period .. these forms of work have been a much useful point till today ...
this work is seldomly rejected by the kjv onlyist as they believe the kjv is variant free but this is not to be the full point .. the original 1611 printed its own text notes like the modern day bibles

* the origins of the kjv traanslation ... is primarily seen in the above information .. the three blokes mention are the ones who provided the back ground material for the translators of the kjv ...
this was to be sure,  a marvelous work and a gret edition to have in the christian life, but it was never meant to be a cultic centre peace it was one of at that point 12 or more english translations, but the translators never gave the idea that the bible should be updated when it is needed to be
the translators made this point clear

"Many men’s mouths have been opened a good while (and yet are not stopped) with speeches about the translation so long in use, or rather perusals of translations made before. They ask what is the reason, what is the necessity, of the new translation"

this sounds so simliar to the charges against the new translations  ..  it is ver interesting that the arguments raised by these fellows of kjvo, are just repeating history
and as it was bad logic then it is still seen as bad logic and argumentation to throw at other translations that come down the line .. when they are based on new evidence



* the textus receptus ... or the received texted  is a compendium of reading largely drawn from the kjv translation . at this point what is important to note is that the manuscript background of the kjv through this document has been seen to contain corruption in many areas .. this is not the usual meaning of the word, it refers to the texts underline reading that they come from a wide a array of streams


b) the modern  translation  such as the niv, esv, nasb, and others .. are based on many different manuscripts .. of which some are the codex's of the 4 centuries .. vaticanus, siniaticus, and many of the papyri

* in this we have the 2 foundational works .. nestle and aland and united bible societies texts .... these are the compilations of all the manuscript discoveries ... that are very crucial in the readings of the text 
we have p 1 -127, codex siniaticus and vaticanus and many others besides this
what we need to realise on this subjects is that the manuscripts that are the basis of the newer translations are more in number
lets take a closer look at these works  
nestle and aland / ubs ...  this work is a series of textual related study  apparatus ... they contain all the reading of the manuscripts .. with great amounts of information in regard to the difference, variations and so forth

the main issue that we should be asking is "does the translation that we are using best represnt what the original said" ... and yes we can have a great certianty of what it said infact all but about 00.02% has been confirm as original through the manuscripts 
so again we have to let all manuscript evidence speak for our knowledge of what the original said to be accomplish, to silence the great manucript tradition of over 25,000 ... of which 5,750 are greek manuscripts ... is disingenuous at best .. and foolish 
what this means is that king james onlyist have certianity .. beyond 800 - 900 years ago