KJVO vs NON-KJVO
QUESTION ON THE KJVO CONTROVERSY
I listened to James White and Steven Anderson debate the KJV only issue (KJVO). Anderson made some good points about some of the verses that had been changed in the new translations that made it seem like more works-based than faith-based. I didn’t know meanings had been changed between translations. One of the issues I had with Anderson was since the KJV uses the word “hell” for both “hades” and the “final hell,” he said he was forced to conclude that Jesus spent 3 days in hell after his death on the cross. Which would contradict a lot of verses in my opinion and is a misunderstanding of the atonement. (Anonymous)
ANSWER
I have spent some time listening to Anderson (who I find objectionable on a lot of topics) and White (who is objectionable for different reasons). Listening to a debate on KJVO between the two is mildly irritating as I take issues with each man’s line of reasoning. To state the matter briefly, many in the KJVO camp spend a lot of time looking at words that were removed from the KJV in other bible translations. This analysis is a form of begging the question by presupposing that the KJV is correct to begin with. Now that may be someone’s belief, but when one embeds this into the analysis, one is proceeding from an unprovable premise that insists upon only one answer. In contrast, those in the anti-KJVO camp insist upon the “older is better” manuscript hypothesis, yet another form of begging the question, given that it is impossible to definitively prove this premise. They kick up a lot of documentary dust, in the form of manuscripts, variants, Aleph, Vaticanus, blah, blah, blah, (those who have looked into the matter know what I’m talking about)… none of which is able to definitively prove their point. What’s more, they seem oblivious to the fact that their case rests entirely upon this unproven hypothesis. Both the KJVO and anti-KJVO camps proceed from axiomatic presuppositions, though they are of a different sort. Ironically, this saddles both with the same dilemma. Both sides are poorly reasoned, irrespective of the volume of materials they have produced from their presuppositions. A more reasonable (and certainly less time wasting) approach to the matter is to recognize and admit these axiomatic presuppositions, rather than trying to prove things which are ultimately unprovable.
Making matters worse is the fact that the anti-KJVO camp admits that miraculous providence was in play in the preservation of God’s word. But if miraculous providence was involved then there’s no reason to rely upon the idea that “older manuscripts are statistically more likely to be better and more accurate” for the simple fact that miraculous providence makes allowance for events that are not only statistically unlikely, but even statistically impossible. Stated another way, miraculous preservation is meaningless if it doesn’t “defeat the odds,” so to speak. Simply put, both camps have their issues with respect to the arguments they set forth. So much for being brief…
MY POSITION ON THE KJV
My position on the matter is that I accept that the inspired, inerrant, preserved word of God in English is the King James Version by faith. I cannot definitively prove it. What’s more I do not believe that anyone can definitively prove it. Whatever else might be said on the matter, I believe I am being transparent regarding what I believe, even if this position proves unsatisfying to those who want to debate the matter further. If someone has a position that does not proceed from axiomatic presuppositions, I will be glad to lend an ear. Until then, it remains a matter of faith. Nevertheless, I believe it is important to point out that inspiration and infallibility are mere academic affirmations if they are not accompanied by preservation. Proving that grandma possessed a working shotgun will do nothing to deter a charging bear if that gun is not in your possession. I have found that many who believe that the bible is inspired and inerrant could not put their hands on a preserved version of that bible if their life depended on it. Given the ever-present threat of bears, I recommend they hang their food in the trees.
- Elder Daniel Samons