The English KJV 1611 Only Position is a Plea for Their Own Exclusive Authority

The One English KJV 1611 Only Position is Really a Plea for Their Own Exclusive Authority

Series Part One           Series Part Two       Series Part Three     Series Part Four 

As strange as it may sound.  After a thorough reading of One English Translation Only (KJV1611) literature and websites, it is clear that authority is a major concern of the advocates of this position.  For example, I went through one text supporting their position which only contained about ten chapters but it contained over 100 references to authority. Not just authority in general but where to find it.  They don't always agree but I think I can clearly extract several common threads.  Authority and where it is found is a key issue.  Let's be clear: even though many of their motives may be different, and no doubt are different, the product is the same.  But just to be clear, all my verse, chapter and book memorizing still comes from the KJV.  Not for academic reasons but for the churches we seem to attend.  Yes, we've had to deal with our children quoting other English versions for their kids clubs.  This is an issue, howbeit a local church issue.

First, they believe (whether correct or not is another issue) that God has promised to providentially preserve his word and they alone in history know where it is.  It just happens to be the primary Hebrew and Greek texts underlying their choice of a One primary English Translation (the KJV).  Now to be fair, many in fundamentalism (many of whom I know personally) are translating the Scriptures into modern (non-English spoken languages).  So its okay to translate the Greek and Hebrew into some tribal dialect just not into modern English?  I would suggest to my KJV only advocates that they should learn from this practice.  Just like the KJV translators tried to put the scriptures into the language of the people.  Not just another edition with archaic words defined in the margins.  They were driven to make good translations better and more readable.

Second, this claim of authoritatively knowing God's chosen means of preservation is also expanded upon through employing the systematic theology category of providence.  As they teach, God in his providence, only preserved his word in one particular Greek text (and not in any other text).  Stephanus? Beza? TR?  Just to be clear, according to their position, providence cannot (is not allowed to) extend to over 5000 available manuscripts in vast agreement (this is simply dismissed as history not providence).  Providence is only allowed (contrary to all history) to cover the texts underlying the one English only position.  Is there any text in scriptures that states God chose to use a Traditional text or Received Text?  No.  There is only a default defense of the Hebrew and Greek texts underlying their choice of a One primary English Translation position. This is not a straw man.  This is a simple default position.  They believe in only using one English translation.  Therefore, they will vehemently defend what underlies it and attack all other positions unceasingly (including personal and ecclesiastical separation, an issue which also needs to be addressed).   

Third, as just noted, any and all positions on other Greek and Hebrews texts (including the Septuagint "LXX") are a threat to their chosen position.  They alone believe they have this authoritative truth preserved in the manuscripts which coincidentally are the basis for a One primary English Translation position.  To disagree with their position is to disagree with how they understand God's claims of preserving his word.  This line of thinking only perpetuates itself if people in churches remain uneducated on the historic position on this issue.  This is only enforced by leadership who never address the issue or only encourage this view of the scriptures.  Then what is needed is information to free a bound conscience (this we will address in a future article).

Fourth, I believe another reason these individuals can never acknowledge the existence and authority of the Septuagint is the Apocrypha.  Not to mention the original one English translation they hold to originally contained the Apocrypha (which is inconsistent with their own 1611 position).  What does this mean?  They are so adamant against the inclusion of the Apocrypha (and rightly so).  The London Baptist Confession and Westminster Confession held to this position.  Nothing new here.  My concern is that in their desire to avoid this document they refuse to accept the historical reality of the Septuagint.  Take your pick, this is a simple throwing out the baby with the bath water or guilt by association (just don't extend it to the original KJV).

Finally, we should take care in placing all adherents of a one English Translation into the same box together.  This is just a reminder from their own literature.  They disagree among themselves as to the authority of an English translation.  They disagree among themselves concerning comparisons with Greek and Hebrew texts, or even with other English translations.  Don't forget there are even groups who would want to correct original manuscripts or call it sin to use any other version.  So lets not lump them all together.  Many fundamentalist colleges and seminaries still have the KJV as their official public position for ministry (preaching and teaching).

Questions to Ponder:
1) Did God chose the English language to providentially preserve his word?  The way the one English translation position is defended it is really hard to avoid this conclusion.  If not, how about the underlying original language text (question two)?

2) Did God chose to providentially preserve only the Hebrew and Greek texts underlying their one English translation only position?  If yes, I would extend the question: Are you then willing to create an English translation (today) from these texts?  If your answer is "no," then go back to previous question.  

Did you just default to an English KJV 1611 only position?
  
Really these questions drive at the heart of this issue.  They truly believe authority is only found in their one English translation.  This one source of authority is why they can never agree to the production of a modern translation (even from the Hebrew and Greek texts) which they alone believe God used to preserve his word.

Instead of a new translation.  They will produce dictionaries for the hundreds of archaic and outdated terms.  (I have one of these dictionaries).  They will produce English Bibles with all the outdated terms defined for the reader.  I think they may be trying to make a 400 year old English translation readable for modern Christians instead of a modern translation for modern Christians.  Again, we still need to address conscience related issues in  a future article.

Historical quotes on the translation issue,

"Allowing all due honour to the English translation of the Bible, it must be granted to be a human performance, and, as such, subject to imperfection.  Where any passage appears to be mistranslated, it is doubtless proper for those who are well acquainted with the original languages to point it out, and to offer, according to the best of their judgment, the true meaning of the Holy Spirit.  Criticisms of this kind, made with modesty and judgment, and not in consequence of a preconceived system, are worthy of encouragement." (Andrew Fuller, "Works," vol. III, p. 810; Borrowed from Trust Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC).

"I lay no claim to the inspiration of every word in the various versions and translations of God's Word.  So far as those translations and versions are faithfully and correctly done, so far they are of equal authority with the original Hebrew and Greek.  We have reason to thank God that many of the translations are, in the main, faithful and accurate." 
(J. C. Ryle, Old Paths, p. 20; Again borrowed from Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC).

Thoughts?  Comments as always encouraged.