lpetrich

Some Fundies claim that the King James Version is the only divinely-inspired English translation of the Bible.

Creationist Kent Hovind had advocated that view in his recent Infidelguy-hosted debate with Massimo Pigliucci, though the closest thing to a reason that he had given was that other translations had used certain "Alexandria manuscripts", which were supposedly flawed.

Have any other KJV-only advocates ever done any better?

Bruce Wildish

Nope. It's a ludicrous argument that only the most ill-informed or fanatical of fundamentalists would use (and they don't come much more ill-informed than Hovind). The reasoning behind their position (if we can dignify it with word reasoning) is something like this: the Holy Spirit promised (in the NT) to guide and instruct the church throughout its existence; the Bible is God's word and an essential component of the church's missionary efforts; the KJV is derived from an ancient manuscript called the Masoertic Text which was the basis of the only Bible the church had for the first 1000 or so years of its existence; all other translations are based on manuscript discoveries that were not made until the 1800s and later, hence they would contain information not available to the church throughout most of its history; therefore they are invalid because if they are essential to having a fully reliable text of the Bible then the Holy Spirit failed in its promise to the early church (by allowing them to work with a defective text).

But the facts speak for themselves: the oldest, complete copies of the the MT we have, which is the basis of the KJV, date to about 1000 CE, which means they are removed from the origins by many centuries. Most other translations make careful use of several other substantial texts that date to the fourth and fif the centuries CE, and thus provide us with a look at texts that are not only much closer in time to the originals, but represent indepdeent lines of textual tradition, thus allowing us to compare the traditions and derive a reliable picture of what the original texts looked like. Such comparrisons have proven that the KJV contains many significant translation errors.

TheDiddleyMan

Kent Hoving is not the "staunchest" advocate of KJV onlyism. They can get much worse.
If you want to pick up a good book on the subject ( by a Christian) than pick up James White's "The King James Only Controversy" There are varieties of "KJV-Onlyism" ranging from the people who believe that the KJV is the best translation, but not inspired (also admitting that a better translation is possible) to those who say it is inspired, and that all other versions are satanic (I've also heard that there are worse versions out there, but I don't know enough of the details.) BTW, James White has articles on the subject at his website. The book, is of course, the best source of information (and its not a "preachy" book but scholarly) Look here:


<a href="http://aomin.org/kjvo.html" target="_blank">White's articles</a>

CX

KJV-Only advocates are cracked. The KJV New Testament is based largely in Erasmus' Greek New Testament which is, in turn, based on a handful of very late Byzantine Manuscripts. For certain parts which Erasmus' did not have MSS he translated from Latin manuscripts back into Greek. Modern translations are mostly based on NA27 or UBS4 (which are essentially the same text with different critical apparatuses). NA27/UBS4 is based on early Alexandrian MSS. Biblical scholars generally consider the Alexandrian text type closer to the original text. KJV Only advocates usually "count MSS rather than weighing them". Thus because there are zillions of Byzantine manuscripts (90% of all MSS are from this family) they give these more creedence even though the Alexandrian MSS are much earlier and don't show as much evidence of obvious "smoothing" and redaction. It is an illogical argument and not worth pursuing.

Txiasaeia

I've been doing a bit of research on the pro-KJB argument, and this is what I've discovered:

1. Pro-KJBers believe that if a Bible is translated using Alexandrian manuscripts, then it is somehow corrupted.

2. KJBers know that their Bible was translated with only ten or so manuscripts, none newer than 900 CE, but these manuscripts were copies of copies of copies of the original texts, and can be traced back to sometime in the 100's CE. Apparently, after 800 years of copying, there are no scribal errors (the claim is 95-99% accuracy).

3. If a Bible is translated by aid or assistance by the Vatican (or by those in the Eastern Orthodox division), then it is corrupted.

4. If a translation removes certain words that are not found in important manuscripts, then it is a corrupt version.

5. If, somehow, the publishers of a Bible translation stand to make a lot of money from the printing, or if the publishers also make another Bible translation, then the publishers are bad and should not be trusted. (Believe it or not, this is an argument that I've seen again and again!)

Out of the above, argument #1 seems to be the most prevalent, and most important.

I'm still not sure what all the fuss is about, and I'm not exactly sure how to answer somebody when they say that the KJB version is the only true version of the Bible because all the rest are based on the Alexandrian documents. Can somebody help me out here? Thanks!

Can anybody refute these claims?

ShottleBop

<a href="http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/alex%5F001.asp" target="_blank">http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/alex%5F001.asp</A>

<a href="http://www.chick.com" target="_blank">www.chick.com</a> . . . if you really want to understand how fundamentalists think.

Txiasaeia

Lol.. actually, my questions are mostly taken from Chick's site... I was looking for somebody who really knows the difference between the manuscripts

wordsmyth

Here is a good page on KJV-onlyists and some of the problems with the KJV itself...<a href="http://www.bibletranslation.ws/kjv.html" target="_blank">bibletranslation</a>

Here is another good site about the KJV and the Textus Receptus upon which it is mostly based...<a href="http://www.bibletexts.com/kjv-tr.htm" target="_blank">bibletexts</a>

There are actually quite a few good sites out there that refute the veracity of the KJV as the only inspired (modern?) bible.

CX

Ask them to provide a valid basis for rejecting the Alexandrian texts in spite of the fact that a)They are much closer to autographs chronologically, b)they show much less evidence of smoothing and other redactional elements, c)they retain difficult readings

A claim with out evidence is meaningless. I could just as easily claim that the Alexandrian manuscripts show 100% agreement. This is a non-argument.

Another assertion with no foundation. Require those making such claims to provide conclusive proof that Catholic translations contain corruptions while others do not.

Require examples and an outline of the criteria for determining which MSS are "important".

Extremely dogmatic people are tied to the translation they are familiar with because it fits their doctrinal position. This is not a rational argument for which text is the closest to the original. It is futile to argue with such a position so my recommended response would be, "whatever."

The point is there is nothing to refute since these claims amount to no more than unjustified assertions. If you want to play the game the only appropriate response is "nuh uh." Or you could try asking the claim to support his assertions with reasoned argument, but I doubt he will oblige you or even understand your point.

CX

Simple. The KJV New Testament is based on the Byzantine family of manuscripts. It is derived largely from the Greek NT of Erasmus which was compiled from a handful of late (10th century or later) MSS. Erasmus was in a hurry to get his edition out before competitors so he did not look for or compare variants and in places where he had no Greek MSS attestation he translated from Latin back into Greek (thus incorporating at least 2 degrees of seperations from the original). The Byzantine family is characterized by significant "smoothing" (i.e. difficult or apparently contradictory readings are harmonized and mistakes are redacted out of existence) one simple example of this is readings from one gospel showing up in another. For an example of the redaction present compare Mark 1:2 in the Byzantine MSS to the same passage in the Alexandrian (in English compare KJV to NASB for this passage).

Conversely most modern translations are based on the NA27/UBS4 critical text. This GNT is derived from the earliest MSS available and provides a critical apparatus with known significant variants allowing translation commitees to compare differing possible readings and pick the most likely one.