Brand New KJV-Only Arguments (Part 1 of 3)

...of the release of the 1611.

For my part, while I applaud Ward's scholarship and listing of things like "false friends" (and can recite a small portion of it), my overall take is that the great portion of KJVO activists are simply not going to hear it.

Rather, my take is that when someone tells me they're thinking of attending or joining a KJVO church, I urge them to reconsider because of what KJVO churches tend to be. They tend to divide from other believers on the basis of preference for one (good) Bible translation over other (good) Bible translations, they often follow "Trail of Blood" theology and separate un-Biblically based on their churches' supposed pedigrees ("ecclesiastical succession", to borrow the Catholic doctrine), and they tend to have long lists of rules that are not really Biblical, but they will separate from other believers on that basis.

I don’t normally prefer things that are video only, as I would rather read, but having a perpetual interest in this subject (I’m a KJV-preferred person who came out of a church that went from what we think of as normal beliefs about Bible versions to KJVO during the years I was in that church), I will take the time to watch this. Mark’s arguments are usually interesting, and I agree with most of them, but remain KJV-preferred anyway, largely based on textual arguments that Mark usually doesn’t deal with, as he focuses on the practical aspects of using an old translation. I’m familiar with some of the men associated with Thomas Ross, and the arguments from that group are usually textual, but it could be interesting to hear that side try to deal with the practical issues instead.

Regarding Bert’s 2nd paragraph, you wouldn’t think that KJVO beliefs would have to go together with local-church-only/trail of blood-type views and an overemphasis on extra-biblical standards, but he’s right that somehow all three of those tend to end up together. Based on my anecdotal experience in one of that type of church, those within it might listen to Mark’s logical presentations, but as Bert said, most of them will likely not really hear it for various reasons.

Dave raises a good question about why it is that KJVO correlates well with TOB and "rules not really established in Scripture", and my explanation is that when one accepts one doctrine as a "key doctrine" despite not really being suggested in Scripture, one is going to be far more likely to accept other doctrines as key without Scriptural support. You cast aside the mooring line of "does Scripture actually say this?", and then you get to wonder why you're drifting away from the dock.

And to be fair, I love the KJV and old translations in general, and I think that reading a different translation than one's current favorite is important because the change in wording can help a person find out what is real, and what is one's own microculture. It also helps one learn a little bit about the culture that birthed that translation.

But "only" KJV? No, for exactly the same reasons.