James White's Definition of KJV Only

Jamin Hubner, a member of the AOMIN blogging team, is involved in a debate regarding the definition of KJV only. He notes:

Dr. White identifies at least 5 kinds of King-James Only advocates p. 23-28):


1. "I Like the KJV Best"
2. "The Textual Argument" - Group A (Majority Text advocates), Group B (TR Advocates) Group C (others)
3. "Received Text Only" - TR is inspired or is inerrant by providence of God.
4. Inspired KJV Group - KJV itself is inspired and inerrant (some would also affirm inspiration and inerrancy of TR, and thus also hold to group 3); KJV Alone = Word of God Alone
5. "The KJV as New Revelation" - God re-inspired the AV 1611 text rendering it in English language (thus, Hebrew and Greek texts should actually be changed to reflect KJV readings) (link)

However, as a counter-point, I should be noted that James White also says the following:

One group that would strongly reject the term KJV Only but believe that the Greek texts used by the KJV translators are superior to those used by modern translations would be the Majority Text advocates. (White. The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? Bethany House, 2009 P. 24)

King James Onlyism is to be distinguished from the scholarly defense of either the Majority Text or the Byzantine Priority Theory. (p73)

This is of interest to me because I like the arguments in favor of the Majority Text but I have never considered myself KJV Only.  It would seem wrong to call me KJV only, given I use other translations.  I just think a normal transmission of the text would naturally yield a majority text.  Why lump me in with people who think the KJV itself is inspired? 

I hope that Robinson/Pierpont's work will one day be expanded to include a broader range if not all Greek manuscripts.  This would provided a better foundation for translating than is available today.

Comments

The Seeking Disciple said…
I believe Robert Picirilli supports the majority text as well though he is not a KJV only advocate. Few people are.
March 31, 2011 at 10:07 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Yep, thinking the KJV is inspired is just strange. Didn't know that about Picirilli, but I like him even better now.

God be with you,
Dan
April 1, 2011 at 10:33 AM
Jim714 said…
There are lots of new books out about the King James Bible due to the 400th Anniversary this year. One of them is "Verily, Verily" by Jon M. Sweeney. Sweeney is a KJB admirer, but not an Onlyist. On page 113 he writes:

"The boto mline is this: the KJV is as reliable as any good mondern translation, and -- this is what KJV-only proponents fail to understand -- any good modern translation is as reliable as the KJV. Crucially, no translation, whether KJV or contemporary, has passed directly from God's mouth to our page; each is a 'received text,' and each faithfully teaches the story of Yahweh and the gospel of Jesus Christ."

I admire this summation. I prefer the KJV and read it daily. I also read and consul the NKJV, ESV, Douay-Rheims, NRSV, and NASB. I don't think this makes me a KJV Only. Like Sweeney, I do think the KJV is at least as good as the best contemporary translations and better than at least some of them.

Where is this debate going on? Is it online?

Thanks,

Jim
April 4, 2011 at 1:20 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Hey Jim,

Sounds like wise council from Sweeney.

Here's some links to the debate.

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=4553

http://www.jeffriddle.net/2011/03/rejoinder-to-jamin-hubner-part-5.html

You may have to drill down somewhat to get to the beginning.


God be with you,
Dan
April 4, 2011 at 4:44 PM
A.M. Mallett said…
I think it is hasty and ill advised to consider those who favor the majority text to be in any sense KJV only. I use both the KJV and NASB regularly preferring the former in some instances and the latter for others yet I believe the majority text is preferred.
April 9, 2011 at 8:45 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Yes, that's my impression too. There's a huge difference between saying the KJV is inspired and saying the MT is of higher quality than other texts. James White seems on the fence on this, leaving the door open to real problems with labling people KJV only when they are not.

God be with you,
Dan
April 11, 2011 at 12:49 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,
Read more

Hodge on Ephesians 1:17-19

Hodge argues for effectual calling based on Ephesians 1:17-19. He claims that the passage teaches the regeneration is monergistic , so it proves God's call is effectual. Here's the passage: Ephesians 1:17-19 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him, 18 the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, 19 and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power. Hodge has several problems. First, the passage teaches sanctification, not regeneration. It's dealing with living the Christian life and growing in grace, not conversion. Second, even if the passage were teaching that regeneration is monergistic , this wouldn't prove that God's call is effectual. I agree regeneration, strictly defi
Read more

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens
Read more