The misdirection of King James Onlyism.

In the flier (to the left) we have a conference by a KJV Onlyist which seeks to show how the KJV is the "inspired" and "most correct"  bible version; or translation. Whether this particular gentlemen personally put together what we are told in this leaflet or someone else did it for him; it comes down to one common point: because it has his name attached to it; it therefore is him who must take the criticism that it garners. But here I simple want to point out the error contained within its message. 

(1) an inadequate understanding of textual criticism. We are told that "the field of textual criticism has raged war against the text of scripture..."   In this statement we are introduced to large amount of naivety being employed. Because this is exactly what T.C does not do. Instead the main objective is to know what the Originals actually said and this is based on the incredible amount of copies of manuscripts that we have at our disposal which allows for the men and women to determine the true reading. It is not about certainty  but truthfulness. But we are missing the vital point even the original KJV had a lot of textual notes in discussing whether certain things were in the originals.

(2)  A misleading deduction. Let us take note of what we are told in these words: "powerful arguments in defence of the reformation text have been largely ignored...."   Right now the point in raising this is not to go after the arguments as such; for that has been done by others. However, the problematic issue is this one:  reformation text.  We need to be clear in this:  Is it the received text or is it referring to the KJV? Well, it is true that the latter was used by certain men of the reformation as a default text But even they would not go for the KJVO arguments.  However, the reformers from 1517-1611 would have not have used because it did not exist for nearly 100 years. Is it the Erasmus text?  While this may have had some input; it still is not helping the KJVO arguments.  

(3)A place for poisoning the well. There is nothing that is more detrimental to ones claims of being Christ than having a bad; ill willed attitude. If there is one thing that can discerned it is the fact that "Christians" using language of the ungodly and terms which do not hold any merit when applied to men and women of faith who are textual critics. For example, this flier uses the following terms  "advertising wizards"  "liberal theologians"  "mongrel hash-ups"  " to either define these men and women or out deny a crucial work which as we know the KJV  translators would be included in because of the preface and textual notes in the original KJV translation. In a major sense, this movement is a-historical and imbalanced. And the end result of this is simply false when it says:  "who held the authority and inspiration in contempt." 

(4) A case of question beginning.  Now we come to the stated point concerning the debate between  James White and Jeff Riddle. In this leaflet/ flier clearly presents the KJVO by claiming:  "most weightiest and most convincing arguments clearly vindicated the traditional text."  Let me just make it clear: both sides could of had good and bad points on this subject like any other. The real question are the responsible one willing to concede this point or is this showing a clear bias on the losing side. We must hold the view that the evidence and arguments are more important than the men who are making them. Can I just ask a question: Is it truth that you are seeking or are have given up the pursuit? 

(5)  An unsubstantiated claim.  Take note of the oft repeated claim:  "the tragedy of passages being altered or omitted at the whim of textual critics."  Now I need to very straight on this matter; and even more careful so that my point is not misunderstood at all.  It is not my argument to say that the textual critique is wrong or right; nor is it that the KJV Onlyist wrong or right. But this argumentation is no one that any christian should make to accuse New Translation of hiding things or corrupting thing without any real basis is slanderous. As I have already note the KJV Translators were at hear textual critics; so to was Erasmus who provided the KJVT's the back bone of their matrial. Even he did not have full confidence in 1 John 5:7.  But more telling is that KJVT's only had half of the book of revelation in Greek; so they had to rely on the the Latin Vulgate. 

So my conclusion is simple: there is no perfect translation as they all hold their own problems; but all translation capture the original to the best of the Translators ability; and there they can claim a very near identity to the original. And that goes for the KJV translation.