1. Whatever the translators say outside the text isn't inspired. Might as well say Paul saying he spoke by permission means he wasn't inspired.
2. Editions are under the seven purifications rule.
3. Refer to 1. But also so what? Septuagint being or not being scripture doesn't affect KJVO rightly understood.
4. Based on what standard? Do you have a Platonic dictionary God wrote that dropped down to heaven that says so? Greek NT arguably mistranslates the OT quotes it has.
5. If majority is the only qualification, sure. But even KJVOs misunderstand this, majority, while a huge part, isn't the only qualification for inclusion in scripture.
6. Why is a human standard and method the benchmark? It's not. The KJV being a Bible, simply because it has the possibility of being the word of God, has more chance of being a standard than a human method, which can never be the word of God. Again, unless you receive a heavenly dictionary from God, or a divine textbook on textual critical principles, you are relying on an ultimately sinful and fallible standard.
7. Not really sure how that has anything to do with KJVOs because there are those that do, and there are non-KJVOs that don't.
8. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. Even though it's still in the Bible, words aren't fungible.
9. See 8. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
10. Everything in the Bible is essential. If there is a word perfect Bible, then a perfect doctrinal system can theoretically be built, and it would reach to something like a mathematical system. Which shouldn't be surprising when numerology for the Hebrew, since Hebrew letters are also numbers. If there is a word perfect Bible, then throwaway words matter. Again, a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. But this time, in a reverse way, if the little words in the KJV (or lack thereof) DO matter, then it affects the whole.
11. Again, a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. I will agree that many KJVOs do overblow such accusations. But it's culmulative.
12. See 4 and 6.
13. And? Emotional argument means nothing.
Many KJVOs will disagree with me, but Jerome's Vulgate has marks of inspiration, it's the first book to fulfill the Isaiah 34 prophecies of the book of the LORD. First Bible with 66 books in it. First Bible with both Testaments and Revelation (whereas before, there was no physical copy of a Bible with both Testaments, the ones that came closest were the Codexes, which infamously didn't have Revelation, and thus didn't seal their canon). First Bible that was divided into lines (Latin for line is verse), as Isaiah 34 says the book of the LORD will be divided by.
14. For Textus Receptus Onlies, this is a problem. Not all KJVOs are Textus Receptus Only. The seven purifications principle means that Bible transmission is an evolution, meaning, editions are purified over time. The end is better than the beginning.
15. Wow, a human did a hurried job for a single thing. That means the entirety of whatever is false! Also the Bible, because its writers were human and fallible. No one ever said the people who did the KJV were always infallible, neither were the Bible writers always infallible, and they were fallible outside the text.
16. Who says Bible transmission is limited to Greek only? This is based on the false assumption that the NT was written originally in Greek, when the most ancient sources state the NT was a hodgepodge of languages like Pentecost was - Matthew and Hebrews in Hebrew, Mark and Romans was originally in Latin, John's works were originally Aramaic (The Catholic Encyclopedia refers to its historical traditions for these). Only Luke's works were originally Greek. And the aforementioned Jerome himself confirmed that there was a tradition during his time that the gospels were translated to Greek some time, after procuring the original Matthew copies which were Hebrew.
Anyways, going back, there's a prophecy in Acts where the Latin (Priscilla and Aquila) corrects the Greek (Apollos), and that's the reason why Latin corrections of Greek are Biblical.
17. See 14.
18. A lot of your own arguments border the line.
But, you see, the Bible promises that God will reveal His words to the holy men that turn because of His reproof. Since it is divine revelation, a secular man, nor secular translation method, will reveal it. So Biblically, scripture can only be transmitted by holy men. So yes, it's legitimate.
If secular human methods can successfully textually criticize scripture, then let's just put the textual critical principles in an AI, since those are far more objective anyways.
19. Everyone says this, but nothing actually significant that is new. KJV translators, while not having all the manuscripts, did have ALL significant READINGS available in later manuscripts. For example, the stuff in the Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus - that already existed in later manuscripts as readings, all the Codexes did was simply mark these specific readings as earlier.
20. God has many names. No issue with different names.
21. See 19.
Also, people vastly also underestimate what the KJV translators had, even compared to modern translators. KJV translators consulted manuscripts from TEN LANGUAGES, not merely Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, as stated in the same Preface people refer to try to disprove KJVO. Most modern translators will not refer to anything outside Hebrew or Greek, or even would just stick to Greek completely (Septuagint for Old Testament). A lot of the deviation is explained by those. This is also the error of the TROs in pushing Textus Receptus Only (and in general, Greek Onlies).
22. See last part of 16.
23. See 21. Again, this only applies if you are only doing Greek. Which again is an unfounded assumption.
24. Again, a problem for TROs in their assumptions, but again not a problem for KJVOs. The end is better than the beginning.
25. Not direct evidence, Paul stated that corruption of scripture was happening right when he was writing his letters, forging it.
Since the "oldest manuscripts" are at best 200 years after Christ, that's like one US Constitution away in terms of our historical periods. If tampering was present when Paul was here, then something 200 years later isn't necessarily pure. Plus, if the "oldest manuscript" is the true word of God, then that means we've had the wrong Bible for 1600 years. Which if one believes God preserved His word for all generations, is something He would not allow.
But evidence of tampering is on the manuscripts themselves. Lots of erasures and scribal mistakes in the manuscripts. Definitely a sloppy job compared to the meticulous Masoretic scribes.
Thank you for this fine article with so much helpful information.
1. Whatever the translators say outside the text isn't inspired. Might as well say Paul saying he spoke by permission means he wasn't inspired.
2. Editions are under the seven purifications rule.
3. Refer to 1. But also so what? Septuagint being or not being scripture doesn't affect KJVO rightly understood.
4. Based on what standard? Do you have a Platonic dictionary God wrote that dropped down to heaven that says so? Greek NT arguably mistranslates the OT quotes it has.
5. If majority is the only qualification, sure. But even KJVOs misunderstand this, majority, while a huge part, isn't the only qualification for inclusion in scripture.
6. Why is a human standard and method the benchmark? It's not. The KJV being a Bible, simply because it has the possibility of being the word of God, has more chance of being a standard than a human method, which can never be the word of God. Again, unless you receive a heavenly dictionary from God, or a divine textbook on textual critical principles, you are relying on an ultimately sinful and fallible standard.
7. Not really sure how that has anything to do with KJVOs because there are those that do, and there are non-KJVOs that don't.
8. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. Even though it's still in the Bible, words aren't fungible.
9. See 8. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
10. Everything in the Bible is essential. If there is a word perfect Bible, then a perfect doctrinal system can theoretically be built, and it would reach to something like a mathematical system. Which shouldn't be surprising when numerology for the Hebrew, since Hebrew letters are also numbers. If there is a word perfect Bible, then throwaway words matter. Again, a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. But this time, in a reverse way, if the little words in the KJV (or lack thereof) DO matter, then it affects the whole.
11. Again, a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. I will agree that many KJVOs do overblow such accusations. But it's culmulative.
12. See 4 and 6.
13. And? Emotional argument means nothing.
Many KJVOs will disagree with me, but Jerome's Vulgate has marks of inspiration, it's the first book to fulfill the Isaiah 34 prophecies of the book of the LORD. First Bible with 66 books in it. First Bible with both Testaments and Revelation (whereas before, there was no physical copy of a Bible with both Testaments, the ones that came closest were the Codexes, which infamously didn't have Revelation, and thus didn't seal their canon). First Bible that was divided into lines (Latin for line is verse), as Isaiah 34 says the book of the LORD will be divided by.
14. For Textus Receptus Onlies, this is a problem. Not all KJVOs are Textus Receptus Only. The seven purifications principle means that Bible transmission is an evolution, meaning, editions are purified over time. The end is better than the beginning.
15. Wow, a human did a hurried job for a single thing. That means the entirety of whatever is false! Also the Bible, because its writers were human and fallible. No one ever said the people who did the KJV were always infallible, neither were the Bible writers always infallible, and they were fallible outside the text.
16. Who says Bible transmission is limited to Greek only? This is based on the false assumption that the NT was written originally in Greek, when the most ancient sources state the NT was a hodgepodge of languages like Pentecost was - Matthew and Hebrews in Hebrew, Mark and Romans was originally in Latin, John's works were originally Aramaic (The Catholic Encyclopedia refers to its historical traditions for these). Only Luke's works were originally Greek. And the aforementioned Jerome himself confirmed that there was a tradition during his time that the gospels were translated to Greek some time, after procuring the original Matthew copies which were Hebrew.
Anyways, going back, there's a prophecy in Acts where the Latin (Priscilla and Aquila) corrects the Greek (Apollos), and that's the reason why Latin corrections of Greek are Biblical.
17. See 14.
18. A lot of your own arguments border the line.
But, you see, the Bible promises that God will reveal His words to the holy men that turn because of His reproof. Since it is divine revelation, a secular man, nor secular translation method, will reveal it. So Biblically, scripture can only be transmitted by holy men. So yes, it's legitimate.
If secular human methods can successfully textually criticize scripture, then let's just put the textual critical principles in an AI, since those are far more objective anyways.
19. Everyone says this, but nothing actually significant that is new. KJV translators, while not having all the manuscripts, did have ALL significant READINGS available in later manuscripts. For example, the stuff in the Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus - that already existed in later manuscripts as readings, all the Codexes did was simply mark these specific readings as earlier.
20. God has many names. No issue with different names.
21. See 19.
Also, people vastly also underestimate what the KJV translators had, even compared to modern translators. KJV translators consulted manuscripts from TEN LANGUAGES, not merely Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, as stated in the same Preface people refer to try to disprove KJVO. Most modern translators will not refer to anything outside Hebrew or Greek, or even would just stick to Greek completely (Septuagint for Old Testament). A lot of the deviation is explained by those. This is also the error of the TROs in pushing Textus Receptus Only (and in general, Greek Onlies).
22. See last part of 16.
23. See 21. Again, this only applies if you are only doing Greek. Which again is an unfounded assumption.
24. Again, a problem for TROs in their assumptions, but again not a problem for KJVOs. The end is better than the beginning.
25. Not direct evidence, Paul stated that corruption of scripture was happening right when he was writing his letters, forging it.
Since the "oldest manuscripts" are at best 200 years after Christ, that's like one US Constitution away in terms of our historical periods. If tampering was present when Paul was here, then something 200 years later isn't necessarily pure. Plus, if the "oldest manuscript" is the true word of God, then that means we've had the wrong Bible for 1600 years. Which if one believes God preserved His word for all generations, is something He would not allow.
But evidence of tampering is on the manuscripts themselves. Lots of erasures and scribal mistakes in the manuscripts. Definitely a sloppy job compared to the meticulous Masoretic scribes.
26. See 25.
27. See 24.
A lot of these are just repeated arguments.