The Nice Guy KJV Onlyists: Error Taught Politely is Still Error
KJV ONLYISTS AND PROVIDENTIAL PRESERVATIONISTS WHO REJECT KJV ONLYISM PARTIALLY
I have the same wonder and misgivings about the very small percentage of King James Onlyists (e.g. David Cloud) who recognize the silliness and deceit of the extremist KJV Onlyists (e.g., Peter Ruckman and Gail Riplinger) but who still remain KJV Only, as I do about those who are "NKJV Only".
I am dumbfounded and amazed that these particular KJV Onlyists (or those who are KJV Only but prefer to be thought of as "Providential Preservationists") still allow themselves to be sucked in, awestruck, hoodwinked, or scared by the ludicrous conspiracy mindset and some of the same illogical, baseless arguments as the KJV Only majority.
I am also incredulous that
1) they continue to take a personal preference and a personal conviction of the supposed superiority of the TR, MT, or KJV, and then take this to mean (or to prove) that all other texts and versions are wicked or so grossly inferior as to be useless;
2) that they particpate in modern version bashing, even though some do so in a subtle, less rude manner; and that
2b) That they do so by repeating much of the same unsubstantiated gossip or outright lies that the other KJV Onlyists use in mainstream KJV Only propaganda.
It apparently doesn't occur to these KJV Onlyists that they are "casting doubt" upon God's word, which is one of the very things they claim that present- day scholars, versions and texts do.
I am made to think by this group that there is something not quite right with my NIV or NASB; there is something a bit fishy with these versions; I should doubt these versions; I should doubt God's word.
This subset of KJV Onlyists (this includes the ones who tout the providential preservation view) are not above misrepresenting the true circumstances surrounding modern versions.
I will give some of them a benefit of the doubt and assume that they are fine Christians who are honestly convinced in their own minds that most newer Bible versions are untrustworthy.
This, however, still does not excuse them from publishing anti- modern version material, which is nothing more than anti- Bible, anti- God's word material, at their sites and in their books. As much as they want to believe they are 'warning' or 'helping' other Christians by publishing such writings, they are, in reality, casting aspersions on the Holy Scriptures.
While their essays and research papers are appreciated for their meekness and politeness, they are not excused from distributing falsehood on the basis of writing "friendlier," less abrasive, KJV Only literature (as opposed to that of the extremist, crack pot, KJV Onlyist literature).
Some of the KJV Onlyists who reject the trash- talking, in- your- face- KJV- Onlyism use a different tact which may not be as repugnant at first glance but is equally damaging in its own smarmy, used- car- salesman sort of way.
They sensationalize, a la tabloid magazine style, that 'this or that' alleged liberal is responsible for corrupting 'this or that' modern version. The "New World Order" is sneaking counterfeit Bibles into the bookstores. We're living in the Last Days, so everything new and current (or after 1880 or 1900 AD) is suspicious. And the NIV is paving the way for the Anti- Christ, they teach.
So one gets much of the same inaccurate teachings and pseudo "gnosticism- and -the- sky- is- falling" mentality from them but without the aggressive finger- wagging and name calling of the rabid KJV Onlyists.
There is a difference between legitimate discernment and this sort of 'National Enquirer' kind of teaching. One wishes that the nice KJV Onlyists would come to see this and practice it.
I do not deny that there have been versions in the past which did show a liberal bias due to the theological leanings of the translators; yes, it can, and did, happen.
I also do not deny that from time to time, a cult (e.g., Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons) may intentionally remove or downplay central Christian truths from their editions of the Scriptures, truths such as the deity of Christ or the existence of the Trinity.
But such is not the case for many of the current versions that the sober, calmer, more rational KJV Onlyists run down just as much as their lunatic KJV Only brethern do.
These are supposed to be truth-seeking, spiritually mature men and women in Christ, but we find them publishing the same shoddy, sensationalized, slanted, or inaccurate anti- NIV (or whatever other, anti- contemporary version) rhetoric as the extremist KJV Only fringe.
To give an example:
I recently read through parts of an anti- contemporary critical text article by David Cloud, (which is entitled "The Editors of the UBS Greek New Testament") which contained some points that could rightfully be cateorgized under several different logical fallacy headings, including poisoning the well, guilt by association, or the genetic fallacy.
I read several paragraphs by Mr. Cloud in this particular piece that detailed scholar and author Bruce Metzger's liberal views. Assuming that Cloud was not misquoting Metzger in his paper, I would have to say that I too do not agree with some of Metzger's views on the Scripture as stated at Cloud's site. However.
It does not follow that because Metzger has liberal leanings that he is less than honest in any translational work or biblical textual studes he undertakes and publishes.
I am sure that Mr. Cloud would probably not agree with all the views-- theological or otherwise -- held by the scribes who worked on the Byzantine manuscripts; those who worked on the Received Texts; or the scholars behind the KJV itself.
It is also sad to note that Mr. Cloud focuses on personalities (Metzger, Martini, Nida, etc.) rather than the issue at hand.
If Cloud has a problem with the Critical Texts he wishes to discuss, all well and good; picking on the theological beliefs of those behind the texts, though, is a red herring, and one could consider it a form of ad hominem. We all know that those behind the KJV as well as one of its texts (the Received Text) did not have views which lined up with present- day Baptist theology.
Some of the 'nice guys' in the KJV Only movement intentionally continue to make honest, conservative lower textual criticism (whether practiced by a liberal or a conservative scholar) out to be an underhanded, secretive, demonic endeavor to omit verses or doctrines from Bible versions.
Maybe such a thing exists, but I have not noticed, nor do I personally recall, any such 'nice guy' KJV Onlyists mention to their fellow KJV Only readers in these same articles that
1) the scholars of the KJV also used much of the same sort of textual criticism on the KJV as was used in present day versions; and
2) that the KJV scholars admitted in the preface of the 1611 KJV edition that they themselves did not believe the KJV to be perfect in the sense that KJV Onlyists believe.
I do not see that withholding that sort information (which is a sin of omission) from their pro- KJV Only readers is any less distasteful and dishonest as printing out- and- out lies about modern and contemporary versions (a sin of commission) as the lunatic KJV Only fringe frequently does.
Of course, some do, to an extent, acknowledge those sorts of details, but they try to play semantics, split hairs, and create imaginary, arbitrary lines in the sand to weasel their way out of it: they will say, for example, that it's okay that the KJV scholars added words to the text since most of those additions were italicized (never mind that God states in his written word that additions are just as bad as deletions).
I would expect more from the kinder, gentler KJV Onlyists, including a higher level of intellectual honesty, but they continue to disappoint.
