A big, important, and essential difference exists between knowing truth or facts that can be proven and supposing something to be true that has not been proven. Only supposing something to be true provides no proof or evidence. Supposing does not make what is claimed a fact. God’s Word clearly teaches that supposing is not the same as knowing: (“they supposed that they should have received more”–Matt. 20:10; “supposing that gain is godliness”–1 Tim. 6:5; “supposing that they had obtained their purpose”–Acts 27:13; “supposing him to be the gardener”–Matt. 20:15).
Even Peter Ruckman admitted: “To say or to affirm something is entirely different from proving it” (Bible Babel, p. 60). If only he applied this statement he knows to himself. Do KJV-only advocates have the wisdom and discernment to distinguish between what they really know and what they only suppose or assume? Is it possible to know truths and then harm them by supposing other claims inconsistent with or contrary to those truths?
KJV-only advocates know God revealed His Word to the apostles and prophets by the Holy Spirit (Eph. 3:5, 2 Pet. 1:20-21, Heb. 1:1-2, Luke 1:70). They know God’s revelation to man was complete once the Book of Revelation was given (Rev. 22:18). They should know any claim of additional or advanced revelation after the giving of the Book of Revelation to the Apostle John is unscriptural. Do they suppose or conjecture that this complete and perfect revelation was lost so that additional revelation was needed in 1611 or so that a regiving or restoring was needed? Do they imagine the KJV translators were inspired apostles and prophets when they were not? Do they suppose that they should receive more than English-speaking believers had before 1611?
Advocates of a KJV-only view know God kept and keeps His promises concerning His Word. Scriptures concerning inspiration and preservation cannot mean one thing before 1611 and then supposedly have a different meaning in 1611 and afterwards. Do they surmise that He can only keep His promises in the ways they suppose? Do they suppose He only kept His promises in 1611 or 1769 but that He failed to preserve the Scriptures in the original languages faithfully both before and after 1611? The Scriptures concerning inspiration and preservation do not assert that they are to be inferred to relate exclusively to one particular translation in one language.
KJV-only advocates know that through the miracle of inspiration God’s Word was perfectly given and recorded. They should also know inspiration by the Holy Spirit is not the same thing as illumination or guiding by the Spirit. They know the illuminating or guiding of the Spirit does not make believers infallible and perfect in their understanding and interpreting of God’s preserved Word. Why do they suppose that the guiding of the Spirit was different in 1611 than it was in 1526, 1535, 1537, 1539, 1557, 1560, 1568, 1755, 1833, 1842, 1866, 1982, etc.? Do they assume or suppose the guiding of the Spirit is superior to the inspiration of the Spirit in the giving of the Scriptures in the original languages? Do they imagine the guiding of the Spirit was different for the KJV translators than it was for Martin Luther, William Tyndale, Miles Coverdale, John Rogers, Geneva Bible translators, John Wesley, Noah Webster, Baptists in 1842 and 1866, the NKJV translators, etc.?
The truth that a tree with all its branches is known by its fruit they know and accept(Matt. 12:33, Matt. 7:17-18, Luke 6:43-44). They know or should know that if the tree or root is holy all the branches are also holy (Rom. 11:16). The holiness and other qualities of one branch is of no other nature than of all the other natural branches of the same tree. The branch must abide in the tree or vine (John 15:5). The branch does not bear, produce, or support the trunk or roots of the tree (Rom. 11:18).
Using the KJV-only view’s illustration of a good tree of Bibles, Scriptural principles applied to it would indicate that whatever is affirmed of one branch (translation) must be affirmed concerning all the branches of that same tree. If one branch on their tree has to be perfect, then all the branches have to be perfect. If it is affirmed that one translation on this tree is self-attesting, self-authenticating, and self-interpreting, it must be affirmed of all. Do they suppose they can in effect cut one branch (the KJV) off their own tree and make it superior to and independent of its underlying texts? Do they imagine they can cut it off from its roots and separate it as uniquely different from all the other branches without it withering (John 15:6, Matt. 13:6, Mark 4:6)?
Informed advocates of a KJV-only view should know Erasmus and the KJV translators practiced textual criticism since they didn’t faithfully follow any one Hebrew and any one Greek manuscript 100% nor any one printed original language text available to them. Do they suppose Erasmus was infallible when he added words from the Latin Vulgate to his critical printed edition of the Greek text? Do they imagine that somehow the KJV translators were perfect textual critics and perfect interpreters?
KJV-only advocates should know double standards and situational ethics are wrong. They know that the theological views of translators can affect a translation. Yet they seem to suppose the Church of England translators of the KJV had to be completely unbiased, sinlessly perfect, spiritually infallible scholars whose theological views and interpretations must be trusted 100% regardless of the actual facts.
Do they suppose they are justified in not applying the same standards of doctrinal purity to Erasmus and the KJV translators that they apply to others? Do they imagine what the KJV translators thought and believed is unimportant? Do they assume the view of Bible translation held by the KJV translators is unimportant or wrong? Do they suppose the situation in 1611 was somehow different from any other period when God’s Word was translated?
KJV-only advocates know the various early English Bibles and the various translations in other languages were still the Word of God without them being perfect translations. They know God used and blessed these imperfect translations such as Wycliffe’s, Luther’s German, Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s, Matthew’s, Geneva, etc. They know these translations differed from each other and from the KJV. They should know there were revisions, changes, corrections, updatings, and differences in number and meanings of words in these Bibles.
Why do they now suppose that after 1611 or 1769 a translation cannot be considered the Word of God if it is not perfect? Why do they imagine or pretend that God’s blessings on the KJV has to mean that it is perfect if God’s blessings on Luther’s German Bible or on the Geneva Bible does not mean that they were perfect? Why do they assume it was all right for the KJV translators to attempt to improve, update, and revise the earlier Bibles but it is wrong for other believers to attempt to do the same thing?
Advocates of the KJV-only theory know or should know that the claims and arguments used for the Latin Vulgate-only view by Roman Catholics were wrong and unscriptural. They should know the early English translators including the KJV translators opposed and refuted the one-perfect-translation-only view of the Roman Catholics. Why do they now suppose that when they use similar claims and arguments to those of the Latin Vulgate-only view that these invalid and unproven claims become true?
KJV-only advocates know that no lie is of the truth (1 John 2:21). Do they imagine love for the KJV justifies their making false claims and accusations about other translations? Do they suppose they are right in using fallacies to defend their unproven KJV-only opinions? When the inconsistent, misleading, or false claims of KJV-only advocates are pointed out, why do they refuse to correct them? Are the truths they know less important to them than the unproven claims they only suppose?
These are just a few of the inconsistencies and contradictions between what KJV-only advocates seem to know and what they seem to suppose. KJV-only advocates have failed to fulfill their responsibility to prove what they only suppose, surmise, or affirm. The speculations, assumptions, and suppositions of KJV-only advocates should not be accepted until they provide consistent, positive proof and evidence that their suppositions and opinions are actually true. KJV-only advocates are wrong to condemn and attack the many Bible believers who do not accept what KJV-only advocates only suppose to be true but have not actually proven or demonstrated to be taught in the Scriptures. They may read their KJV-only suppositions into verses, but they have not demonstrated that those verses actually state and teach what they suppose. The suppositions, assumptions, speculations, surmisings, and inferences of KJV-only advocates are not Scripture, and they do not make their view scriptural and authoritative. The man-made KJV-only view is not stated or taught in the Scriptures, and it is thus extra-biblical.
We pray God will give them the wisdom to distinguish between what they really know and what they only suppose. We encourage them to provide consistent, positive proof and evidence for what they have only supposed to be true but have not demonstrated to be taught in the Scriptures.