Last night I watched a LIVE debate between Nick Sayers, a King James Version proponent, and C.J. Cox who, as best as I can tell, is mostly a King James advocate but has reservations. You can find the debate here.
A large portion of the debate centered around an assertion made by Cox that there are minor errors in the Authorized Version which, in his mind, eliminates the KJV as the only legitimate English Version in his view. That said, Sayers handily dealt with each instance of minor error raised by Cox and the objections amounted largely to nothing.
The thing that struck me though was the fact that Cox’s objections are old and stale, and with one simple Google search anyone looking for a reasonable answer as to why the KJV rendering is a good rendering could easily find such a reason. This is not to pick on Cox. Such is the standard practice of the opposition. Still, I do see the point.
Because we hold such a strict stance on the verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture and preservation of the substantia doctrinae [i.e., meaning] in the receptor language i.e., English, we hold a kind of deductive position. If our opponents can show even one place in the KJV where the substanita doctrinae is not upheld, then the KJV is not inspired in substantia doctrinae as we claim it is.
But again, if our opponents wanted a reasonable answer all they would have to do is do a Google search and with a slight bit of effort would come upon said answer. Why they don’t Google their own gotcha questions makes the question, at a minimum, insincere, mercenary, and even contrived.
As a result, StandardSacredText.com has partnered with Will Kinney of Brand Plucked to make answers to these gotcha questions more accessible to both sides of the discussion. In the days to come we will be making some of his work available to our readership for two reasons:
1.) To show that gotcha questions like, “Why did the KJV translators translate pasca as Easter?” or “Why did the KJV translators translate the text ‘robbers of churches’ instead of “robbers of temples” in Acts 19:37?” have already been answered.
2.) To show that those answers are easily accessible.
Finally, let me say a word on what accounts as a reasonable answer. A reasonable answer is one that evinces sufficient explanatory force and scope. The more explanatory force and scope the more reasonable the answer. So when you read an answer you must ask, does it account for all or most of the relevant material [i.e., explanatory scope] and does it do so in a consistent and cohesive way [i.e., explanatory force].
Considering our opponents more often than not begin with different epistemological presuppositions than we here at StandardSacredText.com do, no doubt our opponents will demur with us on the points of force and scope, but if they take our presuppositions into account I think they will find our answers to possess considerable explanatory force and scope, and robustly so.
The question now is, whose epistemological presuppositions are most consistent with Scriptural exegesis and historic orthodox theology?