A recent article by my friend Nathan Deatrick seems to be making a comeback for the plowboys — those who desire the Bible in their own common tongue. A different writer who I do not know published his own comments on Nathan's article as well. These men are well known within the Independent Baptist world. I am decidedly not. However, I do believe the subject once again needs more daylight, and those who support the case these men are making, in my opinion, should show their support.

I applaud both of them for the spirit of charity they demonstrated in their writing. This is a much-needed thing. The typical ad hominem attacks, straw men, and mud-slinging are the last refuge of people who have lost the argument. These writers demonstrated in both their assertions and in their attitudes that there is substance to their premises.

"... there are many wonderful passages in the Bible which speak to the supernatural nature and characteristics of Scripture in every generation, but to appeal to those passages as authority for making an exclusive claim of translational absolutism for the KJVO position is untenable." source

The "So You're Saying" Fallacy Rears Its Head

A Ruckmanite response to an article like the ones cited above might be that updates to the KJV English directly attack the preservation of Scripture. Yet, for my part, the circles of the Baptist world from whence I came claimed to be simply TR (Textus Receptus) only and KJV preferred, at least in concept. This often is said to distance oneself from Ruckmanites — those who believe the KJV English translation is inspired. Ruckmanism is simply untenable and not worth responding to here. I intend to deal more with the TRO position here (Textus-Receptus-Only, hereafter “TRO”) and how it is, in practice, a Ruckmanism lite.

The TRO position sometimes includes the additional designation "KJV preferred". Sometimes it's called being "Only King James" rather than "King James Only". Some say, "I'm King James Only but not King James Ugly".

However you say it, the position attempts to split the difference between a modern Bible version and Ruckmanism. What I intend to demonstrate is that being TRO-and-KJV-preferred is often little different practically than being Ruckmanite, depending on a few factors. And it stems from a flaw, or at the very least a misunderstanding in their stream of logic.

I have a couple friends who favorably shared Nathan's article on their social media accounts and suddenly the TRO-KJV-preferred commenters attacked. Why would they do this? Nathan's article does not attack the TR. It simply called for freedom to use TR translations in more modern English. Basically, in belief the attackers would not assert that the KJV is inspired and is thus untouchable. They deny Ruckmanism. But in practice and in how they responded they were for all intents and purposes Ruckmanites, with perhaps a slightly less mean spirit.

The responses I've seen to Nathan's article could be boiled down to "So you're saying you don't believe God's Word is preserved!" Or "So you're saying God's Word is insufficient." "So, you're saying we can't have certainty." I'm paraphrasing their arguments, but they all appear to contain some element of the "So you're saying..." line of attack.

You may recognize their responses as simple straw man arguments. However, the responses are subtly couched in what looks like an effort to understand — "So you're saying...". Rather, this fallacious retort is typically just an accusation that since you've taken a different position from them, you've taken the most extreme position away from them. Updating the English of the KJV cannot be sufficiently argued against. But if such a practice can be connected back to preservation, it can. And this connection is made using a stream of logic with a subtle mistake in it.

The TRO-and-KJV-Preferred logic is often as follows: the autographs were inspired (Inspiration). Then specific preserved manuscripts carry the weight of inspiration (Preservation). Finally, accurate translation reflects the properly preserved text (Translation). Notice that each premise connects to the next. Using this stream of logic, it often follows (in their mind) that a call for updates to the English (translation) is effectively an indirect threat to the doctrine of textual preservation because if someone reads an inaccurate translation they won't get the sense of the preserved text, especially if they don't refer to the original languages. 

They will of course agree that only the original autographs were inspired. But then the Bible passages they use to allege a doctrine of preservation of the text are flowed forward in the stream of logic and thus color the debate about translation as well. I’m not saying they cite these verses as arguments against English updates (though some do). The more astute among them don’t cite what they see as preservation passages to argue against translation updates. 

But despite not citing those passages, the stream of logic connects the two issues for them. Basically, as they seem to see it, accurate translation preserves not just the meaning, but accurate translation should in theory preserve the preserved text itself. Theoretically then, they should not need the original languages at all. There would be no point in referencing them. Their continued use of Greek and Hebrew, though they would deny this, undermines their assertion that the KJV is "a faithful translation of the Greek and Hebrew and God’s people and the world can trust it to be the preserved Word of God". 

So in theory they would say they are simply TRO and KJV preferred, or something like that. But the stream of logic prevents their conscience from accepting a modern English TR-based translation or encouraging its use. When pressed on this they often attempt to make preservation (of the text) and the translation issue two separate debates. And they are somewhat different. But the TRO stream of logic keeps connecting the two issues. And it thus binds them to the specific English words of the KJV. 

They are holding a view that would theoretically allow for updated English, but simultaneously prevents them from doing so. They assert completeness and faithfulness of the English as an accurate representation of the preserved text, but simultaneously need to reference the original languages for more information — information they then convey using other English words than the KJV uses. 

This strange dissonance reminds me of a number of politicians in recent years that are registered with one party, but on every bill they vote like the other party. Typically the TRO are registered with the “party” that would permit modern English Bibles, but every time they vote, they vote Ruckmanite. 

This phenomenon creates a strange dissonance in them. They behave like Ruckmanites no matter how much they say they are not. They won't preach from an updated English version. They won't recommend them to people. The refrain is often that they would accept the updated TR-based translations, but there are translator errors in them. Yet they don't hold the KJV to that same standard. There are passages in the KJV (see footnote) that by their own standards should cause them to question the KJV in similar fashion to how they question the NKJV or MEV for example. Pointing out those passages is not an attack on God's word. It is addressing a double-standard. Someone who is simply TRO should be willing to acknowledge this. But what we often see instead is inconsistent rhetoric in which they claim inerrancy in English translation. Cloud, has written extensively against Ruckmanism, yet he writes:

"One unique feature of this volume [one of his books] is that it contains no criticism of the King James Bible. We don’t believe that it [the KJV] has any errors and we do not believe that any correction of it is necessary to solve the alleged contradictions and other difficulties." [emphasis mine] source

Locating the Flaw in the Stream of Logic

The stream of logic explains their use of the "So you're saying..." straw man fallacy. They see a call for updated English as an attack on God's Word itself, or at the very least a weakening of it because a flawed stream of logic binds their view of translation to their doctrine of preservation.

We all agree that inspiration took place. We all agree that preservation happened (in some way) and is happening. It's the leap from preservation to translation where the logic error is hiding. Let's locate it further.

You can read the rest of Thomas’ article on his personal blog using the link below: