James 1:8 A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways.
Is there anything wrong with typical KJV-only reasoning in light of what the Scriptures state and teach?
If typical KJV-only reasoning is double-minded, would the Scriptures suggest that there is something wrong with it?
Is being double-minded right or wrong according to the Scriptures?
Typical KJV-only reasoning could easily and soundly be considered double-minded in the following way. It is reasoning with one mind or mindset [one set of measures, standards, or principles] concerning one English translation [the KJV] while reasoning with a different mind or mindset [a different set of measures, standards, or principles] concerning other English translations. Being double-minded would be similar if not the same thing as using double standards or unjust measures. According to what the Scriptures teach, reasoning that uses inconsistent, unjust divers measures would be wrong.
Perhaps some KJV-only advocates may protest that they use the same standard when they assume the KJV as being the standard for itself and then use the KJV as the standard for other English Bibles. But actually that would not be using sound reasoning and just measures. Merely assuming the KJV to be the standard for itself would be wrong reasoning involving use of the fallacy of begging the question. It would also not be consistent, just reasoning in that KJV-only advocates will not consider the 1560 Geneva Bible to be the standard for itself or will not consider the NKJV to be the standard for itself. Thus, it would seem to be double-minded to attempt inconsistently to claim that the KJV is the standard for itself while refusing to make each other English translation the standard for itself. Using fallacies typical KJV-only reasoning makes unproven positive assertions for the KJV that are not made for other English Bible translations, which suggests double-mindedness.
The use of any unrighteous divers weights, unequal or false balances, inconsistent divers measures, unfair or untrue judgments, or double standards in evaluating, judging, trying, or comparing original language manuscript copies of Scripture [likewise printed original language texts and translations] would be wrong according to a consistent application of scriptural truths and principles (Prov. 16:11, 20:10, 11:1, 20:23, Deut. 25:13-15, Ezek. 45:10, Lev. 19:35-36, Amos 8:5, Ps. 82:2, Lev. 19:15, Luke 16:10, Matt. 7:2, John 7:24, Lev. 10:10, Ps. 58:1, Deut. 16:18-20, Ps. 19:7-9). The use of inconsistent, unjust measures could be connected to being double-minded (James 1:8). Like physical measurements, mental and spiritual judgments or measures also should be true and just or righteous (John 7:24, Lev. 19:35, Lev. 19:15, Ps. 119:30, Zech. 7:9, Prov. 12:17, 1 Thess. 5:21). Righteous judgments based on just measures and in line with the wisdom that is from above would be without partiality and without hypocrisy (James 3:17). The making of sound, righteous judgments would be a weighter matter (Matt. 23:23).
A failure to use consistent, “altogether just” measures, standards, criteria, or principles (Deut. 16:20, Prov. 16:11, Ezek. 45:10, Deut. 25:15, Ps. 19:9) in comparing or trying manuscript copies or translations of Scripture would condemn the inconsistent, unfair, uneven, and unjust judgments that would result. That the preserved copies of the Scriptures in the original languages as searched and discerned by just measures should be the proper standard, measure, and authority for trying or evaluating translations of the Scriptures would be a valid implication or deduction drawn from what several verses of Scripture state or indicate.
KJV-only advocates have not demonstrated and do not demonstrate that they make righteous judgments based on use of consistent, sound, just measures in their typical KJV-only reasoning concerning Bible translations. KJV-only reasoning has not been demonstrated to be stable, consistent, single-minded, sound, just reasoning according to scriptural truths or teachings.
Double-minded KJV-only reasoning would be contrary to sound Bible doctrine.
Is there anything wrong with typical KJV-only reasoning in light of what the Scriptures state and teach?
If typical KJV-only reasoning is double-minded, would the Scriptures suggest that there is something wrong with it?
Is being double-minded right or wrong according to the Scriptures?
Typical KJV-only reasoning could easily and soundly be considered double-minded in the following way. It is reasoning with one mind or mindset [one set of measures, standards, or principles] concerning one English translation [the KJV] while reasoning with a different mind or mindset [a different set of measures, standards, or principles] concerning other English translations. Being double-minded would be similar if not the same thing as using double standards or unjust measures. According to what the Scriptures teach, reasoning that uses inconsistent, unjust divers measures would be wrong.
Perhaps some KJV-only advocates may protest that they use the same standard when they assume the KJV as being the standard for itself and then use the KJV as the standard for other English Bibles. But actually that would not be using sound reasoning and just measures. Merely assuming the KJV to be the standard for itself would be wrong reasoning involving use of the fallacy of begging the question. It would also not be consistent, just reasoning in that KJV-only advocates will not consider the 1560 Geneva Bible to be the standard for itself or will not consider the NKJV to be the standard for itself. Thus, it would seem to be double-minded to attempt inconsistently to claim that the KJV is the standard for itself while refusing to make each other English translation the standard for itself. Using fallacies typical KJV-only reasoning makes unproven positive assertions for the KJV that are not made for other English Bible translations, which suggests double-mindedness.
The use of any unrighteous divers weights, unequal or false balances, inconsistent divers measures, unfair or untrue judgments, or double standards in evaluating, judging, trying, or comparing original language manuscript copies of Scripture [likewise printed original language texts and translations] would be wrong according to a consistent application of scriptural truths and principles (Prov. 16:11, 20:10, 11:1, 20:23, Deut. 25:13-15, Ezek. 45:10, Lev. 19:35-36, Amos 8:5, Ps. 82:2, Lev. 19:15, Luke 16:10, Matt. 7:2, John 7:24, Lev. 10:10, Ps. 58:1, Deut. 16:18-20, Ps. 19:7-9). The use of inconsistent, unjust measures could be connected to being double-minded (James 1:8). Like physical measurements, mental and spiritual judgments or measures also should be true and just or righteous (John 7:24, Lev. 19:35, Lev. 19:15, Ps. 119:30, Zech. 7:9, Prov. 12:17, 1 Thess. 5:21). Righteous judgments based on just measures and in line with the wisdom that is from above would be without partiality and without hypocrisy (James 3:17). The making of sound, righteous judgments would be a weighter matter (Matt. 23:23).
A failure to use consistent, “altogether just” measures, standards, criteria, or principles (Deut. 16:20, Prov. 16:11, Ezek. 45:10, Deut. 25:15, Ps. 19:9) in comparing or trying manuscript copies or translations of Scripture would condemn the inconsistent, unfair, uneven, and unjust judgments that would result. That the preserved copies of the Scriptures in the original languages as searched and discerned by just measures should be the proper standard, measure, and authority for trying or evaluating translations of the Scriptures would be a valid implication or deduction drawn from what several verses of Scripture state or indicate.
KJV-only advocates have not demonstrated and do not demonstrate that they make righteous judgments based on use of consistent, sound, just measures in their typical KJV-only reasoning concerning Bible translations. KJV-only reasoning has not been demonstrated to be stable, consistent, single-minded, sound, just reasoning according to scriptural truths or teachings.
Double-minded KJV-only reasoning would be contrary to sound Bible doctrine.
