By the way the commonly accepted view today is that the Bible is without error in only the originals yet I haven't heard any one give scriptural support for that. There is none. Read 2 Timothy 3:16 and tell me if that is talking about the originals or (true) copies -
2 Timothy 3:16 refers to the process of how the Scriptures were given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles. There is no mention of the process of Bible translating in 2 Timothy 3:16.
When it is speculated, assumed, or claimed that the term
Scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16 must refer to copies and especially even to translations, a consistent, just, and logical application of this speculative reasoning would in effect be asserting that it must include
all that belong in the same sense (univocally) to those two classifications: copies and translations. Including all copies of the preserved original-language Scriptures would in effect make inspiration include any errors introduced by imperfect men in their copying of Scripture. Including all printed translations of Scripture would make inspiration include any errors made by translators or printers and include the conflicting and even contradictory renderings in varying Bible translations in different languages. Thus, consistency and just measures in applying the word “all” to Bible translations would be a serious problem for exclusive KJV-only reasoning concerning only one English translation.
If the term Scripture in a univocal sense at 2 Timothy 3:16 is assumed to include Bible translations, KJV-only advocates have not demonstrated from the Scriptures that it should apply only to the KJV and not also to the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the Geneva Bible and to post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV. Could some KJV-only advocates attempt to read into or to draw from 2 Timothy 3:16 a specific conclusion about translating that has not clearly and legitimately been shown to be actually stated or taught by the verse? Do KJV-only advocates attempt to go beyond what 2 Timothy 3:16 actually states to try to make it say something additional to which it does not directly and clearly refer?
The sixteenth verse of 2 Timothy did not actually directly assert that God gave all Bible translations or one English Bible translation by the process or method of inspiration. Do KJV-only advocates use the term inspiration with one meaning (univocally) when they attempt to apply it to Bible translations? Do they use the term Bible translation with one meaning (univocally) if they attempt selectively to try to call one translation Scripture while denying the same for other English Bible translations? Do they attempt to read their own subjective, modern KJV-only opinions that were not in the mind of Paul into this verse? Did the earlier KJV-only opinions shape the later KJV-only interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16? Is the modern KJV-only interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16 possibly an example of eisegesis? Is this KJV-only interpretive result already found in the unproven KJV-only premise or premises with which the KJV-only reader began? Is every man teaching that 2 Timothy 3:16 is a reference to the KJV advocating a non-scriptural opinion of men? Could KJV-only advocates confuse what the text actually says and means with their way of reading it or into it? Are some KJV-only advocates setting up their own reason and private interpretation as the final canon of truth? Are some KJV-only advocates seeking to manufacture support in the Scriptures for certain non-scriptural, human dogma or tradition which they may have merely presumed or assumed by use of fallacies such as begging the question and have accepted without proper, consistent, sound scriptural support? KJV-only advocates do not prove that their KJV-only doctrine is found and taught in any Greek New Testament manuscript. KJV-only advocates do not demonstrate that they soundly believe the Book when they merely read their own subjective KJV-only opinions into verses that do not actually directly state what they allege.
The Geneva Bible, the KJV, or the NKJV could be called Scripture because they are translations of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. The assumption (likely involving the use of the fallacy of begging the question) that the KJV has to be directly given by a miracle of inspiration of God in order to be called scripture is not actually stated in 2 Timothy 3:16. It could also become an example of use of a false analogy if it is assumed that because two distinct things are alike in some ways or qualities that they must be alike in all ways or qualities.
A sound definition of the term Bible translation would have a bearing on how the term Scripture could or should be used for one. A Bible translation can have proper derived authority from the greater authority of its underlying original-language Scripture texts. It is very possible and even likely that there could be some degree of difference in meaning in the use of the term Scripture when used for a Bible translation such as the Geneva Bible, the KJV, or the NKJV as compared when used for copies of the original-language Scriptures. Are translations a different category or classification that should be distinguished somewhat from untranslated original-language texts of Scripture?
A Bible translation may be substantially or mostly the same as its underlying original-language Scripture text, but there are still differences between the two. A Bible translation with its different words in a different language can be compared to its underlying original-language texts, but it does not have the exact same, identical, specific original-language words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles. Mickey Carter asserted: “Things that are different are not the same. Bibles that are different are not the same” (
Things That Are Different, p. 77). Do some KJV-only advocates attempt to ignore the truth that a Bible translation has different words than the original-language words given by inspiration of God? Would they in effect contradict their own claim and assert that different words are not different? There would be some greater differences between the original-language words and the English words in the KJV than the differences between the KJV’s English words and the NKJV’s English words.