A circular argument

Jeffrey Khoo, Quek Suan Yew and Prabhudas Koshy argue that the KJV (or the underlying TR) is the perfect, preserved Word of God because it is the most accurate translation. Yet, when asked how they determine accuracy, they point back to the KJV as the standard. How do we break this circular reasoning without appealing to something outside the text itself?

We’ve identified precisely what scholars call a circular argument—one that assumes its conclusion from the start and therefore cannot be rationally questioned[1].

KJV-only arguments typically operate by treating the King James as the baseline standard against which all other translations are measured, then using that same standard to judge whether other versions have “deleted” or “altered” passages[1]. The problem is self-evident: why privilege the KJV over earlier English translations like the Geneva Bible or Bishop’s Bible, which could equally serve as measuring sticks to show how the KJV itself changed earlier renderings[1]?

Breaking this circularity requires abandoning any translation as the standard. The KJV must be evaluated alongside other translations rather than positioned above them, and the true standard must be the original language texts themselves—what the biblical authors actually wrote[1]. This moves the conversation from “which English translation is correct” to “what do the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts tell us the original said?”

However, we also reveal a subtler version of this problem. Some argue the Textus Receptus was supernaturally preserved or that God’s blessing on KJV translations demonstrates divine favor toward those underlying texts[1]. This reasoning—inferring textual authenticity from translation success—is itself circular: it assumes God’s preservation must work through the texts that produced the most influential English Bible, then uses that influence as evidence of preservation.

The only genuine escape is accepting that accuracy must be determined by comparing manuscripts, evaluating which readings appear earliest and most widely, and assessing which translations best represent those findings—regardless of which English version emerges as superior.

[1] James R. White, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2009), 25–26, 167–169.