If the KJVO belief about preservation is true...

Dear KJVO,

This is an endless pursuit.

But, You are in the same boat as non-KJVO.

Please answer...

Which KJ Bible is the "perfect" Word of God?

1611AD... (many revisions) ... 1769AD?

Cambridge or Oxford edition?
(things which are different are not the same).

You cannot answer but must always elude the question because THE ORIGINAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION manuscript made by the King James translators HAS BEEN LOST and you have no basis of comparison to determine which of the above is the "perfect" Word of God.

HankD

 

No problem.

You see, it is not up to us to prove a negative. It is the person making the *positive* assertion that needs to back up their statement. Nobody in the recorded history of Christianity, until sometime in the 1930's, made the positive assertion that only the KJV was the word of God and that any changes from it make it not God's word any more. If someone today came up with the doctrine that "only the ESV is the word of God, and anything different is not", would you not challenge that? Would you not ask for scriptural evidence? Would you not point out that that would mean the word of God was not in existence before the ESV was published? Would you not request they support and prove their positive assertion, and reject their doctrine if they couldn't/wouldn't?

If only the KJV is the "final authority", by what "authority" can such a claim be made? Get it?

But, to try and at least keep a reasonable discussion alive, I try to explain my view anyway, to show *why* KJV-onlyists *can't* back up their positive assertion. Because if an "INFALLIBLE, INERRANT BIBLE" (in which any deviation in wording renders it as no longer the preserved word of God) was produced (e.g. in 2003 or 1978 or 1901 or 1611) then an "INFALLIBLE, INERRANT BIBLE" could not have existed prior to that date. Not only that, but the logic then also demonstrates that the KJV-only understanding of "preservation" breaks down across any time that spans 1611. This is SIMPLE logic, and exposes the false premise of KJV-onlyism. Yet this KEY point REPEATEDLY gets ignored, for obvious reasons.

I don't, and I don't intend to defend it either because it's not what I believe.

Pastor Bob, I am very curious: what do you think of JYD's comments that God changed scripture, specifically with the issue of Isa 61:1-2? Do you agree or disagree? If you agree, how does that jive with KJV-only-type "preservation"? If you disagree, why are you remaining silent about it?

[ February 08, 2003, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: BrianT ]

 

I'll be honest, after returning from a week away, I read the opening post in the threads and just a few responses before I posted at the end of the thread. If you'll save me time by giving me a link to the comments you mentioned, I'll be glad to look at them.

If I commented on everything I disagree with, I'd be on here day and night. I have a family to lead and a church to Pastor.

I also officiate high school basketball. One of the things you learn right away is that your partner is responsible for his primary area of coverage. If he makes a bad call, he has to live or die by his call. I cannot continually come in a change his call. If I do, the whole crew loses their credibility. The coach would expect me to make all of the calls the rest of the game. If I allow him to make his own calls, he is recognized as a good or bad official on his own merits.

The same goes for anyone on the BB. I can't think of anyone that I've agreed 100% with yet.

 

I agree 110% with this statement. This is exactly what I believe as well. How is the faith that I place in the KJV different from the faith that you place in the NKJV?

You admit you have concerns about specific translations; again, we are in agreement. I am not doubting your sincerity; nor have I doubted the sincerity of anyone who prefers a MV.

 

Do you realize the responses that would follow if a KJVO used the word "logic" to defend their position? Human logic, according to Scripture, is not a good basis for believing the supernatural.

Prov. 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. (KJV)

2Cor 5:7 For we walk by faith, not by sight (KJV)

 

click here and scroll down, and start reading at the last 4 posts on this page

Fair enough. How about this then: what is YOUR explanation of why Luke 4:17-18 says it was *written* in Isaiah (61:1-2) something that *isn't* in the KJV's reading of Isaiah ("and recovering of sight to the blind")? JYD says this is because God changes scripture (but JYD doesn't explain how this doesn't destroy the KJV-only definition of preservation). Do you have a different explanation (that doesn't contradict the KJV-only definition of preservation)?

 

As for the "proof" of our view of preservation, I think sevearl comments can be made.

1. The NT regularly quotes from things that are not the KJV and are indeed read very differently than the KJV. What this shows is that perfect preservation (or perfect identity) is not a necessary component of scriptural preservation. It shows that things other than the KJV can accurately be called the inspired word of God and can be quoted with authority.

2. The failure of any two manuscripts to match perfectly shows that perfect preservation simply is not true. If God perfectly preserved his word (meaning letters and words), then we should expect to find evidence from every era of church history in the form of identical manuscripts. For instance, the 7th century manuscripts should match the 14th century which should match the 2nd century which should match the 15th century. This simply is not true. There is no complete manuscript (they are all in pieces of varying size) and there are no two matching manuscripts. When someone comes along and says "This" is the word of God, they are arguing from induction or deduction, not from revelation. That is a significant point. Those who say the TR is the perfectly preserved or only reliable Greek text are not arguing from revelation but rather from induction passed through a mind affected by sin. Let us not forget that.

 

Do you realize the responses that would follow if a KJVO used the word "logic" to defend their position? Human logic, according to Scripture, is not a good basis for believing the supernatural.

</font>[/QUOTE]Pastor Bob, apparently you do not understand my previous point about positive assertions. I provided the logic only to demonstrate *why* KJV-onlyists cannot back up their claim: because the claim is self-contradicting.

And apparently you understood the logic, but choose to remain illogical - why?

Yes, but faith in *what*? Do these verses talk about faith in God (as the Bible exhorts), or about faith in KJV-onlyism? Why don't we just use these verses to defend faith in the tooth fairy? C'mon, Pastor Bob! I expect this kind of cracker-jack exegesis from JYD and others, but not from a *pastor*.

 

Brian, surely you are smart enough to realize the verses I quoted were not offered to defend KJV-onlyism, the tooth fairy, the virgin birth, or any other belief. I was merely demonstrating that it takes faith to believe that which cannot be seen.

I have not seen the originals. You have not seen the originals. The originals alone were inspired by God. Some believe they are preserved in a specific English version; others believe they are preserved in a host of English versions. The point is, human logic is faulty when determining our position. You have to have a more sure basis than human logic.

To point out the "illogicalness" (I think this is a word) of the KJVO position is a mute point because logic is not the objective, truth is. I conceed that much of the arguments that have been presented have been very weak and easily contested. Still, the basis is not human logic or understanding.

1Cor 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. (KJV)

 

There is no doubt that Jesus is quoting from Isaiah. As you know, chapter and verse divisions were not around in Jesus' day. My answer, which I readily admit is mere speculation, is that Jesus quoted from what we now know as Isaiah 61:1,2 and also Isaiah 42:7. During the days of Jesus, these two portions of Scripture may have been next to each other.

 

Thank you Pastor Bob and Kman for the first reasonable answer to this The Isaiah 61 question.