Is the KJV the "restoration" of God's words?

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Scott J, Sep 17, 2003.

  1. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    As a starting point, here is my last response to his last post:

    The Bible makes this claim. All translations derive their authority from their degree of agreement with what the originals said. It is that simple and all biblical texts concerning inspiration and preservation support this view.

    2)A willingness to twist and distort scripture, apply biblical concepts to issues without a biblical reason for doing so... does not constitute biblical proof.
    </font>[/QUOTE]1) The Bible never makes such a claim. It is just assumed.</font>[/QUOTE]
    Yes it does. Prophets and Holy men of old wrote as the were moved by the Holy Spirit. All scripture is "given" by inspiration. Unless you claim that revelation is still being given and the word of God is evolving rather than being fixed then this "giving" occurred when God acted directly on the writers.
    Scripture does refer to the content. God gave content and words to the original writers. The content is preserved. The words of the original in their precise form, are not.

    BTW, the Biblical word "scripture" NEVER ONCE, in one single verse, denotes the KJV or any translation nor most importantly any perfect restoration.

    He also never saw the KJV. He read the Bible for its content and that in an of itself defeats your argument. He wasn't commanded to reject a Bible because it didn't have certain wording. In fact it is almost certain that Timothy's "scripture" disagreed at places with the KJV.

    Those were direct acts of God through His prophets. The KJV translators do not qualify.

    You made a whole bunch of illogical leaps. You leap from christophanies and the incarnation to some supposed periodic restoration of scriptural perfection of wording.
    No. I believe God inspired the originals and mostly pious, honest copyists did the best they could with the materials they had and as limited by their imperfection to accurately transmit those originals. I believe that due to the difficulty of the task and due to the scarcity of safe, conducive environments for the task in the early church, some copying errors occurred and then were subsequently retained in later copies. I believe we have an incredible abundance of evidence to get us to a point where few passages and no content that was present in the originals are questionable now in the KJV and many MV's.
    The "dry bones" have nothing to do with "5000 manuscripts". This is exactly what I am talking about when I say you have twisted scripture.
    No you don't. You have yanked biblical principles and texts out of their context and applied them to something for which they were never intended. I am not accusing you of being cultic but this is exactly what cults do. The JW's are masters of it.
    Are you really willing to change your opinion? I think I am. Due to some very real personal concerns, my sincere prayer is that if I am wrong on this issue that God will show me. However, the more I prayer this the more I seemingly move away from KJVOnlyism.
     
  3. Matt Black

    Matt Black
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,141
    Likes Received:
    0
    The main problem I have with KJVonlyism/ restoration of God's Word in 1611 is two-fold:-

    1. What about all those non-English-speakers today?

    2. What about all those Christians who lived prior to 1611?

    The implication of KJVonlyism is that these two groups do not have access to God's Word and so perish; rather contradicts Jesus' words that He would build His church doesn't it?

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
  4. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,130
    Likes Received:
    320
    This "restoration" theory might have worked better for them (KJVO) had they focused on the Greek TR underlying the KJV English rather than the 1611KJV English itself.

    HOWEVER, they burned that bridge behind them when they said "the English supercedes the Greek".

    There is a TV show on called "WHAT WERE THEY THINKING!?".

    HankD
     
  5. Lacy Evans

    Lacy Evans
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    2,364
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dear Scott J,

    Good thinking to come over here and continue this. I was starting to feel a little guilty for straying so far from the subject (How old is the earth?). I have to preach tonight so I'll get back here tomorrow. I see some very good posts so far and I'll do my best to explain my "radical" view. see ya soon

    Lacy

    PS Do your homework and read the article everyone! [​IMG]
     
  6. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    i did look at the article, n i'm sorry but it adds nothing to the already creative imagination of KJBOism.

    take this claim for instance:

    "If God can restore the absolute canon, and it can be proven by the witness of history and the testimony of the church, then He can do the same thing with the actual words that make up the 66 books in 1611 and we offer the same evidence for the establishment thereof"--

    speaking of a "loose canon," this claim ignores the fact that KJBOs, having gotten their "absolute canon," go on to allow more than 136 SUBSTANTIAL changes in the KJB revisions that follow. just check this out:

    "If you saw them in the restored canon, or in restored Baptist/Brethren truth, then you'll see them in the restored Holy Authorized King James Bible 1769 Oxford Edition."

    see? how "absolute" is 1611 absolute? if it wasn't itself a big valley of dry bones, why did it need to be resurrected in 1769? [​IMG]

    the other problem for KJBOism, besides ignoring their OWN evidence, is refusal to apply their loose canons consistently to other Bibles. why don't they consider the Sistine Edition of the Vulgate the absolute canon. why not the NASB-95? or the Good News Bible, which at least does a better job on Isaiah 7:14?

    it seems to me that KJBOs, while attacking modern Textual Criticism for having certain canons, can offer no better rules of selection themselves. the only one they can find, by whatever name--Resurrection, Faith, Consistently Christian, whatever--in reality resembles ... um, can someone dig up the old ostrich graphic? these tactics r plum boring, i'm afraid. [​IMG]

    AFTERNOTE:
    ok, while this Edit function still works, another question for Lacy n other KJBOs--do resurrected works die? did it happen to Timothy's Scripture? the Vulgate? the Geneva Bible? can it happen to the 1611, the 1769, the RSV, the New KJV?

    [ September 18, 2003, 08:03 AM: Message edited by: Forever settled in heaven ]
     
  7. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    As is typical of those who
    revel in ignorance, no distiniction
    is made between:

    1. the Logos, the Living Word of God,
    which is Jesus, the Messiah
    and
    2. the rhema, the written Word of God,
    which is the Holy Bible

    From that site: "Where was Jesus
    before the virgin birth? (Where
    was the word before 1611?) "

    [​IMG]
     
  8. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,130
    Likes Received:
    320
    At last! At long last!
    The Ex Cathedra pronouncement:
    The Holy Authorised King James 1769 Oxford Edition Bible is the restored pure Word of God.

    Hmm, wait a minute, who authorized it, wasn't King James dead by 1769?

    Perhaps it was authorized by the "true" apostolic Church, the Church of England (who still practice infant baptism, ordain "priests", celebrate the Eucharist, observe the Church of Rome Holy Day calendar and liturgy, etc...).

    HankD
     
  9. Bartholomew

    Bartholomew
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2002
    Messages:
    714
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello everyone!

    Firstly, I must confess that I find this a very confusing subject - one which, whatever side of the fence you sit on, your position boils down to faith in the end. I believe that my Authorised Version has no errors - but it is Jesus' death on the cross that saves! Anyway, I thought I'd just offer a few alternative points of view to some of those expressed already:
    What about them? You believe what they have is imperfect. I don't know whether there are perfect Bibles in other languages. You believe there is no perfect Bible on the face of the earth which they might be able to get hold of, even in theory. I do. At the very worst, I must believe that those who don't speak English have no access to a perfect Bible. But isn't that what you believe???
    Well, you believe they had no perfect Bible. I don't know if they did or not. But again, we're in the same situation: at the very worst, I must say they had no perfect Bible. But isn't that what you believe???
    No, it may (or may not) imply that they didn't have the uncorrupted, perfect word of God. But then, the MV position says that, too! Yea, it extends the blanket further, and says nobody can have that word!

    The choice is between "some" and "none".
     
  10. Matt Black

    Matt Black
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,141
    Likes Received:
    0
    Isn't though your whole position Anglocentric and Modern? Why has God singled out English as His infallible language and the time-frame of 1611 onwardsas His infallible time, and where is any of that in Scripture? Dontcha think it's a bit odd?

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
  11. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, you believe they had no perfect Bible. I don't know if they did or not. But again, we're in the same situation: at the very worst, I must say they had no perfect Bible. But isn't that what you believe???
    </font>[/QUOTE]In my thinking, that issue is the crux of the whole debate. The whole debate is settled in my mind on that one single aspect.

    Bartholemew, *why* do you and KJV-only supporters believe that the KJV a "perfect" (word-for-word) Bible in the first place? Because it floated out of heaven on a golden pillow? No, rather because of "preservation". The very word "preservation" means something is *preserved*, not popped into existence. In other words, it means "To keep or maintain intact". For KJV-only supporters, this means more than just generally, it means word-for-word. *By definition*, "preservation" is an ongoing process: it can't "start" in 1611 because that is not "preserving" what existed in 1610.

    Preservation, by definition, must *span* 1611, not start at 1611. Since the KJV is not word-for-word preserving anything from 1605, we have three possibilities:

    A. the KJV-only understanding of "preservation" is wrong
    B. the KJV-only understanding of "preservation" is correct but God was lying in 1605
    C. the KJV-only understanding of "preservation" is correct and God was telling the truth in 1605, thus a "word-for-word perfect Bible" existed in 1605 and the KJV was not only unnecessary, but also wrong for deviating from the words of this Bible.

    I choose option A, it is the only one that doesn't break down logically. Since the KJV-only understanding of "preservation" is wrong, "word-for-word perfect" is NOT a requirement for "preservation" to take place, nor for a translation to be called "God's word".

    If more KJV-only supporters would simply think through this, and be honest about it, there would be less KJV-only supporters. [​IMG]
     
  12. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen, brother Ed! Preach it!!!! [​IMG]
     
  13. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Maybe but there is a dramatic difference between intelligent faith and "fairy tale" blind faith.

    The best "evidence" for KJVOnlyism falls basically in the same category as the "evidence" for a pot of gold at the end of every rainbow... you cannot disprove the possibility therefore no matter how greatly the evidence weighs against it, it must be true.
    I don't speak for Matt but I do believe we have the perfect Word of God. It is found in faithful versions that preserve the content of the original message. What we do not have is an English Bible that is perfectly worded due to direct inspiration from God- which, BTW, is the only way to have a perfectly worded Bible in English. God didn't even see fit to preserve in a single mss known to anyone the words He originally inspired in Greek and Hebrew.

    KJVOnlyism presumes against God by demanding that He provide that which He sovereignly determined not to provide... namely, a perfectly worded English translation.
    In addition to every saint of every age prior to 1769 AD. To believe either of these propositions is to put words in God's mouth. He promised to preserve His Word for His people... not just the special English speaking ones of the last 234 years.
    No. The choice is between several faithful versions and an improper fixation on a single translation.
     
  14. Matt Black

    Matt Black
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,141
    Likes Received:
    0
    Scott [​IMG] [​IMG]

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
  15. Bartholomew

    Bartholomew
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2002
    Messages:
    714
    Likes Received:
    0
    Firstly, it may well have been preserved in another Bible in some other language somewhere else, so it would indeed be "preserved", by your definition. Secondly, the whole point of this thread is (or at least is supposed to be) a discussion about whether "resurection" is a valid form of "preservation", something which I think Lacy will pick up on, since it is his article that is being discussed. However, I think you'll find that is a very Biblical definition.
    I don't think anyone is arguing this - I think all KJVonlyists believe the originals were without error. The AV is preserving what God said there.
    This is an assumption which you cannot prove. Yes, if the AV (and all other Bibles) are just the work of men, and not God, then of course that is a reasonable statement. But that's the issue, isn't it?
    I don't know whether you are accusing me of not thinking this through, or not being honest, but I reject both accusations. Notice that you believe the fact that God inspired his word means the originals were perfect (since he must inspire perfectly). However, God also PRESERVED his word. How can he inspire imperfectly??? Your position is less logically consistent than is mine. Pots and kettles and black come to mind...
     
  16. Bartholomew

    Bartholomew
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2002
    Messages:
    714
    Likes Received:
    0
    Now, that's something I never heard before. Please can you tell me which Bibles preserve the content of the originals? Oh, and BTW, it can't be both the AV and NASB, because they disagree, for example, on whether 1 John 5:7 was in the originals.

    And besides, why do you say the perfect word of God is only found in faithful versions? So the whole version isn't perfect? So it contains imperfection? But that which contains imperfection isn't perfect. Q.E.D.
    What about perfect preservation?
    Perhaps. But if God's preservation is not perfect, why do you assume his inspiration is??? The Bible does not explicitly teach either. Again, pots and kettles and black...
    What a strange comment. Even if the only perfect Bible since the originals has been the AV, then that simply puts me in the same position as you regarding his preserved word for everyone else.
    No. The choice is between "some" and "none".
     
  17. Matt Black

    Matt Black
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,141
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK, moving on from the obsession with the-Bible-in-English (for which you still haven't accounted), why the equally inexplicable fixation with King James 1611? What's wrong with Tyndale's version of 1536?

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
  18. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,130
    Likes Received:
    320
    Indeed, this is (or was) the exact argument of the Church of Rome, that the language of inspired Scripture has been “authoritatively” transferred/resurrected (with imprimatur) to the Latin Vulgate (the RCC ecclesiastical authorized version of the Scripture).

    This version retained this place of “honor” for about 1000 years.

    The RCC is heretical and corrupt you may say, but so also is (by Baptist scrutiny) much of the doctrine of the Church of England - the first-born child of the RCC.

    Apparently it is true that those who don’t learn from the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them.

    So which version of the KJV is the “perfect” preservation of God’s Word?
    Do you agree with the quote that it is the 1769 Oxford Edition?

    If so, what was the original 1611 Version (with Apocrypha)? Why did it take God several attempts to get it “perfect”?

    Did He change His mind about the RCC Apocrypha “Scripture” and decide to drop it in 1769?

    Neither then can it be both the 1611 and the 1769 versions of the KJV because they disagree.


    HankD
     
  19. Matt Black

    Matt Black
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,141
    Likes Received:
    0
    Excellent point, Hank [​IMG] [​IMG]

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
  20. Matt Black

    Matt Black
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,141
    Likes Received:
    0

Share This Page

Loading...