Please provide scriptural support for KJVOism.

Didn't you know that Holy Ghost English existed long before Hebrew the language God chose to record His word?

 

Who stop the KJV? You?

 

First, there are many things that we believe to be scriptural that do not have a specific Scripture to support it. In the absence of a specific passage, we turn to scriptural principles.

What I find especially ironic in this debate, is that the KJVO are constantly asked to provide a "Biblical reference" for what they believe, while those who would require such proof have not one shred of biblical evidence to support their position on the text/version issue.

Secondly, the overwhelming majority of us who believe that the KJV is the inspired, preserved Word of God for English speaking people do not believe that it is the only "inspired version." Your question has a flawed premise. We believe that God's Word is preserved in the English language in the KJV. There are other equally preserved translations (versions) in other languages as well. One does not have to read English to have a copy of God's inspired, preserved Word. Only the radical, extreme faction of KJVO would assert that. We are just as opposed to this false teaching as anyone.

I personally believe, based upon the textual basis of the KJV, that it is the preserved Word of God in English. I further believe that its inspiration has been preserved as well. If it accurately reflects the inspired autographs, then where did it lose its inspiration? I do not believe that it did at all.

 

Where? In the original autographs, which alone are inspired.
Again, the word inspiration means "God-breathed." God breathed into the apostles and prophets such that what they wrote was the very words of God. No other person (copyist or translator) can claim that privilege. I cannot claim to have an inspired copy of John 1 after I offer you my translation, even if I translate it from the TR. Only the originals are inspired, God-breathed, and therefore perfect right down to the spelling and punctuation.

I found this post to be very helpful:
http://baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1467971&postcount=1

Just to use one example from it should suffice:

Three different renderings of the phrase "thy progenitors". And as the following post asks: "Can you please tell us which of all these are the correct renderings?" :laugh:

I found that humorous. In most cases the KJVO cannot. They don't know from one edition to the next which one has the correct rendition. In the above example it does make a difference, as you can see. Thy and my are totally opposite from each other.
It shows that the KJV is not inspired, God-breathed, or perfect. There are many mistakes in it. God makes no mistake. The original MSS had no mistakes. That is why translations and copies are not inspired. They are copied and translated by fallible men who make fallible mistakes. But that does not mean that God has not preserved His Word. He has kept that promise. Inspiration is different than preservation.

 

I'll ignore the hyperbole.

Still waiting on proof for your yet-unfounded assertion that "The KJV is the RECEIVED Bible because the KJV is the translation model predicted in Scripture." Open minds want to know.

 

So, the "Holy Scriptures" that Timothy had available to him as a child, that Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, said were "given by inspiration" were the originals? I think not. Those copies available to Timothy had "somehow" preserved their inspiration. Is it not possible that God could preserve the inspiration of His Word another 2,000 years?

If the inspiration, the very breath of God, is not preserved, then we have a dead book. The Word of God is no longer "quick and powerful" because the breath of God is no longer on it. I'm sorry, but I choose to believe that God is able to provide me a Bible which is still alive today.

 

You do err, my beloved Brother. Many things can be "supported by Scripture" even in the absence of a specific verse. You'll not find a verse that speaks against gambling, for instance. But, both you and I can make a "scriptural" case against that vice.

If it is based upon "scriptural principles," it most certainly can be deemed "scriptural."

Again, only the extreme KJVO philosophy, which makes up a very small percentage of the whole, would espouse the false view of "double inspiration."

This a moot point for the overwhelming majority of us, because we understand that God did not give a "new revelation" in 1611. He simply continued to preserve His Word and the inspiration of His Word in the form of the KJV.

 

God promised to "preserve" His Word, and He did. I have no problem lifting up my Bible before my congregation and telling them that this is the Word of God. There is a difference between preservation and inspiration. Inspiration applies only to the originals. It should not shake one's faith to realize that the orthodox definition of inspiration has always referred to the original autographs, and that was never in question by anyone until just recently when this KJVO movement started--around the time of Peter Ruckman. It was never an issue before that time. No one ever questioned it.

Again, here is an orthodox definition of inspiration:

 

I agree. And also, when the bible says that ALL scripture is given by the inspiration of God, wouldn't that include copies of the originals and translations? Don't we call our translations "scripture"?

 

It seems (based on the above definition) that if you say that our bibles are not inspired, then somewhere along the line they became fallible.

 

Yes we do. Most words have more than one meaning, and context always determines meaning. We casually use the word "Scriptures" to mean "the Bible." However, in 2Tim.3:16, the Greek word does mean "God-breathed."
If it is the breathe of God; it is perfect, infallible, without error in every place. This can only be true of the originals. It cannot be said of any copy or of any translation. Every copy and every translation has errors, however small they may be, in them.

That does not mean we do not have the Word of God. Our Word is still preserved. It is still alive and powerful. God has preserved. No doctrine is affected. I believe that the definitions of inspiration and preservation need to be better explained. It should not shake your faith to believe that only the originals are inspired. That has been the belief of the majority of Christendom throughout all ages until the KJVO movement came along.

 

Every translation is fallible because they are translated by fallible men. Men make mistakes. God alone makes no mistakes, and therefore what he wrote is inspired or perfect--breathed out by God. Only the originals are perfect.

 

I think the bible I read everyday is inspired and it also has errors. What I mean is, the bible is a collaboration of God and man. God inspired it, man wrote it down. Man's writing of it is what contains errors, not the message God gave. Therefore, our bible are still inspired because God's message hasn't changed even if man spells a word wrong. If my bible isn't inspired of God, then like Bob said, it is a dead book. But it is truth and life in spite of man's errors in copying or translating.

 

You seem to be defining preservation more than inspiration. Look again at this definition of inspiration:

[FONT=&quot]DEFINITION: "Inspiration is that extraordinary supernatural influence exerted by the Holy Ghost on the writers of Our Sacred Books, in which their words were rendered also the words of God, and therefore, perfectly infallible." (Benjamin Warfield, Inspiration and Authority, p. 420)[/FONT]

Your copy or translation must be "perfectly infallible." Inspiration relates to the accuracy of the transmission of the words from God to man. Everything that God said was accurately recorded, just the way that God wanted it to be. Jesus said that not one jot or tittle would pass away. Not the smallest letter of the alphabet or even a part of a letter would pass a way, until all should be fulfilled. Thus when Satan said: "Thou shalt not surely die," though the words aren't God's words, they are accurately recorded just as God wants them to be. That preservation of those words has been faithfully kept so that no doctrine has been altered and the message has never been changed. Have there been errors in the past?
As you admit, yes. Immediately then, that means it is not inspired. Inspiration implies absolute perfection.

You are right. God's message hasn't changed. It is still the gospel, that is the power of God unto salvation. God still uses his word, even though we don't have the original MSS. No doubt, if we did have them, we would have a lot of idolaters in the land.

 

Yes, the same guy also said that the Antichrist was a nine foot alien.

 

Gregory Perry Sr, the fact is, GOD has not singled out any one version as "The One". Now, if you use only the KJV outta PERSONAL PREFERENCE, fine, but there's NO other LEGITIMATE reason to be KJVO, and shame on those who diss other valid versions.

Fact is, there is NO SCRIPTURE in the KJV itself supporting KJVO, and this is the fact that make all the pro-KJVO arguments moot.

This reminds me of a "discussion" between owners of different makes of motor vehicles. Each make has its merits & demerits, but there is none more suitable for all purpuses than any other. I believe GOD has caused different English versions to be made for specific target readerships, and no one version is the "be-all, end-all". If that was God's intent, there'd only be one version.

 

Pastor Bob: If it is based upon "scriptural principles," it most certainly can be deemed "scriptural."

PB, there's not the first quark of the slightest implication to be found for KJVO in the KJV itself. Simple fact is, IT HAS NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT, & therefore cannot be true. But the MAN-MADE ORIGIN of the current KJVO doctrine is quite apparent - a CULT OFFICIAL'S book.

Conclusion: KJVO is obviously NOT OF GOD & should therefore be rejected by all real Baptists.

 

Of course you realize that I do not base my beliefs upon "orthodox definitions" but rather upon the Word of God. If I did, however, lean to secular definitions of biblical words, I would certainly choose the definition that best fit the context of Scripture.

Why would we consider any other definition except the biblical one given in #3? Especially when you consider that the Greek word pneuma is translated many times "spirit" or "ghost" but never"breathe."

So, we can rightly say that "all Scripture" is given by pneuma the Holy Spirit. That is the doctrine of preservation and the doctrine of inspiration combined together to give us an inspired, preserved copy of the Word of God today. The Holy Spirit never stopped working after the originals were completed.