What is the problem?

Great point!

 

But there is no agreement on what the original text was! Is it Nestle Alands 26th? Or United Bible Societies' 4th? Or one of the editions of the Textus Receptus?

Although some might, I don't want to play semantics games: whether we say, e.g., the NIV "is THE word of God", or it "CONTAINS the word of God", really doesn't matter. Nobody doubts that very much of the NIV is true. What I want to know is, where is the PERFECT, PRESERVED word of God? Your position seems to say we cannot know; that it doesn't exist. My position says it DOES exist.

 

Originally posted by Refreshed:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That is a serious charge. Please explain what about the KJVO movement that makes it "heretical."
Anybody else feel free to jump in if they think the KJVO position is heretical, particularly as to why.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

There is nothing wrong with extolling the virtues of the King James version. My problem with most KJVonlyists is that they hold up their beliefs as Scriptural. Would I call it “heretical?” No, probably not; however, it is definitely legalism. The Apostle Paul has already written all that can be said on that topic.

On the other hand, I am appalled by some of the statements that I have heard concerning this issue. Take this thread for example: there is a post that actually reads:
“The NKJV is nothing but a [slander deleted].” Like it or not, it IS the Word of God. To quote Luke 23: “Dost thou fear God”?? Who among us has achieved such a high level of spirituality that they would dare make slanderous statements about the Word of the Almighty God?

 

Yep. I consider statements like that to be, at the very least, profanity...

 

Sorry, but I don't agree. Since when did Paul say it was "lagalism" to believe in a Bible that is truely without error??? Paul's original readers certinly DID have God's words without error - if it wasn't legalism then, why is it now???
P.S. Why do you criticise those who "slander" the NKJV; and yet call total belief in God's perfect word, "legalism"?

 

>>Sorry, but I don't agree. Since when did Paul
>>say it was "lagalism" [sic] to believe in a
>>Bible that is truely without error???
>>Paul's original readers certinly DID have God's
>>words without error - if it wasn't legalism
>>then, why is it now???

Actually, Paul never said that, and neither did I. I have absolutely no idea how you interpreted my statements in this manner. I said that Paul made statements about legalism, nothing more.

>>Why do you criticise those who "slander" the
>>NKJV; and yet call total belief in God's
>>perfect word, "legalism"?

This is a case of misrepresentation. I mentioned the NKJV because I was referring to an actual post. I do not just criticize anyone who slanders the NKJV, I criticize anyone who would slander any translation of the Word of God Almighty.

Twice in this post there is a reference in the belief of "God's perfect word." I have a sincere belief in God's perfect Word. I do not believe that the ONLY version of God's "perfect word" is to be found in the KJV. Do you REALLY believe that God Almighty intended the only English Translation of His Divine Word to be commissioned by someone as evil as King James? Do you REALLY believe that the authors of the Geneva Bible (my personal favorite) were heretics? Do you REALLY believe all other versions of the Bible are perverse? What about my copy of Martin Luther's translation of the New Testament: is that a perversion as well? What about my ESV translation?
Since you missed my point, let me try it again: there is NOTHING WRONG with clinging to the King James Version. I grew up with the KJV and I love it just as much as any "KJV-onlyist." If your congregation wants to be a KJV ONLY church, then God bless them. The problem begins when one labels other translations of "God's perfect Word" as [feel free to insert any word you choose in this space]. There is no scriptural basis for that belief.

 

As I see it it is not wrong per se to criticize some translation as compared to its underlying text. If a certain version deviates much from e.g. the Textus Receptus (NT) from which it was translated then it is fully legitimate to criticize it, and make proper assessments. Paul the apostle did address the issue of certain ones who adulterate the word of God for gain, 2Cor. 2:17, and this is a verse which is applicable to poor translations of the word of God. As I see it there are certain versions which deserve to be called Holy Bible and the word of God. Then again there are others which may not deserve to be called so because of their being so poor in quality, translation-wise, but may be said to contain the word of God. It may be proved objectively that certain versions are not Holy Bible, but obvious perversions and adulterations of God's holy written word. Such assessment is not slander, but contending for the faith against aberrations and falsifications. Myself would straightway label most if not all DE versions as perversions of God's word. And some FE versions as well, sad to say. Such do no doubt contain God's words here and there in them, but on the whole considered they are perversions, and unprofitable as compared to faithful translations.


Harald

 

The Bible only teaches inspiration with respect to the original autographs. Therefore, the MVers are right to affirm only that. You have gone past the biblical doctrine when you directly affirm it (rather than derivatively for anything else). I would be very careful calling teh biblical doctrine of inspiration totally useless. It was God's idea. I hardly think it useless.

No logical inconsistency. There is rather a biblical consistency. God affirms perfect inspiration; And so do we. He does not affirm perfect preservation; and so neither do we. Your side and our side both affirm what God affirms (though it is difficult to see how your reconcile your teaching with it). You, however, have added somethign that God did not say. Therefore, it is us who are consistent with the Scritpures, not you.

It is the correct view because it is the one that Scripture teaches. Tradition has nothing to do with it. The errors are not in the word of God; they are in the translation. Your view is more convenient, but it misleads many people by telling them something that simply is not true.

The issue has to be What does Scripture say? That is the only thing that matters. On the regard, it is our side who is correct.

[ May 10, 2003, 10:15 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

It is a fallacy (called bifurcation) to say that either you believe the KJV alone is the perfect Word of God or you must not believe that the Word of God is perfect or exists. Because this fallacy is assumed and argued to be fact, it creates an unnecessary amount of confusion, strife, and false allegations.

 

I am willing to extend debate another 12 hours.

 

You are soooo right! see Jeremiah chapter 36.

 

You are soooo right! see Jeremiah chapter 36. </font>[/QUOTE]I glanced through Jeremiah 36 to look for references to the topic at hand. I found none whatsoever. There is absolutely no reference in Jer 36 to either the KJV or a modern translation. There is in fact no reference whatsoever to a translation period that I can find. It appears that you are trying yet again to support something that Scripture just does not say. When will you stop and conform your beliefs to what God told us to believe?

 

Well what then did you mean by the following ?

Where, then, do you think it is? I am honestly open to other suggestions.

The AV certainly ISN'T the only English translation of God's word. It is simply the only one that has no errors. And BTW, King James I wasn't evil.

I answer "no" to all those questions. I, like you, believe they all have some errors. However, I believe there is something that DOESN'T have errors.

 

No logical inconsistency. There is rather a biblical consistency. God affirms perfect inspiration; And so do we. He does not affirm perfect preservation; and so neither do we.</font>[/QUOTE]Where does God affirm perfect inspiration? It seems to be a logical deduction that can be equally applied to preservation.

 

Of course, in theory, it is possible to believe the perfectly preserved word of God exists somewhere OTHER than the AV. The problem is that I've never come across ANYONE who belives that! (Except someone called Ed on here who argued it was the NKJV - but I'm not sure if he was being serious). Where do you think it is???

 

When it says that the God who cannot lie breathed Scripture. It never says anything remotely similar about preservation, and in fact, the evidence of history that the church has accepted for 2000 years and that God's people have accepted for 3500 years proves otherwise.

 

Of course, in theory, it is possible to believe the perfectly preserved word of God exists somewhere OTHER than the AV. The problem is that I've never come across ANYONE who belives that! (Except someone called Ed on here who argued it was the NKJV - but I'm not sure if he was being serious). Where do you think it is??? </font>[/QUOTE]Tom being gone already (I think), I will point out the obvious ... you didn't say what he said. You, like so many other KJVOs, subtly change the words to make a different argument. When you read what he wrote, you will understand why your response has nothign to do with his comments. It is unfortunate that this stuff takes place

 

Bartholomew writes:

&gt;&gt;Well what then did you mean by the following

Let me try this one more time:
I said that criticizing anyone who used any Bible other than the KJV is not Scriptural. That is legalism. I then commented that Paul made comments on legalism, and that there was nothing that I could add to his writings. Once more, I said that the Apostle Paul wrote on legalism.
Please let me know which part of that statement you do not understand, and I will elaborate on it for you.

&gt;&gt;The AV certainly ISN'T the only English
&gt;&gt;translation of God's word. It is simply the
&gt;&gt;only one that has no errors. And BTW, King
&gt;&gt;James I wasn't evil.

Both of these statements are outright lies. If the King James Version is “simply the only one that has no errors,” then why does my 1611 KJV (a repro. of course) contain the Apocrypha? Furthermore, King James I ABSOLUTELY WAS EVIL. King James was both sadistic and homosexual, with a penchant for young boys. He also had the Authorized Version commissioned to take the place of the Geneva Bible, thus denying people of the marginal notes contained therein. Don't you find it interesting that the Puritans considered the KJV a government document, and would not use it if you gave it to them.

&gt;&gt;Where, then, do you think it is? I am honestly
&gt;&gt;open to other suggestions.

Why? You have already claimed that the KJV was the perfect Word of God. Although I might share your love for the KJV, I would add that I have both the 1611 KJV as well as a Geneva Bible, and I think that the Geneva Bible is SUPERIOR to the KJV in every way. HOWEVER, I would never try to force my PERSONAL BELIEFS as equal to the Word of God. That is legalism, pure and simple.

 

I disagree. When faith stands in direct contradiction to fact then it ceases to be faith and immediately becomes superstition.

Take for instance Bartholomew's persistant and willful ignorance to the correct definition of "perfect" with regard to Bible translations. Also, his presumptive demand that there be one and only one set of English words that equal the Word of God.

It isn't faith. It is superstition... The KJVO has established a dogma around this peculiar superstition.