Discussions resulting from a link

Jordan provided this link in another thread. Since many folks will go to the link now (and in the future) I think a response to some the things asserted there is in order.

I've read the article and listened to Will Kinney speak his argument on YouTube. Since Mr. Kinney has been expelled from the Baptist Board he will be unable to directly respond here. Since Jordan posted the link, maybe he or others will try to defend it.

Since Mr. Kinney's article is rather lengthy I will be dealing with it sections starting at the beginning. I provide the first entire section I will be discussing below; nothing is excluded in order to preserve the context of his comments. I will not necessarily be commenting on each and every assertion with which I agree or disagree, only selections of my choosing. I will not be attacking the KJV or attacking Mr. Kinney personally. I will only be discussing Mr. Kinney's argumentation. His article is entitled Was there a perfect Bible before the King James Bible? --

The first issue I take up results from his statement: Keep in mind that these King James Bible critics do not believe that there EVER existed a perfect and infallible Bible in ANY language (including "the" Hebrew and Greek) and they certainly do not believe there exists one NOW. Note that this statement is completely unnecessary to the building of a logical argument to answer the question asked.

This assertion seems to be contradicted by a later statement he makes: ...almost any Baptist or other Christian site that addressed the issue of their belief about "the Bible" they almost always say: "We believe that ONLY the originals are (were) inspired and inerrant;
I will concur with Mr. Kinney that this a common belief statement among evangelicals.

Thus, it seems to me that a great many of his so-called King James Bible critics must be participants of those Baptist or other Christian organizations. It is also Mr. Kinney's assertion that these Christians do indeed believe in an inspired and infallible Bible when he admits that they confess belief in a perfect and inerrant ancient languages Bible, even if that is the ONLY one they believe in.

I don't read in the article that Mr. Kinney is suggesting that there are any intended substantial differences between the descriptions of perfect and infallible and inspired and inerrant. What we do read in his article is the implication that original autographs are not to be considered "the Bible" by his statement: It should be pointed out that the originals never did form a 66 book Bible...

If Mr. Kinney means that all the original manuscripts were never bound together in one volume, he is correct. That Moses' autograph of the book of Exodus and Paul's autograph of the book of Romans never met in one place should be painfully obvious if only by the sheer expanse of time that passed between them.

But what Mr. Kinney implies here by mentioning this fact is that the 66 books of the Protestant canon is the only characteristic that defines the word "Bible". He implies anything less (or greater) than that particular canon in one volume should not be spoken of as a "Bible".

Really, I suspect that dragging the topic of Was there a perfect Bible before the King James Bible? all the way back to a canon issue is a tactic of misdirection. I think it is even possible that the original questioner may have assumed an established Protestant canon (maybe even speaking specifically about the Bible in English) because before the King James Bible only requires a short period before ~1600 AD.

Of course, the word "Bible" comes from a Greek word merely meaning "books". This Greek term biblia was being applied toward the Christian scriptures as early as the 2nd Century AD (that is well before something identical to the Protestant canon alone was ever bound into one volume). Christians at this time may not have had access to all of the canonical books written to that point, yet would consider what they did have as their "Bible". Additionally, sometimes modern Jews refer to the Hebrew Tanakh as the Jewish "Bible". I'm sure throughout the ages that many early believers that had owned a few scrolls or small codex of holy scripture felt that they had a "Bible". Even the 1611 edition of the King James Bible would contain some apocryphal books. Eastern Orthodox Christians still retain additional books in their biblical canon. And if I were castaway on an island with only the undamaged KJV books of Genesis, Psalms, Luke, and Galatians I would simply tell the natives that it was "the Bible". Mr. Kinney does get to redefine how "Bible" can or cannot be used.

I affirm my trust in the 66 book canon. But, can the Protestant canon alone be the distinctive attribute of a true holy "Bible"? No, and for example it is easily seen in the heretical Jehovah Witness New World Translation that proper canon alone can not establish the veracity of a so-called "Bible". I don't like the fact that the NWT is often identified as a "Bible" but nether do I get to prescribe how "Bible" can or cannot be applied.

Remember, Mr. Kinney previously said that KJV-critics did not EVER believe in an inspired and perfect Bible in ANY language. Mr. Kinney may not have it both ways. It seems that he knew that many Christians profess belief that at least at one point in history there was an inspired and infallible unbound Bible, (a fact he would later use in his argument) but he chose to publish the false accusation that they ... do not believe that there EVER existed a perfect and infallible Bible in ANY language.

Was this an intentional slur or just an error? Were the contradicting statements a sloppy oversight or simply a case of dishonest argumentation hoping that no one would catch on?

 

Yeshua1, the above question is essentially the same one that Will Kinney was to answer in the linked article. Did you read the article? What did you understand to be Mr. Kinney's final answer to this question? [Hint: if you read closely, he did answer it.]

 

You don't want to defend the link you posted, Jordan?

 

Jordan, if you won't defend the link you posted, is it too much to ask you to apologize for posting such a erroneous link here?

 

Yes, and I am unclear as to why it doesn't disqualify the 1611 AV according to Mr. Kinney's standards. Read below to see what his standard is.

This is the next section of Will Kinney's article I will be discussing. He claims that There are only Four options open to them. I'm not sure why he writes "them" and not "us" (does he have other options not available to KJV-critics?). I'm not interested in discussing points #2 and #3 right now, so I'm only showing point #4 below (refer back to the OP to see point #1) --

I'm pretty sure that this #4 is Mr. Kinney's position. And so, after explaining at length these four options he still has not straightforwardly answered the question originally set before him: Was there a perfect Bible before the King James Bible? It seems he doesn't want to just come confess clearly that he does not; but according to Mr. Kinney there was no perfect Bible before the KJV.

As show previously, his conclusion is predicated upon the idea that a perfect Bible must be the 66 books bound into one volume (but the 1611 had more than 66). What I can infer from this position is that although Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph may have had the book of Job and parts of Genesis, that according to Mr. Kinney they didn't have a "Bible"; every perfect and infallible writing they were entrusted with would probably ultimately be include in our "Bible", but unfortunately they didn't actually have one. What I can infer from this position is that although Joshua, Samuel, David and their generations may have preserved the Pentateuch and some psalms they didn't actually have a "Bible". Esther didn't have a "Bible"; Solomon didn't have one. Ezekiel didn't have a "Bible"; John the Baptist didn't have one either. What I can infer from this position is that Mary, Paul, Peter, Barnabas, Philip, Apollos, Aquilla, Timothy, and Silas didn't have a perfect "Bible" because all the books that would become the New Testament had not yet been written. But certainly, what they did have was inspired and inerrant writings but according to Mr. Kinney that isn't good enough to be called a "Bible". Were all these believers (and millions of others) not supposed to seek ye out the book of the Lord, and read? Apparently, they weren't able to obey Isaiah 34:16.

The two proofs Mr. Kinney offers are: history and the internal evidence. Not scriptural proof; just historical accounts and deductive reasoning. He continues the article attempting to show how only the KJV meets his requirements from these two proofs. Most of Mr. Kinney's effort here seems to be to convince readers that the KJV is the only perfect "Bible", and rather little to answer the question he was asked.

 

Lacking Scriptural support, I find it selfish and arrogant to suggest that millions of Christian in all ages up to 1611 did not have a 'perfect' Bible. Why would God bless the English-speaking believers of only the past 400 years with a 'perfect' Bible while believers in all parts of the world didn't have one for over 1500 years?

Did God not keep His promise to them for 1500 years? I thought the interpretation of Psalm 12:7 as preservation of 'the Bible' would literally mean going forward "from this generation" (David's) which would have certainly covered this period.

Christians did very well without any 'Bible' of 66 books bound into one volume from about 90AD to about 350AD; they continued to live faithfully while complete 'Bibles' were extremely rare from 350AD to about 1450AD; and Mr. Kinney's view would be that the early Reformers didn't have a 'perfect Bible' either. Some great testimonies in the past for not having access to a 'perfect Bible'.