Sola Scriptura and KJVOist

You better do more than that. You will need to wait more than a lifetime.

 

Most KJV-o's will tell you they just "know" the KJV is God's only preserved word, the Holy Spirit told them so. The funny thing is, the vast majority of them will also tell you "personal revelation" is heresy.

Which one is it?

 

Who made KJVO a doctrine? Is it a doctrine if it is in a church's bylaws and not their doctrinal statement of faith? Input please.

 

It depends on what the bylaw says. If it just says that all members of this church will promise to use only the KJV, then its probably not a doctrine. If the bylaw says that we believe that the KJV is the only true word of God in the English language, then its a doctrine.

Lots of people. Here's an example of a doctrinal statement from a page on the internet that gives this as their statement on the inspiration of scripture:

There KJVonlyism is, right in the doctinal statement. Interestingly enough, this doctrinal statement also claims that

In other words, they claim that the Bible is what determines their doctrines, and then put in their doctrinal statement something that can't be supported with scripture.

 

Some KJVO's will claim they are out numbered. Jesus was out numbered and He proclaimed the truth.

 

Thank you, Russel55.
So If the bylaws state to the effect that the church will only use the KJV in preaching and teaching services and doctrinal statement only goes this far,

Then KJVO is not seen as claiming to be a doctrine? Thank you for any responce.

 

It depends on some things. For instance, in a sort of circular way, many KJVO's would read the statement that the the Bible is inerrant, infallible-God breathed to mean that the KJV is the only inerrent, infallible-God-breathed revelation because they have a prior assumption that the KJV is the only Bible, and they would they would filter that statement through that lense.

Then there is this part of the statment:

This is an extra biblical statement set forth as doctrine. The scripture never tells us that we have an exact copy of the God-breathed autograph preserved to this day. We just don't know. It never tells us that the same sort of miracle involved in the original God breathing through the apostles and prophets that produced their autographs was extended down through history.

We may wish that God had breathed pure copies through the hands of the copiests, or that he perfectly guided the minds of the compiler of the text, so that whenever there were variant readings in the manuscripts he was using, he chose the one variant that exactly corresponded with what was originally written by the original author. Someone may even think that's the way God probably worked. But we can't know it, because we're not told it. It's an extrabiblical statement. And so we can't set it out like that in our doctinal statement, especially while we are claiming that the Bible is our rule of faith and practice.

 

Russell55,
I appreciate you taking time to give these views. I hope I may ask a few more questions.

 

gb93433 said:

Some KJVO's will claim they are out numbered. Jesus was out numbered and He proclaimed the truth.

The Flat Earth Society is outnumbered, too.

 

I never said God didn't preserve his word. I just said exactly what you said--that he didn't preserve it in an exact word for word copy. (This we can know, BTW, from the various OT quotes found in the NT. They are not "word for word" equivalents of our OT, but they are called scripture.)

I believe we have his word preserved in many faithful translations of different texts compiled from copies of copies of copies of the original God-breathed autographs, in the same way that differing versions of God's word were providentially preserved in Jesus's time.

I also have no doubt that God providentially guided things so that we have trustworthy versions of his word in our own language, and that we are able to be fully equipped by them.

My problems is when someone says that one particular version is the only true or right version of God's word. We aren't told that, and to speak dogmatically about it is to make extrabiblical doctrine. It is making something other than God's word--like tradition ("what 400 years worth of believers have always used"), or personal experience ("God told me", or "I was lead by the Spirit to this truth")--the rule of faith and practice.

 

I do apologize for taking your statement a step further. I misunderstood and took it to mean you didn’t hold to preservation. My bad.

This makes your position quite clear. Sorry again. Any thoughts on the verses from Isaiah?
Thank you,
DB

 

The web page mentioned earlier as an example is kind of funny. At the top of the page it sais they are " King James 1611 only", but their statement only claims 66 books to be Scripture. How do you stand on the 1611 and not claim the extra-biblical liturature contained therein? Either you take the 1611 as a whole, or you've got a later addition. Which is it?

 

Those Scriptures of Isaiah can be applied to any valid Bible translation in any language of any time period.

 

A really interesting point, robycop3, but what or who determines what is a “valid translation”? What I was really after was if any saw the verses as God’s promise to divinely preserve his word? The command to "seek out the book of the LORD" is really intresting! I think it’s a absolutely beautiful passage of scripture. Any Amens?
DB

 

I think God's word is preserved but I'm not sure that particular passage is a promise that it will be. It could be interpreted as as an command to those particular people Isaiah's prophecy is directed to, and, of course, assumes that the scroll is there for them.

And, BTW, I think the command is actually more about seeking out a particular place on the scroll to read from to find specific information than it is about finding the scroll itself.

Any translation that is done by a commitee without a particular bias that they want to read into the text is probably a valid translation.

 

Dogsbody said "What I was really after was if any saw the verses as God’s promise to divinely preserve his word? The command to "seek out the book of the LORD" is really intresting! I think it’s a absolutely beautiful passage of scripture. Any Amens?"

Amen! What did these verses mean in 1610 and prior? Did they change meaning?

 

Thank you again for another view. I of course had not thought of that rendering. Back to more study.

That “particular bias” does eliminate a couple translations, as being “valid”, doesn’t it?

Thank you again, Russell55
DB