Will The "Inspired" KJV Please Stand Up!

It's not a non-answer. There is no scripture that says "thou shalt read only the KJV". But there is no scripture that says, "Thou shalt not consider 'Bel the Dragon' or 'Judith' scripture." either.

You come up with a list of fruit that substantiates the existing 66-Book onlyist position and then put the KJV up against any MV based on the same criteria.

Lacy </font>[/QUOTE]Except you know they will shy away from this because this causes them to use their own standards on themselves.

 

Perhaps we tend to ignore the railing when we agree with the position of the railer. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]ya got that right.

 

OK, but I don't get your big deal about there being 66 books in the Bible.

The Old Testament was already set by the time of Jesus. The Jews had long decided what was Scripture.

The early church used those books and letters that were of unity and testified to the workings of the Holy Spirit.

The Apocryphasprung up between theese two eras, but was not deemed Scripture by either the Jews or the early church. As far as I know, only the RCC use the Apocrypha as Scripture (many of their doctrines come from it).

During the period of the early church there appeared many spurious books, many of which claimed to be written by various apostles. These were judged to be false due to their content, and their inconsistant witness.

I hope this is what you were looking for.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

I won't split semantic hairs over the terms "inspiration" and "preservation" (It's been beaten to death.) But assuming they are similar, where do you get your doctrine of preservation? In other words, prove from the Bible that the autographs are directly inspired. The Bible says all "scripture" is given but "scripture" always refers to copies and never to autographs. Matt 21.42, Matt 22.29, Acts 8:32, II Tim 3:15-16, etc. </font>[/QUOTE] Read the scripture again and focus on the word "given". The word assumes a giver, God, and a time of giving, when the original penman wrote.

 

I fail to see why this is such an important question to any MVer. KJV only folks generally believe the same thing (Where was it before?)that MVers believe about the perfect Word (Where is it now?). You hold KJV onlyists to a higher standard than you do yourselves. </font>[/QUOTE] Not at all. The perfect standard is and always has been the original. Absent the original, we have the providentially preserved evidence for the originals... all of it, not just the few mss used by Erasmus.

The Word of God was and is found in the various faithful versions. It was not and is not limited to one version.

Nay... they are the Word of God.

Nope... and that makes for a very strange notion of God's faithfulness to provide His Word to everyone during the church age on your part.

God's Word was faithfully but not without scribal errors copied down through the centuries. It was not scattered, the message which is "the Word" was never scattered nor lost. The original wording however was lost by God's own providence.

Perfect to the degree that God intended... nothing more nor less.

BTW, the canon was not established. It was recognized. They used criteria to authenticate the books we have. One of the criterion for the NT was apostolic authority. This is evidence against the KJV being inspired.

BTW, inspiration and preservation are distinctly different concepts. Inspiration was a direct act of God which involved God's "moving" the penman. Preservation is a providential act of God using the fallible hands and minds of fallible men.

 

What scripture identifies the 66 book, closed cannon commonly now accepted by all of Christianity. I mean what if we were debating 66-Book onlyism? My arguments are the same. Follow the fruit!</font>[/QUOTE] Again, the canon was recognized based on several criteria. The books are self-identifying but are also validated by apostolic authority or the authority of OT prophets and holy men.

Josh McDowell in "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" gave a very good analysis of how the canon came to be recognized and the criterion used. I can post some of it if you are interested.

No writer of the autographs claimed to be writing scripture. None claimed to be "inspired", or for that matter, "perfect". Why do you hold the translators to a higher standard than the original writers?</font>[/QUOTE] Actually some of them did acknowledge that they were speaking from God. Further, Jesus told His disciples that he would send the Holy Spirit to reveal the truth to them. This was a direct promise that they would write or provide authority for the NT scriptures.

Having seen the risen Christ was prerequisite for an Apostle. Paul saw Christ at His conversion the others saw Him during the 40 days preceding the ascension.

Apostolic authority is prerequisite for writing scripture. The KJV translators do not qualify.

Yes and this validates both translations and versions. But the main point is that those translations were performed under inspiration as well.

Again, the KJV translators fail to qualify as inspired writers or translators. It actually wouldn't be a problem for God other than then fact that He told us who scripture would come through. "Prophets and holy men of old". Jesus added the Apostles. Neither added the KJV translators.

 

First, name me a translator who personally persecuted a Baptist. </font>[/QUOTE] Re-read my post. I said it was their church. However, I am fairly certain that Andrewes, Bancroft, and another translators whose name eludes me sat on the High Commission court. That court tried heretics which included Baptists.

It continued (John Bunyan is one example) all the way up to the American Revolution.

I can reference Baptists that were imprisoned in Virginia for refusing to submit to CoE authority if you like. Their crime? Preaching the gospel without Anglican approval.

Absolutely. The KJV is valid not because of the translators but because it is witnessed to by all other faithful translations and the evidence we possess for the originals. My contention is not, nor has it ever been, that the KJV is not a superior translation of God's Word. However it is also not the only valid version of God's Word nor is it perfect in its wording to the same degree the originals were.

That is a matter of whether the person believes God and is looking to Him or wants to excuse himself per Romans 2.

If that is true then perhaps you don't understand our position (although I could hardly be called an "MV'er" since I use the KJV).

I believe that God inspired the originals therefore they are perfect in every point. I believe He providentially used men to preserve the complete and perfect message of the originals to each generation during the age of grace. I believe that in spite of copyists' errors the Word of God is preserved as proven by the agreement of the evidence with itself. I believe that there is nothing that God revealed in the originals that isn't taught in the KJV, NKJV, NASB, WEB, and perhaps a few others. I believe that by comparing the faithful versions a believer can become more clear as to the meaning of the original word and that this is the best method short of learning the original languages.

 

There is no doubt that Richard Bancroft was Archbishop of Canterbury from 1604 through 1610, and that he sat on the High Commission Court. What may be in question is, did he persecute Baptists and if so to what extent?

The two most often presented as evidence that James I or Bishop Bancroft burned Baptists at the stake are Bartholomew Legate and Edward Wightman. However, neither of them was a Baptist, both were Arians and Unitarians. Also, they were tried and condemned by Richard, Bishop of Litchfield, after being tried before a court of local "divines," not by James I or Bishop Bancroft. It is true that James I, in his capacity of "Defender of the Faith" and defacto head of the Church of England, signed their death warrant. However, it is also true that Wightman was executed on April 11, 1612, two years after Bancroft left the office of Archbishop of Canterbury.