ChristiansUnite Forums

A recent post on a forum stated:

“If you are really serious about your definition of the Word of God then you better burn your KJV and go find one of the original autographs. Only the original autographs can truly fit your definition of the Word of God.”

I’ve been waiting got see this in writing on this board so I’d like to comment on this popular “doctrine”.  But first, a few preliminary remarks about this "KJV" issue.

1. If some of you folks think we are just trying to win an argument so we can glory in our flesh you are sadly mistaken. If you really believe this is our intent then you misunderstand us. I think I can speak for most “KJVO” folks on this. We desire to see others know that in their hands they can hold the very words of God without doubt (Gen. 3:1). By having this assurance it gives power and boldness in the Christian life. We desire others to have this confidence so they won’t be tossed to and fro in these last days of unbelief and apostasy. Do you think we enjoy the abuse? Do you really think we relish opening up this can of worms on a daily basis? We believe the MVs have created much confusion in these last days (I Cor. 14:33) and we would like to see it come to a screeching halt so there could be unity again.

2. Some of us folks have a true conviction about this issue of authority and God’s words. This conviction is based upon the power of knowing and having God’s words in our hands. Also, we can what has been happening since the MVs have come out –a loss of real power, evangelism, and the work of God in saints’ lives because they do not believe they have the words of God – I Thess. 2:13. This has been a great deception Gen. 3:1. If you think today’s Christianity is as strong as previous centuries (1600’s-1900’s) then you need to brush up on your Church history! They basically had one book and did not question it like what is going on today.

Now with that let’s talk about this “doctrine” of “Only the Originals are Inspired or the True Word of God”

1. Where in any Bible does it say “only the originals” are inspired? Who invented this doctrine and “made it a fundamental of the faith”? Some of you folks are really hung up on this “original” issue. Do you believe that if you had the “originals” in your hands that you would get 110 volts of shock! Do you believe that if you had the real “originals” in your pulpit to preach from that your “baptism” count would go up?!?!? As God as my witness if I had the “originals” in my possession I would lock them up in a safe and preach out of a King James Bible and not bat and eye! Some of you folks would put them in a display case and bow down before them and then charge admission to finance your youth’s softball trip to Six Flags Over Texas!

There is no verse in any Bible that say “only the originals are inspired” – someone dreamed that one up – sounds good – just not scriptural.

Now this next part some of you will scoff at – some will say that is old stuff and some of you might say, “That makes sense to me!”

2. In Tim. 3:16 it says: All scripture is given by inspiration…” If it is scripture it has to be inspired according to II Tim. 3:16. Don’t call what you have in your hands “scripture” unless you believe it to be inspired. The “Bible” says that if you want to call what you have “the scriptures” then it has to be inspired. If it is not inspired then it is not scripture.

3. Look at II Tim. 3:15 – Timothy had the scriptures – according to vs. 16 there were inspired. Did Timothy have the originals? Of course not but what he had was inspired for the next verse says that the all scripture is inspired. Timothy had a copy of the scriptures and according to vs. 16 they were inspired and they were not the originals!

The “scriptures” just told us that something other than the originals could be inspired.

4. Can the AV1611 be inspired? Why not? Who or what says they couldn’t be – II Tim. 3:15,16 says more than just the originals can be scripture and thus be inspired.
Were the KJV translators inspired men? No.
Could what they have put down been inspired? Why not?
I do not believe they were inspired but what God had them put down was.

Don’t you believe God runs things? Don’t you believe that God works all things after the counsel of his own will – Eph. 1:11? Don’t you believe God can control have his hands upon a 1611 Bible committee? You mean you don’t take the providential approach to history? Do you mean that God just let’s man run things on his own? Do you mean that you are putting your faith or lack of faith in the KJV translators, which were mere men?
THE 1611 TRANSLATORS WERE HOLY SCHOLARS AND HOLY MEN BUT MY FAITH IS IN THE GOD WHO CONTROLLED AND DIRECTED THE AFFAIRS OF THOSE MEN! No wonder why you folks keep using the translators as an excuse for faulty translating – your faith is in men and not the Providential hand of an all-powerful, all seeing, all-directing God!

Again, we don’t care what you read or believe. But when what you read or believe or promote affects the work of the ministry down here then we have a duty to get involved to warn, DIVIDE, make war, instruct, encourage, EXPOSE, for the sake of others, (who desire to know), so that they can know what is going on here. Some of you folks don’t like final authority in your lives – you want to be able to pick and choose. You want a way out if all possible. Could it be pride?

The bottom line – We desire true saints to know that hey have the inspired word of God in their hand so they can be equipped to do the work of the ministry.

Some of us just happen to believe that we have the scriptures in our hands. Many of you don’t have the scriptures and by your own beliefs admit that.

1 Th 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

If you don’t’ believe what you have in your hands is the word of God it can’t work effectually in you. And guess what folks – our work, as a whole, is not very effectual. Part of the reason is most saints today don’t have the scriptures and according to Heb. 4:12 there is where the power comes from today. Yes, the Holy Spirit does the work but the Spirit utilizes the words of God down here.

God bless

Amen, AVBunyan.

Very well said.

Thanks brother for those kind words - I kind of rather expected more flack here but I rejoice in your agreeing words.

May God bless

AVBunyan, I am willing to converse with you on this issue if you are willing to do it in a reasonable manner.  Most KJVO people I have talked to won't act maturely on the issue.  So if you want a real discussion, not just to mock me, then I'd love to discuss it with you.


While I may agree with some of what they are getting at, I don't necessarily agree with how they get that across.



Believe me, I really do appreciate the fact that some of you are genuinely fighting for truth.  You only fight because you believe you are defending the word of God.  I believe that is a commendable thing, but I also believe that if the position is wrong, so is the enthusiasm.  
  Perhaps you don't enjoy the can of worms, but some KJVO people certainly seem to.  I doubt whether it is the MVs that have created the confusion.  Other things seem more likely to have influenced that.


One serious problem with this is that you ignore the other 1600 years of Church history before the KJV existed and there was complete unity on this.  Was their Christianity therefore weak?  Well, certainly in the early stages there were problems, but notice that the major doctrines of Christianity--deity of Christ, etc, were affirmed without the unity of the KJV.
   And you are somewhat mistaken since the translators to the KJV in the preface to the reader said that variety of translations is necesary in order to get proper sense of the word.  And in the 1611 KJV at Luke 17:36, in the margin is noted this:  "This verse is wanting in most Greek copies."  The translators themselves questioned the validity of the verse.  Are we then wrong to practice textual criticism (not higher criticism)?
  And I do not think you can prove that downfalls in the modern church result from the MVs.


I don't think anyone would say that only the originals are the true word of God.  As much as a translation reflects the original, it is the Word of God.  And I think that the KJV in places does not do that effectively. One example being John 3:16 and the issue of monogenhs.  If something adds to the originals, then I don’t believe that part is the Word of God.  But inerrancy can be translated like this:  No statement of Scripture, properly translated and properly understood in its context, will lead you to a false idea.  


The Bible never talks about the translations of itself at all.  When it says, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God..” and “holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit,” it is talking about the originals and the men who wrote them.  NOT THE KJV.  


Copyists could make mistakes.  Now, the amazing thing is that God protected his word so well that even though copyists did make minor errors, no major doctrine or teaching is harmed.  
   The problem here is, did God inspire only the men writing the originals, or did he also inspire the translators of the KJV such that they made a perfect translation?  Prove the latter.  We can agree on the former--that is attested by Scripture.  The latter is most certainly not.


As long as a  translation accurately reflects the original, it is indeed inspired.  And I would say that in the sense that as much as the KJV reflects the autographs, it is inspired.   But that does not mean that God reinspired the KJV translators such that they made a perfect translation.

[contd...]

[...contd]


Yes, that is true.  But again, that does not mean that God inspired the men copying such that what they did is more authoritative than the originals.  Same with the KJV.


So, they were not inspired, but what they  did was inspired.  I’m sorry, but that doesn’t make sense.  If what God did through them was inspired, then it only follows that they were inspired as well.  But you have no logical or Scriptural reason to say that the KJV translators’ work was any more inspired than that of the Geneva Bible, or the Great Bible, the Bishops’ Bible, Wycliffe’s, Tyndales’s, or any other’s.  


I certainly do believe God runs things.  And that is why I can say confidently that I have the Word of God.  He has preserved his word even through human copyists. But that does not mean that his preservation somehow stopped in 1611 and that we should never use anything else.  Especially since language is not the same anymore.  That was the point of the KJV--put the Bible in the language of the people.  The language of the people is not the same now as it was then.  


I’m afraid the most divisive ministries I’ve seen are those who support the KJV not the other way around.  Those who use modern versions seem much more committed to the original languages, and do not spend all their time ranting against other versions.  The MVs provide just as much final authority.  
  Could it also be pride that KJVO people will not give up their tradition?


I can confidently tell people who use the NASB or the ESV the same.  


We do indeed have the Scriptures.  The inspired word of God.  But you cannot make the KJV more inspired than the originals or more inspired than the ESV or NASB.  You have no basis on which to do so other than tradition.


I do believe what I have in my hand is the word of God.  And I learn the original languages in order to better understand that Word.  And I compare many translations to see which most accurately relays the original text.

Joel

Thanks Joelkaki for your thoughtful response - I seek to be very cordial and patient when discussing the issue and would enjoy a chat.  

Unfortunately I post very little.  I was off this past week so therefore I spent some time posting but was giving myself a deadline of Saturday PM to finish any post.  My deadline is past.  Not copping out for if you were to search the many forums I'm not afraid to chat and will find I'm not a mean-spirited rascal unless confronted by a mean-spirited rascal. Even then I just ignore those type if possible.

I appreciate your willingness to chat in a reasonable manner but I willl not be able to carrry on with this one at this time due to time restraints - I apologize.

You are more than welcome to e-mail - check my profile for my website and contact me there if you wish - will be glad to chat. If you choose to visit the website then wander into the "Bible Room" - I have a series of articles on the AV1611 that might better give you an idea of where I'm coming from.

May God bless

You Get "FIVE" UP(http://forums.christiansunite.com/YaBBImages/thumbup.gif)

KJV Bible verses in conflict with each other.

2Ch 22:2  Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.

2Ki 8:26  Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2Ch 36:9  Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.

2Ki 24:8  Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2Ch 2:2  And Solomon told out threescore and ten thousand men to bear burdens, and fourscore thousand to hew in the mountain, and three thousand and six hundred to oversee them.

2Ch 2:17  And Solomon numbered all the strangers that were in the land of Israel, after the numbering wherewith David his father had numbered them; and they were found an hundred and fifty thousand and three thousand and six hundred.
2Ch 2:18  And he set threescore and ten thousand of them to be bearers of burdens, and fourscore thousand to be hewers in the mountain, and three thousand and six hundred overseers to set the people a work.

1Ki 5:15  And Solomon had threescore and ten thousand that bare burdens, and fourscore thousand hewers in the mountains;
1Ki 5:16  Beside the chief of Solomon's officers which were over the work, three thousand and three hundred, which ruled over the people that wrought in the work.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2Sa 15:7  And it came to pass after forty years, that Absalom said unto the king, I pray thee, let me go and pay my vow, which I have vowed unto the LORD, in Hebron.

1Ki 2:10  So David slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David.
1Ki 2:11  And the days that David reigned over Israel were forty years: seven years reigned he in Hebron, and thirty and three years reigned he in Jerusalem.
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Act 12:4  And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

Easter is wrong the Greek word means passover.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Act 19:37  For ye have brought hither these men, which are neither robbers of churches, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess.

Should read robbers of temples rather than robbers of Churches.