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.
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.”
While I may agree with some of what they are getting at, I don't necessarily agree with how they get that across.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Now with that let’s talk about this “doctrine” of “Only the Originals are Inspired or the True Word of God”
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.
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!
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.
There is no verse in any Bible that say “only the originals are inspired” – someone dreamed that one up – sounds good – just not scriptural.
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.
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.
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...]
