Is the KJV the "restoration" of God's words?

The main problem I have with KJVonlyism/ restoration of God's Word in 1611 is two-fold:-

1. What about all those non-English-speakers today?

2. What about all those Christians who lived prior to 1611?

The implication of KJVonlyism is that these two groups do not have access to God's Word and so perish; rather contradicts Jesus' words that He would build His church doesn't it?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

This "restoration" theory might have worked better for them (KJVO) had they focused on the Greek TR underlying the KJV English rather than the 1611KJV English itself.

HOWEVER, they burned that bridge behind them when they said "the English supercedes the Greek".

There is a TV show on called "WHAT WERE THEY THINKING!?".

HankD

 

Dear Scott J,

Good thinking to come over here and continue this. I was starting to feel a little guilty for straying so far from the subject (How old is the earth?). I have to preach tonight so I'll get back here tomorrow. I see some very good posts so far and I'll do my best to explain my "radical" view. see ya soon

Lacy

PS Do your homework and read the article everyone!

 

i did look at the article, n i'm sorry but it adds nothing to the already creative imagination of KJBOism.

take this claim for instance:

"If God can restore the absolute canon, and it can be proven by the witness of history and the testimony of the church, then He can do the same thing with the actual words that make up the 66 books in 1611 and we offer the same evidence for the establishment thereof"--

speaking of a "loose canon," this claim ignores the fact that KJBOs, having gotten their "absolute canon," go on to allow more than 136 SUBSTANTIAL changes in the KJB revisions that follow. just check this out:

"If you saw them in the restored canon, or in restored Baptist/Brethren truth, then you'll see them in the restored Holy Authorized King James Bible 1769 Oxford Edition."

see? how "absolute" is 1611 absolute? if it wasn't itself a big valley of dry bones, why did it need to be resurrected in 1769?

the other problem for KJBOism, besides ignoring their OWN evidence, is refusal to apply their loose canons consistently to other Bibles. why don't they consider the Sistine Edition of the Vulgate the absolute canon. why not the NASB-95? or the Good News Bible, which at least does a better job on Isaiah 7:14?

it seems to me that KJBOs, while attacking modern Textual Criticism for having certain canons, can offer no better rules of selection themselves. the only one they can find, by whatever name--Resurrection, Faith, Consistently Christian, whatever--in reality resembles ... um, can someone dig up the old ostrich graphic? these tactics r plum boring, i'm afraid.

AFTERNOTE:
ok, while this Edit function still works, another question for Lacy n other KJBOs--do resurrected works die? did it happen to Timothy's Scripture? the Vulgate? the Geneva Bible? can it happen to the 1611, the 1769, the RSV, the New KJV?

[ September 18, 2003, 08:03 AM: Message edited by: Forever settled in heaven ]

 

As is typical of those who
revel in ignorance, no distiniction
is made between:

1. the Logos, the Living Word of God,
which is Jesus, the Messiah
and
2. the rhema, the written Word of God,
which is the Holy Bible

From that site: "Where was Jesus
before the virgin birth? (Where
was the word before 1611?) "

 

At last! At long last!
The Ex Cathedra pronouncement:
The Holy Authorised King James 1769 Oxford Edition Bible is the restored pure Word of God.

Hmm, wait a minute, who authorized it, wasn't King James dead by 1769?

Perhaps it was authorized by the "true" apostolic Church, the Church of England (who still practice infant baptism, ordain "priests", celebrate the Eucharist, observe the Church of Rome Holy Day calendar and liturgy, etc...).

HankD

 

Hello everyone!

Firstly, I must confess that I find this a very confusing subject - one which, whatever side of the fence you sit on, your position boils down to faith in the end. I believe that my Authorised Version has no errors - but it is Jesus' death on the cross that saves! Anyway, I thought I'd just offer a few alternative points of view to some of those expressed already:

What about them? You believe what they have is imperfect. I don't know whether there are perfect Bibles in other languages. You believe there is no perfect Bible on the face of the earth which they might be able to get hold of, even in theory. I do. At the very worst, I must believe that those who don't speak English have no access to a perfect Bible. But isn't that what you believe???

Well, you believe they had no perfect Bible. I don't know if they did or not. But again, we're in the same situation: at the very worst, I must say they had no perfect Bible. But isn't that what you believe???

No, it may (or may not) imply that they didn't have the uncorrupted, perfect word of God. But then, the MV position says that, too! Yea, it extends the blanket further, and says nobody can have that word!

The choice is between "some" and "none".

 

Isn't though your whole position Anglocentric and Modern? Why has God singled out English as His infallible language and the time-frame of 1611 onwardsas His infallible time, and where is any of that in Scripture? Dontcha think it's a bit odd?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Well, you believe they had no perfect Bible. I don't know if they did or not. But again, we're in the same situation: at the very worst, I must say they had no perfect Bible. But isn't that what you believe???
</font>[/QUOTE]In my thinking, that issue is the crux of the whole debate. The whole debate is settled in my mind on that one single aspect.

Bartholemew, *why* do you and KJV-only supporters believe that the KJV a "perfect" (word-for-word) Bible in the first place? Because it floated out of heaven on a golden pillow? No, rather because of "preservation". The very word "preservation" means something is *preserved*, not popped into existence. In other words, it means "To keep or maintain intact". For KJV-only supporters, this means more than just generally, it means word-for-word. *By definition*, "preservation" is an ongoing process: it can't "start" in 1611 because that is not "preserving" what existed in 1610.

Preservation, by definition, must *span* 1611, not start at 1611. Since the KJV is not word-for-word preserving anything from 1605, we have three possibilities:

A. the KJV-only understanding of "preservation" is wrong
B. the KJV-only understanding of "preservation" is correct but God was lying in 1605
C. the KJV-only understanding of "preservation" is correct and God was telling the truth in 1605, thus a "word-for-word perfect Bible" existed in 1605 and the KJV was not only unnecessary, but also wrong for deviating from the words of this Bible.

I choose option A, it is the only one that doesn't break down logically. Since the KJV-only understanding of "preservation" is wrong, "word-for-word perfect" is NOT a requirement for "preservation" to take place, nor for a translation to be called "God's word".

If more KJV-only supporters would simply think through this, and be honest about it, there would be less KJV-only supporters.

 

Amen, brother Ed! Preach it!!!!

 

Scott

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Firstly, it may well have been preserved in another Bible in some other language somewhere else, so it would indeed be "preserved", by your definition. Secondly, the whole point of this thread is (or at least is supposed to be) a discussion about whether "resurection" is a valid form of "preservation", something which I think Lacy will pick up on, since it is his article that is being discussed. However, I think you'll find that is a very Biblical definition.

I don't think anyone is arguing this - I think all KJVonlyists believe the originals were without error. The AV is preserving what God said there.

This is an assumption which you cannot prove. Yes, if the AV (and all other Bibles) are just the work of men, and not God, then of course that is a reasonable statement. But that's the issue, isn't it?

I don't know whether you are accusing me of not thinking this through, or not being honest, but I reject both accusations. Notice that you believe the fact that God inspired his word means the originals were perfect (since he must inspire perfectly). However, God also PRESERVED his word. How can he inspire imperfectly??? Your position is less logically consistent than is mine. Pots and kettles and black come to mind...

 

Now, that's something I never heard before. Please can you tell me which Bibles preserve the content of the originals? Oh, and BTW, it can't be both the AV and NASB, because they disagree, for example, on whether 1 John 5:7 was in the originals.

And besides, why do you say the perfect word of God is only found in faithful versions? So the whole version isn't perfect? So it contains imperfection? But that which contains imperfection isn't perfect. Q.E.D.

What about perfect preservation?

Perhaps. But if God's preservation is not perfect, why do you assume his inspiration is??? The Bible does not explicitly teach either. Again, pots and kettles and black...

What a strange comment. Even if the only perfect Bible since the originals has been the AV, then that simply puts me in the same position as you regarding his preserved word for everyone else.

No. The choice is between "some" and "none".

 

OK, moving on from the obsession with the-Bible-in-English (for which you still haven't accounted), why the equally inexplicable fixation with King James 1611? What's wrong with Tyndale's version of 1536?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Indeed, this is (or was) the exact argument of the Church of Rome, that the language of inspired Scripture has been “authoritatively” transferred/resurrected (with imprimatur) to the Latin Vulgate (the RCC ecclesiastical authorized version of the Scripture).

This version retained this place of “honor” for about 1000 years.

The RCC is heretical and corrupt you may say, but so also is (by Baptist scrutiny) much of the doctrine of the Church of England - the first-born child of the RCC.

Apparently it is true that those who don’t learn from the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them.

So which version of the KJV is the “perfect” preservation of God’s Word?
Do you agree with the quote that it is the 1769 Oxford Edition?

If so, what was the original 1611 Version (with Apocrypha)? Why did it take God several attempts to get it “perfect”?

Did He change His mind about the RCC Apocrypha “Scripture” and decide to drop it in 1769?

Neither then can it be both the 1611 and the 1769 versions of the KJV because they disagree.


HankD

 

Excellent point, Hank

Yours in Christ

Matt