Often a Baptist church doctrine Statement will state " ... and inerrant in the original writings". Would this statement indicate that the church is NOT KJO?
A second question - would that mean that MV are not inerrant? If so, does that mean that there are "mistakes" in MV?
Thoughts?
Some of those Baptist churches are not KJVO that include that statement, and then some include that statement that ARE KJVO, but want to make a distinction from other Baptist churches that hold to a position that the KJV "corrects" the Greek (a misunderstanding of Ruckman's position on the KJV), but by extension, since they believe that the original writings are inerrant, and the KJV being the only current English translation translated from those writings, that the KJV by extension is inerrant.
Ascribing inerrancy to ONLY the original writings is a farce. That is confusing the difference between inerrancy and
inspiration. Many make the argument that copies do not fall under either inerrancy or inspiration, also a farce. When Jesus quoted Isaiah 61 in Luke 4:18, He was quoting from a COPY of the originals, and yet this verse and numerous others like it were still what Paul considered "ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God". In Revelation 1, John wrote 7 letters to the 7 churches in Asia. If inspiration was limited to "the originals" which one of the 7 letters was the original! When Paul wrote that all scripture is given by inspiration of God, Revelation had not even been written yet, so if inspiration does not include future copies and writings, then Revelation would not be inspired.
Modern Versions (MV)
This is a lengthy subject that couldn't be covered in a comment. But there is a lot of dishonesty among the translators of the MV's. It's become a very big business (at one point, Rupert Murdock, owner of Fox News and some other very questionable and ungodly publications, owned the rights to the NIV). You can now create a Bible to fit whatever your doctrinal preferences are. If you don't like a reading somewhere, revise it and make another bible.
The "scholars" attempt to confuse everyone with thousands of translations, reclassifying manuscripts (mss) into different families/groups of mss when a certain text supports the KJV it is shuffed off to another group so as to appear that the "best and more reliabe" texts do not support it. And straw man arguments are erected against the KJV (1611 or 1769 Blayney, where was the word of God before 1611, "scholar" or "skolar" etc..).when the issues are raised about the major doctrinal errors and omissions contained in the MV's. Critics will point out KJV copyist errors (because the printing press malfunctioned or was not caibrated correctly) who don't know the difference between VERSION and EDITION.
Examples:
Mark 16: MV's remove last 12 verses of the entire chapter (or have a footnote denying it's validity). Dean John Burgon wrote a book "The Last Twelve Verses of Mark" that have never been refuted defended the mss evidence for this.
Acts 8:37 "I believe that Jesus is the Son of God" removed, or the entire verse is removed altogether
1 Tim 3:16 "God" exchanged for "He" so you can't tell that Jesus is God from this verse.
Daniel 3:25, "THE Son of God" is changed to "a son of the gods".
John 1:18, Jesus is either made to be the only "begotten God" or as the ESV reads "No one has ever seen God;
the only God,[e] who is at the Father's side,[f] he has made him known" which makes the Father NOT GOD.
Matthew 18:11 "For the Son of man came to seek and save that which was lost" removed.
These are just a few SMALL handful of changes and omissions made in the MV's that affect major doctrines of the Bible. Even in a debate yesterday about free will, someone quoted a verse from one Bible in Leviticus, where "offered voluntarily of his own will" was removed in the other. So it DOES make a difference. There are almost 8,000 deliberate changes made in the modern texts underlying the MV's. Examination of the Westcott and Hort texts shows erasure marks ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS used to support the MVs.
Common sense says if God told us to preach the WORD, we must have a copy of it somewhere. Not just CONTAINED in a book, because even a dictionary you can find the words of God somewhere, but IS the Word of God. If there are thousands of Bibles that contradict each other on MAJOR DOCTRINAL ISSUES, then they can't possibly all be the same; that defies the laws of non-contradiction. If faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God, where is the word of God? There are no more "original" manuscripts, so when a scholar tells you "that's not in the 'ORIGINAL' manuscripts" he's LYING to you.
MV critics of the KJV will simply have you believe that God is not omnipotent enough to preserve His word. So they muddy the waters by trying to bring confusion as to the trails of where the copies came from. Any honest scholar that is NOT on an MV translating committee (i.e. James White) that has done an honest evaluation of the manuscript evidence will admit that the evidence that God's word has been perfectly preserved is in the KJV. Common sense tells you that you can't have 2 entirely different lines of manuscripts produce the same Bible. ONE OF THEM IS WRONG. And since the MV's come from a line of manuscripts whose foundation is based on a ROMAN CATHOLIC manuscript found in a dumpster in a Vatican library (Codex Vaticanus), it's not hard to tell which line is wrong.
