Still Waiting

Well I am still waiting for some KJVO to answer my question. What was my question?

How do you, from Scripture alone, support your claims?

Now some don't like this question. I realize that there are no verses that point to a KJVO stance. However if KJVO were true surely there would be some principle of Scripture that would apply. Now I must quickly add that if one is going to say inspiration then one must prove why inspiration automatically proves KJVO. So I still await an answer to my question. Where is the Biblical proof for KJVO? May I suggest that if no Biblical proof can be brought to the table maybe it is time for all KJVO to admit that they have turned personal preference into doctrine and that, while they personally prefer the KJV, they cannot state (dogmatically) that it is the superior translation of God's Word.

Let me also re-state some of the things I said in my original post on this matter.

I am not looking for a comparison between the KJV and other "modern" english translations. Such a comparison is faulty because it starts with the presupposition that the KJV is the only correct english translation. Thus such an argument is circular.

What I am looking for is solid, textual reasons for the claim that the KVJ is superior to all other English translations.

I still await a reply on this from a KJVO supporter.

Martin.

 

If KJVO is true then simply provide evidence of its truthfulness. If one cannot provide evidence for the positions one defends then why defend those positions?

Again I assert, in the most dogmatic but respectful way I know how, KJVO is nothing more than preference to doctrine legalism. The church, and many christians, has suffered great harm due to the effects of the KJVO teaching. I think it is time for the KJVO advocates to lay the evidence, or lack there of, on the table.

I await the evidence for the "truth" of KVJO.

Martin.

 

So it is "asinine" to ask for Biblical support for a position? The Bible is our guide book for all areas of life. Therefore I don't believe it is "asinine" or "Pitiful" to ask for some sort of Biblical basis for any teaching (see 1Jn 4:1). Again if KVJO is true then there must be some Biblical passage, or principle, that would prove it to be so. If not, what right do KJVO advocates have to teach their doctrine?

Martin

 

You can't offer any scriptural support for your position on translations either so why try to hold the KJVOs to a higher standard than you can meet?

==My position is that Scripture is God's Word. That is very Biblical, and very supportable. I don't hold one translation over another, one translation as superior to others, as long as these translations are faithful. I simply ask the KJVO to show why they preach what they preach? I have heard enough preachers shouting and banging on the pulpit over this. I have seen one too many church split over this issue. I have heard one too many KJVO make wild claims they cannot support in any way. I have seen way too many people decieved into thinking that family members were lost just because they did not use the KJV. It is time for some evidence to be brought to table to support this, otherwise it is time for this issue to be totally dropped by everyone.

Am I asking for the KJVO to meet an impossibly high standard? No, I am simply asking for some Biblical principle, or passage, that can be rightly used to support "one translation".
_____________________________

You said:
I have said over and over again this issue is not one of doctrine, to be settled by a passage of scripture, but one of history and scholarship.

==To some degree I agree with that. However I am starting, literally, from the foundation. If there is no Biblical support then there is no foundation and where there is no foundation the house is unstable.

Martin.

 

You said:
Martin, you are most certainly nothing more than somebody that has nothing to do but attack the word of God.

==This is a perfect example of what I am talking about. Perfect example. If one even questions the KJVO position, not the KJV, and you are accused of "attacking the Word of God". Perfect example. I am not attacking the KJV, I am attacking the position of KJVO. Big difference.

Now. I am not attacking the Word of God, read my posts! I am attacking a unBiblical, legalistic position about a particular translation.

_____________________________________

You said:
If I was NIV only you wouldn't have a problem with that.

==That is not correct. I would have a serious, serious problem with that position.
____________________________________

You said:
But anyone who is KJV only in your oppinnion is wrong. That has already been pre-determined in your mind.

==Yes, KJVO is wrong. As is NIVO and NASBO (if they exist). Why is it wrong? It has no Biblical support (in principle or passage), it has no textual support, nor historical support. Sorry, but I see no real reason to accept KJVO. My posts were asking KJVO, like yourself, to provide evidence for your position. Where is your evidence?
__________________________________

You said:
I can tell by the tone in your postings that you, sir, are looking for nothing more than a good fight. That said if it is a Bible argument that you desire, you got it.

==Wrong again. I am looking to defend the faith against those who take personal preference and turn it into doctrine (a form of legalism). Also why is asking for evidence for a position considered to be "looking for nothing more than a good fight"?
___________________________________

You said:
I would say that it doesn't take a rocket scientist (obviously) to discover that the Bible does not have a verse that says, "thou shalt use the KJV only!"

==True. Since that is true why do KJVO make this issue so important? What about a principle then?
______________________________

You said:
Let me put the ball in your court by asking you if you believe there is a PERFECT WORD OF GOD?

==Yes, the autographs. There are no 100% perfect copies/translations. This is the accepted evangelical position. Our modern texts are around 98-99% identical/faithful to the original autographs. Any textual variants are minor and affect no major doctrine. This is one reason why people who study/read the KJV, the NASB, or the NKJV can come to all the same conclusions.
________________________________

You said:
Also I would like to ask in which version or form you think that PERFECT word of God exists? (greek, niv, hebrew text, TR, ect...)


==The original texts which, through the study of texts and manuscripts, we are close to 98% duplicating.
___________________________________

You said:
This will help me to know whether you are even worth debating or if I am just wasting my time.

==If you are not wanting to deal with the textual evidence (etc) head on then you are probably wasting your time. I will not accept circular reasoning. Either there is solid evidence for the superior nature of the KJV or there is not. God's Word is not limited to one english translation. There are several solid, faithful english translations today (only one of which is the KJV).
____________________________________

You said:
For reasons of good sportsmanship I will tell you exactly where I stand. I am a Heaven loving, Hell hating, Bible Believing, independant, fundamental, Bible believing, amillenial, witnessing, missionarry supporting, tithing, standard keeping, Bible believing, Baptist preacher boy that can say I wholly trust in the perfect infalible word of God which is in no other form the King James Bible!

==I can say the same about me except the KJV and amillenial parts. I am not amillennial because I accept the plain sense of Scripture.

Martin.

 

You said:
Do you read the original manuscripts. I would be interested in seeing those. Could you please send me a picture or two of the originals.

==The autographs have not been preserved (that we know of). How do we know what the autographs said? Two ways. First and foremost God has seen to it that His Word has been preserved faithfully through the years. This is why our modern translations are perfectly worthy of trust. Secondly, and not seperated from the first, is the science of textual study. By studying manuscripts (etc) scholars can determine what the originals said. By God's grace we have great translations that are faithful to the autographs. Therefore no Christian need worry about a lack of autographs.
_________________________________

You said:
So you are telling me that those who can only read the English versions are only getting 98% of what God meant for them to read? You mean to say that there is 2% missing?

==That is not what I said. We are sure of 98-99% of the text, the other 1-2% is made up of textual variants. None of these textual variants add to or take from the text. These are minor differences in wording (etc). Some of these are translation issues (how to properly translate a word/phrase) others are uncertainty about which exact word/spelling the author used. However nothing is missing from our modern translations. They are perfectly trustworthy and complete. The modern Christian can rest assured that we do have the Word of God. That can be said if the use the NASB, the KJV, the NKJV, or any other faithful translation (not a paraphrase).

All of this is basic textual stuff, nothing complex. Perfectly evangelical and orthodox.
___________________________________

You said:
So if I don't have the originals then I don't actually have every word?


==You think the KJV, translated in 1611, is the originals? I hope not. I think you have a basic misunderstanding of inspiration and inerrancy. We have the Word of God, every word of it.

Back to the topic at hand, however, there is no textual or Biblical reason to restrict the Word to only one english translation.
______________________________


Martin.