Textual History of the KJB

^^^

Do you really believe and love the truth? Our faith in what God spoke through the Word of God is as objective and as real as God Himself is Sovereign. Our beliefs and subsequent doctrines/teachings eminate from the Word of God. Believing that God somehow performed a supernatural act of preserving the text of the Bible perfectly as the originals had read is preposterous and unbiblical. Those of us--we who hold to the orthodox, historic Christian doctrines of inspiration, inerrancy, infallibility, and illumination-- challenge those like yourself, Mr. Perry Sr., to state fully what God said-- from the Word of God-- about what can be said to your so-called 'beliefs of faith' about the KJV. You can continue to attempt to rationalize your beliefs as being the 'biblical' one, but without PROOF of what God has said about the subject, then there is nowhere you can go to continue on in your obfuscation of your error(s). Again, we have stated to you-- and others of your persuasion-- to develop a doctrinal statement from the Scriptures that proves what you claim God did. Otherwise, it is such rubbish that we will continue to defend the Bible from. KJVOnlyism deserves the contempt that it does because of its denial of the truth. We who love the truth will continue to defend it from the errors and deceit of KJV-onlyism.

 

LRL...in my opinion you are crossing the line when you question my faith.I unswervingly believe every bit,jot,and tittle of my Bible...line upon line,precept upon precept.And...I don't question your faith...that is not my place.Genuinely saved people populate both camps.However...you did make one valid statement which I'll quote:

LRL states:
"Again, we have stated to you-- and others of your persuasion-- to develop a doctrinal statement from the Scriptures that proves what you claim God did. Otherwise, it is such rubbish that we will continue to defend the Bible from."

From that I would agree that people of our position have probably failed to do that effectively since none of the scriptures we might quote mention the KJV(SPECIFICALLY).However...the same can be said to be true of YOUR position as well.You can't pick up a single one of your other translations and do ANY BETTER than we can.Truthfully,even though I think we could both say we have seen a lot of scripture quoted in defence BOTH WAYS,the truth is that the only defense EITHER WAY is in the "manuscript evidence" that both "sides" adhere to...we to ours...and you to yours.It truly is in my opinion an "unwinnable" argument since both sides are probably always going to stick to what they believe is the best and most believeable evidence.I'll grant you that there is a lot of raw emotions running high on both sides of the fence.The bottom line in my estimation is simply this...you believe the evidence you have seen and studied to be true...and I believe the opposite of that in accordance with the evidence I have seen and studied.I'm no longer arguing about it..it is pointless.
In closing my participation in"the debate",I will only add that,unlike some of my more extreme KJV brethren,I don't personally ever make this issue a "test of fellowship"since we both confess to believing that the Bible IS the Word of God.Nor do I EVER question the genuineness of ANYBODY'S faith unless they deny the fundamental doctrines taught in the Word.I joined the Baptist Board looking for fellowship...not arguement...and where I have violated that I will repent and ask the Lord's forgiveness.I want to be pleasing to Him and a source of edification to my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.God Bless You.

Greg Sr.

 

Mr. Perry Sr. you are a very humble man. Not many of us will admit that we are not qualified to discuss these issues. I think I am probably one who should not be debating here due to my lack of knowledge on the subject itself.

I saw your last post and I want you to know that I would never question your faith. We may have to agree to disagree on Bible translations, but you have had enough honor to present your belief and not slander mine and I appreciate that.

Debates are all about disagreeing and discussing differences in beliefs. You do well at not attacking your fellow debator and I commend you for that and I will not attack you for the beliefs that you have.

It is nice to have you here!
thx
Phillip

 

Thank you brother Phillip and God Bless you.Maybe we all just need a good old fashioned revival...I know I always stand in need of that.

Greg Sr.

 

In no way am I questioning your faith, nor whether or not you are a believer. This is not, nor was not, my intention or point. I am questioning as to whether you love the truth-- and seek the truth despite whether or not it contradicts what you personally believe. About 12 years ago, while I was in college, I was introduced to KJV-onlyism by an IFB pastor here in Florida. For about a year's time, I held to similar beliefs you do concerning the KJV and modern versions. My friends and a college professor, who taught me Greek, were able to show me the truth about Bible doctrines and how the Bible was transmitted. This is why I am so adamant in arguing against this scourge of error, being KJV-onlyism. Your perceptions about me being 'scholarly', while at the same time questioning my ability to accept 'faith' in the KJV, is equally as troublesome to me since you are likewise questioning the faith of those who do not hold to your views. Having an education is a tool in gaining a better knowledge of God through the written Word, and it is not a stumbling block for me-- or any other here-- to accept and practice my/our faith. Just because I have a Bachelor's degree and some seminary training does not mean that I don't know what I'm talking about!

No one here is asking for a verse in the Bible that says something like "God preserved the Word of God into the English language into the KJV". Those of us who ask for Scripture regarding preservation, as you define it, are asking for a proof, summary of proof, or a doctrinal statement that could be gleaned from Scripture that would support your view of the KJV. Let me give a simple illustration: There isn't a single verse in the Bible that clearly states that there is a Trinity, as being the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, although the concept of a Trinity is clear from a systematic study and the development of doctrine. The Bible is clear, in many cases, that God the Father is God, God the Son Jesus Christ is God, and God the Holy Spirit is God, all listed separately in scattered verses. Theologians have systematically studied these verses and have easily concluded that there is one God, in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is the kind of scholarly and systematic study of the Scriptures that we are asking KJVOnlies to come up with in regard to the preservation of the Scriptures that you claim to hold to. If the Scriptures were perfectly preserved in their content as to exactly hold the reading of the original autographs, then the Scriptures should allude to this as being what God did in fact perform. Secondly, a doctrine/teaching that states, develops, and defends that the KJV is "God's preserved Word in the English language" is also required for your doctrine to be sound. Phillip has stated formally over 50 times now for such a doctrinal statement from the Scriptures that could be defended by KJV-onlyists like yourself. It is what everyone wants to hear, examine, and discuss.

This is obviously the most seriously flawed statement that I have read in quite a while. There isn't ONE MV proponent here who makes claims that their 'translation' is perfect. I have stated in an earlier post that those of us who hold to the doctrines of inspiration (theopneustos), inerrancy, infallibility, and illumination hold to the BIBLICAL view of Scripture. God did not make a way to supernaturally (or, otherwise) preserve or protect the text of the Bible from errors after the original autographs were written; you cannot make a doctrinal statement from the Scriptures stating that God superintended the copied manuscripts to be kept from errors. This does not do any injustice to the Scriptures themselves, nor does it take away from the self-attesting doctrines of inspiration and inerrancy. Even with the text of the Bible having contained errors in it, the Bible is still infallible and with full authority; the Scriptures, even despite copying errors, still is the very Word of God. You cannot deny that the manuscripts, written over fifteen centuries in the NT alone, are without errors in the copies; this is a simple fact. If you acknowledge this, then you cannot have a 'perfectly preserved' KJV, or any other translation. The manuscript evidence suggests, as it strongly does, that there is no manuscript out there without errors in it. You cannot make false charges against the MV's because you think that they left out a word here and a sentence there. You cannot make false claims that God supernaturally preserved and protected the KJV from errors, or that the underlying text of the KJV (in Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek) was likewise protected from error. Do you not see the error of your ways? Original autographs does not equal the KJV, nor is the KJV perfect-- or even close to perfect.

Unfortunately, this issue is becoming and has become a test of fellowship. Someone who denies the historic Christian doctrines of inspiration, inerrancy, infallibility, and illumination is not one who should have 'fellowship' on a level that requires the co-operation between my church and another which believes in KJV-onlyism. I don't deny that we can become Christian 'friends' here on the BB, but we will forever be separated by this false and deceitful teaching. KJV-onlyism is another kind of error that has crept into otherwise Bible-believing churches like the kinds of errors that have historically been the nemesis of orthodox Christian doctrines.

 

Back to the textual history of the KJV...

What sayest thou, O Mrs. Michelle, and Mr.Perry, about the fact that the KJV(Name your fave edition), Textus receptus(Name your fave revision) & the manuscripts from which they were translated, ALL differ amongst themselves?

 

^^^

So much for a 'perfect' KJV.

Ahem.....

Sorry for getting off topic, robycop3.....

 

Mr. Perry may admit that they differ among themselves, especially if he saw the evidence. Michelle, on the other hand, is one who accuses everyone of going by blind faith, yet has no proof to back up her claims of KJV Onlyism, nor does she have an answer for which edition of the KJV is the pure, perfect, 100 % word for word Word of God. Nobody can do so, because there is no such thing.

 

No prob, LRL71...I do it myself quite often, so I'm not casting stones.

There are some people who have plenty of guesswork but no FACTS. They want us to believe a 75-yr-old myth about a 400-yr-old Bible version.