Quote:
Originally Posted by Gord
Personally as a NON KJV only current believer, I'm looking for some solid refutation of Dr. Robert A Joyner's accusation of KJV ONLY folks being like a cult.
So far from what I've read hear and elsewhere I've not found a lot of FACT to change my mind.
|
Help us out here -- what behavior do you attribute to all who hold to the KJV as perfect do you regard as cultish? If you're looking for something that can be refuted on an objective level, you'll need to be specific.
Joyner's position is no different than the majority of pseudo-fundamentalists who hold it as fundamental that God's word was only "perfect" in the original autographs. For all Joyner's accusations of word games in his first section, he has no trouble adopting a patently absurd and unbelieving position -- that God's perfect and complete word only exists in manuscripts nobody has, will ever find, or claim to have seen.
The Bible refutes utterly the notion that God's word was only "inspired" in antiquity and that inspirational authority no longer exists. Paul said God's word
is inspired. Not
was. In order for words to be of God, they must, by nature,
be inspired. If you are reading a book you don't believe is inspired by God, then you can rationally claim it to be of God.
The KJV did not require "original inspiration" (if we can call it that) because the KJV is simply the word of God in English. The words are therefore inspired. If they are not inspired, they are not God's word. If you only believe inspiration exists at the point of Paul's pen, then you can not in any meaningful or reasonable way also claim any book or copy we have available to us is from God.
Anyway, the fundamental tenet of Bible preservation and inspiration is the issue, so I would suggest starting with this article on what
God's word says about it:
God's Providential Preservation of the Scriptures
That's an excerpt from the book
Thou Shalt Keep Them, a tome of tomes on the subject of preservation and inspiration. (Side note: when the editor of the book originally contacted me, he said the book was a scholarly treatment of the subject. I told him I wouldn't hold that against him. I do recommend the book.)