Hi Vendetta Ride,

Let me clarify my position for you. Here's what I recently posted elsewhere to someone that asked: I believe God preserved his word, and that we have it today just as we've had it throughout the church age. What Will and I disagree on is the form of that preservation. Like Will, I believe that prior to 1611, God's word was preserved not in a single perfect complete book, but in various texts. Unlike Will, I see no doctrinal, authoritative reason to believe differently for the time after 1611. Yes, I believe the KJV is "the word of God", but in the same way that the Geneva Bible was "the word of God", Tyndale's translation was "the word of God", etc., but since scripture itself doesn't tell us the KJV is textually perfect, then by definition KJV-onlyism cannot be an authoritative Biblical doctrine. That's all I'm saying and that's what I mean when I said "So yes, I 'deny the doctrine of an inerrant Bible composed of 66 books as having ever existed and certainly not now'. I deny that doctrine, because that doctrine is not found in the Bible." Just like I would deny the doctrine that the Geneva Bible (or any other translation) is textually and singly the perfect complete preservation of the word of God, that Mary physically ascended into heaven, that martyrs receive 70 virgins when they enter eternity, or that after Jesus' resurrection he appeared physically to the native Indians of North America to preach the gospel to them - for none of these doctrines are found in scripture and thus are, by definition of someone who claims scripture is the only source of doctrine, not authoritative Biblical doctrines.

So, that's my position. I do believe the KJV is "the word of God", but I believe it in the sense the KJV translators believed it: that multiple translations can all be the word of God because a translation of a King's speech is still the King's speech even though not all translators do an equally good job, and that a man is still made in the image of God even though he may have scars or warts on his hands. I do not believe all translations are of equal quality, and I believe the KJV is definitely one of the better ones. If some one wants to use it exclusively, I have absolutely no objection. But I will not accept a doctrine about the KJV that does not come from scripture, and I don't think it's wrong of me to ask someone who does accept this doctrine, like Will, "why?" - and I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a reply from him that is not full of personal jabs.

I agree 100%. However, like Will I believe there was no "single 'hold in your hand' complete inerrant perfect Bible" in the year 1600 A.D. I agree that Tyndales and others were the written word of God. But 1. they differ from the KJV, and 2. we still have them today.

This is where we disagree, for the following reasons:

- Psalm 12:6 is using a simile. The verse is saying that God's words are (not will be) pure. How pure? Pure as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. That's pretty darn pure.
- You, I, Will, etc. already all agree that God's wordS (plural) are, and always have been pure. You and Will are saying that God's word (singular, the "Bible") underwent a purification process - yet the verse does not talk about the word (singular) but about the wordS (plural). Why are you attributing this supposed purification process to the word (singular) when the verse is specifically talking about the wordS (plural)?
- even if this was a prophecy (which I disagree with) about a future purification of God's words (which I disagree with), the verse does not give any more details. Naming specific dates, languages, version is unauthoriative speculation, and you cannot hold this guesswork as authoritative doctrine for the church. You have no more authority to determine these details than anyone else who would name any other dates, languages or versions.

God bless,
Brian