Originally Posted by MC1171611

I tend to think of it this way: God preserved His people, the Jews, scattered all over the globe, for almost 2,000 years since the last dispersion, and He was able to bring them back into the Land of Promise starting in 1948. If He could do that with those stiffnecked (God bless them!!) and rebellious people (Shalom Aleichem! ), then what a fool a man would have to be to think that He could not have preserved His own WORDS through the centuries and brought them back together in one place in 1611!

"Could" and "did" are two completely different things. Yes, God "could" do that. What a fool a man would have to be to think that He could not have preserved His own WORDS through the centuries and brought them back together in one place in 1881! But did he? No.

[MC1171611]

I've never claimed that the inerrancy, perfection and inspired origin of the King James Bible was solely a Biblical doctrine. I'll even go so far as to say that it's impossible to prove the King James Bible to be the perfect word of God from the King James Bible alone. Do I believe it is? Indubitably. I've been settled on that for years now, and every discussion, study and argument I come across simply solidifies that faith even more. Even my short time in Greek class did nothing but prove that God had to be behind that Book, or else we should all go home and forget this "God" nonsense.

However, that being said, I want to make a point; while the main reason people quibble about the King James Bible issue is that they don't want to submit themselves to a single, Final Authority, another reason is that like Bro. Brian, they have difficulty bringing themselves to accept something that is not a completely "Biblical" "doctrine." I believe that the Bible clearly and decisively says that God gives His word by Inspiration, and that He preserves it perfectly and without blemish. That is not the question: the issue is where to find that word of God, and the words of God, and also to ascertain whether or not all those words of God ("...every word of God is pure...") are all in one place. While obviously they have not all been compiled together at every point in history (some of them weren't in existence yet!), God is not the author of confusion; realize the double-meaning there and consider the myriad "Bibles" that have been foisted on humanity in the last 120+ years: don't you think that's a little "confusing"?

I'll get into more later; I have a lot of ideas running through my head right now, but I have to leave for visitation tonight. God bless.

Originally Posted by KJBPrincess

Very well said, VR!

Thank you, sister. But it need not have been said at all; Brothers Kinney and T roped me into it, like a newborn calf, when there was already a separate thread about the subject that I hadn't noticed!

Originally Posted by PB1789

I think the Post by "Vendetta Ride" was well done wherein he mentioned the various Bible versions/translations. He stole my sermon.

I resent that, brother. I was stealing from somebody else!

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

The seven purifications leading to the KJB cannot be the Gothic, and is not the Wycliffe (it had no real influence on the KJB).

Thank you for your post, brother, which I have not quoted in full. I do not intend to bandy words with you about the relative importance of the translations of Wycliffe contra Rolle and others; and I certainly have no wish to trace the history of the English language back to the ancient Sanskrit. I think that you are underestimating the importance of the Gothic in the development of the English Bible, but my days of teaching English are behind me, and it doesn't sound like you need an instructor in any case. In the grand scheme of things, I'm not sure that this is the most major of points.

The "seven purifications in English" is not something that I dreamed up after eating a bushel of bad oysters; I am neither knowledgeable nor imaginative enough to devise such a thing. But I fear that my post has been misunderstood, possibly because it was poorly written: I did not suggest that the English "purifications" were the direct fulfillment of Psalm 12:6, 7. I am uncomfortable quoting myself, but I specifically said:

We talk about Ps. 12:6, 7, and we speculate as to the nature of the seven purifications; but we don't always realize that, apart from the Old Latin and the Koine Greek and all that stuff, there have also been seven purifications in English - - - and only seven. The AV was the last ... Please understand: I'm not limiting Ps. 12:6, 7 to the development of the English language! I think the verses go much deeper than that, and refer to much more. But isn't it interesting that the development of the English Bible came in seven stages?

That's all that I was saying. I said that that that was all that I was saying, and that's all that I said. See what I'm saying?

Originally Posted by Brian T

- 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.

Thank you, brother, for taking the time to explain your position to me so clearly. (And thank you for reminding me of what a simile is; I might have gotten it mixed up with a metaphor! Horrors!) But, once again, I was not claiming that the development of the English Bible, from Gothic to 1611, was a direct fulfillment of prophecy. Counting my original post, I have now said that four times, which, I hope, will suffice.

I do not believe that the King James Bible is the only written word of God on earth.

But I do believe, with all my heart and soul and mind, that it is the only word of God in English. (It is mischievous to say that "we still have the Geneva and other translations." Yes, a few copies may be extant, but they are not in use; any more than the Royal Shakespeare Company uses the original First Folio for rehearsal. I'm talking about Bibles that are being produced, marketed, and read.) In that, I think I am in agreement with the majority of posters in this thread - - - even bibleprotector, who so heartlessly attacked me because I mentioned the Gothic.



But, as you can see, we "KJB Only" people (a term I dislike, by the way) do not all think alike, and we do not always agree.

It's a good discussion. However, a very friendly word of correction: either you or Brother Kinney referred to me as "Vendetta Drive." This simply must not stand. The Vendetta Ride was a historical incident of great import, and must not be mislabelled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earp_Vendetta_Ride

[Will Kinney]

Originally Posted by BrianT

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"
Brian

Hi Brian. It is statements like this that make me wonder what kind of strange logic you are using to try to sound 'orthodox' or even insightful. I have a lot more I could post about Tyndale's version, but here are just a couple examples.

Tyndale omitted the entire verse of Luke 17:36 - “Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken and the other left.”.

Tyndale omitted the entire verse of Mark 11:26 - “But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses. “

Amazingly, Tyndale’s N.T. also omits all these words from James 4:6 - “Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.”

In the book of Revelation Tyndale omits the words: “And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee” from Revelation 18:23 and the entire verse in Revelation 21:26 which reads: “And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.”!!

Now, how in the name of sound reasoning can Tyndale's version be called "in the same way" the "the word of God" and the King James Bible also be called "in the same way the word of God"?

Do you mean that Tyndale contained some or even most of God's words, but not all of them? Or did the King James Bible add these parts to the word of God? How is this "in the same way"?

It seems you are trying to satisfy (or confuse) everyone and end up sounding like you have a few screws loose in the ol' brain pan.

How do you reason your way through this kind of logic?

Thanks,

Will K

[Will Kinney]

Hi brother Vendetta Ride. Just a short note. I love your stuff and you really make me laugh. You're an interesting man.

Just another thought or two on Psalms 12:6. "It says the words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times."

I believe that this verse, like many other Scriptures, has a double fulfillment. I can only be seen in the second way after it has happened, not before. How many prophecies of Christ Himself were not understood until after they had happened? Many if not most of them.

Even at the time of Psalm 12 not all but maybe half of God's words had been penned, yet they are and were pure at that time even though about half of them hadn't even been written yet.

Obviously God's words over the centuries had become corrupted through false readings, omissions and additions. If God did not purify them, then there never would have been a perfect Bible.

Brian's position is that God's words are out there somewhere in a multitude of conflicting manuscripts and sometimes very different bible versions, and never really defined except in some nebulous and vague "ballpark" manner. In other words, they are still in a very unpurified state. He has no inerrant Bible and doesn't even believe there should be one. Pretty sad, really.

Will K

[PB1789]

The things a person learns on a Thread...

V.R.---All this time I thought your screen name was some new Italian-made motorcycle...

[Will Kinney]

Originally Posted by PB1789

The things a person learns on a Thread...

V.R.---All this time I thought your screen name was some new Italian-made motorcycle...

That, or a hit man for the Cosa Nostra

Will K

[PB1789]

...

Hello Will. Hey I just went over to your geocites page and read the article titled: "Don't go on safari with a NKJV translator." Funny stuff.

How did they change Bittern ( a bird) to Porcupine..?

{ I can see it now--- "That's not a male Cape Buffalo 25 yards away and snorting...That's a Penguin...}

The Church I attended, then joined back in So.Cal. used the NKJV---so they could better reach the kids and ESL folks in the congregation. I bought one, but I never liked it. They totally corrupt/water-down what the KJ and NAS say about Homosexuals/Homosexuality. Kept it for about 3 years, but sent it back to the Publisher and asked for a refund...Still waiting for that check- . I took my Cambridge Concord Ref. AV to Church .

BTW--- If Brian T. is reading this... Thanks for the reply/answer. You seem to be more civil than some of the posters at your website.

Originally Posted by Will Kinney

Hi brother Vendetta Ride. Just a short note. I love your stuff and you really make me laugh. You're an interesting man.

Away with your compliments, sirrah! They do not fare well with my natural immodesty. However, I'm glad to finally encounter you keyboard-to-keyboard; I've been reading your articles for years, over at ... that other site ... you know, the one with the grouchy ex-missionary. (I will name no names.) Whenever I've seen your byline, I've tended to say, "Well, this'll be a keeper," and I have a file of your stuff saved in Word. God is gracious, isn't he? He can even use a couple of old dogs like you and me. What a sense of humor He has!

Just another thought or two on Psalms 12:6. "It says the words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times."

I believe that this verse, like many other Scriptures, has a double fulfillment. I can only be seen in the second way after it has happened, not before. How many prophecies of Christ Himself were not understood until after they had happened? Many if not most of them.

Even at the time of Psalm 12 not all but maybe half of God's words had been penned, yet they are and were pure at that time even though about half of them hadn't even been written yet.

Obviously God's words over the centuries had become corrupted through false readings, omissions and additions. If God did not purify them, then there never would have been a perfect Bible.

Well, that's certainly a point well taken. I must admit, however, that the passage is not one on which I have a very firm grip. I believe it; I have preached it; I do not claim to fully understand it. The word "silver" throws me: why didn't He say "gold" or "brass?" I'm not finding fault; I simply try to analyze things word for word. The "furnace of earth" seems clear enough. But I believe that any passage can have multiple fulfillments, so long as they do not contradict. I.e., if the Preterists want to claim that some of Jesus' prophecies were fulfilled in 70 AD, they'll get no argument from me; but I will (and do) yowl like a scalded cat when they say that that was the only fulfillment. They're scoffers and ne'er-do-wells, and I have no patience with them at all.

Brian's position is that God's words are out there somewhere in a multitude of conflicting manuscripts and sometimes very different bible versions, and never really defined except in some nebulous and vague "ballpark" manner. In other words, they are still in a very unpurified state. He has no inerrant Bible and doesn't even believe there should be one. Pretty sad, really.

Without addressing Brian's beliefs directly, I will simply note, with continuing sadness, that 95% of the world's professing Christians don't believe they hold God's perfect word in their hands.

I'll tell you something, brother. I came to Christ at age 19, but by that time I had already gone through everything from Ayn Rand Objectivism to the occult. (I was a very "old" 19, having spent my teen years in the tumultuous 60's.) And I believed, obviously, some very foolish things. But on the worst day of my life, I didn't claim to have God's words, while harboring inner reservations. I believed the "new version" hokum for the first 13 years of my Christian life, because the dear people who discipled me trained me to believe it; but, when I learned about the Authorized Version, I never looked back. My faith in its perfection (and I use that word very deliberately) increases with each passing year.

Originally Posted by PB1789

V.R.---All this time I thought your screen name was some new Italian-made motorcycle...

Yes, it's reminiscent of a Vespa, isn't it? But you see, I'm not a scholar or the son of a scholar, as should be evident from my posts. God has graced me with an education ranging from a Palestinian agnostic (my undergraduate faculty advisor) to That Guy in Florida; but I'm no Bible scholar. When I think about Sherlock Holmes, or Evander Holyfield, or the Tombstone saga, I'm continually reminded of 1 John 2:15 - - - and it makes me very nervous!

Hi MC1171611,

I've never claimed that the inerrancy, perfection and inspired origin of the King James Bible was solely a Biblical doctrine.

I don't understand. If it's not solely a Biblical doctrine, then what else is it based on? In other words, in a more general sense, what are authoritative sources of doctrine besides scripture? Isn't this one of the biggest distinctions of non-Catholics vs. Catholics, sola scriptura (only scripture)?

I'll even go so far as to say that it's impossible to prove the King James Bible to be the perfect word of God from the King James Bible alone.

Then why be opposed to the view of someone who won't accept it as doctrine because it is admittedly not provable from scripture?

Do I believe it is? Indubitably. I've been settled on that for years now, and every discussion, study and argument I come across simply solidifies that faith even more.

It is fine to believe something that is not spelled out in scripture. It is not fine to claim that scripture is the only source of doctrine, and then hold to a doctrine that is not from scripture - let alone explicitly or implicitly try to impose that doctrine on others. For example, I took the liberty of searching your profile and blog for your home church, and then looking at their doctrinal statement. They list, as doctrines, several things that are not in scripture. In fact, it says "The King James 1611 Authorized Version will be the final authority in all matters of faith and practice above the opinions of any man, tradition, or any other source" which is really self-contradictory, since the KJV itself says no such thing - this "doctrine" is extra-Biblical and requires the opinions of man to make that statement in the first place.

Even my short time in Greek class did nothing but prove that God had to be behind that Book, or else we should all go home and forget this "God" nonsense.

If Christians from the first 80% of church history shouldn't have all gone home and forget this "God" nonsense (because they didn't have a word-perfect pure preserved complete Bible), then neither should we. I think God is behind the KJV (and other versions), but not in the sense of divine inspiration.

However, that being said, I want to make a point; while the main reason people quibble about the King James Bible issue is that they don't want to submit themselves to a single, Final Authority,

I have no problem with submitting to authority. I would submit to a "single, Final Authority" in a KJV-only sense if it could be demonstrated that the idea of submitting to a "single, Final Authority" was an authoritative doctrine in the first place - but it's not. If it was, there would be a "single, Final Authority" for the first 80% of church history and not just the last 20%.

another reason is that like Bro. Brian, they have difficulty bringing themselves to accept something that is not a completely "Biblical" "doctrine."

I accept lots of things that are not Biblical doctrine. But I don't accept them as Biblical doctrine. What I am trying to understand is why KJV-only supporters DO accept something as Biblical doctrine that is not from the Bible, while claiming the Bible is the only source of doctrine.

I believe that the Bible clearly and decisively says that God gives His word by Inspiration, and that He preserves it perfectly and without blemish. That is not the question: the issue is where to find that word of God, and the words of God, and also to ascertain whether or not all those words of God ("...every word of God is pure...") are all in one place. While obviously they have not all been compiled together at every point in history (some of them weren't in existence yet!),

But is this not completely crucial? If God's words were pure and preserved in the year 1500 A.D., yet not compiled into a single inerrant document, then obviously passages that promise preservation do not mean a single inerrant document (or else those passages would have been in error before that single inerrant document was produced). So obviously those passages meant something else - they meant preservation in a different sense than KJV-only supporters desire them to mean. And since I refuse to accept that 1. those scriptures changed meaning when someone cranked a printing press in 1611, and 2. new doctrines came into existence part-way through the church age, then I must conclude that both the meaning of those scriptures on preservation, as well as the doctrine of preservation, must be consistent across the church age.

God is not the author of confusion; realize the double-meaning there and consider the myriad "Bibles" that have been foisted on humanity in the last 120+ years: don't you think that's a little "confusing"?

The "God is not the author of confusion" verse is often taken out of context in this way. It is not talking about personal uncertainty, but about tumult and chaos in a church service setting. Some people find the KJV confusing - does that mean that God is therefore not the author of it? Some people find the Trinity confusing. Some people find math confusing. That just means they need to study more, not that those things are not of God. Also, KJV-only author D.A. Waite, in his book "The King James Bible Defended" lists the KJV as being the 17th complete English Bible (and 29th if you count New Testaments). Could not someone in the 1600s have said "God is not the author of confusion" about so many English translations back then, and used that as an excuse to reject the KJV and cling to their Tyndale or Geneva?

God bless,
Brian