Thesis 23/36: The Word of God

DOCTRINES OF SCRIPTURE
Doctrine 23 / 36: The Word of God

The King James Translators wrote in their prefatory work the following statement demonstrating their thoughts on the Bible. "But now what piety without truth? What truth (what saving truth) without the word of God? What word of God (whereof we may be sure) without the Scripture? The Scriptures we are commanded to search. Joh. 5:39. Isa. 8:20. They are commended that searched & studied them. Act. 17:11 and 8:28, 29. They are reproved that were unskillful in them, or slow to believe them. Mat. 22:29. Luk. 24:25. They can make us wise unto salvation. 2 Tim. 3:15. If we be ignorant, they will instruct us; if out of the way, they will bring us home; if out of order, they will reform us; if in heaviness, comfort us; if dull, quicken us; if cold, inflame us. Tolle, lege; tolle, lege; Take up and read, take up and read the Scriptures."

God has revealed Himself to man with two types of revelation. General Revelation is given to all men. It includes the creation's demonstration that there must be a Creator. It includes the conscience that all men are given so that they know there is good and evil. But General Revelation is limited in regards to the specificity of the message. Special Revelation is when God reaches down and interacts with man in some special or detailed way. He talked with Adam in the Garden. He talked with other ancient fathers verbally. Sometimes He spoke to them in dreams, and sometimes He used His prophets to carry His message to the people. The greatest of His Special Revelation came when He took upon Himself human flesh and dwelt among men. "God, who at sundry times and in diverse manners spake in times past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son..." (Hebrews 1:1-2). This message of Jesus Christ was then given to them that saw Him, in order for them to carry it on to others. God gave those men special signs and wonders to confirm the message that they were preaching (Hebrews 2:3-4). These men, the apostles and prophets, recorded their teachings in writing. These writings, inspired by God, were compiled by the early church into what is now known as the Bible, the foundation of Christians (Ephesians 2:20).

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable..." (2 Timothy 3:16). God moved men to write His word by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21). What He wanted people to know for millennia to come, he had these men record. And the textual criticism of the New Testament demonstrates that what exists today is the same as what existed 2,000 years ago. The word of God, what God spoke, must be believed and obeyed. To disregard what the Bible says, is to disregard what God says. "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Romans 10:17).

"Every word of God is pure" (Proverbs 30:5). "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Matthew 4:4). "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" (Matthew 24:35). God has put great weight on His word. He has promised to keep His word and protect it. Some people would assume that He means that He would protect the message or the general gist of His word. However, as those verses show, He will keep every word. They are His words that are important, not only the message. And truly the message will change if the words change. The reason this is important to bring up is because there are a variety of different translations and versions of the Bible. However, only the train of thought that brings one to the Authorized Version, the King James Version, will be able to maintain that God will preserve each of His words.

The issue of the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is overflowing with misunderstandings and ignorant claims made from both sides of the issue. Some think that the people that use the KJV do it solely because it is old-fashioned, and they do not want to change. Some think that the people using the modern translations are simply not Bible-believers, and that they are just people that will change the Bible to fit what they want it to say. While that may be true about people in both of those camps, the issue is not about those things. The issue with the modern translations is not simply an issue of changing a couple of words to update the language, as is commonly thought. There are words, phrases and even complete verses or passages missing from the modern translations (Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mark 16:9-20).

The KJV's translation is superior to the modern translations for three overriding reasons as taught by Dr. D. A. Waite. (Dr. Waite teaches a Four-Fold Superiority, including the "Superior Technique" while referring to Formal vs. Dynamic Equivalency. Since that is an issue dealing with fewer of the modern translations than the other two, it is not given as much significance here.) They are: Superior Texts, Superior Translators and Superior Theology. A brief summary of the three are given below.

Superior Texts: This is the heart of the Bible versions debate. The fact that there are 17 verses missing from the New International Version (NIV), New American Standard Version (NASV), and Revised Version (RV) is not because the language fit better with them missing. Rather, these verses are missing because they are not found in the Greek texts underlying their translations. The KJV was translated from the Textus Receptus, so-called because it was the Received Text throughout the age of the church. However, in 1881, a new Greek Text was released by Westcott and Hort in England, along with it was a new Revised Version translated from that Greek text. Their Greek text has been revised numerous times since then, but the latest versions are still being translated from those Greek texts. The sources behind their Greek text were mostly from two ancient manuscripts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. These two manuscripts are older and beautiful, but they do not agree with each other in many places, and have been corrected by numerous editors over the centuries. The Received Text is based on more than 95% of the extant Greek manuscripts. The Received Text is superior in that it has the readings that the church has used throughout the centuries, where the Critical Text, based on Westcott and Hort's, has readings that are brand new to the church.

Superior Translators: The scope of this paper limits the ability to do justice to the translators of the KJV. However, they were men that believed the Bible was the inspired word of God as was seen in their preface. They were preachers and missionaries of the gospel. They were men of prayer. Their intellectual capabilities were also beyond those of the general academia today. Not only were they well taught in the universities, but many of these men grew up engrossed in foreign languages. They would read and write in these other languages, and their familiarity with the language was much greater than simply academic. These men were tutors for kings and for queens. About 50 of these men got together in six different cities in England, beginning in 1604. For the following 7 years, these men translated the Bible. They had such a system so that every verse that was translated was looked at by, at the very minimum, 14 different sets of eyes. In 1611, they finished the work, and the version that was authorized to be translated by King James I, was appointed to be read in the churches.

Superior Theology: This superiority deals with the stronger message that is portrayed in the KJV. The deity of Christ is challenged by the Jehovah's Witnesses. Their Bible that they use, the New World Translation (NWT), follows the NIV in a few verses which have a change that weakens the doctrine of the deity of Christ. "Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body..." (1 Timothy 3:16 NIV). The KJV reads, "God was manifest in the flesh." The context is Jesus Christ, but it is not a big deal that Jesus appeared in a body. History is obvious that there was a man in a body by the name of Jesus. However, when it reads, God was manifest in the flesh, that changes things. There are other doctrines that also change or are weakened in the modern Bibles. Fasting for spiritual power is omitted (Matthew 17:21; Mark 9:29). Some would argue that while these things are obviously important, you can still be saved from the NIV and other modern versions. While this is true, it is important to remember that the Scripture was given that the man of God may be perfect, not just to the starting point (2 Timothy 3:17).

"Thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name."

NOT KJV-Only Reason # 3

The third reason I would like to give... or better put the third NON-reason I am KJV is:

Reason # 3: Because the King James Version is an example of progressive or advanced revelation.

The basic premise of this point is that the King James Bible contains some sort of revelation that God wanted to get across to mankind that was not contained in the original languages and autographs. The reason I don't accept this is that God told us not to add to His word, and I don't believe He has added to it either. God inspired His word in the canon of Scripture ending about 95 AD with the Apostle John. If we allow that a translation of the Bible contains more revelation from God, then we would have to allow the possibility that God is revealing His word still today in other ways. Perhaps He is using men as prophets to add to His word again. Maybe the book of Mormon is actually just progressive revelation that He had not given back then... I don't see how we could make a difference between those ideas.

There are advantages in my KJV Bible over the original autographs:
First, I have all 66 books together in one book in my lap. The original autographs were not together.

Second, I can read English :)
Third, I like being able to go to a specific chapter and verse, rather than having to turn to a book and skim through it to find a particular point. That would be an interesting way to preach - I guess you really would stick to expository preaching.

Fourth, It is an advantage to me to have spaces in between words, ANDNOTHAVEALLOFTHEWORDSTOGETHERLIKETHIS.


Now, all of those things are advantages - so is the dictionary & concordance in the back of my Bible. But that does not mean that those things are added revelation from God. They are helps, and since every good & perfect gift comes from the Father of lights, I will even say that those helps are from God, but not that they are inspired revelation that was not found in the original autotraphs.

Just a thought...

Andy Hinds

NOT KJV-Only Reason # 2

As we continue this week's theme of reasons I am NOT KJV-Only (again, not the best way to say it, but the most eye-catching!), yesterday I talked about not being KJV-Only because of the copyright issue. Today, I want to give you reason number 2:

Reason # 2: Because you can only be saved if you are using the KJV.

The argument would go like this: James 1:21 says that we can be saved by the 'engrafted word.' 1 Peter 1:23 is more specific, "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever." Since the KJV is the word of God and is without corruption, and "the other version" is full of corruption, it goes without saying that you can't be born again with "the other version"... Right!?

Well, I have a couple of issues with that. First, I'm pretty sure that people were saved before 1611 (think about guys like Martin Luther or John Knox here...). Some would say, then they must have been using the Greek Textus Receptus for that... Ok, but I'm pretty sure that there were some people that were saved before 1611 that did not speak Greek. They would have either used the Latin, or some other language of Scripture. That means, that they were saved using a translation that most people realize would have had some level of corruption...

Second, what if someone is just saved from the testimony of others. What if somebody witnesses to someone else using their personal salvation story and including the truths of the gospel without quoting the Scriptures behind it. For example, what if I say: "You're a sinner, and Jesus died for your sins. He then rose from the dead, and you need to repent and put your faith in Him or else you will die and go to Hell." If someone believes that and repents... can they be saved? Even though there was no Bible verses quoted? I think so... The authority needs to be God's word, found in the Bible, but I don't think an exact quote is mandatory for the person to receive God's word - arguments?

It is the gospel that is the power of God unto salvation. When we witness, we ought to use Scripture - the word of God is quick and powerful - but if we misquote a verse on accident, we don't need to be afraid about that person not being able to get saved. (I don't think we ought to misquote verses either!) Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. The closer we are to the word of God (which is pure), the greater opportunity there is for faith to increase.

Just a thought...

KJV-Only Reason # 10

It's Friday again, so if this is too long... you've got all weekend :)

Ok, time for my last episode for King James Version Only reasons... I would like to define once again what I mean by KJV-Only:
The King James Bible is the perfect, inerrant, accurate, inspired and glorifed word of God in the English language. I believe that to be true.

• Perfect = free from defect and complete in the source/texts from which it was translated
• Inerrant = there are no "mistakes," "mistranslations," "bad renderings," "careless oversights..."
• Accurate = it is a perfectly accurate translation of the word of God from the original languages
• Inspired = in that the original autographs were inspired by God, and subsequently they were preserved by God, a perfectly accurate tranlsation of the inspired word of God, makes it an Inspired word of God as well, in the English language.
• Glorified = inasmuch as we give it the glory that it is due - by reading, meditating and obeying

I have give 9 reasons on my blog, here, why I am KJV-Only as described above, and here they are again:

• Reason #1: Because a man of God challenged me on the issue when I spued my ignorant challenges against it.
• Reason #2: Because the KJV has all of the verses that are supposed to be in there.
• Reason #3: Because the Translators of the King James Bible treated the Scriptures as the word of God.
• Reason # 4: Because the KJV was translated from the Most and Best manuscripts.
• Reason # 5: Because I can depend on it being around for another 100 years and I won't need to replace it and learn a new version.
• Reason # 6: Because the language is more difficult, which allows it to be more precise and to excercise the mind better.
• Reason # 7: Because the translators of the KJV were more engrossed in the ancient languages than modern translators.
• Reason # 8: It is the standard by which all other versions are compared.
• Reason # 9: Because the King James Bible has been tried by some of the most educated and scholarly minds on the planet, yet it still has not been proven to be guilty of error beyond reasonable doubt.
• Reason # 10: Because the doctrines found in Scripture of the purity, preservation and perpetuity of God's word are best understood with all that is behind the King James Bible.

The Bible's doctrine of purity of God's word:

Proverbs 30:5 - Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Psalm 12:6 - The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

The word "pure" means without any mixture of corruption. Psalm 119 says that God's word is very pure. If you go up to any NASV, NIV, RSV or ESV user, and ask them if their books are without any mixture of corruption, without any mistake at all, none of them will make the claim that it is completley pure. Therefore we can disqualify them as being the pure word of God. It might be 95% the word of God, but it can not be considered the pure word of God. I believe the King James Bible has stood the test of time of accusations of error against it. And I believe that it manifests itself as being the pure word of God.

The Bible's doctrine of preservation of God's word.

Isaiah 40:8 - The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
Matthew 24:35 - Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

I start with preservation, because most of the parties involved in this issue agree with the view of the inspiration of the original autographs. Though many in the world will disagree with this statement, I start with this premise: The words of the original autographs were given by inspiration (inspiration means to breathe into) of God. So, I will not spend time on that issue.

Where disagreement will start is in the preservation. God has promised to cause His word to stand for ever and that they will not pass away. God's inspired word has to be preserved - because God said so. The proponents of the other translation will say that God's inspired word can only be found in the original autographs, and what we have today are corrupt (not-pure) copies. The King James Bible is translated from the Received Text, which is what the body of Christ has used throughout this age of the church.

The Bible's Doctrine of the Perpetuity of God's word.

Isaiah 59:21 - As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in they mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.
Psalm 100:5 - For the LORD is good, his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations.

There shouldn't be a need to focus on this subset of Preservation. That is, God's preserving of God's word tells us that it will be availabled to every generation. Some proponents of the other translation (...cough... James White ...cough...) have suggested that God preserved His word in the sands of Egypt for over a millennium until they were rediscovered. They would say, Yeah, God preserved His word, but it was not available to the world... it was preserved in Heaven.

The doctrine of Perpetuity tells us that God's word would be in the mouth of "thy seed," and "thy seed's seed" - all generations. It would not pass away "henceforth and for ever." Every generation since John finished his portion of it has had God's pure, inspired and preserved word. Not every person had it. Not every person could read it. Not every person obeyed it. But God's word is faithfully available.

KJV-Only Reason # 9

Well, in my KJV-Only posts, I have avoided looking at specific verses to add to the number of Reasons. Instead I have tried to give broad sweeps of why I am KJV only. I plan on doing one more reason after this one, and then my plan is to do something to get myself excommunicated...

Until then, I submit Reason # 9 that I am KJV-Only. Here's what I mean by that. The 5th reason I had given for being KJV Only is because of its faithfulness and that it will be around for another 100 years. Today's reason is similar, but a little more added to it:

Reason # 9: Because the King James Bible has been tried by some of the most educated and scholarly minds on the planet, yet it still has not been proven to be guilty of any error beyond reasonable doubt.

It has been around for 400 years as the premiere English translation. That of itself is remarkable. But then when you consider all of the people that have written against it - you would think by now that it would not even be in print any more. I have read books and articles on the other translation, but the arguments have not been conclusive enough for me to reject the KJV-Only position. James White's the King James Only Controversy really helped me out in solidifying my stance. I will be honest about it. There are some things in his book that when I read them, I was too ignorant of the subject of which he was speaking for me to give an answer, but when I weigh those in light of all the other arguments, I am not moved.

It is not conclusive in and of itself, but it is reasonable to give credibility to any position that can give a scholarly answer to all of the scholarly accusations thrown against it.

KJV-Only Reason # 8

For review sake - or if you're new to my KJV-Only reasons - I'd recommend you read KJV-Only Reason # 1. You can also go to all the posts I've written on the KJV and get the past 7 reasons by Clicking Here.

Getting right to the point, Reason # 8 that I am KJV-Only.

Reason # 8: It is the standard by which all other versions are compared.

Here's what I mean: Let's say I am trying to create a little weight to measure the mass of a gram, so that I could sell it to someone else for them to use to measure one gram. For me to make sure that I have an accurate gram, I could go to a couple of stores and by some gram weights and compare it to them. I would probably get fairly close to the right thing. But, really, what I am going to do if I want it to be exact would be to compare it to the standard found somewhere in France or something. If the one sold in the store is known to be really close, but off here in there, I'm not going to use that to compare it to...

It seems that all of the English versions of the Bible reference the King James Version in their prefaces. The NIV mentions by name the King James Version twice, but does not mention any other by name. The NASV talks about the KJV, calling it the most prestigious. The original ASV preface compares itself to the "Authorized" or "King James" version about 9 times. The New King James Version (known by some as the King Jimmy Version) begins its preface speaking of the 1611. The first paragraph of the Revised Version speaks of the KJV, and then continues to talk about it for the next 5 or 7 paragraphs.

My point is this. The Other Version cannot get away from bringing up the King James Authorized Version even in their own prefaces - because the King James is the prestigious standard by which all versions must be compared.

KJV-Only Reason # 7

"What's up?" The smart-alec answer to that question is: The sky, or the ceiling. How do we know what that phrase means? Because we grew up hearing it, and heard other people's answer to it, and figured out that it means something like, "What's going on?"

"Here's the scoop:" When a person grows up with a language, they get to know the different nuiance's of that language that you wouldn't generally get taught in school. A simple example, "Coche" in Spanish. For all of you that took Spanish in school, you know that coche means car, right? Well, if you were in Guatemala, coche means pig. You don't learn that in school.

"Do you get the point?" The King James Translators lived in a different world. They grew up reading books instead of playing video games. They grew up with language teaching, and it wasn't just something they were taught in school and never used again. The details of the translators are told of some having read the entire Hebrew Bible by the age of 5. Now, I'm going to be realistic and say, most likely it was mother or father reading with the boy the Hebrew Bible. Because, at age 5, you've hardly been alive enough to do that, but the point is still made. Some of these men were considered Greek masters at the ages of like 14. What were the modern translators doing at 14? When it came time for the translators to translate the KJV, they would have recognized languages and their peculiaralities (is that a word?) for what they really meant.

Reason # 7: Because the translators of the KJV were more engrossed in the ancient languages than modern translators

The argument is made that the scholarship of the modern translators is greater than that of the KJV translators. I am not pretending to say that today's translators are stupid or ignorant, by any means. I am quite sure that they are well qualified to make good translations. Here's what I am willing to say (I could be wrong): When someone today says that the KJV translators mistranslated a verse, or that they made a mistake in a verse, I really have a hard time accepting that. If someone wants to say that what the English words meant back then, and today we would say... whatever. I'm ok with that. But to say that the translators just slipped up and put a negative in there when there shouldn't have been one - I just don't buy. And the best part: when somebody that has taken 4 years of Greek in seminary feels confident in trying to correct the KJV translators' choices on words... I find that laughable.

KJV-Only Reason # 6

Back to the King James reasoning...

Ok, this one may not be well accepted, but I personally like it. I 'prefer' the King James, causing me to be KJV-only, because it is harder! You are probably saying, "Huh? What? That doesn't make sense..." And you're probably right, but hear me out.

It's harder in the sense that we don't talk that way a lot of times. "Blessed are the meek." We would say, "the meek are blessed." The Bible says, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Ye must be born again." We would say, "I am telling you the truth, really, you have to be born again." But we get some advantages with the more un-used language.

Before I explain myself some more, let me say that the KJV really is easy to read for the most part. I'm not going to be naive and say that any child could read everything in the whole Bible (KJV or otherwise, by the way), but for the most part: In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form and void and the darkness was upon the face of the deep... You might need a dictionary if you're new to the Bible.

So, we have advantages with the KJV. You have the "harder" Thee's and Thou's and Ye's. These pronouns actually have purpose though. The ones that start with T are singular and the ones that start with Y are plural. I say unto 'Thee' means to you individual. Ye must be born again means that y'all must be born again.

The same thing with the endings of "eth" (saith, giveth, heareth). They are third personal singular. He saith. If it ends in "st" (sayest, givest, hearest). They are 2nd personal singular. Thou givest, but Ye give. One person giving vs. more than one giving. Did I confuse you?

When you see the "t" at the end of the word, you get singular: Thou Shalt Not... Singular, but Ye Shall Be Witnesses is plural.

There are more examples that I could give, but I think I've pushed enough of you away already by thinking I'm a geek...

Reason number 6: Because the language is more difficult, which allows it to be more precise and to excercise the mind better.

Just a thought...

KJV-Only Reason # 5

Ok, let's start out by reviewing... I have been going through the reasons why I am King James Only. For what I mean by that, I refer you back to: Reason # 1. The first four reasons that I gave for being King James Only are:

• Reason #1: Because a man of God challenged me on the issue when I spued my ignorant challenges against it.
• Reason #2: Because the KJV has all of the verses that are supposed to be in there.
• Reason #3: Because the Translators of the King James Bible treated the Scriptures as the word of God.
• Reason # 4: Because the KJV was translated from the Most and Best manuscripts

The next reason I am going to give is not conclusive in itself, but does add to it. The reason has to do with the faithfulness and dependability of the King James. The KJV has been around for almost 400 years (I wonder what kind of anniversary party will be had in 4 years!). Even though it has been under the most severe attacks my Laodicean-aged scholars - oftentimes the most respected in the field - the King James Version has stood the fire. I have to admit that in the past few years (finally) it has ceased to be the number one Bible Version sold, however just the fact that it is still among the top couple, shows that it has not gone anywhere.

Reason # 5: Because I can depend on it being around for another 100 years and I won't need to replace it and learn a new version.

20 years from now, when the Even More Newly Revised-Again Update New Revised Standard Version is released, or the So-Far Most Recent For This New Day Today's New International Version (those are the EMNRAUNRSV and the SFMRFTNDTNIV for those of you that are interested, coming soon to an encyclopedia near you), I will be able to sit down with my AV and read it the same as I am reading it today.

I said that this reason is not conclusive in itself, because if history shows that another translation ends up lasting for 400 years and truly "replaces" the KJV in its popularity, that will not change the truth of some of the other reasons that I have been giving.

Now, I probably won't be so concerned about the KJV in 100 years, as I suspect that I will be able to see the Word of God in Person! But until then, it is reasonable to be KJV-Only.

KJV-Only Reason # 4

Ok, the fourth reason that I am KJV-Only, is to me, the most important topic in this discussion. (http://hindsey.blogspot.com/2007/06/kjv-only-reason-1.html for more details)

Reason # 4: Because the KJV was translated from the Most and Best manuscripts

If anyone has been following these reasons, you should have picked up on it by now, that the other translation is not just an "updated language" version of the Bible, but rather it is translated from a different set of texts.

The two Primary manuscripts (a Manuscript is a Hand-Written document) that are used in support for the other translation are the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. They have the privilege of being two of the oldest manuscripts and two of the most complete ancient manuscripts that are in known existence today. In 1881, the first edition of the other translation came out in New Testament form: the Revised Version. This was supposed to be an update to the language, but instead had a new Greek text introduced that was based on readings from these two manuscripts - mind you, these two manuscripts very often did not agree with themselves, yet were still given the weight in deciding which reading to go with.

These two manuscripts left out whole passages like the last 12 verses of the Gospel of Mark, and 12 verses from John 7:53 to 8:11. Dean Burgon back in the late 1900s wrote an entire book demonstrating the certainty that the last 12 verses of Mark were original and needed to be included in the Gospel. He essentially showed that these two ancient manuscripts were flawed in a major way when it came to that point. However, they are still being accepted and used for the other translation.

It is true that there are some more manuscripts that support the readings found in those other two corrupted manuscripts, but when you compare it to more than 5,000 manuscripts that disagree with them, I wonder why this is still even an issue.

This change of texts behind the translations explains why the other translation leaves out those sections of Scripture mentioned before. That's why some 17 verses throughout the New Testament are not found in the other translation. That's why important phrases are not found, talking about the Blood of Christ and some on Fasting. Along with changing phrases that would support the Deity of Jesus Christ (see 1 Timothy 3:16, 1 John 5:7).

KJV-Only Reason # 3

Just a reminder what I mean by KJV-Only, see: KJV-Only Reason # 1.

Reason # 1: Because a man of God challenged me on the issue when I spued my ignorant challenges against it.

Reason # 2: Because the KJV has all of the verses that are supposed to be in there.

The third reason has to do with a comparison with the translators of the KJV and the critical revisers of the other translation - specifically I refer to the Revised Version of 1881, and many of the textual critics that have followed since.

You see up until 1881, the KJV and the underlying Textus Receptus were the "Received Texts" of the Bible. Then in the 2nd half of the 19th century, some very old manuscripts were found - I'm sure I'll get into the specifics of those manuscripts some other time - a couple of textual critics by the name of Westcott and Hort, used these corrupted manuscripts and put together a new Greek Text from which the Revised Version New Testament of 1881 was translated. In their preface to their Greek edition, they write:

"We dare not introduce considerations which could not reasonably be applied to other ancient texts, supposing them to have documentary attestation of equal amount, variety and antiquity" (The New Testament in the Original Greek, p.277.).

That is, they say the Bible should be treated as if it were any other book!

Reason #3: Because the Translators of the King James Bible treated the Scriptures as the word of God.

The text in the image above, written in the old English typeset says this:

"But now what piety without truth? What truth (what saving truth) without the word of God? What word of God (whereof we may be sure) without the Scripture? The Scriptures we are commanded to search. Joh. 5:39. Isa. 8:20. They are commended that searched & studied them. Act. 17:11 and 8:28, 29. They are reproved that were unskillful in them, or slow to believe them. Mat. 22:29. Luk. 24:25. They can make us wise unto salvation. 2 Tim. 3:15. If we be ignorant, they will instruct us; if out of the way, they will bring us home; if out of order, they will reform us; if in heaviness, comfort us; if dull, quicken us; if cold, inflame us."

No, it's not just another ancient text - the Scripture stands apart from the rest of the books in the world. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold! The entrance of thy words giveth light, it giveth understanding unto the simple. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is Profitable! For doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works...

KJV-Only Reason # 2

To make sure you understand what I mean when I say I am KJV-Only, you may want to go back and read my first reason for being KJV-Only to be sure you get my position right... KJV-Only Reason # 1

One of the biggest surprises that I had when studying the King James issue was when I learned that there are complete verses missing in the other translation. You can go to: http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/nivdelet.htm to see which verses they are... So why am I KJV-Only?

Reason #2: Because the KJV has all of the verses that are supposed to be in there.

Now, the other translation defenders will say that the King James Version has added those verses, not that they have taken them away. What they're saying is that they think the Alexandrian manuscripts behind the other translation are the "most reliable manuscripts." That will be another one of my reasons later on, but the issue to take note of here is that the other translation is based on different manuscripts than the King James - they were not translated from the same thing! So much for the "updating the language" argument.

Recently the "ESV" has been getting a lot of attention... It is endorsed on their website by R.C. Sproul, John Piper, Max Lucado, Ravi Zacharias, Albert Mohler, Erwin Lutzer, Paige Patterson and Steve Green - and those were just the names that I recognized. It was billed by some as the "replacement" for the KJV. When I read that, I got interested that maybe it was an updated KJV or something like that --- Nope, it was just another Critical Text-based translation that leaves out the same words, phrases and verses as the rest of them do. It's just an updated RSV... In other words, it is just a part of the 'other translation.'

Could I remind everyone what God thinks about people adding to or taking away from God's word? I can't get around thinking that somebody - on one side of the issue or the other - is going to be in some serious trouble come time for Judgment...

One last reminder - tomorrow morning is Missionary Prayer Meeting...

KJV-Only: Reason # 1

The King James Bible is the perfect, inerrant, accurate, inspired and glorifed word of God in the English language. I believe that to be true.

• Perfect = free from defect and complete in the source/texts from which it was translated
• Inerrant = there are no "mistakes," "mistranslations," "bad renderings," "careless oversights..."
• Accurate = it is a perfectly accurate translation of the word of God from the original languages
• Inspired = in that the original autographs were inspired by God, and subsequently they were preserved by God, a perfectly accurate tranlsation of the inspired word of God, makes it an Inspired word of God as well, in the English language.
• Glorified = inasmuch as we give it the glory that it is due - by reading, meditating and obeying (the text above is 2 Thessalonians 3:1, speaking of the word of the Lord being glorified)

That's my stance on the King James Version. You really have to take some kind of stance on the issue, because the King James is different than the "other translation." I call it the "other translation" because all of the rest could really be lumped into one - there are exceptions, but the generalization is strong. It is the King James Bible vs. the rest of them. (For fairness sake, you could divide the other translation into two: literal translation vs. paraphrase/dynamic equivalence translation).

I have to clarify, before continuing, the issue: The King James translation was translated from a different set of original language texts than the rest of the versions were. Therefore, the other translation will have verses and phrases that are not found in them, because the texts they translated from did not have those verses and phrases in them. Sometimes, the translation will be different just because the translators of the other translation thought it would be better that way. It is NOT an issue of: "they just updated the language..." That just simply is not the case, yet I suppose that phrase would be the understanding of the vast majority of what Christianity thinks of when they hear of this issue.

I would like to share with you reasons that I, Andy Hinds, happen to hold this position on the King James Version.

Reason #1: Because a man of God challenged me on the issue when I spued my ignorant challenges against it.

I didn't say I was going to give you the best reasons, or the most conclusive reasons first. But the number one reason that I, Andy Hinds, believe the King James Bible to be the perfect, inerrant, accurate, inspired and glorifed word of God in the English language, is because Rick (who needs no introduction) held his ground against my charges of, "oh, that's not fair that the Spanish doesn't have a KJV." and: "Oh, where was the perfect word of God before 1611," and "Oh, why can't we just update the language - the KJV is so old!" and other such things. Rick left me one night after Bible study with a piece of wisdom: "I'm not going to convince you of this, you'll have to be fully persuaded in your own mind." Rick realized my stubbornness and pride, and realized that even if he won the argument, he wasn't going to win me... Anyway, he challenged me to look into it for myself - and I did!

Those next few weeks I had spent hours upon hours studying the issue. I was self-employed at the time and could easily move around my schedule, so I was spending many, many late nights up in my office reading books and browing pages on the Internet. A few weeks later, as I was going to be presenting the results of my study to our Home Bible Study, Rick asked me how long I had spent on studying and preparing. The answer I gave him, after figuring it out in my head, was about 80 hours - and that was even without the Baptist round-up!

The study showed me my ignorance of the subject, but more importantly than that, MUCH more importantly than that, during the process of studying out different changes made between the KJV and the other translation, I started realizing that I hardly knew my Bible at all - that there are things in the Bible, important things, that I really had no clue about! Throughout those couple weeks of me diving into my Bible head first, God used that to get a hold of me. Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. I really started to fall in love with my Bible - my King James Bible!

Thanks again, Rick! (Yeah, I know he doesn't read this blog - but it's the thought that counts!)

... and a reminder: This is Missionary Prayer Meeting week

The King James Bible is Perfect

The title says it all. Might not know my multiplications by 7 as well as others but I am glad that I can read my Bible and know that its correct and true, trustworthy and eternal, inEnglish!

1Co 8:1 Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.
1Co 8:2 And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.
1Co 8:3 But if any man love God, the same is known of him.

I want you all to know that I love Jesus - but talk is cheap, may you see it from me as much as you hear it from me!The B-i-b-l-e, yes thats the book for me. I stand alone on the word of God, the 1611KJV - BIBLE!!!!!!!

- used without permission from Aaron Putney - http://putneys4christ.blogspot.com