I know that some of you are weary of the KJV Only debate. I am too. Especially today. But I think it is an important issue as it keeps part of Christ’s body divided (needlessly in my opinion). And so much of it comes from misunderstandings and confusions. It isn’t a simple subject, to put it simply 
Anyway, this month the men over at Jackhammer will be discussing the issue. And unlike Sharper Iron, they are willing to allow a free-for-all debate, which seems to inevitably blossom wherever this issue is discussed. They, as the blog name implies, are not afraid to “hammer away” on this and any other issue. And their rules are quite simple.
Don’t understimate these men. I respect the fact that they are educated and honest, and most of all they respect Scripture. Nevertheless, I differ with them on this and other issues. But their side is worth hearing out. Particularly on this KJV Only debate. If only their position would rule the day for KJV Only folks… Then perhaps we would not have people question the salavation of those led to the Lord from non KJV versions. And other equally nonsensical and dangerous postions would be avoided, too.
Well, in reading one of their posts, I saw a “manifesto” of sorts. And it is definitely not your average KJVO fare. And right now, they are getting comments and questions from two different sides concerning these points. So what do you think? If you want to know what I do, just go read the discussion at this post by Pastor Dave Mallinak, where these points were first given. I reproduce them in full here for your benefit. So if you’re afraid to join their discussion, just tell me what you think? As a KJV preferred guy, Will Dudding gave his interesting thoughts in a blogpost here that is definitely worth reading.
Call me crazy, but I’m interested to hear what you think.
1. We affirm that on the issue of versions, our most important duty is to be faithful to the Word and words of God.2. We deny that innerrancy for a particular English Version of the Bible is necessary. We neither affirm nor deny innerrancy of versions – it is a non-issue.
3. We affirm that perfection should be defined not as “without mistakes” but as “what God has given and preserved.”
4. We affirm that God promised to Providentially preserve His Word in the original languages.
5. We therefore affirm that whatever God has preserved can be said to be perfect, regardless of whatever “mistakes” someone might dredge up.
6. We deny that canonicity and preservation are separate issues. Canonicity refers to words, not merely books and chapters, and canonicity is a recognition of what God has preserved, rather than an establishing of what should be included.
7. We deny that preservation rests in any translation, including any English translation.
8. We affirm that translations should be chosen, not particularly for their “accuracy” as for their faithfulness.
9. We deny that any form of “dynamic equivalence” can be considered to be faithful. We deny that any modern version that utilized “dynamic equivalence” can be considered faithful.
10. We affirm that “formal equivalence” is the only faithful method of translation.
11. We deny that reliance upon the Critical Text could be considered faithful. We do not say, however, that the Critical Text could not be considered to be the Word of God on any level whatsoever. We deny that the Critical Text could be considered a faithful text of the Word of God.
12. We affirm that the body of texts known as the Received Text and the Majority Text have been proven through the years to be a faithful text of God’s Word.
13. We affirm that any version which attempts to translate either the Received Text or the Majority Text faithfully by means of Formal Equivalence can be considered a faithful translation.
14. We deny that it is a “sin” (i.e. “transgression of God’s law”) to read an unfaithful version. (Mark 7:15)
15. We deny that there could never be any other English version of the Word of God that would be faithful.
16. We affirm that the 1769 edition of the King James Version should be updated. We affirm that plans should be made so that this can be accomplished in the not too distant future.
17. We deny that any publishing house, including Thomas Nelson, Inc. has any authority either to create a version of Scripture or to write a new edition of Scripture.
18. We affirm that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth, and therefore the church itself (i.e. local churches) must take charge of the care and maintenance of the Bible.
19. We deny that any parachurch organization can be considered “the church,” and therefore we deny that parachurch organizations can or should have any part in the translation or care of Scripture. We include parachurch “Bible” colleges, no matter how scholarly their professors.
20. We affirm that an educated laity, skillful in languages, adept at handling Scripture, faithful to the written Word of God, and diligent in preserving, inasmuch as is humanly possible, can handle the Word of God and translation issues far more adequately and reliably than any other organization of man’s invention.
For more on this issue, check out my posts on the subject, or also my KJV Only Debate Resource Center.
Bob,
My two cents (at this point in the debate):
Kent & Co. seem zealously incapable of engaging in any serious or charitable conversation. Presumably, they are interested in two things only: discrediting you and anathematizing any who refuse to share their really strange position on textual preservation. In stead of being clear, meaningful, and constructive, their rhetoric is largely filled with verbal attacks, unfounded assumptions, and logical fallacies.
This upsets me, as I genuinely entered this conversation hoping to be sharpened and spurred and further educated through the means of clear-headed, compassionate dialogue. Their position is so strange and logically difficult to comprehend that I really need one of them to help me understand their viewpoint. But their diehard refusal to answer the most basic of questions seriously or sufficiently really is tell-tale.
I believe that this diagnosis of Kent & Co. is self-evident for anyone who has eyes to see. Unless they make an effort to show more maturity and clarity in their answers/questions/comments, I suggest we all quit wasting our time.
On the other hand, a perpetuation of such a thread should only dissuade any one half-considering Kent’s position. His ambiguity, hermeneutical gymnastics, unwillingness to answer direct questions, and quickness to take offense (not to mention his never-ending vitriolic spirit/personal vendetta against you) are open for all to see.
I really don’t hate the guy; I grieve for him, while I also am bewildered in my attempts to understand him…
Dave
[...] now the comment thread under my post “A KJV Only Manifesto” has equalled (or surpassed) the highest number of comments I’ve yet had on any post [...]
I have been following this discussion with interest, both here and on Jackhammr.org. Until now, I have been content to remain in the woodwork, as those of you questioning Pastor B. on his positions have been doing well enough without my help. I’m only posting now because of the request in #46.
I personally take a position that will probably be unsatisfying to those of you on either side. I could be referred to as KJVP. I love and use the KJV (1611 reprint, no less), and I have more faith in the various majority-family texts than I do in those in the CT family. However, I also see the promised preservation of scripture as what we have — a multitude of manuscripts that do not agree on every point. I don’t believe any of God’s words (that he intended us to have) are lost, but neither must they exist perfectly in any single translation. God’s words are settled in heaven, and I see no scripture to show they must exist in a single earthly place, just that every jot and tittle will be preserved.
What this means practically is that I am considered as much of a “rationalist” by those in the various KJVO camps as those of you who wholeheartedly embrace the CT. I do use various more modern TR and CT translations to give additional clarity where the older English of the KJV is more difficult, but I realize I also need to take into account the differences between the texts used.
I am certainly not against a more modern translation of the Bible, and practically speaking, if there isn’t one, KJVO’ism (at least the non-TRO version) will eventually die on its own (or be relegated to those who really care about its English), just as Shakespeare has only limited appeal today. Whether we like it or not, the English language has moved on, and the education of the average American is not going to give the students much exposure to King James English. At some point, reaching the lost with the KJV will be very difficult, something I think even Pastor B. and co. realize. However, if the only acceptable translation must come from those with a local-church-only view, it will be a long time in coming, if ever. At some point, if the Lord tarries, the “received text” of the true churches will move on, whether it is to the NKJV, or even a CT work such as the ESV, or some translation that hasn’t yet been done. I’m sure that “stamp of approval” (being received by the churces) will not convince those with beliefs similar to Pastor B. that this new Bible can be considered accurate (even though that is what they are arguing about the KJV), but it is the same process, nonetheless.
The version of KJVO expressed in the manifesto is certainly much more acceptable than the extreme versions, but the failure to admit or recognize that any textual criticism took place behind the “acceptable” texts shows the position, no matter how much improved from KJVOs of the past, to have some glaring holes than cannot simply be patched over or ignored.
Anvil,
Thanks for speaking up! (I hope that no one feels like they have to comment, but I did appreciate your comment.)
Just so you know, I can respect your position greatly. There are some important and significant arguments which would lead us to prefer the TR or the Majority Text over other texts.
In case you were wondering, Kevin Bauder in the book I quote from in my latest post on this debate (Where we are in this Whole Debate), gives a definition of KJVO. It surrounds whether one treats this issue more as a scholarly or academic debate, or whether one treats this issue as a point of doctrine. What he means is that KJVP people can respect people who don’t use the KJV and can reasonably debate on their position. And they allow that people who don’t use the KJV are still using the Bible. But KJVO people don’t respect people who don’t use the KJV and refuse to allow that they are using the Bible.
As this debate illustrates, and as you yourself have remarked, while moderately KJVO people (the TR Only people at Jackhammer) can provide lists of points which are much more moderately phrased than diehard KJVOs would like, still at the root there is a division here. They refuse to allow any other Bible to be God’s Word to the same degree that the KJV is.
And as I hope to show later this week (and with future posts, possibly), such a position actually overextends what Scripture says. It goes beyond the clear statements of Scripture.
Sorry to be long winded here. But anyways, thanks for commenting. Know you’re always welcome to lurk (and always more than welcome to comment) here!
Blessings in Christ,
Bob Hayton
Anvil,
It is a doctrinal issue, as you have admitted to a certain degree. You say “more faith.” Can I say that your faith is directed by the thought that even if it is in the “multiplicity of the manuscripts,” (a position that I believe, as espoused by the CT/Eclectic people, is very new) that position would automatically exclude Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandreaus? Then the multiplicity of manuscripts men profess that they don’t even believe their own position, because they believe there is no original language text of certain OT passages, actually betraying their own statements.
Why not believe in the doctrine of availability of every Word; that is strongly taught in Scripture. Accessibility is a doctrine, just like a very closely related doctrine, perspecuity, is being attacked by the emerging church crowd and the post modernists. If God requires us to live and use what He inspired, something absolutely taught in 2 Timothy 3:16, 17, then that would require having all the Words in one place, wouldn’t it? If you have an established doctrine of canonicity, where God’s people settle on Books, then you also should have, to be theologically and exegetically consistent, be settled on the canonization of Words. All of these doctrines depend on the Providence of God. Our faith must rest in what Scripture teaches, not in what we think finds academic acceptance. That’s where rationalism comes in. We submit these texts to man’s thinking instead of trusting in how God said He would work—through the churches.
Is textual criticism ever over? Will God’s people ever settle on what His Words? If not, then what do we not believe that “truth” is not dependent on “inerrancy?”
I’ve read all of the above posts for the past few days, and it is interesting to say the least. Personally speaking, I was once a KJV-onlyist. My problem with KJV-onlyism is that it is inherently schismatic and heretical, and is diametrically opposed to biblical docrine, especially to bibliology. The typical KJV-onlyist obfuscation is very similar to the style of arguments made by secularist political liberals in their ‘dialogue’ with conservatives. That has been the approach by one prolific and prominent KJV-only here on this thread; instead of dealing with criticism and objections to the facts that he has presented, we are deluged with additional (and irrelevant) question-begging arguments that don’t address the earlier posts. Dan Wallace said this in his article, “Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual Criticism” (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1221),…”MT/TR advocates argue from a theological vantage point which begs the question historically and logically. More serious than petitio principii, they make several faulty assumptions which not only run aground on rational and empirical rocks, but ultimately backfire. The most telling assumption is that certainty equals truth. This is an evangelical disease: for most of us, at some point, the quest for certainty has replaced the quest for truth. But even for majority text advocates, this quest must, in the last analysis, remain unfulfilled. The worst feature of their agenda, however, is not the faulty assumptions. It is that their view of preservation not only is non-biblical, it is also bibliologically schizophrenic in that it cannot work for both testaments. And that, to a majority text or Textus Receptus advocate—as it would be to any conservative Christian—is the most damaging aspect of their theological agenda.” The argument by KJV-onlyists is that those who adhere to modern English Bible versions and their underlying Greek NT texts are not ’settled’ on the truth. If KJV-onlyists were consistent, they would realize that they are equally as guilty as their counterparts. Which TR and which KJV is the ’settled’ (read: perfectly providentially preserved) Bible? Historically, the text of the English Bible– even the KJV– has changed throughout the years. The same is true of the Greek New Testament, as well as the various manuscripts that were written prior to the invention of the printing press. Despite these facts from history, KJV-onlyists attempts to spin it into something that cannot be supported– their ‘doctrine’ of providential preservation. To them, the need for certainty in a certain text of the Bible (whether English or Greek) is a theological a priori. Unfortunately, the Bible, history, or the manuscript evidence supports such a notion. The quest for certainty is elusive, not objective. God had not chosen to perfectly preserve the text of the Bible in any one single document nor a set of documents, and it cannot be settled objectively, or worse, theologically.
Larry,
I’ve got my 3 minutes left at the library, so I’ll only answer a part. If my position is the historic doctrinal position, who is the heretic by your definition? Who departed? I take the Owen, Turretin, Westminster/New Hampshire, London Baptist Confession position. And where does yours come from?
I believe heresy, rightly exegeted from Titus 3:10,11 is a local church issue. There are to be no schisms in the body according to 1 Cor 12, so by that definition, your separation from evangelicals of any kind makes you a heretic. Think about it. You don’t have a consistent position. God’s Word is consistent.
I in now way obfuscate. I have a clearly stated position. I edited a 300 page book on it and wrote 8 of the chapters. We will explain the practical ramifications later, but your are just resorting to ad hominemt about clarity. The alarm is ringing so bye for now.
Pastor B.,
I have a problem with the doctrine of availability as you define it, beginning with the fact that scripture itself seems to show that it is not always true. In the time of Josiah, the scriptures had ceased to be generally available, and when discovered, caused Josiah to call for repentance and renewal of following God’s law. Of course, you can say the scriptures were there the whole time, but obviously the existence of that copy was not known even by the King of Judah, let alone by all the people. In what way then was it truly “available?”
In the NT time, while scripture was still being inspired, there were people who were Christians who lived and died without being able to see all the NT books, even as they were being passed around the churches after they were written. Again, God’s written words were already in existence, but not every Christian, even in the area of the world in the neighborhood of Jerusalem had access to all of them.
Then there is what we can see from history. Even after the apostolic era had come to an end, there have been whole generations and groups of people who did not have access to the scriptures, in any language, let alone the original languages. I would not call the existence of some small number of copies in one corner of the world “general availability.” Unless you are a universalist, you would have to believe that God will hold all of the billions of people who have died in their sin responsible for not believing in Him, regardless of their access to the scriptures, and many have not seen so much as one verse.
Given all of these facts, it is entirely reasonable that God could expect us to live by his words even if only have 99.9% of them, 93% of them, or even less. Those Christians in Alexandria who may have had only 93% (assuming that the 7% difference between the CT and TR families was incorrect in the CT manuscripts) still could be saved and live for God to the best of their ability, even without that 7%. And men much more educated than I on this subject have argued that the differences that actually affect doctrine are much smaller than that.
There are cultures today that do not have the whole Bible, but have maybe the NT, or even just the gospel of John. Do people saved there need to live by all of God’s words? Of course! But they don’t have them all. How can that be? Maybe it’s because the “doctrine of availability” is not what some claim it to be. We should be grateful that we have copies of the scriptures as accurate as they are, rather than declaring that if we don’t have all of it, perfectly, then we have don’t have the Word of God at all. Neither the fact that one jot or one tittle shall not pass from the law nor the fact that we must live by all of God’s words in any way implies that we MUST have access to a perfect copy. Romans 9 makes it very clear that God will have mercy on whom he will and will harden whom he will. That might grate on our sense of “fairness” since we have to live by all his words, but fairness (at least our definition of it) has never been promised.
I’m back at home now for a very, vary brief period of time, but Anvil. First, what is my view of availability. I’d like to know what you think it is. I think we could work from there.
Of course, the Josiah passage has come up. You get from that—look, there was one copy in the world, that’s not availability. I get from that—very few people cared about Scripture at that period of time, and yet God supernaturally preserved Scripture despite that, and then made it available when someone truly wanted it. I have the same kind of view about revelation. I can’t prove general revelation, Anvil. I accept it. Why? Can I accept something that I can’t prove? How can I prove that someone in a remote corner of the world has had enough of an opportunity? Because God says they have. Did anyone in Nineveh circa Jonah have an opportunity to get saved? That was availability for Nineveh. And when opportunity came, they took advantage of it.
I stand amazed at the people who take a position that desires to widdle away at people’s trust in the perfection of Scripture. They will wedge in any way possible and look for any way to get a copy that is less than 100% accurate.
Anvil, you have answered this question. No one has. If we aren’t settled on what the Words of God are on earth, will we ever be settled? And if so, when? If we aren’t settled on the Words, what is the Scriptural basis to be settled on the Books? We do know that other orthodox books existed that are mentioned in the NT. Where are they? Is it possible that we are not including books that should be there? Why not? No one has even attempted to answer this, except for David Hayton, who scoffed it and called it a red herring. Again, the people who have done textual criticism for a living put the issues together and they laugh at the people who are divided on this issue—Canonized Books–Yes, Canonized Words–No.
Larry,
I read the rest of your post and I really don’t have many comments. However, what I would want to know is this? What is the definition of truth. James Price and Daniel Wallace both brought this up. They say we equate certainty with truth. So do we equate uncertainty with truth—that seems to be mutually exclusive. Truth is certain.
The rest of it is speculation on the part of Wallace. What version of the KJV? I don’t think an answer would satisfy someone that is committed to being unsettled and uncertain. I believe the Words behind the KJV. The churches settled on the TR and Hebrew Masoretic. Ben Chayyim called the Bomberg 1524/25 the Received Text of the OT in his introduction. The churches received the TR and the Masoretic. OK, now I get the second question, which edition of the TR? The churches settled on the Words behind the KJV. That is essentially 1598, but as David H. says with no novelty but an incredible amount of glee, “essentially” and “exclusively” or “actually” are different (he said quantum leap). We know that. I can’t in 2007 produce the paper and ink from which they translated, but I believe that men had available those Words behind the text. I can get them today in the Scrivener’s and in the Hebrew Masoretic.
I believe our second books will do the best possible job we can to indicate that the churches settled on the Words of Scripture, like they settled on the Books of Scripture. That will not be good enough for the embracers of uncertainty, but I won’t be able to do anything more for them.
“I get from that—very few people cared about Scripture at that period of time, and yet God supernaturally preserved Scripture despite that, and then made it available when someone truly wanted it.”
A couple of points here.
First, how is this different from all the interest during the Reformation in having the scriptures? When men truly had a desire to know them, God allowed them to begin finding manuscripts. Since the first few found were missing some of Revelation (at least), why wouldn’t we think other manuscripts would become available? Even some from the CT family were available at this time, but I believe that the larger number of differences was the cause that not as much faith was placed in those manuscripts and even though they may have been consulted, they were not the main basis of the text (I know CT-types will disagree with me as to the value of those texts). As there are still men today desiring to know God’s true words, more manuscript evidence is continually coming to light, and knowledge of ancient languages is increasing.
Second, how do we know that there were few besides Josiah who had a true interest in the scriptures at that time? At the time of Elijah, he thought he was the only one following God, but God told him there were 7000 that he did not know about. Any men truly seeking God’s Word at the time of Josiah still needed to wait on the discovery. Even Josiah himself needed to wait about 18 years, even though the scripture says he walked in all the way of David his father, and turned not aside to the right hand or to the left. The scriptures still weren’t found till he was about 26. How do we know that none of his desire to follow God came from godly people he knew that also did not have the scriptures but followed God as best they could? We don’t. What we do know is that the scriptures weren’t generally available, but hidden, and God’s preservation took that into account, just as it could today.
Regarding when the “canon of words” as you put it will be closed, from my point of view, I’m not sure that we know it will. We always need to be seeking after God, and if he allows evidence to come to light (not much different now than during the Reformation), we should consider it. Just as we have more light than those who lived in ages/times where all the manuscripts we have were not available, future Christians, if the Lord tarries, may have access to manuscripts we do not have, some genuine, and some not.
Regarding the Canon of Books, fundamentalists have always thought of it as being “recognized” not “determined.” If this is truly the case, what is to prevent us from finding a genuine copy of Paul’s epistle to the Laodiceans (assuming it’s not the same as Ephesians, as one theory has it) and “recognizing” it as scripture? The books that have been rejected have been rejected because they are not consistent with scripture. The book of the Laodiceans would probably not have that problem, assuming it was truly genuine. It’s certainly possible that Paul wrote some things to the churches that were not inspired, and were lost because they were bad advice and God wanted them to stay lost. Of course, those considering it would want to be careful with the whole idea of “adding to scripture” as I’m sure any believer would. However, if we reject it out of hand, are we not then “determining” what the scriptural books are rather than letting God give us more light? To be honest, I’m not sure what I would think should such a discovery be made. I would certainly want to read that book, but I would not be inclined to consider it scripture. Could I be 100% certain that it is not, given it was only recently found? I don’t know. I’m sure there are theologians who could answer that better than I could. As you say, it’s hard to find anything about canonization in scripture. Much prayer and extreme care would be needed in any case, the same as for newly discovered manuscripts of existing books.
Anvil,
You didn’t really deal with everything I asked, but that’s fine. It’s your choice.
How can someone add to Scripture if Scripture itself is not settled? It really isn’t possible, is it? No one can add or take away, something we are given a severe warning about in Rec. 22:18, 19, if we never settle on Scripture. Is that serious to you?
Oh, regarding Josiah. I don’t know anything beyond what the Bible says and harmonizing the principles. I believe in availability Isaiah 59:21. I can’t take my total Bibliology from the content of what I read there. Statements of doctrine seem to be a better way to come to doctrine, then looking at an example for which we do not even know all the details of the nation, but are honed in a very small segment of the population. I can’t judge from that.
Larry,
I’m surprised to see the “circular reasoning” argument used here. If we believe the Bible to be inspired, isn’t that “circular reasoning” based on the understanding of petitio principii given in the material you quoted?
Circular reasoning is inescapable when it comes to ultimate authority. God said he would preserve his Word. We take the position that he has. How is that “circular?”
Sorry I took so long to respond (if you care). Last week, we had revival services, and toward the end of the week/beginning of this week, my time was pretty limited.
As I mentioned before on your blog, Pastor B., I can’t always deal with every point in your posts, or these discussions would get out of hand, very quickly. It’s not a matter of trying to ignore them.
First, regarding availability, and Isaiah 59:21. The Jews did have an advantage, as Paul later stated in the NT, because to them were committed the oracles of God. I don’t see how that implies general availability to everyone in the whole world.
I won’t harp on Josiah much more, but as one of the scriptures you used in this debate states, “All scripture … is profitable for doctrine…” Even the narratives in the OT. Yes, you can’t get a whole position from an example, but you can’t just toss that example out either, because it is part of the whole counsel of God.
Your mention of Nineveh is interesting. I think that is one of the most fascinating incidents in the OT. God sent a prophet to a non-Jewish city (maybe because there were Jews there, though we don’t know that) to preach his word, and the people repented. Of course, we don’t find many accounts like this (and by the way, it’s also a narrative account and just a single example). That doesn’t mean that others didn’t happen, you will say. True, but we can easily see places today where the word of God has not penetrated. Those people do not have the Word, so it is indeed unavailable to them. They do have God’s general revelation, and I do believe that if someone truly wants to know about God from that, then He will make a way for that one to hear. But in His providence, not everyone gets the same chance, and the fact that one gets that chance doesn’t mean that all will.
Regarding trying to use anything I can to get less than a 100% perfect copy, that is untrue. I’m simply working with what I have. If every manuscript (even in just the majority family) always agreed in every point, I would believe that a 100% accurate text of all books could have been constructed with enough care by the KJV translators, even with the few manuscripts they had. But that’s not what we have, nor what Beza had, nor what Erasmus had. We’ve all been working with manuscripts with differences. It’s what IS, and what God allowed, not what we humans would WANT.
As far as not being able to add to God’s word if it’s not truly settled, that’s only true in a certain sense. There is a world of difference between trying to collate and edit to find the right words that God already spoke, and adding or taking away by using what we think (adding readings that come from no manuscript evidence). Even the venerated KJV translators realized the gravity of their task, and took it seriously, but realized that in the end, they were only men, and could easily have made mistakes, either from which reading of the original to use, or what translation choice to make. The notes in the 1611 edition make this quite clear.
The Revelation passage is indeed serious, but it needs to be looked at carefully. Obviously, the first application is to the book of Revelation itself, but it is not completely unreasonable to apply that to mean that from that point, the canon of scripture was closed. However, that doesn’t mean that someone reading just a NT has the whole book and had better not add to it by buying a Bible with an OT. By the same token, we can’t just write our own words and add them to scripture, but using manuscript copies of those same scriptures to try to recognize (not determine) what the right words are (i.e. we are trying all the spirits and searching the scriptures) is not the same as trying to take away or add our own words. We just want to find the CORRECT words that the authors who were inspired by God actually wrote, rather than just hope that some printer or publisher or past text collator gave them to us perfectly. You try to make that sound as if it’s a bad thing, because in your view, the true churches have already accepted the KJV, and the texts behind it. What do you do when most of them move on, and not to a translation done by a local-only group? Write off the rest of fundamental Christianity as being antichrists who have left the true Gospel? I would think that by what you are arguing, the fact that most of the true churches at that point will have moved on will mean that they are the ones using the true scriptures. However, it’s more likely that you will think that because they have departed from the KJV they are not, and maybe never were, the true churches.
Regardless of what you believe, there are plenty of non-KJVO people out there whose goal is to know God, to know the scriptures, and not to simply bring our own presuppositions to the table (though of course, since we are fallible, some of that is inevitable on both sides). You simply can’t write off all the non-KJVO side as being not interested in what scripture actually says about itself, even though that’s what most of your arguments on this topic seem to conclude.
Hello,
I’m writing this to clear up a matter that has been on my conscience for a little while. I had left a comment(#48) several months ago on this KJV thread on Bob’s blog that would have been better kept to myself. It was directed at those who were arguing against Bob and Dave. I got pretty frustrated at some of the discussion, and I should have just stayed out of things.
I don’t really know if anyone was offended by my remarks but they weren’t offered with a good spirit or a desire to edify…so I offer my apologies and ask for your forgiveness.
Bob I was going to put up a note on your blog put it appears that the comments are closed…
Sincerely,
Steve Kidd
(I posted this for Steve — Bob)
Steve,
By all means post your retraction. I don’t want to interfere with God’s work in your heart.
I wasn’t necessarily offended, but perhaps others were. Thanks for the reminder to keep short accounts with God and to strive to speak with the utmost charity as we speak to fellow believers on blogs.
Blessings from the Cross,
Bob