Hi will,
Brother, I know you're passionate about this issue. I can relate, trust me. I was a KJVO for several years. I know from experience that it can be the cause of heated debates. However, we need to keep a certain respect for our Christian brothers and sisters that disagree with us, even though sometimes we want to wring their necks, lol.
Especially on this issue. I know where you're coming from. I know what your arguments are. I used to use them when I debated and defended my KJVOnlyism. I used to get mad upon just simply reading a bible verse that was quoted from something other than the KJV. I used to get mad at preachers who didn't preach KJV from the pulpit. I even started questioning the salvation of Chrsitians who didn't use the KJV. We even ceased going to church because none of the good churches in town were using the KJV.
So yes, I know that this is a very special subject for KJVO advicates. However, you said this:
"I have not always been a King James Bible onlyist. It took a lot of
study and prayer and the grace and mercy of God to open my eyes and reveal to me this vital truth."
But Will, I can say the exact same thing friend! I believe that "much study, prayer, and grace and mercy from God opened my eyes to reveal the truth" to lead me
OUT OF King James Onlyism! This statement of yours isn't really a good argument, because ex-KJVO feel the exact same way.
The KJVO movement has good intentions, but ultimately it is meaningless. KJVO's put the KJV on such a high pedestal, it is ridiculous. (I did the same). But a 10 minute study of history is enough to abandon the KJVO stance once and for all. Please don't get me wrong. I love the KJV. I am not anti-KJV. I am anti-KJVOnlyism. I am FOR the translation itself, but against the movement that asserts that it is the only viable translation that God wants us to use. The King James translators themselves WERE NOT KJVOnlyists. In fact, the KJV was mocked as a sloppy translation. It was not accepted by the Christian community (see below).
The following arguments from Reformed Baptist at Grace Forums:
My first question is which version of the KJV do you refer to here, because it has been many, many through revisions? Do you want me to list the changes that have been made to is since the 1611 edition?
The 1631 edition contains a wonderful error, Exodus 20:14 read 'thou shalt commit adultery', then there is the 1682 edition with the parable of the 'vinegar' rather then the parable of the 'vinyard' those two version were known as the 'wicked bible' and 'the vinegar bible' respecyively. There were other amusing ones as well, Numbers 25:17-18 read in one version of the KJ bible, 'Vex the midianites, and smite them: for they vex you with their wives' of course it should have been 'wiles.'
These nicknames are often quite amusing, but they do demonstrate the attitude towards the KJV when it was first published, another is the 1613 version which was labelled the 'great she bible' here we see a translational change from the 1611 version in Ruth 3:15, where it is changed to read that Ruth made the journey to the nearby city, not boaz as in the 1611 version. Sadly the 1613 also confuses the names of Jesus and Judas in matt 26:36. By 1659 Kilburn had identified a huge number of errors across the different printings of the KJV, as many as 20 000! So let me ask again which version/ printing of the KJV is the infallible one that all english speaking Christains accepted as being the only true bible for centuries?
yes these are silly errors, and printing errors mostly, but it only takes one mistake, no matter how minor, and where it occurs in the process, and the end product is flawed. Is it conceivable, that God would go to such lenght to ensure that the translation of the King james bible was pure and inerant, then allow it to be misprinted - does that conclusion make any sense at all?
There are other examples of wording changes from the 1611 version, take Mark 10:18, where origianlly it said, 'there is no man good, but one, that is God' so in 1638 it was altered to read 'there is none good but one, that is, God.' This was not based on any translational understanding, but simply because it was felt that people might misunderstand it. So again I ask which printing is it, that by faith you accept as innerrant? I haven't even got onto the oxford revisions yet! Shall I go on to that one?
My second point is that you are claiming much more for this version them the translators themselves did, in the preface, which is generally omitted from modern printing of the KJV, in it we read that they aimed to only make a 'good one' not a perfect one. Inded the preface details a justification for rendering alternate meanings in the margins, and Smith goes on to say that any who deny the questionability of these phrases and terms is guilty of 'a fault of incredulity' and 'presumptiom.'
This type of evelation of the KJV that we see so often today reminds me so much of the way the RCC elevated the vulgate above anything Jerome ever imagined, they two lifted their bible onto a perdestal that would have saddened the translator of it greatly.
I do see errors in the King James version of the bible, I see translational errors, I see textual errors and I see printing errors - I can substantiate and prove every single one of them. I see an evovling bible, one being coorrected by the work of the Holy spirit, so that it becomes better and better. What I see in the KJV is a wonderful translation that God, through his providence, has improved upon over time, and made better and better. But I do not see "the only trustworthy, inspired, inerrant word of God". I respect for the KJV for what it is - an excellent translation. I do not, however, respect it for what
I think it is, or what I want it to be, or what I was told it was by the likes of Riplinger and Ruckman, when it simply is not those things.
I would ask again, why if it is so perfect was the KJV revised, so that we now have the oxford revision, which is the AV we all know and love. Why, if it was perfect, did so many reject it until it was forced upon Churches and Christains. The 1611 edition was not greated with a fanfare of welcome, in fact it passed unnoticed. Or certainly unnoticed in relation to positive responce, there was some criticism of it, and those who had translated it. It was mocked and rediculed by Christians, as we have seen.
It wasn't until Charles 1st came to the throne, who wanted to do away with the geneva bible (and especially it notes) that the KJV become more popular, simply because it was the only bible Christains could get their hands on. It was economic and patriotic reasons that put the KJV into people's hands, not its excellence as a translation (and it is an excellent translation). Indeed the KJV was not widely accepted in Christain circles until 1750, and it did not have the place of preeminence in Christain circles till about a century later. Now these are the facts of history my friend. Reject them if you want, and rely on your feelings, but don't try and persuade others to do so, please.
You see quite simply the premise that the KJV of the bible must be 'the version' because of it's univresal acceptence is false because that was far from the case.
Our faith is in Christ and his word, not a single translation of it. My faith is not in the KJV bible, it is in the author of that bible; Christ Jesus, who also the author of the NKJV, and the ESV and many other wonderful English translations in the same way as he authored the KJV - for in them all God has wonderfully presevered his word. The KJV is a wonderful translation, it is built on a firm foundation of what had gone before, and it has become in its own right a foundation of what has come after. It was key in forming much of what we now call English, it was useful to Christains, and still is, the way it is written is genius, the way it carries the force of so much hebrew idiom, captures the essence of poetry has, in my opinion, never been beaten - though it has been equalled.
However the fact is that it is far from inerrent, far from perfect, and far from being the only english bible. You see, if God has only preseverd his word in the KJV of the bible that you hold in your hands for english speaking people, then the english speaking world has only had the word of God since 1769, which is less then 250 years. It is the 1769 that you most likely hold to in your hands, while all along you keep referring to it as the 1611. Have you ever tried to read a 1611 KJV? Your brain would explode before you finished Genesis chapter 1!!
Lets not forget that if the KJV is the Bible God intented for his people to have, then that means we didn't have a Bible for 1611 years. Are you serious? Do you really think that the Christians for 1611 felt that they didn't have a trustworthy, inspired Bible? Surely not!
You see, the KJVO position is predicated on a desire to see a preserved, trustworthy Bible from God. This is a good intention. But you must realize, that that the way God preserved his word down through history is not the way you think it was! It is not the way the KJVO movement says it is!
The way God preserved His word is by spreading out different manuscripts and texts all over the world, which eventually became known by different traditional names. It was in this way that God preserved his word. Why? Well, since there was so many copies, in so many parts of the world, from so many traditions,
this means that no single man/person/group/organization could make changes to the Bible! Nobody could make changes to God's word without everyone else knowing, because they didn't have a monopology on the accepted texts that were spread all over the world. If there was only ONE accepted traditional line of manuscripts, then Mr John Doe Cultist could have altered the text and nobody would be wise to it. Do you see how Brilliant this is? Do you see how wise God is? Since no one single person or group was able to change God's word, it has been preserved this entire time.
Furthermore, are you not aware that it was
Desiderious Erasmus that compiled the TR that the KJV is based on? Erasmus is regarded as the "King of the Humanists". It was Erasmus that disagreed with the great Reformer, Martin Luther, on the issue of God's role in salvation itself and God's Sovereignty. Erasmus was a humanist who elevated man's free will over God's Sovereignty, denying that man had a sin nature that made him opposed to God, whereas Luther, like the other Reformers, asserted that we must be born again to enter the kingdom of God, and that God is absolutely sovereign in every thing, down to the smallest detail, and that is precisely why we pray, and evangelize. We pray because we know God is sovereign and are confident that He can answer prayer. We evangelize because God is sovereign and we know he can melt the heart of stone.
It was Erasmus that agreed with Pelagiaus, who was condemned as a heretic, against Augustine, who taught that salvation was by grace and grace alone, the foundation of the Reformation. It was Erasmus, the Roman Catholic apologist, who stood opposed to the great truths of the Protestant Reformation. Those precious truths we hold dear like Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Sola Christus, Soli Deo Gloria, and Sola Scriptura. (Faith alone, grace alone, Christ alone, scripture alone, God's glory alone). It was Erasmus who stood opposed to those precious truths that the Reformation recaptured when they protested against Rome's false gospel and went back to the orthodox, historical, Biblical gospel.
I can only close by urging you to study the issue. But don't study it from uneducated, ungracious buffoons like Gail Riplinger or Peter Ruckman. Study it from people who actually know something. You should definitely check out the book
The King James Only Controversy. You should also head to this website for some good reading:
http://vintage.aomin.org/kjvo.html
God bless..
