Questions about the biblical basis for KJVO

[Annie]

In another thread I asked Seth to give the biblical basis for his KJVO stance. This was his reply:

"Psalm 12:6-7 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

Psalm 119:89 For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

I believe in the preservation, perfection, and purity of the Word of God. The MV's do not fit that. Both by examination and in many cases the authors admissions. I would say more and use more verses but I am going to bed... Goodnight...

Seth (and others), where in any book of the Bible does God promise to preserve all of His words, all in one volume, in a publicly accessible fashion?

[Jerry]

How about this verse:

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 thy 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.

And this one:

Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

You can't have the Word of God in your mouth if you don't have it. Can't live by every Word of God if it is not available to you.

[Annie]

How about this verse:

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 thy 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.

And this one:

Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

You can't have the Word of God in your mouth if you don't have it. Can't live by every Word of God if it is not available to you.

Jerry, what is the antecedent of the pronoun "them" in Isaiah 59:21? IOW, whose mail are we reading?

Are you prepared to demonstrate that all Christians for all time since the first century have had God's Word, all in one volume, in a publicly accessible fashion? IOW, that they had all of the words of God available to them enough so that they could "live by every word?" I'm not sure how these verses shed any more light at all on your position.

To be clear, I believe in the preservation of God's Word...but I don't think He ever promised to preserve His words in one publicly accessible volume. If that is what He promised to all His people for all time, then He would have to be dishonest, because that simply hasn't been so. Anyone familiar with Bible history knows this to be true.

[Pastorj]

Annie,

Though the Bible was not preserved in one volume, every book (scroll) was available to His people in every generation. There weren't as many copies as there are today and making copies was very difficult. God has promised to preserve His Word for every generation. God has inspired his Word and Preserved it through the TR and then the KJV and many foreign translations.

[Annie]

Annie,

Though the Bible was not preserved in one volume, every book (scroll) was available to His people in every generation. There weren't as many copies as there are today and making copies was very difficult. God has promised to preserve His Word for every generation. God has inspired his Word and Preserved it through the TR and then the KJV and many foreign translations.

Yet Jerry is using these verses to "prove" that the KJV is the only preservation of God's Word...indeed is the perfect preservation of God's Word. That's a logical leap, isn't it?

As I said, I agree that God has preserved all of His words (although they were not all available to all Christians at all times, as Jerry seems to have insinuated). But nowhere does God promise to preserve them all in one publicly accessible volume...So, these verses prove nothing about the KJV; they merely indicate that God promises to preserve all His words. It is a logical leap to say that these verses "prove" that the KJV (or any single version, for that matter) contains all of God's words, perfectly preserved. Can someone clarify?

[speerjp1]

And so it begins...

[Annie]

And so it begins...

I honestly don't see where it could go from here. I'm asking for the biblical proof that God's words will all be preserved in one publicly accessible volume (like the KJV, or NASB, or whatever). It's just not there.

I'm not dealing here with textual differences, or what makes certain versions better than others...just noting that there is no biblical proof for the KJV only position. If there are other verses that I'm missing, please mention them.

We all (KJVO and nonKJVO alike) agree that God will preserve His words. I believe those verses are true just like Jerry does. They don't "prove" either position. These verses could be "the basis" for both positions.

Yet when I ask KJVOs what biblical basis they have for their position that the KJV is the only preserved version of Scripture, they trot out these verses. (???) O.K....so those verses are just as much a basis for my position as theirs. I don't understand.

I understand that the KJVO issue has been hashed out many times on this board...no one changes his mind, etc.....and I'm truly not interested in discussing manuscripts, etc. On this thread, I'm interested simply in what Scripture says (and what it does not say).

[speerjp1]

I honestly don't see where it can go from here. I'm asking for the biblical proof that God's words will all be preserved in one publicly accessible volume (like the KJV, or NASB, or whatever). It's just not there.

I'm not dealing here with textual differences, or what makes certain versions better than others...just noting that there is no biblical basis for the KJV only position. If there are other verses that I'm missing, please mention them.

I'm talking about your stance on the Bible. Do you not see the declination in what you claim to believe?

You started all of this claiming that the KJV is good and preferred, but not the only reliable translation of God's word.

You are now claiming that there is no complete volume that contains all of God's word. According to you, if we want to have God's word, we are now forced to wade through the thousands of renditions, paraphrases, translations, and works of outright false teachers in order to gather all of God's word (if we're lucky). :loco God doesn't need such things as luck.

If that were possible, then would it not be possible to have God's word preserved in one volume?

If it could be preserved in a plethora of places from which his entire word could possibly be gleaned, why would God not have preserved his word all together in the first place?

Here's a verse for you: I Cor. 14:33

For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

That is, of course, supposedly such a difficult language to understand, but I think we can all agree that God has made everything quite simple to understand beginning with salvation. Why would he then choose to preserve his word in a way that can only be described as cacophonous? God's desire is for folks to be redeemed and bring glory to him. He is not double-minded. If those are his goals, then why would he make obtaining his word, which we will be held accountable for, such an impossibility?

I reject your multiple versions arguments based on this logic which is based in God's word and upon God's character. :thumb

[John81]

Pastorj and speerjp1,

I'm not saying I disagree with your conclusions, but I don't see how what either of you have posted thus far prove your conclusions.

[speerjp1]

Pastorj and speerjp1,

I'm not saying I disagree with your conclusions, but I don't see how what either of you have posted thus far prove your conclusions.

I think that the acceptance of contradictory books as all being true is confusing.

I don't see how it can be viewed differently by you or anyone else. Maybe you can tell me now they all make sense together.

The Bible is clear that God is "not the author of confusion."

Satan and our own deceitful hearts are the authors of confusion.

If God's word is confusing, then it has been tainted by one or both of the above.

If it is tainted, then it is not preserved.

If it is not preserved, then God lied or else all the passages that proclaim the everlastingly preserved nature of God's word were misinterpreted by everyone to begin with.

If that is the case, then God is no better than us or else we do not have God's word and, therefore, cannot claim to know anything about God or his great salvation because we have no reliable source from which to gather that information.

If that is true, then we are all doomed.

[John81]

I agree 100% that God is not the author of confusion.

I also believe that many "Bible" versions out there shouldn't be called Bibles at all; especially the paraphrased ones.

In my own search to better know and understand the Word of God when I was first saved and without any mature Christian to disciple me, I bought several cheap versions of various Bibles thinking this would help me better understand the Word of God. How wrong I was! What it did was confuse me as so often they didn't seem to be saying the same thing. (I've told the story many times before, so I won't repeat it here, but some years later I was led to the KJB and the Holy Ghost really spoke to me).

Anyway, all that said, there are many folks out there who find the KJB to be confusing, very difficult to read, hard to understand. I dont' think that constitutes proof the KJB is not of God.

If the KJB is the one true Word of God in the English language then it had to have also been that before the MVs appeared. I don't see how discussing differences in the NIV (for example) prove the KJVO position.

[speerjp1]

Anyway' date=' all that said, there are many folks out there who find the KJB to be confusing, very difficult to read, hard to understand. I dont' think that constitutes proof the KJB is not of God.[/quote']

An honest look at the KJV will show no confusion outside of subjectively decided literary "confusion."

That is why we must use more than literary criticism when it comes to deciding what Bible is God's word.

For the record, the only people I've ever known who think the KJV is confusing or archaic are either against it or they are people who have been taught that it is too confusing.

[John81]

Isn't the point of this thread for someone to post what the basis is for proclaiming the KJB to be THE Word of God in English? Like I said, I'm not saying it isn't, but what I've read so far doesn't amount to proof that it is.

Most of the people I've known who can't understand the KJB are those who have been "educated" in the public schools and can barely read. Several I have known have had different people trying to help them understand the KJB for years to no avail.

I know a lady here in town in her 40s who, despite a great deal of tutoring, can't grasp anything beyond probably about a 5th or 6th grade reading level. Sadly, she's not unique as I've encountered many of various ages with the same problem.

But yes, you are correct, there are those out there who simply don't want to try and understand the KJB so they never will; as well as those who say they can't but have never really tried.

[speerjp1]

Most of the people who I know that can't understand the KJV are educated above their own intelligence. :wink

[John81]

Most of the people who I know that can't understand the KJV are educated above their own intelligence.

I know some of those as well! Most of the ones I know think so highly of their own brainpower they don't accept the Whole Word of God regardless of the translation.