I see many people make claims about the KJV as being perfect because "God promised to preserve his word".
The argument seems to go
1. God Promised to Preserve his Word
2. God Promising to Preserve his word means perfect translation in front of me
3. The KJV is that perfect translation.
Here is the dilemma that I see that people don't want to seem to acknowledge:
To start, I think we need to agree that God's promises do not change. That means God's promises to preserve his word mean the same thing in 2021, as they did when the originally writers under Inspiration wrote them, and this means they meant the same thing in 1610, as they did in 1611, and they still meant the same thing in 1769.
So, if in 2020 God's promise to preserve his word=perfect translation in my language in front of me.
Then in 1610 God's promise to preserve his word also should= perfect Translation in front of me.
Yet no one seems to acknowledge that any of the pre 1611 KJV Bible's are perfect.
When I was in Bible College I asked one of the professors how we know the KJV is God's perfect Bible over the Geneva Bible, the answer I got was really non substantial.
if I lived in 1599 in Europe and I hold the Geneva Bible 1599 in my hand, I could open it to passages as the following:
Matthew 5:18 For truely I say unto you, Til heaven, and earth perish, one jote, or one title of the Law shal not escape, til all things be fulfilled.
Psalm 33:11 The counsel of the Lord shal stand for ever, & the thoghts of his heart through out all ages.
Is 40:8 The grasse withereth, yͤ floure fadeth: but the worde of our God shal stãd for ever.
Luke 21:33 Heaven and earth shal passe away, but my wordes shal not passe away.
So here's the question I have: What is the difference ,in principle, between holding the Geneva Bible in 1599 and claiming its perfect based on its promises and holding a KJV in 2020 and claiming its perfect based on its promises?
Did God's promises of preservation change in meaning in 1611 or 1769? God's promises do not change in their meaning based on time, Therefore God's promise of preservation has to mean the same thing before 1611 as it does in 2020.
By nature claiming that the KJV is God's perfect preserved word, you have to also admit that the prior 1611 English Bibles were not perfect, But by also doing that, you have created a contradiction. Remember God's promise to preserve his word has to mean the same thing in 2020 as it does in 1610. It cannot mean perfect bible translation in 2020 but imperfect Bible translations before 1611.
So here's my question, is the belief in the KJV as a perfect translation really simply a matter of believing in God's actual promises, especially if we are inconsistent in it's application and in light of historical reality.
For example, My Lugbara friends over in Uganda have a critical text dynamic translation of the Bible, they do not have a formal textus receptus translation, yet their bible has many of the same promises as yours do about preservation of the word, What if they held their translation up, and claimed it was perfect based on those promises and told you that your English KJV is corrupt because it differs from their translation. How would their methodology and philosophy be any different than the current view of the KJV amongst many IFB?
I will be the first to grant you that I don't think the critical text based Lugbara Bible is a fully accurate Bible, but what about God's promise of preservation? If in 2020 that means we have to have a perfect English Translation, then surely that promise must mean the same thing for the Lugbara person in Uganda? And yet the Lugbara do not have what any TR or KJV Only advocate would argue is a perfect Bible. And there are hundreds of languages that do not have the a translation that is the equivalent of the KJV in their language. Did God's promise of preservation fail all of these people who speak these languages? Or is it more likely that our understanding and application of God's promises of preservation are inconsistent and erroneous?
I have to ask, is there any Biblical reason for giving primacy to English? and at that to a particular translation in 1611? [technically 1769 is the edition of the KJV most used]
People make arguments about English being a popular language today and that God knew that, But God inspired his word in Hebrew and Hebrew never did become a dominate world language. This is an argument based on opinion and supposition rather than actual promise Good made.
People make arguments about the superiority of the KJV translators using the correct text, (Which by the way I happen to agree with) but just because they used the right text, does not necessitate that their translation is perfect.
People make arguments about the superior skills of the KJV translators, and while I agree they were great scholars, that still doesn't somehow mean 100% perfect translation.
I guess my point is, from my point of view, believing in the KJV as being perfect really does not seem to based on a sound, and consistent application of God's promise to preserve his word, Belief in the KJV has being perfect seems to stem more from a predetermined position and then that presupposition forced back onto God's promises.
I have yet to hear a convincing argument that explains how or why God's promise of preservation changed in 1611 and came to mean some different today in 2020 than it would have in 1610.
If the KJV was perfect, and I am not saying that it is or isn't, Its impossible to prove that based on what the Bible says alone, because if I can't claim the Geneva Bible is perfect in 1599 based on God's promise of preservation, then I really have no consistency to claim the KJV is perfect in 2020 based on God's promise of preservation.
The issue I see is people turn the KJV being perfect into a "faith" issue, but faith is believing what God actually promised, not what we presuppose he promised. unfortunately we have a tendency to misunderstand God's promises and to put words in God's mouth that he did not say. God promise his words would be preserved for all generations, he did NOT promise a perfect translation of that word for every language or for any particular language. There are a little less than 4000 languages without a printed translation of God's word, did God fail here? Or maybe have we misunderstand his promises?
An interesting side note and food for thought HERE: When Jesus said his words would not pass away in Luke 21:33, what was he talking about? Was he talking about printed words in a perfect manuscript or translation? As far as I know it would have been around 20-30 years before those words actually would have been written down by any of the Gospel writers? Was the church totally without the words of Jesus for those 20-30 years between when he said that statement and when the Gospel writers wrote them down?