AVBunyan
4th May 2005, 01:52 PM
The question often comes up, “Can you give chapter and verse on how you know the King James Bible is the real word of God?”
When it comes to support such a statement I made I can only resort to:
1. The impact the AV611 has had on history -
Just draw a time line and put 1611 down as a date and see when scientific discoveries, civil govt., education, missionary zeal, wide spread evangelism, etc. started really coming out. My wife home schools and does this for history and it is a fascinating subject - and she is not being biased. She has to show history and when "things started to really open up" and her studies along with many others have shown that prior to and after the time the King James Bible came out positive things really started to happen all over the place. I use Psa. 119:130 The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.
Were discoveries and advancements going on prior to 1611 - of course but just prior to and after God, I believe, was truly preparing the world for the advancement of his word.
2. The impact the King James has had on the lives of millions for over 350 years.
Even lost people had a respect for the "book" way back. When the old evangelists (Wesley, Whitfield, Spurgeon, Sunday, Moody, Sam Jones, etc.) went into towns and cities and preached whole towns and lives changed - that cannot be denied - they used one book. Yes, I know that the newer verses were not around but that is not the point - the point is the book that was used had results and one cannot deny that God blessed his word going out. Wherever the “other line of manuscripts” went there was never any revival - I mention this only because that was the only other "version" out and apparently had little or no impact - everywhere it went lives changed very little. And by the way the King James translators had access to this “other line of manuscripts” at the time of their work and rejected them. So to say the King James translators didn’t have access to the “newer manuscripts” is untrue.
Now this chapter and verse using can get carried away a bit. Can we find chapter and verse for light bulbs and toilets in our churches? No - but do these violate scripture - no.
Now, let me ask you – there is not doubt there have been great revivals in the past under Wesley, Moody, the Welsh revival, the Shantung revivals, etc. What did God bless and use during these revivals? Was it just the men or did God bless these men because of the power of his word?
So, to ask for chapter and verse for the King James Bible I can only answer again:
1. The impact the KJV has had on history.
2. The impact the KJV has had on the lives of people.
And finally:
3. The internal witness of the scriptures themselves as they are found in the King James Bible.
Allow me to elaborate. When I read the book I look at what the book declares about itself and can only determine from it that what I hold in my hands is inspired and pure. Look at II Tim. 3:16 – it says that all scripture is inspired. Go to vs. 15 – Timothy had the scriptures. According to vs. 16 what he had was inspired and they were not the originals. I believe I have a copy of the scriptures and according to vs. 16 I can surmise that what I have is inspired or I cannot call them scripture. Without doing a long study here just do quick study on how scripture describes itself and you tell me the conclusion.
Now – one will say that the newer versions do also – yes the newer versions describe themselves in a similar way but the wording of the KJV is more precise and descriptive. I cite one example and there are many more like this one, which you can see for yourself:
Pure vs. flawless
In Psalms 12:6 the AV1611 says: The words of the LORD are pure words:
Some of the MVs (at least most or maybe even all since they all appear to be from the same set of manuscripts) reads: Psa 12:6 And the words of the LORD are flawless,
The difference – the AV uses “pure” while many of the MVs use “flawless”. The difference you ask?
Let’s look at and “old fashioned” Webster’s 1828 English Dictionary. I’m partial to my own language myself.
Pure :
1. Separate from all heterogeneous or extraneous matter; clear; free from mixture; as pure water; pure clay; pure sand; pure air; pure silver of gold. Pure wine is very scare.
2. Free from moral defilement; without spot; not sullied or tarnished; incorrupt; undebased by moral turpitude; holy
Flawless:
Without cracks; without defect
Pure carries with it holiness and morality. Flawless doesn’t. A septic tank can be without cracks or defects thus being flawless but is a septic tank associated with holiness or morality?
Which word would you choose to describe the scriptures?
The AV611 uses pure for God is pure. And the last time I did a study on the word and the Word – they were inseparable.
Now – there are more but time and space does not allow showing this here.
Conclusion: when I said that God has blessed the book I trust you have a better understanding of what I said and why. You do not have to agree with it.
I’ve heard all the arguments for the modern versions on how it brings it down so folks can read it, etc. and how we have better manuscripts to go by now but these arguments just don’t hold up.
Bottom line – the verdict is in on the KJV – God did use it mightily for the past 350 years.
In regards to the modern versions the verdict is not in because they’ve only been around for 50 years or so. But may I ask a few questions before sign off here:
1. If the KJV is flawed and the newer versions are correcting these flaws when will they get it right? They’ve come out with almost 100!?!?!?
2. How will we know when they get it right?
3. Who will determine that it is right?
4. Why do all these newer versions disagree with one another?
5. What have their fruits been?
6. Where are the evangelists and revivals as a result of these newer versions? Granted today even with the KJV I believe we are in the last days so folks will not endure sound doctrine anyway so revival days on a wide scale are gone – II Tim. 3.
7. Finally, why would God wait to complete, update, or correct his word during the last few years before his return?
God quit speaking 400 years before the 1st coming of Christ. I believe God quit speaking 400 years before the 2nd coming of Christ – that makes it around 1611 if my math is correct.
May God bless!
When it comes to support such a statement I made I can only resort to:
1. The impact the AV611 has had on history -
Just draw a time line and put 1611 down as a date and see when scientific discoveries, civil govt., education, missionary zeal, wide spread evangelism, etc. started really coming out. My wife home schools and does this for history and it is a fascinating subject - and she is not being biased. She has to show history and when "things started to really open up" and her studies along with many others have shown that prior to and after the time the King James Bible came out positive things really started to happen all over the place. I use Psa. 119:130 The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.
Were discoveries and advancements going on prior to 1611 - of course but just prior to and after God, I believe, was truly preparing the world for the advancement of his word.
2. The impact the King James has had on the lives of millions for over 350 years.
Even lost people had a respect for the "book" way back. When the old evangelists (Wesley, Whitfield, Spurgeon, Sunday, Moody, Sam Jones, etc.) went into towns and cities and preached whole towns and lives changed - that cannot be denied - they used one book. Yes, I know that the newer verses were not around but that is not the point - the point is the book that was used had results and one cannot deny that God blessed his word going out. Wherever the “other line of manuscripts” went there was never any revival - I mention this only because that was the only other "version" out and apparently had little or no impact - everywhere it went lives changed very little. And by the way the King James translators had access to this “other line of manuscripts” at the time of their work and rejected them. So to say the King James translators didn’t have access to the “newer manuscripts” is untrue.
Now this chapter and verse using can get carried away a bit. Can we find chapter and verse for light bulbs and toilets in our churches? No - but do these violate scripture - no.
Now, let me ask you – there is not doubt there have been great revivals in the past under Wesley, Moody, the Welsh revival, the Shantung revivals, etc. What did God bless and use during these revivals? Was it just the men or did God bless these men because of the power of his word?
So, to ask for chapter and verse for the King James Bible I can only answer again:
1. The impact the KJV has had on history.
2. The impact the KJV has had on the lives of people.
And finally:
3. The internal witness of the scriptures themselves as they are found in the King James Bible.
Allow me to elaborate. When I read the book I look at what the book declares about itself and can only determine from it that what I hold in my hands is inspired and pure. Look at II Tim. 3:16 – it says that all scripture is inspired. Go to vs. 15 – Timothy had the scriptures. According to vs. 16 what he had was inspired and they were not the originals. I believe I have a copy of the scriptures and according to vs. 16 I can surmise that what I have is inspired or I cannot call them scripture. Without doing a long study here just do quick study on how scripture describes itself and you tell me the conclusion.
Now – one will say that the newer versions do also – yes the newer versions describe themselves in a similar way but the wording of the KJV is more precise and descriptive. I cite one example and there are many more like this one, which you can see for yourself:
Pure vs. flawless
In Psalms 12:6 the AV1611 says: The words of the LORD are pure words:
Some of the MVs (at least most or maybe even all since they all appear to be from the same set of manuscripts) reads: Psa 12:6 And the words of the LORD are flawless,
The difference – the AV uses “pure” while many of the MVs use “flawless”. The difference you ask?
Let’s look at and “old fashioned” Webster’s 1828 English Dictionary. I’m partial to my own language myself.
Pure :
1. Separate from all heterogeneous or extraneous matter; clear; free from mixture; as pure water; pure clay; pure sand; pure air; pure silver of gold. Pure wine is very scare.
2. Free from moral defilement; without spot; not sullied or tarnished; incorrupt; undebased by moral turpitude; holy
Flawless:
Without cracks; without defect
Pure carries with it holiness and morality. Flawless doesn’t. A septic tank can be without cracks or defects thus being flawless but is a septic tank associated with holiness or morality?
Which word would you choose to describe the scriptures?
The AV611 uses pure for God is pure. And the last time I did a study on the word and the Word – they were inseparable.
Now – there are more but time and space does not allow showing this here.
Conclusion: when I said that God has blessed the book I trust you have a better understanding of what I said and why. You do not have to agree with it.
I’ve heard all the arguments for the modern versions on how it brings it down so folks can read it, etc. and how we have better manuscripts to go by now but these arguments just don’t hold up.
Bottom line – the verdict is in on the KJV – God did use it mightily for the past 350 years.
In regards to the modern versions the verdict is not in because they’ve only been around for 50 years or so. But may I ask a few questions before sign off here:
1. If the KJV is flawed and the newer versions are correcting these flaws when will they get it right? They’ve come out with almost 100!?!?!?
2. How will we know when they get it right?
3. Who will determine that it is right?
4. Why do all these newer versions disagree with one another?
5. What have their fruits been?
6. Where are the evangelists and revivals as a result of these newer versions? Granted today even with the KJV I believe we are in the last days so folks will not endure sound doctrine anyway so revival days on a wide scale are gone – II Tim. 3.
7. Finally, why would God wait to complete, update, or correct his word during the last few years before his return?
God quit speaking 400 years before the 1st coming of Christ. I believe God quit speaking 400 years before the 2nd coming of Christ – that makes it around 1611 if my math is correct.
May God bless!