Want Some Answers ???

King James Error
Index
Home

Hi Steve,

Thanks for the mail. Good to hear from you, although unexpected. However you ask,

>>could you define what you mean by Scripture, and define what you mean by, the Word of GodĒ.<<

But your last letters clearly indicated you are only interested in your views. And since words [ie Scripture, error, faith, corruption, Godís Word, and Bible] have different meanings for both of us, itís obvious we have different ďfoundationsĒ and definitions. So to ask me any questions is very unusual since you wonít believe anything I write anyway. And so itís difficult to take you serious.

You could find definitions in a Bible Dictionary if you wanted, or carefully read the mails I posted if you wanted. I doubt my definitions are anything you really want to read. And I doubt itís your intentions to ď
have profitable dialogueĒ. But we can look at definitions if thatís what you want.

>>ďI don't believe it can be proven that the King James Version is the word of GodĒ<<

If thatís your view, how could I define Godís Word to you? You claim to have ďfaithĒ but itís also true to say, no version could be proven to be Godís Word without the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, Scripture wonít be living or active and you wonít know God or His Word. So I wrote, ďnothing is more important than to hear God's Word clearly and accurately, [so it can] penetrate the heart." Ė

ďFor the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heartĒ.(Heb.4.12)

This suggests the 1611 KJV only, ďdefinitionĒ is wrong. Why? Because it confines Godís Word solely to the 1611 KJV. Whether you admit it or not you confine Godís Word to a limited 1611 edition. Your definition limits, restricts and relegates Godís Word. And as English changes in time this means fewer are able to understand and read the KJV. In my definition Godís Word is not bound in 1611 but is ďliving and activeĒ today as when written. As Paul writes ďÖbut the word of God is not boundĒ [2 Tim.2.9]

Your definition regarding the 1611 KJV is inconsistent because you donít even use the 1611 at all, but a modern KJV. You use a book that has been changed so itís readable, and then you wrongly insist itís the unaltered word for word 1611. The Apocrypha was also included in the 1611 by translators who were ďinspired but didnít know itĒ and they included the words in Italics. How do these relate to the pure, preserved Words? Are you suggesting anything the KJV translators put in the KJV became Godís Word ?

So your definition restricts Godís Word to one language, as if God only communicates in old English. Your definition of Godís Word would rob millions the opportunity to read it simply by insisting it mustnít be corrupted and translated into a common understandable tongue. This makes your definition contrary to the Gospel and the Great Commission. There have always been those who have tried to restrict the influence and availability of Godís Word and this was why I wrote -

ďThe Roman Catholic Church once taught that translating from the Latin into the common tongue of the people was corrupting Scripture. So the Papists wickedly withheld Scripture from Godís people and translators were martyred as heretics [Jn.16.2].Ē

Rome once taught what you teach today. But thereís another inconsistency, for while the KJV alone is claimed Godís Word, you have the misguided idea itís translated into other languages This is based on the mistaken idea that the KJV is used as the primary text. Not only has this never happened, but also if it did, then according to your own definition translators have corrupted Scripture.

By far the most serious difference we have is regarding the doctrine of salvation. You wrote that you couldnít have faith in a translation Ė

>>Öthat has mistakes, because how can we be sure that we have eternal life. Steve<<

In your definition ďeternal lifeĒ is dependent on the KJV. This is contrary to the Gospel. You make learning old English vital with repentance and faith. This is a departure from the truth and the Gospel. It is this that makes your belief system characteristic to a cult.

Godís Word teaches [whatever version] there will be many in heaven who never read the KJV or spoke English [Rev.7.9 10.11]. They simply repented, believed and accepted the Gospel message. This indicates your definition has a major unresolved problem. You apply certain verses [ie Mt.4.4 Jn.17.17] to the KJV. When you take Scripture and start applying the word ďwordĒ to the KJV then by your definition none can be saved or become a Christian without the KJV [Jn.5.24 8.31 1 Pe.1.23 KJV]. Is that what you believe ? If you do, why not tell everybody straight - "you canít be saved without the KJVĒ?

My definition is that Godís Word is Godís revelation for all men, translated for all men and not restricted by time or language. When I think of Godís Word, I think of the Revelation of God, the Message of the Gospel and the Title of Christ. I do not make a book an idol or say a translation is more important than Christ.

According to your letter, your definition argues that ďfaithĒ in the KJ translation is identical to faith in God. You said the ďjust shall live by faithĒ and applied this to the KJV. But Biblical ďfaithĒ however is not ďfaithĒ in a language translation. If you entrust yourself to Lutherís German Bible of 1522 and insisted that alone is Godís Word then that would be equally absurd. By placing such faith in Lutherís translation you effectively remove the focal point of faith in Godís Word, to faith in a translation.

My advice is you reconsider your association with the 1611 mob.

Regards.
Mark

Index
Home