I just had a conversation with a KJV only advocate and of course they made some peculiar claims in defense of the KJV. They first claimed that the Dead Sea Scrolls were corrupted in their opinion and then when asked why they said because they felt that the discovery of them 'smelled fishy' and when asked why the response was basically that it was a Jesuit conspiracy. Now this is ridiculous on its face and I'm going to spend the time defending the DSS as this is simply the conversation that gave rise to an attack upon me as a believer, a minister, and a person in general.
I made the statement that the KJV was not divinely inspired or perfectly preserved and not even the translators believed it to be so. In the preface to the 1611 KJV they wrote:
Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.
They acknowledged that other translations were the Word of God! They didn't claim to be the only translators to ever produce an accurate translation of the Bible. They were also ready to build off these other translations and make corrections when necessary. Again they said in the preface to the 1611 KJV:
...but let us rather bless God from the ground of our heart, for working this religious care in him, to have the translations of the Bible maturely considered of and examined. For by this means it cometh to pass, that whatsoever is sound already (and all is sound for substance, in one or other of our editions, and the worst of ours far better than their authentic vulgar) the same will shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished; also, if anything be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected, and the truth set in place. And what can the King command to be done, that will bring him more true honour than this?
Now why people take a position on the KJV today that even the translators didn't take is beyond me. But all this is irrelevant to the point of the entry--when I made these comments I was attacked and ridiculed. This woman asked me where my inspired translation of the Bible was and if I didn't have one what right did I have to accuse the men who translated the KJV of error? She then said that she'll take the word of men who were martyred for their faith and for producing the Bible over me. Of course this line of argumentation is ridiculous as I pointed out. I repeatedly stated the various reasons for error in translation such as insufficient manuscript evidence, reliance on Erasmus' Greek text that included late readings (e.g. 1Jo. 5:7) that were not found in any early Greek mss and also his reliance on the Latin Vulgate for the last few verses of Revelation. Again I was told that my word wasn't good enough and she'd rely on the translation of these men from the 17th century.
In spite of all this I admitted that the KJV is still a very good translation for what it is and that it didn't have any doctrinal errors that I knew of, but this wasn't good enough. I asked why she felt that these men from the 17th century had more knowledge concerning the original languages that the Bible was written in or the manuscripts from which the Bible was translated then do modern scholars. I explained the advances that have been made in the field of textual criticism and that we have a much greater wealth of mss evidence to work with now then they did then. I explained the discovery of Ugaritic and the insight it lends to the study of other ancient Semitic languages, especially Hebrew. Again, this is something the KJV translators had no knowledge of. But what did I get in return? I was accused of leading people away from Christ by pointing out facts.
She specifically made the comment that "sinners come in here [i.e. the chat room] seeking salvation, not to be informed that the Bible has errors in it." My response was that I don't believe that sinners seek salvation. In fact I believe what the KJV says regarding that in Romans 3:11, "There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God." I explained that I believe what the KJV says in John 6:44, "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him..." I explained that when the Father does draw the sinner he draws them to Christ, not the Bible. Now as important and foundational as the Bible is to the believer, it is not the center of our faith... Christ crucified and resurrected is our foundation.
Paul said, "For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified" (1Cor. 2:2) as well as "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain" (1Cor. 15:14). I don't need a perfect preserved English translation of the Bible to preach Christ crucified, nor do I need today's popular doctrine of 'decisional regeneration' (and by this I mean the Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian model of salvation wherein man initiates the process). Now the scripture is certainly sufficient as the rule of faith and it contains all that a man needs to know in order to be saved, but God does the saving, not the Bible! Salvation is the solitary work of the Trinitarian God and we must always keep that on our minds.
So before you go exalting a antiquated translation of the Bible over the God who saves, think twice. Soli Deo Gloria!
