Originally Posted by Diligent

Of course Jesus Christ is the truth -- but so is the written word, as the Bible amply demonstrates.

Of course. But where did it come from: ink and paper, or from the mouth of God?

[Gord]

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:1 (KJV)

Dr. Robert A Joyner's historic fundamental position has always been that inspiration is claimed only for the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. he goes on to point out

The very people who helped to organize and to write the beliefs of what is called "Fundamentalism" today make it clear what they believed. The great recognized writings such as THE FUNDAMENTALS and THE HISTORY OF FUNDAMENTALISM IN AMERICA, make it clearly known how Bible believers have always stood. They all believed the same as stated above.
The paradox of our times is that some people say only the King James is perfect, and they who believe this are the only real Fundamentalists. All others are Pseudo, or hypocrite Fundamentalists. The fact is, the KJV Only group is a new fundamentalism. It is a new cult developed within the fundamental movement.

[Gord]

I am surprised this thread died for 36 hours after my last post.

Personally as a NON KJV only current believer, I'm looking for some solid refutation of Dr. Robert A Joyner's accusation of KJV ONLY folks being like a cult.

So far from what I've read hear and elsewhere I've not found a lot of FACT to change my mind.

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by Gord

Personally as a NON KJV only current believer, I'm looking for some solid refutation of Dr. Robert A Joyner's accusation of KJV ONLY folks being like a cult.

So far from what I've read hear and elsewhere I've not found a lot of FACT to change my mind.

Help us out here -- what behavior do you attribute to all who hold to the KJV as perfect do you regard as cultish? If you're looking for something that can be refuted on an objective level, you'll need to be specific.

Joyner's position is no different than the majority of pseudo-fundamentalists who hold it as fundamental that God's word was only "perfect" in the original autographs. For all Joyner's accusations of word games in his first section, he has no trouble adopting a patently absurd and unbelieving position -- that God's perfect and complete word only exists in manuscripts nobody has, will ever find, or claim to have seen.

The Bible refutes utterly the notion that God's word was only "inspired" in antiquity and that inspirational authority no longer exists. Paul said God's word is inspired. Not was. In order for words to be of God, they must, by nature, be inspired. If you are reading a book you don't believe is inspired by God, then you can rationally claim it to be of God.

The KJV did not require "original inspiration" (if we can call it that) because the KJV is simply the word of God in English. The words are therefore inspired. If they are not inspired, they are not God's word. If you only believe inspiration exists at the point of Paul's pen, then you can not in any meaningful or reasonable way also claim any book or copy we have available to us is from God.

Anyway, the fundamental tenet of Bible preservation and inspiration is the issue, so I would suggest starting with this article on what God's word says about it: God's Providential Preservation of the Scriptures

That's an excerpt from the book Thou Shalt Keep Them, a tome of tomes on the subject of preservation and inspiration. (Side note: when the editor of the book originally contacted me, he said the book was a scholarly treatment of the subject. I told him I wouldn't hold that against him. I do recommend the book.)

[Gord]

Originally Posted by Diligent

Help us out here -- what behavior do you attribute to all who hold to the KJV as perfect do you regard as cultish? If you're looking for something that can be refuted on an objective level, you'll need to be specific.

At the risk of pointing fingers let me just say that in general, my first impressions, of reading the many posts, (I know a lot of them have to be weeded out by what I would call zelots), I just get the impression, that a lot of the brethren are just quoting missing scripture comparing one version to the other, and that of course HAS to be true, because other versions where translated using different guidelines by different people at a different times in history. They also translated from different sources so again you expect differences.

Personally the Holy Spirit opened my heart to the saving grace or our Lord Jesus Christ when I read the following from the Good News Bible that was given to me by my sister.

3:12 You do not believe me when I tell you about the things of this world; how will you ever believe me, then, when I tell you about the things of heaven?
3:13 And no one has ever gone up to heaven except the Son of Man, who came down from heaven."
3:14 As Moses lifted up the bronze snake on a pole in the desert, in the same way the Son of Man must be lifted up,
3:15 so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.
3:16 For God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not die but have eternal life.
3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to be its judge, but to be its savior. (from the book of John GNB)

There were probably billions of souls saved by His grace in the millenniums before the AV was printed.

So I have to conclude with Joyner that folks who today spend so much effort into the version rather then the Gospel itself are in that same boat as the Scribes and Pharisee's.

Originally Posted by Diligent

The KJV did not require "original inspiration" (if we can call it that) because the KJV is simply the word of God in English. The words are therefore inspired. If they are not inspired, they are not God's word. If you only believe inspiration exists at the point of Paul's pen, then you can not in any meaningful or reasonable way also claim any book or copy we have available to us is from God.

as pointed out by Dr. Thomas Holland in his book Crowned With Glory

The Textus Receptus was the standard Greek text for centuries. It was used by Protestant translators during the Reformation, and is responsible for the Authorized Version and its English forerunners.[6] The Majority Text and the Textus Receptus are very similar (except in the book of Revelation) because both reflect the majority of existing Greek manuscripts.

and those are the documents the Holy Spirit had his hand on those authors' pen. So I still don't see the connection that has to people reading from the KJV, but now that you have my attention, my studies continue.

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by Gord

At the risk of pointing fingers let me just say that in general, my first impressions, of reading the many posts, (I know a lot of them have to be weeded out by what I would call zelots), I just get the impression, that a lot of the brethren are just quoting missing scripture comparing one version to the other, and that of course HAS to be true, because other versions where translated using different guidelines by different people at a different times in history. They also translated from different sources so again you expect differences.

I fail to see the connection to cults with this. You seem to be dismissing matters of difference with these statements -- but differences are what we are left with after we discern. If differences didn't matter we wouldn't need discernment.

For what it's worth:

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

I take this action of love very seriously, which is why most of my work effort is devoted to matters of the Bible and Bible study.

I'm greatly pleased that you are in fact not dismissing the issue out of hand, and that you are continuing in study. I wholeheartedly recommend the books I mentioned earlier. I believe that the foundational doctrine of preservation and inspiration is at the core of the debate. If one ends up discarding preservation outright, then there is simply no means of persuading them of the superiority of the KJV.

And, praise God for your salvation, regardless of the Bible version you read. I didn't even know what the KJV was when I got saved. I was NIV+ for many years.

[Gord]

From Wikipedia:

Cult typically refers to a cohesive social group devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture considers outside the mainstream, with a notably positive or negative popular perception.

So by that simple definition KJV is outside the mainstream as considered by our surrounding culture.

I fell into a sense of false security a number of years ago in a backslide initiated by my overzealous enthusiasm following the writings of Robert Brinsmead a formerly controversial figure within the Seventh-day Adventist Church in the 1960s and 1970s, known for his diverse theological journey.

So there in lay the foundation of my caution towards the KJV only cult-like by definition following. It took the Holy Spirit a number of years to get me back on track and I don't want to follow the way of MAN again.

I'll continue my discernment with prayer and an open mind.

Originally Posted by Gord

At the risk of pointing fingers let me just say that in general, my first impressions, of reading the many posts, (I know a lot of them have to be weeded out by what I would call zelots),

Personally the Holy Spirit opened my heart to the saving grace or our Lord Jesus Christ when I read the following from the Good News Bible that was given to me by my sister.

There were probably billions of souls saved by His grace in the millenniums before the AV was printed.

So I have to conclude with Joyner that folks who today spend so much effort into the version rather then the Gospel itself are in that same boat as the Scribes and Pharisee's.

Then you already know that you don't even need a newspaper version of the Bible to get saved. (All you really need is the word of a Christian talking to you.) You also know that the saved OT people didn't have the NT either.

Consider carefully, then, what this says:

Php 1:15-18
(15) Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will:
(16) The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds:
(17) But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel.
(18) What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

Do you see the import? There was a guy who was unsaved and used the word to "reach" many for salvation (but his motive was to fill his offering plates with money). The result? People actually got saved. Why? Because they believed the Word.

OK, so now, if you're gonna seriously study the word, first you need to answer and establish "Which Bible?" (There's a book by that title.) You need to establish your absolute Bible standard by which to base all comparisons of truth and lies (or comparisons of a Bible version or two). But that is the only reason for determining the proper version for study purposes. After this, you no longer need to continue this kind of study. Abandon this study of "Which Bible," and get into studying to experientially know God. The group of people failing to do that ends up falling into this KJVO "cult" (not that it is, necessarily, but not all is able to receive it) whose only "mission" is to "get the words right." This is analogous to King Saul, and can lead to Pharisaical pride. Note that there is nothing wrong with apologetics, except if it occupies most or all of your pursuit and efforts. The pursuit should be to be conformed to the image of Jesus, not to continue to perfect the Bible you're reading and make a case proving it. The reason is that the Holy Ghost is the teacher and will teach you all things (John 14:26). You don't need a perfect Bible for that, but you'd like to have one for study purposes. The more you study it and do it, the more you become one with it (Matthew 13).

By the way, you can't weed anybody out of anything. You can only weed out what you know is there in your life. (See parable of the wheat and tares)


I started with the NASB, but a few months later switched to KJV, Thompson's Chain.

Originally Posted by Gord

From Wikipedia:

So by that simple definition KJV is outside the mainstream as considered by our surrounding culture.

I fell into a sense of false security a number of years ago in a backslide initiated by my overzealous enthusiasm following the writings of Robert Brinsmead a formerly controversial figure within the Seventh-day Adventist Church in the 1960s and 1970s, known for his diverse theological journey.

So there in lay the foundation of my caution towards the KJV only cult-like by definition following. It took the Holy Spirit a number of years to get me back on track and I don't want to follow the way of MAN again.

I'll continue my discernment with prayer and an open mind.

Well, show me a church whose Pastor is trying to run it without the Holy Ghost, and I'll show you a cult.

Show me a church whose Pastor is filled and led by the Holy Ghost and the Holy Ghost will show you why it is not a cult. (You won't need me for that ).

[Gord]

Near the end of Joyner's rant he points out

he King James Version is accurate and trust-worthy. It may be the best version to use for public teaching and preaching. But we may receive help from other good translations by Bible believing scholars.
One who claims the KJV is the infallible translation and all others are to be rejected as heretical, is going against the historic Fundamental stand. They are building a doctrine for which there is absolutely no Scripture to back it up. It is a completely new man-made doctrine that even King James translators themselves would not defend. One should never say, "The Bible is our sole rule for all matters of faith and practice," if they contend for the inspiration of any translation. For that is not taught anywhere in any Bible.

I am so busy soaking up what the bible is trying to impart to me, I find it a blessing to read NASB, NKJV, ESV along with my KJV for that parallel comparison to help be understand the content rather then the actual word for word translation, I have enough trouble with English let alone Greek.