Answering the imperfection-onlyists

[bibleprotector]

Here is a summarised conclusion of a discussion with anti-King James Bible only writers, who admit that they have imperfect copies of the Word of God, and deny that there is an exact, correct word-perfect presentation available.

While having one standard presentation of the Bible has only been recently articulated, it is in fact a development of general doctrines which have existed throughout Church history. While general observation may have been made of the Scripture at any time even though it was in a scattered form, it was only after the outworking of events which brought together the manifestation, and consequently, a fuller realisation, of the gathered form. In all this, no Scripture is lost between its inspiration and the present, and no Scripture, nor the Holy Ghost's intention, changes meaning from inspiration to what is now plainly manifest.

Since the same Scripture that exists now existed in the past, the same meaning which it has now must have been there in the past. The only thing is that the true Scripture is gathered finally in one place now. Reason and understanding showed people that at their present time, the Scripture was not fully gathered. Therefore they could not logically ascribe "infallibility" to the presentation at their times. (This applies after inspiration was complete, yet at all times God was able to help those who did believe the true Scripture.) Moreover, the Holy Ghost had not yet guided people into a fuller understanding of that truth. The Holy Ghost was actually keeping people from inquiring far along those lines (There was always an acceptance by believers that they had God's Word.) Nevertheless, in different languages, and not just with the Vulgate (both in its creation, and in its printed editions), was there workings ever to standardise, correct and otherwise maintain the text and translation. This was not an unending process, but obviously whatever endeavours were being put forth on those grounds, at their times, they did not yet see how there could be an end. The influx of Eastern Manuscripts into Europe, and the printing press certainly aided these efforts tremendously, and it was out of this possibility, by the predeterminate plan of God, that there was one final true gathered form of the text and translation of the Holy Scripture made. Yet, in its time, there was yet but only a little dawning of understanding of it, of what Englishmen now actually held in their own hands. This does not mean that the Scripture was less true to them, or less true before 1611.

The King James Bible argument cannot be applied unhistorically, as though that because people in the Bible were not using the King James Bible, it cannot be right. Or because the words "King James Bible" are not mentioned in Scripture, it cannot be so. The name of the doctrine, such as "Trinitarian", etc. is nothing to do with the words of Scripture, it is just a name. It is by believing the Scripture itself which reveals the doctrine which is called "pure King James Bible only", the doctrine is called that now, but is built upon and describes preceding phenomena. For example, Christ was obviously speaking the same Word which exists now. The King James Bible now is in the same continuum as any scattered form of Scripture which preceded it. It is not as if the Word of God only existed after 1611. That is not what the word "only" should be claimed to mean in the title "King James Bible only". Rather, it is to recognise that the Scripture has existed since inspiration, and that there has been one manifestation of the presentation of Scripture which has been recognised, and is consistent with the prophecy of Scripture, to be the final, standard and supersuccessionary form.

The authority of such a view is by a belief of Scripture itself to take such a view, and that the Holy Ghost has led and allowed this. The basic arguments then come down to who is of the Spirit and who is not. The question preceding this would be: Is the belief of the tendency, or possibility, for error greater than the belief that God would operate with those who believe for the tendency toward, and the certainty of, truth? The authority for anyone to believe or reject something is whether it is truth itself. Truth is the basis of authority. Therefore, one who argues for a truth of uncertainty rejects the authority of the argument of one who argues for the truth of certainty. The Scriptural evidence is that God is absolute and certain, and therefore operates accordingly, despite the lack of knowledge of man, despite the developing stages of the Church through history, and despite the sometime scattered and blemished presentations of the Word of God.

Finally, the Scripture itself must be examined, specifically that of Luke 4, for this is where those who are against the pure King James Bible only view highlight Scripture itself. It is about having the right interpretation. We must believe that Jesus literally read and had the words of the Book of Esaias as are given in Luke 4:18, 19. What we are observing is a Greek translation of the words of Isaiah given in English, this is obvious from Scripture because it is called "Esaias", and because that is how the differences between the words of the Old Testament and the New Testament in English may be explained, for that the sources were in two different languages. Moreover, history and reason shows that Luke was writing Greek. Even if Christ was speaking or reading from Hebrew, that Luke reported it in Greek is the basis itself for examining the issue (after all, inspiration involves the man Luke directly). Once we understand that we are reading the Holy Ghost's inspired presentation in Greek (Luke), as based on an uninspired translation and copy, that was based on an inspired Hebrew original (Isaiah), and all this in an uninspired English translation (the KJB), we may then see the truth of the matter. First, that variety within inspiration is different to variety without. Variety within inspiration is infallible, inerrant and true, etc., whereas variety outside of inspiration, while allowed by God, has worked rather toward a conclusion and fulfilment, rather than to sanction the process as eternal, else God's Word would ever be being purified, which is wrong, since they were pure, have been purified, and are now very pure.


So, to what extent God allowed for scattering in the text is evident, while not to cause doubt for a believer as to the important doctrines of Scripture (as the modernists continue to claim), was done by the providence of God so that those who really believed that God's power was greater than that of the scattering (e.g. error, corruption, antichrist spirit, etc.) would be overcome by the application of judgment by learned believers to the setting forth of the text in truth, gathered and afterward received by tradition as true: this describes the King James Bible, and disallows continual tampering with or ongoing doubt as to the text form.

Again, while God allowed variety of translations, most especially for getting His truth out to many nations, and also that they might be utilised profitably in concert as to reveal the sense of uncertain or hard original words, such use for variety in translations has been surpassed by having one final translation. In other words, Luke 4 can be used to argue that God would use translation, but not to be applied eternally or continually for multiple translations, but for one to be standard. Thus, just as Luke 4 presents a Greek standard (as by the Holy Ghost in inspiration), so would the same Holy Ghost outwork by providence to bring about the entire Scripture to be presented in one standard in one translation, that is, in the English King James Bible, this, in conjunction with a rising knowledge of it for it to be the only Bible for the future of the Church in the world.