Want Some Answers ???

Hi Steve,

Thank you for your 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 God”.<<

But your last letters clearly indicated you are only interested in your views. And since words [ie Scripture, error, faith, corruption, God’s Word, and Bible] have different meanings for both of us, it’s obvious we have different “foundations” and definitions. So to ask me any questions is very unusual since you won’t believe anything I write anyway. And so it’s 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 it’s your intentions to “have profitable dialogue”.  But we can look at definitions if that’s what you want.

 >>“I don't believe it can be proven that the King James Version is the word of God”<<

If that’s your view how could I define God’s Word to you? You claim to have “faith” but it’s also true to say, no version could be proven to be God’s Word without the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, Scripture won’t be living or active and you won’t know God or His Word. So I wrote, “nothing is more important than to hear God's Word clearly and accurately, [so it can] penetrate the heart." Note Heb.4.12 –

“For 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 heart”.

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

Your definition regarding the 1611 KJV is inconsistent because you don’t even use the 1611 at all, but a modern KJV. You use a book that has been changed so it’s readable, and then you wrongly insist it’s the unaltered word for word 1611. The Apocrypha was also included in the 1611 by translators who were “inspired but didn’t know it” 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 God’s Word ?

So your definition restricts God’s Word to one language, as if God only communicates in old English. Your definition of God’s Word would rob millions the opportunity to read it simply by insisting it mustn’t 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 God’s Word and this was why I wrote -

“The 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 God’s people and translators were martyred as heretics [Jn.16.2].”

Rome once taught what you teach today.  But there’s another inconsistency, for while the KJV alone is claimed God’s Word, you have the misguided idea it’s 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 couldn’t have faith in a translation –

>>…that has mistakes, because how can we be sure that we have eternal life<<

In your definition “eternal life” 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.

 God’s 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 “word” 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 can’t be saved without the KJV”?

My definition is that God’s Word is God’s revelation for all men, translated for all men and not restricted by time or language. When I think of God’s 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 “faith” in the KJ translation is identical to faith in God. You said the “just shall live by faith” and applied this to the KJV. But Biblical “faith” however is not “faith” in a language translation. If you entrust yourself to Luther’s German Bible of 1522 and insisted that alone is God’s Word then that would be equally absurd. By placing such faith in Luther’s translation you effectively remove the focal point of faith in God’s Word, to faith in a translation.

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

Regards. 

Mark