A First Post
For the sake of full disclosure, there are wacky, wacky supporters of the King James Version with crazy arguments and positions. We have crushed them here. It does kind of remind me of liberals, who lure you into some type of advocacy of a piece of their agenda and then say nothing positive after seducing you as prey into adherence. These multiple version folk (MVF) use the craziest King James Version advocates as examples and when you separate yourself from those guys in a clear way, the MVF do not care. Nevertheless, I start this with repudiation of double inspirationists, English preservationists, and all spin-offs. Their existence does not and should not damage the biblical and historic position because those views actually have more in common in principle with multiple versionists.
So many things. Let me start with one today that happened. I talked to a MVF pastor face to face. He was a fundamentalist, independent, Baptist, Bob Jones type of guy. I like to have these types of interactions -- of great interest to me. In the middle of our talk while watching a mutual event, casual chat, I asked, "So what exactly is your problem with West Coast?" Speaking of the revivalist college in Southern California. He said, "I don't like their militant stand..." When he said that, I thought, "Militant stand?" Not sounding good so far. "....in separation over the use of the King James Version of the Bible." I waited for more, but that was it. That was his problem with West Coast.
I don't even think of the King James Version when I think of West Coast. They don't make themselves known by a stand on that English translation. Sure, they use the King James. But that's what bothers MVF about West Coast? I asked, "What about West Coast's ministry philosophy?" Ambivalence. No reaction. Not even an answer. That's all he had to say about West Coast. I'm thinking, "What about their gospel?" And that's what I was intimating with ministry philosophy, church growth technique. Nothing. This is wacky to me. Talk about an obsession. I knew he wasn't alone, because I hear the same kind of talk over and over. And they do not know what they are talking about or they are lying. I'm choosing the former.
It is wacky to me how much this bothers them. What difference does it make how "militant" West Coast is about using the King James if they preach a false gospel? Leave them alone and be glad you don't have anything to do with them. If they don't have anything to do with you, the more the better. Yes! But bothered that they exclusively use the KJV and that's what really gets to you? Someone is drinking the koolaid.
OK, that's a first example. Many say they believe in verbal, plenary inspiration. They are adamant about it. They see this as very, very important. If I asked about conceptual inspiration. No way! But the Bibles they use, the conceptual Word, not verbal or plenary. They have no problem that there are many errors in them. They call them copyist errors. I'm not saying that they aren't copyist errors. But they are saying that they are errors, and yet they believe in "inerrancy" of these Bibles with errors. However, for verbal and plenary inspiration, that can't have any of these errors in it. This doesn't work in the real world in almost any area, but they are fine with this kind of strange contradiction with the Bible. MVF believe in inerrancy! So no errors? "No, by inerrancy, we mean there are errors -- let me explain...." They can explain, but it shouldn't make any sense to someone who knows what the Bible says.
Another. MVF use any number of very good English translations of the Bible. They differ, but they are all good. They come from different texts, but that's fine too. And if you believe there is only one set of Words. No, no, no, no. No. Any number of some of the very good solid translations that each come from different words, but they are all good. Is this the biblical and historical view of the Bible? If you don't agree with this, they think something is wrong with you. And they will say that you have an aberrant bibliology if you don't believe this way. No one who would call himself a Christian believed like they do until the 19th century. They can't talk about history previous to the 19th century. Could there be a biblical position that originated in the 19th century? Can you believe that and not be wacky? I don't think so.
There is no logical basis for God -- Divine, sovereign, powerful -- and the permissible and the "best view' of His word is that there are errors in it. "We aren't sure what His words are, and yet He wants us to live all of His words obediently." Where is this taught? No where in the Bible. It is wacky that they think that faithful people should believe it. Wacky. The emperor is wearing no clothes.