The old Protestant message is still being taught.
Why compromise with Rome is deadly preached by Matthew Verschuur, on the 2nd of September, 2014 at Victory Faith Centre. MP3 (13.3 MB), 38:54. http://www.bibleprotector.com/2-9-14-compromise-with-rome-deadly-mv.mp3
Some folks who attack the King James Bible claim to do so on historical grounds. For example, they might say that various translations were made in the Reformation, that the Westminster Confession of Faith spoke about the importance of Hebrew and Greek, or that the KJB translators were not infallible.
But this is a deception if the person arguing against the KJB is taking a modernistic position, in favour of modern versions like the ESV, etc. This is for two reasons:
1. The historical position would at least be friendly toward the KJB, and at least connect to the Textus Receptus or Traditional Text positions, or, at worst, the Majority Text position.
2. The historical position could not embrace the thoughts and processes from the Higher Critics or men like Westcott and Hort.
The most consistent and best historical position, as is highlighted by both internal and external (providential) factors, is to be King James Bible only.
However, a genuine believer should not be a modern versionist, supporting or using the likes of the NASV, the ESV, NIV or anything else like them, let alone the NLT, the Message and so on.
Modern versionists are struggling to defend and maintain the doctrine of the inerrancy and infallibility of the Scripture.
By the 1970s, they were making all kinds of compromises, in three areas:
1. In claiming only the original autographs were perfect, implying that it was impossible to have God’s words exactly today in one form.
2. Modernist hermeneutics (Bible interpretation methods) which explained away relevance of the Bible to today.
3. Upholding the Infidel-based idea of human rights.
All three of these above listed ideas are found in the three “Chicago Statements”, while the first two are found in teachings of men such as John MacArthur.
Bill Combs blogged that churches should abandon the KJB (http://dbts.edu/blog/should-churches-abandon-the-king-james-version/) and that churches should use modern versions (http://dbts.edu/blog/churches-should-adopt-a-modern-version-of-the-bible/).
His reason for abandoning the KJB is simple: the KJB was made a long time ago, and more information has been discovered since that time.
This is potentially a fallacy because more information does not necessarily mean that what was done must now be abandoned.
But looking from a Biblical and a divine aspect, when it can be shown that the sufficient amount of data was available for the KJB men, then all newer discoveries are not in any way counteracting what was done, because to do so would be to say that:
1. Christians did not have the Word of God while all the discoveries of new manuscripts had not occurred, and
2. Christians do not have the Word of God because all discoveries have not taken place, or that human knowledge is yet limited.
Australian Jesuit writer, Andrew Hamilton, says that our nation should not fight against a certain Jihadist Islamic terrorist state, because he “can anticipate an increasingly destructive campaign leading eventually to a weary withdrawal, leaving behind dragons’ teeth sown to beget even more powerful enemies.” (Source: Eureka Street, Sowing Dragon’s Teeth in Iraq, 27 August 2014).
What he means is that he anticipates the enemies to win, and he prophesies (falsely) that this would only lead to worse, more powerful terrorists. The Jesuits would not have us withstand evil. It is exactly this type of self-destructive advice that we expect from our enemies.
It is clear that we are engaged in an ideological war on the political and religious level, between the damaging and deceptive agenda of the Left (with their Jesuit allies) and the strong, clear stand of freedom loving citizens, conservatives and genuine patriotic Christians.
Jer 8:11 For they have healed the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace.
Mt 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
The Reformation was about getting the Word of God into English.
However, many misguided teachers say that the real truth is in Hebrew and Greek.
So they use lexicons (which define the meaning of Greek and Hebrew words), or think that they are advantaged by learning Hebrew and Greek themselves.
Alan E. Kurschner, a supporter of Hebrew and Greek studies, admitted the relativism, subjectivity and fatal weakness of this approach. He wrote, “that’s right they are fallible, including Hebrew and Greek lexicons! I often hear people cite … lexicons as if they are inspired and descended gold-plated from the Greek gods themselves. Lexicons are interpretive; and just like commentaries they often repeat each other.”
The Calvinist says, “The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old,) and the New Testament in Greek, (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations) being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic”.
The first error the Calvinist makes is to claim that because God initially used Hebrew and Greek, that those languages are somehow more specially, or are the specific method of conveying the truth to the world.
That was certainly not the view of King James Bible translators, who said that the Scripture in English was the Word of God.
The following are a series of questions about Bible versions adapted from http://www.biblediscernment.com/research.html
I have made some comments.
Have you done research on the KJB, modern versions and related controversies?
There is a fair degree of ignorance in the debate on modern versions, and the ignorance is on both sides of the KJB versus modern versions. Often, however, I find that the people against the KJB rely on extremely narrow sources, such as James White’s book against King James Bible Only, which often mischaracterises the debate and is heavily biased and non-analytical in its approach.