Thursday
Oct112007
How KJV-Onlyism Is Incompatible with Sola Scriptura
Thursday, October 11, 2007 at 12:38PM I’m working on moving some of the posts from my old blog over to this one, so I may occasionally repost a re-edited one. And that’s what this is—an edited old post.
What I’m hoping to show in this piece is that adherents of KJV-onlyism, while claiming to be faithful to the principle that the Bible should the final arbitrator of faith and practice, do indeed use things other than scripture as the final arbitrator of faith and practice when it come to the issue of acceptable texts and translations of the scripture. Let me explain, first of all, that in the argument of this post I’m not referring to people who prefer to use the King James Version of the Bible, or even those who prefer to use only the King James Version of the Bible, but with the strain of KJV-onlyism that teaches that the King James Version of the Bible is the only true word of God in the English language. (This last category is the only category that I would label KJV-onlyist. The first two categories I call KJV-preferred.)
You can find the doctrinal statement that I’ll be referring to while making my argument here. This particular statement was chosen because it is on the internet so everyone reading this post can easily access it; it’s laid out in organized and easy-to-read form; and the position presented in it is quite moderate and reasoned as far as KJV-only statements of faith go. I’ve gone straight to the doctrinal statement of this organization (BibleBelievers.Net), because a doctrinal statement is a dogmatic statement of faith which members of an organization are expected to affirm. (If you read this whole doctrinal statement, you’ll find that in this particular case, it is also, in part, a statement of practice).
This doctrinal statement does make the claim that BibleBelievers.Net affirms sola scriptura. You’ll not find the assertion of sola scriptura under point I, the statement on scripture; but rather, in the last item, No. XV, the statement on good works.
Let’s look at point I, the doctrinal statement pertaining to the scripture, then, to see if the statements made there are aligned with the principle of sola scriptura. Are they either asserted within scripture or deduced from the assertions of scripture? The first part of the statement is affirming the God-breathedness (or divine inspiration) of what the authors of scripture wrote. There is a clear statement in scripture establishing this, for Paul tells us “all scripture is God-breathed”. We can also conclude that if God himself exhaled the scripture, then the God-breathed writings were “inerrant” and “infallible” as the doctrinal statement asserts, for every word from God is true (Proverbs 30:5). So far, so good.
The statement goes on to assert that the same sort of miraculous intervention that “God-breathed” the original writings has also been at work throughout history, preserving a “pure text to this day.” Here’s where the problems with this statement start. I assume what is meant by this statement is that a word-for-word copy of what was originally put down by the original authors is still in existence, and we have it due to miraculous divine intervention. However, while the scripture tells us a little bit about how the writings of scripture came about—they were exhaled by God, and holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Spirit—it doesn’t tell us much about the method of preservation of the scripture. It might seem reasonable to think that miraculously preserving a perfect word-for-word copy of all the God-breathed writings would be the way God would work, but this it is never stated in scripture. And if we can’t find it in scripture or deduce it directly from scripture, then it isn’t something that should be stated in the dogmatic statements of those who believe that scripture must be the absolute standard of faith.
The next statement after this declaration of the divine preservation of a pure text is this:
There’s one more statement in the paragraph:
Do you see how this doctrinal statement, while affirming sola scripura, actually goes against sola scriptura by including dogmatic statements that are unsupported by scripture?
Just to make sure that I wasn’t being unfair to the KJV-Only position, I asked the following question of the KJV-onlyists that participate in the forums of the Baptist Board (and I am paraphrasing, since I don’t remember the exact wording): If you believe the Bible is the absolute rule of faith and practice, how do you support, from the Bible, your belief that only the KJV is the true word of God in English?
I got two answers, and neither was an answer grounded in scripture. The first answer was that 400 years of history can’t be wrong. This is, at it’s core, an appeal to the authority of tradition rather than scripture, and in a bit of a twist, the belief that tradition can be authoritative is a doctrine that the Reformer’s formulations of sola scriptura were meant to counter, as seen in this statement from the London Baptist Confession, 1689:
You can find the doctrinal statement that I’ll be referring to while making my argument here. This particular statement was chosen because it is on the internet so everyone reading this post can easily access it; it’s laid out in organized and easy-to-read form; and the position presented in it is quite moderate and reasoned as far as KJV-only statements of faith go. I’ve gone straight to the doctrinal statement of this organization (BibleBelievers.Net), because a doctrinal statement is a dogmatic statement of faith which members of an organization are expected to affirm. (If you read this whole doctrinal statement, you’ll find that in this particular case, it is also, in part, a statement of practice).
This doctrinal statement does make the claim that BibleBelievers.Net affirms sola scriptura. You’ll not find the assertion of sola scriptura under point I, the statement on scripture; but rather, in the last item, No. XV, the statement on good works.
The Bible is the believer’s absolute Standard of faith and practice, his perfect Counsel. The Word provides him with “all things that pertain unto life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3-4).This statement means that whatever is set forth as doctrine that must be believed should be either directly stated in scripture or straightforwardly deduced from the statements of scripture. We would expect then, according to this affirmation of the absolute rule of scripture, that all of the doctrines outlined in this doctrinal statement would be drawn from scripture.
Let’s look at point I, the doctrinal statement pertaining to the scripture, then, to see if the statements made there are aligned with the principle of sola scriptura. Are they either asserted within scripture or deduced from the assertions of scripture? The first part of the statement is affirming the God-breathedness (or divine inspiration) of what the authors of scripture wrote. There is a clear statement in scripture establishing this, for Paul tells us “all scripture is God-breathed”. We can also conclude that if God himself exhaled the scripture, then the God-breathed writings were “inerrant” and “infallible” as the doctrinal statement asserts, for every word from God is true (Proverbs 30:5). So far, so good.
The statement goes on to assert that the same sort of miraculous intervention that “God-breathed” the original writings has also been at work throughout history, preserving a “pure text to this day.” Here’s where the problems with this statement start. I assume what is meant by this statement is that a word-for-word copy of what was originally put down by the original authors is still in existence, and we have it due to miraculous divine intervention. However, while the scripture tells us a little bit about how the writings of scripture came about—they were exhaled by God, and holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Spirit—it doesn’t tell us much about the method of preservation of the scripture. It might seem reasonable to think that miraculously preserving a perfect word-for-word copy of all the God-breathed writings would be the way God would work, but this it is never stated in scripture. And if we can’t find it in scripture or deduce it directly from scripture, then it isn’t something that should be stated in the dogmatic statements of those who believe that scripture must be the absolute standard of faith.
The next statement after this declaration of the divine preservation of a pure text is this:
We have, therefore, the very Word of God preserved through the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Textus Receptus.If you follow the argument being made, the word therefore refers back to the statement about a preserved pure text. This quoted statement is saying, then, that because we have a preserved pure text, the preserved pure text is the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Textus Receptus. The logic is faulty; there is no way the last statement follows necessarily from the first. Moreover, it goes beyond anything we are told in the text of scripture. There is no mention in the Bible of texts or text types, and certainly no mention of which compilation of manuscript readings into text form make up a perfectly preserved text. In fact, the evidence scripture does give us in the various quotes of Old Testament scripture in the New Testament gives evidence that more than one text (or more than one set of exact words for a single passage) can be called scripture. What we have in this next bit of the doctrinal statement, then, is one extrabiblical statement combined with another extrabiblical statement, put forward dogmatically as right belief.
There’s one more statement in the paragraph:
In the English language, the only Bible translated from the aforementioned texts is the King James Version.This statement, besides being an extrabiblical one (I’ve yet to find the word version in any version of scripture!), is false. There is at least one other translation from the same texts as the King James Version, one that is more faithful to these texts than the King James Version—the New King James Version.
Do you see how this doctrinal statement, while affirming sola scripura, actually goes against sola scriptura by including dogmatic statements that are unsupported by scripture?
Just to make sure that I wasn’t being unfair to the KJV-Only position, I asked the following question of the KJV-onlyists that participate in the forums of the Baptist Board (and I am paraphrasing, since I don’t remember the exact wording): If you believe the Bible is the absolute rule of faith and practice, how do you support, from the Bible, your belief that only the KJV is the true word of God in English?
I got two answers, and neither was an answer grounded in scripture. The first answer was that 400 years of history can’t be wrong. This is, at it’s core, an appeal to the authority of tradition rather than scripture, and in a bit of a twist, the belief that tradition can be authoritative is a doctrine that the Reformer’s formulations of sola scriptura were meant to counter, as seen in this statement from the London Baptist Confession, 1689:
The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelation of the Spirit, or traditions of men.(London Baptist Confession, 1689, I:6)
The second answer given to my question about the scriptural support for KJVonlyism was that those who are faithfully in tune to the Holy Spirit are enlightened by him to this truth, and it is through this enlightenment that we know that the KJV is the only true word of God in English. This is an appeal to the authority of the individual’s perceived experience of the Holy Spirit, and if you read the above statement from the London Baptist Confession, you already know that the idea “new revelation by the Spirit” might be our authority is also specifically ruled out by the doctrine of sola scriptura. (Sola scriptura does not argue, of course, that any individual’s true experience of the enlightenment Holy Spirit is wrong, but rather that what any individual feels they have been taught by the Spirit is to be tested against scripture and can only be held as binding upon others or put forward dogmatically if it can be garnered from the scripture.)
KJV-Onlyists, then, accept extrabiblical standards as bindingly authoritative when it comes to the doctrine of the Bible, and because they do, they cannot rightly claim that the Bible is their absolute rule of faith and practice.
KJV-Onlyists, then, accept extrabiblical standards as bindingly authoritative when it comes to the doctrine of the Bible, and because they do, they cannot rightly claim that the Bible is their absolute rule of faith and practice.
Reader Comments (10)
I was pretty ignorant about this issue until this summer when the church we were considering joining decided to make KJV-only their doctrine regarding the scriptures.
Not only is it just wrong, but it severely limits the resources a church can utilize for discipleship and evangelism, and the missionaries it will support.
I think the most radical idea I learned about this summer regarding this issue was that those who were converted under the preaching from another translation are not truly born again. (:-O
Oh Leslie! That is just sad. (But I've heard people say that, too.)
Whenever I run into these KJOers, the little alarms go off in my head and spirit which shout, "Idolatry! Idolatry! Idolatry!"
While I agree that the translation (or paraphrase) of moment has done significant disservice to the authority of Scripture, it does help remind people that ALL translations are commentaries, no matter who did them.
One thing I like to remember though, is that because the New Testament writers use of many Septuagint texts (obvious by the wording), it in essence validates the concept of using translations for doctrinal arguments as well as preaching and teaching, which is in itself interesting.
Hello,
I was reading team pyro's blog and saw their new blog roll, noticed yours in all caps, clicked on it, and then saw this article. I use only the King James Version in the English language, so I thought I would evaluate your article. It is a pretty heavy charge you make. I was a Biblical language major in college and continued with the languages into seminary.
I have a first question for you. What do you believe Scripture teaches on its own preservation? I noticed you quoting the London Baptist Confession. Hopefully, you recognize that the London Baptist Confession like the Westminster Confession teaches the perfect preservation of Scripture. When you read the Westminster Divines, they too believed in perfect preservation. It is historic doctrine. The MVO (multiple version only), CT, or eclectic position really is the novel theological position that is being sold. It has mainly been done so by means of reading textual criticism into those confessions by men as was popularized by Benjamin Warfield at Princeton. The ultimate fruit of that is now Bart Ehrman, a product of Princeton, and the foremost textual critic now in the United States. God gave only one Bible and the standard for Scripture is perfection.
You are arguing a strawman in your post here. Scripture teaches the preservation of Words (Mt. 24:35), even letters (Mt. 5:17, 18). Scripture teaches the general accessibility of those Words to every generation of believers (Mt. 4:4; Isaiah 59:21). No one with whom I fellowship believes that God promised to preserve a particular text type or a translation. God told us that He would guide us into all truth (John 16:13) and that the church is the pillar and ground for the truth (1 Timothy 3:15).
You do know that God didn't tell us how many books are in the canon, so how do we know there are 66 of them, 39 in the Old and 27 in the New? Why not add more as modern textual critics would encourage? The Holy Spirit through the churches agreed on books and the Holy Spirit through the churches agreed on Words. The New Testament presentation on canonicity is the canonicity of Words. God promised we would have them.
Since the CT wasn't available at least until 1881, there is no way that it could represent the perfect preservation of Scripture as advocated by that confession you quoted. And what is the basis for that text according to the textual apparatus, but scientific formulas invented by men---not the Holy Spirit. I trust what God did through the churches, the Holy Spirit giving witness to God's Words through His people, not staggering at the promises of God. When a man stands in front of a congregation and tells the people what God's Words are, there we have something extra-scriptural and non-canonical. The church is the pillar and ground of the truth, not one individual. The Bible does not present itself with uncertainty. The Words are settled. God's people gladly receive them, not restore them.
Yes, the NKJV does come from the same text. However, the men that did the translation work did not believe in perfect preservation of Scripture. Many of them were CT men. They had a different translation philosophy than the KJV translators, more dynamic equivalence than the KJV. They used the King James name as a marketing tool, when they did not make an identical translation as the KJV (it wasn't an update). They use footnotes to cast doubt on the text behind the KJV. These are reasons why I don't recommend the NKJV. However, it is wrong for someone to say that it does not come from the same text as the KJV. They used a different OT Hebrew text, but they used the Ben Chayyim where there were differences.
I'm always happy to grow and learn and to find out I'm wrong, when I am. I hope the best.
I use only the King James Version in the English language...
Just to make sure we're on the same wave-length: The argument of this post is aimed at those who choose to use only the KJV, not is it aimed at those who believe that the very best version there is. When I speak of KJV-only, I'm speaking of those who are dogmatic about the KJV being the only preserved word of God in the English language, and those are the ones the arguments in this post are shooting at. (And by dogmatic, I am referring to attempts to bind the consciences of other believers to this statement.)
What do you believe Scripture teaches on its own preservation?
I believe scripture teaches us that God preserves his word. I don't believe it tells us exactly how he chose to do that.
Hopefully, you recognize that the London Baptist Confession like the Westminster Confession teaches the perfect preservation of Scripture.
Yep, they believed that by God's providence the Hebrew and Greek texts had been kept pure. Did they mean by this that the text underlying the Geneva Bible, for instance, which is a little bit different than the text underlying the KJV, was not pure? Did they think that until the text used for the KJV was put together there wasn't a pure Greek text? I doubt it, but I don't know.
But this really has nothing to do with the issue of the post, does it? What the framers of the WCF and the LBC believed is beside the point. If they had put a statement in the confession affirming which exact text from among the ones that existed in their time was the only God-preserved one and the only one that ought to be used in order to be perfectly obedient, all the while affirming that "[t]he whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for ...faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture", then they, too, would teaching something in the confession that is incompatible with their own formulation of the principle of sola scriptura.
The MVO (multiple version only), CT, or eclectic position really is the novel theological position that is being sold.
There is no such thing as a multiple version only position, or even a CT or eclectic only position. As far as I know, there is no Christian church that enforces in a doctrinal statement or article of faith the use of only multiple versions. I could be proven wrong, but I've never heard of it.
the standard for Scripture is perfection.
Yes. And that perfection preserved doesn't necessarily mean word for word correlation in texts rightly called scripture. How we know this? Because Jesus himself read from a text in the synagogue that differs from the text underlying our Old Testament. And he called it scripture. If you insist that only one set of words in Hebrew, for example, can really be scripture, then either my Hebrew Old Testament (which is the text, BTW, from which the KJV is translated) or the text Jesus read from and called scripture is not really scripture.
No one with whom I fellowship believes that God promised to preserve a particular text type or a translation.
Read the doctrinal statement I linked to and that I was discussing in this post. They affirm dogmatically the particular text type and the exact (and only) English translation that is preserved by God. That is the sort of dogmatic statement this post is speaking to. Unless those you fellowship with make that same sort of dogmatic statement, this post has no bone to pick with them.
God told us that He would guide us into all truth (John 16:13) and that the church is the pillar and ground for the truth (1 Timothy 3:15).
And how does he guide us to all truth? By illuminating scripture. How does the church function as the pillar and ground for the truth? By the exposition of the scripture. If a church teaches that a certain practice (like the exclusive use of the KJV) is an element of perfect faithfulness, then they ought to be able to find it "expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture" since scripture is sufficient to "thoroughly furnish" us "unto all good works."
The Holy Spirit through the churches agreed on books and the Holy Spirit through the churches agreed on Words.
Of course, the Holy Spirit knows what the exact words in the autographs were. But if the Holy Spirit through the ages communicated that precise knowledge of the exact words to the churches, how is it that none of the manuscripts that remain are exactly the same, word-wise? If there was one perfect manuscript, did the churches who had manuscripts that differed in wording from from it know by the witness of the Holy Spirit that their manuscripts were not the "agreed on Words"?
Since the CT wasn't available at least until 1881, there is no way that it could represent the perfect preservation of Scripture as advocated by that confession you quoted.
I am not arguing for the CT; I am not arguing for any specific text. Rather, I am arguing against a dogmatic statement of "which compilation of manuscript readings into text form make up a perfectly preserved text." I am arguing that which text(s) and which translation(s) one choses to use is a matter of conscience, since the answer to these questions are not "expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture."
Rebecca,
You wrote: I believe scripture teaches us that God preserves his word. I don't believe it tells us exactly how he chose to do that.
I say: Some things, if repeated enough, people believe are true. That is the common refrain of the eclectic/CT people (I like MVO, and I'll tell you why). I encourage you to study the Hebrew words natsar and shamar in the Hebrew and tareo in the Greek. God kept His Word through Israel (Rom. 3:2) as His depository in the OT and the church (John 17:6-8; 1 Tim. 3:15) in the NT. God ordained Israel and the church to pass His Words down from one generation to the next.
You write: Did they mean by this that the text underlying the Geneva Bible, for instance, which is a little bit different than the text underlying the KJV, was not pure? Did they think that until the text used for the KJV was put together there wasn't a pure Greek text? I doubt it, but I don't know.
I say: I appreciate your honesty here. It is rare, I'm sorry to say, that I see that. You say, "You don't know." We should rest on God's promises as evidence. If you read the statements of those during that time, you will see that they believed that where there were errors in one copy, they were corrected in another and they did ultimately settle on a text, the text behind the King James Version, for hundreds of years. A revision in 1881 is to say that God did not providentially preserve His Words pure. You didn't deal with the doctrine of accessibility, which is part of the doctrine of preservation.
You write concerning the doctrine of preservation in the confessions: But this really has nothing to do with the issue of the post, does it?
I say: It does. If God had perfectly preserved His Word, then it would not need revision, which is the thinking behind textual criticism.
You write: As far as I know, there is no Christian church that enforces in a doctrinal statement or article of faith the use of only multiple versions.
I say: But isn't this what you are doing with this post. If anyone says that God perfectly preserved His Words in TR and Ben Chayyim, he is unorthodox. That would leave someone with being MVO. You are saying that anything but MVO is unorthodox, not sola scriptura.
You wrote: They affirm dogmatically the particular text type and the exact (and only) English translation that is preserved by God.
I say: I did read it, and it isn't what I read. First, the TR and the Ben Chayyim are not text types. Second, I don't read them saying that God preserved His Word in the English. If two translations alone, by your own admission, come from the text received by the churches, then that brings a great deal of exclusivity. And then if we do not believe that the NKJV represents a suitable translation philosophy, we are KJVO, that we are not sola scriptura.
You write: Yes. And that perfection preserved doesn't necessarily mean word for word correlation in texts rightly called scripture. How we know this? Because Jesus himself read from a text in the synagogue that differs from the text underlying our Old Testament.
I say: The passages on preservation read "word for word." God makes certain arguments using one letter. Now you say that you are making a Scriptural argument against preservation of word for word. When conservative theologians interpret Scripture they rely on classic harmonization due to a high view of inspiration. I don't believe that Jesus used a text that differed than the OT text. That is not a truth that necessarily springs from those passages. For several reasons, we do not have to affect the doctrine of preservation with those differences, just like we don't deny inspiration based upon varying presentations in the gospel accounts. When Jesus quoted, He also targummed, the normal practice of the rabbi in the synagogue. He quoted and commented for the purpose of making clear the point of the text to which He referred. We're also reading a Greek translation of the Hebrew, which won't translate in something smooth word-for-word. I could say more, but there are two reasons that we have for not doubting that Jesus too believed in perfect preservation.
You know that when you are quoting 2 Timothy 3:16, 17--those temple writings (holy scriptures) to which He referred, were copies only. The inspired writings are spoken of as continuing in their perfect condition.
You write: Of course, the Holy Spirit knows what the exact words in the autographs were. But if the Holy Spirit through the ages communicated that precise knowledge of the exact words to the churches, how is it that none of the manuscripts that remain are exactly the same, word-wise? If there was one perfect manuscript, did the churches who had manuscripts that differed in wording from from it know by the witness of the Holy Spirit that their manuscripts were not the "agreed on Words"?
I say: I'll answer your questions. What mistakes were in one copy were corrected in another, but these men did believe in preservation and they viewed what they possessed as being equal to the originals. Read Turretin and Owen on this, among others. The church is the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 3:16), so the Holy Spirit has through the agreement of His people assured that we have every Word. It is a matter of trusting Him with the Words. If you didn't have faith that He would do that, you wouldn't believe in 66 books.
You write: Rather, I am arguing against a dogmatic statement of "which compilation of manuscript readings into text form make up a perfectly preserved text." I am arguing that which text(s) and which translation(s) one choses to use is a matter of conscience, since the answer to these questions are not "expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture."
I say: The churches settled on books. Sure, today the books are brought into question, but we don't budge from what we see that God did, despite the fact that nowhere did He tell us what the exact books were His. We shouldn't budge from what we see God did in the homogenization of His Words in one standardized and accepted text.
Earlier you wrote: And how does he guide us to all truth? By illuminating scripture. How does the church function as the pillar and ground for the truth? By the exposition of the scripture.
I say: The answers to both your questions are not in those passages of Scripture. The apostles to whom Jesus spoke in John 16:13. He inspired the complete Word of God. We still have that same Holy Spirit today. We are not just exposing Scripture, but we are keeping it as His stewards, protecting God's Words, both the teachings and the Words themselves. I've preached expositionally through most of the Bible by now, and studied them in the original languages, and I am preaching Words. My doctrine comes from Words. God inspired Words. Our church is protecting not just the explanation of those Words, but the Words themselves.
It isn't only a matter of conscience. God promised preservation and we should not faithlessly deny what He said He would do. Choosing a modern translation from words that were not accessible for many generations is a denial of the preservation of God's Words.
I'll try to find time to respond tomorrow. Today's been busy.
Thanks for this post.
My biggest problem with the KJV is that the language is hard to understand, because English is nearly 400 years older than it was when the KJV was published. (But the KJV is easier to memorize, because unusual words are easier to recall -- just as it's easier to remember Arnold Schwarzenegger than John Smith.) Such archaic language doesn't speak to the unchurched (or even the churched) as clearly as God wants to speak, I'm afraid.
Kent,
So much of what you've written has not much to do with the subject of my post. The post is not about which text can reasonably be thought to be the right text. That's beside the point, as far as this post goes. The post is about whether one can claim to believe in sola scriptura, and then remain consistent to that while at the same time binding the Christian's conscience to a belief that is not contained within the pages of scripture.
You didn't deal with the doctrine of accessibility, which is part of the doctrine of preservation.
Can you point me to where scripture promises constant accessibility to every bit of inspired text throughout history as part of preservation?
I say: I did read it, and it isn't what I read.
I was sloppy in how I worded my response. What they say is that we have a text that is exactly the same as the original autographs and are stating dogmatically what that text is.
Can they make an argument for this being true? Of course. You and I would probably disagree on the strength of the argument, but that's beside the point. My point is that, at it's core, when it comes to deciding which text is the one perfectly preserved one, it's a textual critical argument--a case made using different critera than others might use--but nonetheless, it's a textual critical argument. It is not an argument from the text of scripture itself, therefore while they are free to hold firmly to the belief that this text is exactly the same as the original autographs, they are not free (at least if they practice sola scriptura) to bind the consciences of others to this belief.
When Jesus quoted, He also targummed, the normal practice of the rabbi in the synagogue...
Except that isn't what it says. It says
It's one place.
Those are the words that were written in the one place on the scroll. And Jesus called them scripture.
To say Jesus targummed or paraphrased goes against what the inspired text tells us.
Jesus too believed in perfect preservation.
Of course he did. And yet he called a set of words slightly different from the Hebrew text used for our Old Testament scripture. That means that perfect preservation as taught in scripture is not always preservatation of a certain set of words.
The thing is, in all these arguments you've made, you haven't given any scriptural basis for the TR that undergirds the KJV being exactly identical to the original. You've given a scriptural argument for there being one exactly identical text, and although I think your interpretations of the texts are a little iffy, still, you've made an argument from scripture. But why, scripturally, is the TR behind the KJV the preserved text and not the one behind the Geneva Bible?
And if the argument can't be made from scripture, where does the authority come to bind my conscience to that text as one perfectly preserved one?
Rebecca,
To start, I say this all in a kind-spirited way. I thought it was important that you not broad brush those who recommend only the King James Version. I don't know what you are attempting to accomplish with your readers by making the particular point you were making, and then chose to repost it. You have used the "conscience" in a few comments, as though this were an issue of conscience. Since God said He would preserve every Word and make every Word accessible, the Critical Text is not a choice that someone should make in good conscience. That we are to be involved in an ongoing practice of restoring the Words of God (because He did not preserve them or make them available) is not a matter of conscience. We are not to agree to disagree on matters that Scripture teaches.
You asked a few questions in your post and made one point about Jesus in Luke 4 that I want to answer.
You asked: Can you point me to where scripture promises constant accessibility to every bit of inspired text throughout history as part of preservation?
Isaiah 59:21 As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.
Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
If we are to live by every Word, it follows that we would have every Word.
In almost every instance, "it is written," is in the perfect tense in the NT. The results (the graphe) of what God wrote are ongoing.
Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
In the context of Matthew 24:35, this relates to the coming of Christ, and the Words would be necessary for those going through those times, so the idea is that the "words" are available for those saints in the tribulation period. They would be despite the precarious situation on earth---the words no not ever (double negative in the Greek) pass away.
I believe the Words are available for those Who want them, which is also what I see in Deut. 30:11-14. Unavailability is not an excuse for those who disobey Scripture.
You say that Jesus wasn't targumming because it isn't what it says.
I don't believe you can make that point by what the passage says.
Luke 4:16,17 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written.
I believe he read. I believe he read from that section of Isaiah. I think it is obvious He is targumming, because as he reads, he inserts something into Isaiah 61 from Isaiah 58.
The big argument, that you haven't mentioned, is that he is reading from "the Septuagint." Almost everyone agrees that as we have it today, the Septuagint is a corrupt text. They didn't even translate certain difficult passages. But it is equally quite likely that in later copies of the Septuagint that the men who did the "translation" of the Hebrew into the Greek for "the Septuagint" knew the Words of Jesus in the Gospels and used them as their translation. You can read this in: Invitation to the Septuagint. Karen H. Jobes and Moises Silva (Baker, 2000; ISBN#: 0-8010-2235-5). The Septuagint was a not fixed text by the time of Christ. There are many versions, dating from centuries before Christ and into the early to mid centuries of the Christian era. James affirmed that the Torah was the text by which preaching was done on every Sabbath in every town of Judea, and elsewhere, in the synagogue (Acts 15:21).
You ask: But why, scripturally, is the TR behind the KJV the preserved text and not the one behind the Geneva Bible?
This fits in with a Scriptural presupposition. First, however, the Geneva was based on the TR editions, so that too opts out the CT and, therefore, eclectic view. What we need to ask is, what is the Bible that God's people used? God's people, who believed in preservation, settled on the KJV. They agreed upon it. You might cite historical factors, but that is where providence comes in, doesn't it (remember the confessions)? The church is the temple of the Holy Spirit and the Spirit is One, so what they agreed upon and used was what the Holy Spirit advocated, the text behind the KJV.
You ask, And if the argument can't be made from scripture, where does the authority come to bind my conscience to that text as one perfectly preserved one?
These points can be made from Scripture.
1. God said He would preserve every Word (supernatural preservation promised) in the language in which they were written.
2. God said He would use men (study natsar, shamar, and tareo) and specifically His institutions of men (Israel and the church).
3. God said all the Words would be available to those Who wanted them.
4. God said there would be an attack on His Words (Satan wants to destroy and take away confidence in the Word of God---he alters words---uses human reasoning often as a basis).
5. God said His Word is incorruptible and perfect.
Now it is a matter of applying what the Bible teaches. What position do you come to when you apply those Scriptural teachings?