Baptists/King James Version Issue
A.D. Johnson wrote at 2015-02-12 17:54:07
Brother, so far as extrabiblical evidence is concerned, I would cite:
--Early church fathers who greatly wrote about verses that are included in the KJV, but omitted in modern versions.
--The fact that the KJV keeps intact the 'Hebraic' feel of the text. The Bible is AFTER all, a Jewish book. (To the Jew FIRST and also to the Greek)
--The fact that all of Western Society has been transformed by it for over 400 years.
--The fact that the world's GREATEST revivals and greatest preachers have firmly stood on the premise that their KJV was perfect by way of preservation.
--The fact that, SOUL WINNING was and has been the main focus of those who earnestly believed their KJV, against the luke warm laodociean church we see today--where it's all about me, and nothing about him
--The fact that, In English, no book has ever inspired such great hymns of the faith. Think about it: Name 5 'great' Christian Songs today. Now, name some of yesteryear such as Blessed Assurance, This Little Light of Mine, Death is But a Dream, Jericho Road, Come and Dine, I'll Fly Away, 23rd Psalm, Amazing Grace, Because He Lives, Just As I Am, At the Cross, On Christ the Solid Rock I Stand, When the Roll is Called up Yonder, Jesus Lives, Jesus Saves, to God Be the Glory,...these are just a few off the top of my head. All of these songs are directly based on scripture from the KJV or from theological Premises from the KJV. Now, try to find any reference to any scripture or theology in a modern song...
--The fact that no book IN HISTORY has ever even come close to outselling the KJV. In fact, one group recently estimated, that if no one ever bought a KJV again, that the NIV, at it's current pace, would need 750 years to catch up.
These are just some external evidences.
Opposition to the KJV is mainly based on unrealistic textual bias, and 'text criticism' largely started and finished, in the vein of Westcott and Hort. Many ANTI-KJV's claim that the Textus Receptus is not a good representation of the authentic greek text, as well as other things such as:
--Older automatically is preferred and better
--The Papyri (of which only about 150 exist) is automatically better
--The manuscripts from Egypt are better. (The Bible DIRECTLY refutes this itself--take a look at the first occurance of Egypt in Genesis 12)
--The Alexandrian Text-Type is preferred over the Byzantine because of age. (Again, a logical fallacy--the manuscripts are older, not because they are better, simply because they were never used, which indicates rejection, not acceptance by the early church)
--They say the KJVO's use circular reasoning (starting with the assumption the KJV is perfect, then comparing others to prove others are wrong. Funny though, because these so called bible correctors do the same thing--they appeal to 'THE GREEK' or THE ORIGINALS--which no man alive in the last 1900 years has EVER seen, to correct the KJV--so it's actually they that use circular reasoning.)
--Straw Man Attacks--Setting up the KJV as the standard. (However, again, they do the same thing)
Some other thoughts: The worlds best preachers used the KJV without compromise. Spurgeon once commented about his KJV 'If I did not believe in this book are contained the absolute, perfect, infallible, inerrant words of the living God, I would never again enter the pulpit' The result? The biggest revival London ever experienced.
Billy Sunday--Though later in life he had some personal issues, Billy Sunday believed that KJV. It is estimated through his biographer, who was on staff with him at the time, that he had PERSONALLY led more than 2,000,000 (TWO MILLION) people to Jesus Christ, WITHOUT the advantages afforded to Billy Graham 70 years later. (No radio, no TV, no newspaper advertisments, no money behind him, etc.) Interesting to point out that Billy Sunday turned down the worlds largest baseball contract at the time, to be and evangelist, because HE BELIEVED the KJV.