This thread is here to continue the rabbit trail that began in the thread about separating from KJVO churches.
My dear Bro. Karl asks: Is there a source or a link (audio or text) to your pastor’s last sermon from the book “Bel and the Dragon”? Or “1 Maccabees”?
This is one of the points of logic that has always escaped me as we discuss the Authorized Version of 1611. The books of the Apochrypha were included in a translation that - according to the church’s DS - “has been divinely preserved to date in the Authorized Version of 1611, and, therefore, is the truth without any admixture of error for its matter.” If this is so, why don’t the churches who adhere to this belief regularly teach from the Apochryphal books (as in “Teaching the Whole Council of God”)?
And if they do not teach from the Apochryphal Books because they believe that those teachings contain error, how can they hold the position that Scripture “… has been divinely preserved to date in the Authorized Version of 1611, and, therefore, is the truth without any admixture of error for its matter”?
I’m not attacking, nor am I looking for a fight. I simply do not understand how these issues can be resolved and the position still be tenable. KWIM?
Yes, Bro. Karl, I do knwo what you mean. My response is:
The KJV translators, as I understand it, included the Apocrypha merely for its historical value- it was placed in between the OT and NT, and not integrated into the text as other Bibles did and do. It was not considered divine any more than we would consider Scofield’s notes or the many charts in a Thompson Chain, even though we value the information and insight they provide.
When I said that the reason there were several editions of the KJV from 1611 to 1769 was to correct printing errors and make changes to the spelling of certain words, Eric said: Either “the 1611 edition is without any error” OR “the 1611 edition needed correcting.” If preservation in English is, in fact, a Divine work, any error is impossible.
I completely reject the notion that a printing error, font style, or spelling change would render God’s Word as faulty. It is changes to the text itself based on corrupted manuscripts, such as Vaticanus, that I object to. Also- translations were named for the person who authorized it- and the KJV was first printed in 1611, authorized by King James. In publishing, the name of a book does not change with each printing, nor does it matter how many times an edition of a book is published, because the text remains the same. No matter how many times a book is printed, the initial printing date is always acknowledged as the date that the book came out, and not the date of any additional printing runs.
This conversation started as a discussion about my church’s Doctrinal Statement, and I’ve answered them to the best of my ability. If you are going to get out tweezers to try to pick my church apart, I am going to leave the room. I think it is a legitimate function of a Doctrinal Statement to be up front about any requirements that might come into play if a person wanted to be, say, a Sunday School teacher, but being KJVO is not a requirement for membership, nor do we ‘separate’ based on version issues. Sometimes doctrinal issues arise from debates about what a text actually says, and we base our interpretations of Scripture on the KJV/TR. We separate on grounds of false doctrines relating to the Gospel and issues of unrepentant immoral and unethical behavior.
I can’t explain it in a way that will satisfy every critic and criticism, and I shall not attempt to do so here. If you have additional questions that I have time to answer, then this thread may continue. If it doesn’t, I will not be heartbroken. If you feel you need to ‘separate’ from me, then I will respect that and not send you any homemade chocolate fudge this Christmas.