culture and ethnicity are deemphasized eliminates and we are in fact encouraged to drop them to contextualise to our mission. We are also not the new Israel and if you're going to use this to prop up why we should value the KJV above all else it's just misses the point. Isreal has a very unique role in the bible and one that is well articulated. English speaking whites of the 16th-17th century are not mentioned in scripture.
But you are ignoring the point I made in how we will all be resurrected in the flesh and blood likeness of a Jew named Jesus Christ. You are ignoring the fact that we will be joint heirs of the seed of Abraham (Note: The seed being the Jesus Christ). Jesus said, salvation is of the Jews. So no. God is still into ethnocentricity. If this was not the case, then we would not be resurrected after the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. For without Christ, we cannot be resurrected. Jesus was a Jew. So I would say things are still very ethnocentric. God chose a special nation to spread His Word. When His chosen nation failed to accomplish that, He sent Jesus Christ to accomplish this mission instead.
Just because God favors one nation above others does not mean He does not care for other nations. God's goal with having a nation like Israel was so that it could be a light to the rest of the world. To be one nation under God. It's just that Jesus is the one who is going to make that a reality. There is no such thing as many nations in the end. It will all be one nation or kingdom who serves Jesus Christ (Who is our God and Lord).
But am I wrong for propping up the KJV as the divinely inspired Word of God with my point about how we will all be resurrected by the flesh and blood of Jesus (Who is a Jew)? No, sir.
For they are a parallel of how God operates. God sets apart certain things as being holy or separate. Not all things can be holy and set apart. That would be a contradiction. For you cannot say that all translations of the Word of God in the world are perfect and without error. For you, most likely you do not hold to the idea that there is a perfect Word of God out there. But how do you decide what is true and what is not true in the Bible? Do you just decide based on how you feel? Man is fallible.
As for English speaking whites of the 16-17th century not being spoken of in Scripture:
It is irrelevant. The issue is not one of English speaking whites in the 16th-17th century but it is issue of God's Word telling us that His Word is perfect and that it will be preserved for all generations. If His Word declares these two truths, then we must conclude that there is a perfect Word of God out there for our generation (world language) today. There can be only one Word of God and not many. If you value logical reasoning, then you will eventually be led to the truth that there can be only ONE Word of God (and not many).
You said:
it would be irresponsible to think non-native english speaker can deepen then walk with Christ using 17th century english. Christianity should not be in the business of adopting a language to hold the "pure word" of God and the very idea of this is ethnocentric. someone should not feel like they are missing out if they read scripture in their native tongue.
I am not suggesting that Christians should ignore other translations or translations in their own tongue. What I am saying is that we know for a fact that not all Bibles say the same exact thing. We also know God is not the author of confusion. Clearly the devil is. So by this reason, this means that certain Bibles have been corrupted. This does not mean we toss out Modern Versions because there is some good in them, but we do not simply make them our authority. You cannot make all Bibles your authority because they conflict with each other. You also cannot make Hebrew and Greek your authority because you did not grow up speaking and writing Biblical Hebrew and Greek because they are dead languages. In addition, do you make the Textus Receptus your authority or the Critical Text your authority? How do you truly decide? Were you there at the creation of these to truly know?
Well, the way we can know if they are good or bad is by doing a fruits test (like I said before). We see two vines. The KJV is based of the Textus Receptus and most of your Modern Translations are based off the Critical Text. So which vine are you going to choose? A simple side by side comparison will help you to see that the KJV is superior each and every time.
Side Note:
Granted, the 1600's English in the KJV is difficult for us Modern day English speakers to understand sometimes; However, this is why I encourage believers to use Modern Translations; Not as their final word of authority but as a means to help them to see what the KJV is saying.
