I don't, although I can appreciate preferences when you adopt an "Only View" for a translation or even for the original language I think you have grossly missed the point.
So what exactly is your position then?
Do you believe even the original handwritten Scriptures were not perfect and they contained errors?
You said:
this is correct and there are many translations out there that cater to individuals and if desired anyone can go deeper. The KJV can arguable be deemed a bible for the "religious elite" and it perpetuates values that the true word of God is in the King's English which no one actually speaks from the start puts itself in an elite position if we are to say it is the uncorrupted "Pure Word of God"
That is simply not true. Actually, scholars do not generally favor the Textus Receptus or the KJV and they prefer the original languages from the manuscripts that are used to make the Modern Translations.
You said:
The scriptures to not elevate language to a place where they should not be. The OT is written in both Hebrew and Aramaic, two very concrete languages and the NT is written in Greek a very abstract and opposite language. And by opposite I mean quite literally as the Greek alphabet is largely formed by the mirror image of the Ancient Hebrew. Hebrew is written right to left where Greek is written left to right; during it's time you couldn't get to opposite cultures and languages. the NT quotes the OT from the a greek translation. When it boils down to it language is not valued here and if there is a value it is that languages are fluid but God Word is a constant. We must however use language to express God's Word and this is why the english translations started (more so the Geneva Bible, than the KJV) as they broke free from the elite Latin text used by clergy and allowed all to understand the scripture.
William Tyndale translated the first English NT from the TR and he is quoted with his motivation with "I defy the Pope and all his laws. If God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a boy who drives the plough to know more of the scriptures than you do" (and yes this is an updated english version of this quote because simply english in the 16th century is too distracting to read)
There is no cause to cement a translation in for all time. Languages evolve and translation work will continue on. The non-elite will gravitate to translations they can understand.
Right. So they won't try to act like they are a Hebrew and Greek scholar (When they are not really one). They will not try and act like they know a dead language which is among the religious elite (i.e. Biblical scholarship). Today, Bible schools teach you to study Hebrew and Greek. They do not generally teach you to be KJV-only or anything. Bible schools are in the majority. They are the religious elite. It is not the KJV only folk. They are the minority.
You said:
Which set of manuscripts or translation do you think is perfect that represents God's Word?
What do you mean by perfect?
Most I have talked with in the Modern Translation camp do not really believe the word “perfect” means “perfect.”
You said:
the KJV shares in this glory but so do other translations... the words we use are not and constantly change this is why the KJV culturally speaking is no longer has any relevance except as a historical religious book. Christians should not proclaim the gospel that works for them but proclaim the gospel that works for our mission. This may mean casting off our religious robes to meet people where they are, the KJV is an example of such robes and if we want our mission (unbelievers) to desire to know God we should give them a message that can speak to their heart language. The KJV is estranged to the 21st century and using it can make the gospel estranged as well and promote counter-gospel values, not because it is a poor translation but because we don't live in the 17th century.
I accepted Jesus with a chick tract that used KJV Bible verses. I had no problem understanding what it said. The gospel is not complicated. The KJV is not always hard to understand as you say. The Scripture quoted from the Old Testament by Jesus was not outdated (even though it was hundreds of years old). So I fail to see how your point is valid. I have watched tons of different sermons with a Pastor using a KJV and I had no problems understanding him.
You said:
why am I not getting all the correct instructions or commands in modern translations? Because they differ in a few areas than the KJV? This is an argument you provide no substance to and inventively that battle is not between translations but between the base text (which I infer that you mean the critical greek text). Your argument is not between the KJV and modern translations but between the 1550 Textus Receptus and newly form critical greek texts. It's like comparing the strength of two buildings without considering the foundation and it is highly illogical. I cannot take you serious because you refuse to enter into serious discussion on this topic.
You obviously do not see the importance of the change made in 2 Timothy 2:15, Romans 8:1, and 1 John 5:7. For me these are big changes (that truly matters to my faith); But for you, they appear to be inconsequential. I find this to be very disturbing that you are not willing to see it. Oh, and yes. In part, I agree that this is an argument involving the Textus Receptus vs. the Critical Text. The problem is enormous if you favor the Critical Text over the TR. For not only are there changes for the worse and not for the better with a side by side comparison, but Wescott and Hort were occultists who did not believe the Scriptures and they favored these texts that were used from the Catholic Latin Vulgate.
If you are honest with yourself, you will see that the Greek texts that Modern Translations use lines up with Catholic Bibles. Catholic Bibles are not founded upon the TR.
You said:
I don't speak 17th century english so is God also not capable of communicating in my language?
So if I read a passage or verse to you in the KJV, you are telling me that you have absolutely no idea in what it says? Come on now.
You said:
What about those who don't speak english at all? Is God's also not capable of communicating his perfect Word these these languages?
Not all bibles have been translated into all languages. So what do you make of that?
Why does God send a strong delusion for some to believe a lie?
Why did Jesus speak in parables?
Why did God confuse the languages at the Tower of Babel?
So your thinking is not always in line with the way God operates or works.
God has the power right now for everyone to know His Word instantly.
But there are reasons that God knows as to why He has chosen not to do this.
You said:
What Acts 2 shows us is God doesn't cement his perfect Word in one language.
Nowhere did I ever say that He did. The KJV or the TR is available in multiple languages.
Textus Receptus in Spanish (RVG 2010):
https://www.amazon.com/Santa-Biblia-Rústica-Valera-Spanish/dp/0758907567/
King James Francais in French:
Bible King James Française | King James Française
Koning Jacobus Vertaling in Dutch:
http://www.koningjacobusvertaling.org/info_english.php
Bibelen Guds Ord in Norwegian:
http://www.hermon.no/netbibelen/
Thai King James Thailand Version:
Read the KJV Thai Bible Online.
Korean King James Version:
https://www.amazon.com/Korean-English-Bible-Leather-Golden/dp/B005DPPENA/
Many in your camp who are against the KJV-Only position believe that God’s Word was only perfect in the original manuscripts (i.e. the Hebrew and Greek).
Some believe that there was never a perfect Word of God.
Do you believe that there was ever a perfect word of God?
You said:
Scripture does not say that words of scripture is magnified above God which would be a dangerous thing as it would promote worship to words or a book.
No. It’s not dangerous because God’s words come from God. Jesus says if you love me, keep my commandments. When a person magnifies God’s words they are in obedience to God and that sure is a lot better than a Christian acting like a hypocrite. God is the same way. He shows by example. Jesus (Who is God) always obeyed the Father. He magnified God’s Word above just saying God the Father all the time. Obedience is better than saying, Lord, Lord. For not everyone who says Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of Heaven, but He that does the will of the Father.
Besides, there are other cross references that say the same thing. Just go to OpenBible sometime and check out the cross references.
You said:
The Word of God is an abstract and is an intangible not uniquely defined by our ability sense it such as touch, smell or see it. The KJV is the Word of God by inheritance like an apple is a fruit but a fruit is not only an apple nor is an apple the best example of a fruit. We may see many examples of the perfect Word of God outside of the KJV and even outside of written scripture.
Where?
Prove your case.
You said:
this is a testament to preserving the Word of God not cementing it in a language 400 years ago.
It’s still English and you can still read and understand the majority of it.
Stop acting like it is Biblical Greek (Which is a dead language that nobody can know for sure now a days without the English).
You said:
This is the only point you make that is best related to the KJV but it actually only targets translations from the textus receptus, what about the 2016 KJV is it the Pure Word of God? all your other points agree with any critical translation in any language and do not single out the KJV, certainly not the 1611 KJV.
I was not aware of the 2016 King James. Thank you for sharing such a thing. It appears to be based off the TR and not off of the corrupted texts used in Modern Translations. I would have to investigate it for a while and maybe get back to you in the far future (after careful years of analysis).
You said:
those doctrines do not hang on the perspective of the KJV either, if they did then they would be irresponsible. A solid doctrine is one with a continuous thread throughout scripture and if it rests on 1 line then we must reconcile why the rest of the scripture doesn't value these things. This of course is not the case with the trinity or eternal security as they are strong repeated themes throughout scripture.
No. Romans 8:1 is unique. There is no other verse that says that there is no Condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus who walk after the flesh but walk after the Spirit. This REFUTES Eternal Security and does not support it. 1 John 5:7 is also unique. No other verse explains the Trinity point blank like 1 John 5:7. So if you want to show to an anti-Trinitarian that God’s Word clearly explains there is a Trinity, you are out of luck with your Modern Translation. 2 Timothy 2:15 also is unique. Again, no other verse commands you to study the Scriptures to show yourself approved unto God. It says something else. But believe whatever you want to believe. These changes are not that big of a deal for you. But for me, they are vital to my faith in the fact that I can use them to defend and contend for my faith.
For me, it is very important that I have the very words of God and not the corrupted words of men. Why?
“For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.” (1 Thessalonians 2:13).
