No one is "casting doubt on the Word of God".
The original Greek and Hebrew are what all translations must be compared to, not the KJV.
KJVO has been a divisive force in the Body of Christ, causing discord and hostility.
I will address the first point in a minute. As for "the" original Greek and Hebrew, there is no such animal. Face the facts and stop lying about it. As for KJBO being divisive, we are the ONLY ones who still believe in an inerrant Bible. If we just abandon that position, then we can unite with you "No bible is inerrant" fellas and all will be hunky dory, right?
Now for Who is really attacking the words of God?
Why do you King James only people attack the word of God?
I have been involved in many Christian internet forums over the years and have discussed whether or not there really is a complete, inspired and inerrant Bible in any language with many Christians.
When people begin to discuss the Bible version issue, many Christians become uncomfortable and then they get angry. Passions are stirred about this single topic more than any other. Some forums will not even allow discussions about the inerrancy of the Scriptures or the King James Bible to be discussed.
I myself have been banned from several Christian clubs just because I brought up the issue of whether or not The King James Bible is the inerrant word of God or not. The promoters of the modern versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, NKJV, Holman Standard etc. are now rocked back on their heels and are scrambling for some kind of answer. There is clear and Undeniable Proof that the ESV, NIV, NASB, and NET versions are nothing more than the "new" Catholic bible versions and even the best of their defenders cannot deny it. Don't believe me? Well, here is the indisputable evidence and you can look up the verses and do the comparisons for yourself:
Real Catholic bibles - Another King James Bible Believer
The "new" Catholic Connection bible versions are not doing well at all and unbelief in the inerrancy of Scripture is at an all time high.
They do not believe that the King James Bible nor any other Bible in any language (including their nebulous and constantly changing the Hebrew and Greek) is the infallible words of God, and I see a remarkable deterioration in their thinking processes. Many young Christians are simply unaware of the issues involved in the Bible version discussions, but many others who do have some knowledge are now coming out with some really strange, contradictory, and emotionally charged unbiblical statements.
Before we look at some of the things now commonly being said on the internet, lets first address this frequent charge I now hear by those who are confronted with the King James Bible issue. I have recently been asked several times: Why do you King James only people attack the word of God?
Most of the people asking this question are woefully ignorant of what has been going on for the last 100 years or so, and who started this attack on the Bible. It certainly was not the King James Bible believers. It was the seminaries and the modern versionist themselves who started this attack on not only the King James Bible but on the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture as a whole.
"The Bible is not the inspired and inerrant word of God"
Most Christians today do NOT believe The Bible IS the inerrant and infallible word of God. This statement may seem shocking at first, and many pastors and Christians will give the knee-jerk reaction saying that they do believe the Bible IS the infallible word of God. However, upon further examimation, it will soon be discovered that when they speak of an inerrant Bible, they are not referring to something that actually exists anywhere on this earth. They are talking about a mystical Bible that exists only in their imaginations; and each person's particular version differs from all the others.
As one liberal theologian pointed out in his review of Harold Lindsells, The Battle for the Bible, the only real difference between the conservative and liberal positions on the Bible is that the conservatives say the Bible USED TO BE inspired and inerrant, whereas the liberal says it NEVER WAS inspired or inerrant. BOTH positions agree that the Bible IS NOT NOW inspired or inerrant.
As brother Daryl Coats so aptly says: "If the Bible was inspired only in the original manuscripts, no one in the entire history of the world has ever had an inspired Bible. The original autographs of Job and the books of Moses had disappeared more than a thousand years before the first book of the New Testament was written, so no one has ever owned a complete Bible made up of the divine originals. Nor, has anyone ever owned a complete New Testament made up of inspired originals, because the originals were distributed among more than a dozen individuals and local churches."
God said: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD." Amos 8:11
The Lord Jesus Christ also stated in Luke 18:8 "Nevertheless, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?"
The apostle Paul wrote concerning the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together unto Him: "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, EXCEPT THERE COME A FALLING AWAY FIRST..." 2 Thessalonians 2:3
The number of professing Christians who do NOT believe in a "hold it in your hands and read" type of inspired Bible has steadily increased over the years since the flood of multiple-choice, conflicting and contradictory modern bible versions began to appear about 100 years ago.
The following testimonies about the character of Evangelicalism today were made by key Evangelical leaders. The irony is that these same men are part of the problem they lament. Each of these men has been guilty of endorsing modern bible versions.
"MORE AND MORE ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS HISTORICALLY COMMITTED TO AN INFALLIBLE SCRIPTURE HAVE BEEN EMBRACING AND PROPAGATING THE VIEW THAT THE BIBLE HAS ERRORS IN IT. This movement away from the historic standpoint has been most noticeable among those often labeled neo-evangelicals. This change of position with respect to the infallibility of the Bible is widespread and has occurred in evangelical denominations, Christian colleges, theological seminaries, publishing houses, and learned societies" (Harold Lindsell, former vice-president and professor Fuller Theological Seminary and Editor Emeritus of Christianity Today, The Battle for the Bible, 1976, p. 20).
"WITHIN EVANGELICALISM THERE ARE A GROWING NUMBER WHO ARE MODIFYING THEIR VIEWS ON THE INERRANCY OF THE BIBLE SO THAT THE FULL AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE IS COMPLETELY UNDERCUT. But is happening in very subtle ways. Like the snow lying side-by-side on the ridge, the new views on biblical authority often seem at first glance not to be very far from what evangelicals, until just recently, have always believed. But also, like the snow lying side-by-side on the ridge, the new views when followed consistently end up a thousand miles apart. What may seem like a minor difference at first, in the end makes all the difference in the world ... compromising the full authority of Scripture eventually affects what it means to be a Christian theologically and how we live in the full spectrum of human life" (Francis Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster, 1983, p. 44).
The neutral method of Bible study leads to skepticism concerning the New Testament text. This was true long before the days of Westcott and Hort. As early is 1771 Griesbach wrote, "The New Testament abounds in more losses, additions, and interpolations, purposely introduced then any other book." Griesbach's outlook was shared by J. L. Hug, who in 1808 advanced the theory that in the second century the New Testament text had become deeply degenerate and corrupt and that all extant New Testament texts were but editorial revisions of this corrupted text.
As early as 1908 Rendel Harris declared that the New Testament text had not at all been settled but was "more than ever, and perhaps finally, unsettled." Two years later Conybeare gave it as his opinion that "the ultimate (New Testament) text, if there ever was one that deserves to be so called, is for ever irrecoverable."
H. Greeven (1960) also has acknowledged the uncertainty of the neutral method of New Testament textual criticism. "In general," he says, "the whole thing is limited to probability judgments; the original text of the New Testament, according to its nature, must be and remains a hypothesis."
Robert M. Grant (1963) adopts a still more despairing attitude. "The primary goal of New Testament textual study," he tells us, "remains the recovery of what the New Testament writers wrote. We have already suggested that to achieve this goal is well-nigh impossible." Grant also says: "It is generally recognized that the original text of the Bible cannot be recovered."
"As New Testament textual criticism moves into the twenty-first century, it must shed whatever remains of its innocence, for nothing is simple anymore. Modernity may have led many to assume that a straightforward goal of reaching a single original text of the New Testament--or even a text as close as possible to that original--was achievable. Now, however, REALITY AND MATURITY REQUIRE THAT TEXTUAL CRITICISM FACE UNSETTLING FACTS, CHIEF AMONG THEM THAT THE TERM 'ORIGINAL' HAS EXPLODED INTO A COMPLEX AND HIGHLY UNMANAGEABLE MULTIVALENT ENTITY. Whatever tidy boundaries textual criticism may have presumed in the past have now been shattered, and its parameters have moved markedly not only to the rear and toward the front, but also sideways, as fresh dimensions of originality emerge from behind the variant readings and from other manuscript phenomena" (E. Jay Epps, "The Multivalence of the Term 'Original Text' In New Testament Textual Criticism," Harvard Theological Review, 1999, Vol. 92, No. 3, pp. 245-281; this article is based on a paper presented at the New Testament Textual Criticism Section, Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, Orlando, Florida, November 1998).
