Scriptural Authority for the AV1611

A new phrase has serviced in these last apostate days. Bible-believers are now being bombarded by bible-rejecters with the question: ?Give me scriptural authority for the AV1611?. So, the below article was put up on some forums and I?d like to reproduce it here for your edification. Again, with feeling:
  1. I look at the internal evidence of the King James Bible and it declares itself it is pure and eternal ? Psa. 12:6; 119:89 and more. Do your versions declare itself as clearly and precisely as the King James Bible does? Of course you will say they do ? you have to say that.
  2. I look at the external evidence of history since 1611 and see how God used the King James Bible ? I look at the effect it has had on history, nations, progress, and scientific advancement and can say that this book has had God?s hand on it. Can you say this about your versions? Of course you will say it has ? you have to say that. Your standard of judgment is today?s ?apostate, carnal and worldly Christianity? and as you compare yourself with today?s ?christian environment? say you and your versions feel you are doing a pretty decent job. But compare yourself with the writings, missionary work, revivals, done from 1611 to 1900 and see how your modern Christianity and versions stack up.
  3. I look at the internal evidence that has been done in the lives of those whom the King James Bible has been an instrumental part of their conversion and compare it with today and toady is sadly lacking. When evangelists came through towns way back armed with only a King James Bible folks changed (II Cor. 5:17) ? whole communities changed. Can you say that about your versions? Of course you will ? you have to say that.
Do I expect many of you folks to believe the above? ? of course not ? I can?t show you these things only God can. This is no longer a ?facts? issue but a ?heart? issue.
  1. The idea that because the modern versions contain the ?message of God? that this means these modern versions are the ?word of God?. Where did this ?new thought? come from? A ?message? is made up of individual ?words?. It sounds like to me that you are not concerned about the ?individual words of God? but only the ?message?. You say, ?They all have the message so they are all the word of God.? Really? Yes, the ?message? is in the modern version along with a lot of stuff that is quite questionable ? to say the least (trying to be sweet, kind, and gentle here). If you find a dollar bill in a garbage can does that make the garbage can a bank? I believe God is interested in his individual words. Just do a search for the words, ?words? (as it pertains to the scriptures and God?s words) and ?message? and you will see where God places the emphasis. The word of God to some of you folks can mean all kinds of things ? do yourself a favor - just go back and read on your own forum using your own words and see what you call the word of God. I?ve made my notes and documented this ? now you go and do likewise.

  2. This ?cutesy? saying that the Authorized Version is an ?Anglican Version? is also interesting. Do you know what this kind of thinking tells me? It appears that some of you folks put too much emphasis on man?s efforts and power over God?s power and will. I would respectfully suggest you who think this way spend about 10 years praying over Eph. 1:11 ?In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:? I?m not sure some of you folks take the providential viewpoint of history. So, God couldn?t over overrule those ?baby-sprinkling. a-millennial, Anglicans?? Poor God ? just chose the wrong folks, huh, ? got caught off guard did he? If God could use a murderer ? Moses ? to write the first five books and a murderer and adultery ? David ? to write the Psalms then I guess God could use a few ?baby-sprinklers? to put down what He wanted to say in the language he wanted to use at the time He wanted it to be. You guys just kill me. Some of you actually think that King James I had something to do with the actual translating of the 1611! You are ready to trust God with your eternal salvation but that?s where it stops ? you just can?t believe that God could control a committee of men in 1604-1611. Sad, very shallow thinking. Oh I know, you will say, ?If God can do that in 1611 then he can do it again today with the modern versions!? Well, if you want to think that God would chose the most carnal, unbelieving, worldly, fleshly era ever and at a time when the English language has degraded down to the gutter since 1611 to ?update? something that has already shown to work ?fairly? well then you just go a head and continue to believe that. Could God do this ? of course he could! Do you honestly think he would? Then you go ahead and tell me why God could choose today to ?update? his word over a 100 times just a few years before his appearing? I think God quit about 400 years before Christ?s first coming and it appears God quite 400 years or so before Christ?s second coming. Yes, I know all the stuff about ?which 1611? ? I?m talking about the one I have in my hands right now ? a $5.95 Wal-Mart Special.

  3. Your stand on Biblical authority is in agreement with the world?s view. In other words - you are in agreement with the world when it comes to the King James Bible and the modern versions. I thought Rom 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: and 2 Cor 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, were still valid for today?
    1. The lost world and ?false believers? do not believe that there is any final authority today ? so you are in agreement with these folks here.
    2. The lost world, and ?false believers? do not believe that the King James Bible is God?s perfect word for today - so you are in agreement with these folks here.
    3. The lost world and ?false believers? do not have any major issues with the idea of ?modern, updated? versions - so you are in agreement with these folks here.
    4. Oh, and by the way, you are in agreement with the Roman Catholic Church also for they don?t have a major problem with the modern versions and guess what (if you don?t? already know) ? they get as nervous as a termite in a yoyo when it comes to a King James Bible ? they don?t particularly care for the KJV one bit! So you are in agreement with these folks here. Rome is tickled to death (your spiritual death) ? they have gotten 90% of ?Protestant Christianity? to read Roman Catholic Bibles without knowing it. I mean just go a head and turn your collars around backwards and be done with it! You know what Barnum and Bailey said??

Yes, I know the Mormons ?use? the King James Bible (beat ya? to the punch, huh?). But then again some of you ?use? the King James Bible also ? I didn?t say truly ?believed? it I said you just ?used? it.

You know what it looks like here ? you have taken the world?s viewpoint when it comes to the King James Bible and the modern versions ? no upsetting their apple cart here ? ya?ll should get along fine ? I mean, everybody has their own authority, own Greek lexicon, LXX, Dead Sea Scrolls, etc. I?m happy for you. Some of you folks may be godly, soul-winning, moral, etc. but when it comes to the above issues you, the world, and Rome are in the same boat paddling towards a one-world religion.

Ok ? let?s wrap this up. Some of us folks believe the King James Bible that we have in our hands ? the one you can get at any Wal-Mart for $5.95 (don?t care about your 1611, 1769, revision arguments) is the word of God without error. Many of you folks don?t believe that ? so what? This is a great concern on our part but there is nothing we can do about it ? you have the material available and have chosen your stand ? you stand with the world in your attitude towards the King James Bible ? you have to live with this.

If I am wrong then I?ll just have to stand before God and say, ?Lord, I?m sorry, I believed that the King James Bible was your word and but didn?t feel it was my duty to seek to correct it. I just didn?t know any better ? I guess I missed those verses that said I should question your word. I guess I should have just taken the serpent?s attitude towards your word like he did in Gen. 3:1 and question as to whether it was or not your words and then I would have been conformed to the world. I?m sorry ? I guess I should have learned the ?original languages? even though they all disagreed with one another. I sought to walk by faith ? I?m sorry, I should have walked by sight and trusted in scholarship instead of you. Just think Lord ? if I would have spent my time learning those languages then I would have been smart and looked up to by others as though I had access to the nuggets while ole? farmer Jones had to stick with 5th grade English. I just feel so ashamed and stupid. Give me one more chance ? I promise I will spend more time with the Greek and Hebrew ? I will push others to question your word and assist them to spend all their natural lives searching for the truth. Please let me be like the world so I can live a peaceful life with them!?

Now, I?m not as nasty and sarcastic as I appear. If someone approaches me sincerely looking for truth then I will graciously and politely seek to lead them to truth if God enables me but?but?when it comes to some of the arrogant, haughty, shallow attitudes that some folks take towards the King James Bible then the politeness stops. I?ll walk right past them looking for a man.

Ya?ll have a nice day now.