am also interested in seeing more participation from other points of view, with cogent reasoning.
Your “user-handle” reminded me of another Calvinist, Laurence Vance. I’ve been reading his book, “Archaic Words and the Authorized Version”, where he lists the “archaic words” therein, explains their meaning and etymology, and gives current contemporary examples of their appearance in modern English. Half of the ones in the list and half of the ones in other lists made by non-“KJVO” authors.
The next book of his I will read is “King James, His Bible, and Its Translators”:
As to “sewing discord”, English-speaking Christians were doing just fine and dandy and winning the world for Christ and in the process keeping the English language stabilized with the use of the KJB, until a few people that hated the Bible put together these new versions and started dividing us.
In my case, I’m not a Greek or Hebrew scholar but certainly am equally qualified as any in the churches. There are others who have made exhaustive studies of same, including the scholars of centuries past, and we benefit from them, and from the scholars of today. It’s like “climate change”: the biggest wads of research moneys go to whoever supports the cash kings, who have the money that they took from us in the first place.
My reasoning has to do with what God’s word says about God’s word. It doesn’t start with the KJB, or English, of course.
(1) He said he would preserve his Word.
(2) When he said “not one jot or one tittle shall pass from the law, till all be fulfilled”, he was talking about two things: The fulfillment of every “jot and tittle”, and the preservation of every “jot and tittle”. I don’t see how anyone could see that any other way than that, before anyone even starts talking about “which version”.
I think most Bible-believers of whatever version preference may do a double-take on that verse if they think about it. I did. We can all agree that every “jot and tittle” shall be fulfilled, and that this is what Jesus meant. But that was in the second half, the “auxiliary” phrase. Until every one of each “atomic unit of meaning” is fulfilled, each one “shall not pass away”.
Not the general idea but the words of God. Not just the spirit of the “law” but the straightforward letter of the “law” as well.
(3) “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” –Matthew 24:35
(4) “God is not the author of confusion”. This verse is in the discourse Paul wrote precisely about tongues. It is the reasoning for which Paul was saying any time an unbeliever might be in the fellowships, and someone speaks in an “unknown tongue”, he said “Let one interpret”. Note he said “ONE”.
And if there is confusion, then the author is not God. The modern versions say this right out, claiming that the “originals” are what are inspired.
Where is this “original” Word of God that preserves every jot and tittle? I wanted to know.
(5) As to “lies”, I saw a preface to one modern version (I think it was NKJV), that actually said in printed words on paper in that Bible, that their purpose for “modernizing” the language was “accuracy”, and get this, that was why they dropped the use of “thee”, “thou” and the other second person singular pronouns.
I certainly am not for division, but I am more certainly opposed to heresy or those who would “add to the words in this book”, or “take away the words of the book of this prophecy”. There are lists of missing verses in modern versions.
(6) Okay, these previous points bring me Biblically and logically to a point where I would need to find this “preserved word of God”. There is no “perfectly preserved” text copy of the “originals”, in Greek and Hebrew. None of them actually think it’s the presently available books.
(7) I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.
Now we arrive at the question of “Where is it? Where can I go to find the preserved jot and tittles of the word of God, the inspired Canon?”
(I promise. I did not knowingly utter one falsehood in this note)