Thursday, September 22, 2011
Why Don't KJV-Onlyists Believe the KJV?
The Baptists claim that wine is sinful and therefore Jesus did not turn water into wine, but instead he turned water into grape juice. But the KJV says he turned water into wine.
The Baptists claim that "baptize" always means "immerse." But why didn't the KJV translate it as "immerse?"
The Baptists claim that baptism is an act where you testify of your own faith and has nothing to do with salvation. Why doesn't the KJV say that it is to testify of your own faith? Why does the KJV say things like "baptism doth also now save us" (1 Peter 3:21) and that baptism is "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38)?
If the Lord's Supper is just a memorial meal, why doesn't the KJV say that? Why does the KJV have Jesus saying that it's for the "remission of sins"?
There's a textual variant in 1 Corinthians 11:24. The KJV reads, "Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you." In other versions it says "given for you" instead of "broken for you" because of the textual variant. Personally, I think the reading in the KJV is the better choice but it does a very poor job of supporting Baptist doctrine. "Given for you" is preferable if you are trying to support Baptist teaching. The crucifixion accounts make it very clear that not a bone in Jesus's body was broken. The only time Jesus's body is broken is in the Lord's Supper itself when it is broken to be distributed.
From a Baptist perspective it would make a lot more sense to be a Living Bible-onlyist. The Living Bible by paraphrasing does a much better job of supporting Baptist doctrine both on the sacraments and on eschatology. But the KJV-onlyist will tell you that these modern versions water down and twist God's Word. I have to agree that paraphrases like the Living Bible certainly do water down God's Word but its because they twist the text to support Baptist doctrine. If a KJV-onlyist took the KJV seriously he would become a Lutheran.
Posted by Chuck Wiese at 10:32 AM