Here's a couple more strawmen, so you can get the gist of what I am trying to convey:

Wear animal fur (practical in cold regions) then you can be labelled an "animal hater" by those advocating so-called "animal rights" in this new PC world.  This would make God an "animal hater" by the way, according to Genesis 3:21.

Or, due to the political boost of  Globalism after 9-11, refuse the NWO's "War on Terror" because it is being waged without the God of the Bible, then it maybe possible for you to be branded a "terrorist" also, as accurately pointed out on "The Great Narrowing Down".

Then there are those (in the droves by the way) who insist (against all sound reasoning and simple logic) that only the original scriptures (which are lost - as we all know) were inspired.

Get the point made!  The word here is "were" ...  in the past tense!  Were!  Not "are" (how can they be - 'now' that is - when they just don't exist any more?).  However, the scriptures support the present tense as Ps. 12:7, that the scriptures are preserved and kept now, and forever "from this generation".

How can you argue against this?  How can you argue against such straight, simple, and irrefutable logic?  How can you argue against the Lord God Almighty, who is the author of the very inspired scriptures we take into our heart, read, and declare to be our daily bread; considered "as a lamp unto our feet, and a light unto our path"?   From a God who changeth not!

In order to argue against this, questions have to be manufactured outta nowhere, in order to produce distorted manufactured answers for these invented questions.  In the end these all boil down to "hath God said"?

As I have said before, and will say again ...  please let me reiterate:  A Bible believer cannot believe more, or believe less, than believing and acting on the following three points:

Divine inspiration of scripture.
Divine preservation of scripture.
Divine revelation of scripture.

Agree?  These three witnesses must, and do, go together.  You cannot believe just one point, or two for that matter.  You must believe all three in order to call God 'true and faithful', and in order to be qualified as a true-blue bona fide 'Bible believer'.  It's true ...  if just one point falls down, then God is a fraud.

However, when one is prepared to back God and believe and proclaim all three, he or she are labelled and put into a neat and conveniently named, framed, and packaged slot.  Hence, another strawman is assembled and termed "King James Only"!!  Furthermore, you are branded with another manmade silly label which bear a "fanatical", "extremist", stigma; when the issue is actually whether God's word stands up in the 'here and now', or only sometime in the past through the elusive (lost) 'originals'.

For the record ...  I believe the book I hold in my hand, and read, and believe, and (hopefully) act on, (the Holy Bible, the English Authorized Bible - nicknamed the King James) is the inspired, preserved, and revealed word of God today.  God has not lost His word.  Futhermore, God does not use or need to us paid professionals or gifted scholars as His proxy; but His Holy Ghost, who leads us into all truth.  Who will only agree with what God has stated, recorded, preserved, inspired, kept, and made known.

An apostle called John says this in regards to Jesus, the Word (by the way - Jesus is usually always the Word spelt with a capital "W" in the NT):

1 John 1:1.  "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life".

Yes, Jesus became flesh and dwelt among us, as someone we could touch, rest our head on as a bosom buddy, and trust emphatically, to the end.  You don't have a problem with this?  Do you? 

However, an apostle called Paul says in regards to the scripture (the word in scripture - lower case "w" - is always referring to itself in the scriptures):

Phil. 2:16.  "Holding forth the word of life; that I may rejoice in the day of Christ, that I have not run in vain, neither laboured in vain."

The above verse is referring to the scriptures which are tangible, written with ink on material pages (fabric), in book form; we can touch and hold in our hands and say with full assurance in its reliable Author (God) ...  "It is written!!"

Still without a problem?  Can you go to your bookcase please and pull out the Holy Bible.  Now hold it before you opened and read from any random passage and say, Thus saith the Lord?  Can you do that and mean it 100%?  Does the book you hold, teach, and preach from, tamper with Jesus' Divinity?  Coz if it does, it is fit for nothing but the fire.

I know a book which does not tamper with Jesus' deity and support all who God says He is, right to the end.  This is the "book of remembrance (Mal. 3:16)" where we can "Seek ye out, and read  (Is. 34:16)".  It is what the Psalmist (OT) wrote and the writer of Hebrews (NT) backed as being "the volume of the book", where Jesus said (Ps. 40:7 & Heb. 10:7) "it is written of me".  It is because of this I reject entirely the title/label/brand "King James Only", which is only intellectualizing what is holy and true.  By placing this book on the table with other versions we call bibles, then branding anyone as extreme, bigoted, or narrow minded, when they single out this book above the others, as the infallible word of God, it is none other than erecting a strawman edifice called "King James Only".  The object of this exercise is to discredit those who can hold forth the word of life today as the inspired, God breathed, perfect translated copies from the written autographs.  In essence, this phrase is nothing but a Red Herring invented by ecclesiastical lame ducks.  Yes, another strawman so the Bible believer's defence is flawed with errors and weak arguments.

To be accurate, and biblical, I call (not label) myself Bible based.  That's all!  That's scriptural!  An "onlyist" sounds all too "cultist" in nature, with detrimental connotations.  To call (or nickname) myself "King James Only" would be putting drastic limitations on who I am in God, or who others are in God.  I am not an "onlyist" in anything.  How can I be?  The word of God is not bound!  Especially to my views or outlook!  And yours too, for that matter!  On my web page I have written more than once:

"Word based, cross centred, Holy Ghost dependant!  These three are the basic essentials!"

Any truth taken to extreme is error.  If I was a "cross centred only" specialist (only majoring on the Calvary event) it would draw attention away from the other two majors, which are equally as important.  Same goes for "Holy Ghost only" (a true label for many Charismatics) which would cancel out the other two also.  This is just one example I can use.  Whattabout the fact God is love?  God is light?  God is just?  And so on!

Word based, or Bible based ...  that is who the true elect are!  Therefore, they should be equally as cross centred and Holy Ghost dependant also, whether a born again individual has come to this conclusion through divine revelation, or not.  The example of the noble Bereans in the book of Acts has been used so much in our time, from all sides of the spectrum, to support the value and the supremacy of the scriptures.  And rightly so:

"in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."

Therefore, let's revisit them and delve a little deeper, past the shallow, hollow, and skimmed over facts the religious experts and "spiritual" advisors have failed to point out in times past.  Remember, the Bereans, "received the word with all readiness of mind"!

They were ready in mind.  Which meant the Bereans were not looking for convenience, but for truth.  They were not looking for justification, but revelation.  They were not sceptical, but open.  They did not have another agenda in mind.  Their minds were not cluttered by religiosity, tradition, mixture, and confusion.  God had granted them the gift of a love for the truth.  They were ready to receive.  The soil was rich and soft, in stoneless and weedless ground.  They were ready to receive the word engrafted.  The word which was contained in the tangible scriptures in that they "searched the scriptures daily (turning over leaf upon leaf - sounds like daily bread to me)".  To what avail and purpose?  To, "whether those things were so"!

What things were these?  The things the apostles were declaring!  Which meant the apostles were only a vessel.  A vocal conveyance.  Not final authority.  And not to be taken for granted.  But checked out with all diligence.  With what or beside what?  What was the final authority in other words?  Where did the buck always end?  What was the ultimate backstop and backup?  The scriptures!  Nothing more and nothing less!

However, these scriptures the apostles may have been reading from, and these scriptures the Bereans were reading from - get this - were not the originals!!  They were only copies of copies of the originals.  Did you get that?  The Bereans, as the apostles, as every blood bought saint at the commencement of the church age, never read from the originals!  Can you imagine all the converted people and would-be converts around the Mediterranean, from Spain to deep inside the continent of Africa and across to the subcontinent of India (let alone to the ends of the earth), all reading the originals Moses or the prophets had penned personally?  All roughly at the same time?  Come on now ...  I'm totally serious and trying to be totally rational and factual to the very core!  Whereas, those who say "hath God said" beyond the "originals" use a very stupid argument.  Moreover, the only way they can camouflage their stupid argument is to erect a strawman to divert those who would act like Bereans and check the experts out, lining up what they said beside scripture.

Were the Bereans reading from the very inspired, penned original autographs (books of the Old Testament)?  Of course not!  Then how come so many have bought the lie only the originals, which have all perished with time, are the only pure reliable scriptures to get you hands and and trust fully?  If they were, then surely the Bereans were relying on only the unreliable copies for the final authority.  Certainly not the words of the spiritual, "infallible", "experts" ...  the apostles.  However, Acts 17: 10-13 clearly supports the word of God and the scriptures are one and the same, and can be depended upon until the end.  Even as copies of copies of copies.  Because the Lord promised to keep and preserve His word in every generation, irrespective of language translations, cultural and ethnic barriers.  That's scripture, not my mere feeble, fallible, opinion; which is worth nothing.  Same goes for yours!  This means the word contained in what is known as the scriptures, is with us today, as we can also  be united with the Bereans in spirit ...  21st Century prior to Jesus' return.  Meaning ...  being Bible based all the way home.

From time to time (which has become very mundane since I came online nearly four years ago) I get very clever, knowledgeable folk attacking me by email, using the same empty platitude in reference to my stand on the AB/One Book issue.  All these folk are out to do is undermine my belief and stand in believing in the Divine inspiration and preservation of scripture today, so that the English Bible I hold in my hand becomes unreliable, where I in turn would have to look to them as my God given proxy.  In a word ...  these folk want to be my, or your, final authority.  Their credentials, intellectual capability, and seminary training, hinges on how they can convince you and sell as gospel, "hath God said", in the book you read and place your whole faith on.  You see ...  either they have been made redundant or the Holy Spirit has been made redundant.  You choose which one.  I know who I trust to the end.

Following on is a typical, stereotype approach they use.  Bearing in  mind when the most fundamental, irrefutable question is put to them they back off, as they can never answer the same simplistic question I always put to them.  Here it is:

"Where is God's word found today, so I can hold it in my hand and know without a shadow of turning I am 'Holding forth the word of life'?"

Please read on:

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Lamb <radicalpilgrim@clear.net.nz>
To: BC
Date: Monday, January 07, 2002 4:36 AM

Subject: Re: Just a few thoughts in response to your site ...
 
BC wrote:

Dear Sir,

I notice that you take exception to the idea of Nebuchadnezzar thinking that the fourth person in the fire was like unto "a son of the gods."  How would an idol worshipper have the knowledge that God Himself had a Son?  What would the natural reasoning be of a rank pagan, upon seeing a shining supernatural being in the fire?  In fact, there is no reason to believe, if you read the hebrew, that this was Jesus Himself, but rather an angel.

My reply:  How did David, being a Jew, know that God had a Son?

"Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him."

How did the pagan soldier know that God had a Son?

"Truly this was the Son of God."

Have you ever heard of the Young's Literal Translation?  It was translated in 1889 from the same manuscripts that the KJV was translated from, but was a literal word-for-word rendering of every word in the original.  I am sure you would find it as enlightening as I have, to read it and compare with the KJV.  I prefer to use the Strong's Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries alongside, to double-check the Young's, and have never found it wrong.  The differences can be quite astounding.  For instance, in Acts 16:17, the devil-possessed girl followed Paul and Silas crying out after them.  But what exactly did she say?  What was it that she said that made Paul so angry?  In the KJV, it says she said, "These men... show unto us the way of salvation."  But in the Textus Receptus, it says, "these men ...  show unto us A way of salvation!"

My reply: Okay, which one is the word of God?  They both can't be, as God is not a God of confusion.  Either the TR is right or the Holy Bible is.  You tell me which one is the correct rendering in accordance to what God said and recorded?

That changes everything.  And yes, there are even some earth-rocking revelations awaiting you, if you are willing to examine this word-for-word translation of God's Divinely-breathed Word.    You will find that in the Textus Receptus, there is no such thing as "The office of a deacon", nor "the office of a Bishop!"  I am sure you have a Strongs.  Go check it out right now.  Find out what the Greek word for Office is, and see if it is in those passages. To read the inspiring Preface to the Young's Literal Translation on-line, go to: http://www.stg.brown.edu/webs/bible_browser/Versions/ylt.shtml#revpref  To read the Young's Literal Translation on-line, visit: http://www.monastero.com/reference/youngslt
I sincerely hope you check it out, and find it as freeing as I have.  The Truth shall make you free!  I hope to hear back from you!
Sincerely,
BC

My Reply:

Dear BC,

I've looked into this reference and this commentary, and this book, and that translation.  Could you answer me this one simple question please?  God has a book, Isaiah 34:16 ...  "Seek ye out of the book of the LORD"!!!!!  A complete book ... Psalms 40:7, Hebrews 10:7!!!!!  Where is it found?  Where can I get a copy to hold in my hands and say emphatically, with complete confidence, conviction, without a shadow of wavering, and with full assurance ...  thus saith the Lord!  For it is written!   Every word of God is pure!  ????

Blessings,

Tom.
 
~~~~~~

Tom Lamb wrote:

Dear BC,

Gidday again!

Let's take a wee look at your response to my previous questions and see how ya fare!

BC wrote:

Tom, God does have ONE Book.  It is the Greek Manuscript collection called the Textus Receptus.  The KJV was translated from this collection of manuscripts.

Psalms 40:7 & Hebrews 10:7 says: "Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me

He only comes (or can be found) through the complete scriptures.  The TR only deals with the NT not the complete book, so your argument falls flat on its face.

God's Word was not written in English.

All English translations of His Word are exactly that-- translations.   And NO translation is exactly correct.

Is a translation as good as the original?:

There once was a man who found a puzzle.  He put the pieces together and they all fit quite well.  A few years later some other men found pieces to the same puzzle, only they were made before the original man's pieces were made.  In fact, many of the originals puzzle pieces were copies of the older pieces, but, like all copies, weren't  quite as good as the original.  Which puzzle is more correct, the older or the newer?

  2 Sam. 3: 7-10:

The translating of the kingdom of Israel (verse 10) from Ishbosheth to David was better than the original state.

 Col. 1:13:

No one can argue our translated state from darkness to Christ is better than the original state we were in.

 Heb. 11:5.

In regards to 'copies' being inferior to the originals, once again, not in God's case:

Jeremiah 36 in regards to the roll he had written:  In verse 23 it is destroyed thus ending the original -  version 1 ...  Jer. 36:23:

"And it came to pass, that when Jehudi had read three or four leaves, he cut it with the penknife, and cast it into the fire that was on the hearth, until all the roll was consumed in the fire that was on the hearth."

Entree - version 2 ...  Jer.  36:32.

"Then took Jeremiah another roll, and gave it to Baruch the scribe, the son of Neriah; who wrote therein from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the book which Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire: and there were added besides unto them many like words."

After being rewritten (re: v.32) the roll is destroyed yet again in chapter 51:63:

"And it shall be, when thou hast made an end of reading this book, that thou shalt bind a stone to it, and cast it into the midst of Euphrates".

Then in chapters 45 - 51 a copy of version 2 reappears.  Therefore, every Bible written since these historic incidents is not only a translation but a copy of version 3 from version 2.  Version 1 was destroyed and never found and therefore never copied.  Which version is the most accurate?  You will never find version 1 again (destroyed by fire), and version 3 is only a copy of version 2 (destroyed by water).  This is where we have to trust God for what He says ... "every word of God is pure" ...  "tried" ...  "preserved" ...  "kept"  ... "given by inspiration"!! 

Thus, as God does not put the emphasis on the originals neither should we.  The Holy Bible is complete and sufficient.

As everyone who speaks two languages knows, it is impossible to translate from one language into another exactly.

Is God a liar .....?  Did He not promise to preserve His word?

Either you translate each word as close to the original as possible, and in so doing, lose some of the meaning conveyed by sentance structure and figures of speech; or else you have to try to convey the meaning, and use phrases in our language which are not there word-for-word in the original language.

Or maybe you mean the originals?  Because if you do you are then faced with another problem, due to the fact there are no originals, as they have all perished.  Even Paul's letters (and James and Peter for that matter) were copies of copies (in Greek) of some of the originals which were in Hebrew.  Furthermore, as their letters were sent abroad, they were only copies of copies of copies.

Thus, I contend that the KJV is NOT the inspired Word of God. It is a *translation* of the inspired Word of God.

I know that isn't a comfortable feeling to think that, but it is the truth.

To take any other stance is just downright stupid.

Every person who uses their brain while studying the KJV HAS to admit that it is translated wrongly in some places.

After all, we still do have the exact manuscripts that the KJV was translated from!

We CAN go back and compare the translation with the original!

And to claim that the translation was more correct than the original is nothing but IDOLATRY of the religious traditions of our own english-speaking culture.  If the KJV is more correct than the Textus Receptus, then why in the world did God withhold His pure Word from the Church for almost 1600 years!  And why would God reveal His Truest Word to Anglican (English-Catholic) scholars, instead of to Paul the Apostle???  This is exactly what the KJV-only crowd claims!

Following is the word of God.  Not my opinion, your opinion, or quoting this commentary or that commentary:

Phil. 2:16.  "Holding forth the word of life; that I may rejoice in the day of Christ, that I have not run in vain, neither laboured in vain."

Again, I will ask you ...  where is it found?  How can I hold "forth the word of life (tangibly in my hand), that I may rejoice in the day of Christ, that I have not run in vain, neither laboured in vain"?

That the Word which came through Anglican scholars was more pure than the Word which came through the Apostles. Poppycock .Sincerely, BC.

"Seek ye out of the book of the LORD"!

Where is it found?

  27/1/02.  Updated last 26/2/07 NZ.