Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Video Review: "King James Only?...The Final Word" Part 3

  • 3:00 - At this point Hebrews 4:12 rolls across the screen.  She uses this verse to somehow explain Matthew 25:32-33; the dividing of the sheep and the goats.  She uses this as a picture of Jesus dividing the church between the true followers (sheep) from the backslidden CEO (Christmas, Easter, One other time) Christians or goats.  In other words, Jesus is dividing the bible agnostics (sheep) from the KJV Onlyists (goats).  This is a devilish and subtil (pun intended) attack on bible believers which she fails to provide any proof for and she also twists the scriptures to make her point.  First of all, the sheep and the goats are the saved and the unsaved respectively.  Secondly, the events being spoken of in this passage in Matthew take place at the second coming: the Body of Christ has already been raptured and will return with him at his coming (Song of Sol 6:4,10; Jude 14-15; Rev 19:14).  However, if one want to try to spiritualize the passage, which she obviously does, you still have a problem; verses 41&46 say the goats are cast into hell.  It goes without saying who she is trying to paint as the goats.  So is she saying KJV Onlyists are going to get cast into hell?
  • 4:30 - The woman continues to babel (pun intended) about the division in the Body of Christ being created by Satan using the bible version issue, and I agree with her.  But she still doesn't explain how the people using a 400 year old English book are the ones responsible for that division.  It is also interesting that the 2nd half of 1 Tim 6:20 pops up on the screen as a proof of her point (she uses it from the revision of the failed ASV aka NASV, be we will quote it from the AV): "avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:"  Isn't textual criticism a science?  Oh, the irony!
  • 6:00 - Here she says we must prove all things by the scriptures.  Sounds good, right?  Especially for us Baptists since we were the original Sola Scriptura-ists.  But...she is really building a straw man.  She is attempting to prove that because the scriptures don't specifically state KJV Only then we don't have to be and shouldn't be KJV Only.  I think she realized the stupidity of this argument because she trys to defend it by saying that God is very specific about other things so if he wanted to be specific about this he would have.  If this wasn't so sad it might actually be funny. I'd love to be with her and see her witness to a Catholic by saying their church is in error because the word "pope" doesn't appear in the bible.  Of course, if the bible did specifically say "King James Only", would she seriously expect to find it in the NIV or NASV she reads from?  Nevertheless we should ask her a question: can she shows us where the bible says the NIV is a good translation; or the NASV, or the ESV, or any other version?
  • 7:58 - 2 Tim 2:14 is used here as a reference and a proof that we should not argue about words.  This is yet another private interpretation and twisting of scripture.  This passage is dealing with heresy in the church.  In v. 15 Paul instructs Timothy to study (a command missing in almost all the modern versions) and rightly divide the word of truth.  If this woman is saying the "words" of v.14 is the word of God, then why would Timothy need to study and rightly divide if we aren't to argue over words?  Clearly Paul is telling Timothy to study and rightly divide so that he will not produce heretical words, false interpretations from twisting the scriptures as do the words of Hymenaeus and Philetus who's words eat as a canker and have overthrown the faith of some (have any bible believers had their faith in the Bible by "scholars" and false teachers teaching their is no perfect scriptures?).  This passage is paralleled in Titus 3:9-11.  Again, more wresting with the scriptures and private interpretations.


  © Blogger templates ProBlogger Template by 2008

Back to TOP