I've been told that believing that the King James Bible is the perfect
word of God is not the "historic position." Is this true?
The "historic" position is to accept Scripture as infallible and deplore
anyone who tries to alter it.
One of the arguments that the Roman Catholic Church uses in making its
claim as the "true" church is the authority of "tradition." The Roman
Catholic Church claims that tradition is equal with Scripture. This became
official church dogma in 1545 at the Council of Trent. At this council,
tradition was elevated to a place of equal authority with Scripture. Then
the council officially cursed anyone who did not accept its tenets.
Unfortunately, "fundamental" Bible correctors have the same innate
Roman Catholic tendency to resort to the "authority" of tradition.
Strangely enough they do it for the very same reason. Usurping authority
over Scripture. Of course, the fundamental Bible corrector realizes that
the moment he uses the word "tradition" from his pulpit that "alarms" will
sound in the heads of his congregation. So he shrewdly resorts to a
"translation." Instead of saying "tradition " he says "the historic
fundamental position is..." and completely fools his audience. What is a
"historic position?" It is a tradition of course.
Therefore, when you hear someone flee to the feeble argument that
"believing the King James Bible is perfect is not the historic fundamental
position", BEWARE. You have just run into a person who is
Roman Catholic in spirit. If you doubt this, disagree
with him and see if he doesn't curse you.