1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Presuppositionalism and KJV onlyism

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by AV, Dec 22, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Top Posters
Page 1 of 16
  1. AV

    AV Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2005
    Messages:
    207
    Likes Received:
    1
    Men and Brethren,
    I am looking for those exercised in the KJV debate and a forum wherein to discuss these matters from a presuppositional perspective. I am asserting that the KJV is the only book of the LORD for the English speaking church based on presuppositional argumentation.
    If anyone is interested perhaps you can point to a forum board in which we can hammer out these things and hold fast to that which is good.
    In Christ,
    AV
     
    #1 AV, Dec 22, 2005
  2. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    As the poster is not Baptist this thread is moved to the other denominations forum.
     
    #2 NaasPreacher (C4K), Dec 22, 2005
  3. hillclimber

    hillclimber New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,075
    Likes Received:
    0
    We have many versions in our household and I prefer the NAS, my wife has recently switched to the NKJ, and has studied a lot in the NIV. The KJV is a wonderful version also, but when discipling or leading someone to the Lord, it's not as easy to use.
    And it certainly isn't the only book for today, based in anything. Why not use several, as that opens up a clearer understanding of scriptures. We many many times check verses or themes in various versions and always come away with a greater understanding.
     
    #3 hillclimber, Dec 22, 2005
  4. Ransom

    Ransom Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    1
    I am asserting that the KJV is the only book of the LORD for the English speaking church based on presuppositional argumentation.

    Why should we accept that presupposition as valid?
     
    #4 Ransom, Dec 22, 2005
  5. Deacon

    Deacon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,760
    Likes Received:
    1,337
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I believe that reviewing past KJV’o threads we see that the KJV’o position is:
    (1) arbitrary, and
    (2) inconsistent with itself.

    Rob
     
    #5 Deacon, Dec 22, 2005
  6. Chemnitz

    Chemnitz New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    2,485
    Likes Received:
    2
    Don't forget the KJV like any other translation is flawed. For instance they regularly translate shema (hebrew) and akuo (greek) as "obey" when they actually mean "hear". That said I still think it is a decent translation, just not necessarily the best for today since the English language is a living language and has changed since it was written.
     
    #6 Chemnitz, Dec 22, 2005
  7. AV

    AV Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2005
    Messages:
    207
    Likes Received:
    1
    Brethren,
    I offer this along presuppositional lines. That is the impossibility of the contrary. Are any of you familiar with Van Til's apologetic?
     
    #7 AV, Dec 22, 2005
  8. Ransom

    Ransom Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    1
    I offer this along presuppositional lines. That is the impossibility of the contrary.

    Your assertion was that the KJV is the only book of the LORD for the English speaking church.

    The principle of "the impossibility of the contrary" would say that the contrary assertion, the KJV is not the only book of the LORD for the English speaking church, is logically impossible.

    That would not appear to be the case, and your saying so doesn't make it so.
     
    #8 Ransom, Dec 22, 2005
  9. AV

    AV Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2005
    Messages:
    207
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ransom,
    I assume you are not familiar with presuppositional apologetics? If so I apologize. I mean specifically 'the book of the LORD' as found in the bible. Are you familiar with this doctrine? That is the doctrine of the book of the LORD?
    AV
     
    #9 AV, Dec 22, 2005
  10. Bookborn

    Bookborn New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2005
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    0
    AV, I am familiar with Van Til and the presuppositional line of thinking. Also, I am KJVO. The fusion of the two would be an interesting thread. Say on.

    Deacon, before you answer a matter before you hear it (which is a folly and a shame according to Proverbs), perhaps you should seek to understand the stream of logic. There is not one thread out here that uses this approach - so references to past KJVO threads would be invalid.

    Perhaps consider the No-Particular-Book-of-the-Lord approach that you pretend to embrace...
    Since there presently is no perfect, infallible, inspired, inerrant, preservered Book (singular) of the Lord (your position), then you ARBITRARILY decide what are the words of the living God at any given time. You'll quote Bible verses from errant, imperfect, fallible translations to be used as criteria for judging errors and imperfections.
    Wouldn't your position be
    1. Arbitrary
    2. Inconsistent with itself
    ?
     
    #10 Bookborn, Dec 22, 2005
  11. AV

    AV Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2005
    Messages:
    207
    Likes Received:
    1
    Bookborn,
    I was going to see if any explanations were needed before proceeding. Perhaps no one is even interested.
    AV
     
    #11 AV, Dec 22, 2005
  12. Bookborn

    Bookborn New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2005
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    0
    AV, Okay.
    It seems the only presupposing so far is presupposing that this is typical KJVO argumentation, which it is not.
     
    #12 Bookborn, Dec 22, 2005
  13. Ransom

    Ransom Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    1
    AV said:

    I assume you are not familiar with presuppositional apologetics?

    You assume wrongly.

    I mean specifically 'the book of the LORD' as found in the bible.

    If you are trying to assert that the King James Version of the Bible is foretold in Isaiah 34:16, you definitely have your work cut out for you.
     
    #13 Ransom, Dec 22, 2005
  14. AV

    AV Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2005
    Messages:
    207
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ransom,
    Actually I am asserting firstly that there really is such a thing as the book of the LORD. And secondly that it is the KJV for the English church. Do you agree with either?
    AV
     
    #14 AV, Dec 22, 2005
  15. Ransom

    Ransom Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    1
    As I said already: why should I accept your presupposition as valid that the "book of the Lord" for the English church is the KJV?
     
    #15 Ransom, Dec 22, 2005
  16. AV

    AV Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2005
    Messages:
    207
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ransom,
    I know you do not want to answer the question, but it will save time. If you understand the transcendental argument you presuppose the bible first as the foundation of epistemology, science, etc. This being the case you cannot correct the bible with science, archaeology etc.
    Since no one except KJV only advocates actually believe the book of the LORD exists, they are the only ones rationally consistent. Thus the impossibility of the contrary. So I think you would have to answer the question firstly 'the book of the LORD is not on earth' and 'therefore it is not the KJV or any other version for the English church'.
    AV
     
    #16 AV, Dec 22, 2005
  17. Ransom

    Ransom Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    1
    I know you do not want to answer the question

    You're right. I want you to answer mine. Why should I accept your presupposition that the KJV is the "book of the Lord" described in the Bible?

    Since no one except KJV only advocates actually believe the book of the LORD exists, they are the only ones rationally consistent. Thus the impossibility of the contrary.

    Since no one except very small children actually believes the Tooth Fairy exists, they are the only ones rationally consistent. Thus the impossibility of the contrary.

    So I think you would have to answer the question firstly 'the book of the LORD is not on earth' and 'therefore it is not the KJV or any other version for the English church'.

    No, I think I would answer "I got yer 'Book of the Lord' right here in my NASB. Deal with that, KJV guy."
     
    #17 Ransom, Dec 22, 2005
  18. AV

    AV Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2005
    Messages:
    207
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ransom,
    I was hoping you would bite the bullet and defend your real position. Do you agree the book of the LORD as infallible and inerrent? Do you define the NASB as such? Let's not play word games.
    And I answered your question, but I will elaborate. You think all translations are errent and fallible and subject to correction. You correct them with 'the oldest most reliables'. You establish the most reliables as those authenticated by science and scholarship, thus science establishes the bible and not vice versa.
    What sayest thou?
    AV
     
    #18 AV, Dec 22, 2005
  19. billwald

    billwald New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    2
    Van Til can change the meaning of a word 3 times in one paragraph. He is impossible to read except to "True Believers."
     
    #19 billwald, Dec 22, 2005
  20. AV

    AV Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2005
    Messages:
    207
    Likes Received:
    1
    billward,
    Do you reject his apologetic?
    AV
     
    #20 AV, Dec 22, 2005
Page 1 of 16
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...