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 3 of 16
  1. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    The monkey is on your back, Bro. AV
    What do you think of my presupposition?

    Bookborn: //Are you suggesting that ALL of those versions are
    the perfect, inerrant, infallible, preserved words of the living God?
    Would others out here agree? //

    1) Yes, i suppose.
    In fact, I presuppose.

    If you and I find a seeming variation among them, can
    we speak of it? Seems better than starting a new
    denomination every time we think we find a difference.

    2) I go with the Lord, not with the majority.

    At my inerrancy poll:

    http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/4/2497.html

    My answer (and the poll results are):

    6. inerrant in all faithful English translations 11% (8)


    I also suppose my presupposition is the best presopposition
    that has been offered in this Topic.
     
    #41 Ed Edwards, Dec 22, 2005
  2. Ransom

    Ransom Active Member

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

    1. What is your favorite Bible verse and how do you know beyond any shadow of doubt that it is indeed the very words of God without error?

    I don't have a "favourite." They're all pretty nice.

    2. Is there anywhere on planet Earth a perfect, pure, unadulterated, infallible, inerrant Bible?

    Define "perfect, pure, unadulterated, infallible, inerrant."

    Is THE Book of the Lord something that anyone on planet earth can hold in their hands and trust every word in it?

    Define "THE Book of the Lord."
     
    #42 Ransom, Dec 22, 2005
  3. Ransom

    Ransom Active Member

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

    What sayest thou?

    I sayest that this affectation KJV-onlyists have for reciting Early Modern English clichés is ridiculously twee.
     
    #43 Ransom, Dec 22, 2005
  4. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    I don't have any single favorite verse. There is no translation of the Bible that is without error. Only the original were inspired. We have copies of those which have been preserved for us in over 3,000 manuscripts. I personally believe that the Bible has been preserved in the manuscripts which make up the majority text from which comes the textus receptus. The Bible has been preserved. Only the original manuscripts are inspired. Even the KJV has errors in it.

    The Bible itself says that the Word is forever settled in heaven. Apart from the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts no translation will ever be perfect. Translations are the product of man, including the KJV. Men make mistakes.
    I am acquainted with Bibles in five different languages. If I go to a nation in the mid-east somewhere, would you expect me to teach archaic English to a non-English speaking nation? That would be absurd wouldn't it? Yet perhaps as much as 80 to 90 per cent of the nations of the world have Bibles that are translated from the critical text which is not even close to the KJV. Do they still have the Word of God? Perhaps you would say no, because it isn't like the KJV. This is where the problem of KJVOism lies. The cannot account for the Bibles of other nations. God promised to preserve his word. That is true. But not just in the English language. The Great Commission applies to every nation, every language. One must be therefore concerned with the Greek and Hebrew from which the Bible is translated from, rather than the translation itself.
    DHK
     
    #44 DHK, Dec 22, 2005
  5. Bookborn

    Bookborn New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2005
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ray, that was an interesting question and statement...
    "Why do Bible College and seminary study the Greek language starting with the alphabet, if the KJV is perfect as given to us by the translators? But, I must say I learned the Bible via the KJV."
    A better question might be, "Why does the Bible not mention seminaries or Bible colleges as our standard for right and wrong?"
    Seminaries don't study 'the' Greek, but depending on the seminary, dozens of Greek texts.
    You learned the Bible via the KJV. Do you believe there is such an entity as 'the' (definite article - implying 'one') Bible (meaning 'book' and singular at that). Is there a Book of the Lord or is this a nebulous nonentity not nailed down in one sure place?
     
    #45 Bookborn, Dec 22, 2005
  6. Bookborn

    Bookborn New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2005
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey guys, I can't seem to get any of you to commit to just one verse as perfect, inerrant, infallible.
    Let me rephrase the question. Instead of your favorite verse, please list for all of us to see just ONE VERSE that you know beyond any shadow of doubt is inerrant, perfect, infallible - the VERY WORDS OF THE LIVING GOD, and how you account for that?
     
    #46 Bookborn, Dec 22, 2005
  7. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Genesis 1:1 through Revelation 22:21.
    They are beyond any shadow of doubt is inerrant, perfect, infallible - the VERY WORDS OF THE LIVING GOD by supposition.

    Anybody else ready to follow my supposition [​IMG]
     
    #47 Ed Edwards, Dec 22, 2005
  8. AV

    AV Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2005
    Messages:
    207
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ransom,
    Actually your statement "There has been no argument from you" is simply wrong. 'Thus' is a conclusion indicator. Go back and read.
    I took you at your word that you understood the transcendental approach to apologetics, if you do, you see the dilemma I set forth. That is what I am asking you to answer.
    AV
     
    #48 AV, Dec 22, 2005
  9. Bookborn

    Bookborn New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2005
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ed, between Genesis 1:1 and Revelation 22:21, please type out or paste a verse that you know beyond any shadow of doubt are the infallible, inerrant, perfect words of God...
    Since you guys won't commit to any one Book, I'm asking you to commit to just ONE VERSE. Please.
    I beseech thee.
     
    #49 Bookborn, Dec 22, 2005
  10. Acumenical

    Acumenical Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2005
    Messages:
    84
    Likes Received:
    0
    As I understand Van Til's apologetic, it starts with the correct assumption that all people know deep down that there is a God, even if they repress that knowledge (Romans 1:21); and therefore they must be challenged to acknowledge Him. (This presuppositional approach stands in contrast to the more popular evidential argument.) It can be a very useful tactic, but I'm not sure you can apply the same approach to defending the KJV, since the superiority of that translation is not something hidden deep in the human heart. Also, the question about which book of the Lord is the inerrant one can also be asked concerning the various editions of the KJV.
     
    #50 Acumenical, Dec 22, 2005
  11. AV

    AV Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2005
    Messages:
    207
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ed,
    Let me be more precise since you are a new comer to Van Til's thought.
    Logic and science and epistemology are founded upon the bible (a thing, a text, not doctrine seperated from the text). As such it provides intelligibility to them and justifies their use. You cannot therefore construct the bible and validate it using science and logic. You start with the bible.
    I will give you a more fuller explanation...
     
    #51 AV, Dec 22, 2005
  12. Bookborn

    Bookborn New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2005
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    0
    Acumenical - or anybody reading, can you offer one verse to us that is perfect, inerrant, containing the very words of the living God and how you know this/ account for this beyond any shadow of doubt? I can't get anybody to commit to just one verse, much less ONE BIBLE.
     
    #52 Bookborn, Dec 22, 2005
  13. natters

    natters New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bookborn, Ed's point is that any verse could be given. But since you are asking for a specific verse, I will give one: Matt 1:1. To answer your second question, "Yes".
     
    #53 natters, Dec 22, 2005
  14. AV

    AV Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2005
    Messages:
    207
    Likes Received:
    1
    The question of KJV is one with presuppositional implications. For the two ways to approach the question, evidential and presuppositional, requires a pre-commitment to how God would preserve his words, in a completed book, or in fragments.
    If you take the position that God preserves his words in fragments, then you must validate each fragment containing Gods words using evidential methods. If you take the position that God preserves his words providentially in a book (as he did in the bible) down through history, then you follow presuppositional lines of argument and put the question outside of the empiricist ability to completely answer the question.
    The matter is of no small significance, for it reflects the same problem Van Til expressed against the evidential arguments that were traditionally used and lacked sufficient defense against anti-Christian philosophers. Van Til argued that their philosophies were not consistently cogent and intelligibility needed the Christian God ultimately. And ultimately Christianity must be presupposed as true in order to defend the existence of any fact of any sort.
    This is where the evidentialist, who will prove which parts of the bible belong using empirical methods, will have to admit his fundamental presuppositional failure. He will need the bible to start with in order for his science to have any breath of life in it. How can he then assume he is reconstructing the words of God as he uncovers them with science while he needs the bible to exist in order to rationally begin his search?
    The bible must exist first as the foundation of all knowledge. And God has promised to preserve his words personally, showing us in the bible how he preserves his words. God preserves his words in a book, called the book of the LORD. And Gods words are self verifying, and self authenticating not empirically proven of necessity. They are borne witness to by the Spirit of God, not substantiated by the wisdom of men. They have an invisible hand preserving them through history and no science can sufficiently penetrate the past to check God out and make sure he really did it. Or give their stamp of approval once they have patronizingly reviewed Gods work. The existence of the King James Only doctrine in all of its forms, bear witness to the self verifying testimony of the Spirit regarding the KJV, for there is no like zeal for any other translation. The historical records of the immense spiritual blessings related to that book likewise testify that this is the book of God.
     
    #54 AV, Dec 22, 2005
  15. Bookborn

    Bookborn New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2005
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    0
    Natters, type out the verse and show to us the very words of the living God for Matthew 1:1 and inform us how you KNOW BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF DOUBT these are a portion of God's perfect word...
    Thanks for your time.
    Out of over 30,000 verses that we tell the world they can hang their eternal salvation upon, just commit to ONE - ALL OF IT - IN IT'S ENTIREITY. Please give us a verse, not a reference.
    If you wanted to give somebody the words of the living God, would you say to them, "Matt 1:1."?
     
    #55 Bookborn, Dec 22, 2005
  16. natters

    natters New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not sure I want to get into the rest of your post (I'm not sure I understand it), but I did want to ask about this one statement of yours. Do you believe doctrines can come from places other than scripture? Do you believe doctrines that could not exist at the beginning of church history can come into existence in the middle of church history?
     
    #56 natters, Dec 22, 2005
  17. natters

    natters New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't see what the point is, as you can look it up just as easy as I can type it out. Nevertheless, here it is:

    "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."

    I know through faith. I cannot prove it to others, or I would, and help convert the entire world to Christ in one fell swoop. [​IMG]

    Book, chapter and verse reference information allow us to quickly refer to words of God in scripture. Just as when I invite someone to my house, I tell them my address.
     
    #57 natters, Dec 22, 2005
  18. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    What evidence do you have for this supposition?
    If the KJV is perfect demonstrate it.
    Why were there five revisions.
    How do you account for such words as "unicorn" in the Old Testament--Greek mythology??
    Ro 6:2 God forbid.--Neither God nor forbid are in the Greek.
    Acts 12:4--the Greek "pascha" meaning passover; translated "Easter"?
    There are many such "errors," some worse than others.
    No translation is perfect or infallible.
    The Word of God is preserved in the Greek and Hebrew only, however we can have accurate translations but not infallible ones.
    DHK
     
    #58 DHK, Dec 22, 2005
  19. AV

    AV Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2005
    Messages:
    207
    Likes Received:
    1
    Natters,
    You asked "Do you believe doctrines can come from places other than scripture? Do you believe doctrines that could not exist at the beginning of church history can come into existence in the middle of church history?"
    I believe everything must agree with the scripture, it is the final authority. And everything in the bible has not been revealed but must agree with what has been revealed.
    AV
     
    #59 AV, Dec 23, 2005
  20. natters

    natters New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    AV, that doesn't answer my two specific questions.
     
    #60 natters, Dec 23, 2005
Page 3 of 16
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...