Presuppositionalism and KJV onlyism

It obviously has several levels of application.

1. It applies to the originals.
2. It applies to texts that faithfully reproduce the originals.
3. It applies to translations that faithfully translate the texts, and therefore, reflect the originals.

But this is a totally different issue than you started with. You started with PA and the KJV, and labored through some distorted argumentation to try to prove that PA leads to the KJV. It doesn't.

Your PA approach has led to an irrational jump. The KJV, as it stands, is a compilation of texts. People through history made textual choices about what the correct readings would likely have been. On that basis repeated many times, the KJV was born, then edited to one of its two final forms today.

Rather than rightly accounting for the texts and workign through the issues, you have made an illogical leap to the KJV, and used big sounding words to try to support it.

 

AV: // Again you ended your post very revealingly:

//"the Lord cannot be bound by one and only one unique book."

//What is the bible Ed, but one unique book?//
66 different books compose the BIBLE.
I have 11 good Bibles in Book form on the shelve above my computer.
I have 3 poor Bibles in Book form on the shelve above my computer.
I have three other books from which (collectively) I could probaby
reconstruct 90%+ of the Bible.
All these books are collectivly and individually THE BOOK OF THE LORD:
the written words of God, the Holy Bible.

I presuppose that God is Omnipotent. And so I can prove that
GOd cannot be limited to one edition of one version in one langauge.

 

Obviously, neither do you. So you can't prove me wrong without a tremendous jump in reasoning. You are willing to make that jump, I am not. I refuse because that jump requires ignoring what God has preserved for us.

Yes, as are you. But you are confused. That is not PA. As I pointed out, you started this thread with a completely fallacious position.

Actually we do. It is you who do not.

No it's not. Your page 4 post was completely refuted and shown to be irrelevant. It has nothing to do with PA.

Yes indeed. And many others throughout church history.

First, there is empirical evidence ot lean on. We have thousands of manuscripts of varying length and quality, combined with thousands of ancient versions. You can empirically view what God has preserved for us.

Second, the Bible is self-authenticating. A particular translation is not. The "historical church" that you refer to did not have the KJV. Thus again, your whole position is disproved.

I don't think they are all equal. Among those three, the NASB is probably the best; the NIV is probably second best, but close to the KJV.

Because language changes.

There are a number of reasons behind this, no doubt. None of which are relevant to the argument here.

What? Darwinism and science have nothing to do with this.

But he uses them, just as he used scholars such as Erasmus and the translators of the KJV. Your whole argument here is based on scholarship, that of Van Til and Bahnsen. Don't knock scholarship. Without it, you wouldn't have any Bible.

I don't know any any evangelical who questions these verses. I certainly don't. A few question 1 John 5:7 and assert that it should be there. It shouldn't, but that is a small issue. And again, it is off topic.

You don't employ them, but you depend on those who do. Erasmus was using empirical methods when he compiled the TR. He used empirical methods in each of his revisions (where the "book" changed). The KJV translators used empirical methods in their original translation, and then subsquent editors used them to revise the KJV to the two differing versions we have today.

You don't use empiricism. You jump right over God's providential work in history to a position that is contrary to what God has revealed to us.

No I don't.

No I don't.

I am not in a dilemma. PA has nothing to do with this. And I konw what the Bible consists of. So far, you are the only one here that I have seen that is confused.

I have it, have laid hold on it, have it laying in front of me as I prepare to preach on Christmas Eve and Christmas morning. The dots are connected. And your approach to this topic shows a misunderstanding of PA, a misunderstanding of the whole textual issue and how we have modern translations. And yes, you have draw illegitimate and illogical conclusions because of your slothfulness of thought, not becuase of mine. I am simply the messenger; don't shoot me because you haven't thought through this sufficiently to understand the issues.

 

I haven't forsaken the posts, but have to step out again. I shall return. This is very interesting, brethren...

 

I think Presuppositionalism or KJVO is too much. But I would say KJVB- KJV the Best. If anyone has another opinion and can present other version better than KJV, then we can discuss.
The textual comparison may be difficult to prove in a short time. but the grammatical correctness can be compared relatively easier.
Indeed, KJV need updating in vocabulary, for which our generations are lazy, I think.
In doctrinal issues, I have noticed KJV has been correct all the time.
Instead of theoretical criticism, verse by verse comparison may prove which version is the best and the most accurate.
However, again, Presuppositionalism or KJVO is too much, I would say.

Of course, there is no reason to choose other version, if we find a version is the best.

 

AV " ... final authority ... "

Ah, the double standard of Final Authority rears it's ugly head

AV: //What do you judge them with Ed?
That would be your final authority. And I would
venture to guess that it looks strikingly similar to you.//

WHich I always read to "I have the right final authority
and you don't" Sorry, I don't play the final authority
game and other games where I can't win.

In the Might Name of Jesus I rebuke you, demon of the
double standard. I hereby bind you 180 feet below the
leavl of Fort Myers, Florida. Amen.

And back to you, AV - if you don't buy my presupposition,
I won't even consier yours. And your are playing in my backyard
not yours.

Eliyahu: //Of course, there is no reason to choose other
version, if we find a version is the best.//

Makes sense to me. But a living language changes rapidly.
(By contrast, dead languages change slowy.) The result is
that I'm 62 years old (56 as a Christian) and my language has
changed 3 times since I learned it. So the KJV1769 Edtion
that I memorized as I child makes little sense to most people
to whom I mention it (With the acception of my witnessing
to the members of the Authorian Order of Avalon /AoA/.
They study 10th to 15th Century customs and language and dress).

 

Ed and everybody here,
Apparently there are many problems with the vocabulary of KJV, but the reason why I am reluctant to admit that first is because I have not seen the criticism from the proper angle, but with the intention to attack the doctrinal issues, not the vocabulary issues.

We have to separate the problems of KJV into two:

1) Doctrinal:
This is mostly related to the textual choice.
It is ridiculous that almost all the modern versions are based on the minority texts, just because of the age of the texts.
-We must review the facts about who preserved them.
- We must remember that the ancestor texts of majority texts (5,321 texts) are older than the current surviving minority texts(45 texts), and those majority texts are not the copies of the current surviving minority texts (A, B, Aleph)
- We must understand well about the people like Westcott/Hort, Neslte-Aland.
- We should trace back about Daniel Bomberg-Ben Chayyim-Ginzburg line as they are all born-again Messianic Jews.
- there are some more things to trace back and check.
- who persecuted the Bible translators in the past? Who tried to eliminate the Bible from the earth? What did they do to distribute the bible in the past? How they change their strategy since KJV was published? This has to be reviewed as well, when we choose the texts and evaluate why the surviving texts are not more than 5,366.
So far, I have found no single problem with KJV in this aspect at all. I would defend even 1 John 5:7, so called Johannine COMMA. You can find my apology and defense in the other thread here.


2) Vocabulary issues:
In this aspect, there are many problems with KJV.
- Mostly the problem is with updating the language.
This means that our generation is too lazy to work out the update, for which I take the partial responsibility humbly.
This language update problem is very much serious, not only in USA, but also abroad. In overseas, only a few can read KJV in English but often they read NIV.

- Apart from language update, there are certainly problems with the vocabulary of KJV!

I would say 90% is the language update problem, but 10% existed from the beginning.

For example, Inn ( Lk 2:7) should be Guestroom (as Guestchamber in LK 22:11, for the same Kata-luma), Pastor should be shepherd for Poimen in Eph 4:11. What's wrong with Mark 2:26 as it says Abiathar was the High Priest at the time of David's eating show-bread? Read 1 Sam 21:1, and find Ahimelech, the father of Abiathar!
Did Jesus misunderstand the history?, what is wrong? Many Anti-Christians point out the discrepancies between OT and NT. (Actually they work for me a lot! while I am translating the bible, because I rectify so many problems with the existing Bible.) There are many more, but I want to save them until I publish my translation. Otherwise, the people would attack my points while I have not organized them yet and have been busy with my own work.

3) Pre-Suppositionalism is poorly grounded, while KJVO may be accepted for a while.
When we say about the choice by God, the translators should have able to declare that this is the transtaltion of the words of God prophesied or instructed. Nobody did so.

When KJV translators discriminated the Apochrypa, they considered the Author's claim that he received the prophesy from the LORD, as the most important factor in addition to 7 other reasons(Hebrew, Quotation by Jesus, Disciples, use by Jewish meetings, consistency with other bible, consistency inside that bible, etc). But where is such declaration for the Pre-suppositionalism?

My objection to Pre-supposionalism should be considered as relatively more serious because I am in defense of KJV still, but object to Pre-Suppositionalism as too much.
KJVO may be OK for awhile until the better translation based on the true texts become available.

4) Pre-suppositionalism may prevent the true believers from working for the better translation. If it is really true, having the better version of English Bible would be impossible and anyone who try to translate the English version shall be condemned as Heretic.
Our generation needs a good Bible competitive to KJV, based on the true texts after examining all the texts available ( I trust TR/Majority texts + Ben Chayyim Masorah are right choice), in the modernest language with the most eloquence of Colloquial English.

It was a pity that Mr. Arthur Farstad intended to do such work based on MT/MT with Baptists then passed away, which left HCSB based on Nestle Aland.
Presuppositionalism will make the true believers stay lazy without updating the language and correcting some vocabulary mistakes.

I know many attacks on KJV is made by MV side with the intention to ruin the doctrinal aspects of KJV and they try to destroy what KJV has contributed for the Christianity in the past.

But KJV itself is still the best version, and in that sense KJVO concept may be acceptable for a while until the better one comes out, IMO.

[ December 24, 2005, 08:56 PM: Message edited by: Eliyahu ]

 

Eliyahu: //But KJV itself is still the best version, ... //

Amen Brother Eliyahu!

Eliyahu: //But KJV itself is still the best version, and
in that sense KJVO concept may be acceptable for
a while until the better one comes out, IMO.//

I respectfully disagree. Because of KJVO a translation better
than the KJV1769 is impossible. Because of the KJVO error, even a
better EDITION of the KJV is precluded.

I've got a THIRD MILLENNIUM BIBLE (DDeuel Enterprises, 1998),
a new edition of the KJV - not respected by KJVOs.

I've got a KJV1873 Edition by the same AUTHORIZED source that
brought you the KJV1769 Edition - distained by KJVOs.

I've got a The 21st Century King James Version (KJ21)
/Deuel Enterprises, 1994 - unheard of amon KJVOs.

I've got a New King James Version (nKJV, 1983) built
translated to the specifications specified by proto-KJVOs.
After 20 years the worse thing they could find on it
is that the publilsher used a historical symbol of the
Blessed Trinity on the cover page. Of course, the cover
page or spine symbol has NOTHING to do with the translation.

Because of KJVO a translation better
than the KJV1769 is impossible. Because of the KJVO error, even a
better EDITION of the KJV is precluded.

 

Tee hee

- M E R R Y - C H R I S T M A S -

 

Ed,
It is a matter of degree a little.
The exact position of mine is just KJVB-KJV Best, not KJVO.
I just accept KJVO as a fellow believer living the same world, until the better version comes available.

I am so much disappointed with the reckless attack on KJV from the bases of Westcott/Hort line about who I doubt whether they truly believed in the resurrection and whether they were born-again believers.

 

Ed notes that Westcott & Hort are the same
types of Anglicans as those who translated
the KJV1611 Edition.

Personally I use a HCSB translated by
mainstream USA folks like Baptists, Methodists
PRespertian, Christian Church, etc.

 

Well, I'm just joining the discussion, and a hearty amen is in order Eliyahu. Westcott/Hort were unsaved spiritualists that took place in Séances. And textual criticism was their baby. The principles they taught lead modern scholorship into a ditch.

 

Ed,
King James translators did not use the same corrupt greek texts (minority) as the church of Rome and later Westcott & Hort. They used the Majority text and they were not the same kind of anything that Westcott & Hort were (i.e. unsaved, Godless). Of course in staying with the same vein as the discussion at hand, Westcott and Hort presupposed something. 1. That the text of the King James was the wrong text. 2. That the oldest and "best" manuscripts were the better reading. 3. The shortest reading is the better reading. 4. They are smarter than God. Given these presuppositions, what basis did they have for them?

 

Ed,
You say
***After 20 years the worse thing they could find on it
is that the publilsher used a historical symbol of the
Blessed Trinity on the cover page. Of course, the cover
page or spine symbol has NOTHING to do with the translation.***
First off, Act 17:29 says "Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device." The Triqueta or Mobius is an occult symbol used by satanists and new agers alike on everything from Rock albulms to New Age literature to Wiccan literature. You would think a bunch of "Godly" translators would look a little closer at a symbol that would be a permanant mark on the bible they endorse. And why change 1 Tim 6:10 to ""For the love of money is a root of all KINDS OF evil."? Or take the only command to study your Bible out of 2 Tim 2:15. See also Rom. 6:22 and see if you agree with being a slave of God. One must believe the marketing lies put out by new version advertisers to presuppose the NKJV just updates supposed archaic words and takes out thee thou and ye. Of course you wouldn't really be presupposing anything if you bought into their marketing schemes first.

 

You need to read again for several reasons. 1) I have not really tried to mount an argument. Your position is so far off base it doesn't warrant one. 2) I have pointed out some of the many fallacies with your position, including the fact that you are not using PA to prove your point (even though you call it that), you are making illogical and unwarranted jumps in logic, and you are using big words apparently without really understanding how they are used in PA. Those are all major problems. I haven't really tried to address the argument per se in depth.

If you read, you will see that you missed the point.

Those verses cannot be applied to a particular translation; they applie to translations that faithfully translate the text.

Clearly, I said two different things. Notice

1. translation vs. translations
2. particular vs. that faithfully translate

What I said (to repeat myself) was that those verses cannot be applied to a particular translation to the exclusion of others. It applies to all translations that faithfully translate the text.

I do all the time.

The problem is that your position is not supported from Scripture, or from PA. This whole thread started from a faulty base.