Presuppositionalism and KJV onlyism

The entire Bible in its original manuscripts was inspired of the Holy Spirit of God. It is not the Old Testament quotations or translations that is a perfect translation. It is the New Testament being inspired of God that makes it infallible and inspried in the original manuscript only. The Holy Spirit superintending over the work of the Apostles who penned the writings of the New Testament, inspired those very writings. No other writings were inspired.

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

The holy men of old were not the KJV translators. The were the Old Testament prophets, and by extension the Apostles of the New Testament.
They are not applicable to any translations, but only to the original writings which we do not have today.
One good reason why the Lord hid those from us, is that we may not become Bible worshipers, as perhaps the KJVO crowd are becoming.
DHK

 

DHK,
But you admit that God has inspired translation at the very least in the case of the N.T. quotations of the O.T., correct?

 

I wish Bookborn and AV do not misunderstand DHK because his points are right, IMO, even though we value the accuracy of KJV. In that aspect, I may disagree with DHK, in evaluating the accuracy of KJV.

What we must clearly admit is that there is a big difference in the degree of Inspiration, between Inspiration for Bible Writers and Inspiration for Translators. I admit that Translation needs the guidance by Holy Spirit, but that is far below the inspiration for Bible writers. I sometimes feel the awakening by Holy Spirit, when I translate the Bible, but such is far below the Inspiration which Bible writers received.

God designated His Words, but not a certain Book, nor a certain Printing company.
I know that the translators of KJV were very much sincere and did a good job, but we should remember they were divided on the word Baptism or immersion, and even KJV itself was amended a little later on, even though it was mostly a matter of scribal or orthographical errors.

How much accurate any version or any translation can be attested by our checking with the texts, on the controversial issues and verses.
Even, which texts are the right one, between Minority texts and Majority texts, can be attested by comparing verses by verses.
If anyone wants to stick to Minority texts, please let them get rid of Mark 16:12-20 and the story of the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-11), and let them stick to the Bibles without 14 verses omitted, even without any footnotes of them.

In the other threads I mentioned about Daniel 9:26 " Messiah will be cut off but not for himself" (but for us)
Other versions omitted "not for himself" or put "have nothing"
It is not impossible to have "have nothing" but if we think about the contexts of the sentence, we can hardly reach it. I found the reason why some versions translated that way, even though "not for Himself" is the reasonable translation, i.e. it came from Septuagynt!
Also, in Isaiah 53:10, Hebrew grammar doesn't allow other translation than "when thou offer His soul as Tresspass-offering or Sin-offering"
but many versions except KJV, NKJV, HCSB translated "when He offer... or when LORD offer.." which reveals the ignorance of the translators. I already dealt with these problems in other threads.
If we compare the versions on the controversial issues, verses by verses, we will find the results:
KJV vs Modern Versions=
100:0 or 99:1 ( I leave this possibility because KJV is not always perfect!)

If anyone disagrees, compare the versions with Masoretic texts on the controversial issues.
Many of Modern versions say that they translated directly from the original language, Word-to-Word, but the reality is that they used often Septuagynt and thought-to-thought translation.

"God forbid" is a kind of Language Update matters. There are not a few, not so many vocabularies to be reviewed and corrected in KJV, in addition to the update of many vocabularies used there. But the doctrinal issues are more important than vocabularies.

Finally, I want to say,

May God bless His people who love and read KJV which is the best preservation of His Words in this era, and bless them in their lives so that they may win over anything on this world until the Lord comes again!

 

Av, if you have some time, please send me an e-mail to me at shekinahca@hotmail.com

 

Eliyahu, I appreciate your posts. And really, everydody's posts. This has been so interesting and beneficial.
AV, I bid you Godspeed.
Will be praying for you as you travel.

 

AV said:

Apparently your lack of comprehensive skills have led your misunderstandings.

Apparently your lack of understanding of presuppositionalism has led to your lack of a comprehensible argument.

Where have I ever said or assumed the following:
"your starting presupposition (that the AV is "it")"

Right from the top post:

No one is arguing you presuppose the KJV just 'cuz. I said PA (presuppositional apologetics) assumes a singular final authority as opposed to scraps awaiting validation and assembly by scholars, and the bible teaches God preserves his words in a book.

Presuppositionalism's starting point is the apologist's assertion that negatively, opposing positions are incoherent when taken to their logical conclusion; and, positively, that the apologist's own position is the only coherent one.

You have so far failed to prove that someone's worldview is incoherent if they happen to accept the infallible authority of, say, the NASB instead of the KJV, and that the only coherent worldview starts with the premise that the KJV is "the only book of the LORD for the English speaking church."

Therefore, your argument "based on presuppositional argumentation" never got off the ground . . .

And based on these complimentary ideas the KJV turns out to be the book for the English church.

"Because I say so" is not a presuppositional argument.

You have missed it each post.

For the same reason, I've also missed the magic pixies flitting around my computer room.

As far as not being able to apply Isaiah 34:16 to anything other than the 1st half of the book of Isaiah only, where do you get that?

A proper Biblical hermeneutic must take the author's historical, literary, cultural, and grammatical contexts into account: what the prophet was telling the people of God in that situation.

Application, on the other hand, might be more subjective. The meaning of the passage is not changed, but the significance of the passage might be different from time to time, culture to culture, individual to individual. However, an application is still only valid insofar as the believing individual's personal situation parallels the situation which Isaiah originally addressed.

The teaching of Isaiah 34:16 can be summarized simply: The nations will fall; God has spoken it in the Law and the Prophets, therefore it will come to pass precisely has he has spoken.

Isaiah was not addressing the issue of the translation of Scripture, nor was he addressing the number of authoritative translations in any given language, nor can his words in any way be construed as a divine endorsement of a 17th-century Anglican translation of the Scriptures into English.


Since the words of Isaiah can in no way be interpreted to say that there is a single "book of the LORD for the English speaking church," it is a false interpretation of the passage. Since the idea that there is a single, authoritative English translation of the Bible does not parallel Isaiah's message that God's prophecy will surely come to pass, that is a false application of the passage.

Either way you slice it, then, your argument fails from first principles. You might say it fails on the level of your foundational presuppositions.

Would you try and confront what I am saying directly

I have confronted it and found it to be abuse of the Scriptures, and said so directly.

[ December 26, 2005, 11:19 PM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

Ransom,
You say
____________________________________________
You have so far failed to prove that someone's worldview is incoherent if they happen to accept the infallible authority of, say, the NASB instead of the KJV, and that the only coherent worldview starts with the premise that the KJV is "the only book of the LORD for the English speaking church."________________________________

What's interesting to note is that KJVOs are just about the only ones out there that do believe in a perfect bible (Prov. 30:5). Well, other than the originals which do not exist today, likely from people who believed God's words and read them faithfully, rather than God destroying them to keep them out of the hands of KJOists. Of course we do have some good examples of Bible worshippers in the Bible. David worshipped the Bible to show his love and devotion to God. Psa 119:48 "My hands also will I lift up unto thy commandments, which I have loved; and I will meditate in thy statutes." See KJOs don't worship the Bible like Roman Catholics and others who are in love with aleph and Codex B nowadays. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were preserved because nobody ever read them (because they didn't believe them). I mean, a Bible believer wears out his Bible in ten years or less. He writes all over it, highlights, makes notes in the margins. We don't worship the ink, the paper, or the binding. Just the words of the living God. (Matt. 4:4, Lu. 4:4, Job 23:12, & Ps. 119:1-176) So, nobody is starting with the premise that the KJV is "the only book of the LORD for the English speaking church." I think I speak for AV and Bookborn when I say, the starting premise is that there is a book of the Lord, period. It just so happens that the conclusion, when correctly made, is the fruitful, Godly, Jesus Christ honoring text of the Protestant Reformation. I suppose you have a better text to recommend (one that's written for the 99.9% that don't speak greek that is). So, the question is "Canst thou speak Greek"?

 

God inspires the "translation of the Old Testament," just as much as he inspires the "lies" of the devil, in the Old Testament. The words: "Thou shalt not surely die," are the inspired word of God, though they be the exact words of Satan. Inspired simply means that they are accurately recorded exactly as God wanted them.
In the New Testament we have word for word quotations from the Old Testament. However, there are also paraphrases, brief allusions, etc. Not every reference in the New Testament is a direct translation of the Old Testament. There are many paraphrases. And there are many quotes from the Septuagint rather than from the Hebrew masoretic text. There is a mixture. Paul also quotes a Grecian poet, A Cretian philosopher, and Jude quotes from an apocryphal book--the Book of Enoch. The Book of Enoch is not inspired. But the portion that he quoted that is now in the Book of Jude is now inspired, simply because it is part of the book of Jude. The same is true for Greek poetry and Cretian philosophy.
DHK

 

WordOfAKing said:

What's interesting to note is that KJVOs are just about the only ones out there that do believe in a perfect bible (Prov. 30:5).

1. What does this have to do with what I actually said?

2. Even if "every word of God is flawless" as Prov. 30:5 says, that still does not lead, logically or inevitably, to the KJV-only position, which is a human tradition.

3. People who raise their traditions to the level of divine decree (such as those who claim that God has specially approved the KJV in some way that he has not some other version) should read the next proverb: "Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar" (Prov. 30:6).

So, nobody is starting with the premise that the KJV is "the only book of the LORD for the English speaking church."

Well, then, AV must be a nobody, because that is precisely the premise that he asserted in the original post of this thread - and those are his own words.

I think I speak for AV and Bookborn when I say, the starting premise is that there is a book of the Lord, period. It just so happens that the conclusion, when correctly made, is the fruitful, Godly, Jesus Christ honoring text of the Protestant Reformation.

The "fruitful, Godly, Jesus Christ honoring text of the Protestant Reformation," as found in various translations made by prominent Reformers - Luther, Geneva, Olivetan, etc. does not agree 100% in its readings.

Therefore, the KJV-onlyists find themselves in the same boat as Bible believers. The real question is not who has the perfect Bible, but how much corruption the KJVers are willing to overlook . . .

 

Eliyahu:
WhI see no case where yom ever mean weeks?

The NIV uses and eclectic text and tries to synthesize the text in Amos 4:4 with the rest of the law. The LXX nor the MT agree with the KJV or NIV. So how does that make the KJV a superior translation?

 

WEEKs have separate word, Sabbath. But Yom is apparently used for YEAR too. If you don't take it, you can hardly interpret Gn 41:1 and Ex 13:10

Amos 4:4 is criticising Israel by Sarcastic way. I don't think Israel was offering tithe every three days, neither was it demanded by God that often. Israel may be offering tithe once in a three years or even less often than that, as we can see they celebrated Passover once in hundreds of years (2King 23:21-22. I am not consenting to KJV in this verse and will think it over.

As for the accuracy of KJV, you can compare the followings:

Isaiah 53:10
Daniel 9:26
Genesis 12:16
1 King 14:24 (Sodomites vs Perverted persons)

1 Tim 3:16 - I don't know the exact ratio between the texts, but only 3 supports He, while more than 500 texts supports God, as far as I know.

Eph 3:9 ( God created all things thru Jesus Christ or without thru Jesus Christ)
Mark 16:12-20 - Among 620 texts for Mark, 618 supports KJV, and 2 (Sinai text and Vatican text don't have them!)
John 3:13
Luke 2:49
John 8:1-11
1 Corinthians 1:21
1 Cor 11:25, 26 where "often" is omitted or alive.
1 John 5:7 - I refuted any arguements against Johannine Comma in other thread. If you can refute me, tell me any time!
Omitted 14 verses

There are many more and Bookborn has already mentioned some.

 

Some more verses which I recommend you to check:

Mt 15:8
Act 9:6
Eph 5:30
1 John 5:13 which I explained already in other thread called " who translated NKJV"


When I debate with someone who seemed not to be born-again but believed himself to be a born-again believer saying that there can be neither experience nor any change in the life after born-again. He claimed that everyone who decided to attend the church has been born again because no one can make such decision without Holy Spirit and said that there was no change in the mind of Paul, except the physical change he experienced.
When I saw KJV it clearly mentioned the reaction which Paul showed: "trembling and astonished" convicted by the previous verse 5 " it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks" trembling and astonished" convicted by the previous verse 5 " it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks which are not found in NIV at all!

When we read Ephesian 5:30 at the time of Lord's Supper, we felt the enormous thanks for the fact that We are members of His Body, of His Flesh, and of His Bones! which are not shown in many other Bible versions!

 

Wordofaking brings up a good point. People call us bibliolators, etc.
Psalms 56:4 says, "In God I WILL PRAISE HIS WORD."
And as he mentioned... Psa 119:48 "My hands also will I lift up unto thy commandments, which I have loved; and I will meditate in thy statutes."
Amen. I guess it's hard to praise a word or lift hands to a word that you deem is filled with error, and thus the dilemma.
Neh. 9 states that God's name is above all blessing and praise, and you guys would praise His name (no problem). But would you praise His word? Afterall, Psalms 138:2 says that God has magnified his word ABOVE ALL HIS NAME.
So, His word is above all blessing, praise, and God's name.
That's even higher that somebody who is a little lower than God....
Eliyahu. You bring many good points there.
Hey, on the John 3:13, I had an interesting encounter with a Mormon one day (they use the KJV along with their many other scriptures). He was denying the complete deity of Christ by saying that Jesus wasn't in heaven and on the cross at the same time. I showed him John 3:13 and brought out that Jesus was IN HEAVEN (PRESENT TENSE) and on earth talking to Nicodemus. He scratched his head and admitted he never noticed that before. It was food for thought. Thank God I had a KJV and not an NIV or NASB, etc. which omits 'which is in heaven.'

 

Tell us which Bible translation is perfect.

The fact is that there is not one.

Why do you waste so much time on a translation when you could spend your time studying the Greek and Hebrew texts?

 

Eliyahu,
Ever read the definite book called
"Debate Over I John 5:7-8"
by Michael Maynard? It's about 300 or so pages of fully documented facts. He traveled the world really in writing this book and researching it.
I met him before. I know Wordofaking has met him too. Utterly smashes any opponents to I John 5:7.
It's hard to obtain a copy of it now it seems. Seems to be out of print. Everyone who's ever read or skimmed through it walks away with 'Wow.'
Or for you that are dislexic, I'll say that backwards...
Wow.

 

gb93433,
You asked, "Why do you waste so much time on a translation when you could spend your time studying the Greek and Hebrew texts?"

Less than 2 percent of the known world ever spoke Hebrew (God's elect language for His people) and Biblical Koine Greek Language (God's elect language for early Church) is a DEAD LANGUAGE (as in, NOBODY SPEAKS IT TODAY).
2 BILLION PEOPLE SPEAK English today (that's 1/3 of the earth's population), English has the largest geographical spread of any language today, English is the most diversified of all the languages, English is the international language of computers in the computer age where knowledge has been increased (Dan. 12), it is the most common secondary language in the world today... (By the way, even secular sources give credit to the King James Version as the single piece of 'literature' having the LARGEST IMPACT ON THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.)
An axiomatic (self-evident) truth is that English is now God's elect language for the endtimes. (Absolute time on earth is set by Greenwich, England; absolute temperature is the BTU or BRITISH THERMAL UNIT; absolute location or absolute latitude/longitude on a map is ENGLISH - Greenwich, England... Absolute truth is your KJV if you speak English - and you do).
Come on, brother. Keep up with the times. Are you going to preach the gospel to every creature in Hebrew and Greek? Proverbs says, "He that winneth souls is wise." Are you going to go out witnessing using Hebrew and Greek?
Also, don't pretend you've peered into all 5,300 extant Greek manu-scraps either and have evaluated all the Greek texts. I have dozens of Greek texts in my library as a book collector, but I wouldn't waste the church's time, God's time, or the world's time ministering Greek and Hebrew ("Walk in wisdom toward them that are without, REDEEMING THE TIME." and "Walk ye then circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, REDEEMING THE TIME.") And you never see ONE SINGLE PERSON IN THE BIBLE PREACHING LINGUISTICS, CIRCUMFLEX ACCENTS, DELINEATING TENSES, POINTING OUT DIPHTHONGS, ETC. Follow their example, brother, and keep up.

[ December 27, 2005, 11:40 AM: Message edited by: Bookborn ]

 

From the Introduction to An Interlinear Literal Translation of the Greek New Testament by George Ricker Berry, Ph.D.

The Value of Hebrew and Greek to the Clergyman

1. Without some knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, you cannot understand the critical commentaries of the Scripture, and a commentary that is not critical is of doubtful value.

2. Without some knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, you cannot satisfy yourself . . as to the changes which you will find in the Revised Old and New Testament.

3. Without some knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, you cannot appreciate the critical discussions relating to the Books of the Old and New Testament.

4. Without some knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, you cannot be certain that in your sermon based on a Scripture text, you are presenting the correct teaching of that text.

5. Without some knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, you cannot be an independent student or a reliable interpreter of the Word of God.

6. As much knowledge of Hebrew can be secured in one year with the aid of an Interlinear Old Testament as can be gained of Latin in three years. Greek, though somewhat more difficult, may be readily acquired with the aid of an Interlinear New Testament/Lexicon.

7. The Hebrew language has, in all, 7000 words, and of them 1000 are repeated over 25 times each in the Old Testament.

8. Hebrew grammar has but one form of the Relative pronoun in all cases, numbers and genders; by three forms for the Demonstrative pronoun. The possible verbal forms are about 300 as compared with the 1200 found in Greek. It has practically no declension.

9. Within ten years, the average man wastes more time in fruitless reading and indifferent talk, that would be used in acquiring a good working knowledge of Hebrew and Greek that in turn would impart to his teaching that quality of independence and of reliability which so greatly enhances one's power as a teacher.

10. There is not one minister in ten who might not if he but would, find time and opportunity for such study of Hebrew and Greek as would enable him to make a thoroughly practical use of it in his work as a Bible-preacher and Bible-teacher.

 

gb93433,
So Dr. Berry is your final authority then?
Is his Hebrew the only one to use? What about Gerhard Kittel's? Oh wait...he was Nazi.
...or Brown, Driver, and Briggs?

And if we are to use greek in our understanding of the word of God, which are we to use?
"...Aleph1, Aleph2, Aleph3, B1, B2, B3, C, L ,W, Textus Receptus, Westcott and Hort, Scrivener's, Alfred, Griesbach, Elzevir, Erasmus, Tischendorf, Lachman, Souter, von Soden, Hodge-Farstad, Nestle's-Aland (If so which edition between 1 and 26?), UBS-Aland, Black, Metzger, Wikgren (Which edition between 1 and 4?), or the Greek-English Diglot for the Use of Translators"? (-Riplinger, G.A.-New Age Bible Versions; pg. 503)

Are we to trust man that is fallible and sinful, and has been since Adam ate of the fruit, or are we to put our trust in the Lord who promised He would preserve His word to us (Psalm 12:6-7), as He has promised to preserve us that are truly born again? (Ephesians 4:30)

Before you say that sinful men translated the King James Bible, let us remember that sinful men also wrote the "originals". We are to have no more confidence in Peter, Paul, James, David, Moses, Jonah, or Luke than we are any other man that has ever walked on God's green earth, because all men are fallible little dust balls from Adam. Our confidence, brother, is to be in the God that wrote the Bible and used what he had to work with to get His word to the fallen human race He wanted to save and have fellowship with again.
You're trusting the Lord to keep you saved aren't you? Then if, He is mighty and powerful enough to do that, then don't you think He can do the same with His word? After all, it is more important to the Lord than we are. (Psalms 138:2)