Presuppositionalism and KJV onlyism

Bookborn said:

How do you know beyond any shadow of a doubt that there never was any such beast as a unicorn? And do you admit that you cannot prove a universal negative (ie. you don't have access to universal knowledge which transcends time and space)?



This is as good a textbook instance of argumentum ad ignorantiam as I have seen in a long time.

By the same argument, of course, we cannot say for certain that Santa Claus (i.e. the "jolly old elf," not St. Nicholas of Myra), the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy never existed.

 

A great pity is that many of believers in leadership of Christianity are not sound in the doctrines.

We can notice even Solomon worshipped Astarte (Ishtar) while he didn't keep Passover: 1King 11:5, 11:33. Yoshiah (King Josiah) removed the statues of Astarte (2 King 23:12)
2 King 23:22-23 says the passover was not observed before, but observed properly for the first time in the eighteenth year of Josiah.

Why King Herod was celebrating Ishtar Festival?
Because they had a conviction that Kings are appointed by Ishtar (Read the site which I posted) and if he had not done, he was afraid he lose the kingship. So, the Ishtar festival was more important than any other Feasts, to him.

Another importance is the schedule of the Feasts.
If Ishtar happened one month later than Days of ULB, KJV doesn't make sense. But the history reveals that Ishtar Feast started 1-4 days later than Passover, ending a few days later than ULB.

It seems that Pesach was translated into Pascha in Aramaic, then PASXA in Greek. Aramaic region was under powerful influence of Ishtar worship.
God knows the truth, and we can verify the contradiction of Ac 12:3-4 if we consider Ishtar!

 

Why don't you add Mother of God existed before the Creation? since you and I battled fiercely in the thread "Does God have a Mother?"

I say this because I feel interesting that the person who call Mother of God strongly opposes to KJV too !

Doctrinal soundness relates to many doctrines together and KJV exercise its powerful witnessing power when we encounter Doctrinal issues.

 

Ransom, ransom. How long will I suffer thee?
Speaking of fallacies, you've committed the fallacy of False Analogy in your zeal to rid the world of ONE FINAL AUTHORITY - ONE BOOK OF THE LORD.
We were speaking of a Bible word: 'unicorn.'
Of course Satan Claus, Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy aren't in the Bible, but 'unicorn' certainly is.
Please remember AV's original post. The Christian God and thus the Christian Bible (that which stems from a true proposition is true) is the foundation for epistemology, logic, laws, science, morality, etc. The precondition for intelligibility is the Christian God, and thus, the written revelation of the Christian God (Book of the Lord - which none of you EveryManMakeYourOwnBiblers has ID'd with specificity just yet).
You'll read of unicorns in the Book of the Lord. You'll read of flaming horses, a goat with a notable horn between his eyes (Daniel 8:5) [Did God, the Creator, pluck this out of pure pixie dust, or does he know something about His creation that perhaps we don't?], and really a bunch of beings/beasts that you've never personally seen, etc.
There is something spiritual about the unicorn (evidenced by Psalms 22) regardless of your preconception of what a unicorn resembles.
It was originally posted that in essence, since a unicorn is mythical (Greek mythology?) and nonexistent, then the KJV must be in ERROR. I was merely demonstrating that this is a futile, feeble endeavor to use a universal negative to disprove the KJV.
The position shifted to: Well, it's a mistranslation (which hasn't been proven either) and this was rebutted thoroughly by Will. Bringing Satan Claus, Ishtar Bunny, and Tooth Sprite into the picture was a good textbook example of the Red Herring species of argumentation.

Since AV is in New York with no internet access, we are holding down the fort until he returns and can continue the original thought of the thread. Time being, you guys have failed miserably to demonstrate the following...
1. What your final authority really is (ie., Where exactly is your perfect Book of the Lord?)
2. What advanced revelations you obtained from Hebrew and Greek that we all missed with our KJV.
3. Why you presuppose an abstract perfect Bible without producing a tangible perfect Bible.

I'll try (it will be roughly stated) to recap
AV's original thought and when he comes back, he can add to this...

Basically, adherents to presuppositionalism have destroyed the atheistic worldview.
In a nutshell, it means that without the Christian God, we CANNOT ACCOUNT FOR ANYTHING (science, laws, morality). The fact that there are universal laws like the universal laws of logic (which reflect the mind of God) which are abstract and universal - transcending all time and space - is a dilemma for atheistic evolutionists. How can there be a universal 'law' of logic for example in a random, evolving universe? Why are these laws always applicable whereever you travel? Only Christianity can account for this. Everybody presupposes Biblical Christianity when they utilize the scientific method, the laws of logic, etc.
The absolute proof for God is the impossibility of the contrary. Unbelievers can't account for their use of these laws. The get the cart before the horse. They use the laws accounted for only by Christian theism to try and disprove God, the Bible, etc. They borrow from our worldview in trying to set forth their own worldview.
They presuppose the Christian God by utilizing laws that are ONLY logically defensible in a Christian worldview. (Listen online to Greg Bahsen versus Gordon Stein Atheist debate on sermonaudio and all over the web for an example of how presuppositionalism utterly destroys atheists and shuts their foolish mouths).
AV has carried this over into the Bible issue quite masterfully.
God has always preserved his words in a book based on the Bible testimony itself: ie. the Book of the Lord.
ALL CHRISTIANS presuppose THE BOOK OF THE LORD.
They all have a presupposed FINAL AUTHORITY because they assert what is right and what is wrong, they even quote Bible verses, etc. The NoParticularVersioners have a Book of the Lord in their mind as the basis for all rational thought, it's just that they pretend it was a long time ago and far, far away (originals) while all the while staking their very eternal soul on this presupposition - this Book of the Lord. There must be a book of the Lord. We have identified it with specificity because of the providential hand of God and the impossibility of the contrary (KJV). But since they all presuppose a Bible, and feel it could be the NIV or something, then let's see their zeal to defend it. NIVonlyism. But they won't do it. For English speaking people, there's only ONE CANDIDATE.
You guys have your cart before your horse. You borrow from our worldview (there is a Book of the Lord) and appeal to science (textual criticism, etc.) to try and prove various portions of the Bible -- all the while holding the position that there really isn't a perfect tangible authority on planet earth (we must trust science and the Priesthood of Scholarship for God's words).

[ December 29, 2005, 02:01 PM: Message edited by: Bookborn ]

 

Your reasoning reminds of the type of thinking of people like Hitler who wanted to create a super-race of white people, or better yet the landowners a few centuries ago who used slaves as piesce of property. They also had the attitude that the white race was more superior than all other races, and thus the slave trade went on without any regard to conscience. Beat them. Whip them. Abuse them. Humiliate them. It didn't matter. They weren't really human anyway. They were sub-human. Right? This is the type of thinking that comes across in your post. God only cares about the white English-speaking world. All the rest of the world is "sub-human." Sure, God loves all the world, just not as much as he loves the white people. That's why he "preserved" the Bible in the KJV for the white people who speak English, right? You act like a racist no better than Hitler.
1. Has God preserved his Word in other current languages of this day translated from the critical text since that is the only text that was available to them at the time of translation. (Blame Wycliffe translators if you will). But many nations have a Bible comparable to an RSV. And that is the only Bible that they have. Do they have the Word of God or not, and are you willing to be a missionary to those poeple and go and tell them that they don't have the Word of God, if that is your position.

2. If their one and only Bible is, per chance, translated from the majority text, do they have the perfect infallible Word of God, as in the KJV? Why or why not. We know for a fact that there would be differences. For example they would have the sense enough not to translate pascha as Easter. Many nations have never heard of Easter (a pagan festival), but they have heard of the first day of the week when Jesus arose from the dead (i.e., "Resurrection Sunday.") Nevertheless, as is shown in other translations, and the accuracy of the word "pascha" itself, the word means "passover" not Easter. The KJV Bible is in error.
Would you accept other Bibles in other languages translated from the textus receptus? Why or why not?
DHK

 

This statement is correct, at least in as much as a translation is concerned. God does not inspire translations. That is an unbiblical, extrabiblical doctrine, unheard of until Peter Ruckman came along and started his own cult. There is no Biblical proof for it. Even your link doesn't provide valid proof. It takes Scripture out of context and attempts to make a case, but fails miserable. You can't make a case for translations being perfect and fallible. Inspiration applies only to the original manuscripts.
What makes you think that the KJV is inspired?
The translators were sinners, some of whom may have been unsaved. They were high Anglican/Catholic. Sure they were scholars in their own right, but that doesn't speak for their spirituality, their walk with God.
I'll ask you what I have asked others. If I translate the first chapter of John (and I believe I can), will my translation be just as "inspired" as the KJV? Why or why not?
DHK

 

By the orthodox stream of Christianity, those that are KJVO, are considered a cult. Which is worse?
And it is a cult. It is Bibliolatry--the worship of a Bible translation. There is no translation that is inspired, and none that is perfect. Every translation loses meaning in the translation itself.

Romans 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

This is a good example to use (which you are no doubt well acquainted with). The literal expression is "may it not be," that is for the expression "God forbid."
Neither "God" nor "forbid" are in the Greek.
What did the translators do? They used an dynamic equivalent. They substituted a phrase for the said Greek expression that they thought would more accurately portray the thought being expressed. But that is not literal translation is it? That duty ought to have been left up to the reader, whos work is: "to study to show himself apporved unto God." If the translators went that far in using dynamic equivalency, why didn't they just go all the way, and give us a Bible like the paraphrased "Living Bible?"
DHK

 

Eliyahu, Interesting side note:
I collect old Mormon literature (JW's too, etc.) and I have two 1830 Books of Mormon (photostatic and facsimile from their bookstore) and they both refer to Mary as Mother of God. But the modern book of Mormon has changed this to Mother of the Son of God (revealing Joseph Smith's evolution from believing that Jesus was God to just another god in the polytheistic Pantheon of gods, etc.). I don't advocate "Mother of God" but your post reminded me of this.
Take care,
Bookborn

 

My answer is the same as always. Your reasoning is faulty. You start from a faulty premise. Your premise is: the correct translation is "Easter," therefore, what must my theology be? If it was translated "Eid al-Fitr" then how would you base your theology? Do you change your theology every time the KJV translators make a mistake?
The idea is to make sure the word is translated correctly first, and then proceed from there. The proper translation of the word "pascha" is passover, as it is translated 28 times out of 29, and in other Bibles 29 times out of 29 timnes. Pascha means Passover. There isn't another meaning of the word. Why would you insist there is, other than the KJV translators made the mistake of making it mean Easter erroneously? Kind of absurd isn't. We base our theology, not on the tranlsation (uninspired, not preserved), but rather on the preserved word of God, preserved for us in the Greek manuscripts. The word Easter was never preserved. The word "pascha" was. My case rests.
DHK

 

GB quoted,
"absolute temperature is the BTU or BRITISH THERMAL UNIT;

No, it is Kelvin"

Let's all be praying for GB. He's encountered some persecutuion for his beliefs... See, he went to Home Depot to buy an air conditioner.
He told several workers he needed a certain sized air conditioner in terms of 'KELVIN.'
They looked at him like a 3-headed monster. In similar fashion, Customer Service folks stared at him like a tree full of owls.
If only the British Thermal Unit was his final standard (BTU), they might have comprestood what he was incinerating (30,000 BTU's, etc.) and he might have gotten their undivided attention instead of uninvited detention.

 

Be afraid Bookborn, be very afraid.
Right now my water heater's maximum pressure is 150 p.s.i. or 1034 kPa.
The time is coming when psi will be completely outdated, and kPa will take its place.

Take a look at this conversion chart:
Conversions

 

Can I humor you guys with some excerpts from a poem I wrote back in the early 90's entitled "KJV for Me"?

It's Kwik-Scan, It's Living.
It's duller than any dual-sided sword?
Does the watered-down water of the word seem absurd?
Mesmerized by marketing lies, some like it Modernized.
Some prefer it disguised, Revised, replete with lies.
Cut and pasted, mixed and moved.
Some like it new and improved.
Some like it distinguished, and everyday Englished.
Some like it contemporary with built-in commentary.
It's Archaic! It's Obsolete! Professor Guesser hollers.
Should the scholars correct Scriptures, or Scriptures correct scholars?
Another Geek prefers to seek the original Greek.
But where are these 'originals' about which they speak?
Shall we give them a standing ovation, or Cash, Check, Credit Card donation
while they attack the Bible of the English Protestant Reformation?
Some folks are confused by Thou and Thee.
They both mean 'You.' Does it really take a PhD?
"How Great Thou Art" these same folks sing and shout.
Thou hypocrite! Your hymnbooks match the Book you are throwing out!
It's been refuted, disputed, and downright dilluted,
But it abideth.
(Or shall I say "It stays."? Wouldn't wanna confuse you with a King James phrase).
Satan won't succeed in it's destruction.
For the KJV has a Divine unction.
Far too long it's been butchered by unskillful surgeons.
Touch not mine anointed version!
Understandest thou this?

 

DHK said,
"The time is coming when psi will be completely outdated, and kPa will take its place."

Oh yeah? Well, the time is coming when your Nestle Aland's 27th edition will be completely outdated, and the 28th edition will take its place.

Be not afraid, a 29th edition is forthcoming. Fear not, A 5th edition USB is nigh unto thee, even at thy doorstep.
Let not thine heart be troubled. GB shall publish his perfect Bible in threescore years, and if by reason of weakness, yet ten more (after hammering out the critical apparatus, leafing thru thousands of manu-scraps, consulting James White, scouring thru lexical evidences, and employing the latest methodologies and findings of the textual critics -- not to mention those zealous archaeologists who constantly unearth stuff -- dirty job, but somebody's gotta do it).

 

Originally posted by WordOfAKing (that's me)

________________________________________________________________________
I would like to propose a challenge to the opponents of a perfect, preserved Bible. Could you put together a few verses to back up your claim to God NOT preserving his word and leaving it up to you or some other Bible rejector to preserve.

Since no one has taken up this challenge, I assume there is no one who is able to do so. The only time I've seen any Alexandrianites use a Bible verse is to critisize it. Maybe I've asked for too much here. I asked for a few verses. Let's take baby steps (Heb 5:12), and start with just one verse to support your assertion that no translation is/can be perfect.

 

BTUs are not temperature they are a unit of energy.

Kelvin, centigrade and fahrenheit are measurements of temperature. Kelvin is the absolute scale of temperature. My daughter studied that in junior high school.

 

I assume you have already done that. So there is no need to expound on your work. So I ask you now for the fourth time to give us the name of your perfect Bible. I assume you do have one.

 

GB said, "My daughter studied that in junior high school."
Your daughter studied that in Jr.High? That's lovely.
Now, where is your pure, unadulterated, infallible, inerrant words of the Living God?
If your daughter asked you for it, what with specificity would you give her (exactly)[as in, nail it down, brother]{as in what BOOK}.?

 

It is already being done.

 

GB said, "So I ask you now for the fourth time to give us the name of your perfect Bible. I assume you do have one."
How long have I been with thee, GB, and you still do not know? The King James Bible.
Listen, we are 19 pages into this, brother, and you STILL haven't ascertained as much? And truly, after 19 pages, you haven't identified YOURS...
(Amazing).

 

No problem, I just tell her the truth. Again when will you unashamedly tell us what the name of your perfect Bible?