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!

Continued:Presuppositionalism and KJV Onlyism

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by AV, Dec 31, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,957
    Likes Received:
    16
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Very Good Points! [​IMG]

    One thing that we should credit to QB as a good point is that he discovered a certain problems in the field and in the actual life. But the solution that he is thinking about is not godly way, I feel.

    The Preservation of the Words of God is the most important job for the key believers , Key for the Cores !
     
  2. AV

    AV Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2005
    Messages:
    207
    Likes Received:
    1
    Well Gentleman,
    I thank you for all your posting on both sides of the issue. I hope all you guys will leave us some closing statements. If you wish to continue the thread feel free, if I can clarify myself on any point I will try to do so.
    In closing I would like to say that the initial thought of the thread remained unchallenged. While there were plenty of particular points of contention, many of which are valid and deserve to be answered, the dilemma generated when one believes the word of God is still being pieced together by empirical scholarship still plagues you. You still need the bible doctrine found in a book to presuppose in order to have a foundation for science and logic, whether in the form or Archaeology, Linguistics, History etc. You can only account for it when you have an omnipotent, just God who upholds all things by the word of his power and guides the creation according to his purpose which he prophetically reveals to us in scripture. We being made in his image have the ability to reason with our Maker and understand his judgments. These doctrines among others are made up of particular verses in scripture. These verses consist of words which the Holy Ghost moved to be spoken, and preserves to us today. We cannot philosophically or epistemologically pretend to be neutral and objectively researching the multiple manuscripts to find the doctrines we are in reality presupposing. We do not have sufficient empirical evidence to justify each verse in the bible historically , each side having to assume certain rules that are not anywhere near certain. Especially not the level of certainty prescribed in the scripture itself (Acts 1:3 [KJV], 2 Pet.1:19). No talk of probability, or 'more likely', 'the evidence seems to suggest', rather it is absolute infallibility. More sure than what is seen or heard. As the Psalmist said 'Thy testimonies are very sure'. They generate full persuasion, which cannot be denied.
    Now our friends on the contrary part are not sure, rationally speaking, on any particular verse of scripture. Firstly because on empirical grounds they do not know which particular verse was in the 'originals'. That would require a historical continuity which exceeds the general reliability of the manuscripts. Now all they have are probabilities based on assumptions of scribal habits, text types, handwriting styles, materials, etc. How general reliabilities produce absolute certainty is another epistemological problem that continues to haunt them. They claim to know that Christ rose again from the dead on the third day, but only because the New Testament as a whole is more historically authenticated than other secular writings , and not particular verses in the New Testament just the doctrine of the resurrection itself. If they claim a certain verse is found in all the extant manuscripts and thus it is absolutely certain, one need only remind them of the famed 'oldest and most reliables'. For maybe that certain verse you point to is yet to be invalidated by some 'even older and more reliables than the first', just like those around the time the 'olders' were initially discovered.
    Secondly if they try to presuppose the verses that teach the transcendentally necessary doctrine, they will have to be sure that the verses they are presupposing are supposed to be there. And that brings you back to validating the verses empirically. So God seems to have taken the wise in their own craftiness.
    I would like to point out in closing that some of the same arguments that Josh McDowell used in 'The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict', to prove the authenticity of "the bible" can be, and is used in defense of the KJV. For example:
    1. Unique in its influence on civilization pg.15
    2. Unique in its influence upon Literature pg.14 (and the English language)
    3. Unique in its survival pg.9 through criticism
    4. Unique in its circulation pg.7-8
    His reasonable conclusion was not that the bible is the word of God, but superior to all other books. And obviously for my purpose the KJV and its underlying text, is in these respects superior. And since God moved King James to authorize it (Prov.21:1) we ought to think a bit differently on these issues and quit pretending to be followers of science falsely so called, and humble ourselves under his mighty hand.
    AV
     
  3. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    Where do you get such an absurd conclusion. Where does the Word of God talk of "authorizing" the KJV?
    That is absurd! Why not the Hindi Bible? or some other Bible? Your conclusion shows utter arrogance in relation to translations.
    DHK
     
  4. AV

    AV Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2005
    Messages:
    207
    Likes Received:
    1
    DHK,
    Get with it my friend, we are talking about English. Read the verse and contend with it.
    And please give us a rebuttal of the relevant points.
    AV
     
  5. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    The simple rebuttal is this: No matter what language you are speaking of, English included, God does not inspire translations. There is more than one translation, for example, translated from the TR. There is the NKJV and the MKJV. There are also some private translations that you may not be aware of. All of them are just as much the Word of God as the other. Even doing away with the dispute between the critical text and the majority text (which for the most part I would agree on), the Bible is preserved (not inspired) in the Greek. To say that we have an infallible Bible in the KJV is to demand that God did a second inspiration at the time of King James. Were the KJV translators, as ungodly as they were, inspired of God to write the KKV? Are the original KJV manuscripts the inspired manuscripts? Or just the 1769? Which edition? God makes no mistakes, not even spelling mistakes or printers' errors. God is perfect; the KJV is not. God never preserved His Word in a translation. He never promised to preserve His Word in a translation. That is not only an unbiblical doctrine but I would say one that borders on heresy. It leads to Bibliolatry, the worship of a book.
    Worship only God! His words are found in the Greek and Hebrew from which ALL translations come. Translations, including the KJV have defects. They are not perfect because man is not perfect. It is impossible for man to give us a perfect translation.
    DHK
     
  6. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    Proverbs 21:1 The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.
    --This says nothing about translations. God is able to overrule the nefarious plans of a government. It is in his power to do so. It is God that is sovereign, not the king or the government. We must ever keep this in mind. This has nothing to do with the KJV. It is a general principle. It certainly was true in the time of Nehemiah when the king gave him permission to go back to Jerusalem to rebuild the Temple.
    DHK
     
  7. natters

    natters New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    The way that God's words were preserved in 1605, 1000 and 500 A.D. is the way they are preserved today - for scripture did not change meaning in 1611. KJV-onlyism is a new, unbiblical, false doctrine.
     
  8. natters

    natters New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    About Prov 21:1, it's interesting that if the King (James) was to be followed, why do they not follow him in his other church-related stances?? [​IMG]
     
  9. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    AV,
    Are you a monarchist?
     
  10. AV

    AV Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2005
    Messages:
    207
    Likes Received:
    1
  11. Ransom

    Ransom Active Member

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

    And since God moved King James to authorize it (Prov.21:1)

    "The king's heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; he turns it wherever he will." (Prov. 21:1)

    Non Sequitur of the day.

    *snigger!*
     
  12. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,550
    Likes Received:
    15
    You would say the same thing about Anton LaVey too?
     
  13. AV

    AV Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2005
    Messages:
    207
    Likes Received:
    1
    God turned the heart of the king (James) to authorize the English translation.(Prov.21:1) Which arguably is the most influential book, most printed, and most read book of all time.
    You say God had nothing to do with it. Go figure.
     
  14. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,957
    Likes Received:
    16
    Faith:
    Baptist
    400 years of KJV and the history of the nation where it was the main Bible prove that God worked with it by His providence.
    No other version has ever enjoyed that.
     
  15. natters

    natters New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    What does "authorize" mean? What did James "authorize"? It simply means that the KJV was the version "appointed to be read in [British Anglican] churches". Nothing more.

    Widespread use does not equal inerrancy. God's word is not established by a popularity contest.
     
  16. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, MV-onlyism is a new, unbiblical, false doctrine. :rolleyes:
     
  17. natters

    natters New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    MV onlyism isn't even a doctrine in the first place.
     
  18. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with you. No one can STOP the KJV since 400 years. No other version can kill the KJV.
     
  19. natters

    natters New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    No one can STOP the LXX since 2200 years. No one can STOP the Vulgate since 1600 years. No one can STOP the Geneva since 446 years. No one can STOP the RV since 125 years. No other versions can kill these versions.
     
  20. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Exactly!
    If they can't read English language, they have accurate foreign Bibles in their mother tongue.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...