Continued:Presuppositionalism and KJV Onlyism

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

 

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

 

No

 

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.