Some or many KJV defenders sometimes seem to use and rely on the fallacy of composition in making their unproven, overgeneralized statements about modern Bible translations.
Henry Virkler noted: “The fallacy of composition occurs when someone assumes that what is true of the individual members of a class is true of the entire class” (Christian’s Guide to Critical Thinking, p. 202). In the glossary, Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks defined the fallacy of composition as “fallacy that assumes that what is true of the parts is true of the whole” (Come, Let Us Reason, p. 190). Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks asserted: “You cannot logically conclude anything about a whole group from something you only know about part of it, even if it looks right” (p. 82). Joshua Rasmussen observed: “It is false that whatever is true of the parts is automatically also true of the whole” (How Reason, p. 38). Joshua Rasmussen added: “Arguments that rely on the Parts to Whole principle are fallacious. They commit the fallacy of composition: they assume that the whole has all the same properties as its parts” (Ibid.). In his glossary, Gordon Clark defined composition as “an informal logical fallacy in which the characteristic of the part is attributed to the whole” (Logic, p. 134). Gordon Clark noted: “This argument is called the fallacy of composition. The logical reason is that the characteristics of components are not necessarily, nor even usually, the characteristics of the compound” (p. 13).
Use of an adjective to describe the whole text of a translation can involve use of the fallacy of composition when or if it is assumed that what is true of a few individual renderings, of many individual renderings, or even of a great majority of the individual renderings is true of all the renderings in that translation. There is an important major difference in use of an adjective to describe overall a Bible translation and use of an adjective to describe every rendering of a Bible translation.
If this incorrect use of the fallacy of composition was consistently applied including to the KJV, it would unintentionally be suggesting that the KJV could be identified as a "take away" version since the makers of the KJV in effect omitted or took away over 800 English words found in the 1539 Great Bible. The 1539 Great Bible is the first authorized English version, and it is one of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision. The additional words in the 1539 Great Bible were English translations of readings in the Greek Septuagint or in Jerome's Latin Vulgate.
The 1539 Great Bible is included in the KJV-only view's pure stream of Bibles, good line of Bibles, or good tree of Bibles. According to a consistent application of some typical KJV-only reasoning, did the 1539 Great Bible retain the quality or attribute of inspiration or was the 1611 KJV a revision of an uninspired pre-1611 English Bible?
Along with taking away these 800 words from the 1539 Great Bible, the makers of the KJV acknowledged in their 1611 marginal notes that sometimes they omitted or took away a Hebrew OT word or a Greek NT word by giving no English word/rendering for it in the verse although they sometimes gave an English word for it in their marginal note.
Henry Virkler noted: “The fallacy of composition occurs when someone assumes that what is true of the individual members of a class is true of the entire class” (Christian’s Guide to Critical Thinking, p. 202). In the glossary, Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks defined the fallacy of composition as “fallacy that assumes that what is true of the parts is true of the whole” (Come, Let Us Reason, p. 190). Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks asserted: “You cannot logically conclude anything about a whole group from something you only know about part of it, even if it looks right” (p. 82). Joshua Rasmussen observed: “It is false that whatever is true of the parts is automatically also true of the whole” (How Reason, p. 38). Joshua Rasmussen added: “Arguments that rely on the Parts to Whole principle are fallacious. They commit the fallacy of composition: they assume that the whole has all the same properties as its parts” (Ibid.). In his glossary, Gordon Clark defined composition as “an informal logical fallacy in which the characteristic of the part is attributed to the whole” (Logic, p. 134). Gordon Clark noted: “This argument is called the fallacy of composition. The logical reason is that the characteristics of components are not necessarily, nor even usually, the characteristics of the compound” (p. 13).
Use of an adjective to describe the whole text of a translation can involve use of the fallacy of composition when or if it is assumed that what is true of a few individual renderings, of many individual renderings, or even of a great majority of the individual renderings is true of all the renderings in that translation. There is an important major difference in use of an adjective to describe overall a Bible translation and use of an adjective to describe every rendering of a Bible translation.
If this incorrect use of the fallacy of composition was consistently applied including to the KJV, it would unintentionally be suggesting that the KJV could be identified as a "take away" version since the makers of the KJV in effect omitted or took away over 800 English words found in the 1539 Great Bible. The 1539 Great Bible is the first authorized English version, and it is one of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision. The additional words in the 1539 Great Bible were English translations of readings in the Greek Septuagint or in Jerome's Latin Vulgate.
The 1539 Great Bible is included in the KJV-only view's pure stream of Bibles, good line of Bibles, or good tree of Bibles. According to a consistent application of some typical KJV-only reasoning, did the 1539 Great Bible retain the quality or attribute of inspiration or was the 1611 KJV a revision of an uninspired pre-1611 English Bible?
Along with taking away these 800 words from the 1539 Great Bible, the makers of the KJV acknowledged in their 1611 marginal notes that sometimes they omitted or took away a Hebrew OT word or a Greek NT word by giving no English word/rendering for it in the verse although they sometimes gave an English word for it in their marginal note.
