-
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!
Is KJVonly a Cult?
- Thread starter Dr. Bob
- Start date
Dr. Bob,
You're still upset? Why does it have to be martyrdom when something just doesn't bother someone? And some people do give the word cult that description. It's was a very simple statement, and I feel that sometimes people let the headiness of debates, theology, and acceptability rule out the simpler things God would have us to do with our lives. These things are all very well, but what is it about a pious statement that irks you so? You used the word piety as if it were a bad word. It is an honor according to scripture.
I will not be ashamed of putting into words how I feel about what Jesus did. It seemed to be your intention to make me feel that way. Why?
KJVO should not be called a cult. There is a point it should not go beyond, but it is not in and of itself satanic.
Gina
You're still upset? Why does it have to be martyrdom when something just doesn't bother someone? And some people do give the word cult that description. It's was a very simple statement, and I feel that sometimes people let the headiness of debates, theology, and acceptability rule out the simpler things God would have us to do with our lives. These things are all very well, but what is it about a pious statement that irks you so? You used the word piety as if it were a bad word. It is an honor according to scripture.
I will not be ashamed of putting into words how I feel about what Jesus did. It seemed to be your intention to make me feel that way. Why?
KJVO should not be called a cult. There is a point it should not go beyond, but it is not in and of itself satanic.
Gina
I am jumping into this discussion midstream, but here goes. I would consider myself a KJV person, but NOT to the extreme of Peter Ruckman, Gail Riplinger, etc. I have always had major problems with Ruckman's theories of if the KJV and TR differ, than the KJV is correct. The question that I have always posed to those that espouse such things, "How can a translation be superior to its source??" Needless to say, they won't answer me!!
I don't get all hyped out and yell AMEN when someone mentions the KJV 1611. I sit there and usually chuckle because of their ignorance, I have a facsimilie copy of a 1611 hardback edition put out by Thomas Nelson years ago. In fact, my former pastor in CA still preaches from a Bible like this. Most of us carry around the 1769 revision to the KJV, but you never hear any preachers say that from the pulpit.
I guess this will always be a controversy until we get to heaven.
My purpose here is to inform not manipulate..
I don't get all hyped out and yell AMEN when someone mentions the KJV 1611. I sit there and usually chuckle because of their ignorance, I have a facsimilie copy of a 1611 hardback edition put out by Thomas Nelson years ago. In fact, my former pastor in CA still preaches from a Bible like this. Most of us carry around the 1769 revision to the KJV, but you never hear any preachers say that from the pulpit.
I guess this will always be a controversy until we get to heaven.
My purpose here is to inform not manipulate..
Dear Gina - My hyperbole and humor may be new to some BaptistBoard readers. I truly do not feel like a "martyr" and trust that those who are in the KJVonly camp likewise do not feel "martyred" for their position.
I simply asked a question - is this type of belief a "cult"? And I appreciate your reasonned response on the negative side of the issue. I certainly would never equate KJVonly with Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses!
They are worse!
(See, that is my odd humor showing through -- and it is obvious that I am saying that tongue-in-cheek! I love the KJV and it is the only English translation of God's Word that I use in my pulpit ministry.)
I simply asked a question - is this type of belief a "cult"? And I appreciate your reasonned response on the negative side of the issue. I certainly would never equate KJVonly with Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses!
They are worse!
(See, that is my odd humor showing through -- and it is obvious that I am saying that tongue-in-cheek! I love the KJV and it is the only English translation of God's Word that I use in my pulpit ministry.)
tentpreacher
New Member
Guess I will jump in on this subject. First let me say that I do not intend to defend any one translation of the Scripture or any one Greek text-type, but rather critically evaluate the arguments being used in favor of preferring the Byzantine Text and Textus Receptus/KJV over the Critical Text/modern translations, demonstrating their weaknesses. Such an evaluation is a prerequisite for the formation of any well-informed position on such an important issue as this.
When delving into an issue such as this there are many technical terms to which most believers are not well acquainted. In order to avoid confusion I will define these terms and describe how they are being used.
There are two terms used to refer to the Greek manuscripts which reflect readings contained in the majority of all extant manuscripts: Byzantine Text, Majority Text. I will use the former term in reference to the corpus of all individual manuscripts reflecting a majority of all readings (the corpus of which is referred to as a 'family' or 'text-type'), and the latter term when speaking of the published text reflecting an eclectic (choosing the most likely original readings from among all existing variants contained in the manuscripts) reading of all individual Byzantine Text-type manuscripts.
This published text is called The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, published in 1982 by Thomas Nelson Publishers (Nashville). The text was edited by Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad, with the help of Wilbur Pickering. Until that time there was no official published Greek text which contained the readings found in the majority of all manuscripts. This text is the only modern attempt to accumulate the majority of readings from all existing manuscripts, and collate them into one document.
There are also two terms used to refer to the Greek manuscripts which reflect certain readings contained in a minority of all extant manuscripts: Critical Text, Minority Text. I will only use the former term in reference to both the corpus of all individual manuscripts reflecting non-Byzantine readings, and the two primary published texts reflecting an eclectic and critical reading of all manuscripts. These two texts are United Bible Societies 4th edition (UBS) and Nestle-Aland 27th edition (NA).
There is a distinction between a "reading" and a "text/text-type." A text/text-type is a whole document (manuscript) or collection of documents (manuscripts) reflecting certain characteristics. A reading is a particular portion of a whole document.
One more issue needs to be noted for those readers who are somewhat familiar with the terminology employed in these kinds of discussions. The Byzantine Text is often referred to by others as the "Majority Text," the two terms being used virtually synonymously. Such an exchange of terminology can confuse the reader to believe that the "Majority Text" means that all manuscripts classified by this name always contain the majority of readings found among all existing Greek manuscripts. Such is not the case. This is just one reason why I choose to refer to these same manuscripts by the term "Byzantine Texts."
The label of "Majority Text" can also be confused with the published text of Hodges/Farstad referred to as the Majority Text. Because of the confusion that can result it seems better to refer to the manuscript text-type as "Byzantine," and the published, eclectic text of this same corpus of manuscripts as the "Majority Text."
Now, with the above distinctions of text/reading we can distinguish between an individual Byzantine manuscript as a text-type, and the majority of all readings. The former is a document which most often contains readings found in the majority of all existing manuscripts, while the latter is the way the majority of all manuscripts record a particular section of Scripture. The Byzantine Text-type consists of readings which usually manifest conformity to the majority of all extant manuscripts. The fact remains that every reading in each Byzantine manuscript does not always contain the reading found in the majority of all extant manuscripts regardless of text-type. There are places in every individual manuscript of the "Majority Text-type" wherein are contained readings found in the minority of all extant Greek manuscripts. So each "Majority Text-type" manuscript (as it is referred to by others) does contain minority readings. The Majority Text published by Hodges/Farstad extracted the majority readings found by comparison of all Greek manuscripts, and collated them into one Greek text.
It is being noted today that the new translations of the Bible do more than modernize the language of the KJV, but change other vital aspects as well. The changes are often associated with Satan and his desire to pervert the Word of God. While it is true that there are more differences in the translations than language style, to say that the differences have been a perversion or change to the Word of God is a judgment call based on certain presuppositions. To say that something has been changed assumes a standard by which all else is to be judged for variation. It appears to have been assumed that the KJV is the unperverted Word of God because it is based on the Byzantine Text-type, and therefore is the standard by which all other versions are to be judged for accuracy.
The real question is, What constitutes the Word of God? The simple fact of the matter is that all translations, including the KJV, are based on Greek manuscripts discovered over the centuries, which are copies of the original autographs penned by the apostles. It is those original autographs that are the true Word of God. Any translation to be considered the Word of God must accurately reflect the originals..
The ~5400 manuscripts of the New Testament which we currently possess do differ in several places, as is to be expected with the written transmission of any historical document. This is not to say that we have no certainty as to the original wording of the New Testament. Textual critics have ascertained the certainty of 98.33 % of the text. Less than two percent of the text is subject to question, making the New Testament the best preserved ancient text known to man. It is the remaining 1.67 %, however, which affects the different translations of the New Testament available today.The two broadest categories/families of texts (although there are more) are known as the Byzantine Text Text (a.k.a. Majority Text) and Critical Text (a.k.a. Minority Text). The smaller, less significant families of text are called the Western Text and Caesarean Text. The Critical Text dates older than the Byzantine, but is also more limited in count. The real issue is not which English translation is best per se, but rather which Greek text underlying the various translations most accurately reflects the original autographs.
When delving into an issue such as this there are many technical terms to which most believers are not well acquainted. In order to avoid confusion I will define these terms and describe how they are being used.
There are two terms used to refer to the Greek manuscripts which reflect readings contained in the majority of all extant manuscripts: Byzantine Text, Majority Text. I will use the former term in reference to the corpus of all individual manuscripts reflecting a majority of all readings (the corpus of which is referred to as a 'family' or 'text-type'), and the latter term when speaking of the published text reflecting an eclectic (choosing the most likely original readings from among all existing variants contained in the manuscripts) reading of all individual Byzantine Text-type manuscripts.
This published text is called The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, published in 1982 by Thomas Nelson Publishers (Nashville). The text was edited by Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad, with the help of Wilbur Pickering. Until that time there was no official published Greek text which contained the readings found in the majority of all manuscripts. This text is the only modern attempt to accumulate the majority of readings from all existing manuscripts, and collate them into one document.
There are also two terms used to refer to the Greek manuscripts which reflect certain readings contained in a minority of all extant manuscripts: Critical Text, Minority Text. I will only use the former term in reference to both the corpus of all individual manuscripts reflecting non-Byzantine readings, and the two primary published texts reflecting an eclectic and critical reading of all manuscripts. These two texts are United Bible Societies 4th edition (UBS) and Nestle-Aland 27th edition (NA).
There is a distinction between a "reading" and a "text/text-type." A text/text-type is a whole document (manuscript) or collection of documents (manuscripts) reflecting certain characteristics. A reading is a particular portion of a whole document.
One more issue needs to be noted for those readers who are somewhat familiar with the terminology employed in these kinds of discussions. The Byzantine Text is often referred to by others as the "Majority Text," the two terms being used virtually synonymously. Such an exchange of terminology can confuse the reader to believe that the "Majority Text" means that all manuscripts classified by this name always contain the majority of readings found among all existing Greek manuscripts. Such is not the case. This is just one reason why I choose to refer to these same manuscripts by the term "Byzantine Texts."
The label of "Majority Text" can also be confused with the published text of Hodges/Farstad referred to as the Majority Text. Because of the confusion that can result it seems better to refer to the manuscript text-type as "Byzantine," and the published, eclectic text of this same corpus of manuscripts as the "Majority Text."
Now, with the above distinctions of text/reading we can distinguish between an individual Byzantine manuscript as a text-type, and the majority of all readings. The former is a document which most often contains readings found in the majority of all existing manuscripts, while the latter is the way the majority of all manuscripts record a particular section of Scripture. The Byzantine Text-type consists of readings which usually manifest conformity to the majority of all extant manuscripts. The fact remains that every reading in each Byzantine manuscript does not always contain the reading found in the majority of all extant manuscripts regardless of text-type. There are places in every individual manuscript of the "Majority Text-type" wherein are contained readings found in the minority of all extant Greek manuscripts. So each "Majority Text-type" manuscript (as it is referred to by others) does contain minority readings. The Majority Text published by Hodges/Farstad extracted the majority readings found by comparison of all Greek manuscripts, and collated them into one Greek text.
It is being noted today that the new translations of the Bible do more than modernize the language of the KJV, but change other vital aspects as well. The changes are often associated with Satan and his desire to pervert the Word of God. While it is true that there are more differences in the translations than language style, to say that the differences have been a perversion or change to the Word of God is a judgment call based on certain presuppositions. To say that something has been changed assumes a standard by which all else is to be judged for variation. It appears to have been assumed that the KJV is the unperverted Word of God because it is based on the Byzantine Text-type, and therefore is the standard by which all other versions are to be judged for accuracy.
The real question is, What constitutes the Word of God? The simple fact of the matter is that all translations, including the KJV, are based on Greek manuscripts discovered over the centuries, which are copies of the original autographs penned by the apostles. It is those original autographs that are the true Word of God. Any translation to be considered the Word of God must accurately reflect the originals..
The ~5400 manuscripts of the New Testament which we currently possess do differ in several places, as is to be expected with the written transmission of any historical document. This is not to say that we have no certainty as to the original wording of the New Testament. Textual critics have ascertained the certainty of 98.33 % of the text. Less than two percent of the text is subject to question, making the New Testament the best preserved ancient text known to man. It is the remaining 1.67 %, however, which affects the different translations of the New Testament available today.The two broadest categories/families of texts (although there are more) are known as the Byzantine Text Text (a.k.a. Majority Text) and Critical Text (a.k.a. Minority Text). The smaller, less significant families of text are called the Western Text and Caesarean Text. The Critical Text dates older than the Byzantine, but is also more limited in count. The real issue is not which English translation is best per se, but rather which Greek text underlying the various translations most accurately reflects the original autographs.
Chris Temple
New Member
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> This published text is called The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, published in 1982 by Thomas Nelson Publishers (Nashville). The text was edited by Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad, with the help of Wilbur Pickering....This text is the only modern attempt to accumulate the majority of readings from all existing manuscripts, and collate them into one document.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not entirely true. One other is published, The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Byzantine/ Majority Textform, by Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont.
Not entirely true. One other is published, The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Byzantine/ Majority Textform, by Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont.
Bob L. Ross
New Member
The "KingJamesOnlyism" of the advocates with whom I am acquainted seems to be entrepeneurmanship more than anything else. It reminds me somewhat of the "health food fadists." My nemesis, "Possel" Ruckman of Pensacola, as a "ministry" makes a good living off of people who buy his books, tapes, videos, etc. about this issue. (I even bought one of his KJVO belt-buckles and keep it in our Bible showcase as a "conversation piece"). He calls his products "Scriptural Art Products" (SAP). Gail Riplinger has built a successful publishing business on KJVOism, and Jack Hyles made her a "Doctor" on account of her KJVOism work. The Sword of the Lord Bible Conference preacher-group and church-fellowship seems to be held together by this common KJVO bond, even though Sword founder Dr. John R. Rice was anti-KingJamesOnly. Dr. Rice took issue in the Sword with David Otis Fuller, Peter Ruckman, and E. L. Bynum on KJVOism. But the current Sword sells ads, and several ads are embellished by reference to the "KJV" in the ads. "KJV" has become somewhat of a shibboleth in the Sword. I have never seen an ad which mentioned another translation favorably. -- Bob L. Ross
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> And someone telling me, while I study the Greek and Hebrew, that I am a cult because I don't have the only inspired and preserved Word of God (KJV1769 revision) is not valid. I have not deviated from normative, orthodox christianity; they have.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So, since one side is calling you a cultic member, does it make it right to call them one?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So, since one side is calling you a cultic member, does it make it right to call them one?
Simply put, I have not deviated from the inspired Word or added to it - parts of the classic definition of a "cult". So I do not like to be falsely called a cult.
That will not stop me from pointing out the doctrinal and interpretive errors in other groups. Hey, I'm out here in Mormon country and they go ballistic and are really hyper about being labeled a cult.
But they are. Can't change the spots on the leopard . . .
That will not stop me from pointing out the doctrinal and interpretive errors in other groups. Hey, I'm out here in Mormon country and they go ballistic and are really hyper about being labeled a cult.
But they are. Can't change the spots on the leopard . . .
Well, I just signed on today, so I'm 4 or 5
days behind on this discussion. I trust in
the KJV for one reason only, my Lord told me
to. I do have a couple of Questions though.
1. If you have a church that uses more than one version, will that not create confusion
somewhere up the road?, just because of the
FACT that of all the diffrent versions,none
agree 100% on everything important. Now I'm
sure you'll agree that God is not the author
of cofusion.
2.Why would God suddenly decide that the 1611 is too out of date and have (I'm guessing)15-20 diffrent versions come out
in the last50-100 years? ( again I'm no
historian so the nos. may be off a little).
You will have a hard time convinceing me that with all the heated debates that this subject stirs up that it can be to Gods
glory.
Just wondering thats all
stirs up
days behind on this discussion. I trust in
the KJV for one reason only, my Lord told me
to. I do have a couple of Questions though.
1. If you have a church that uses more than one version, will that not create confusion
somewhere up the road?, just because of the
FACT that of all the diffrent versions,none
agree 100% on everything important. Now I'm
sure you'll agree that God is not the author
of cofusion.
2.Why would God suddenly decide that the 1611 is too out of date and have (I'm guessing)15-20 diffrent versions come out
in the last50-100 years? ( again I'm no
historian so the nos. may be off a little).
You will have a hard time convinceing me that with all the heated debates that this subject stirs up that it can be to Gods
glory.
Just wondering thats all
stirs up
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by preacher:
1. If you have a church that uses more than one version, will that not create confusion somewhere up the road?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The only people I have ever met who seem to be confused by the existence of multiple translations of the Bible are KJVOs. This is a straw man argument (it is a creation of KJVOs; an invented [fabricated]'problem,' if you will).
If you sincerely believe that [multiple] versions cause "confusion," then what is your response to the following?
Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures...
The above was the opinion of the KJV translators found in the original preface of the AV1611. Preacher, do you differ from that opinion?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>just because of the
FACT that of all the diffrent versions,none
agree 100% on everything important. Now I'm
sure you'll agree that God is not the author
of cofusion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Again, an assertion that can't be sustained. The "different versions" do agree on every major doctrine (i.e., you can demonstrate any major doctrine [what you consider "everything important"] from any version of the Bible). Pick a major (essential) doctrine and I can give you support for it from the NIV, NASB, KJV, etc. This is just another straw man--if not an absolute falshood.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>2.Why would God suddenly decide that the 1611 is too out of date and have (I'm guessing)15-20 diffrent versions come out in the last50-100 years? ( again I'm no
historian so the nos. may be off a little).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Why would God suddenly decide that 1611 is the year that the Geneva Bible was too out of date and needed updating or retranslating? Why would he wait almost a millenium and a half to deliver his perfect word in English to us?
Your questions have no answers like mine do not. They are all rhetorical. The one truth that does explain all of these questions is this: God didn't decide that it was time for translations to be made; he decided when the originals were to be written. Translations are works of imperfect men (although God does use them and they are indeed the Word of God where they accurately convey the meaning of the original)...don't forget that.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You will have a hard time convinceing me that with all the heated debates that this subject stirs up that it can be to Gods glory.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Finally, a point on which we agree. To debate, I would add churches split, Christian fellowship harmed, families torn apart (not being melodramatic here), and many other atrocities that have been the direct or indirect result of this man-made doctrine.
Sincerely,
1. If you have a church that uses more than one version, will that not create confusion somewhere up the road?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The only people I have ever met who seem to be confused by the existence of multiple translations of the Bible are KJVOs. This is a straw man argument (it is a creation of KJVOs; an invented [fabricated]'problem,' if you will).
If you sincerely believe that [multiple] versions cause "confusion," then what is your response to the following?
Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures...
The above was the opinion of the KJV translators found in the original preface of the AV1611. Preacher, do you differ from that opinion?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>just because of the
FACT that of all the diffrent versions,none
agree 100% on everything important. Now I'm
sure you'll agree that God is not the author
of cofusion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Again, an assertion that can't be sustained. The "different versions" do agree on every major doctrine (i.e., you can demonstrate any major doctrine [what you consider "everything important"] from any version of the Bible). Pick a major (essential) doctrine and I can give you support for it from the NIV, NASB, KJV, etc. This is just another straw man--if not an absolute falshood.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>2.Why would God suddenly decide that the 1611 is too out of date and have (I'm guessing)15-20 diffrent versions come out in the last50-100 years? ( again I'm no
historian so the nos. may be off a little).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Why would God suddenly decide that 1611 is the year that the Geneva Bible was too out of date and needed updating or retranslating? Why would he wait almost a millenium and a half to deliver his perfect word in English to us?
Your questions have no answers like mine do not. They are all rhetorical. The one truth that does explain all of these questions is this: God didn't decide that it was time for translations to be made; he decided when the originals were to be written. Translations are works of imperfect men (although God does use them and they are indeed the Word of God where they accurately convey the meaning of the original)...don't forget that.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You will have a hard time convinceing me that with all the heated debates that this subject stirs up that it can be to Gods glory.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Finally, a point on which we agree. To debate, I would add churches split, Christian fellowship harmed, families torn apart (not being melodramatic here), and many other atrocities that have been the direct or indirect result of this man-made doctrine.
Sincerely,
< If you have a church that uses more than one version, will that not create confusion
somewhere up the road?, just because of the
FACT that of all the diffrent versions,none
agree 100% on everything important. Now I'm
sure you'll agree that God is not the author
of cofusion. >
I also have wondered why God gave us 4 different 'gospels' which narrate different events and give different details about the same event. For instance, just what did the sign above Jesus' head on the cross read: "This is Jesus, the king of the Jews"-- Matthew 27:37 ; "The king of the Jews"-- Mark 15:26 ; "This is the king of the Jews"-- Luke 24:38 ; or "Jesus of Nazareth the king of the Jews"-- John 19:19? Was "This is" included? Was "of Nazareth" included? *Things different are not the same*, as 'KJVO's like to say. And if "different versions" create confusion, and God is not the author of confusion, why did He give us the words of the sign differently?
< Why would God suddenly decide that the 1611 is too out of date >
Just when did He decide it was *in date* and the Geneva Bible, Great Bible, Bishops' Bible, et al, were out of date? Was it God who decided that His people will have to wait almost 16 centuries after apostolic revelation before the *right* Word would be given? Face it, bud-- translations are man's endeavors to understand the Word clearly in one's native language. The examples of the 4 gospels and their differing details shows that He does not authorize one, and only one, translation [version], or even just one translation per language.
< You will have a hard time convinceing me that with all the heated debates that this subject stirs up that it can be to Gods
glory. >
What then is your reason for contributing to these "heated debates?"
somewhere up the road?, just because of the
FACT that of all the diffrent versions,none
agree 100% on everything important. Now I'm
sure you'll agree that God is not the author
of cofusion. >
I also have wondered why God gave us 4 different 'gospels' which narrate different events and give different details about the same event. For instance, just what did the sign above Jesus' head on the cross read: "This is Jesus, the king of the Jews"-- Matthew 27:37 ; "The king of the Jews"-- Mark 15:26 ; "This is the king of the Jews"-- Luke 24:38 ; or "Jesus of Nazareth the king of the Jews"-- John 19:19? Was "This is" included? Was "of Nazareth" included? *Things different are not the same*, as 'KJVO's like to say. And if "different versions" create confusion, and God is not the author of confusion, why did He give us the words of the sign differently?
< Why would God suddenly decide that the 1611 is too out of date >
Just when did He decide it was *in date* and the Geneva Bible, Great Bible, Bishops' Bible, et al, were out of date? Was it God who decided that His people will have to wait almost 16 centuries after apostolic revelation before the *right* Word would be given? Face it, bud-- translations are man's endeavors to understand the Word clearly in one's native language. The examples of the 4 gospels and their differing details shows that He does not authorize one, and only one, translation [version], or even just one translation per language.
< You will have a hard time convinceing me that with all the heated debates that this subject stirs up that it can be to Gods
glory. >
What then is your reason for contributing to these "heated debates?"
PreservedWords
New Member
Wayne Rossi
New Member
Dear PreservedWords,
I sort of hope that there is a debate/rhetoric professor reading these columns. Your post is a perfect example of bad and fallacious argumentation.
1. Argument ad hominem (at the man, not at the argument). You criticize proponents of Bibles translated after 1611 as, among other things, unbelievers in scripture and relativists. Not only is this form of attack generally considered the weapon of the person with no real arguments, but your particular attacks are unjustified. Not all believe as you do. Hence:
2. Straw Man arguments. (Setting up a straw man to knock down in favor of your position.) You set up an "all MVs are equal" stance, saying (essentially) that proponents of modern Bible translations do not carefully consider and pray over the question of correctness of any given version of the Scriptures. I do not consider, say, the New English Bible to be up to par as accuracy goes, and I also have a marked liking for the New King James Version and the God's Word translation. An integral part of the modern translations position is that there are quality differences between the versions that we have today, and that we should attempt to find the one that most closely fits God's revealed Scriptures.
3. False dichotomy. One must be "KJVO" or "BRIPPO" in your model. Dichotomies have a tendency to be false, though. There is the entire spectrum of versions and combinations within--I might prefer the NKJV and GW, but I also look regularly to the NIV and KJV, and wish to buy more translations so that I may better study and understand God's Scriptures. One must be for the most loose, biased translation to support modern Bible versions? I think not. This is used to make your faulty position sound reasoned and appealing.
4. Faulty logic. The basic tenets of KJVO can be simplified into a logical argument as follows:
P1: If God has promised to preserve the Bible, then He has Preserved the Bible.
P2: God has promised to preserve the Bible.
C1: God has preserved the Bible. (P4)
P3: If God has preserved the Bible, then the Bible should not contain errors.
P4: God has preserved the Bible.
C2: The Bible should not contain errors. (P6)
P5: If the Bible should not contain errors, versions with errors cannot be considered the Bible.
P6: The Bible should not contain errors.
C3: Versions with errors cannot be considered the Bible. (P7)
(Thus far, the argument is sound and has used simple Modus Ponens.)
P7: Versions with errors cannot be considered the bible.
P8: If several versions differ, only one can be without error.
C4: If several versions differ, only one can be considered the Bible. (P9)
P9: If several versions differ, only one can be considered the Bible.
P10: The Textus Receptus, Majority Text, and Critical Text (the three most important published NTs) differ.
C5: Of the TR, MT, and CT, only one can be considered the Bible. (P13) (Caveat emptor: oversimplified, but workable for the basis here.)
P11: The earliest published text is the Bible.
P12: The TR is the earliest published text.
C6: The TR is the Bible. (P14)
P13: Of the TR, MT, and CT, only one can be considered the Bible.
P14: The TR is the Bible.
C7: The MT and CT cannot be considered the Bible.
This is all logically sound (and very long), which means that if EVERY proposition is true, then the conclusion will be true. The sticking point is P11, of which I can find no logical expression save "The earliest published text is the Bible." There is no scriptural or manuscript proof for the sanctity of the TR, and that is hence the only explanation I find logical. Satisfactory? Hardly.
Unless you can find me a logical framework better than the one I have provided (which took 7 syllogisms to demonstrate), I must ask that you provide me with a solid argument for P11. Providential preservation in no way, shape, or form argues for a particular manuscript, only for the existence of a real, in tact Bible. Solving what I have here labelled P11 will get you the most solid argument you can find for any position--which is why it's so hard. Until then, your argument stands on no foundation. (Psalm 12 does not count, as it does not refer to specific versions.)
5. Poor literary criticism. The "them" of Ps. 12:7 is the weak and needy, not the Words of the Lord. It is also not sufficient proof of the inspiration of a *particular* version. You need to do better than that.
-Wayne
I sort of hope that there is a debate/rhetoric professor reading these columns. Your post is a perfect example of bad and fallacious argumentation.
1. Argument ad hominem (at the man, not at the argument). You criticize proponents of Bibles translated after 1611 as, among other things, unbelievers in scripture and relativists. Not only is this form of attack generally considered the weapon of the person with no real arguments, but your particular attacks are unjustified. Not all believe as you do. Hence:
2. Straw Man arguments. (Setting up a straw man to knock down in favor of your position.) You set up an "all MVs are equal" stance, saying (essentially) that proponents of modern Bible translations do not carefully consider and pray over the question of correctness of any given version of the Scriptures. I do not consider, say, the New English Bible to be up to par as accuracy goes, and I also have a marked liking for the New King James Version and the God's Word translation. An integral part of the modern translations position is that there are quality differences between the versions that we have today, and that we should attempt to find the one that most closely fits God's revealed Scriptures.
3. False dichotomy. One must be "KJVO" or "BRIPPO" in your model. Dichotomies have a tendency to be false, though. There is the entire spectrum of versions and combinations within--I might prefer the NKJV and GW, but I also look regularly to the NIV and KJV, and wish to buy more translations so that I may better study and understand God's Scriptures. One must be for the most loose, biased translation to support modern Bible versions? I think not. This is used to make your faulty position sound reasoned and appealing.
4. Faulty logic. The basic tenets of KJVO can be simplified into a logical argument as follows:
P1: If God has promised to preserve the Bible, then He has Preserved the Bible.
P2: God has promised to preserve the Bible.
C1: God has preserved the Bible. (P4)
P3: If God has preserved the Bible, then the Bible should not contain errors.
P4: God has preserved the Bible.
C2: The Bible should not contain errors. (P6)
P5: If the Bible should not contain errors, versions with errors cannot be considered the Bible.
P6: The Bible should not contain errors.
C3: Versions with errors cannot be considered the Bible. (P7)
(Thus far, the argument is sound and has used simple Modus Ponens.)
P7: Versions with errors cannot be considered the bible.
P8: If several versions differ, only one can be without error.
C4: If several versions differ, only one can be considered the Bible. (P9)
P9: If several versions differ, only one can be considered the Bible.
P10: The Textus Receptus, Majority Text, and Critical Text (the three most important published NTs) differ.
C5: Of the TR, MT, and CT, only one can be considered the Bible. (P13) (Caveat emptor: oversimplified, but workable for the basis here.)
P11: The earliest published text is the Bible.
P12: The TR is the earliest published text.
C6: The TR is the Bible. (P14)
P13: Of the TR, MT, and CT, only one can be considered the Bible.
P14: The TR is the Bible.
C7: The MT and CT cannot be considered the Bible.
This is all logically sound (and very long), which means that if EVERY proposition is true, then the conclusion will be true. The sticking point is P11, of which I can find no logical expression save "The earliest published text is the Bible." There is no scriptural or manuscript proof for the sanctity of the TR, and that is hence the only explanation I find logical. Satisfactory? Hardly.
Unless you can find me a logical framework better than the one I have provided (which took 7 syllogisms to demonstrate), I must ask that you provide me with a solid argument for P11. Providential preservation in no way, shape, or form argues for a particular manuscript, only for the existence of a real, in tact Bible. Solving what I have here labelled P11 will get you the most solid argument you can find for any position--which is why it's so hard. Until then, your argument stands on no foundation. (Psalm 12 does not count, as it does not refer to specific versions.)
5. Poor literary criticism. The "them" of Ps. 12:7 is the weak and needy, not the Words of the Lord. It is also not sufficient proof of the inspiration of a *particular* version. You need to do better than that.
-Wayne
Hi,
I'm new to this board and my feeling is that
KJVO is not a cult because they are saved (in comparison to JW's, Mormons, Christadelphians, New Age, etc...).
Maybe I'm a little prejudice, I feel the same way the KJVO do about the Greek and Hebrew behind the 1611AV as they do about the King's English that Paul used
How about I am a PTKJVAAO (Prefer the King James Version Above All Others).
I guess "close but no cigar" oops forgot, we are Baptists (Spurgeon excepted).
Anyway one of my favorite verses in the KJV is Revelation 14:2b
...and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps:
Hank D
I'm new to this board and my feeling is that
KJVO is not a cult because they are saved (in comparison to JW's, Mormons, Christadelphians, New Age, etc...).
Maybe I'm a little prejudice, I feel the same way the KJVO do about the Greek and Hebrew behind the 1611AV as they do about the King's English that Paul used
How about I am a PTKJVAAO (Prefer the King James Version Above All Others).
I guess "close but no cigar" oops forgot, we are Baptists (Spurgeon excepted).
Anyway one of my favorite verses in the KJV is Revelation 14:2b
...and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps:
Hank D
Natan'el Bar Tholmai
New Member
What an excellent discussion. Was amazed to see the first post - listing of a cult and its obvious parallels to the KJVonly - AND to see Dr. Cassidy agreeing (on the most part) with Dr. McDowell and Dr. Bob.
And they say miracles never happen!
And they say miracles never happen!