Honest question

Ransom said: "Nor is sound reason "feelings." The claims of weak or false doctrine put forward by KJV-onlyists, uniformly and without exception in my experience, are based on a poor understanding of the English language, a poor understanding of Christian theology, a poor grasp of logic, or outright dishonesty, among other things. That again is not "feeling," it is a fact.".

Webster's Dictionary says,

Fact: a thing that has actually happened or that is really true; thing that has been or is. (note to Ransom: this does not include your subjective interpretation of a fact)

Feeling:
1) to think or believe, often for unanalyzed or emotional reasons, or,
2) to be aware of through intellectual perception or experience.

Reason: the ability to think, form judgments, draw conclusions, etc.

Think: to determine, resolve, work out, etc. by reasoning.

Experience: individual reaction to events, feelings, etc.

[snip]

[ February 20, 2003, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Bob 63 ]

 

Well fellas, I feeeeeel that these are the appropriate definitions for "feeling" in the context of deciding doctrinal beliefs:

#2 is especially applicable to KJVOnlyism. It is a dogma in search of a proof.

Here's a link to definitions for feeling, http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=feeling.

The noteworthy thing is that feelings can develop irrespective of facts. While reason is wholly dependent on observed facts... not discounting Harald's point that our perceptions of facts can be wrong.

That's why many of us ask KJVO's for proof. I don't claim infallibility for my perceptions nor reasoning. However, I have never gotten a convincing answer from KJVO's on the questions I asked. In fact, their evasion and deflection of direct questions that should be answerable if their beliefs were true have served to further convince me of the falsity of KJVOnlyism.

 

Yes. When I see a traffic sign I expect it to be unambiguous. However that expectation does not dictate a particular style, language, or wording. It sets an expectation that the message can be relied upon.

In Bible versions, I expect them to be of honest scholarship and to communicate the Word of God clearly- which is the message and doctrines.

I believe that the various versions communicate differently but have yet to be shown that they communicate different doctrines.

No. I believe it is more important to have the spirit of the law accurately communicated than the letter. If the AV represents the letter of the law but many English speaking people can't understand it well enough to comprehend the spirit of the law or worse they comprehend something other than the intended spirit then what good is done? Rather, isn't there great harm done?

In my finite mind, I would naturally choose that "letter of the law" that you refer to. And I promise if there was scripture or historical fact to point me to that single perfect version/mss, I would cling to it.

But the history of the Bible shows that God in His wisdom preferred that we get the complete, perfect message by methods other than perfect transmission and translation. Possibly because of man's tendency to worship things rather than God. If the originals were preserved for instance, there is no doubt in my mind that someone would be worshipping them.

Hope this helps.

 

I would tend to disagree. I don't believe God's Word in the original Koine required someone to go to someone else to understand the language. A pastor's guidance might still be needed for understanding the implications and applications but it shouldn't be because the language is not understood.

It isn't really the words that people recognize as beyond their understanding that concern me the most. It is the words like "let", "convince", "prevent", "communicate", and "conversation" that people think they understand but actually don't. I have run across preachers that mis-applied the word "conversation" in the KJV to mean 'talk' or more specifically 'to cuss'.

Agreed. But in general less and usually because of an excessively low reading ability.

 

I'm sure the KJV is a wonderful and very accurate translation. I prefer not to read from it often because I am not as fluent in 16th Century English as I am in 20th Century English. There are many many words I don't understand, words I think I understand but don't, sentence structure that I am not familiar with and therefor trip over, sentence structure that I am not familiar with and therefor simply misunderstand, etc. Indeed, in many cases, my koine Greek is better then my 16th Century English. Now now, I know everybodies 4 year old can read it fluently, so you all must have super genious kids. I didn't start to even learn the alphabet until kindergarden, and was reading See Spot Run through my first couple of years. "Brown" was a really hard word for me in first grade. So I admit I am dumber then your 4 year olds. But I understand quite well the ESV, and the NASB. Perhaps you could convince me Greek and Hebrew Text's aligning the KJV is better then the NASB, but I would probably switch to the NKJV anyway.

 

Even though you are being sarcastic, I will answer in seriousness. I actually traveled the reverse path to the one Harvest apparently traveled. I grew up in an "only" KJV, very conservative IFB church. I learned to understand it and also have developed an ability to know which words and contexts to watch out for. I like the KJV but reject KJVOnlyism.

The language of the KJV can also be an impediment to our mission of making disciples. Some people take to it more easily than others but as a practical matter other versions that teach the same things are available and I see no good reason not to use them. I typically study the KJV in parallel with one or more other versions. I am working on reading through the NASB right now.

 

Amen Brother!!

[ February 20, 2003, 10:28 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Bob 63 ]

 

While somewhat off the subject, I wanted to just say real quick that I disagree with the translation philosophy of the NIV. That is why I am against it. It has nothing to do with the underlying greek or the fact that it is a modern version.

The Harvest, if you don't like a post, use the moderator alert function.

 

Faith, Fact & Feeling said:

Fact: a thing that has actually happened or that is really true; thing that has been or is. (note to Ransom: this does not include your subjective interpretation of a fact)

I wonder: Since KJV-onlyism has never been demonstrated by any KJV-onlyist to be based on any thing that has been or is or has actually happened; has never been proven scripturally, historically or logically; is propped up by an elaborate house of cards comprising urban legends, revisionist history, logical fallacy, and outright dishonesty . . .

. . . then how is KJV-onlyism anything but
subjective?

The charge of subjectivism has already been made against KJV-onlyism. Since it has not yet been refuted, FFF's attempt to turn the accusation on the accuser is nothing but a case of the pot calling the kettle black - a cheap ploy to change the subject. It won't wash.

 

Ransom said: "Since KJV-onlyism has never been demonstrated by any KJV-onlyist to be based on any thing that has been or is or has actually happened; has never been proven scripturally, historically or logically"

1 Corinthians 1:19-20
19 For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."
20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
NIV

Just because a scholar finds something to be foolish, that does not make it so. You want absolute proof of my position, [snip] show me first absolute proof of yours. I've got news for you Ransom, you don't have it either. Your own MV condemns your [snip] man's wisdom based position.

[FFF, my first warning was via PM; this second warning is public. Any further personal attacks will result in the entire post being deleted]

[ February 21, 2003, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Bob 63 ]

 

Answer 1: I do use the KJV the very vast bulk of the time.

Answer 2:I think if you look the KJV is not heavily attacked, it is the KJVO stance that is attacked. I've only ever used KJV in my expository essays but I am thinking of mixing in one or two others (or at least some Greek) to distance myself from the KJVO stance.

DAB

 

Anyone that claims their four year old is fluent in the KJV doesn't understand the meaning of fluent. My eldest two are both advanced and the 5 year old is still stumbling, the 7 year old is getting towards fluent.

However; I have a little spin to roll past you.
I don't think the problem with bible interpretation is that people don't "understand" the verses; it is that they -think- they understand the verses and don't.

I've lead many bible studies; and people claim they find them extremely helpful; and yet all I basically do is repeat "Ok, but what does that actually mean".

People assume that the word of God can be speed-read. We are told to -meditate- upon scripture.

In doing bible verses with youngsters I -prefer- using the KJV because they -won't- know a lot of the words which slows them down to the point where they actually take the time to understand what it says.

DAB

 

Faith, Fact & Feeling said:

Just because a scholar finds something to be foolish, that does not make it so.

That may be so, but the first time I ever heard of KJV-onlyism, I was not a scholar. I was just out of high school. I want you to keep this in mind every time you want to claim "scholars" cast doubt on the KJV: A small-town teenager with a high-school diploma found KJV-onlyism foolish.

You want absolute proof of my position, [snip] show me first absolute proof of yours. I've got news for you Ransom, you don't have it either.

So what? Let's just assume I can't prove my position (which I doubt you could articulate honestly); that doesn't make your position true by default. Just because you can say I don't have a banana in my hand doesn't mean you have one in yours.

Your own MV condemns your [snip] man's wisdom based position.

No, you merely abuse the meaning of Scripture in favour of your own ideology.

 

I am not KJVO; I use the NKJV and the NIV and the CEV and the Hebrew and Greek.

The TR and CT manuscripts affirm the same truths but differ in some technical details, which interest language scholars.

When the 1611 KJV first came out, it was attacked vehemently by scholars, churchmen, and laity.

rufus

 

Ransom, your testimony gives me a keen insight into the weak foundation of your belief. You developed it as a teenager, just out of school, and based your on your feelings. My position is based on many years of prayer and comparing Bible versions. My position is that the scholars of 2000 years ago did not even know God when he came in the flesh. They sought the same sort of absolute proof (based on man’s interpretation of known facts) that you are looking for from me to justify my position. My position is that there is not a scholar today that has mastered the Bible in his own native language. My position is that the scholarship today is corrupt, and the evidence of the corruptness is in the translations they put out. My position is that spiritual discernment is needed in this issue, and not just your particular view of history or the facts. There was no abuse of scripture in my post. Scripture plainly shows that the ones who generally have the least amount of spiritual discernment are the professing scholars. It was true when Jesus came, and it’s true today.

 

I for one am not looking for "absolute" proof. There is an element of faith concerning the Bible as well as much room for interpretting relevant passages of scripture. However we do espouse an intelligent faith.

Our beliefs shouldn't just be pulled out of the air... or more precisely out of our feelings. When I ask for proof, I am looking for some proof and a reasonable response to factual objections. The reason I am not KJVO any more is because of the questions it cannot answer- with agreement to factual evidence.

The only way I could reconcile KJVO/TRO is to ascribe some sort of divine intervention to their creation process. I do not believe that fallible men were able to take a pile of evidence full of variants and produce a perfectly worded text or translation without God's direct hand. Neither Erasmus nor the KJV translators made this claim.

My position is that there has not been a scholar in any day tht mastered the Bible in any language except Christ.

This is a very small circle of circular reasoning. Why are the translations corrupt? Because the scholarship is corrupt. What is the evidence that they are? They produce corrupt translations....

Circular reasoning negates your position.

I agree. There is an element of faith and spiritual discernment. However, faith and intuition cannot be used as excuses to ignore facts that contradict our presuppositions.

That is true. But there are many professing scholars of KJVOnlyism as well.

 

85 to 90% of the New-Testament writers never claimed to be inspired.But yet they were,even if they did not know it.