Continued:Presuppositionalism and KJV Onlyism

AV: //You cannot bring new bibles into the equation without bringing in the problem of authenticating the scripture empirically (at the end) rather than presuppositionally (at the beginning).//

If what you say is true, then the
KJV cannot be that inerrant final authority
for the KJV was a new Bible (in 1611).
What was God's inerrant authority prior to
1611?

 

AV,
Your whole premise is faulty. It is impossible for a translation to be inspired for a number of reasons.
1. Which translation?
2. Which language/
3, If Egnlish, then do we assume that God is a bigot? It sure looks like it. Only 10% of the world speaks English. I am sure that Christ died for more than just 10% of the world.
4. Translations are done by men. Men are fallible and make mistakes. God only inspired by the original manuscripts as he guided the hands of "holy men of old," and by extension the apostles, the authors of the New Testament. The KJV translators were not those "holy men of old" that the Bible speaks of. To say such is heresy.
5. Every translation has mistakes by the sheer reason that every translation loses some meaning when translated. No translation can be perfectly translated from one language to another. Anyone that is well acquainted with more than one language knows this fact well. There are many expressions in different langauges that are just untranslatable. And there are many examples of that in the English Bible itslef.
Thus it is impossible for the KJV to be inspired and infallible.
To even think that thought is ludicrous for the simple fact that you probably don't use the 1611 KJV anyway, but the 5th editioo of it printed in 1769 over 100 years later. If it was perfect and infallible, why would God have to revise something that was perfect and infallible. The KJVO theory fails on that one point alone.
DHK

 

AV: //Ed, ... yet you contend for no perfect bible in any language ever.//

Sorry, you have me confused with someone else.
I NEVER in the 28 months (3-1/3 years)
i've been posting on the BB NEVER EVER said anything that
could be construed that way. Well, at least I tryed not to.

In fact, I had many debates where i took the position:
ALL ENGLISH versions of the Bible are individually
and collectively the inerrant Written Word of God:
the Holy Bible.

 

AV: / Yeah I have heard many such things, I am curious when they became collectively inerrant?//

When they were collected.
Even all three of my different versions of the
King James Bible (KJB) are individually and collectively
the inerrant Written Word of God: the Holy Bible.

BTW, the whole bankrupt concept of presuppositionalism
depends upon the presupposition that man's logic
can figure out the mind of God.

AV: // Do you have anything to add to help solve
the presuppositional dilemma that I pointed out?//

No. I presuppose that each and every version is
individually and collectively the inerrant Written
Word of God: the Holy Bible. I then contend
that God has given people enough collective wisdom
to figure out what God is saying, if some discrepancy
appears between two of the above Bibles.

BUt hey, I just know stuff like Logic and Mathematics
and don't have no THD.

 

In modern times with digital copies of everything this may be hard to imagine but this is precisely what was happening early in Church history, the original manuscripts were being worn out and their were a lot of what then were considered modern translations coming out that were loosing their integrity to the original. The Church had St Jerome in `400AD obtain all the oldest authentic manuscripts in christedom and translate scripture into what is known as the latin vulgate so a base copy of authentic scripture would always be available in fact the translators of the KJV thank jerome in their original manuscript for his translation which helped them come up with KJV among other resources they used.

Also of interest is that just before the KJV came out in English a Catholic English version came out called the Douey-Rheims that was translated based on the Vulgate. Their was a 90% word for word correlation between the original Douey-Rheims and the original KJV.

 

I think this discussion will really lead nowhere for two reasons:
(1)The so-called dilemma is a false one. It assumes that the original mss have not been preserved faithfully enough and that God's teachings to us are in grave doubt. Unless we universally agree on one (presumably English) text to follow, we won't really know what the Bible is trying to say to us, and we will be stranded in a wilderness of theological confusion. This is simply not the case. As far as I know the arrival of the KJV did not correct any previous doctrinal doubts, and MVs do not attempt to correct the KJV as far as theology is concerned. God has in fact preserved His word to us throughout the centuries, although perhaps not in the precise way that KJVOism demands. (2)Even if the dilemma was real, there is no objective way of determining which text is the inerrant one. All "proofs" for the KJV as the perfect Bible are subjective (its popularity, influence, etc.) and will never convince anyone not already predisposed to accept them. You could just as easily argue that the NIV is the inerrant text, by making emotional appeals and a selective use of the evidence. The whole presuppositional debate, then, is merely an intellectual (or perhaps pseudo-intellectual) exercise. It addresses a problem that is more contrived than real.

 

Exile: //The so-called dilemma is a false one. It assumes that the original mss have not been preserved faithfully enough and that God's teachings to us are in grave doubt. Unless we universally agree on one (presumably English) text to follow, we won't really know what the Bible is trying to say to us, and we will be stranded in a wilderness of theological confusion. This is simply not the case.//

Amen, Sibling Exile - preach it!!
I started a series through a handfull of topics over
in the Versions (Baptist only) Forum - that series deleniated
a list of KJV misreadings that lead to error doctrines.
No translation from Greek to English problem, a problem with
understanding the English.

1Th 5:22 (KJV1611 Edition):
Abstaine from all appearance of euill.

The typical misunderstanding is:
avoid anything that looks like it might be evil

The real understanding is:
avoid evil every time it shows up

The word translated 'appearance' is this Greek word
according to STRONG's:

G1491
εἶδος
eidos
i'-dos
From G1492; a view, that is, form (literally
or figuratively): - appearance, fashion,
shape, sight.


The 1611 meaning of 'appearance' is
'fashion or shape'; the 2005 meaning of
'appearance' is 'looks like'. To bad the
1611 Translators didn't know what 2005
lingo would be like

 

AV: " ... BECAUSE man cannot figure out the mind of God he gave us the bible which we must suppose to be true in order to know any single fact."

I agree. But you like to argue with people
who don't agree.

By faith I believe that God is able to
preserve His Written Word in that:
All English Versions are collectively and
individually the inerrant Written Word
of God, the Holy Bible. Amen & Amen.

 

You need to stop here a minute. We translate from Greek: Period. We translate from Greek to English; from Greek to French; from Greek to German; from Greek to Arabic, etc., etc. Why do you say that we would have to translate back to Greek again. That sounds kind of ludicrous?

Like I mentioned, you are not making sense.

You limit God by confining him to just one translation. The fact that you cannot see that is incredible.

In a sense that is true. You can take some Old Testament quotations and compare them and see if they are word for word perfect. They aren't.
I will give you one simple example.

Luke 9:54 And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?

Why is the "Elijah" consistently translated "Elias" throughout the New Testament? The difference comes because of the Greek language. But if you were not familiar with the Bible, perhaps a new believer, you might wonder who this Elias was. This is just a one word translation. There are entire verses and/or passages that are not quoted word for word. Meaning is lost in the translation. To get a better understanding of the quote one must always go back and see the context of the quote and read it in the "original" (i.e. Old Testament). Then your understanding of such a passage will be broadened. Such is the case in 1Cor.14:21 and Isaiah 28:11,12.

1 Corinthians 14:21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.

Isaiah 28:11-12 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.

"In the law it is written" but it isn't written exactly as Paul quotes it, is it? It is not a perfect translation. In fact it is only a partial translation, and he changed some of the words.

However, what does happen is this:
God, the Holy Spirit takes the quotation in the New Testament and makes sure that it is written just the way he wants it. Thus it is the very Word of God, whether or not we think it is an exact translation. That point is moot. It is inspired Scipture because God inspired it in the New Testament and that is all that matters.

No, that is your assertion. You have limited God, by limiting Him to just one translation, a ludicrous position to take.
DHK

 

DHK: //You have limited God, by limiting Him to just one translation, a ludicrous position to take.
DHK//

Amen, Brother DHK -- Preach it!

 

No. Sometimes the LXX is a rather loose translation and varies from the Hebrew MT.

The LXX also includes some deuterocanonical books which the Jews and protestants have never accepted as part of the canon.