Continued:Presuppositionalism and KJV Onlyism

[webdog]

Sure: what is your basis for believing that the original documents were inspired of the Holy Ghost, and can you prove that they were? If so, how?

2 Timothy 3:16.

Why did God wait to "inspire" His Word until 1611 and to early english speaking people only? Can you prove that is true as you have claimed?

 

[MovieProducer]

Dude! You're looking at a translation, aren't you? Worse, you're looking at a translation of a copy. How do you know that verse was contained in the original?

Sorry. From an empirical standpoint, that just isn't proof that the original was actually inspired by God.

 

[webdog]

Dude! You're looking at a translation, aren't you? Worse, you're looking at a translation of a copy. How do you know that verse was contained in the original?

Sorry. From an empirical standpoint, that just isn't proof that the original was actually inspired by God.

So do tell which one is...

 

[EdSutton]

Ah, yes! Once again, eternal life in a Baptist Board thread.

Ed

 

[MovieProducer]

It goes to show you can't prove that any document is inspired. So why do you believe the originals are?

Faith? So how is that more sensible than having faith that the translation into English is inspired in the King James?

I mean, if you believe the originals were inspired, you believe translations were inspired, right? Paul's words in Acts 22 were in Hebrew, but they were recorded in Greek. Was that Greek translation inspired?

If you have faith that the translation of Paul's words into Greek was inspired, why is it suddenly a strange thing to believe that the 1611 translation into English was inspired?

What about Luke's translation of Malachi 4:5 in Luke 1:17? Do you believe it was inspired?

Why? Faith? You have faith that it was inspired in the original?

You haven't even seen the original!

 

[webdog]

It goes to show you can't prove that any document is inspired. So why do you believe the originals are?

You summed it up in the next sentence...

Faith? So how is that more sensible than having faith that the translation into English is inspired in the King James?

I believe the KJV is inspired. I never claimed it wasnt'. Is it THE only inspired translation? No.

I mean, if you believe the originals were inspired, you believe translations were inspired, right? Paul's words in Acts 22 were in Hebrew, but they were recorded in Greek. Was that Greek translation inspired?

Yes.

If you have faith that the translation of Paul's words into Greek was inspired, why is it suddenly a strange thing to believe that the 1611 translation into English was inspired?

What I find strange of the KJVO cult (because that is exactly what it is) is the notion you have laid forth...that NO original autograph or translation was "inspired" UNTIL 1611. That is plain foolishness, and defies any and all logic. It's almost science fiction foolishness, IMO.

What about Luke's translation of Malachi 4:5 in Luke 1:17? Do you believe it was inspired?

I don't have a Bible here at work...mind posting it?

You have faith that it was inspired in the original?

Yes.

You haven't even seen the original!

...and you have seen the original 1611 KJV written? How old are you exactly!

This conversation just goes to show how ridiculous KJVOism really is....

 

[MovieProducer]

What I find strange of the KJVO cult (because that is exactly what it is) is the notion you have laid forth...that NO original autograph or translation was "inspired" UNTIL 1611. That is plain foolishness, and defies any and all logic. It's almost science fiction foolishness, IMO.

<snip>

I never heard of this. I sure never said it.

 

[DHK]

...and you have seen the original 1611 KJV written? How old are you exactly!

(Rom 3:9-21 KJV-1611) What then? are wee better then they? No in no wise: for we haue before proued both Iewes, and Gentiles, that they are all vnder sinne,
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no not one:
11 There is none that vnderstandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become vnprofitable, there is none that doeth good, no not one.
13 Their throat is an open sepulchre, with their tongues they haue vsed deceit, the poyson of Aspes is vnder their lippes:
14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitternesse:
15 Their feet are swift to shed blood.
16 Destruction & misery are in their wayes:
17 And the way of peace haue they not knowen.
18 There is no feare of God before their eyes.
19 Now we know that what things soeuer the Law saith, it saith to them who are vnder the Law: that euery mouth may bee stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20 Therefore by the deedes of the Law, there shall no flesh be iustified in his sight: for by the Law is the knowledge of sinne.
21 But nowe the righteousnesse of God without the Lawe is manifested, being witnessed by the Lawe and the Prophets.

It is not the original 1611 document, but it is a copy of it.
Do the KJVO people read from it today? That is my question. If not, why do they call themselves KJVO?

 

[Logos1560]

This is the problem, you need to start with an infallible final authority presuppositionally as Van Til expressed so cogently. Where is it guys? 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).
AV

The KJV was a new bible [translation] in 1611 that was brought into the equation after English-speaking believers already had a good English translation that they accepted. The infallible final authority existed before 1611. What was the infallible final authority in one book that existed before 1611 that the 1611 KJV agrees with 100%? Otherwise, the KJV-only view in effect brings a new bible into the equation in 1611 and contradicts your own argument.

The KJV was more of a revision of earlier English translation than it was an original translation of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. On what scriptural basis can it be claimed that the KJV has any qualities that already not present in the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it was a revision? The KJV was based in effect on mulitiple varying authorities [both English and other languages] that did not agree 100%. A consistent and scriptural view of Bible translation would be true both before and after 1611.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

This thread has far exceeded the 20 page limit and is therefore closed.