doctrinal views of KJV translators

Just the opposite Bro. Jim.

It is the scholarship of Erasmus, the KJV translators, W&H, N-A, Lockman, etc that we should be concerned about. Whether it is true and valid or false. Whether it is consistent or inconsistent with the undisputed teachings of scripture.

I don't reject the KJV even though the translators and their contemporaries did some pretty bad things. OTOH, I don't reject the textual theories begun by W&H simply because they weren't IFB's.

I am skeptical of their conclusions because I am not convinced that their basic assumptions hold water.

But at the same time, you must recognize that CoE scholars who weren't operating under inspiration produced the KJV, don't you?

 

It would be silly to deny that CoE scholars produced the KJV wouldn't it? What kind of question is that?

You said, "I am skeptical of their conclusions because I am not convinced that their basic assumptions hold water."

That is not so clear. Just whose conclusions would you be referring to?

In HIS service;
Jim

 

Evidently he was referring to W&H.

This all gets back to the textual discussions that have been going on for decades. There's still no "clear-cut winner" in the "manuscript wars". Among the supporters of various "families" of mss, it's still, "MY scholar can whup YOUR scholar!"

I TRUST GOD to have presented His own word in my language despite the efforts of Satan & his followers against it. Once again, this shows that the ONLY legitimate reason to be a "One-Versionist" regardless of which version that would be is PERSONAL PREFERENCE.

 

Much as I have to say it Cranston...this REALLY pains me...errrr...ummm...

You're right.

I believe I have very good reasons, and Scripture also implies my position, but it boils down to conviction (or if you prefer, then preference.)

In HIS service;
Jim

 

W&H and those who follow in various forms their four basic assumptions.

One of those assumptions is that the more difficult reading is to be preferred. I simply don't believe that is a very good assumption.

The ultimate conclusion that I disagree with is that the Critical texts with greater reliance on the Alexandrian witnesses are to be preferred over the Majority text dominated by the Byzantine. Neither view is heresy. Neither view leads to a perversion of the Bible. Both views have some merit. Neither view leads to Bibles that add to or subtract from the substance of scripture.

I simply believe that the evidence is skewed toward the Majority Text.

One of the weird things is that I wonder if the heretical views on images held by the Eastern Orthodox Churches might not have made them more meticulous scribes.

 

Since you have said that you don't defend W/H, my use of "you all" would not apply to you now would it?
No, I do not ignore the fact that CoE doctrinal views of KJV translators and W/H are similar. Did you read my post?

Yes I do support the KJV in any edition. I defend the KJV translators' work on the Bible. I do not defend their actions where it may be in direct opposition to the Scriptures, i.e. baptism etc.

And just what is so wrong with the quote of theirs that you posted? Would you not want good fruit for your church?

In HIS service;
Jim

 

The point is, KJVO advocates dismiss modern versions because of alleged doctrianl error held by the translators. If that is so, they need to also dismiss the KJV.

 

Yes, some do dismiss MV's for that reason, but they don't do it for that reason alone. And I think you know that.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

However, most KJVOs don't have actual REASONS per se, but only EXCUSES.

 

Roby; Since 'excuse' and 'reason' are synonymous terms, perhaps clarification for the purpose of understanding one another is in order?

I see you using 'excuse' as it is understood to mean; an expression of regret for failure to do something.

I use 'reason' as it is understood to mean; a rational ground or motive.

Both terms can be understood to mean; a statement offered to explain or justify.

Perhaps we are saying the same thing? Or perhaps we are using synonymous terms but understanding them differently according to the context of our own positions? I think the latter is probably accurate.

In any case, Roby; I agree that many (not most) KJVo's do dismiss the MV's based on their assocations with translators of dubious distinction. Undoubtedly most KJVo authors are guilty of such things. And I wonder why they do not apply the same principle to the KJV?

Personally, I believe the KJV doesn't need such defenses. It stands quite well on its own without the guilt by association with the CoE's atrocities in 17th century England.

If guilt by association were the criteria, then nothing could be called the Word of God since it is associated with sinful man from the beginning.

Many folks who defend the MV's also use this tactic by implying that since Ruckman is "out there" then most KJVo's are also. As we have already seen ( see the post immediately prior to this one) in this discussion, "That dog won't hunt".

In HIS service;
Jim

 

I use "excuse" for an often-desperate attempt to justify a given action, inaction, belief, or non-belief. In this discussion, it would be the attempts to provide justification for the KJVO myth. And, outside the valid reason of PERSONAL PREFERENCE, that's exactly what the KJVO does...MAKE EXCUSES. All the points of the KJVO myth have been proven false. Its origins are traced back to a cult official. This leaves only personal preference as a valid reason to be KJVO. As for those who believe the KJV is the ONLY valid English BV...well, they're just plain WRONG. They CANNOT prove a word they say on the subject. Again, all they have are EXCUSES. REASONS have a valid background and truth; EXCUSES are usually invented outta thin air.