In another direction, I finally think I can put my finger on the initial fallacies of the KJVO position:
Michelle:
“Bible = the perfect words of God; scripture; the whole councel of God; without error”
No problem here except spelling of “counsel”.
“scripture = created by and given by God; preserved accurately in copies and in use/living throughout history and within the churches without error.”
Key Fallacy #1: “preserved accurately in copies” does not equal “preserved perfectly”, otherwise the copies would not differ a whit from one another. If one thinks otherwise, we then need to know which single Greek manuscript copy is “the” perfectly preserved one, and then we can base and test all translations upon such.
Used “throughout history and within the churches without error” is a different issue, also not substantiated by the facts, or we would not have differing interpretations. “Used as an infallible/inerrant authority within the churches throughout history” would be a more appropriate way of saying it.
“translation = the converting of the accurate copies of scriptures (words of God) into the prospective language accurately under the providence of God, without error.”
Key Fallacy #2, built upon Key Fallacy #1: “the accurate copies of scriptures” are evidenced under Fallacy #1 to be at best only “reasonably accurate” or “highly accurate”, since no two manuscripts are identical.
Key Fallacy #3: although one can legitimately maintain that accurate translation indeed proceeds “under the providence of God”, once again one cannot maintain that such translation must be or necessarily is “without error”, since once again every translation differs from every other.
“Bible translation = the scriptures; the word of God accurately in the prospective language, without error - perfectly.”
Key Fallacy #4: Except for certain translations with known non-orthodox biases, Bible translation definitely strives to reproduce “the word of God accurately in the prospective language” from the original texts. But to presume that any translation made by fallible humans will necessarily be produced “without error - perfectly” is to presume more than scripturally should be expected in any such endeavor (“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked (KJV)/corrupt (RSV)/sick (ESV)” (Hebrew 'ANASH = weak, sick, frail, incurable)
Imperfect manuscripts (being the ultimate source of any translation) cannot become perfect in translation, especially when such translation is made by human beings who themselves are imperfect. Now if one wants to postulate special “advanced revelation” and direct inspiration of certain translators, that is another matter and a differing theological opinion which I would not happen to share.
In contrast, a highly accurate translation made from highly accurate manuscripts by highly skilled human translators causes me no major problem whatsoever, and I can rely upon and trust the scriptural text thereby provided to my hand according to various translations, whether in matters of theology, history, geography, or anything else that is clearly taught within the word of God. In declaring such, I do not deny or reject divine providence; rather, I recognize and accept that providence functioning in the continued preservation of the original texts by means of fallible humans, as well as the same providence functioning in providing accurate translations of those original texts by means of other fallible humans. I praise the Lord for what he has done to preserve his written word to all generations!
I don’t really expect a valid reply from KJVO defenders on these points, so no need to bother.
“The only emperor is the emperor of ice-cream.” -- Wallace Stevens
