Featured Kent Hovind KJV

Thanks. maybe I'll watch James later. I like to do my own analysis first.

 

So, here is what Kent Hovind says next: "They got all these scrolls together, found 5000 copies of the Bible that survived the persecution, and they were identical in everything except spelling, peoples names, you know -- Peter and Pedro, stuff like that had changed." No kidding, that what he says in the video at about 5:15.

First, we still hear him speaking about "scrolls" which is inexcusable for someone who is supposedly speaking authoritatively on the topic.

Second, he does not clearly identify these "5000 copies" but if he is referring to Greek manuscripts his description as "Bibles" is very misleading since the overwhelming majority of Greek MSS are fragments (even complete books are extremely rare). Of the over 5000 (nearly 6000 now) Greek NT witnesses only a couple have the OT appended. Of course, those are not still in the original Hebrew but have been translated into Greek. I just don't know what else he could be referring to by that obscure description.

Third, there is no natural way that 5000 handwritten Bibles could be "identical in everything" but spelling. Try it to prove the difficulty to yourself. I have my doubts that modern publishers could print 5000 identical copies today. The opposite is actually the case in the Greek extant evidence: no two substantial manuscripts are identical in every detail excluding spelling.

Fourth, he confuses the issue further by mentioning "Pedro" which implies that some of these so-called scrolls taken allegedly from around the world are written in foreign languages (which would not count as a misspelling if Spanish).

I'm trying to get to the point in the video questioned by Sapper Woody, but these errors cannot be passed over.

 

I haven't had a chance to watch those other videos, but will. I don't consider myself an expert by any stretch of the imagination, as I'm just beginning to do research.

But my opinion is that Hovind is trying to "dumb it down" for everyone to understand. For instance, I don't take his "Peter and Pedro" literally, but just a simple illustration of different spellings (or cultural/language distinctions) of names in a general sense.

For my benefit, could you discuss the "scrolls" issue? I hadn't given it any thought, but this is the second time it's been brought up, so it must be an issue. Simply put, my question is, what's wrong with calling them scrolls?

 

The vast majority of ancient MSs that we have are from codices. I don't know the percentage, but I honestly cannot think of one NT MS that comes from a scroll. In fact, it was the Christian penchant for a codex over a scroll that is one of its defining features in the first 4 centuries of the church. You could say that Christianity spurred the modern day book movement. Were it not for them, we might all still be reading from scrolls. The point is, these ancient MSs are not fragments of scrolls. If he can't get so basic a point correct, then what else is he wrong about. His credibility is so low after a silly blunder like this, it is a wonder people still call him "doctor".

 

I couldn't make it to the 6:00 minute mark. There were so many inaccurate and flat wrong statements that I was about to scream. The straw that broke my back was his equating Alexandria w/ JWs and saying they denied things like the deity and resurrection of Jesus. Doesn't he know that it was Athanasius that came out of Alexandria to defend these things from Arius, who studied in Antioch???

Blah!!!!

 

Guess Athanasius was one of the very few that did not seek to corrput the received text, eh?


As per KJVO!

 

Yes, I understand that he is using some generalities apparently due to a time restraint or similar situation. I have also misspoken or confused terms, dates, or order of chronology when speaking, so I am willing to give any lecturer some allowances.

However, I hold these things against Mr. Hovind: first, his arrogance (as exhibited by the silly name calling, etc.); second, the sheer volume of errors (of history and otherwise); third, the magnitude of the errors (many cannot be considered minor mistakes). While it is fine to simplify technical information for a less sophisticated audience the speaker must not succumb to turning truth into error.

Specifically in regard to his "Peter and Pedro" comment I would have dismissed it if it had stood alone, but since it is accompanied by the idea that copies were brought from around the world it seems that it may be an indication of legitimate error within his thinking.

A question for you, Sapper Woody: Do some of these criticisms I have brought up now 'ring true' with you?

Greektim gave you a good answer on the "scrolls" issue.

 

I'm gonna abbreviate my critique somewhat. Kent Hovind says (at about 6:08): The only mention of "Alexandria" in the Bible is when they were disputing with Stephen, arguing with the real Christians ... the only mention of these folks is bad, so anything out of Alexandria, anything out of Egypt, period, in the Bible seems to be bad. Then the text of Acts 6:9 appears on screen. Here are a couple of verses that Mr. Hovind seems to be totally unfamiliar with --

[Act 18:24 KJV] And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, [and] mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.

[Mat 2:15 KJV] And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.
​

Is Kent Hovind right or wrong in his statement?

 

That's what I'm wondering. As a former KJO and having been raised in a KJO family I've heard the "Alexandria is evil" argument tossed around a bit, along the lines of there being a cult in Alexandria. But historical evidence was never cited that I can remember.

 

He said "seems", pulling all the teeth out of any contrary opinion.

 

Hovind says that an Egyptian "cult" became known as the "Alexandrians" (listen at about 5:40 into the video). I have a problem with that assertion.

First, who names a "cult" after a city? I can't think of any political, philosophical, or religious group that is named after a city. Citizens of a particular city, state, or country are often identified by the name of their city: thus, we have 'New Yorkers', 'Californians', and 'Americans'. The moniker of 'Bostonians' does not communicate anything religious about all the people living in Boston. One reason the place-name is an uncommon religious title is because an entire city's population is rarely religiously unified. It follows then that the city's name would be even less appropriate if it were being applied to only a small fragment of the residents.

Which isn't to say that groups or clubs have not on occasion taken the name of a city, state, or country (Canadiens are a NHL team, for example). But religious cults are more often named after a founder or leader (such as the Nicolaitans mentioned in Revelation).

Second, when did this "cult" get this name 'Alexandrians'? You might think that with a sect which started in the "late 2nd, early 3rd century" (about 6:05) there would be many references to them throughout recorded history. But outside the KJVO camp I am not finding such a term being applied to a religious group.

 

Camp Davidians?

 

Not too far from that actually (branch davidians). He has guessed the return of Jesus to be 2028.

 

Why does Hovind say (at about 8:55 in the video) that the Wescott-Hort Greek New Testament was sold to the world "in 1875"? As far as I can tell it was first published in 1881.

 

Why does Hovind say (at about 11:55 in the video) that the author of New Age Bible Versions, Gail Riplinger has a "PhD in English"? All available documentation indicates that her degrees (none are PhDs) are in Home Economics, Interior Design, and Art.

 

"Sold" as in sales-pitched. In some places, in English, this phraseology means "convinced".
As in "sold a bill of goods".

 

She was given an honorary doctorate by her alma mater.

 

I'm sorry, you missed the point I was trying to make. Perhaps others did, too. It was that Hovind got the date wrong ("in 1875").

 

Ah, yes. It wasn't for English was it? I don't think that's what Hovind meant. He was trying to give the author some credibility.

Many of us that have read Riplinger know first-hand her false citation and illogical argumentation. I posted about one of her books here --
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=72331

Here is a thread about a video of a Riplinger lecture in which I analyze many of her assertions --
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=37442&highlight=video+riplinger
(the link to the video in the OP may not work, but I think this is the same video --
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2Iu1Qfv51c )

That Hovind believed her book to be "excellent" shows his bias. That he sold her books should make his opinion on the topic immediately suspect.