Presuppositionalism and KJV onlyism

[AV]

natters,
Have you dropped the 'universally agreed upon' standard? Or only when applied to a particular text (KJV-onlyism)? This double standard is to be expected, but arbitrary none the less. The church (historic) accepts a text (by reason of use), yet this is rejected because it isn't universally agreed upon.
The canon isn't universally agreed upon but is accepted because the church (historically) receives it. A particular text (KJV-onlyism) is rejected by a majority of the (Laodicean) church (not universally agreed upon) and that is accepted. Let's not equivocate on so many key words. What is your position? I say in addition, God preserves his book (because of the impossibility of the contrary) by the church, but the church is only the church because of certain orthodox doctrines found in the book. Thus the church is always judged by and subject to the book.
What is your doctrine of preservation of scripture as supported by the scripture. I don't recall you clearly delineating any such position.
AV

 

[natters]

Originally posted by AV:
[QB] natters,
Have you dropped the 'universally agreed upon' standard? Or only when applied to a particular text (KJV-onlyism)? This double standard is to be expected, but arbitrary none the less.

AV, I asked you what the passages that talk of preservation of scripture meant in the year 1605, and you said "Whatever 'received text' or translation thereof at that time, in that place." By "universally agreed upon", I simply meant that there was no single text that was considered exclusively "it" by the church - that your answer of "whatever recieved text or translation thereof at that time" wasn't a specific text, and thus not a real answer to my question. That's all I meant.

A particular text (KJV-onlyism) is rejected

KJV-onlyism isn't a text. The KJV is a text. KJV-onlyism is a (false) doctrine.

What is your position?

My position is that KJV-onlyism is false.

What is your doctrine of preservation of scripture as supported by the scripture. I don't recall you clearly delineating any such position.

As I understand it, whatever the passages meant int 1605 and when they were originally penned, is what they mean today. God's word still exists today just as it did in 1605, without change.

 

[AV]

natters,
If you are not interested in intellectual interchange just say so. But when I ask you for your position on an issue and you respond 'whatever it meant is what it means', what am I to do with this? Or when I ask what your view is on a topic and you say 'your wrong'. I am confronting you with the book of the LORD as a presuppositional necessity. And subsequently the KJV as that book for us English folk. Do you have a polemic to offer or are you just asking questions? I am happy to clarify myself, but let me know your intentions at the least.
AV

 

[natters]

Originally posted by AV:
If you are not interested in intellectual interchange just say so.

I am interested. Perhaps you have not fully understood the point of my responses.

But when I ask you for your position on an issue and you respond 'whatever it meant is what it means', what am I to do with this?

You are to realize that preservation passages couldn't mean "not the KJV" in 1610, and "the KJV" in 1612. God's word does not change meaning. If preservation passages were true in 1610 (and they were), the truth they conveyed is still truth today. In short, scripture doesn't teach or support KJV-onlyism, unless you are arguing that scripture changed meaning around 1611.

Or when I ask what your view is on a topic and you say 'your wrong'.

That is my view on the topic. If you want a more specific answer, ask a more specific question.

I am confronting you with the book of the LORD as a presuppositional necessity. And subsequently the KJV as that book for us English folk.

My point is that if you are correct, then "the book of the LORD" that existed in 1605 should not have been corrected/replaced in 1611.

 

[AV]

natters,
If you could respect both of our time, be precise. I ask you what your alternative view is to account for the facts, and you say 'It is different than what you say', 'you are wrong' etc. What is your response to what I have set forth? Can you be more detailed than 'I reject it'? If you state that what I am saying implies that there can be no variations (1605 to 1611) then lets see your argument, not your assertion.
AV

 

[natters]

AV, my view is largely explained in my recent response to Bookborn. If you have further questions about it, please let me know.

As to what you've put forth, I do not accept it because I believe Bibles like the Geneva Bible were "the word of God" in 1605, and did not stop being the word of God with the production of another version (the KJV). Thus not "only" the KJV is God's word. Also, I do not understand how someone who is KJV-only can believe in "preserved with variations". Can you explain this more?

 

[AV]

natters,
I do not believe the Geneva ceased to be the word of God when the KJV came on the scene by the providence of God (Prov.21:1). In the bible itself there are variations when Old and New testament verses are compared. So clear your mind of straw men and reread my post on the middle of page 4. And offer us an answer to the book of the LORD dilemma, where is final authority.
AV

 

[natters]

Originally posted by AV:
I do not believe the Geneva ceased to be the word of God when the KJV came on the scene by the providence of God (Prov.21:1).

Excellent! We agree!

And offer us an answer to the book of the LORD dilemma, where is final authority.

I do not see it as a dilemma in the first place. Consider: what was "the book of the LORD" in 1612 - the KJV, the Geneva, or something else? Correct me if I'm wrong, but seem to believe both the KJV and the Geneva were the word of God at the same time, right? So how can only one of them be "the book of the LORD" and the "final authority"? Also, how could the "final authority" in 1605 be "final", if another was to come along after it? See, I do not see "the book of the LORD" as any specific translation or edition of scripture, but rather that various specific translations and editions are all copies of "the book of the LORD".

 

[AV]

natters,
Don't make the mistake of equating transition from one translation to another, to that of multiple translations of multiple texts contradicting each other. If a king transfers power to another legitimately, this doesn't validate a bunch of pretenders simultaneously jockeying for the position. When the election is over in our country the losing candidates usually stop campaigning. So what is final authority and where is it? Point to it please, it is a presuppositional necessity.
AV

 

[natters]

AV, I do not think leadership of a country is a good analogy, because I do not believe only one translation can be "the word of God" at one time. You even agreed that the Geneva did not stop being the word of God when the KJV was produced. To help you understand my point, please clearly and directly answer the following questions:

What was "the book of the LORD" in 1612 - the KJV, the Geneva, or something else?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but seem to believe both the KJV and the Geneva were the word of God at the same time, right? So how can only one of them be "the book of the LORD" and the "final authority"?

Also, how could the "final authority" in 1605 be "final", if another was to come along after it?

 

[AV]

natters,
Let me point out first of all you didn't answer my question of where and what is final authority, again.
I also think it is a good analogy because final authority is the issue. Perhaps you could give a better analogy? Perhaps just any analogy. Anything?
Final authority would not have to mean languages do not change as you indicate. Is this that difficult to grasp? Look in the bible at the reign of kings, they sometimes overlap. Does this mean they are contradictory? Please offer something positive and substantial. The Geneva is still the word of God, but it as a translation has been side lined. The TR is the word of God, but to us English people who don't speak ancient Greek it isn't real useful. If I am in Greece I will submit the the Greek king. The preservation of scripture allows for translations to be final authority. Seek ye out of the book of the LORD and read.
AV

 

[natters]

How about this analogy: The final authority is the king's speech. Various translations and editions of the king's speech are not in and of themselves the final authority, but rather are instances of and witnesses of the king's speech, the final authority. The king's speech is still the king's speech, even if it is translated into other languages, and even if it is translated multiple times and not translated equally well.

Now please answer my questions clearly and directly.

 

[AV]

natters,
Your analogy is good but in effect misplaced. I say that it is a good analogy of the condition you think we are in currently, but does not help to decipher anything related to your presuppositional dilemma. The king's speech being absolutely necessary to all peoples. And the king himself promising to provide them with a pure representation of it and carrying the same weight as his original. And how to distinguish which one of the contradictory lines from competing translations is correct and comporting presuppositionally.
And does not help to explain the transition of one preeminence to another, which is what my analogy was designated for. I was expecting you to provide an analogy related to what we were discussing in respect to transitioning sovereigns.
And which of your questions haven't been answered? Also are you just not going to answer mine?
AV

 

[natters]

Originally posted by AV:
Your analogy is good but in effect misplaced.

The analogy is not mine, but the KJV translators. I just agree with them.

I was expecting you to provide an analogy related to what we were discussing in respect to transitioning sovereigns.

Why should I give an analogy of what I don't believe is happening in the first place, as I've already said? Should I not instead give an analogy of what I believe is happening instead?

And how to distinguish which one of the contradictory lines from competing translations is correct and comporting presuppositionally.

Forgive me, but you're going to have to "dumb down" your points for me. I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "comporting presuppositionally". As for "contradicting lines", I believe there aren't any, except on an academic level. Where there appears to be a contradiction, usually is instead a misunderstanding.

And which of your questions haven't been answered?

Please answer these, individually, clearly, simply and directly:

What was "the book of the LORD" in 1612 - the KJV, the Geneva, or something else?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but seem to believe both the KJV and the Geneva were the word of God at the same time, right? So how can only one of them be "the book of the LORD" and the "final authority"?

Also, how could the "final authority" in 1605 be "final", if another was to come along after it?

Also are you just not going to answer mine?

Which ones, specifically and individually?

 

[Exile]

While this discussion seems to be between two individuals, I will add a few thoughts anyway.

There have been variations in the biblical text going back at least to the beginning of the Christian era. The OT of the first century existed in rival Hebrew textual traditions as well as in a Greek translation. Few if any in that era doubted that each text was the word of God, probably because they recognized that the propositional truths were as inspired as the words themselves, so that even if the exact wording of a passage was in doubt it's teaching was not. The same held true in the modern age. Until the KJVO movement, few questioned that the ASV or the RSV was the word of God, even if they preferred the KJV, because they recognized that the differences were too minor to affect doctrine. Only after the rise of KJVOism did we get the idea that we must have a perfectly worded text in English, and that the KJV must be that text. It seems to me that God has indeed preserved his word across the centuries, even if he has also allowed minor variations in that word. A person who reads only the NASB can know as much about Jesus as the person who reads only the KJV. There is no "dilemma" to worry about. Such insecurity concerning the biblical text is completely unwarranted.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Bookborn: //Is the book of Matthew the historical record of Jesus,
a record of his ancestors, the record of Jesus’ geneaology,
the family tree of Jesus, the list of ancestors,
a roll of Jesus’ birth, the family history of Jesus,
an account of the geneaology?//

Yes, the book of Matthew is all this and more.
The book of Matthew by itself and collectively with other
books like Mark, Luke, and John,are the very words
of the Living God, no matter which translation they reside in.

Though I must admit, you probably can follow the English
rendition of the Holy Written Word of God better than the
Holy Written Word of God in other languages. In fact, I
recommend a 21st Century (2001-2100) English translation of the
Holy Written Word of God: the HCSB (Christian Standard Bible
/Holman, 2003/ ). Unless, of course, thou art more familiar with
the English language of some other century.

Bookborn: //Words are vehicles of thought and changing words result
in the changing of thoughts//

Amen, Brother Bookborn - Right on!

I can't feature any reason why some one would presuppose that
their is one and only one unique set of Words that create the
Lord Thoughts one should have. God is Omnipotent, all powerful.
My presupposition is that God is Omnipotent. I then derive,
using man's logic, that His Holy Written word cannot be bound
into one book in one language.

AV: //Logic and science and epistemology are founded upon
the bible (a thing, a text, not doctrine seperated
from the text).//

Before you presuppose, you have to additionally presuppose
that the logic of presupposition is correct. Thus if you
presuppose one unique book of God, you make logic higher than
the one unique book of God. So your act of presupposing
invalidates your above statement.

Quite frankly the logic I see you using looks more like
'reducto ad absurdum' thank suppositional logic.

My dictionary reminds us:

REDUCTO AD ABSURDUM - Latin. a reduction to an absurdity;
the refution of a proposition by showing its
logical conclusions as absurd.

You presuppose the proposition: 'The Lord has one book'.
You logically conclude: 'The Lord's one book (in English) is the KJV'.
But that is absurd. Therefor your proposition is
untrue so the Lord cannot be bound by one and only one unique
book.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Would you agree that the book as found in the numberous bible verses, whatever that is for the moment, is the same thing though it be found in different languages?

Yes. And that completly disproves your point. It is beyond me why you would stipulate the defeat of your own position.

And would you likewise agree that God sovereignly ordered the canon, the grouping together of the individual books?

Yes, but irrelevant since the discussion you started is not on the canon, but on a translation.

 

[AV]

Ed,
If you are familiar with Van Tils method you show the absurdity of the opposing worldview and then how yours (Christianity) is the only rational one. So you are correct in detecting the method of reducing to absurdity.
But as you have recognized a valid form of reasoning you have exercised yourself in an invalid form. A fallacy of composition. You state:

"Before you presuppose, you have to additionally presuppose
that the logic of presupposition is correct. Thus if you
presuppose one unique book of God, you make logic higher than
the one unique book of God. So your act of presupposing
invalidates your above statement."

You made no distinction between presupposing as a worldview, verses presupposing within (as a component of) a worldview. I can understand since it is involving the same word. The error is more clearly seen if we apply it to a bible verse.
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom.
Using your fallacy above it could be refuted:
Before you decide to fear the LORD you have to determine that deciding to fear the LORD is correct using wisdom, thus invalidating the verse itself.
Now I assume you don't correct God with sophistry (correct me if I'm wrong), therefore you will need to try to understand what presupposing a worldview is and how it encompasses reasoning with presuppositions, a priori reasoning, or a posteriori reasoning and whatever other form of reasoning you persue.
You continue:

"You presuppose the proposition: 'The Lord has one book'.
You logically conclude: 'The Lord's one book (in English) is the KJV'.
But that is absurd. Therefor your proposition is
untrue so the Lord cannot be bound by one and only one unique
book."

Now I think you were trying to use reductio ad absurdum here. But you will need to actually reduce it to an absurdity, not just proclaim it an absurdity. Another dictionary phrase could help here -non sequitur. This is the form of straw man you construct to represent my position. I never said 'the Lord has 1 book, therefore it is the KJV (for English people)'. I said according to bible verses on the matter there should be a book called the book of the LORD (which you never attempt to refute). Also according to presuppositional apologetics there is final authority as a complete unit of doctrine, as opposed to one that needs to be constructed using scholarship (which you also refuse to touch). A failure to address what I say is an admission of the bankruptcy of your own position.
Again you ended your post very revealingly:

"the Lord cannot be bound by one and only one unique book."

What is the bible Ed, but one unique book?
Thanks,
AV

 

[AV]

Larry,
The verses I posted were to represent the scriptures. The book of the law, the book of Psalms and the book of the prophets. I also added one new testament quote. Obviously when the term scripture was used it was a reference to what was actually written down. However it is perfectly sound to use the term to apply to the rest of the canon even though it was not chronologically written script yet. When Paul said all scripture is given by inspiration of God, the only script was Old Testament (at least predominantly). Yet in your sermons I bet you use it (2 Tim.3:16) to refer to scripture given after the statement itself. I contend that this is warranted and acceptable, as you would agree.
And when I use the term book of the LORD, or book of the law (like Paul called Isaiah 'law', or Jesus called a psalm' law'), I, on the same principle, use it to refer to the canon. If I read 'The law of the LORD is perfect , converting the soul' I apply it to the new testament, the gospel, and even the whole canon. I think you would also, even though it was probably referring to the law of Moses when it was first penned. Now do you want to contend at this point that I cannot reason in the scripture this way? Or do you concur?
AV

 

[Pastor Larry]

Your reasoning is fine until you try to apply it to the KJV. Most of those references by implication can be applied to Scripture. They cannot in any legitimate way be applied to a particular translation of Scripture.

And that is the problem. You are taking legitimate texts and deriving illegitimate positions from them.