Presuppositionalism and KJV onlyism

AV: // Do you reply simply to set forth personal pontification?//

Actually, since I turned 60, that is ALL
I do. It is so much more fun than those
whose only form of exercise is JUMPING TO
CONCLUSIONS

 

1 Corinthians 14:18 (KJV1611 Edition):
I thanke my God, I speake with tongues
more then you all.

Assembly of God (AoG) are pentacostal Baptists;
Baptists are AoG folk with nobody to
interpert

I have two long-time deacon friends who
were Baptist Deacons but are now members
of an AoG.

Merry Christmas

Notice that the 'wavey' smilie is a BAPTIST
smilie - it only waves one hand at a time and
keeps both feet firmly planted on the floor

 

AV said:

The transcendental proof for the existence of God says that evidentialism

Who said anything about evidentialism? The ontological proof is an a priori proof of the existence of God, and hence falls under the purview of classical apologetics. Evidentialism is a posteriori.

It appears that not only do you not understand presup apologetics, you fail to draw the proper distinction between other apologetic approaches. Furthermore, since you apparently took my joke seriously, it seems that you lack a sense of humour.

As Pastor Larry tried to tell you (and you apparently ignored), presup only works when your starting assumptions can be considered properly basic. The existence of God is properly basic. The alleged inerrancy of the KJV translation is not.

 

Ed Edwards said:

What we need is a tie-in will all the great Doctrines

You mean like a Unified Field Theorem for theology? I think our hardcore Reformed brethren would say they already have one.

 

Correct! I agree.

 

Amen! I second that. I agree.

 

Why are you hung up on a translation since no translation is perfect?
What about the other translations of the other nations of the world? Do you have an answer for them?
DHK

 

Why is it that none of the translations (KJV included) do not translate a first class conditional sentence as such. So often they do not translate a prohibitive imperative as a prohibitive imperative.

What the proponents of English only do not realize that it is impossible to say with one word or a few words what many languages can say with one or just a few words. English cannot translate many words in the Greek NT nor can it accurately translate some ideas either.

I have not seen one Engish translation which differentiates between a first class conditional sentence and a third class conditional sentence. Everyone I have seen always uses "if" instead of "since".

For a prohibitive imperative they seem to always use "stop" instead of "stop doing what you are doing and do not continue".

 

Did yall hear something? It was too high for me, I could not attain unto it…. Wait, there it is again… Oh, wait. That was gb93433.
Gb93433, You’ll need to speak louder. See, I’m less than the spit on the bottom of Judas Iscariot’s shoes, and you are a LITTLE LOWER THAN GOD. You’re gonna have to condescend to men of low estate….

The LXX is interesting, but usually collects dust in my library. I thought the LXX ‘angels of God’ translation of Genesis 6 ‘sons of God’ was interesting, but I don’t hang my hat entirely on the LXX if that’s what you mean. I was simply making an observation.

After reading your post last night, I decided to just check a few places at random from my library as it piqued my interest. Here are a few findings…

My New American Bible actually translated this ‘a little lower than a god’ (interesting) with a note that says… little less than a god: Hebrew 'elohim, the ordinary word for "God" or "the gods" or members of the heavenly court. The Greek version translated 'elohim by "angel, messenger"; several ancient and modern versions so translate. The meaning seems to be that God created human beings almost at the level of the beings in the heavenly world.”

One of my commentaries on Psalms reads… “A little lower than the angels.” The word here for “angels” in all Hebrew texts is “elohim” – GODS, thus showing that Eve’s temptation is real (“be as gods” Gen. 3:5) because angels (“sons of God” Job 38:7) are present. That is why they are called “gods” in Psalms 82:1…

My Reformation Study Bible note for Ps. 8:5 says… The Hebrew word elohim, here translated ‘angels’ usually means ‘God,’ but it can mean ‘divine beings.’ If God were in view one would have expected, “You have made him a little lower than Yourself.”

[My thoughts exactly on the fact that it doesn’t read correctly if translated ‘God.’ Note my initial post on this].

My Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible states for Ps. 8:5… Heavenly beings. Hebrew ‘elohim’ usually translated “God.” “Angels” is an appropriate translation, because the Hebrew word can mean “supernatural beings” or even “rulers.”

I do have 2 Massoretic texts boxed up in my basement somewhere, so I haven’t checked that, but I take your word for it that it says Elohim. The point you have to consider is that not every word in Hebrew and Greek sees uniform translation. There are dynamic equivalents, etc. (Like DHK earlier brought up ‘God forbid’ in Romans 6:2 and he said ‘God’ nor ‘forbid’ are in the Greek. However, when I look at my Received Text Interlinear, it says ‘Not let it be!’ It is understood WHO would not let it be and thus ‘God forbid.’). Point is, Elohim doesn’t have to always be translated ‘God’ (it is actually plural in Hebrew – meaning 3 or more). It can be translated ‘gods’ or ‘a god’ and according to many scholars (see sample above) & more importantly the Bible itself (Heb. 2:6,7) ‘heavenly beings’ or ‘supernatural beings’ or ‘angels.’


Again, the new testament writer of Hebrews agrees that this should be ANGELS.
You’ve set yourself at variance with the New Testament:
Heb. 2:6,7
"But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man that thou visitest him?

Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands..." (KJV)

You are trying your best to prove a contradiction in the Bible, and I’m trying to save you the trouble, the dilemma, and the embarrassment.

You’ve taken me to challenge for violating a perceived hermeneutical principle. I am fully aware of the context of I Corinthians 14. Actually, in my younger years, I had the entire chapter put to memory. This is a constant attack one gets when quoting any verse or portion of a verse. Well, you quoted that out of context. Presumably one would have to quote the ENTIRE BIBLE to quote in context. Think about that. There are about 33,000 verses in the Bible, so whenever you quote a verse, it is out of context.

What I quoted was, “For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.” ( I Cor. 14:33).
You are insinuating this doesn’t have universal application. I am fully aware that the surrounding context is with respect to prophesying, but look also at verse 27 “How is it then brethren? When ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, HATH A DOCTRINE, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.”
So, doctrine would involve scripture. And when alleged scriptures contradict, is God the author of this? Are you saying that God really is the author of confusion EXCEPT ONLY IN CASES INVOLVING PROPHESYING?
The verse, as it stands, holds a universal application to all churches of the saints. When there is confusion in the churches of the saints (for one example, opposing Bible texts), don’t blame God.

Now, why will you not face Hebrews 2:6,7?

You said,
“Just because there are many quotes in the NT does not establish the OT text. If you try to line up every OT quote in the NT with an OT link you will come up short.

There are quotes in the NT from the OT which are paraphrased, interpreted and applied in a different context.”

Read Hebrews 2:6,7 a little more carefully. You are accusing the Holy Ghost inspired writer of Hebrews of mistranslation. (You also accused me of adding to the text when you said, “By adding “a little lower” you are adding to the text.”; Did the writer of Hebrews, under Holy Ghost inspiration, ADD TO THE TEXT?). It’s easy to accuse me because I’m nobody, but why don’t you accuse the writer of Hebrews in the same fashion for all these fine folks out here. We’re all eyes….

Heb. 2:6,7
"But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man that thou visitest him?

Thou madest him A LITTLE LOWER than the ANGELS; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands..." (KJV)

 

You have a propensity to limiting yourself to just one language--English. Why are you so afraid to talk about other languages. What about the aboriginals of our nation? There are reserves up here where the people still speak Cree. Do they have a Bible? If they do would their translation in Cree be just as "perfect" as the KJV? Why or why not? Is your God so narrow-minded and bigoted that He only speaks to 10% or the world--the English part, and consigns 90% of the world to Hell because they cannot read and understand English, particularly Shakespearean English? My God is not that narrow-minded. The Bible says that God so loved the world, not just the KJV understanding crowd. He loves the Crees, the Punjabis, the Hindis, the Maoris, the Inuits, those that speak Urdu and Arabic, etc. But all of these are condemned to Hell because they have not the KJV, right?

I told you that I am acquainted with the Bible in five different languages. If I find the same phrase translated in five languages and each language brings a different nuance, which one is correct? Of course the only correct one in the New Testament is the Greek. But the Greek cannot be translated perfectly into any language. Meaning is always lost in any translation. If you have done any translational work at all you would know that. There are some things that just cannot be translated accurately. They never will be. That is why it is important to have at least some knowledge of the Greek language or some tools that will help you in that area. The KJV isn't perfect, but we have the tools available to us to get the correct sense out of the passage.
I believe that those that say the KJV is perfect and infallible may do so out of two reasons: one is a sentimental devotion to a translation that they are unwilling to let go of.
Two is that they are unwilling to do any serious study of the original languages. This is not true of everyonne but describes many. It is the attitude and mindset of the many who say: "If the KJV was good enough for Paul, then it is good enough for me."
DHK

 

I would like to comment shortly.
I think Bookborn studied quite much. I had the same feeling about Heb 2 and Psalm about the Elohim. If we consider that Hebrews might have been written in Hebrews first by Paul and then translated into Greek by Luke later, then we can expand our understanding farther, that it might have meant "lower than God"(Elohim).
Which language the NT was written in is a quite fundamental issue, and Peshita Aramaic Primacists have brought up a lot of evidences to convince their arguments.
Many witnessed that Matthew was written in Hebrew and then translated into Greek and Thomas carried it to India.
Otherwise we can hardly understand that Jesus sat at the house of Simon, the lepros, in Bethany, because the Lepers were not allowed live in a town or village. If we take Aramaic, the word for Leper is the same for Potter.

I checked with Hebrew Masorah on this Elohim and found it is neutral in the contexts, but met some Jews saying "Lower than God" instead "Lower than Angels"

I also mentioned that Acts 8:27 might mean Minister instead of Eunuch as Eunuchs were not allowed to worship in Temple.

Even though Acts was addressed to Theophilos, it could have been written in Hebrew or Aramaic first as we can see Jesus was speaking to Paul in Hebrew in 26:14.
I just imagine not the whole NT was written uniformly in one language.

Then we may have a certain distrust on the whole NT in Greek, but I believe that God was pleased to preserve His words in Greek which has very clear meanings by its clear grammar in many aspects.

As for God forbid, I consider it as a matter of language update, because I don't believe the translators didn't understand the meaning of it. At that time it mught be the best word to express the feelings or intention of Paul in that way.

As for Acts 12:4, I have a reservation. I had some lengthy discussion with Messianic Jews and noticed they are divided, on Pasca(Passover) and Easter(Ishtar)

Apparently the upper class of the people were celebrating Ishtar Festival, either right after Days of Unleavened Bread or one month after Passover. Passover is the first day of the festival or before the Days of Unleavened Bread. Therefore, if we have it as Passover, it is contradictory. But sometimes, even the first week, one week before the Passover was called Days of Unleavened Bread.
However, I can imagine that the Upper level society were not religious or faithful with Bible teaching at all and they were very much pagan and celebrated the Queen of Heaven and her festival. The question is when they celebrated it? We need some archaeological survey in depth. If it were one month later or far later,Easter doesn't make sense, but if it were right after Days of Unleavened Bread, Pasca meant Ishtar because there was a word neither for Passover, nor for Ishtar, and therefore both were translated as Pasca. In that aspect, I trust the translators of KJV expertised in Chaldaean, Syriac, Peshitta Aramaic, Egyptial Hieroglyph studied a lot on this and concluded that PASCA meant Ishtar.

 

AV said:

Which fell upon deaf ears again as you still do not see the presuppositional dilemma in applying empirical methods of reasoning to prove which parts of the bible are authentic.

I do not see the presuppositional dilemma, for precisely the same reason I don't see magic pixies flitting around my computer room.

Furthermore, your starting presupposition (that the AV is "it") still lacks any sort of warrant beyond your cuz-I-say-so.

Do you not now have an answer?

Answer to what? You don't even have a proper question.

So stop with the 'you don't understand PA' approach that Larry wore out in his posts. He himself admitted he did not provide any argument. Are you going to follow his example with a void argument (minus any conclusion indicators)?

No, I'm going to follow my own example and snicker quietly to myself about your inept "arguments" in favour of KJV-only nonsense.

And accept the bible teaching on the book of the LORD and tell me which translation it applies to for you personally and why.

Isa. 34:16, the only instance of the phrase "book of the LORD" in Scripture, is not talking about any translation. Rather, it is referring to the Jewish scriptures - the Law and the Prophets.

Therefore, your whole "presuppositional" argument starts from false presuppositions.

Isiah was written about 600 years before Christ, and here he pronounces judgment on Edom. Amongst these judgments are the wilding of the formerly great nation: it will be overrun with weeds and wild beasts (vv. 13-15).

Isaiah then tells his readers to

In other words, his readers could know that this desolation had already been foretold, since it was already pronounced in the Jewish Scriptures.

But nothing about the KJV, or any other English translation of the Bible.

See, I do accept the Bible's teaching on "the book of the LORD." Your claims, on the other hand, are false teaching.

 

DHK,
You said,
"Why are you hung up on a translation since no translation is perfect?"

Do you believe the O.T. was written in Hebrew (with the exception of some portions of Daniel in Aramaic) and the N.T. in Greek?
Do you not realize that 1/3 of the N.T. is O.T. quotations?
To what does that equate?
1/3 of your New Testament is inspired translation? 1/3 of your New Testament is a PERFECT TRANSLATION.
Does God, the Author of languages, have any difficulty in translating perfectly?
Also, did English evolve inadvertently or is the Providential God of history involved? Coincidence or Providence?