Presuppositionalism and KJV onlyism

[Ransom]

AV said:

Let's not play word games.

Better yet, let's not play any games.

You think all translations are errent and fallible and subject to correction.

Oops. Too late! You decided to play the I-know-what-you-believe-better-than-you game.

Turns out that despite all your fancy term-dropping, your "presuppositionalism" is really the usual KJV-only intellectual dishonesty: circular reasoning based on the unwarranted assumption that the KJV, and only the KJV, is without error. And it's propped up by sweeping generalizations about non-KJV-only skeptics.

Ho hum.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Hillclimber speaking of the KJV:
//And it certainly isn't the only book for today, based
in anything. Why not use several, as that opens up
a clearer understanding of scriptures. We many many times
check verses or themes in various versions and always come
away with a greater understanding.//

Amen, Brother Hillclimber. For electronic Bibles I like
an off-line (stored on my own computer) vendor: e-sword.com
E-sword has lots of versions. Being on my computer I can
still do my Bible studies when my ISP = internet service provider
is down (and my ISP is down an average of once every 7 hours
for an average of 8.2 minutes). Anyway, I have 3-bible selection
of early Modern English: the Geneva Bible (of1585), the KJV1611 Edition,
and the KJV1769 Edition with Strong'S numbers. I like the KJV1769
because i'm more familiar with it and it is better for looking
for words. The search engine means a concordance is unncessary.
However, the search engine does NOT have "Google phrase search"
capability and it will pick up each word in the line, if it is
in the same verse anywhere.
I like the Geneva Bible because it is from the same era and
helps identify strange KJV-only errors. Anway,
I don't like to throw Strong's numbers into the average Bible
quote so I usaully quote the KJV1611 Edition, if i'm cuttin' and
pastin'

Deacon: //I believe that reviewing past KJV’o threads
we see that the KJV’o position is:
(1) arbitrary, and
(2) inconsistent with itself.//

Uh, but if you presuppose the KJVo position, shoudn't circular
logic make it consistent?

Of course, I'd be remiss if I didn't ask the question God called me
here to ask:

Which Edition of the KJV do you presuppose when you
presuppose that "the KJV is the only book
of the LORD for the English speaking church"?

Personally I presuppose that "God is omnipotent". By logic
it is easy to prove that God is not limited to one and only one
book for nearly 400 years now in over 100 different countries
that use English as their first language.

 

[hillclimber]

We also use Strongs, Ed. I also have Bible Gateway and Blue Letter Bible online, but as yet don't have anything stored on my comp. We're always online though adn rarely have trouble.

I kinda grew up with study Bibles (Scofield mostly, old (favorite) and new versions) but in recent years (20 or so) have tried to read the words of the Lord in straight text issues myself with an ear open to His leading, instead of someone elses interpretations.

 

[Ed Edwards]

AV: //Let's not play word games.//

Let us do, it is hard to have a 'Christian debate' without words

Let me start with 'AV'. Unless a person's name is Alvin Vetters,
then probably AV means 'Authorized Version'.

'Authorized Version' used to mean the version authorized by King James (KJV1611 Edition)
But somewhere along the way it has come to mean the KJV1769 Edition
which King James didn't authorize. But the implication many places that
I've been is that it is the only Bible GOD AUTHORIZED. Sorry, the Lord is NOT
limited to one and only one book but Shines through all Bibles, even
the plain ones.

 

[AV]

Ransom,
I see that you not only are not interested in rational discourse, but that you do not understand the argument set before you. If you think I have misrepresented you then perhaps you could simply tell us how. Why are you hiding?
Ransom, Where art thou?
AV

 

[Ed Edwards]

Neither God nor the people who post here
are at your beck & call. Perchance you
can enjoy this song:


Proposed BB Theme Song
(To the tune of "get a job")

Get a life, getta-getta life
When i get my e-mail
I read it through and through
I never fail to see
If there is any life for me to do.

 

[AV]

Ed,
Let me guess, you don't listen to classical music much? AV -Antonio Vivaldi
Thank you for taking up the challenge, although I hope you do not continue to omit words resulting in different understanding of what is written -(AV: //Let's not play word games.//
Let us do, it is hard to have a 'Christian debate' without words)
A word and a word game is not equal like the legs of the lame. Of course if you are reckless with the words of God, we shouldn't be too suprised.
Ed, I have presented you with a presuppositional approach to this question, so you are going to have to lay aside for a while the standard sophistry and exercise your senses a bit more.
You propose personal pontification as :
"Sorry, the Lord is NOT limited to one and only one book but Shines through all Bibles" Where in the bible did this doctrine proceed from? What is THE book of the LORD? Have ye not read?
Let me challenge you to reread what has actually been set forth for debate and focus on this and not straw men. If you need me to elaborate I will oblige.
AV

 

[Bookborn]

Ed, Hillclimber, Ransom, Billwald or whoever is reading. Not much of your time, but I have two legitimate questions and would appreciate an honest, sincere reply.

1. What is your favorite Bible verse and how do you know beyond any shadow of doubt that it is indeed the very words of God without error?

2. Is there anywhere on planet Earth a perfect, pure, unadulterated, infallible, inerrant Bible? Is THE Book of the Lord something that anyone on planet earth can hold in their hands and trust every word in it?

I appreciate your time.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by Bookborn:
...
1. What is your favorite Bible verse and how do you know beyond any shadow of doubt that it is indeed the very words of God without error?

I presuppose it

Bookborn: //2. Is there anywhere on planet Earth a perfect, pure, unadulterated, infallible, inerrant Bible? Is THE Book of the Lord something that anyone on planet earth can hold in their hands and trust every word in it? //

No. It is in electronic form and you
eyeball it on a visual display screen.

Check here:
http://bible.crosswalk.com/


It has dozens of perfect, pure, unadulterated, infallible, inerrant Bible.

Go check my poll in the Baptist only
Versions Forum at:

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/4/2497.html

see how the meaning of 'infallable' ranges
over a wide range.

The Lord is NOT limited to one local Church
or one Book - How can an omnipotent God
be so limited? It doesn't happen.

 

[AV]

Bookborn,
I'm not sure that was a direct response to your question from Ed. What sayest thou?

 

[Bookborn]

I appreciate the resonse, Ed. This gives us a starter. Also, can you answer the question about your favorite Bible verse? You answered part B of the question and I appreciate that - but do you have a favorite Bible verse?
Thanks in advance...

 

[Bookborn]

AV, it was a starting point. He presupposes his favorite verse to be inerrant and perfect, and if everybody on planet earth goes to http://bible.crosswalk.com/ (for example) then...
"It has dozens of perfect, pure, unadulterated, infallible, inerrant Bible." (Note the singular usage of 'Bible' unless this was a typo).

On Ed's aforementioned post, he links to his poll wherein he states:
"As a Christian i personally i used these as my main Bible:

KJVs - 42 years (King James Versions)
NIV - 7 years (New International Version)
nKJV - 7 years (New King James Versioin)
HCSB - 1 year (Holman Christian Standard Bible)"

I'm still uncertain, but it is a starting point for a discussion.
Ed, would you say the KJVs, NIV, nKJV, and HCSB are all perfect, inerrant, infallible, and unadulterated?

Thanks...

 

[Ed Edwards]

ED: //Personally I presuppose that "God is omnipotent". By logic
it is easy to prove that God is not limited to one and only one
book for nearly 400 years now in over 100 different countries
that use English as their first language.//

If this is too strong a presupposition for you, shall I water
it down for you?

 

[Ed Edwards]

Bookborn: //Ed, would you say the KJVs, NIV, nKJV,
and HCSB are all perfect, inerrant, infallible, and unadulterated?//

Yes, i suppose.
In fact, I presuppose.

If you and I find a seeming variation among them, can
we speak of it? Seems better than starting a new
denomination every time we think we find a difference.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

"...For the letter kills, but the spirit gives life." 2 Cor 3:6, from the NKJV, God's book for today's modern English speaking chaps.

At any rate where was "God's book in English" before the King-Jimmy? And if there was a "God's book in English" before the KJV, why did it have to be changed if it was already perfect? If it changed then, why not now? If there wasn't a "God's book in English" before the KJV how on did the poor English folk manage without it? If they did manage without it, then perhaps we can too. Perhaps we should remember we're Christians, and not Muslims with a Koran that just "fell out of the sky". Maybe we should rethink our epistemology, realizing that ultimately the perfect Word of God is a PERSON, not a written text.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Why do Bible College and seminary study the Greek language starting with the alphabet, if the KJV is perfect as given to us by the translators?

But, I must say I learned the Bible via the KJV.

Berrian, Th.D.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Why do Bible College and seminary study the Greek language starting with the alphabet, if the KJV is perfect as given to us by the translators?

But, I must say I learned the Bible via the KJV.

Berrian, Th.D.

tee hee, I use
the e-sword KJV + Strong's number, having
not learned Hebrew or Greek

 

[Bookborn]

Ed, When I asked if there was a perfect, infallible, inerrant Bible on planet earth, you pointed me to http://bible.crosswalk.com/ and said there are dozens of them there.
I just looked and saw... The Holman Christian Standard Bible - The New American Standard Bible - The American Standard Version -
The Complete Jewish Bible - The New King James Version - The King James Version (Authorized) -
The New Living Translation - The New Revised Standard Version - The Revised Standard Version - The Good News Translation - The Douay-Rheims Bible - World English Bible - The Darby Translation - Hebrew Names Version of World English Bible - Webster's Bible Translation -
Young's Literal Translation - Weymouth New Testament - Third Millennium Bible - New Century Version - English Standard Version –
KJV with Strong’s Numbers – NAS with Strong’s Numbers – The Message – GOD’S WORD Translation –
The Bible in Basic English – The Latin Vulgate...
Let me rest. I'm getting carpal tunnel....
Are you suggesting that ALL of those versions are the perfect, inerrant, infallible, preserved words of the living God? Would others out here agree?
Also, Doubting Thomas and others, can you answer the two 2-part questions I previously posted as a starting point to understand your positions?
Here they are:
Not much of your time, but I have two legitimate questions and would appreciate an honest, sincere reply.

1. What is your favorite Bible verse and how do you know beyond any shadow of doubt that it is indeed the very words of God without error?

2. Is there anywhere on planet Earth a perfect, pure, unadulterated, infallible, inerrant Bible? Is THE Book of the Lord something that anyone on planet earth can hold in their hands and trust every word in it?

I appreciate your time.

 

[AV]

Gentleman,
Please try and follow the argument. I am asserting that "You think all translations are errent and fallible and subject to correction. You correct them with 'the oldest most reliables'. You establish the most reliables as those authenticated by science and scholarship, thus science establishes the bible and not vice versa."
This establishes empiricism over the word of God. This is the image you have carved out for yourselves. Do you have a polemic to offer along these lines? Or just pontification, and ipse dixits?
AV

 

[Ransom]

AV said:

I see that you not only are not interested in rational discourse,

Wrong again.

but that you do not understand the argument set before you.

There has been no argument from you, only a naked assertion that the KJV is the "book of the Lord" for the English-speaking peoples.

Show us why we should believe you. Then you have an argument.