Presuppositionalism and KJV onlyism

[Ed Edwards]

The monkey is on your back, Bro. AV
What do you think of my presupposition?

Bookborn: //Are you suggesting that ALL of those versions are
the perfect, inerrant, infallible, preserved words of the living God?
Would others out here agree? //

1) 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.

2) I go with the Lord, not with the majority.

At my inerrancy poll:

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

My answer (and the poll results are):

6. inerrant in all faithful English translations 11% (8)


I also suppose my presupposition is the best presopposition
that has been offered in this Topic.

 

[Ransom]

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 don't have a "favourite." They're all pretty nice.

2. Is there anywhere on planet Earth a perfect, pure, unadulterated, infallible, inerrant Bible?

Define "perfect, pure, unadulterated, infallible, inerrant."

Is THE Book of the Lord something that anyone on planet earth can hold in their hands and trust every word in it?

Define "THE Book of the Lord."

 

[Ransom]

AV said:

What sayest thou?

I sayest that this affectation KJV-onlyists have for reciting Early Modern English clichés is ridiculously twee.

 

[DHK]

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 don't have any single favorite verse. There is no translation of the Bible that is without error. Only the original were inspired. We have copies of those which have been preserved for us in over 3,000 manuscripts. I personally believe that the Bible has been preserved in the manuscripts which make up the majority text from which comes the textus receptus. The Bible has been preserved. Only the original manuscripts are inspired. Even the KJV has errors in it.

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.

The Bible itself says that the Word is forever settled in heaven. Apart from the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts no translation will ever be perfect. Translations are the product of man, including the KJV. Men make mistakes.
I am acquainted with Bibles in five different languages. If I go to a nation in the mid-east somewhere, would you expect me to teach archaic English to a non-English speaking nation? That would be absurd wouldn't it? Yet perhaps as much as 80 to 90 per cent of the nations of the world have Bibles that are translated from the critical text which is not even close to the KJV. Do they still have the Word of God? Perhaps you would say no, because it isn't like the KJV. This is where the problem of KJVOism lies. The cannot account for the Bibles of other nations. God promised to preserve his word. That is true. But not just in the English language. The Great Commission applies to every nation, every language. One must be therefore concerned with the Greek and Hebrew from which the Bible is translated from, rather than the translation itself.
DHK

 

[Bookborn]

Ray, that was an interesting question and statement...
"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."
A better question might be, "Why does the Bible not mention seminaries or Bible colleges as our standard for right and wrong?"
Seminaries don't study 'the' Greek, but depending on the seminary, dozens of Greek texts.
You learned the Bible via the KJV. Do you believe there is such an entity as 'the' (definite article - implying 'one') Bible (meaning 'book' and singular at that). Is there a Book of the Lord or is this a nebulous nonentity not nailed down in one sure place?

 

[Bookborn]

Hey guys, I can't seem to get any of you to commit to just one verse as perfect, inerrant, infallible.
Let me rephrase the question. Instead of your favorite verse, please list for all of us to see just ONE VERSE that you know beyond any shadow of doubt is inerrant, perfect, infallible - the VERY WORDS OF THE LIVING GOD, and how you account for that?

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by Bookborn:
Hey guys, I can't seem to get any of you to commit to just one verse as perfect, inerrant, infallible.
Let me rephrase the question. Instead of your favorite verse, please list for all of us to see just ONE VERSE that you know beyond any shadow of doubt is inerrant, perfect, infallible - the VERY WORDS OF THE LIVING GOD, and how you account for that?

Genesis 1:1 through Revelation 22:21.
They are beyond any shadow of doubt is inerrant, perfect, infallible - the VERY WORDS OF THE LIVING GOD by supposition.

Anybody else ready to follow my supposition

 

[AV]

Ransom,
Actually your statement "There has been no argument from you" is simply wrong. 'Thus' is a conclusion indicator. Go back and read.
I took you at your word that you understood the transcendental approach to apologetics, if you do, you see the dilemma I set forth. That is what I am asking you to answer.
AV

 

[Bookborn]

Ed, between Genesis 1:1 and Revelation 22:21, please type out or paste a verse that you know beyond any shadow of doubt are the infallible, inerrant, perfect words of God...
Since you guys won't commit to any one Book, I'm asking you to commit to just ONE VERSE. Please.
I beseech thee.

 

[Acumenical]

As I understand Van Til's apologetic, it starts with the correct assumption that all people know deep down that there is a God, even if they repress that knowledge (Romans 1:21); and therefore they must be challenged to acknowledge Him. (This presuppositional approach stands in contrast to the more popular evidential argument.) It can be a very useful tactic, but I'm not sure you can apply the same approach to defending the KJV, since the superiority of that translation is not something hidden deep in the human heart. Also, the question about which book of the Lord is the inerrant one can also be asked concerning the various editions of the KJV.

 

[AV]

Ed,
Let me be more precise since you are a new comer to Van Til's thought.
Logic and science and epistemology are founded upon the bible (a thing, a text, not doctrine seperated from the text). As such it provides intelligibility to them and justifies their use. You cannot therefore construct the bible and validate it using science and logic. You start with the bible.
I will give you a more fuller explanation...

 

[Bookborn]

Acumenical - or anybody reading, can you offer one verse to us that is perfect, inerrant, containing the very words of the living God and how you know this/ account for this beyond any shadow of doubt? I can't get anybody to commit to just one verse, much less ONE BIBLE.

 

[natters]

Bookborn, Ed's point is that any verse could be given. But since you are asking for a specific verse, I will give one: Matt 1:1. To answer your second question, "Yes".

 

[AV]

The question of KJV is one with presuppositional implications. For the two ways to approach the question, evidential and presuppositional, requires a pre-commitment to how God would preserve his words, in a completed book, or in fragments.
If you take the position that God preserves his words in fragments, then you must validate each fragment containing Gods words using evidential methods. If you take the position that God preserves his words providentially in a book (as he did in the bible) down through history, then you follow presuppositional lines of argument and put the question outside of the empiricist ability to completely answer the question.
The matter is of no small significance, for it reflects the same problem Van Til expressed against the evidential arguments that were traditionally used and lacked sufficient defense against anti-Christian philosophers. Van Til argued that their philosophies were not consistently cogent and intelligibility needed the Christian God ultimately. And ultimately Christianity must be presupposed as true in order to defend the existence of any fact of any sort.
This is where the evidentialist, who will prove which parts of the bible belong using empirical methods, will have to admit his fundamental presuppositional failure. He will need the bible to start with in order for his science to have any breath of life in it. How can he then assume he is reconstructing the words of God as he uncovers them with science while he needs the bible to exist in order to rationally begin his search?
The bible must exist first as the foundation of all knowledge. And God has promised to preserve his words personally, showing us in the bible how he preserves his words. God preserves his words in a book, called the book of the LORD. And Gods words are self verifying, and self authenticating not empirically proven of necessity. They are borne witness to by the Spirit of God, not substantiated by the wisdom of men. They have an invisible hand preserving them through history and no science can sufficiently penetrate the past to check God out and make sure he really did it. Or give their stamp of approval once they have patronizingly reviewed Gods work. The existence of the King James Only doctrine in all of its forms, bear witness to the self verifying testimony of the Spirit regarding the KJV, for there is no like zeal for any other translation. The historical records of the immense spiritual blessings related to that book likewise testify that this is the book of God.

 

[Bookborn]

Natters, type out the verse and show to us the very words of the living God for Matthew 1:1 and inform us how you KNOW BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF DOUBT these are a portion of God's perfect word...
Thanks for your time.
Out of over 30,000 verses that we tell the world they can hang their eternal salvation upon, just commit to ONE - ALL OF IT - IN IT'S ENTIREITY. Please give us a verse, not a reference.
If you wanted to give somebody the words of the living God, would you say to them, "Matt 1:1."?

 

[natters]

Originally posted by AV:
The existence of the King James Only doctrine

I'm not sure I want to get into the rest of your post (I'm not sure I understand it), but I did want to ask about this one statement of yours. Do you believe doctrines can come from places other than scripture? Do you believe doctrines that could not exist at the beginning of church history can come into existence in the middle of church history?

 

[natters]

Originally posted by Bookborn:
Natters, type out the verse and show to us the very words of the living God for Matthew 1:1

I don't see what the point is, as you can look it up just as easy as I can type it out. Nevertheless, here it is:

"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."

and inform us how you KNOW BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF DOUBT these are a portion of God's perfect word...

I know through faith. I cannot prove it to others, or I would, and help convert the entire world to Christ in one fell swoop.

If you wanted to give somebody the words of the living God, would you say to them, "Matt 1:1."?

Book, chapter and verse reference information allow us to quickly refer to words of God in scripture. Just as when I invite someone to my house, I tell them my address.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Bookborn:
if the KJV is perfect as given to us by the translators?

What evidence do you have for this supposition?
If the KJV is perfect demonstrate it.
Why were there five revisions.
How do you account for such words as "unicorn" in the Old Testament--Greek mythology??
Ro 6:2 God forbid.--Neither God nor forbid are in the Greek.
Acts 12:4--the Greek "pascha" meaning passover; translated "Easter"?
There are many such "errors," some worse than others.
No translation is perfect or infallible.
The Word of God is preserved in the Greek and Hebrew only, however we can have accurate translations but not infallible ones.
DHK

 

[AV]

Natters,
You asked "Do you believe doctrines can come from places other than scripture? Do you believe doctrines that could not exist at the beginning of church history can come into existence in the middle of church history?"
I believe everything must agree with the scripture, it is the final authority. And everything in the bible has not been revealed but must agree with what has been revealed.
AV

 

[natters]

AV, that doesn't answer my two specific questions.