-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Presuppositionalism and KJV onlyism
- Thread starter AV
- Start date
- Status
Natters, I asked you to show to us the very words of the living God for Matthew 1:1
And you said, “Here it is:
"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."
I asked you to inform us how you KNOW BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF DOUBT these are a portion of God's perfect word and you said,
“I know through faith. I cannot prove it to others, or I would…”
You say you KNOW THROUGH FAITH and cannot prove this. Are you saying you have a subjective feeling with no demonstrative proof? If you arbitrarily assert something, it can be arbitrarily denied.
How do you know archaeologists won’t embark upon an older, more reliable manuscript that omits Matt. 1:1 or contains different wording? What if an overzealous scribe doctored this up? How about these translations?...
The historical record of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham: (Holman)
The record of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham: (NASB)
This is a record of the ancestors of Jesus the Messiah, a descendant of King David and of Abraham (NLT)
An account of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham. (NRSV)
The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. (KJV)
This is the list of the ancestors of Jesus Christ, a descendant of David, who was a descendant of Abraham.(Good News)
This is the list of ancestors of Jesus Christ, descendant of David and Abraham.(God’s Word Translation)
The family tree of Jesus Christ, David's son, Abraham's son (The Message)
Book of the generation of Jesus Christ, Son of David, Son of Abraham. (Darby)
A roll of the birth of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham. (Youngs)
The Genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.(Weymouth)
This is the family history of Jesus Christ. He came from the family of David, and David came from the family of Abraham. (New Century)
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? Or are all these the same? If I ask you for a book, will you hand me a family tree? If I ask for THE record, will you give me A record? If I ask you for the list of ancestors, will you give me the family history?
Words are vehicles of thought and changing words results in the changing of thoughts.
Is the translation you gave us the words of the living God? Or are the other translations? Or perhaps none of them? Or all of them? Help me understand your position. You said ‘Yes’ to my question that there is an infallible Book of the Lord. Identify this Book of the Lord with specificity please and not vague ambuigity.
And you said, “Here it is:
"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."
I asked you to inform us how you KNOW BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF DOUBT these are a portion of God's perfect word and you said,
“I know through faith. I cannot prove it to others, or I would…”
You say you KNOW THROUGH FAITH and cannot prove this. Are you saying you have a subjective feeling with no demonstrative proof? If you arbitrarily assert something, it can be arbitrarily denied.
How do you know archaeologists won’t embark upon an older, more reliable manuscript that omits Matt. 1:1 or contains different wording? What if an overzealous scribe doctored this up? How about these translations?...
The historical record of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham: (Holman)
The record of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham: (NASB)
This is a record of the ancestors of Jesus the Messiah, a descendant of King David and of Abraham (NLT)
An account of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham. (NRSV)
The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. (KJV)
This is the list of the ancestors of Jesus Christ, a descendant of David, who was a descendant of Abraham.(Good News)
This is the list of ancestors of Jesus Christ, descendant of David and Abraham.(God’s Word Translation)
The family tree of Jesus Christ, David's son, Abraham's son (The Message)
Book of the generation of Jesus Christ, Son of David, Son of Abraham. (Darby)
A roll of the birth of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham. (Youngs)
The Genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.(Weymouth)
This is the family history of Jesus Christ. He came from the family of David, and David came from the family of Abraham. (New Century)
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? Or are all these the same? If I ask you for a book, will you hand me a family tree? If I ask for THE record, will you give me A record? If I ask you for the list of ancestors, will you give me the family history?
Words are vehicles of thought and changing words results in the changing of thoughts.
Is the translation you gave us the words of the living God? Or are the other translations? Or perhaps none of them? Or all of them? Help me understand your position. You said ‘Yes’ to my question that there is an infallible Book of the Lord. Identify this Book of the Lord with specificity please and not vague ambuigity.
Not exactly. It is certainly much more than "subjective feeling", but not "demonstrative proof". Instead, there is enough evidence, as well as what I believe to be the Holy Spirit bearing witness to me about this issue.
I don't know this. But given the current evidence, I am more than satisified.
What if? It does not change the current evidence.
Yes, I believe those are the words of God as well.
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.
Yes.
Both.
The Geneva Bible, for one.
AV, why can't you answer directly? Is KJV-onlyism a Christian doctrine?
If yes: 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?
If no: what exactly did you mean when you said it was a "doctrine"?
Good night, back tomorrow!
If yes: 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?
If no: what exactly did you mean when you said it was a "doctrine"?
Good night, back tomorrow!
AV said:
Actually your statement "There has been no argument from you" is simply wrong.
No, it is a simple statement of fact. You have provided no support for your assertion, therefore you have presented no argument.
Claiming that the AV is "the book of the Lord" is an assertion, not an argument.
Claiming that the contrary position is impossible doesn't make it so.
I took you at your word that you understood the transcendental approach to apologetics,
At this point, I have a reasonable doubt that you understand it.
if you do, you see the dilemma I set forth.
There has been no dilemma set forth by you.
Actually your statement "There has been no argument from you" is simply wrong.
No, it is a simple statement of fact. You have provided no support for your assertion, therefore you have presented no argument.
Claiming that the AV is "the book of the Lord" is an assertion, not an argument.
Claiming that the contrary position is impossible doesn't make it so.
I took you at your word that you understood the transcendental approach to apologetics,
At this point, I have a reasonable doubt that you understand it.
if you do, you see the dilemma I set forth.
There has been no dilemma set forth by you.
AV, who started this thread, doesn't understand Van Tillian apologetics at all. Presuppositionalism cannot be used for an English translation. I agree that Van Til is hard to read. If you want to understand more about presuppositionalism, read Bahnsen's Always Ready. Bahnsen made Van Til accessible for the lower 99% of the intellects.
Presuppositionalism asserts that God's existence cannot be proven; it is the presupposition that makes anything coherent and rational. There is no way to prove anything if God does not exist. In other words, it is impossible that God does not exist, ergo, the impossibility of hte contrary.
With respect to a Bible translation, it is not impossible that it doesn't exist. It is in fact, impossible that it always existed. Furthermore, the fallacies of KJVOnlyism have been shown and are undeniable. Therefore presuppoositionalism has no place in a conversation about Bible translations.
Presuppositionalism asserts that God's existence cannot be proven; it is the presupposition that makes anything coherent and rational. There is no way to prove anything if God does not exist. In other words, it is impossible that God does not exist, ergo, the impossibility of hte contrary.
With respect to a Bible translation, it is not impossible that it doesn't exist. It is in fact, impossible that it always existed. Furthermore, the fallacies of KJVOnlyism have been shown and are undeniable. Therefore presuppoositionalism has no place in a conversation about Bible translations.
Larry,
Perhaps you should read Bahnsen a little more closely, because he teaches in no uncertain terms that Christianity is objectively and apodictically true. And this is what Van Til teaches, it is PROVEN by the impossibility of the contrary.
Now, I have applied presuppositionalism to the translation issue by following the thought consistently. The bible is presupposed as the basis for science and epistemology, it justifies them. If you study the bible itself for these answers you will find that God preserves his words in a book. This is a collection of his revelations required for us to have intelligibility in regards to the world. Therefore (a conclusion indicator Ransom) God preserves his own words to 'us', that is English people. This is how the translation question is implicit.
Larry I have laid this out on Page 4 in the middle post. If you object to something I have stated then say on.
Thanks for your time,
AV
Perhaps you should read Bahnsen a little more closely, because he teaches in no uncertain terms that Christianity is objectively and apodictically true. And this is what Van Til teaches, it is PROVEN by the impossibility of the contrary.
Now, I have applied presuppositionalism to the translation issue by following the thought consistently. The bible is presupposed as the basis for science and epistemology, it justifies them. If you study the bible itself for these answers you will find that God preserves his words in a book. This is a collection of his revelations required for us to have intelligibility in regards to the world. Therefore (a conclusion indicator Ransom) God preserves his own words to 'us', that is English people. This is how the translation question is implicit.
Larry I have laid this out on Page 4 in the middle post. If you object to something I have stated then say on.
Thanks for your time,
AV
Ray Berrian
New Member
When I was in Bible College we had chapel Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Our college pastor set up a schedule of speakers when he did not preach. He himself was a master preacher.
Van Til came and offered the message and spoke to pastors who understood more than I did in my early years. I remembering that Dr. Van Til said, "Now I am going to make a statement that only a couple of you will understand." He was a great intellectual man, who from my view blended secular philosophy into Christian theology and portrayed our presupposition for faith with generous statements/points of truth. All of Christianity have been blessed by having him in our world in giving us some beams on which to build our spiritual house.
Van Til came and offered the message and spoke to pastors who understood more than I did in my early years. I remembering that Dr. Van Til said, "Now I am going to make a statement that only a couple of you will understand." He was a great intellectual man, who from my view blended secular philosophy into Christian theology and portrayed our presupposition for faith with generous statements/points of truth. All of Christianity have been blessed by having him in our world in giving us some beams on which to build our spiritual house.
Why would I need to read more closely to find that out? I have read closely and knew that already. That is precisely why your argument is wrong.
You are using an argument for one thing and trying to apply it to another. And you are doing it illegitimately.
Your whole argument is flawed anyone familiar with Van Til can see that.
The fact that God preserved his word in a book (whatever meaning "book" has in your argument) does not lead to the KJV. Your argument works just as well for the NASB, the NIV, the NLT, or any other version. The problem is that your argument is not presuppositional. It is fideistic. It makes huge irrational jumps.
For an example of hte problems in your argument, you say The bible must exist first as the foundation of all knowledge. This is wrong. God exists as the foundadtion of all knowledge. BUt there was knowledge long before there was a Bible, and certainly long before the KJV.
You continue 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. Perhaps, perhaps not. But still doesn't lead to the KJV. Wasn't this true prior to 1611?? Of course it was. Ergo, it cannot be only the KJV.
You say, 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. Aside from the mere sophistry of this statement, it is objectively wreong. Assuming the "they" of "they have ..." is the "men" of whose wisdom you talk about in the previous sentence, this statement is objectively wrong. Men did not have an invisible hand in preservation. They had a visible hand. God's hand was the invisible hand.
You say, 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. This is not presuppositionalism, and therefore, even if correct, does not substantiate your point.
You say, The historical records of the immense spiritual blessings related to that book likewise testify that this is the book of God. Like the above, this is not presuppositionalism either.
My original statement stands that 1) You do not understand presuppositionalism and 2) you have not rightly applied it to this issue.
The Bible isn't the basis for science and epistemology. God is the basis for science and epistemology in presuppositionalism.
Ray,
He was definitely raised up by God as a standard against the flood of the enemy. He simply observed that unbelieving philosophy failed to account for any fact whatsoever, but Christianity "saved science". In a real sense the fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom. A knowledge of bible doctrine provides the world with intelligibility, so much so that every rational or scientific thought that the unbeliever has, faces him with his true inner knowledge of God which he hardens himself against. He cannot appeal to logic or science or morals without looking at God. Powerful concepts.
AV
He was definitely raised up by God as a standard against the flood of the enemy. He simply observed that unbelieving philosophy failed to account for any fact whatsoever, but Christianity "saved science". In a real sense the fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom. A knowledge of bible doctrine provides the world with intelligibility, so much so that every rational or scientific thought that the unbeliever has, faces him with his true inner knowledge of God which he hardens himself against. He cannot appeal to logic or science or morals without looking at God. Powerful concepts.
AV
Larry,
As I stated early (pg 1 bottom)
"Actually I am asserting firstly that there really is such a thing as the book of the LORD. And secondly that it is the KJV for the English church."
You are correct to distinguish the empirical and presuppositional aspects of the argument. Presuppositionally there must be a book, and this is the part you will not accept. You dissent with:
"Your argument works just as well for the NASB, the NIV, the NLT, or any other version."
Let me point out that this doesn't disprove that there must be an actual perfect bible, rather it points out how you reject the bible doctrine of preservation because you refuse to accept any BOOK in particular. You don't believe the NASB is the perfect, preserved word of God. You accept a theoretical book verses a real one.
You continue:
"God exists as the foundadtion of all knowledge. BUt there was knowledge long before there was a Bible, and certainly long before the KJV."
This certainly sounds grandiose, but the simple fact is there is a bible. So let's grab reality by the horns. God has seen fit to give us the book. God gave it to us as special revelation, and to save us from distorting his natural revelation.
Actually 'they' in the post is 'God's words' so we agree here.
You reiterate:
"The Bible isn't the basis for science and epistemology. God is the basis for science and epistemology in presuppositionalism."
Theology taught in the bible is, which is why Van Til spent much of his time on theology (bible verses). If you have objective proof that some general term "God" answers philosophical problems presented by unbelievers and provides us the preconditions of intelligibility, then show us. What do you know about God that you can argue objectively without referring to the bible? You have piqued my interest.
AV
As I stated early (pg 1 bottom)
"Actually I am asserting firstly that there really is such a thing as the book of the LORD. And secondly that it is the KJV for the English church."
You are correct to distinguish the empirical and presuppositional aspects of the argument. Presuppositionally there must be a book, and this is the part you will not accept. You dissent with:
"Your argument works just as well for the NASB, the NIV, the NLT, or any other version."
Let me point out that this doesn't disprove that there must be an actual perfect bible, rather it points out how you reject the bible doctrine of preservation because you refuse to accept any BOOK in particular. You don't believe the NASB is the perfect, preserved word of God. You accept a theoretical book verses a real one.
You continue:
"God exists as the foundadtion of all knowledge. BUt there was knowledge long before there was a Bible, and certainly long before the KJV."
This certainly sounds grandiose, but the simple fact is there is a bible. So let's grab reality by the horns. God has seen fit to give us the book. God gave it to us as special revelation, and to save us from distorting his natural revelation.
Actually 'they' in the post is 'God's words' so we agree here.
You reiterate:
"The Bible isn't the basis for science and epistemology. God is the basis for science and epistemology in presuppositionalism."
Theology taught in the bible is, which is why Van Til spent much of his time on theology (bible verses). If you have objective proof that some general term "God" answers philosophical problems presented by unbelievers and provides us the preconditions of intelligibility, then show us. What do you know about God that you can argue objectively without referring to the bible? You have piqued my interest.
AV
First, please learn to use the quotes. Your posts are very hard to distinguish your comments from those to which you are responding.
1. It cannot be only the KJV.
2. It is not required to be the complete canon.
3. It is not required to be a particular translation of the canon.
You have about three or four different thoughts going on and it is hard to have a conversation about three or four different things at one time.
Presuppositionalism cannot be used to argue for the KJV. Your whole method is flawed.
I understand your assertion, but it is 1) wrong, and 2) meaningless in presuppositional apologetics (hereafter PA). If the KJV is the only "book of the Lord" then that phrase (which I presume you drew from a verse but I see no actual scriptural support you have offered) had no meaning before the KJV existed. If the phrase had meaning before the KJV existed (which it must have), then we can deduce several things.
1. It cannot be only the KJV.
2. It is not required to be the complete canon.
3. It is not required to be a particular translation of the canon.
Based on what? God's promise to preserve his word did not promise to preserve them perfectly, nor to preserve them in one book. You have deduced that, whether legitimately or not we could argue.
You have confused your "doctrine of preservation" with the Bible's. You should have started with the Bible doctrine of preservation and worked from there. You started with a precommitment to the KJVOnly and worked backwards. That is a flaw in your method.
Yes there is. It existed long before the KJV in various portions. It exists in many different languages. It even exists in many different editions of the KJV. So grab reality by the horns and abandon your KJVOnlyism.
No. Theology taught in the Bible is not really the basis for science and epistemology. You are confusing the issue by trying to sound intellectual. It isn't working. God is the basis. Theology is the truth about God. Everything depends on God, not on the truth taught about him.
Nothing. We know nothing propositional about God apart from Scripture. But that is not really the topic here.
You have about three or four different thoughts going on and it is hard to have a conversation about three or four different things at one time.
Presuppositionalism cannot be used to argue for the KJV. Your whole method is flawed.
- Status