I was looking for a simple answer.
-
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!
What other Doctrines does KJV Only violate
- Thread starter Piper
- Start date
- Status
I was looking for a simple answer.
Compared to you....
Yes.
I have degrees in Philosophy from the University of Central Florida, and Theology from the University of London.
I have written no textbooks:
But, I didn't invent the "frogs are street-fighters" argument myself. It's hilarious: Admittedly, I studied that.
As far as Deductive logic is concerned?
That isn't Inductive logic of course (which is based upon probabilities etc...)
That's....well, it's just what it means:
Most of these debates rely upon Deductive logic:
Those rules are quite immutable. They can be placed into a form much like a mathematical "proof", and be demonstrated to be either "valid" or "non-valid".
"Logic" is neither "sound" nor "unsound"....Deductive arguments are either sound or un-sound........
Inductive arguments rely upon probability.
uh, yeah, or that.
In a Deductive argument (you'll note it never, theoretically, provides new information)
YES, it does, it absolutely does
An Inductive argument can supply new information: But the Deductive one: Never.
No: I'm not denying that the "laws of logic" go beyond the scope of mere Deduction:
I just know that you don't understand anything about it...
Probably because you consulted a.......DICTIONARY!!!!!!!!
I don't consider Gordon Clark the God of Philosophy, but he's no slouch. He's right...
Clark (unlike you) knows what he's talking about...
There's a reason he used the word "MUST" be true.
He makes distinctions between "necessary" truth and an "incidental" truth: He doesn't do it in so many words, but, the trained eye sees it. You wouldn't have caught that, or honed-in on that word (unless that was your field of study)...Like a law student looking for key words. But, I would: He's making distinctions.
An "incidental" truth is:
Logos exists:
A necessary truth is:
God exists.
People who actually understand what they are reading can properly understand Clark....
You, I give credit for reading him.....but, some of those terms are "terms of art"...that you aren't picking up the significance of.
I'm not following what this is...Maybe you weren't clear, maybe I failed to read well...
I'm not following.
You haven't demonstrated the "fallacies" they've used.
You may not know this:
But, one can essentially take any statement, deduce it into a proposition put the truth-values of that proposition into a formula, and literally PROVE whether the argument is "valid" or not.
KJVO's are no more guilty of "invalid" forms of argument than anyone else.
"Valid" arguments are not an issue of interpretation:
An argument can be either "prooved" to be "valid" or not:
It's only "sound" given the premises being true.
The existence of GOD (literally) is probably the only "necessary" truth in the Universe....And, honestly, I get quitely offended that you use it so flippantly. "Necessity" is something that CANNOT NOT BE....That's sorta like the Ontological Argument for God's Existence.....
"Necessary" is a "term of art" to them. There's a LOT that goes behind an incidental truth (like Logos exists) and a "Necessary" truth: Like : "There is no possible Universe where God could not exist, or where he could fail to exist"....
THAT is true by "Necessity".
Clark is using terms you aren't doing justice to.[/QUOTE]
Last edited:
You won't get one, not every answer is simple.
I have never had an odious amount of respect for "Dr. Bob's" opinions....
Do with that what you will.
He was a perfectly nice man, I'm sure.
If you want a "simple" answer:
You're wrong:
And KJVO's are being perfectly "logical" in their beliefs.
You don't want that, so....
It was demonstrated that KJV-only reasoning involves use of fallacies. Your eyes may be closed to it. You only commented on one of the fallacies, ignoring the other fallacies pointed out in KJV-onlyism. Do you think that the KJV-only use of the fallacy of begging the question is logical?
Henry A. Virkler wrote: "The fallacy that occurs in begging the question is that unproven propositions in the conclusion are used in the premises to 'prove' the conclusion. There is no argument, for the process begins with the same material with which it ends" (Christian's Guide to Critical Thinking, pp. 197-198).
When any KJV-only belief involves use of illogical fallacies, they are being "illogical", not perfectly logical.
This priesthood of all believers may be true, and I suspect it is, but the passages you have chosen for proof texts from the epistles of Peter does not prove it. Peter's letters were written to the strangers of Israel. A stranger is a sojourner who is in a foreign land. There are several things said to these people that would never be said to the church at large. In fact, they are contrasted to the gentiles in the letter. They are called a holy nation, a royal priesthood.` The church is not presented as a nation but it is a family. Peter is not giving church truths, Paul was commissioned for that.
1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
These are all provinces in the area where Turkey is today.
Acts 2:8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?
Following are three words that do not appear in any of the 13 letters Paul wrote to gentiles.
1. Priest
2 Priests
3 Priesthood
He has much to say in explaining our roles in the church of Jesus Christ but priesthood is not one of them. Think about it. If we are one in the body of Christ and are functioning members, why is there a need for a priest. Here is the gifts given to different members.
27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
There are just no priests in that body.
Somebody at some point in church history has made up the doctrine of the priesthood of the believer and though it is not a doctrine of the church and cannot be found in the scriptures, it is a cardinal doctrine set in stone.
and one is judged as a heretic if one does not believe it.
From Hebrews through Revelation, where the Jews are being addressed, it lays out this way.
1 Priest = 26 verses - 26 verses all in Hebrews
2 priests = 9 verses - 6 in Hebrews and 3 in the Rev (see note A below)
3 Priesthood = 7 Verses - four in Hebrews and two in 1 Peter (see note B below)
Note A
The 3 verse in Revelation and they do concern the church of Jesus Christ but obviously during the millennium.
Re 1:6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
Re 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.
Re 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
Note B
1Pe 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
1Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
When Hosea was sent by God to Israel, the northern 10 tribes, he said ye are not my people and would be driven out of the land. But in the same breath he said in the same place it is said ye are not my people, there shall ye be called the children of the living God. For a person to become a child of God it takes a new birth. This is the generation of Israel that had that privilege. This letter was written in the mid 60"s and judgement on this generation loomed near. In AD 70 the hammer fell and Israel was not saved. Remember Heb 6, 10 and 2 Peter 2. These passages concerned this generation.
Jer 8:20 The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and we are not saved.
When any human being fails to be intellectually perfect, or (put differently) is a human...
They are being imperfect humans.
I agree.
.
It was never "demonstrated"...
The only thing you could "demonstrate" would be a deductive logical "proof":
And you don't know how to do that.
I could show you, it's like math. You could LITERALLY "prove" their argument to be invalid, but, you've never tried.
I could show you.
They aren't.
You aren't distinguishing between formal and informal logical fallacies....They are quite different. That's why I've never taken you seriously.
"Begging the question" is an informal logical fallacy"
"The fallacy of the indistributed Middle" is a formal logical fallacy.....and can be "demonstrated" <---why do you love that term so much? it's sorta' ungainly and unpoetic, and not at all fun to say....but, you love it.
Too many consonants, "demonstrated".....What human of flesh and blood loves that word so much? blech.....
You could "demonstrate" that...
But, you never have, because you don't know how to.
Anyway: KJVO's are no more guilty of "illogic" than Mormons are.....or anyone else.
You've never "demonstrated" that they are wrong.....
You've argued for it. You've rarely provided evidence that their "logic" is invalid.
I'll grant you this:
KJVO is wrong, the view is wrong...One should Never be KJVO...
Logos, has no idea how to prove it, and his arguments against KJVO....actually suck.
I don't disagree with your conclusions about KJVO....I just think you are a bad spokesman for the position....I could disprove it better than you could.....And I've never really tried. Practically every one of your accusations against it are irrelevant or demonstrate an obvious bias, and you clearly apply an unjust use of weights and measures...
Last edited:
It is a very simple yes or no answer!
No, it isn't.
Last edited:
..
Actually, was just re-reading the initial question you asked:
The answer is actually:
MAYBE.
A Bible translation is not free from all causes and independent of all sources and authorities. By definition, a translation is of necessity translated from and based on something in another language or languages. By definition, a translation would be dependent upon something else for its existence. Translation would be a relative term since it is connected to another object. The source of a translation would be one of its essential causes since it would be necessary for the source to exist before a translation into another language could be made from it. Therefore, the correct use and true sense of the term translation indicate that a translation is an effect or consequence that presupposes a cause or causes on which it is dependent. Since a translation is an effect, it cannot be the rule or authority greater than its sources or causes. Can an effect surpass the authority of its cause? Any reasoning that would attempt to reverse cause and effect would be erroneous.
Can the greater authority of the antecedent source(s) in effect be denied and the authority of the consequent translation affirmed? Does some KJV-only reasoning seem to involve use of the fallacy of affirming the consequent [the KJV] while denying the antecedent [the preserved Scriptures in the original languages]? One KJV-only argument of several KJV-only authors is that the KJV is the final authority, which could be considered affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent. A similar KJV-only argument that may attempt to affirm the consequent is the one that attempts to claim that the KJV is superior to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks asserted: “When we affirm the consequent, we guarantee nothing” (Come, Let Us Reason, p. 64).
According to the laws of causality, of good and necessary consequence, and of non-contradiction, the preserved original language texts of Scripture cannot be and not be the authority, cause, source, and foundation for a translation at the same time and in the same respect.
Can the greater authority of the antecedent source(s) in effect be denied and the authority of the consequent translation affirmed? Does some KJV-only reasoning seem to involve use of the fallacy of affirming the consequent [the KJV] while denying the antecedent [the preserved Scriptures in the original languages]? One KJV-only argument of several KJV-only authors is that the KJV is the final authority, which could be considered affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent. A similar KJV-only argument that may attempt to affirm the consequent is the one that attempts to claim that the KJV is superior to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks asserted: “When we affirm the consequent, we guarantee nothing” (Come, Let Us Reason, p. 64).
According to the laws of causality, of good and necessary consequence, and of non-contradiction, the preserved original language texts of Scripture cannot be and not be the authority, cause, source, and foundation for a translation at the same time and in the same respect.
If you can so easily disprove KJV-onlyism, why did you once accept it or why were you once deceived enough to believe it?
When you in effect boast that you can disprove it better than I can and when you could help those believers who are misled by it, why would you not try to help them? Readers may be interested in seeing you do what you claim you can do.
Why would you waste time complaining about my efforts to help those who accept this false teaching and to keep others from being deceived by it when you claim that you could better help those who are misled by it?
This is precisely what I've been telling you:
An argument is "Valid"....whenever the premises are true:
You aren't paying attention to the terms Clark is using.
Therefore most KJVO arguments are not "illogical"....of course they assume their premises are true.
Don't you?
So, when they draw a conclusion from their assumptions, why do you insist they are "illogical"?
They aren't being "illogical". <----That's a term of art. (As Clark just demonstrated).
They are being "wrong". <----That's not a term of art...it means "wrong".
Are you in effect saying that their argument is not valid whenever their premises are not true?
Are you ignoring the fact that their KJV-only premises are not true, making their conclusions based on those premises not true?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but, I think you have some passing knowledge of Greek and Hebrew?
If we began at Genesis 1:1......we both know the definite particle isn't there right?
That would work to "disprove" every respectable English Translation....
What would be the good of that?
I don't know what "deceit" you're looking for.....Not all KJVO's think the same.
I still don't use other ones regularly.
I think they are rarely any better or worse than the KJV....often quite worse....I know the NIV just makes up crap that's CLEARLY not in the text...
And no one is angry about that, and no one is spending time on it...They're bashing the KJV instead.
Because they don't need "help"...
KJVO is the most benign and harmless minor issue that no one needs rescuing from.
I'm not sure what I "claim" to do...
But I think that KJVO's need to be left alone.
They are some of the most wonderful, sacrificial and Godly people I ever meet:
And they are passionate readers of the Bible.
They don't need "rescuing"....
Honestly, because, if we looked at it as an issue of "Theological Triage"...as (I can't remember who) wrote so brilliantly. They aren't the enemy.
They are good, wonderful people, whose passion and efforts should be harnessed and not fought against.
Also, there is a distinction between an "historical/ textual-critical" view of KJVO that you have never seemed to appreciate.
Some, (maybe many) look at the issue in strictly non-Theological terms.....meaning they think that the KJV question is indeed a "text-critical" one.....and they don't care about Psalms..."seven times purified arguments" (because they aren't all stupid).
They are not the enemy. I don't understand a passion for fighting against them. They neither do, nor do not necessarily agree or disagree with you on 95% of all Theological issues (they probably agree, I do know you are at least somewhat Theologically sophisticated). So what makes the honest KJVO your enemy????
Now, if the statement was "The KJ Version - might be better than the original Greek"
Then I could see a possible answer of "maybe"
though I could not put too much stock in a "maybe"
Another-words - why would the originals NOT be better than a translation?
(granted, I realize we do not have any originals {that we are aware of })
- Status