-
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
While this may be related to the laws of logic [the KJV-only use of fallacies or false arguments], I would think that sometimes KJV-only teaching violates what the Scriptures teach concerning truth [Bible doctrine of truth].
He is the Rock, his work is perfect, for all his ways are judgment, a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he (Deut. 32:4)
as the truth is in Jesus (Ephesians 4:21b)
thy word is truth (John 17:17)
Thy word is true from the beginning; and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth forever (Psalm 119:160)
all thy commandments are truth (Psalm 119:151b)
God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar (Romans 3:4a)
That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie (Hebrews 6:18a)
God is not a man, that he should lie (Numbers 23:19a)
and that no lie is of the truth (1 John 2:21c)
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour (Exodus 20:16)
Thou shalt not raise a false report (Exodus 21:1a)
Wherefore, putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another (Ephesians 4:25)
I have chosen the way of truth (Psalm 119:30a)
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good (1 Thessalonians 5:21)
I think that the NT doctrine of the priesthood of all believers is sometimes affected by KJV-only teaching.
Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood (1 Peter 2:5a)
But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:9a)
And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father (Revelation 1:6a)
Most and perhaps even all KJV-only authors would claim that they believe in the NT doctrine of the priesthood of all NT believers. R. B. Ouellette noted: “There is an important Baptist distinctive known as the ‘Priesthood of the Believers’” (More Sure Word, p. 51). Phil Stringer wrote: “All New Testament believers are priests (1 Peter 2:1-7)” (Unbroken Bible, p. 193). David Cloud observed: “I believe in the soul liberty of the believer, meaning that each believer can know for himself and is responsible to test everything by God’s Word (Acts 17:11, 1 Cor. 2:15-16; 1 Thess. 5:21)” (Faith, p. 15).
Do all aspects of KJV-only reasoning/teaching actually agree with this New Testament doctrine concerning the priesthood of all believers when KJV-only teaching in effect seems to make the Church of England makers of the KJV an exclusive priesthood who stand between English-speaking believers and the Scriptures?
It does not violate laws of logic:
If it did, it would not be as prevalent as it is.
It's false:
But, it doesn't violate laws of logic.
Perhaps it's Theologically unsound ( a fair characterization).
But, that isn't a violation of the laws of "logic".
Perhaps it's not consistently applied by all it's adherents:
But, that isn't a violation of the laws of "logic".
Perhaps it's foundational premises are mistaken:
But, that isn't a violation of the laws of "logic".
Why doesn't the O.P. ask a question which isn't stupid on its face?
Why does Logos not know to take a more nuanced view?
Why doesn't Logos correct the O.P. for it's obvious flaws?
Why doesn't Logos re-frame the question into some criticism that is appropriate for KJVO? (There's myriads of criticisms he could use).
I'll tell you why:
He doesn't know how to:
(Also that's why James White made money on a book, and he never will).
Last edited:
It violates many laws of logic. I don't have time to delineate them.
It violates none:
I stand by this, delineate
ONE!
Not all of them delineate ONE! YOU and I are both on simultaneously,....just delineate ONE, only ONE argument: Not all......ONE.
I'm online, and so are you.
Proceed:
Where you at Piper?
Name one "law of logic" (whatever that means) that KJVO violates:
I sit with baited breath:
Go on:
Name one "law of logic" (whatever that means) that KJVO violates:
I sit with baited breath:
Go on:
Nothing:
I didn't "suspect" as much.
I KNEW as much.
The King James Bible isn't perfect:
I know of numerous flaws in it.
Some aren't "flaws" but, places where I think it could/should have been translated differently:
EVERY translation has that issue. Most of my complaints against KJV are NOT corrected by other translations: They most likely make the same "mistakes" (or translational decisions I don't agree with). as the KJV does.
Sometimes, they are better than KJV:
Sometimes, worse.
ASK yourself: Why the persecution of the King James Bible???
I didn't "suspect" as much.
I KNEW as much.
The King James Bible isn't perfect:
I know of numerous flaws in it.
Some aren't "flaws" but, places where I think it could/should have been translated differently:
EVERY translation has that issue. Most of my complaints against KJV are NOT corrected by other translations: They most likely make the same "mistakes" (or translational decisions I don't agree with). as the KJV does.
Sometimes, they are better than KJV:
Sometimes, worse.
ASK yourself: Why the persecution of the King James Bible???
Typical KJV-only teaching does clearly violate laws of logic. By assuming as true unproven premises, KJV-only teaching makes use of the fallacy of begging the question. Sometimes KJV-only advocates have as a premise one of the same assertions that they have as a conclusion [circular reasoning]. KJV-only teaching sometimes involves special pleading. Sometimes KJV-only conclusions do not logically follow from their premises and from the evidence. Some KJV-only teaching violates the law of non-contradiction [a law of logic] since some KJV-only teaching contradicts other KJV-only teaching. The KJV-only purification process [purified seven times] argument would at times contradict the typical KJV-only argument concerning preservation of the Scriptures.
Use of the fallacy of false dilemma would violate laws of logic. Some KJV-only authors sometimes in effect attempt to create a false dilemma by claiming that there are only two possible alternatives or options: their opinions concerning the KJV or the view of liberals, skeptics, or unbelievers. They try to suggest or imply that there are only two possibilities: claimed absolute certainty in a KJV-only theory or complete skepticism. For example, KJV-only author Roy Branson claimed: "If one does not trust only the KJV 1611, he must trust liberal texts that are descended from liberal texts" (KJV 1611, p. 75). Roy Branson declared: “That complete Word of God is the KJV 1611 Bible. There is no other possibility” (p. 78). KJV-only author Dennis Corle suggested: “Since all Bibles don’t agree, one of them has to be the Word of God and all the rest of them have to be counterfeits” (God’s Inspired Book, p. 86). Mickey Carter declared: “God has not given us the Bible, unless we have it in the King James Version” (Things that are Different, p. 196). KJV-only author William Grady asserted: “If one rejects ‘King James Onlyism’ as his final authority, the only alternative is ‘Scholarship Onlyism’” (Given By Inspiration, p. 53). Lloyd Streeter claimed: The alternative to being ‘King James only’ is to be ‘Critical Text only’” (Seventy-five Problems, p. 19). Lloyd Street asserted: “If one of the new versions is the Word of God, then the KJV is not” (p. 250). Jack Hyles declared: “I have only two choices: the Catholic Bible kept in the Catholic church or the King James Bible” (Need for an Every Word Bible, p. 25). James Rasbeary claimed: “When it comes right down to it, you have either a Baptist Bible or a Catholic Bible” (What’s Wrong, p. 57). James Rasbeary alleged: “If your English version is not a King James Bible, you have a Catholic version” (p. 160). Hugo W. K. Schonhaar wrote: “Now there are two possibilities and only two. One possibility is that all English versions are in error at least in part, or there really is a Bible we can get our hands on that literally fulfills the words of Jesus in Matthew 24:35” (Woods, King’s Bible, p. 243). These are some examples where KJV-only authors claim that there are only two possible alternatives or choices when they do not prove that there are only two and when they do not prove their assertions to be true.
Last edited:
When KJV-only teaching assumes as true a premise that is not true, that would be a violation of a law of logic since it involves use of the fallacy of begging the question.
Assuming an untrue premise doesn't violate the laws of logic!
Logic is about the form an argument takes!
That's always been true.
I know KJVO conclusions are false:
Their logic is usually perfectly valid:
I just also know that you don't understand basic "laws of logic".
I know that you were, are and remain seriously unqualified to write books on the topic.
The LOGIC is flawless:
So was the LOGIC of the Evolution-assured German Nazis when they came up with the "Final Solution".
Their logic is flawless:
I know that while correct in your conclusions: You have no idea what the word "logic" means.
I also know that that's why I'd never give you money for a book....
Because, you aren't qualified to speak on the KJVO topic.
One only "begs the question" if (in a debate) or, if when they argue for a premise, they assume the premise...
You're just using what you think is a catchy phrase. Kjvo's are no more or less likely to do that than any number of other groups do.
You can't "beg the question"....unless you are debating in support of a premise which is being questioned.
You wouldn't know this:
But, I would, and, that's why no one wants your ignorant book.
How do you claim that a Bible translation is supposedly being persecuted?
Applying the same measures/standards to the KJV that KJV-only advocates apply to other English Bible translations would not be persecution of the KJV.
How am I supposedly persecuting the KJV by reading it for over 50 years and for believing it as what it actually is [a good overall English Bible translation in the same sense as the pre-1611 English Bibles (of which the KJV is a revision) are?
Non-scriptural KJV-only teaching is not the same thing as the KJV.
Do you try to equate KJV-onlyism as being the same thing as the KJV? What is soundly objected to is incorrect KJV-only teaching.
Let's explain basic logic to Logos:
Let's pretend that I am debating the affirmative position that the person which calls themselves "Logos" does not exist:
I put out these points:
1.) "Logos" is nominally merely a Greek word with Philosophical sophistication meaning something variously like "word", "truth". and etc.
2.) No human would choose for themselves a moniker so incurably arrogant as the "Word" or the "truth" of a matter.....at least on a debate board.
3.) THEREFORE: It is not possible that anyone who calls themselves the "Logos" of a thing exists, because no human is so self-important or arrogant as to assume that....unless they were God in the flesh or something.
4.) Therefore, the poster named "Logos" does not exist.
Now: obviously, my conclusion is false, only because one of my premises was false:
Namely: I assumed a premise where no human was so arrogant as to assume themselves the "truth" or "word" or "final arbitter" of truth.....excepting Jesus Christ himself.
I assumed no mere mortal was so self-important:
I have been, or, one of my premises has been proven to be incorrect.
Clearly, my premise is falsifiable because Logos exists.
But, the logic was flawless.
B.T.W: I know that the moniker is actually "Logos 1560" (a reference to the Genva Bible).
I'm just having fun picking on you:
Of course, I would likely argue that if your moniker is "Logos 1560" (which suggests your passion for the Geneva) then I would likely take you to task denying that I think it at all likely that you studied the KJV for 50 years. So, no easy winning.
(I happen to think your moniker is accurate, and I don't think you study the KJV, I think you study, if anything, the Geneva...........which is awesome).
But, LOGICALLY: I don't believe both claims are simultaneously true, because they are inconsistent.
Let's pretend that I am debating the affirmative position that the person which calls themselves "Logos" does not exist:
I put out these points:
1.) "Logos" is nominally merely a Greek word with Philosophical sophistication meaning something variously like "word", "truth". and etc.
2.) No human would choose for themselves a moniker so incurably arrogant as the "Word" or the "truth" of a matter.....at least on a debate board.
3.) THEREFORE: It is not possible that anyone who calls themselves the "Logos" of a thing exists, because no human is so self-important or arrogant as to assume that....unless they were God in the flesh or something.
4.) Therefore, the poster named "Logos" does not exist.
Now: obviously, my conclusion is false, only because one of my premises was false:
Namely: I assumed a premise where no human was so arrogant as to assume themselves the "truth" or "word" or "final arbitter" of truth.....excepting Jesus Christ himself.
I assumed no mere mortal was so self-important:
I have been, or, one of my premises has been proven to be incorrect.
Clearly, my premise is falsifiable because Logos exists.
But, the logic was flawless.
B.T.W: I know that the moniker is actually "Logos 1560" (a reference to the Genva Bible).
I'm just having fun picking on you:
Of course, I would likely argue that if your moniker is "Logos 1560" (which suggests your passion for the Geneva) then I would likely take you to task denying that I think it at all likely that you studied the KJV for 50 years. So, no easy winning.
(I happen to think your moniker is accurate, and I don't think you study the KJV, I think you study, if anything, the Geneva...........which is awesome).
But, LOGICALLY: I don't believe both claims are simultaneously true, because they are inconsistent.
Last edited:
It's neither logical nor illogical:
Here's a perfectly logical statement:
1.) All frogs are street-fighters
2.) All street-fighters are devoted to non-violence.
3.) Therefore all frogs are devoted to non-violence.
Here's another one:
1.) Socrates was a man
2.) All men are mortal
3.) Therefore Socrates was mortal
Which one was more "LOGICAL" than the other????
Deductively : Neither one.
KJVO does not suffer from being either more or less logical than any other viewpoint.
For instance:
I happen to know that you are not (personally, as Salty the person the man) a Calvinist:
You deny various assumptions they make. As do I.
But, the Calvinist System is logically flawless:
It stands as usually all five points because the logic doesn't work unless all the assumed premises are true.
If one premise or assumption fails, the whole system could collapse.
That's what makes it flawless:
LOGICALLY.........Calvinism is flawless.
I disagree with it, but, it's logically flawless.
Are you claiming to be an expert or authority on the subject of logic? What is the name of the textbook on logic that you wrote that makes you the authority?
You do not prove that your assertion is all that the term logic means. Perhaps you show readers that you may not understand what constitutes sound logic. Perhaps you are using the term logic according to your own possible misunderstanding or even illogic. The term logic does not solely refer just to the form of an argument. You are trying to limit the term logic to what you claim it to mean while ignoring the other definitions of the term. Words can more than just one meaning while you try to limit the word "logic" to only one meaning. You can be making incorrect assertions against other posters because they are not using the term logic in the one sense that you try to limit its meaning to.
Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary gives the following as its first definition of logic: "a science that deals with the canons and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration: the science of the normative formal principles of reasoning" (p. 497).
In his glossary of terms in his book entitled Logic, Gordon H. Clark defined logic as "the science of necessary inference" (Logic, p. 136). Gordon Clark noted that logic "explains the rules one must follow in order to reach correct conclusions" (p. vi). Gordon Clark observed: "Validity is the characteristic of an argument by which the conclusion must be true whenever the premises are true. These men say, the conclusion must be true, that is, the argument satisfies the laws of logic, but nevertheless, it is false. It is true, but it is false. Crazy, isn't it? Well, crazy or insane, in polite language it is called irrational" (p. 58).
The KJV-only use of fallacies would violate the canons and criteria for determining the validity of inference from non-true KJV-only premises. KJV-only conclusions do not necessarily follow from non-true premises.
Are you trying to argue that unsound logic (illogic) is flawless?
Last edited:
It would depend on how far they take KJV only. My church is KJV only for at church public reading.
If a church prefers to use only one version (only for consistency) that is NOT KJ - Only.
DR Bob has this thread about different KJ beliefs
I would add one more - KJ-T King James by "tradition" ie - I grew up with it, I memorized from the KJ, ect
- Status