What other Doctrines does KJV Only violate

[HeirofSalvation]

Are you in effect saying that their argument is not valid whenever their premises are not true?

No, an argument is "valid" even if their premises are false, actually.
Clark's distinction is correct.

Are you ignoring the fact that their KJV-only premises are not true,

No, I don't ignore it...
Trust me, Spock did not rightly define "logic"...Clark is correct.
An argument may be "logical" even if the conclusions are false.

The Nazi "final solution" was based upon perfectly valid "logic"...
But, well, Evolutionary thinking has seriously evil consequences.

making their conclusions based on those premises not true?

Just re-read what Clark said:
He is a trained Philosopher.....
An argument is "valid" assuming the form it takes is correct:
It is "Sound" only if it is BOTH "valid" in form and the premises are true.

KJVO's aren't any more "illogical" as anyone else (as far as validity is concerned)...well, welcome to the club....That's Everyone... Calvinism is (IMO) wrong about absolutely everything..............but their LOGIC is flawless. (That's why people buy into it.) KJVO's aren't "illogical" their premises are false.[/QUOTE]

 

[Logos1560]

..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 are plenty of KJV-only authors and posters who are angry at the NIV and who would bash it. They are not permitted by the rules at this forum to present some of the accusations that they typically would make against it. They cannot refer to it by some of the names that they would typically call it.

Many KJV-only authors are even more angry at the NKJV than at the NIV. They make the same basic accusations against the NKJV as they make against the NIV.

False KJV-only teaching is not harmless.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Now, if the statement was "The KJ Version - might be better than the original Greek"
Then I could see a possible answer of "maybe"

Your original question wasn't whether it was either "true" or even "plausible"....
It isn't TRUE AT ALL!

It was whether it was "logical"...

Here's Again: perfect "logic": (I'm not thinking people are appreciating it's limitations)

1.) All frogs are street-fighters
2.) All street-fighters are devoted to non-violence
3.) Therefore all frogs are devoted to non-violence.

That is logically flawless:
It does little good to accuse KJVO's of "illogic".
though I could not put too much stock in a "maybe"

Another-words - why would the originals NOT be better than a translation?

They are But, someone who worked from originally false premises might quite LOGICALLY disagree, indeed, they must.

(granted, I realize we do not have any originals {that we are aware of }

Logic isn't concerned with the truth or falsehood of premises...It is a skill-set that helps us think correctly. That's all.

Hence, why the frogs are the dedicated peace-nicks we always knew they were.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

They are plenty of KJV-only authors and posters who are angry at the NIV and who would bash it. They are not permitted by the rules at this forum to present some of the accusations that they typically would make against it. They cannot refer to it by some of the names that they would typically call it.

Many KJV-only authors are even more angry at the NKJV than at the NIV. They make the same basic accusations against the NKJV as they make against the NIV.

False KJV-only teaching is not harmless.

Yay....fight the good fight brother.

 

[Logos1560]

...Clark is correct.
An argument may be "logical" even if the conclusions are false.

Where does Gordon Clark say that an argument may be called logical when the conclusions are false or when the premises are false?

In the quote I presented, he seemed to suggest that it would be irrational to say that an argument satisfies the laws of logic when its conclusion is false. To suggest that an argument is true and false at the same time would violate the law of non-contradiction.

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" (Logic, p. 58).

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Where does Gordon Clark say that an argument may be called logical when the conclusions are false or when the premises are false

?
He doesn't.

In the quote I presented, he seemed to suggest that it would be irrational to say that an argument satisfies the laws of logic when its conclusion is false.

No.
It's "irrational" only if it is believed assuming the premises are untrue.
You are over-thinking this:

It MUST be true, he says: whenever the premises are true....

KJVO's assume the truth of their basic premise...therefore any conclusions they make must follow logically from their presuppositions.

To suggest that an argument is true and false at the same time would violate the law of non-contradiction.

Clark didn't use the words "true" or "false" here:
He used the word "Valid".....

Like our frog argument is quite "Valid"...

That is what Clark was defining there...He's correct.

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" (Logic, p. 58)

I don't know the context of this...but, yeah. He's definitely giving us the distinction between "Valid". and "Sound" arguments:

 

[Salty]

I'm thinking about going out in the back field and talk to the frogs.......

 

[Salty]

Conan - the frogs said they would like to invite you also!

 

[JD731]

I asked Siri if it was logical, given the properties of water, for a man could walk on it. She sent me to some philosophers whose answers seemed to be NO. Therefore, given the nature of God it seems logical to me to cast logic aside when it comes to God and go with the principle of faith.

 

[Conan]

I asked Siri if it was logical, given the properties of water, for a man could walk on it. She sent me to some philosophers whose answers seemed to be NO. Therefore, given the nature of God it seems logical to me to cast logic aside when it comes to God and go with the principle of faith.

Siri was right. The properties of water are unwalkable by man. That is why it was a genuine miracle that Jesus could, and did walk on the water.

 

[JD731]

Siri was right. The properties of water are unwalkable by man. That is why it was a genuine miracle that Jesus could, and did walk on the water.

I don't disagree with that. It is just strange to me what miracles some choose to believe. and which they apply to logic. Take the word of God. Everyone on here believes God has preserved the words of his testimony that he has given through the pens of chosen men over a carved out period of time of about 1500 years. It has been two thousand or so years since he has spoken a word audibly, or even written one. And he wrote his words down on papyrus and other perishable materials that has a very short shelf life. Imagine that, the thing that is standing between heaven and hell is given in materials such as this!

Then I find out that there are 4 families of manuscripts that have different words. And get this, scholars do not even agree which manuscripts are right and they argue among themselves about them. Yet they all say one must know the original languages to understand God, not understanding that the whole purpose of God in allowing such a thing is to teach us that he is preserving his words without our help. He is going to judge every word we speak one day he says, and therefore he wants us to judge every word he speaks.

I have judged that every word of God is pure. It is not logical to think I have every word in English but by faith I do. I don't care about original languages as long as there is more than one family of manuscripts and so called scholars disagree which one is true. If scholars ever get together and agree to burn 3 of those families of manuscripts and keep one, then I will change my mind and believe the word of God is in the extant manuscripts.

At the end of each age men are tested by God. We in this age are no different. He warns us ahead of time how that test will play out. Men are choosing sides. It might be interesting to know that the majority is never on the right side.

The KJV is the miraculous preservation of the words of God for us today and the unreasonable attacks against the believers in it should be a hint that there is a greater force behind the attacks, especially since those who are worried about what danger believing it poses while they are mute about the crazy corruption that is the NIV, the best selling translation, not of words of God, but of thoughts of God, in the world today. I stand in doubt of men who will fall for that translation. If you want to doubt a translation, that's the one.

 

[Van]

Other than the laws of logic, what biblical doctrines does it violate?

Is the problem with KJVonlyism the KJV bible, or the provincialism that says my way or the highway.

 

[Marooncat79]

It violates the spirit of unity in their refusal to embrace others who were saved outside the KJVO camp

 

[robycop3]

IMHO, the KJVO myth does not violate any Biblical DOCTRINES, but it DOES violate the Biblical command not to lie.

 

[JD731]

IMHO, the KJVO myth does not violate any Biblical DOCTRINES, but it DOES violate the Biblical command not to lie.

Excuse me, but I think you are lying.

 

[Logos1560]

I have degrees in Philosophy from the University of Central Florida, and Theology from the University of London.

Perhaps your appeal to secular philosophy where the form of the argument seems to be treated as more important than whether the argument is sound and true is not in agreement with scriptural truth.

My approach to logic takes into account the Bible doctrine of truth so that sound logic would be in agreement with truth and would lead to true conclusions. To me, the important matter is whether an argument is true instead of trying to claim that arguments leading to false conclusions are to be accepted as perfect logic if the form of their argument is valid.

Do you ignore how illogical KJV-only reasoning would affirm the consequence and in effect deny the antecedent?

 

[Logos1560]

Other than the laws of logic, what biblical doctrines does it violate?

Would non-scriptural KJV-only teaching violate the doctrine of God by its attempts to claim that traditions, opinions, and teaching of men can be called a doctrine of God when they are not? The human KJV-only commandments of KJV-only advocates are not commands of God.

Doctrine concerning traditions, commandments, or doctrines of men

Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside
the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups, and many other such things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition (Mark 7:7-9)

Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition (Matthew 15:6b)

But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men (Matthew 15:9)

Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? (Matthew 15:3b)

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men (Col. 2:8a)

Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using; after the commandments and doctrines of men? (Col. 2:20-22)

Beware of false prophets (Matt. 7:15a)

Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth (Titus 1:14)

Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge (1 Cor. 14:29)

We ought to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29b)

Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye (Acts 4:19b)

One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. (Romans 14:5)

and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty (2 Corinthians 3:17b)

And I will walk at liberty: for I seek thy precepts (Psalm 119:45)

Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. (Galatians 5:1)

 

[Conan]

I don't disagree with that. It is just strange to me what miracles some choose to believe. and which they apply to logic. Take the word of God. Everyone on here believes God has preserved the words of his testimony that he has given through the pens of chosen men over a carved out period of time of about 1500 years. It has been two thousand or so years since he has spoken a word audibly, or even written one. And he wrote his words down on papyrus and other perishable materials that has a very short shelf life. Imagine that, the thing that is standing between heaven and hell is given in materials such as this!

Indeed! And early on at certain times the Romans tried to destroy every copy they could!

Then I find out that there are 4 families of manuscripts that have different words. And get this, scholars do not even agree which manuscripts are right and they argue among themselves about them. Yet they all say one must know the original languages to understand God, not understanding that the whole purpose of God in allowing such a thing is to teach us that he is preserving his words without our help. He is going to judge every word we speak one day he says, and therefore he wants us to judge every word he speaks.

I have judged that every word of God is pure. It is not logical to think I have every word in English but by faith I do. I don't care about original languages as long as there is more than one family of manuscripts and so called scholars disagree which one is true. If scholars ever get together and agree to burn 3 of those families of manuscripts and keep one, then I will change my mind and believe the word of God is in the extant manuscripts.

Burn the Word of God! Just like the Romans did early on! Fortunately scholars aren't that bad. By the way, there are not just four family's of manuscripts. They are all mixed in character. Things are not that simple. Burn a manuscript, any one, and you burn the Word of God.

At the end of each age men are tested by God. We in this age are no different. He warns us ahead of time how that test will play out. Men are choosing sides. It might be interesting to know that the majority is never on the right side.

The KJV is the miraculous preservation of the words of God for us today and the unreasonable attacks against the believers in it should be a hint that there is a greater force behind the attacks, especially since those who are worried about what danger believing it poses while they are mute about the crazy corruption that is the NIV, the best selling translation, not of words of God, but of thoughts of God, in the world today. I stand in doubt of men who will fall for that translation. If you want to doubt a translation, that's the one.

So you pick on the NIV because it is not perfect? It is not as good as it should have been, for sure. There is great room for accuracy improvement, certainly. But the KJV is not perfect either. It is very good, and very accurate, seeing how the KJV translators copied from the previously existing English Translations, getting it right most of the times. But they did not always get it right. Sometimes they got it wrong. Sometimes the early Greek scholars got it wrong (just like today) and the error made it's way into the KJV.

What do you do when there are differences between the 1611 KJV and today's printed KJV's when there are differences? Certainly you do not burn one or the other! That would be a grievous mistake.

 

[JD731]

Indeed! And early on at certain times the Romans tried to destroy every copy they could!

As did the Muslums in nations they conquered later on. Have you noticed how many cultural symbols, like statues, and other institutions have been destroyed in America since 2020? The Muslim god is not as strong as the Christian God and the Christian God protected the Byzantine texts because God has a testimony going forward to the nations.

Burn the Word of God! Just like the Romans did early on! Fortunately scholars aren't that bad. By the way, there are not just four family's of manuscripts. They are all mixed in character. Things are not that simple. Burn a manuscript, any one, and you burn the Word of God.

Scholars are often a problem in the Christian era. Professors cannot replace preachers, but they try.
1 Corinthians 8:1
Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.

This truth gets illustrated on this forum daily.

So you pick on the NIV because it is not perfect? It is not as good as it should have been, for sure. There is great room for accuracy improvement, certainly. But the KJV is not perfect either. It is very good, and very accurate, seeing how the KJV translators copied from the previously existing English Translations, getting it right most of the times. But they did not always get it right. Sometimes they got it wrong. Sometimes the early Greek scholars got it wrong (just like today) and the error made it's way into the KJV.

It is naive of anyone who has been a Christian for any time at all to ignore the fact that lining oneself up with Jesus Christ and following him automatically puts him in conflict with the flesh, the devil, and the world. To believe and teach and live as if Satan does not have any interest in the translation of Bibles and that he is not heavily involved in the perversion of the word and ways of God Almighty is irresponsible at the very best.

What do you do when there are differences between the 1611 KJV and today's printed KJV's when there are differences? Certainly you do not burn one or the other! That would be a grievous mistake.

Are there differences? I do not think about it. I have the Spirit of God in my heart and a KJV on my desk and plenty of adversaries out my window. I regularly quote on this forum from BibleGateway. However the KJV edition on that site is not accurate in places so I must be careful with quotes that matter and correct it when it does matter.

 

[Logos1560]

Their logic is usually perfectly valid:

You do not demonstrate your assertion to be true. Please present some examples of where KJV-only advocates present an argument, and it is perfectly valid. Which KJV-only authors have studied logic and know how to present their arguments perfectly? Which KJV-only authors define their terms and use them with the same meaning throughout their argument?

Most KJV-only advocates do not put their arguments in correct form. They do not identify their premises, they do not use their terms with the same identical meaning in the different parts of their argument, and they do not clearly show that their premises lead to their conclusions.

My focus has properly and scripturally been on whether KJV-only arguments are true and scriptural. The Scriptures are my standard for evaluating KJV-only teaching. Do you try to suggest that that is not the correct standard for evaluating KJV-only teaching? I consider KJV-only teaching in the light of the Bible doctrine of truth or Bible doctrine concerning truth. You in effect admit that KJV-only teaching does not measure up to being true. The primary subject of this thread concerned how KJV-only teaching relates to Bible doctrine.

Perhaps you can find or present some KJV-only argument that is valid in its forum, but if it does not lead to a true conclusion, how does that help prove their teaching to be true or scriptural?