Honest question

Faith, Fact & Feeling said:

Ransom, your testimony gives me a keen insight into the weak foundation of your belief. You developed it as a teenager, just out of school, and based your on your feelings.

Wow, you just can't win with you people, can you?

You originally assumed that my opposition to KJV-onlyism was because of scholarship, when you assumed I was a scholar.

Now that you find out otherwise, you still find fault with my opposition to KJV-onlyism because I was just a teenager.

You really are trying to have your cake and eat it, too.

 

Originally posted by Faith, Fact & Feeling:

I don't think things are quite so difficult as you make them out to be. For instance, many who hold a KJV-Only position claim that the KJV's English translation is superior in every place to that of all other English translations before and after it. However, it doesn't take a mountain of facts to disprove this claim. All it takes is one clear and irrefutable counterexample. Consider the following verse from the Song of Solomon:

"...the voice of the turtle dove..." (S. of Sol 2:12, Coverdale's 1535 version)

"...the voice of the turtle..." (S. of Sol. 2:12, KJV)

"...the voice of the turtledove..." (S. of Sol. 2:12, ESV, NASB, NRSV, NKJV)

"Turtle" could refer to either the bird or the hard-shelled aquatic animal; "turtledove" can only refer to the bird. So any translation of S. of Sol. 2:12 which reads "turtledove" is more clear, less ambiguous, and therefore superior in this specific place than any translation which reads "turtle." Since the KJV reads "turtle" and other English translations before it (Coverdale's) and after it (the ESV et. al.) read "turtledove," the KJV is demonstably not superior in every place to that of all other English translations.

 

You really must be consistent. Is knowledge, intelligence, and education a good thing or a bad thing? You are dealing in secular interpretations and opinions then impugning modern Christian scholars across the board. This is wholly unfounded and unfair. How can a person of your intelligence make such assumptions?

Also, modern science, history, philosophy, etc. have yielded good as well as bad. We no longer "bleed" sick people to see if we can get the bad blood out before they die. Much of archeology has confirmed the historicity of the Bible. We no longer dunk "witches" to see if they die (therefore innocent) or don't (therefore guilty and burned at the stake). We no longer universally accept the notion of the divine right of kings or papal successionism on threat of death as a heretic.

That is an argument from silence. We do not know what all of these people thought about these issues. What we do know is that their theology was unsound and more like Catholicism than baptistic.

Yes. I do. Sadly though, it is largely the legacy of mysticism and distrust of new scientific study descending from those that you praise that left Christians with an inadequate response to the "science" of evolution and many ancillary philosophies.

Are you saying that the faith of Erasmus and the KJV translators makes a better basis than scientifically handled data? Please check their theology before responding to see if you agree with their faith.

Whether you accept that modern scholars accurately translate this passage according to its original meaning or just read the KJV in context, this passage has nothing to do with the preservation of words. However assuming that it did, it would still relate only to Hebrew words since the OT was never inspired in English.

If in fact your view of preservation is correct then what was the Word of God for the 5400+ years when all Bibles were hand copied and contained variants? The TR was a new creation when Erasmus collated it. He developed it from 6-10 imperfect mss. Why did God not reveal this perfectly preserved text rather than having Erasmus (an RCC cleric) reproduce it, apparently by direct divine guidance.

... and this qualifies as nothing but a presumption on your part. There is not one single verse of scripture that establishes this belief and it fails on all factual proofs. In fact, KJVOnlyism is repeating history. The RCC likewise resisted any Bible other than the Vulgate, denying the scriptures in an understandable form to the masses. Your arguments are no more valid than theirs. They argued that God had divinely chosen the Roman bishop as His vicar therefore the Pope's language was divinely chosen for the scriptures.

God did not choose the Pope... nor did He choose the British monarch. To claim He did by necessity comes from outside the realm of scriptural or objective truth.

 

This is good Ransom. You got a laugh out of me. It's good to se someone here has a sense of humor. That reminds me of the girl my friend use to date. She was so mean she'd stab you for standing, and shoot you if you tried to run. You just couldn't win with her either. Hey now, Pastor Larry thinks I need a few more years and few thousand more hours to be where he's at. Continuing education kinda thing I guess.

 

Technically speaking that wasn't my point. My point was that your years and hours of study that led you to that conclusion are matched by those who have come to other conclusions ... The implication that years and hours of study will lead to your position is unsustainable.

 

Technically speaking that wasn't my point. My point was that your years and hours of study that led you to that conclusion are matched by those who have come to other conclusions ... The implication that years and hours of study will lead to your position is unsustainable. </font>[/QUOTE]Just like years of study will not necessarily lead to your position. Yes, I get your point.

 

Technically speaking that wasn't my point. My point was that your years and hours of study that led you to that conclusion are matched by those who have come to other conclusions ... The implication that years and hours of study will lead to your position is unsustainable. </font>[/QUOTE]Just like years of study will not necessarily lead to your position. Yes, I get your point. </font>[/QUOTE]Not trying to egg this line on... but of those who have spent years researching this issue, how many do you think come down KJVO? How many would come down something other than KJVO? This second group would include folks like Burgon and our own HankD who reject the notion of a "perfect" translation.

 

Faith, Fact & Feeling said:

You got a laugh out of me.

I'm glad to see you can laugh at your own mistakes.

Now make up your mind: Am I against KJV-onlyism because of too much education or too little? You can't have it both ways.

 

I would disagree with your first assertion I quoted. Many KJVOs claim that the KJV is more reliable and accurate as it more clearly represents the originals. Whether a word here or a word there is easier to understand in today's vernacular is not the issue. The issue is the text underlying the translations.

The word turtle in Song of Solomon 2:12 is the Hebrew word towr. We may think of the hard-shelled, slow-moving reptile but the word is often used figuratively as a term of endearment. That is most assuredly how Solomon intended it to be used in this verse.

My conclusion is that this example does not indicate the inferiority of the KJV but reaffirms its accuracy.

Edited to add: Archangel7, I want to personally and publicly commend you for the spirit in which you post. You have offered much insightful information, and have demonstrated thus far that you can disagree and still carry on a civil and productive discussion. I thank you for that.

 

Originally posted by Pastor Bob 63:

I think we're actually in agreement here, as this is the point I was making in my earlier post.

The word may be figurative in meaning, but it still has a literal referent -- and that referent is a bird and not a reptile.

My conclusion is that this example does not indicate the inferiority of the KJV but reaffirms its accuracy. </font>[/QUOTE]My point is not that the KJV is inaccurate here, but that other versions before it (like Coverdale's) and after it (like the ESV) are more accurate here than the KJV. The proof is the simple fact that "turtle" is ambiguous while "turtledove" is not. If it were not so, there wouldn't even need to be an entry on S. of Sol 2:12 in the KJV Word Book, and the Benson quote wouldn't need a parenthetical comment for clarification.

 

double post

 

Scott,

You said: [Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, He gave the signs of miracles and wisdom, and God the Father testified of Him at His baptism. These are proofs recorded for us so that we might believe. The proof was there for anyone to see in His day. Your example works against, you not for you.]

No, my example is a clear one you have tried to convolute. You asked [Where did God say that only the KJB is the Word of God in English or even the best version of the Word in English?] I answered: *Scott, this form of argumentation does not prove anything. God said no where in the OT that the Messiah’s name would be Jesus. When Jesus came, spiritual discernment was necessary to recognize Jesus as the Messiah.* I stand by my replies clarity and clear logic. The scholars did not feel they had enough specificity in the OT to declare Jesus the Messiah. Jesus said for them to observe his fruit and make a spiritual judgement. This point is very clear.

You said: [Again, those who refused to accept the proof of Him as Messiah were legalists who had taken the law past what God had said and established rules of their own. They refused The Word because He did not come to them in the manner they expected. Both of these things are far more characteristic of KJVOnlyism than non-KJVO's.]

The scholars of Christ’s day were very steeped in secular reasoning and not spiritual. They were outwardly separated and law abiding but inwardly they despised others. Their problem was a lack of spirituality. They had no spiritual discernment on issues. That is why they rejected Christ. Now we could turn this into a debate of legalism vs. liberalism, but I think that would be another thread in a different discussion topic. My point is spiritual discernment is what they lacked, and that is what MV scholars lack.

You said: [Do you really think these events are greater than the expansion and establishment of Christianity within the first 3 or 4 centuries AD? During this time, all of the Bibles contained variants and were of various levels of completeness. Many contained books that were later rejected from the Canon. It is the Holy Spirit, not a translation, caused these things to occur. Luther's Bible had as more to do with the Reformation than the KJV, and it didn't originally contain the Trinitarian formula in I John 5:7-8. Also, Luther and Erasmus didn't much care for each other. One rebelled against the RCC and one didn't.]

This will take spiritual discernment on your part, but Revelation 2 and 3 discuss church ages. It was the Philadelphian church age that God found no fault with. All the others, including the Apostolic age and the ages after it He found fault with. And the Laodicean church age He had nothing good to say about. The Philadelphian church age is most likely the time from the reformation to the great awakening, the age of brotherly love. The Laodicean age is today. The age when the diocese of the church is the laity. The age where the Church leadership is by the common person. This is the lukewarm age, the age when Church members are rich and increased with goods in this world (sound familiar), but blind, wretched, naked and poor spiritually. This is the age with people God said He would spew from His mouth. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches (Revelation 3:6).

You said: [There are millions being saved and sanctified today through the use of MV's. Fundamentalism was founded by men using the KJV, ASV, and RV. Just by virtue of population growth, worldwide missions, and evangelism, it is very likely that more people were saved during the twentieth century than any other before it. This also is serious fruit, friend.]

And I guess you think if MVs were not around these people would not be saved? Come on. Probably more would be saved, and fewer would fall into this carnal, rock and roll, peace and love, hippy false Christianity we have today.

You said: [I am or else I would be Anglican, Episcopalian, Methodist, Presbyterian, or some other reformation religion. I am very much convinced that genuine fundamental Baptists are correct doctrinely which yields greater spiritual discernment.]

Genuine fundamental Baptists? I am a Bible believing Baptist. You probably mean milk sop Baptists.

You said: [You really must be consistent. Is knowledge, intelligence, and education a good thing or a bad thing? You are dealing in secular interpretations and opinions then impugning modern Christian scholars across the board. This is wholly unfounded and unfair. How can a person of your intelligence make such assumptions?

Also, modern science, history, philosophy, etc. have yielded good as well as bad. We no longer "bleed" sick people to see if we can get the bad blood out before they die. Much of archeology has confirmed the historicity of the Bible. We no longer dunk "witches" to see if they die (therefore innocent) or don't (therefore guilty and burned at the stake). We no longer universally accept the notion of the divine right of kings or papal successionism on threat of death as a heretic.]

Thank you for your complement. I understand that we have made beneficial advances in medicine, and other areas. I do not dispute that. As I said originally the scientific, historical, and philosophical trash heap such as evolution, big bang, relativity, quantum physics, cuneiform tablets, archaeological record, and on and on and on.* That’s clear enough isn’t it. I’m sure you are aware how many Christian groups today reject the miracles of the Bible based on so-called scientific fact. They reject the notion of a literal six day creation. They reject the account of Adam and Eve as a mythological allegory. They reject the notion of people living 900 years. They reject the notion of a worldwide flood. They rejection the notion of Jonah being swallowed by a whale and living. They reject the many miracles in the Bible because modern science fact utterly disproves them as being possible. Many even deny the virgin birth and resurrection. This is not a small or localized phenomenon. It is pervasive.

You said: [Yes. I do. Sadly though, it is largely the legacy of mysticism and distrust of new scientific study descending from those that you praise that left Christians with an inadequate response to the "science" of evolution and many ancillary philosophies.]

Kent Hovind and Ken Ham are the ones I like. Do you have a problem with these fellows?

You said: [Whether you accept that modern scholars accurately translate this passage according to its original meaning or just read the KJV in context, this passage has nothing to do with the preservation of words. However assuming that it did, it would still relate only to Hebrew words since the OT was never inspired in English.]

You say a little later I made you mad by what you perceived as a mishandling of scripture. If you reject Psalms 12:6-7 as referring to God’s words, you are the one who is a perverter of scripture, not me.

You said: [If in fact your view of preservation is correct then what was the Word of God for the 5400+ years when all Bibles were hand copied and contained variants? The TR was a new creation when Erasmus collated it. He developed it from 6-10 imperfect mss. Why did God not reveal this perfectly preserved text rather than having Erasmus (an RCC cleric) reproduce it, apparently by direct divine guidance.]

Gee, isn’t great we have those perfect alexandrian manuscripts now to straighten that mess out. If you believe this then it is quite hypocritical of you to use the KJB as your primary Bible. I mean, if you really believe the KJB is based on a few imperfect mss, why would you use it as your primary Bile? Strange inconsistency in you position.

You said: [... and this qualifies as nothing but a presumption on your part. There is not one single verse of scripture that establishes this belief and it fails on all factual proofs. In fact, KJVOnlyism is repeating history. The RCC likewise resisted any Bible other than the Vulgate, denying the scriptures in an understandable form to the masses. Your arguments are no more valid than theirs. They argued that God had divinely chosen the Roman bishop as His vicar therefore the Pope's language was divinely chosen for the scriptures.

God did not choose the Pope... nor did He choose the British monarch. To claim He did by necessity comes from outside the realm of scriptural or objective truth.]

Aren’t we lucky today to have all these Greek scholars to which we can turn to find out what the scriptures really mean. Sounds like we need some special “Greek” priest class to get us back to the originals. The parallel is staggering. Scholars (scribes) today try to make us think that only those that know the Greek know what it actually says.

You said: [No. Actually, I am simply answering your assertion that modern scholarship is uniformly corrupted by bad theology. I believe that both Erasmus and the KJV translators did very scholarly work in spite of their bad theology. Unless he had a conversion that is not recorded in history, Erasmus probably died in his sins putting trust in the RCC to save him. The doctrinal errors of the CoE are well documented. ]

Judging someone’s heart again Scott? Let’s not get down to that level again.

You said: [I am not an NIV fan nor defender except in cases of extreme unfairness. The NASB is probably the most accurate here both from a translation perspective and doctrinally (note the capital "H" which leaves the clear indication of Christ): "His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity.]

At least we seem to agree on the NIV. The NIV is definitely an offender here. I do not have a problem with the NASB rendering here. I wouldn’t say its stronger since it’s not the KJB (give me a break and laugh at this one). Seriously, “he” is in the context earlier in the verse and the proper rendering of the word is “whose” because it’s feminine (this does not mean it refers to a female for those not familiar with Hebrew).

You said: [Again, you assign spiritual discernment to men you never knew whose doctrine is radically not baptistic. At the same time, you deny the possibility of spiritual discernment to translators that were a mix of denominations including some conservative Baptists. I am not concerned with the NIV per se but this is unfair and unfounded unless you in fact have researched these respective committees and can somehow prove the spiritual superiority of men who died over 300 years ago and left few records of their personal testimonies. Some of those that were left were not impressive.]

Again, me do not like NIV either. As far as researching committees, all I have to do is read their translation. Their fruit is what is important to me, not what they claim or others claim about them.

Your said: [Yes. If someone is predisposed to take things out of context, stretch and distort meanings, and otherwise abuse the text, you could take any chosen version and prove that another is doctrinally inferior. That include a comparison of the KJV against many MV's. Titus 2:13 comes immediately to mind as well as Romans 8:16, 26.]

Doctrinally inferior? We could do whole threads on each verse. Please.

You said: [You demonstrate nothing here but a willingness to misuse scripture to support your bias. This verse has nothing at all to do with translations of scripture. Jesus is talking about the gospel. ]

I demonstrate that God is not interested in revealing truth to spiritually blind scholars. All the Pharisees did not die out at the time of Christ you know.

You said: [... and yes frankly, the taking of scripture out of context to prove something that God never intended for it to prove bothers me... in fact, angers me.]

Get a grip. Your views of preservation are heretical to me, but I’m not going to burn you at the stake.

[ February 25, 2003, 07:06 AM: Message edited by: Faith, Fact & Feeling ]

 

FFF said:

Get a grip. Your views of preservation are heretical to me, but I’m not going to burn you at the stake.

A charge of "heresy" is a very serious thing. Do you intend to back this up with evidence of heresy, or shall we take this as a reckless insult?

 

You used scripture out of context. I stated that it was offensive to me- not that I wanted you burned at the stake. Don't try to play the victim when you obviously aren't being victimized.

If you think I have accused you falsely then show me how and I will apologize. I simply don't see how the scripture you quoted has anything at all to do with which version is the best. To imply that it does is to abuse it.

 

And my point is that you have made an unsubstantiated universal accusation against people you don't know and apparently have not researched simply because they have the audacity to disagree with KJVOnlyism.

 

You said: [The TR was a new creation when Erasmus collated it. He developed it from 6-10 imperfect mss.]

This is an out and out distortion of the truth. It is not difficult to dispel the myth that the
Received Greek Text underlying the King James Bible and other Reformation
Bibles is merely “based on a few late manuscripts.” It is true that Erasmus
had in his actual possession only a few Greek manuscripts when he composed
the first edition of his Greek New Testament, but he had examined a large
number of other manuscripts, both Latin and Greek, and he had compared
these with many ancient Bible translations and with a large number of
quotations from ancient church leaders. He also was aware of the
alternative readings contained in manuscripts such as the Vaticanus and
Codex D. Thus he was in a position to know that those few manuscripts he
had at hand represented the witness of vast numbers of other manuscripts.
The fact is that the Received Text underlying the esteemed and mightily
used Reformation Bibles is represented in the majority of existing Greek
manuscripts, quotations from ancient church leaders, and ancient Bible
translations. This is why the Received Text has commonly been called the
“majority text” (though that term has been usurped in recent years by the
Hodges-Farstad-Thomas Nelson Greek New Testament of 1982). Textual
authorities admit that of the more than 5,200 existing Greek manuscripts,
99% contain the common traditional ecclesiastical or Received Text. Thus,
on the very face of the evidence, it is nonsense to say that the Received
Text is “is only based on a few late manuscripts.”

 

Yes, quite frankly I do believe that many would not be saved otherwise. Someone who scores as high on "big picture" thinking should also recognize that a message stated with clarity has a better chance of being understood by more people than if obscure.

Carnal? You mean like Ruckman and Hyles?

It has been my experience that KJVO's are just as likely to be carnal as anyone else. They are typically more hypocritical but no less worldly at heart. They condemn rock and embrace country. They condemn CCM then embrace a rock-a-billy style of Southern Gospel that is probably more worldly with artist that are just as worldly.

All of the godly people I have known have had an orthodox belief about the Bible. Holiness does not hinge on acceptance of KJVOnlyism.

No. I meant precisely what I said. This type of response from someone who tests so high on intelligence is a strong indicator that you don't have an answer and would rather create a diverting argument by being incendiary.

 

No. Simply comparing what Erasmus and the KJV translators apparently believed by the documentation we possess with what scripture says.

 

I asked you in my post to be charitable toward your brother regarding the things I shared. Are you doing that? I am trying to not make this personal as are the wishes of the moderators. Will you help me by not making indirect personal attacks?