MIS-CHARACTERIZATIONS OF MVs OR nonKJVOs?

I would say the impression MV-nonKJVOs are anti-KJV. I have no problem with Several Versions, and I use the KJV as well, and have used it my whole life, and respect it highly, but I am about as far from KJVO as you can get.

This has been a common misrepresentation of my position

 

I am a KJV user who believes that the Word of God has been primarily preserved in the TR text. Do I believe the KJV English is inspired like the original or that we can use it to correct other versions? Not a chance, that is heresy. However I have been labeled as a "KJVOnly" and lumped together with Ruckman and other heretics. My position is repeatedly misrepresented and mischaracterized!

 

MV users, especially pastors are unreasonably labelled as people who compromise the Word of God.

 

No doubt there has been distortion on both sides. The main difference, from what I've observed, is that many KJVOs believe MVers to be deficient in their commitment to God: worldly, modernistic, rebellious, deceived, etc. In fact, MVers not be saved at all, some KJVOs say. I don't know of any MVer who doubts the salvation of KJVOs, or feels that reading the KJV cannot lead to spiritual maturity. Misrepresentation (sometimes known as lying) on both sides is the primary reason the debate is so emotional and persistent.

 

KJVOs often paint MV users as non-bible believers, people who have no love for the truth, or apostate heritics, or haters of the KJV.

Both sides has its share of trouble makers - which as noted by Singleman, heats up the debate. All to often it is way too emotonally charged.

 

I agree with most of the above posts, that there are extremists on both sides. There are examples of each in this forum-the article by Hudson & GConan calling KJVO a "cancer", and Will Kinney's labeling of non-KJVOs as "Bible Whateverists" who have no final written authority.

I also am about as far from KJVO as one can get while still using the KJV(and the AV 1611)& believing them to be valid versions of God's word. But the cold, hard facts are that there's simply no supporting evidence, Scriptural or historical, to give any validity to the KJVO doctrine.

Another KJVO supposition about us is that we automatically accept any new BV as valid. Nothing could be further from the truth. Is there anyone here who recognizes the People's Bible or the TNIV as valid? Or the NWT?

 

The KJVOs accept the KJV as 'their final written authority'.

What do the MVs accept as 'their final written authority' ? </font>[/QUOTE]Every valid version...

...which begs the question, "What makes a version valid?" The answer-"any translation which follows its sources closely as reason and language differences allow."

The debates about which mss are the "official" copies of Scripture has been going on for several generations, and it's still in the "MY scholar can whup YOUR scholar" mode.

This brings us to yet another KJVO presupposition about us-that we reject their myth without actually exploring it. Speaking only for myself, I can assure any KJVO who asks me, "Yes, I've studied your arguments and assertions extensively, and I verily tell you that I reject the KJVO doctrine as a man-made myth, not because I don't like the KJV or KJVOs, but because of its total lack of supporting evidence, and its clear, man-made origins."

Again, I would urge each person reading this board who's concerned with the versions issue to carefully study the FACTS for him/herself and not just blindly accept the assertions of anyone, including myself.

 

The notion that the KJV is an 'inerrant' final authority displays the ignorance among some IFB's about their grasp of Bible doctrines. Only the original manuscripts are inspired (theopneustos) and inerrant. The profitable use of the Scriptures as indicated from the manuscripts handed down to us is infallibility. The KJV-onlyists say that they are 'certain' about their 'authority', i.e. that the KJV is the ONLY Bible that is inerrant and has the quality of inspiration derived from perfectly preserved manuscripts in the majority of manuscripts or even in the TR. For the KJV-onlyist to suggest that he/she knows that the TR/KJV is perfectly and providentially preserved, and therefore is the ONLY 'authority' for the English speaking person is complete heresy. If the KJV-onlyist is more concerned with 'certainty' rather than truth, then he is certainly wrong. More than that, the KJV-onlyist has his/her authority in the wrong thing- a Bible version that is full of errors and mistranslations notwithstanding its inferior Greek text. Despite this, God has allowed its use and has blessed His Word in this great version of the Bible, the KJV. My final authority, as reflected in doctrinal statements of Baptists (i.e. The New Hampshire Baptist Confession) and other prominent Reformed and Methodist denominations, is in the inspiration of the original autographs being without error, and the infallibility of the faithfully reproduced copies-- with errors in all of them (!!)-- of the Bible. All of this I can say certainly (or, Soit-n-ly nyuk, nyuk, nyuk) is true. It is the KJV-onlyist that must prove, without evidence (historically or theologically), that their view of the Scritures is the right one. It is no wonder that ignorance runs rampant with some IFB's who claim to teach and preach the Bible but don't understand basic bible doctrines and history. The mischaracterization of those of us who use the modern versions (and also the KJV) that we have no 'authority' is utter nonsense. Unfortunately, this isn't a laughing matter, either.

 

Your post brings us to another mis-representation of the non-Onlyist position-that all of us automatically reject the KJVO myth without giving it due consideration. Speaking only for myself, I can assure the KJVOs that I've read every major piece of literature defending their position, from Burgon and Wilkinson through Riplinger, Moorman, & Reagan, and checked the veracity of their assertions in other sources. I took as fair and unbiased look at KJVO as possible, and only then did I draw the conclusion that it's false.

One thing that's NOT a misrepresentation of our position-we find KJVO sadly lacking in supporting evidence, and we are quite right in demanding that the KJVOs provide some evidence to lend the slightest peep of veracity to their doctrine.

The reason I reject KJVO is this total lack of any TRUTHS that could raise that doctrine from "myth" status. Most glaring is a total absence of SCRIPTURAL support.

 

So what!" Where is your Scriptural support for an eclectic, derived text? What TRUTHS, other than human persuppostion, do you have in support of an eclectic approach. The KJV was the accepted text of the Bible-believing English-speaking world for centuries. There is a strong parallel between canonization of Scripture and the preservation of Scripture. Therefore, the ball is in your court to prove the superiority of the eclectic approach. You have no support, especially Scriptural support, for eclecticism other than the scientific rationalism underlying most modern textual criticism. Sorry, but your generalities don’t hold water unless you can defend them with rigorous analysis and logic.

In the recent past, I have suggested numerous ideas that you refused to address yet you persist in chanting the same old clichés and attacking the same old straw men. You really haven’t covered the field if you cannot straightforwardly deal with my views. Do you think that you can win arguments by no contact? Can’t you see the gaps and weaknesses of your own position, or do you really believe that you are objective and fair? Do you know what emotional forces press you toward one conclusion or another? Are you not a child of your background and environment? If so, then you must realize that all men, you and I, are highly subjective regardless of our reading. I know the problems with the KJVO position, yet there is no other persuasive alternative. Therefore, it is futile for you to try to persuade me of your objectivity and lack of bias. The most objective man is the one who knows how opinionated and partial he really is. BTW, you forgot to mention Hills whose “logic of faith” evidently escaped your attention.

Robycop, I am challenging you to meet me head on and refute me. If I am wrong then it will be good for me. On the other hand, if I am right, it will expose your smug little generalities and trite clichés. Methinks you ignore the serious KJVO arguments and choose the straw men. Yes, I am jeering and taunting you because I think you are in water over your head and don’t know how to swim.

Textual eclecticism is naive and simplistic. It was born when men drunk with their own intelligence thought they had arrived. Truth was discoverable and within reach of man’s mind. Needless to say, I don’t believe this for one moment. Name one truth (absolute, final, universal, eternal, etc.) that man has discovered anytime or anywhere. I’m a thoroughgoing realist and operationalist--what is, exists, and what works, works. Otherwise, we are dependent upon Revelation and Revelation alone in knowing and understanding TRUTH. Let's talk about epistemology; after all, that's where it begins.

In sum: Nope, this is not a mis-characterization or mis-representation. The shoe fits--wear it.

Finally, the modern critical textual theory, based on W-H, is pretty much like the Gooney Bird Cult. Remind me to tell you that story sometime.

 

And so, I am "evil" and my English text (which I translated from the Greek in each verse before preaching) "corrupt" and a "perversion". My words are always judged by the PERFECT STANDARD (the KJV) and always come up short.

I find such fidelity to a man-made standard (the KJV) and blanket condemnation to be schismatic to the body and a REAL - not imagined - evil.

Look at the "poll" and see that here on our BB more than 50% of the self-professed "onlies" believe anything other than the KJV is a "perversion". Sad. Very sad. </font>[/QUOTE]Hey, that's great Dr. Bob. It's rather like that good old Baptist, John Smyth, who shunned any English translation but preferred to preach from the Greek and Hebrew. Now, I hope that you used a good TR Greek text and your congregation knew Greek well enough to verify that your translation was accurate and faithful. Like the faithful Bereans, they should search the Scriptures to see that what you translate is so. Of course, we know the trick of that other Smith (Joseph) who translated whole books (e.g. The Book of Abraham[/B])from a scrap of papyrus. It had something to do with advanced Egyptian hieroglyphics, I believe.

With regards,
Tung N. Cheek

(Philadelphia Lawyer Disclaimer: This is in no way to be viewed or miscontrued as questioning Dr. Bob's ability with languages or his integrity. Both are beyond question.)

 

Originally posted by paidagogos:


So what!" Where is your Scriptural support for an eclectic, derived text? What TRUTHS, other than human persuppostion, do you have in support of an eclectic approach. The KJV was the accepted text of the Bible-believing English-speaking world for centuries. There is a strong parallel between canonization of Scripture and the preservation of Scripture. Therefore, the ball is in your court to prove the superiority of the eclectic approach. You have no support, especially Scriptural support, for eclecticism other than the scientific rationalism underlying most modern textual criticism. Sorry, but your generalities don?t hold water unless you can defend them with rigorous analysis and logic.

Yipes! I'M SCARED!!

Here comes another scholar waving a big green flag of erudition at lil' ol' barbarian me! But like all the others, this one doesn't get to first base either.

There's a very simple proof for the eclectic approach, found in the KJV as well as in other BVs. Simply compare Luke 4:16-21 with Isaiah 61:1-3 & Isaiah 42:8 to see that JESUS HIMSELF used another text besides that which is translated into our versions of the Old Testament. Tha arguments against this fact fail. What are some of them?

(1) "Jesus is God, and He can change His word as He wills." Jesus didn't do that here; He was READING ALOUD to a skeptical audience who didn't know He was God, & who would've gone ballistic had He not read the Scriptures verbatim.

(2) "Jesus followed the common practice of 'targuming', reading only the words pertinent to the subject at hand."

Again, I allude both to the skeptical audience which would've accused Him of altering the Scriptures to serve His purpose, and to the fact that there's not one peep of evidence to suggest He targumed. On the other hand, the wording differences between the verses in Isaiah and the verses Jesus read aloud are too great to be explained away by language differences. Truth: Jesus read from another version of Isaiah besides that which is translated into our Bibles.

More proof of this? See the various OT quotes by the Apostles, including Paul, throughout the NT. And oh, yes, here's another clear-cut example: Compare Isaiah 53:7-9 with Acts 8:32-33. same verses, different wording. And the Scriptures in Acts make it very plain that certain verses of isaiah were being READ, as well as WHAT VERSES were being read. Study these as rigorously & vigorously as you like, & you'll still see the sametruth.

In the recent past, I have suggested numerous ideas that you refused to address yet you persist in chanting the same old clichés and attacking the same old straw men. You really haven?t covered the field if you cannot straightforwardly deal with my views. Do you think that you can win arguments by no contact? Can?t you see the gaps and weaknesses of your own position, or do you really believe that you are objective and fair? Do you know what emotional forces press you toward one conclusion or another? Are you not a child of your background and environment? If so, then you must realize that all men, you and I, are highly subjective regardless of our reading. I know the problems with the KJVO position, yet there is no other persuasive alternative. Therefore, it is futile for you to try to persuade me of your objectivity and lack of bias. The most objective man is the one who knows how opinionated and partial he really is. BTW, you forgot to mention Hills whose ?logic of faith? evidently escaped your attention.

That's because I deal mostly in BASICS, and you haven't gotten past them, at least on this board. Until you can get past these basic things-lack of Scriptural support for KJVO, lack of authority for KJVO, the fact that no two English Bible translations are alike, & the fact that all these BVs are written in the English of their days, and the totally MAN-MADE ORIGIN of KJVO, you're trying to build a structure from the roof down.

I keep repeating these things because the KJVO simply WILL NOT face them, as they completely refute his myth.

Robycop, I am challenging you to meet me head on and refute me. If I am wrong then it will be good for me. On the other hand, if I am right, it will expose your smug little generalities and trite clichés. Methinks you ignore the serious KJVO arguments and choose the straw men.

Can you deal with the basics? Before you can proclaim the benefits of a flat earth, you must first prove it's flat. before you can proclaim the virtues of KJVO, you must prove it's true and not just another man-made fable.

Recently, after reading your diatribe against the scientificity of the W-H textual criticism, I asked if the majority/received Text advocates were any more "scientific" in their methods. I see no answer.


Yes, I am jeering and taunting you because I think you are in water over your head and don?t know how to swim.

Actually, you're proving a BASIC point against KJVO-you cannot deal with the core issue, so you try to insult the opposition. Sorry, Sir, your "insults" are quite minor-league, as is to be expected from a KJVO.

Textual eclecticism is naive and simplistic. It was born when men drunk with their own intelligence thought they had arrived.

So WHO has proven any of the ancient Scriptural mss right or wrong? All we see is someone pulling a rabbit out of a hat & saying, "This is IT!" I'll readily admit that this has gone on with both sides, but the KJVO side seems to specialize in it.


Truth was discoverable and within reach of man?s mind. Needless to say, I don?t believe this for one moment. Name one truth (absolute, final, universal, eternal, etc.) that man has discovered anytime or anywhere.

Easy-The law of gravity. Man discovered what God had made available to him, same as anything else He's allowed mankind to find. I'm sure there are ways to counter gravity, as proven by Jesus' ascent, but God hasn't allowed us to discover them. But that doesn't mean they don't exist. I think you're confusing TRUTH with INVENTION here. Man didn't invent gravity-God made it, & allowed man to discover that X mass exerts Y amount of gravity at Z distance from the mass's center, as God causes it to do.


I?m a thoroughgoing realist and operationalist--what is, exists, and what works, works. Otherwise, we are dependent upon Revelation and Revelation alone in knowing and understanding TRUTH. Let's talk about epistemology; after all, that's where it begins.

The epistemology of KJVO is ZERO. There's simply NO TRUTH in it. We've PROVEN its man-made origin, and shot down all the assertions made by its advocates. yet, some who consider themselves erudite seek to make an end run around the basics of the matter and act concerned with such things as the Westcott-Hort methodology, hoping we won't trump your "ace" with any questions about BASICS.

In sum: Nope, this is not a mis-characterization or mis-representation. The shoe fits--wear it.

Yes-Wear a sandal on the left foot & a loafer on the right foot because they each fit.

Finally, the modern critical textual theory, based on W-H, is pretty much like the Gooney Bird Cult. Remind me to tell you that story sometime.

Can the supporters of any other texts do any better? Are they not all in the same boat?

Now, do you wish to try to deal with any of the basic faults with KJVO? Before you try arguing with those who are better-educated than I, you really should try to get past those faults first. Call'em generalities & straw men if you wish, but they're right there in the path, blocking any suggestion of veracity for the KJVO doctrine, keeping it in "myth" status.

 

Wrong! Evidently, you miss the point. The so-called Law of Gravity is an easily observed phenomenon but this is not TRUTH in the sense that we are talking about here. If so, please explain the three body problem and I think that I can promise you a doctorate from MIT, UCLA, or Harvard along with a Nobel Prize. Do you understand what I am talking about? (BTW, I really don't understand what you're talking about here since it had little, if anything, to do with my assertion.) If so, please restate and refute my argument. Methinks you don’t understand and can’t restate. Show your cards.

Thanks.

 

You ain't trumping nobody's ace with generalities and begging the question. Evidently, you missed the whole argument because you’re chasing butterflies. The KJV has been the Bible of choice for the Bible-believing church in the English speaking world for around four centuries. This, alone, carries some epistemological consideration as the historically received text (TR). Read Hills on the “logic of faith.” You’re pontificating against the Ruckmanites but you haven’t even addressed or perhaps understood a single thing that I’ve said.

Let me put it simple in the vernacular. The TR and KJV ain’t perfect in that minor revision and correction may be needed but both are by far superior to anything else that we have. The whole W-H concept, upon which most modern eclectic textual criticism is based to some degree (unless I am unaware of some minor works), is pure, unadulterated HOGWASH. The problem is not with the details and applications; it is the foundation of the theory itself that is WRONG! The assumptions are wrong, therefore, the process is wrong and can only corrupt the text by producing unlimited degrees of uncertainty. Only the number of variants in all the MSS limits uncertainty.

Now, do you understand? Please address the question.

You ain't trumping nobody's ace with generalities and begging the question. Evidently, you missed the whole argument because you chasing butterflies. The TR and KJV has been the Bible of choice for the Bible-believing church for around four centuries. This, alone, carries some

 

The KJVOs accept the KJV as 'their final written authority'.

What do the MVs accept as 'their final written authority' ? </font>[/QUOTE]The Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts in their original form.

The KJV does not make a distinction in the word "love" as Jesus did inthe Greek text of John 21 verses 15 and 17. The KJV uses the same word but the Greek words are not the same. So which is correct?

I wonder how KJVO's explain the fact that 1 John 5:7,8 are completely absent from every manuscript before the 16th century. If it does appear before then it is simply a translation from the Latin Vulgate. The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers. I f they had known it, they would have used it in the treatment of the Arian and Sabellian heresies.

 

You ain't trumping nobody's ace with generalities and begging the question. Evidently, you missed the whole argument because you’re chasing butterflies. The KJV has been the Bible of choice for the Bible-believing church in the English speaking world for around four centuries. This, alone, carries some epistemological consideration as the historically received text (TR). Read Hills on the “logic of faith.” You’re pontificating against the Ruckmanites but you haven’t even addressed or perhaps understood a single thing that I’ve said.

Let me put it simple in the vernacular. The TR and KJV ain’t perfect in that minor revision and correction may be needed but both are by far superior to anything else that we have. The whole W-H concept, upon which most modern eclectic textual criticism is based to some degree (unless I am unaware of some minor works), is pure, unadulterated HOGWASH. The problem is not with the details and applications; it is the foundation of the theory itself that is WRONG! The assumptions are wrong, therefore, the process is wrong and can only corrupt the text by producing unlimited degrees of uncertainty. Only the number of variants in all the MSS limits uncertainty.

Now, do you understand? Please address the question.

You ain't trumping nobody's ace with generalities and begging the question. Evidently, you missed the whole argument because you chasing butterflies. The TR and KJV has been the Bible of choice for the Bible-believing church for around four centuries. This, alone, carries some </font>[/QUOTE]Only the 1611 KJV has been aropuind for almost four centuries. It is misleading to think that the revisions have. The Geneva Bible preceded it. The KJV has been revised several times. Why? Was it not good enough the first time? I wonder what version Charles Spurgeon used?

You gave no facts about why you think it is hogwash. When I was in seminary Westcott and Hort was never mentioned. They are dead and gone.

Older is better? Then why would you dare read a text that has added to the scriptures in the KJV which came along much later. Just look at 1 John 5:7,8. That is one of many.