Evaluating the Rules of "Best" Text

An apostate German Aland did not believed in the TR. He had information upon these manuscripts. When he found the evidences, he disregarded MSS going along with the TR.

 

Genetic Fallacy - The attempt to endorse or disqualify a claim because of the origin or irrelevant history of the claim
Example: The Nazi regime developed the Volkswagen Beetle. Therefore, you should not by a VW Beetle because of who started it.

ROFL...This is just getting too easy. Yet another example of poor logic. Just because somebody is not a Christian or is "apostate," something should be rejected? On that basis, I propose we reject the KJV, since it was translated by a bunch of paedobaptizers who served a church whose head was a monoarch in a denomination begun solely so Henry VIII could get a divorce!

 

I choose faith over logic.

1 Cor 1:27-29
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
(KJV)

 

Terry, Amen!

 

Faith claims based upon myths instead of evidence is not faith but willing ignorance!

 

If faith is in God it is LOGICAL. Illogical, irrational faith is not faith in God, it is faith in myth, experience, feeling, emotion, or human tradition alone.

Logic is a tool; it is limited to its users. However, the use of logical fallacy which no KJVonlyist can avoid, because the KJVOnly view can only be substantiated by embracing some sort of circular argument or using a logical fallacy. ANYTIME...READ THIS ASKJO, TERRY... ANYTIME you run into that kind of situation, you show your faith to be illogical. If it is illogical by definition, it is not godly.

Logic exists and God exists. Logic exists as a necessary concomitant of God's existence. Therefore, since God has no contingency in His existence, if He has logic, which He must, since it exists the way it exists, He must have all logic perfectly. Because of that, He can not and would not use logical fallacy in order to show Himself true. You can not escape the use of logical fallacy in order to believe KJVOnly. It simply can not be done. By saying you'd rather have faith than logic, you show this to be your viewpoint. It is therefore, not godly, because it is something God would never endorse, since God is a God of perfect logic who would and could not do anything contrary to His nature nor endorse His children as advocating or using.

What is irrational is not of faith. What is rational is not always of faith, not because of its rationality, but because of the thing being reasoned. However, what is irrational is not of faith at all, because of the way that reason and logic work within the nature of God. Irrationality and illogic are not characteristics of God, nor are they inherent characteristics of faith.

Logic feeds faith and faith feeds logic, but they are never in contravention of each other. I may not understand why God does something for many reasons, but that does not make my faith irrational, because where my understanding fails, my faith is grounded in God's character. However, in your cases, in relationship to this pet doctrine of KJVOnlyism, you can't help but use logical fallacy and irrationality. Norman Geisler once said that logical fallacy was at the root of each and every false doctrine and every nonbelieving worldview.

As I said, if we are to discount Aland on the basis of his beliefs and his personal history, then, using your same reasoning, we should dismiss the entire KJV, because it was translated by a bunch of Church of England priests and scholars who were baby baptisers, and the entire Anglican Church was founded simply so that Henry VIII could get a divorce otherwise is to exercise a double standard with relation to scholarship.

 

As a moderator I am considering snipping Terry's misuse of the Word of God to call the KJVO movement "foolish".

 

Why would you have to choose? Isn't our God a rational God?

(This doesn't mean we can know everything, God's knowledge being infinite and all, but what we can know will be logical, won't it, if the Creator is rational?)

Isn't scripture logical? Doesn't it present logical arguments? Doesn't it tell us that God cannot be contradictory, since He is truth?

Isn't the scripture you quote part of a logical argument?

 

One thing I see lacking in the 12 principles is God. There is no allowance for the Holy Spirit. That is the problem with textual criticism. The KJV Only viewpoint is based on the belief that this is still God's word, not just a bunch of illigitimate copies of an inspired original.

The first principle should have been something like "God really likes His word, probably more than He likes me, and I should be absolutely sure I want to be monkeying around with His word before I even think about translating a bible version." Then the second should have been "Well, since I won't take my own advice, I better pray real hard before I start this, and maybe the Holy Spirit will talk me out of it."

 

You forgot to consider the many others that work with him too. Do you even know who works with him. If not then I suggest you do some homework instead of SYI (share your ignorance). I wonder when we are going to get some real answers instead of unsupported opinion from you?

Did you ever read about why they favored some manuscript evidence over others? Did Ruckman train you too?

Cetainly if you are well studied you would know the reasons why and can refute them well. Otherwise why should we listen to your opinion? Every time I have asked specific questions (sometimes time three times) you have failed to answer by supported documentation rather than opinion.

Eliminate the SYI and give us some real facts.

 

So are you saying that your faith that makes no sense.

Paul was able to give a reason for his faith. What about Jesus? Peter? Mark? Matthew? James? John?

 

I'm not talking about falling down and babbling in 'tongues' brother, but there is still an Holy Spirit. He did not pack up and take off. Your a seminary professor. Do you not ask the Holy Spirit to help you prepare your lectures, to keep you from error? To give you the correct message that your students needs to hear? Or is the 'science' of theology so far advanced, that the Holy Spirit doesn't need to set foot on campus any more?

 

You found a WRONG man who trained me. I researched many sources by my own, none from anyone for 15 years. You are right that others worked with Aland, however what is the truth that they gave you? They followed the W/H business. That is why Aland refused to admit these MSS that he found the evidences, gone along with the TR because he disregarded them.

 

Logic is human reasoning rather than faith.

 

Sorry - my faith is logical. God is logical. His Word is logical.

 

You people do not know what you are talking about! Thus far I have been mis-represented, called ignorant, and maligned for belief that I do not have.

Just because someone believes that the KJV is the best translation and only uses this Bible does not make them guilty of much of what you are saying. You assume that all KJVOs are the same.

It amazes me how many of you are filled with anger at someone who believes that God did what He said He would do, and that He did it in the KJV. You can talk about manuscripts until you know where freezes over, but you just don't get it. My belief in using only the KJV is mostly based on what I see in the history of the church, not simply in manuscript evidence. If you don't agree with me, so what!

I really don't care what Bible you use, I will stick with what God has blessed in the past and what He will bless in the future, the King James Bible!

 

John Burgons “Seven Tests of Truth for NT Criticism”

1) Antiquity, or Primitiveness
2) Consent of Witnesses or Number
3) Variety of evidence, or Catholicity (universal acceptance)
4) Respectability of Witnesses, or Weight
5) Continuity, or Unbroken Tradition
6) Evidence of the entire passage, or Context
7) Internal considerations, or Reasonableness

HankD

 

I agree with Burgon more than Aland.

In fact, I could only generally agree with Aland's points 1, 4, 7, 9, and 12.

I believe that "The venerable maxim lectio brevior lectio potior ("the shorter reading is the more probable reading")" borders on ridiculous for things other than titles and names.

I used to manage a large group of data entry clerks. We almost never had errors due to added information. I am fairly sure that dictation shows similar results. In the process of copying, it is my belief that things are more likely to be left out than added... especially if the copyist is working under difficult circumstances as the earliest copyists most probably did.