MIS-CHARACTERIZATIONS about KJVOs?

First, I suggest that you read carefully the part of my post that you quoted. Work to understand it. Like many MV proponents (I assume you are), although not all, you build straw men by listing the arguments and views of KJVO extremists and kooks. I plainly stated that I didn’t believe the statements you posted. Now, you cannot make them stick to me—I deny them. Who are you, unless you are a psychic and I choose NOT to believe psychics, to tell me what I believe? My views are not the same candy in a different wrapper. There is no force of logic behind your assertions. Evidently you have reached a conclusion from your limited experience (all men are limited in experiences) without ratiocination and you are determined to maintain it against all evidence to the contrary. This is a narrow and biased view for someone aspiring to intellectual pretensions.

Someone once said that he had never seen anyone who knew as much Greek as the JW’s. Another astutely observed that if the guy had met anyone who knew any Greek at all then he wouldn’t have believed the JW’s. The parallel is here. You have read too much of Pete Ruckman, who is a certifiable nut case and easily refuted, and his ilk. On the other hand, if you and your profs had read serious KJVO proponents and understood their objections then you might have been challenged to think and have reached different conclusions. Otherwise, you are just spooning so much pabulum.

Having cleared away the rubbish with my denial, let’s consider an argument that you did not list and have not refuted. If you can intelligently deal with the following, then you are thinking and not spewing out the pabulum of your old cemetery…uh…I mean seminary professors and a few books that you have read. Please stick the points below and refute them—that is if you can.

Supposedly the W-H theory of textual criticism and its grandchild, modern critical text theory, is based on scientific principles of scholarship and represent the restoration of a corrupt text to near the original MSS. Historically, the W-H theory was the child of its age—the nineteenth century. It was the kissing cousin of other discredited so-called scientific scholarship such as the phylogenetic recapitulation theory (dear old Ernst Haeckel was so creative with facts), social Darwinism (this is the justification for cut-throat capitalism), higher criticism (they are still trying to decide the real words of Jesus and who wrote the Pentateuch), evolutionary racism (aborigines were considered subhuman and many were displayed in cages with thousands slaughtered), colonic irrigation (enemas improve your health), etc. Whereas Bible believers rejected the higher criticism, they tolerated and accepted the so-called lower criticism (i.e. textual criticism). This is the reason that the believing church is troubled by it today—it seemed innocuous and scholarly--what a crock!

My argument is simply that the W-H theories and the subsequent modern textual criticism are not scientific. These theories are not scientific for the following reasons:
1. The results are not verifiable. One cannot test whether we are closer or farther from the original MSS. (You see, the W-H theory is self-justifying since it can only be proven by accepting its own ASSUMPTIONS.)
2. The process and results are not replicable. Work through the process as many times as you like and you get different results each time.
3. There are too many uncontrolled variables. Scientific methodology is not workable if you cannot control the variables. There are literally thousands of uncontrolled variables in textual criticism.
4. The theories, there are probably as many theories as textual critics, have not been experimentally tested under controlled conditions and probably are not testable. I have considered the algorithm of a controlled experiment but I don’t know of anyone actually doing one. I would question the validity (used in the technical sense of actually testing what you are trying to test) of any such experiment. Also, could it be replicated in the field? In sum, two big, big questions are validity and reliability. Please address.
5. The assumptions underlying the theory[ies] are not axiomatic. They are simply presuppositions made a priori to make the theory[ies] work. They don't exist in the real world--they only proliferate in the fantasy world of the ivory tower.
6. Furthermore, the theory simply doesn’t work in the real world. They have given us no consensual text in over a hundred years of development. What they have done is generate more and more questions, not answers. Even the eclectic critical versions keep changing, changing, and changing back again. In other words, any scholar with the least bit of savvy can come along and challenge just about any variant reading with a new explanation or a new argument. The current Aland-Nestle edition (27th?) has been changed and changed back again in many readings. Who knows what the next version will be? Workability is the ultimate test of any scientific theory. It doesn’t work and only the true believers in modern textual criticism cannot see that. (BTW, it is the modern theories themselves that I reject, not the conservative correction of variants in the received text [no caps]).

Any one of the above points being true is enough to torpedo the whole scientific basis of the ship. We have six torpedoes.

One final question is: How is the W-H theory scientific? You prove it. I say it is pseudo-scientific and false. It is misleading. And so-called scholars, who don't understand science and scientific methodoloby, are so indoctrinated by dogma that they cannot see, as the child did, the emperor is naked.

Let’s hear your side of the scientific argument! I’m not looking for another straw man. However, I will be more than happy to debate scientific methodology with you! After you chew on this awhile, we will go to the next level of a dozen or so arguments that you will not find in the likes of Pete and Gail. You ain't heard it all yet--there's more of the KJVO case to come.

The point is that it is stereotyping and MISCHARACTERIZTION when you hang the same old tired, spurious arguments around the necks of KJVO's who deny that they believe said arguments. Just because some KJVO's advance spurious arguments doesn't mean that all do.

Adios Amigo!

 

For those who care, this is a fascinating explanation of W-H's method, written by W-H themselves. I'm not finished with it, but it's pretty good.

http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/Ebind/docs/TC/WH1881/

 

My question is how was Erasmus and company's determination of what comprised the "real text" of the original superior to that of W-H?

 

First, I'm not mindlessly stereotyping-my statements are based upon what I see. Notive I've never said, "ALL KJVOs are blah, blah..." I've said, "SOME KJVOs are..." or "MANY...". If none of this applies to you, excellent. But my thoughts about the KJVO myth will not change. It's based upon a lot less "science" than is the W/H theory.

You'll be surprised to learn that I feel much the same as you do about the W/H theory also. And obviously, so do quite a few of today's scholars & translators; that's why they use a much more eclectic approach today. But the fact is, they cannot simply ignore Sinaiticus or Vaticanus when attempting to reconstruct the text close to the originals as possible. And without the originals, they cannot be absolutely sure if they've matched them or not.

There are two things the "scholars" don't sometimes take into account: the POWER OF GOD to preserve His word, and the fact that He chose not to preserve the originals. W&H ignored this when they automatically decreed many of the mss already in use as incorrect. They made the same mistake as others before and after them have made-they failed to take every available ms into account. Yes, I know that some mss have more "weight" assigned to them, but the others can't just be totally ignored either.

BTW, I'm not a "scholar". I deal in basics. And these basics show KJVO to be a man-made myth. The FACTS are that God has presented His word in English for hundreds of years, always in the language style in use at the time. There's not one scintilla of SCRIPTURAL doctrine supporting KJVO, or ANY one_versionism-and, since Scripture is our highest written authority, any theory about Scripture MUST BE SUPPORTED by Scripture. And the origins of modern KJVO are very easily traced to the writings of Wilkinson, Ray, Fuller, & a series of lesser-known authors. It certainly didn't come from GOD.

One more thing-the stereotypes for many of the KJVOs were made by those KJVOs themselves-WE didn't invent them. The KJVO camp has made the doctrines, so they have the burden of proof, which so far they've completely failed to meet. We reject their doctrine based upon a total lack of proof for its veracity.

Yes, I am a proponent of some MVs, but I also use the KJV, the AV 1611, and upon occasion the Geneva Bible. I do NOT believe God is limited to just one version in ANY language-after all, it's HIS word, and He is able to present it AS HE CHOOSES. Please keep this in mind. As for scholarship, building a "scholarly" argument without dealing with the basics first is as building a structure from the roof down. Try dealing with the BASICS before going on to the minutiae from the world of scholars & translators.

(I assume you're KJVO. If you're not, then please accept my apology in advance. If you are, then please deal with the basics first.)

 

One of W-H’s problems is obfuscation. They didn’t make the matter better—they made it worse. Erasmus was blessed that he didn’t have more manuscripts. He was able to simplify and collate from a few good manuscripts. Most have not considered that more is not always better. Erasmus did a very conservative compilation of the know sources whereas W-H are radical in their departure from the generally known and accepted readings to open the possibility of many variants. In result, they did not bring greater certainty but they caused greater uncertainty and confusion. IMHO, W-H failed miserably in their stated purpose of “to present exactly the original words of the New Testament, so far as they can now be determined from surviving documents.”

Therefore, Erasmus, with corrections, is superior. Huh?

 

Wrong on two points. First, their NT is less than 7% different (strict word comparison), and most of that 7% is not very significant. That is not "radical", that is much less than one would expect given the immense amount of research done and evidence weighed. Second, most of the variants were already known to exist, W&H just determined and documented support for some of them.

I disagree. Previously, assurance of the accuracy of the NT was based on hope that the 6 manuscripts Erasmus collated were accurate, with minimal investigation into possible corruption. W&H poured on the detailed study, and made some revision to less than 7% of that text. What we then have is the assurance we had with Erasmus' work, *plus* the backing of a mountain of detailed research. I realize not everyone agrees with that assessment of W&H's work, but I find it quite unrealistic to say that detailed investigation, where little-to-none had been done before, is a bad thing.

Isn't that what W&H's text is??? Erasmus', with corrections - corrections backed by a mountain of detailed investigation.

God bless,
Brian

 

If Erasmus' work is so superior, why the corrections?

Why did he revise it 3 times? Why did Stephanus make several revisions? Why did Beza make further revisions?

And I see, Sir, that you choose, at least for now, to not deal with the BASICS I mentioned.

 

Wrong on two points. First, their NT is less than 7% different (strict word comparison), and most of that 7% is not very significant. That is not "radical", that is much less than one would expect given the immense amount of research done and evidence weighed. Second, most of the variants were already known to exist, W&H just determined and documented support for some of them.

I disagree. Previously, assurance of the accuracy of the NT was based on hope that the 6 manuscripts Erasmus collated were accurate, with minimal investigation into possible corruption. W&H poured on the detailed study, and made some revision to less than 7% of that text. What we then have is the assurance we had with Erasmus' work, *plus* the backing of a mountain of detailed research. I realize not everyone agrees with that assessment of W&H's work, but I find it quite unrealistic to say that detailed investigation, where little-to-none had been done before, is a bad thing.

Isn't that what W&H's text is??? Erasmus', with corrections - corrections backed by a mountain of detailed investigation.

God bless,
Brian </font>[/QUOTE]NO! I'm sorry but you are wrong and clouding the issues. W-H is a specific theory and methodology of textual criticism. Evidently, you have read my posts without understanding. My whole objection is not to making corrections of obvious errors, as many have done with the so-called received text (no caps), but the idea that one can scientifically reconstruct a facsimile of the original autographs utilizing critical theory and methodology is pure hogwash. And, this is exactly what W-H believed. Since there are no brute facts, I have absolutely no interest in comparing encyclopedic text trivia and will dismiss your post without further comment. In other words, I have no argument with your facts, just your understanding and interpretation.

Thank you for your time.

 

I agree that one cannot "scientifically reconstruct a facsimile of the original autographs utilizing critical theory and methodology" and *know* that it is 100% accurate, but my point is that using this approach did NOT result in a "radical" departure. It resulted in a less than 7% difference, and a mountain of evidence to back up those differences and a mountain of evidence to back up where they read the same. No such evidence was compiled on this magnitude earlier. You said "Erasmus was blessed that he didn’t have more manuscripts. He was able to simplify and collate from a few good manuscripts" - but I say: how do you know they were "good manuscripts" in the first place??? Without textual criticism, you have no idea if they are good manuscripts or not, all you have is a vague hope that "well, I sure hope Erasmus was lucky enough to find some 'good' manuscripts!". W/H didn't obfuscate, they did the opposite - before them, the understanding of what really is a "good manuscript" was a cloudy guessing game. Even if you disagree with their final conclusions on particular reasons, I don't see how one can deny the benefit they brought by opening up the practice of detailed manuscript study.

 

Briant, this is the heart of the KJVO debate. all you KJVOs correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you believe that Erasmus wasn't *lucky* but blessed that he found the right manuscripts in the first place. In other words KJVOs believe that God led him to the correct ones in the first place. Just a thought.

 

Yes, maybe "lucky" wasn't the best word. However, one should also be careful about how much divine providence one attributes to Erasmus' small collection, for if any KJV-only wants to argue that God divinely guided these manuscripts to Erasmus, then I'll argue that that would mean God didn't want 1 John 5:7 in the Bible, or else he would have given Erasmus different manuscripts. So if it wasn't God leading him to the correct ones in the first place, what was it?

 

I agree. The WH text-critical theories are not strictly speaking "scientific." Neither are any other text critical theories "scientific" -- thoroughgoing eclecticism, Byzantine Priority, TR Priority, or whatever. This is because we are dealing with a unique, unrepeatable *historical* phenomenon -- the transmission of the NT text. And any historical investigation of necessity involves making reasonable deductions from the available evidence to determine what most likely happened.

 

Brian, I believe we all know that the KJVO myth must have villains with which to justify itself. W&H have served that purpose nicely for a number of years, especially when the KJVOs found that dean Burgon had taken some shots at their work. However, they totally ignored the fact that Burgon took about as many shots at the TR. (I'm assuming Burgon was using the Elzevir Edition of the TR in his review. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.)

And they ignore the fact that the TR has been revised umpteen times, at least three by Erasmus himself. Now, I wonder, which of these revisions is the "official" one? Are all the others before the last revision wrong? Dean Burgon said the TR could stand a thorough revision!

 

I agree. The WH text-critical theories are not strictly speaking "scientific." Neither are any other text critical theories "scientific" -- thoroughgoing eclecticism, Byzantine Priority, TR Priority, or whatever. This is because we are dealing with a unique, unrepeatable *historical* phenomenon -- the transmission of the NT text. And any historical investigation of necessity involves making reasonable deductions from the available evidence to determine what most likely happened. </font>[/QUOTE]Well, at least we agree that W-H textual theory is not scientific. However, this is precisely what it purported to be. Its gestation was in the heat of scientific rationalism that spawned a host of other fallacious speculations. In arguing that W-H theory is not scientific, I contend that the historical data is irretrievably lost and we cannot accurately determine the historical pathways here. From a scientific standpoint, we can only be agnostic—we don’t know.

On the other hand, the Bible is a book of faith. We either accept it or reject it. Our acceptance or rejection is all or none—no other position is rational for believed revelation. Either it is true, infallible, and inerrant or it is nonsense. If it contains myth and error, then we are foolish to think that mere man can separate truth from it—revelation has become meaningless. It is more rational to think that we can derive truth from first principles, even though I reject this notion. Truth is only revealed by God.

I disagree in your use of “reasonable deductions.” Since there is no brute factuality, deductions are made within an accepted paradigm. As with most human paradigms, the whole structure rests on basic axioms. W-H theory has no axiomatic prepositions, only assumptions that are heavily biased toward preconceived ideas. We have no argument with the deductions since we reject the assumptions. Therefore, we do not need to argue about the details. The details are irrelevant.

The KJVO position is weakened by the lunatics who take extreme positions such as the Ruckmanites. On the other hand, many good, sincere KJVO men get lost in a morass of details. The case is not won by trivial pursuit. The problem is with the whole philosophy/theological basis of the two positions.

Thanks for listening………er……….reading.

 

So what? All this is trivia. What is your point?

You bandy lots of emotionally laden words such as myth. Please substantiate that the KJVO position is a myth. Otherwise, you are begging the question. Didn’t you ever do debate?

 

I agree that one cannot "scientifically reconstruct a facsimile of the original autographs utilizing critical theory and methodology" and *know* that it is 100% accurate, but my point is that using this approach did NOT result in a "radical" departure. It resulted in a less than 7% difference, and a mountain of evidence to back up those differences and a mountain of evidence to back up where they read the same. No such evidence was compiled on this magnitude earlier. You said "Erasmus was blessed that he didn’t have more manuscripts. He was able to simplify and collate from a few good manuscripts" - but I say: how do you know they were "good manuscripts" in the first place??? Without textual criticism, you have no idea if they are good manuscripts or not, all you have is a vague hope that "well, I sure hope Erasmus was lucky enough to find some 'good' manuscripts!". W/H didn't obfuscate, they did the opposite - before them, the understanding of what really is a "good manuscript" was a cloudy guessing game. Even if you disagree with their final conclusions on particular reasons, I don't see how one can deny the benefit they brought by opening up the practice of detailed manuscript study. </font>[/QUOTE]You said: "It resulted in a less than 7% difference, and a mountain of evidence to back up those differences and a mountain of evidence to back up where they read the same"

Yes, I do not challenge your data but I challenge your conclusion. This simply indicates that all the extant texts, both good and bad, varied amazingly little considering the amount of time, circumstances, and geographical locations. I still insist that W-H were radical because they opened the door to infinite variability even though it did not materialize.

 

So what? All this is trivia. What is your point?

When the facts go against your position, they become trivia, eh?

You bandy lots of emotionally laden words such as myth. Please substantiate that the KJVO position is a myth. Otherwise, you are begging the question.

Easy!!

MYTHA) an unfounded or false notion
(B) a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence

The man-made origin of modern KJVO is well-documented, & has been presented more than once on this board. And I have been among a group of anti-KJVOnlyismists who have kept on posing the basic flaws with the KJVO view, such as a total lack of Scriptural support, without receiving any factual rebuttals to those very real flaws. The KJVO doctrine is man-made & completely untrue; therefore it's a myth.

Didn?t you ever do debate?

Yerp! Many times, both orally and in writing.

Have you ever "lost" a debate? If not, your perfect record is gonna go "POOF!" if you insist on siding with the KJVO myth.

 

Well, actually, Paidagogos, are the backers of the "Traditional" or "Received-Text-Only" views any more or less scientific than the supporters of the W-H school? Or are we discussing a peel while ignoring the "fruit" within?