MIS-CHARACTERIZATIONS about KJVOs?

NO! The traditional or received text is not scientific and it does not purport to be. On the other hand, the W-H method is based on the presupposition that through scientific methodology the original text can be derived. This is pure, unadulterated HOGWASH. W-H were a couple of amateurs, as are many modern textual critics, playing at the scientific method which they did not fully understand. They may know Greek and be well versed in historiography but they don’t know beans about scientific methodology. Their faith is placed in a naïve scientism.

Defenders of the received text tradition do not argue from science, which is not applicable here. Science cannot work in textual criticism because there are too many variables. If you cannot control the variables, you cannot control the experiment. Validation in science depends on predictive assertions that can be tested and verified. There are none, absolutely zero, in textual criticism that can be tested. The results cannot be replicated. Again, the results cannot be quantified and measured. If you can’t measure it, then it ain’t good science. Even biology, most certainly psychology, gets a little squishy here. Textual criticism ain’t even in the race.

Acceptance of the received text tradition is by faith. Hills calls it the “logic of faith.” So, Robycop, you are wrong in your assertion. You attribute to me what I have not said and do not believe. But, you’ve done that before. I am not contradicting myself because I have never, ever tried to establish my arguments for the traditional received text on scientific grounds. Find my words and I’ll eat them. Just don’t take out of context, twist, misconstrue, or misquote me. Fair enough?

 

Well, Robycopy, you never answer my questions. What’s your point? What are the facts that go against my position? You see, there is no brute fact. So-called facts must be interpreted within a framework or paradigm. Facts are simply what exist. Facts are data. I am not disagreeing with your data (i.e. facts), just your interpretation. Don’t you understand this? Let me explain. For example, it may be a known FACT that the average water temperature in outdoor lakes and pools is twenty degrees colder in January than in June and five times as many people drown in June than in January but it does not necessarily follow that warm water is more dangerous than cold water. It all depends on how you interpret the facts. So, you are slinging meaningless data unless one accepts your assumptions. I don’t. So, what’s your point?

For the unbeliever, you cannot prove that God exists. To him, our belief in God and the Scriptures is “an unfounded or false notion” and God is “a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence.” Can you verify God’s existence scientifically? The answer is simply NO. You cannot test God or the Scriptures in a laboratory. Even after your sputtering re-assertion that the KJVO position is a myth, you have not advanced your argument one degree. It is all personal and relative to your own viewpoint. It may be enough for you but it doesn’t carry a featherweight for me. Could you please inform me where this well-documented refutation of the KJVO position is? It may be a documented refutation of Pete Ruckman but I don’t accept his nonsense. Show me a refutation of my KJVO position. Do you even understand what I believe? If so, please state it so that we will know exactly what you are refuting and can follow it logically. If you can’t cogently state my position, then you can’t refute it because you don’t even know or understand my position. Now, pick up the football and run with it.

REALLY! Did you ever win? Winning a debate, you know, doesn’t really prove that I am right or wrong. I think that I won some when I was wrong. Is this what you’re all about—winning a debate? I really don’t care whether I win or lose. I am more interested in truth and what pleases God. I believe that my Lord is best pleased when I accept and believe His Word by faith. God’s Word is NOT dependent upon scholarship for its preservation. It is NOT dependent upon our understanding the process of His preservation and transmission of His Word. We reverently read His Word, the Holy Spirit speaks to our hearts illumining our minds, and we accept His Word by faith. Man’s wisdom is not God’s wisdom. It is foolishness to the natural man. There is a spiritual element here beyond mere human reasoning. Call me a mystic if you must but it is no less mystical than the faith of scientism unknowingly embraced by wannabe intellectuals of textual criticism. My faith is in Christ as revealed by His Word and illumined by the Holy Spirit. Where is your faith placed? Science? Textual criticism? Scholarship? No, this is one debate that you can’t possibly win because you cannot debate and win against faith. And, it is a matter of faith after all regardless of which position you choose—scientism or revelation.