Presuppositionalism and KJV onlyism

AV, I asked you what the passages that talk of preservation of scripture meant in the year 1605, and you said "Whatever 'received text' or translation thereof at that time, in that place." By "universally agreed upon", I simply meant that there was no single text that was considered exclusively "it" by the church - that your answer of "whatever recieved text or translation thereof at that time" wasn't a specific text, and thus not a real answer to my question. That's all I meant.

KJV-onlyism isn't a text. The KJV is a text. KJV-onlyism is a (false) doctrine.

My position is that KJV-onlyism is false.

As I understand it, whatever the passages meant int 1605 and when they were originally penned, is what they mean today. God's word still exists today just as it did in 1605, without change.

 

I am interested. Perhaps you have not fully understood the point of my responses.

You are to realize that preservation passages couldn't mean "not the KJV" in 1610, and "the KJV" in 1612. God's word does not change meaning. If preservation passages were true in 1610 (and they were), the truth they conveyed is still truth today. In short, scripture doesn't teach or support KJV-onlyism, unless you are arguing that scripture changed meaning around 1611.

That is my view on the topic. If you want a more specific answer, ask a more specific question.

My point is that if you are correct, then "the book of the LORD" that existed in 1605 should not have been corrected/replaced in 1611.

 

AV, my view is largely explained in my recent response to Bookborn. If you have further questions about it, please let me know.

As to what you've put forth, I do not accept it because I believe Bibles like the Geneva Bible were "the word of God" in 1605, and did not stop being the word of God with the production of another version (the KJV). Thus not "only" the KJV is God's word. Also, I do not understand how someone who is KJV-only can believe in "preserved with variations". Can you explain this more?

 

Excellent! We agree!

I do not see it as a dilemma in the first place. Consider: what was "the book of the LORD" in 1612 - the KJV, the Geneva, or something else? Correct me if I'm wrong, but seem to believe both the KJV and the Geneva were the word of God at the same time, right? So how can only one of them be "the book of the LORD" and the "final authority"? Also, how could the "final authority" in 1605 be "final", if another was to come along after it? See, I do not see "the book of the LORD" as any specific translation or edition of scripture, but rather that various specific translations and editions are all copies of "the book of the LORD".

 

AV, I do not think leadership of a country is a good analogy, because I do not believe only one translation can be "the word of God" at one time. You even agreed that the Geneva did not stop being the word of God when the KJV was produced. To help you understand my point, please clearly and directly answer the following questions:

What was "the book of the LORD" in 1612 - the KJV, the Geneva, or something else?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but seem to believe both the KJV and the Geneva were the word of God at the same time, right? So how can only one of them be "the book of the LORD" and the "final authority"?

Also, how could the "final authority" in 1605 be "final", if another was to come along after it?

 

How about this analogy: The final authority is the king's speech. Various translations and editions of the king's speech are not in and of themselves the final authority, but rather are instances of and witnesses of the king's speech, the final authority. The king's speech is still the king's speech, even if it is translated into other languages, and even if it is translated multiple times and not translated equally well.

Now please answer my questions clearly and directly.

 

The analogy is not mine, but the KJV translators. I just agree with them.

Why should I give an analogy of what I don't believe is happening in the first place, as I've already said? Should I not instead give an analogy of what I believe is happening instead?

Forgive me, but you're going to have to "dumb down" your points for me. I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "comporting presuppositionally". As for "contradicting lines", I believe there aren't any, except on an academic level. Where there appears to be a contradiction, usually is instead a misunderstanding.

Please answer these, individually, clearly, simply and directly:

What was "the book of the LORD" in 1612 - the KJV, the Geneva, or something else?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but seem to believe both the KJV and the Geneva were the word of God at the same time, right? So how can only one of them be "the book of the LORD" and the "final authority"?

Also, how could the "final authority" in 1605 be "final", if another was to come along after it?

Which ones, specifically and individually?

 

While this discussion seems to be between two individuals, I will add a few thoughts anyway.

There have been variations in the biblical text going back at least to the beginning of the Christian era. The OT of the first century existed in rival Hebrew textual traditions as well as in a Greek translation. Few if any in that era doubted that each text was the word of God, probably because they recognized that the propositional truths were as inspired as the words themselves, so that even if the exact wording of a passage was in doubt it's teaching was not. The same held true in the modern age. Until the KJVO movement, few questioned that the ASV or the RSV was the word of God, even if they preferred the KJV, because they recognized that the differences were too minor to affect doctrine. Only after the rise of KJVOism did we get the idea that we must have a perfectly worded text in English, and that the KJV must be that text. It seems to me that God has indeed preserved his word across the centuries, even if he has also allowed minor variations in that word. A person who reads only the NASB can know as much about Jesus as the person who reads only the KJV. There is no "dilemma" to worry about. Such insecurity concerning the biblical text is completely unwarranted.

 

Bookborn: //Is the book of Matthew the historical record of Jesus,
a record of his ancestors, the record of Jesus’ geneaology,
the family tree of Jesus, the list of ancestors,
a roll of Jesus’ birth, the family history of Jesus,
an account of the geneaology?//

Yes, the book of Matthew is all this and more.
The book of Matthew by itself and collectively with other
books like Mark, Luke, and John,are the very words
of the Living God, no matter which translation they reside in.

Though I must admit, you probably can follow the English
rendition of the Holy Written Word of God better than the
Holy Written Word of God in other languages. In fact, I
recommend a 21st Century (2001-2100) English translation of the
Holy Written Word of God: the HCSB (Christian Standard Bible
/Holman, 2003/ ). Unless, of course, thou art more familiar with
the English language of some other century.

Bookborn: //Words are vehicles of thought and changing words result
in the changing of thoughts//

Amen, Brother Bookborn - Right on!

I can't feature any reason why some one would presuppose that
their is one and only one unique set of Words that create the
Lord Thoughts one should have. God is Omnipotent, all powerful.
My presupposition is that God is Omnipotent. I then derive,
using man's logic, that His Holy Written word cannot be bound
into one book in one language.

AV: //Logic and science and epistemology are founded upon
the bible (a thing, a text, not doctrine seperated
from the text).//

Before you presuppose, you have to additionally presuppose
that the logic of presupposition is correct. Thus if you
presuppose one unique book of God, you make logic higher than
the one unique book of God. So your act of presupposing
invalidates your above statement.

Quite frankly the logic I see you using looks more like
'reducto ad absurdum' thank suppositional logic.

My dictionary reminds us:

REDUCTO AD ABSURDUM - Latin. a reduction to an absurdity;
the refution of a proposition by showing its
logical conclusions as absurd.

You presuppose the proposition: 'The Lord has one book'.
You logically conclude: 'The Lord's one book (in English) is the KJV'.
But that is absurd. Therefor your proposition is
untrue so the Lord cannot be bound by one and only one unique
book.

 

Yes. And that completly disproves your point. It is beyond me why you would stipulate the defeat of your own position.

Yes, but irrelevant since the discussion you started is not on the canon, but on a translation.

 

Your reasoning is fine until you try to apply it to the KJV. Most of those references by implication can be applied to Scripture. They cannot in any legitimate way be applied to a particular translation of Scripture.

And that is the problem. You are taking legitimate texts and deriving illegitimate positions from them.