Right Divider
Body part
King James!
Battle Royale XIV discussion thread
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
I am very interested in how some people can argue black is white without realizing it. You do realise the AV existed before all the other modern English versions right? And you do realize that millions of English speaking evangelical Christians believed it to be the very words of God and without error long before someone dubbed them onlyists?
How can it possibly be argued that the KJB causes modern day division? Are you willing to turn both logic and history on their heads in order to fool yourself?
This KJV movement that you imagine is new is the continuation of the belief that God has given us His Bible. Seriously and honestly, as a general principle of logic, what do you think causes division; that which comes into existence first or that which comes later to oppose it? Does opposition and division come first and then that which it opposes shows up hundreds of years later? "Hey guys, we need to oppose a... thing. I know it hasn't shown up yet, but when it does, we can say we are the real deal!"
There is no KJVO movement - its a fabrication intended to justify a false dichotomy. You've been taken advantage of by the infamous used car salesman and you don't want to admit it. There is, however, an anti-Bible-in-your-hands movement but its adherents don't want it called that because it doesn't sell very well. They want you to believe the straw man is real and you have fallen for it.
Right Divider
Body part
Really.... why would Paul EVER say "my gospel"?
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
Correct!
Shasta
Well-known member
The idea that there is one and only one inerrant version of the Bible in English and that is the KJB that "you can hold in your hands" is making an translation equal or perhaps superior to its source texts. Even if the KJV mistranslates a passage the mistranslation must be held up as unchangeable doctrine. This exaltation of the scholarship of a group of men over the meaning of the texts they translated prevents believers from checking out their work and that of all other translators. They become a sort of priesthood of the truth who cannot be questioned. Any mistakes they made must be defended by all true believers even if it means contravening the meaning of the original language, the historical and cultural context.
This was the position presented to all of us here by Will Kinney. When pressed to state the basis for his belief he was honest enough to admit he believed it because of personal revelation. There is a big difference between this view and the opinion of someone who simply thinks that, on the whole, the KJV is the best translation. Once you say a translation is inerrant you have raised it to the level of the Word of God as it was spoken and written down by the prophets and Apostles. Then, of course you must accept every word of the KJV. Doctrines can be decided solely the basis of the wording of that particular translation.
Once you say all other translations are "Satanic" as I read on one of his links then you have committed yourself to wage perpetual war against everyone who teaches from or reads another translation. You then will find yourself become part of a disgruntled minority whether you choose to call it a movement or not.
People like Will Kinney can never dialogue with people about what the Bible says (i.e., the texts of the original language). He acts like they do not exist because he cannot hold a copy of them. Of course those texts are available but that is beside the point since he cannot question the way they are translated in the KJV.
Is this the kind of group you want to identify with?
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
You can find "my gospel" written by Paul, can't you?
It all comes down to personal preference, nothing more. It's simply an arbitrary choice to believe that the KJV is infallible, and the reasonings used to support this choice are completely circular.
This is demonstrated by the following quote from Will Kenny's opening statement:
If being "King James Bible Only" is irrelevant to salvation and right doctrine is not limited to KJBO believers, then it logically follows that the KJBO position is itself irrelevant because it is fundamentally unnecessary for a Christian to be a KJBO believer.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Who was the first person to advocate originals onlyism?
That's a legitimate question. It may have been St. Augustine:
St. Augustine in a letter to St. Jerome, has put down a fine axiom--that only the Holy Scripture is considered inerrant...Like modern inerrantists he limited the inerrancy of Scripture to the original autographs. (Source)
This idea was carried down through the Protestant reformers, such as John Calvin:While Calvin does at times speak of mistakes in Scripture, such mistakes are limited to the transmission of the text, not the text as it was originally given. (Source)
It then became a prominent feature in nineteenth century Protestant thought:As for the doctrine of infallibility in the original autographs, it was a common piece of theological furniture among nineteenth-century evangelical theologians, as historian Randall Balmer demonstrated in his master's thesis. At Princeton Seminary, itself, Charles Hodge, a predecessor of Warfield and editor of the Biblical Repertory, placed an article in the journal by German professor C. Beck in 1825. Beck clearly made a distinction between lost original autographs and extant copies of Scripture. He wrote, "The autographs appear to have perished early, and the copies which were taken, became more or less subject to those errors, which arise from the mistakes of transcribers, the false corrections of commentators and critics, from marginal notes, and from other sources."
A. A. Hodge and Warfield were by no means theologically innovative in speaking about original autographs in their 1881 "Inspiration" article. Rather, they were reiterating a common assumption of lower biblical criticism that Richard Simon and others had articulated and associated with Augustine's program for correcting errors in extant copies of Scripture. Hodge and Warfield put the matter this way: Scripture is without error "when the ipsissima verba [very words] of the original autographs are ascertained and interpreted in their natural and intended sense." The original autographs could be discerned through careful textual work. (Source)
A. A. Hodge and Warfield were by no means theologically innovative in speaking about original autographs in their 1881 "Inspiration" article. Rather, they were reiterating a common assumption of lower biblical criticism that Richard Simon and others had articulated and associated with Augustine's program for correcting errors in extant copies of Scripture. Hodge and Warfield put the matter this way: Scripture is without error "when the ipsissima verba [very words] of the original autographs are ascertained and interpreted in their natural and intended sense." The original autographs could be discerned through careful textual work. (Source)
Now it's time for you to answer my question: Who was the first person to advocate King James Bible onlyism?
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
I don't know.
Is KJVO fundamentally different or worse than Originals Onlyism?
I do not see God promoting originals onlyism. I see originals being destroyed in the OT , and copies made.
I have already said this before, but perhaps in a different context so worth repeating. I do not believe in the inerrancy of the original autographs. Not because I don't think they were of the highest quality but because inerrancy simply doesn't apply to them. Whatever these original manuscripts said, that is what they are. They are to be interpreted as such. If a text indicates that Pi = 3 then that is what the text is. You can call it inerrant, you can call it errant, you can call it sausages - I don't really care what you call it. That is what God inspired it to be; it is not really my prerogative to judge it. Rather, let it judge me! It is there as a tool to teach and to train.
But the concept of inerrancy does apply to the copies of the original manuscripts because these can be compared (conceptually) to the originals. I am not saying that practically they can be compared but conceptually it makes sense to ascribe a greater or lesser degree of inerrancy to them in terms of how close they are to those originals. Hence, a manuscript that says words to the effect that Pi =3 could be said be said to be 100% inerrant in the sense that it is a 100% accurate reflection of what was in the original manuscript, regardless of whether you consider the original as in some way incorrect factually (or even theologically).
This is an important principle because it promotes discipline in the church. You can't go around altering the manuscripts just because you think there is a mistake in them. You have to copy exactly what is there. And spiritually speaking, you have to submit to the guidance of the Holy Spirit through what is there and not what you think should be there. The alternative is just a recipe for a disaster.
GuySmiley
Well-known member
Originals Onlyism doesn't include the belief that God would preserve the actual originals. Well, for me anyway, I'm a subset of Originals Onlyism called Robust Transmissionism so we still believe God's word is preserved.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Originals Onlyism doesn't include the belief that God would preserve the actual originals. Well, for me anyway, I'm a subset of Originals Onlyism called Robust Transmissionism so we still believe God's word is preserved.
I think Originals Onlyism means that only the originals were perfect, SmileyGuy!
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
So what do you think is the goal of the translators of the other Bibles? To make a translation that is inferior to the source texts on purpose? The only superior aspect that I can see that has ever been advanced here is that whereas there was not an inerrant bible in modern English, the AV provided one under God's guidance. I see no one here suggesting that the translators did anything beyond collect and translate into English and, yes, they did their very best to be faithful to the originals in hand. Should they have not?
Anytime I have been confronted with a so-called problem with the AV it turns out there is at least one good explanation.
I am confident that God has made good on His promise to preserve His words in the purest form He is capable of and I do not distrust it in any way. I do not believe His promise consists in the destruction of the originals but rather in the survival of the copies that existed when English came of age and was readied to take the gospel to the world.
Why did Paul say "my Lord"?
Last edited:
Yes, and I can find "my Lord" written by Paul.
That doesn't mean there are two different Lords.
Right. And if I say "My dad", that doesn't mean he is also not your dad. Bogus analogy.
I still like the Random-Hill versions.
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
Don't forget me! I'm a parrot too, and birds of a feather... :chicken::chicken::chicken:
The following are excerpts from the introduction to the New Devotional and Explanatory Pictorial Family Bible published by The National Publishing Company - 1873 - 1877 and are in answer to your challenge.
"...We are very sure that the results of all such investigations will be to heighten confidence in the present version, and fill the heart with unfeigned gratitude to God, for that blessed book which we now enjoy, and which, for nearly two centuries and a half, has been pouring its light and consolation wherever the English tongue is spoken. Let science toil, and diligence labor . . . let literature hold up her torch, and cast all possible light upon the sacred text, but we must and ever shall deprecate any wanton attacks upon our received version-- any gratuitous attempts to supersede it by a new and different translation...
...The style of our present version, says Bishop Middleton, is incomparably superior to anything which might be expected from the finical and perverted taste of our own age."
Shasta
Well-known member
Well, at least he allows for that but it is not much of a concession. When asked about whether a person should be allowed to preach from any other versions in in a Church that believes like he does he said no. This is because he thinks the translators of other versions are in collusion with the Catholic Church.
There is no common bar of appeal either since he has no respect for the linguistic study of the original texts of scriptures. Since the KJV is inerrant its English words cannot be questioned. His rigid dogmatism divides Christians with different Bibles into opposing camps. This is why Will Kinney had to start off using ad hominem attacks. To him it is them against everyone else.