"As it currently stands, the decision to release a new translation of the Bible is a decision that is made between academics and businessmen."
He’s hard to track down on the issue, but he posts a summary http://www.dougwils.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83…] here . He is not really KJVO, but KJVPOP (King James Version Preaching Only Preferred).
Allen is correct that Wilson only preaches from the KJV. However, it seems like a contradiction to only preach from it but to cite and read from others. By no means does Wilson espouse to the KJV Only position or rhetoric. He has wholly other reasons for preferring the KJV however off one might think they are. It is an odd position but he makes it clear enough I think.
Nice Susan.
[RPittman]My comment was tongue-in-cheek, but basically along the same lines you are stating here. Wilson does not fit in the KJVO box.[AllenS] He’s hard to track down on the issue, but he posts a summary http://www.dougwils.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83…] here . He is not really KJVO, but KJVPOP (King James Version Preaching Only Preferred).The labels are wrong because there is so much diversity that it defies pigeonholing. It only adds confusion in this case. I know that labels simplify and neatly organize but they just don’t work here. So, forget the labels.
[RPittman] Aaron Blumer wrote:
“I have not read much of Wilson on this topic, but it’s likely that he does not get to his conclusions by any commonly traveled path. He does not think inside anybody’s box.”
I agree. But, I do wish that you would have extended the same courtesy to me. You and others on SI have been trying to fit me into the commonly perceived KJVO box for quite some time.
What can I say to that except that I’ve always interacted with your statements and your reasoning. If you can show where I’ve done otherwise, there may be something there I can better explain.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[RPittman] That’s okay Aaron. You’ve greatly improved since you told me absolutely that I could NOT reject Modernity. Also, I think you are getting the idea that there are paths less traveled.
On the second sentence. I have never had the smallest particle of doubt about that.
On the first, you never did understand what I meant and apparently still don’t. But it’s not relevant to this thread so I’ll refrain from making another attempt at explaining that… except to say that my view on that has not changed at all.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I hope that the Kevin Bauder article and Douglas Wilson’s video open some eyes to the variety of arguments people make for the KJV. The problem with sterotypes is that while there are reasons for their origin (Riplinger, Ruckman) they can become shallow representations of the current situation. I agree RPittman that the box is ill suited to carry the argument forward.
There is also too much reactionism in the debate. Evidence of this can be seen in Kevin Bauder’s 400th Year article where the CT advocate have jumped all over him for expressing positives about the KJV as well as in this filing where Doug Wilson was harshly criticized as ignorant and confused for not accepting CT arguments. Of course the members of this site have examples of KJV supporters doing the same.
So what do we do with Douglas Wilson’s arguments?
There is also too much reactionism in the debate. Evidence of this can be seen in Kevin Bauder’s 400th Year article where the CT advocate have jumped all over him for expressing positives about the KJV as well as in this filing where Doug Wilson was harshly criticized as ignorant and confused for not accepting CT arguments. Of course the members of this site have examples of KJV supporters doing the same.
So what do we do with Douglas Wilson’s arguments?
Discussion