The Best Cure for KJVOism: A Real 1611 KJV
Reprinted with permission from As I See It. AISI is sent free to all who request it by writing to the editor at dkutilek@juno.com
It has been widely publicized that the year 2011 is the 400th anniversary of the original publication of the “Authorized” or King James Version of the Bible in English. Historically, this translation has been the most widely used, at least since it overtook the previous champion, the Geneva Bible of 1560 (chiefly, at least initially, as a result of the legal suppression of the printing of the Geneva Bible by the British monarchy, in favor of the KJV).
Note, however, that the great majority of the editions and copies of the KJV printed and read in the past 400 years have been revisions rather than reprints of the original form of the KJV, with literally tens of thousands of revisions in spelling, punctuation and the use of italics, plus many hundreds of revisions in the precise wording of the text. Later editions also included the switch from “black letter” (“Gothic”) type to Roman, the widespread omission of the Apocrypha in the 18th and later centuries, along with the omission of an extended calendar and charts of biblical genealogies. Most unfortunately, later editions omit the extremely important and informative introductory essay, “The Translators to the Readers,” which was included in the original edition. In short, most KJV users, particularly those who claim to be “King James Version 1611 Only” in their beliefs, have never actually seen or used a real 1611 King James Version in the original form in which it was issued from the press in 1611.
Past facsimiles
In the past facsimile reprints of the 1611 KJV have been produced from time to time. In 1833, “The Holy Bible, an exact reprint page for page of the Authorized Version published in the year 1611” was printed at the University Press, Oxford. It featured Roman type.1 In 1911, the University Press at Oxford issued two 1611 reprints—the first a facsimile (in black letter) in reduced size of the original 1611 KJV, the other an exact reprint page-for-page but in Roman type, both with introductory essays by A. W. Pollard.2 I have owned a copy of the 1911 Roman type reprint for almost 35 years.
This 1911 Roman type reprint was reissued in the 1970s (or early 1980s) by Thomas Nelson of Nashville, about the time they issued their New King James Version (and for a time Nelson sold the two volumes together in a slipcase). This reprint omitted the Pollard essay (and perhaps other features—I gave my copy to one of my sons a few years ago and cannot check it directly). Later—probably in the 1990s—Hendrickson Publishing also reprinted the 1911 Roman type edition (in precisely the form Nelson had). These two recent reprints are easy to find via the Internet.
Besides these, over the years various publishers have produced several full-sized facsimile reprints of the 1611 KJV. My brother has a copy of one made in the 1950s, for which he paid $350, used, a decade ago. Such full-sized facsimiles are rarely seen and are generally rather pricey (in the hundreds or even many hundreds of dollars).
An affordable new facsimile
Now, another edition, widely available and quite inexpensive, has appeared. This one is made by Zondervan and sold at Wal-Mart (and perhaps other retail outlets). The ISBN is 978-0-310-44029-1. It is a facsimile—an exact reproduction in the original black letter script—of the 1611 edition, but in a reduced size, and with one feature of the original omitted—the thirteen books of the Apocrypha (as noted on p. viii of the Introduction to this new edition). That the 1611 KJV originally did have the Apocrypha can be visually confirmed in this edition on the page containing Malachi 4, where the “catch-word” at the bottom of the page is “APO-” which points to “APOCRYPHA” which is at the top of the next page in the original (and in my 1911 reprint), after which originally followed the complete text of those non-canonical books. [amazon 0310440297 thumbnail]
The printed retail price of this Zondervan 2011 facsimile reprint is $7.99, though I have bought several copies at Wal-Mart in Kansas for $4.97. I have heard it priced about a dollar higher elsewhere (and I suspect they hope to make a profit on the publication of the KJV at that price). I would strongly urge every preacher, every Christian reader and every church and Christian college library to get a copy at once. If you have any KJVO friends, buy and give them a copy. There is no quicker cure for KJVOism that the direct and extended study of the 1611 edition, introductory material and all.
One finds in the actual, original, genuine 1611 KJV (no doubt “preserved in the form God wants us to have”) an introductory essay that states the translators’ perspective on their own and other translations (they, at least, were decidedly not “KJV-only”). If I could do just one thing to combat KJVOism, I would have every KJVO believer carefully read those eleven, highly informative pages. The original translators’ English Bible text has literally thousands of variant marginal renderings (showing that they did not believe their translation as found in the text was infallibly correct), plus variant manuscript readings, showing that they did not believe that the manuscript reading given in their text was necessarily always right. One will also find numerous places where words are “omitted,” “added” or altered as compared with all modern editions of the KJV, to say nothing of a considerable number of printer’s errors (are these also part of the “perfect preservation” we hear so much about?). And one can discover on the title page of the NT those revealing words: “cum privilegio” (Latin: “with privilege”) which demonstrate the fact that this translation was copyrighted from the day it was first published (contrary to the misrepresentation on this point that is often part of KJVO teaching).
I am quite sure that the quickest “cure” for KJVOism is the close and careful study of the actual original KJV itself. I would challenge—even dare—everyone of KJVO persuasion to get this facsimile of the original KJV and study it cover to cover and margin to margin, spending a year and more in the process, and try to prove me wrong.
(Photos of a copy of the Zondervan 400th anniversary facsimie 1611. Click to enlarge.)
Douglas K. Kutilek Bio
Doug Kutilek is the editor of www.kjvonly.org, which opposes KJVOism. He has been researching and writing in the area of Bible texts and versions for more than 35 years. He has a BA in Bible from Baptist Bible College (Springfield, MO), an MA in Hebrew Bible from Hebrew Union College and a ThM in Bible exposition from Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). His writings have appeared in numerous publications.
- 332 views
I understand but I think you are experiencing some of the KJVO fringe elements. I hope this is not representative of the majority. Are you near an American military facility? If so, Ruckman has a following among the military. Also, I’ve heard of missionaries who only made translations into native languages from the KJV.The instances of which I am thinking occurred in ministries of American missionaries in Germany and France. In no case that I know of, did they have anything to do with American military facilities. The writings of Ruckman had an influence on the missionary in one of those instances.
But my point is validated. Coming to a country with the view that your particular translation is better than anything in their language is arrogance. If I have experienced several of those, it has doubtless happened many times.
Enough said, I think.
Jeff Brown
Nevertheless, some very basic definitions…
“Translation errors” are mistakes made by translators in the process of translating.
“Word perfect” means every word is there either as God inspired it (in the case of the texts) or as God providentially produced it (in the case of translations).
Of course, some KJVOs believe the translators were inspired. But many, maybe most now, do not.
I don’t know how to make my other main point any clearer than I already have. It has nothing to do with any particular idea of the meanings of words. If a translation is perfect, then there is no reason to seek an alternative. If it is imperfect, then there is reason to seek an alternative.
Therefore, if one believes a translation is not perfect, one may not categorically reject subsequent translation work.
Unless… a possible counter-argument (which you haven’t made, so I guess I’ll argue both sides of this!) might be to take the position that the KJV is not perfect but is as perfect as it is possible for any translation to be. This view would allow someone to deny that the translation is perfect and simultaneously claim that no other translation ought to be attempted.
But there’s a downside to that: as hard as it is to make a case that the KJV is perfect, it’s even harder to make one that it’s imperfect but cannot be improved upon.
[RP] Let me approach it from a different angle. Would you please thoughtfully answer this question: Do you believe that the Word of God is bound eternally in static semantic content of human language represented by the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek of the original autographs written over hundreds of years in the style and vocabulary of the human amanuensis? If so, how can you say any translation is the inspired Word of God?It can be said far more plainly.
God inspired the Scriptures in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Men of old spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. He did not inspire any translations.
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] So, it follows, I think, that we must have a standard for determining a “translation error” exists. What is the benchmark? How do we differentiate between error and non-error? …. You need a standard for comparison to say it is imperfect. One can’t measure without an instrument and scale for comparison.A lot of talk about standards, benchmarks, instruments, and such, but how was “modern textual critical theory” determined as “faulty”?
….
Have I categorically rejected subsequent translation work? NO! I do reject translation based on faulty modern textual critical theory.
And if it can’t be proven to be faulty, what do we do? Find another standard by which to whack the modern versions?
You’re producing alot of words but not engaging.
I’ve made a few very simple, clear assertions. As far as I can tell, they still stand. I think I’ll not bother to repeat them.
Nobody who holds to an orthodox view of inspiration believes that God has inspired any translations.
Edit.. OK, I will repeat some of them. I seem to have some kind of genetic compulsion.
Here’s the whole argument I’ve made in lots of other threads… and parts of it in this thread already.
Premise1: the KJV translators made mistakes
Argument:
- Humans make mistakes
- The KJV translators were humans.
- Ergo, the KJV translators made mistakes
Defense: He can, but we would need authority for claiming that He did. The authority would be the Scriptures. Do the Scriptures teach that God will keep translators from making mistakes? They do not.
The premise stands.
Objection: Define “mistakes”
Defense: Any ordinary definition will do. Webster is fine.
The premise stands.
Objection: If there’s no definition the argument fails (or something like that)
Defense: The objection is spurious because saying “any def. will do” is not saying “there is no def.”
The premise stands.
Premise2: in principle, new translation work in English is a worthy pursuit
Argument:
- The KJV is not perfect (see Premise1)
- We should strive for a translation that is as excellent as possible
- Ergo, efforts to make better translations are worth attempting.
Defense: any standard dictionary definition will do
The premise stands.
Restatement/application of Premise2: it doesn’t make sense to admit the KJV is imperfect and also insist that it cannot be improved on and that no other translations should be made or used.
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.
Was it the Scriptures? Was it a presuppositional something (which Mister Brandenburg proposes and his disciple Ferguson promotes)? Or was it something even more convoluted than that?
But why not take a step back?
Why worry over “modern critical theory” if God has been fulfilling His promise of preservation even if heaven and earth pass away? He preserved it through the hands of card-carrying Alexandrians who doubtless doctored the nonexistent LXX and the Qumran community. He preserved the text through the non-Masoretic-leaning hands of the first-century scribes and the Apostles. He did so through Jerome’s redactive hand. And right on through Popes Clement and Sixtus something, Erasmus and Beza, Luther, the Tridentine Councillors, the Anglo-Catholic Lancelot Andrewes, the Baptist-biting Bishop Bancroft, Tischendorf, the evil twin brothers Westcott and Hort, the High Anglican Dean Burgon, the SDA Don Ben Wilkinson, right on through our time, the DAs Waite and Carson, and so on and so forth.
In each of those ages, Bible believers have always affirmed the preserved Word/s as the very Word/s of God, sometimes at the cost of their lives at the hands of the pious establishment, who always found some clever argument against the most readily accessible Word/s. But time seems to have proven those establishments wrong and vindicated God’s Word to the ploughboys over and again.
[RPittman][J Ng]Good question! You are perceptive to understand what I’m doing and have called me to account. I hope that you will as effectively understand my answer.[RPittman] So, it follows, I think, that we must have a standard for determining a “translation error” exists. What is the benchmark? How do we differentiate between error and non-error? …. You need a standard for comparison to say it is imperfect. One can’t measure without an instrument and scale for comparison.A lot of talk about standards, benchmarks, instruments, and such, but how was “modern textual critical theory” determined as “faulty”?
….
Have I categorically rejected subsequent translation work? NO! I do reject translation based on faulty modern textual critical theory.
And if it can’t be proven to be faulty, what do we do? Find another standard by which to whack the modern versions?
I assume that you understand the concept of paradigms. For an idea to be credible, it must be coherent, consistent, and cogent within its own paradigm. However, the same concept may not be so in another paradigm. Allow me to specify that I do not consider myself to think and operate in the paradigm of Modernity. As D. A. Carson has recognized, epistemology may be thought of as Pre-Modern, Modern (Modernity), and Post-Modern. Modernity is based on rationalism. Given the data, man can put the pieces together. Most modern Christians are modernist in this sense although they must inject an idea of presuppositionalism to make it work for their Christian faith.
One poster on SI boasted, “Give me the presuppositions that the Bible is the Word of God and it is true and I can prove everything else.” Well, that is just not true because there has to be hundreds, perhaps thousands, of other presuppositions along the way. Furthermore, the same poster said that “he knew the Bible was true because the Holy Spirit provided confirmation in bringing him to faith in Christ.” Now, this is a good answer but it simply doesn’t square with his rationalism in establishing other things. I deny that Modernist methodology and rationalism give us truth. Modernity believed that if methodology properly applied would result in knowledge with certainty. This methodology was defined in the scientific method, which has given us great advances in science and technology. Even so, we have not and never will arrive at an absolute understanding of even the physical universe, much less things beyond our observations. Thus, I reject the Modernist paradigm. I hold to a paradigm of faith and reason.
Additionally, I switch between paradigms in my arguments. Because most posters do not share my paradigm, I use the Modernism paradigm in many of my arguments. Rationalism can be used to defeat rationalistic ideas. This is legitimate because ideas may be judged false if they fail to be cohesive and consistent in their own paradigm. In supporting my own ideas, however, I must change the paradigm, which most fail to understand.
Regarding translation errors, my point, obviously, is that one must have a standard or benchmark to judge something called error. A translation or text is a physical entity that is comparable to a standard or benchmark (i.e. another text that is the correct one). In other words, it is measurable. we must have a standard to declare that a thing does not meet the standard. This is consistent in a rationalistic paradigm, I think. This is not a problem for me because I accept by faith on reasonable evidence before me the concept of divine preservation in a received text. Because I am not a Modernist, I don’t need to explain every question or detail for certainty. On the other hand, the Modernist has a problem because the evidence falls short of the demands of his rationalistic methodology. I think my argument holds here. You didn’t seem to contest this idea though.
A theory, on the other hand, is not measurable as a physical entity. It is simply ideation. However, we do have a means of testing theories of physical phenomenon by the scientific method. Theories are accepted when they prove workable. However, the problem with a theory of textual criticism, we must have some way to measure its workability. Theory that cannot be shown to be workable is discarded as faulty. How can you prove the modern theories of textual criticism are workable—i.e. we are closer to the originals? The modern theories textual criticism fall short of their own paradigm’s requirements.
There are lots of gaps and more to be said but I’m tired and have something else to do.
[RP] I have not even said that He protected them from making errors. I really don’t know how He did it but I do know there are lots more possibilities than you are seeing. For the sake of argument, let’s just assume that the translators made some errors although we don’t know what errors are and what specific errors they made. Could God have conformed the English language around the KJV to make it His inspired Word?On other possibilities… with respect to error in translation, there are only two. It either has errors or it doesn’t.
God did not inspire any translations. Translations partake of the quality of inspiration to the degree they are faithful to the original languages. KJV is not special in that regard. It is “inspired” in the same sense that the NASB, ESV or NKJV are.
As I’ve said before, I prefer not to use the word “inspired” in reference to any translation unless I have time to explain what I mean. It’s usually not worth the trouble to say it at all.
Since we believe in verbal inspiration, and words in any non-original language are different words, these translated words are not the words God inspired. They can only approximate them.
About preservation, I’ve explained my view on that at some length in the past. It hasn’t changed. God did not promise that we would have His word preserved in any translation or even that we would have every word of it in an original language text that we know for certain has every word.
As for authority for the claim that KJV is perfect. One could argue that Scriptural authority is not necessary to back that claim. But neither I nor anyone else is required to accept whatever authority is being used instead. It cannot rise to the level of biblical doctrine if it is not taught in the Bible.
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]So, by this attempt to find internal contradictions, can we assume that you have no external standard by which to judge modern critical theory?[J Ng] I’m sorry, but I guess I’m slightly daft. But based on the response below, I can’t find the standard, benchmark, instrument, or whatever by which to judge “modern critical theory” as “faulty.”Perhaps I was so wordy that it got lost. It’s really quite simple: modern critical text theory doesn’t live up to its own paradigm. No one can show that it is workable.
Cuz, frankly, the various and constantly morphing King James Only theories don’t quite come across as internally coherent either to outsiders.
To be candid, I don’t think there exists an inspired, infallible theory of textual criticism outside of biblical assurances that God does preserve His Word. Some Christians adopt a more scientific approach in trying to determine the “original text.” Others take a more mystical/fideistic approach. Time will tell, but the Spirit, I believe, will still lead Jesus’ followers into all truth.
[RPittman] Yes, this is true and to be expected because outsiders are trying to enforce a different paradigm on KJVO. KJVO is not coherent and consistent within a rationalistic paradigm. It is based on reasoning from a faith-based position of preservation.Well, in that case, those of us who believe the Scripture to make good reasonable sense to the Spirit-enabled mind and reject the self-validating fideism of other “faith-based” platforms (Ozmanian Pentecostalism comes to mind) will simply have to treat KJBOism in that same category.
While a non-KJBO bibliology is (I believe) more logically coherent and consistent (though not perfectly so, though it attempts to be), what’s far more important is whether it is consistent with the teaching and example of the external standard called the Scriptures. The Bible nowhere tells us to reject the evidence that God leaves through His creation and His Word, to suspend the use of our mental faculties for some esoteric “faith-based” (yet revelation-rejecting!) theory, and insist on a theory of Onlyism that departs from the biblical record and concurs most closely, ironically enough, with the Romish (Tridentine) dogma on the Scriptures.
If I may so boldly suggest, let’s have a closer look at Luke, Paul, our Lord Himself also, and see how they approach and esteem the Scriptures, and compare all that with the bibliology of KJBOism and Trent. Then apply those findings to the extant MS evidence all around us. I think the level of concurrence between Scripture and realia will be surprisingly substantial, and one need not concoct a “faith-based” (which I think is anything but) position of a single-version onlyism to be faithful.
[RPittman]If I may reframe the question, where is the Holy Spirit in any kind of scholarship at all?[J Ng] To be candid, I don’t think there exists an inspired, infallible theory of textual criticism outside of biblical assurances that God does preserve His Word. Some Christians adopt a more scientific approach in trying to determine the “original text.” Others take a more mystical/fideistic approach. Time will tell, but the Spirit, I believe, will still lead Jesus’ followers into all truth.One of my major criticism of modern textual criticism is the role of the Holy Spirit? Where is the Holy Spirit in modern rationalistic scholarship?
If one must take a blind (sans Scripture/reason) leap of faith on bibliology, why stop there?
Yet I believe there is sufficient (though perhaps not to our depraved minds satisfaction at times) evidence/guidance in the Word (2 Tim. 3:15 - 17) for bibliology as for any other part of Christian faith and practice. The question is whether we’re willing to accept that evidence rather than our own concocted “faith-based” paradigm.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
[RPittman]Easy there. I think you may have missed out the Scriptural teaching part I mentioned (but didn’t proceed to list). So before we bail and grasp Mister Brandenburg’s straw of trying to tie textual transmission to the recognition of the canon, a desperate last-minute trick of KJBOism, let’s look at the http://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/NTChart.htm Bible’s own teachings/examples :
If I may so boldly suggest, let’s have a closer look at Luke, Paul, our Lord Himself also, and see how they approach and esteem the Scriptures, and compare all that with the bibliology of KJBOism and Trent. Then apply those findings to the extant MS evidence all around us. I think the level of concurrence between Scripture and realia will be surprisingly substantial, and one need not concoct a “faith-based” (which I think is anything but) position of a single-version onlyism to be faithful.
Whoa! You’ve just pulled a slick one and sucked the whole argument back into a rationalistic Modernist paradigm. This is a slight of hand trick. Maybe I misunderstood you or maybe you tricked me. You’re not using Scripture as an external standard but you are interpreting it by rationalism within your own paradigm. You try to make your argument credible and close your case by avowing your view is Scriptural, yet you’ve given no Scriptural evidence or proof, only your generalizations. Your whole argument is built on your own inferences, reasoning, and conclusions rather than statements from God’s Word. This makes my views only contrary to your opinions, not against the Word of God.
Furthermore, much of what you say is an inaccurate portrayal of what we believe. You try to win your argument by extremes. Nowhere have I advocated rejecting observable evidence or suspending the “use of our mental faculties.” But I do believe that revelation trumps reason. Of course, you may say that we have to suspend the use of our mental facilities to believe in miracles because they go against what we observe and reason. And there’s the little insertion of “yet revelation-rejecting!” What part of revelation does the KJVO reject? Please specify? It only goes against your human reasoning of “if God doesn’t say it in Scripture, then it’s isn’t so.” Now, where does Scripture teach this? It doesn’t. It’s only your opinion, which is not on the same level as Scripture. This accusation of rejecting revelation can be turned and hurled at you just as easily because you are trying to make the Scriptures say what they don’t say.
Furthermore, you are inconsistent in denigrating the KJVO faith-based beliefs because the Scriptures do not specify them, yet you accept the process of canonization, which embodies the same idea of preservation, that is not specified in the Scriptures either. Do you accept the Apocrypha as inspired Scripture? How do you know? Where does the Bible say? A similar process for rejecting the Apocrypha is used in acceptance of the KJV and rejecting MVs, yet you deny it is valid in the KJVO argument. Where is your internal consistency, man? Furthermore, I challenge you to find one quote in any of my posts where I say the Scriptures teach the KJVO position. The Scriptures provide a reasonable basis for faith in preservation, which may eventually come down to a KJVO position.
- In Luke 4:17 - 21, Jesus accepts as Scripture the text of a Bible in Isaiah 61 that is neither the Masoretic nor LXX texts. The dynamic equivalent meaning is there, but the forms are quite different (drastically, as in whole phrases).
- In Galatians 3:6 (and Romans 4), Paul leans away from the Masoretic towards the LXX in quoting Gen. 15:6.
- In 1 Peter 4:18, Peter stands with the LXX over the Masoretic when quoting Prov. 11:31
So here we have a divine standard that’s external to ourselves. It may not be good enough for the KJBOs, frankly. Perhaps the OT should’ve been inscribed on golden plates and installed in the Smithsonian. But it’s good enough for the rest of us who believe the Bible is sufficiently well preserved and translated. Nowhere do we see Christ or Peter or Paul snubbing a verse and saying it’s a mere paraphrase or an Alexandrian corruption or some product of modern critical analysis. They rather affirmed those quotes, be they from the LXX, Masoretic, or someplace else, as no less than Scripture, i.e. God’s very word/s.
That’s the reason we need to take a step back and not be too hasty to concoct a manmade theory, hence perhaps inadvertently ignoring or rejecting the divine revelation. Yes, we need to interact with the MSS and their translations and also use our heads in working out a usable text, but then we also need to affirm with the NT writers and our Lord Himself that what we’re dealing with are God’s Word and not poor wannabes of some arbitrary textual standard (magically conferred the patina of “accepted” or “received”) that isn’t even represented in any single MS.
Sadly, what often happens is that KJBOs come into churches and, using their favourite version as standard, point to readable versions of God’s Word in people’s hands and hiss, “Yea hath God said?” creating doubt, confusion, and even church splits. That’s something we do not see in Christ’s or His apostles’ ministries.
“Mistakes” - gaffs, oversights, missteps, errors, miscalculations, misjudgments, goof ups, boo boos.
“Perfect” - not having any mistakes.
“Word perfect text” - I’m pretty sure I already defined that one: an edition of original language OT or NT (or both) in which every single word is exactly the word God inspired.
“Word perfect translation” - defined that already, too. It’s tougher to define, because there really can be no such thing. But speaking for those who believe the KJV is such a translation (weird that I have to provide definitions on behalf of a view that is not my own… but anyway…) what they usually mean, apparently, is that every single word of the KJV is an exactly correct representation of the meaning of the underlying Heb/Grk text. “Exactly correct” means that translating it any other way would be to make it incorrect. Hence, the translation cannot be improved. It’s perfect.
Again, I’m aware not all KJVOs take this position, but, again, it’s odd to me that someone would want to claim to be “KJVO” if they do not take this position. If you believe the KJV is not perfect you have to at least be somewhat open to the idea that someone may eventually improve upon it (whether anyone has yet is another issue).
[RPittman] One of my major criticism of modern textual criticism is the role of the Holy Spirit? Where is the Holy Spirit in modern rationalistic scholarship?This is an interesting angle. The question wasn’t aimed at me but I’ll take a stab at it.
First, I’d ask Where is it written that we should expect the aid of the Spirit in doing this kind of work? Second (obviates the first) I would ask, where is it written that the Spirit cannot work through the intellect and can only guide in “nonrational” ways? It seems to me to be an odd limitation to place on the God who created the intellect to insist that He cannot operate through it but must only guide in mysterious and intuitive or “felt” ways.
It’s not like infidels invented reasoning. The “rational” is God’s creation and must be brought under His dominion. (2Cor.10:5. “Imaginations” is logismos and means something like “arguments” or “reasonings.”) But we do not bring it under His dominion by taking what He created and declared good and calling it evil. Rather we do so by yielding it to what He reveals and employing in His service.
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] All that you’ve given is more rationalistic arguments without any Scriptural statement. I know you’ve given examples and inferences you claim are Scriptural but these are inferences nonetheless and do not carry the weight of Scripture. You argument is just as much “manmade theory” as any KJVO arguments are. You are not holding more closely to Scripture than your opposition.The problem here is not inferring from Scripture. That’s something we ought to do, and the Spirit helps us do that—some call it illumination (but maybe you don’t believe in that either). The problem, really, is inferring from one’s own construct, however pious that might be, which is what KJBOs have done, without—and in opposition to—the numerous examples in Scripture.
When we follow the examples of our Lord and the Apostles, we do not follow a “manmade theory” as you allege. We did not come up with any theory. We simply ask WWJD. So, when Jesus and Paul and Peter and John look at a non-KJB Bible, they affirm it as God’s Word, the Scripture. When we look at non-KJB Bibles, we affirm the same thing. But when KJBOs look at a non-KJB Bible, what do you say/hiss?
(as for Brandenburg, he’s googlable, all over)
[RPittman] I am tired of the whole KJVO debate. …. There are other questions but there is no use wasting time if no one wants to intelligently discuss them. I’m outa here!This is quite sad, but I guess I’ll have to let it go. As my dad, a dear servant of the Lord, always stressed from the example of the Temptation of Christ, always stick with the Scripture—“It is written … it is written … it is written,” thrice.
We could speculate all we want on whether or not there’s some philosophical connection between canonization and preservation, or whether the KJB or Latin Vulgate or NIV should be accepted presuppositionally, or any of a whole pile of debatable things. As is increasingly evident, a thinker over such things I am not.
However, where the Scripture and its implications are painfully plain, and keep getting shafted as “own turf and personal beliefs,” “trivia,” “a harangue of the same old arguments,” I’m sticking with Scripture and its implications. What I did get from this exchange was how much more scholastic KJBO wishes to be (as compared to their “mindworshipping” counterparts) and how little Bible, inferred or otherwise, it has for a basis or wishes to interact with.
[J Ng] So before we bail and grasp Mister Brandenburg’s straw of trying to tie textual transmission to the recognition of the canon, a desperate last-minute trick of KJBOism,Thou Shalt Keep Them, p.197[RP] Did Brandenburg make this argument? I wasn’t aware that he did. Could you please document the place because I would be interested in reading what he had to say about it.
[RP] This is totally irrelevant now. This has gotten so sidetracked that the main point was lost long ago. I was headed toward pressing you to rationally prove there are mistakes in the KJV translation if you have no standard to compare. How can you know there are mistakes? Also, there are different understandings of word perfect.Of course, now that I’ve done it it’s irrelevant.
How can we know there are mistakes. Already made that argument:
1. People make mistkes
2. The KJV translators were people
3. The KJV translators made mistakes
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.
Discussion