Another Quixotic Whiff for Mark Ward on the Bible and Its Preservation

Old, tired argument: facts + reason = Rationalism.

It’s never been true. It’s never going to be true. Saying it over and over doesn’t strengthen the case.

It’s a few paragraphs in before Brandenburg even attempts something besides ad hominem and straw man attacks. Back when I was escaping a wannabe KJVO church, I noticed very quickly that the main arguments “for” KJVO are more or less personal attacks and other genetic fallacies because you’ll likely never find any demonstration of the main claim; that Arius or others in Alexandria corrupted texts deliberately. Hence KJVO thought is generally a mess of personal attacks and non sequiturs, along with a strong dose of confusion of correlation with causation.

Love my KJV, but it’s not the only way someone can learn God’s Word and His will for our lives. More importantly, the bigger trouble with KJVO is that it trains its advocates to use bad logic—and that will go well beyond just which translation one chooses. Hence KJVO churches tend to leave a path of spiritual devastation behind them.

[Bert Perry]

… the main arguments “for” KJVO are more or less personal attacks and other genetic fallacies because you’ll likely never find any demonstration of the main claim; that Arius or others in Alexandria corrupted texts deliberately.

I’m generally in agreement with your argument. However, having come out of a TR-only church (albeit one that wasn’t such when I started attending, but became strongly so over the 11 years I was there) that was loosely affiliated with Brandenburg, I’ll have to (somewhat) disagree on this one. Their arguments certainly do include the idea that some of the corruption was intentional, but in the end intentionality is unimportant to their overall argument — even *any* accidental corruption is enough to make the whole text bad. Essentially, their version of “preservation” comes down to us having to have a text that is perfect in the original, without one jot or tittle having been altered. The fact that there is no way for us to know 100% we have such a text is no barrier to their argument — it simply means we have to accept “on faith” that what earlier translators had must have been perfect.

I’m still in the camp that believes that the Byzantine family of texts is to be preferred over the Alexandrian, and in fact, I still use my KJV. However, I can’t buy the twisting of the concept of the preservation of scripture (which I believe the Bible does teach) to mean that we must have a perfect copy of the original texts or the entire Bible is invalid.

I was in deep and came out of the KJVO quagmire. Most of those who choose to claim they are KJVO because of the TR, betray themselves when they dismiss any other translation based on the TR. I have a couple who even reject the Geneva!

[Bert Perry]

The bigger trouble with KJVO is that it trains its advocates to use bad logic—and that will go well beyond just which translation one chooses. Hence KJVO churches tend to leave a path of spiritual devastation behind them.

This is a key point.

He is responding in the comments section. It’s interesting

I’m confessional … the ESV is the best translation for the English-speaking world.

[Jim]

He is responding in the comments section. It’s interesting

To me, it says everything that Brandenburg does not see anything wrong with comparing his rhetorical opponents to Don Quixote and Gilligan. He also mis-labels Aaron’s initial comment as such to justify his behavior, which is the tu quoque (you too) fallacy. This is what I was getting at with the comment that Tom Overmiller graciously quoted; at times, it seems like KJVO activists indulge genetic fallacies to the point that they cannot even see what they are doing anymore. Sadly, you don’t just turn that one off when you go from which Bible you use to other topics.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg when you’re dealing with logical fallacies by KJVO activists. There are statements without evidence (“perfect preservation” is certainly one of them—how do you prove a text is perfectly preserved if you don’t have the original?), non sequiturs (“the lack of this verse proves this manuscript is deficient”), and a lot more.

I would guess that this is why Mark Ward won’t discuss textual criticism with Brandenburg or other KJVO activists; the arguments made simply don’t proceed from reality, and as far as I can tell—Beacham and Bauder, “One bible only?”—no amount of appeals will bring them to acknowledge the realities of copying manuscripts. It’s not “Darwinism” (another genetic fallacy and false statement by Brandenburg), but rather the simple reality that the body of manuscripts we have indicates that God preserved His Word in a plurality of manuscripts, every one different from every other ancient manuscript. Copyists make mistakes, and there is no evidence out there for a set of them who did not.

Plus—and this goes back to dcbii’s comment—the significance of a variance in manuscripts must also be established in the logical conclusions of that addition or omission. If there are no theological differences to be drawn whether someone looks at a translation from the TR vs. one from the eclectic text, we’re arguing about this….why? If one passage is seen as making a huge difference, isn’t one making a basic exegetical/hermeneutical mistake by basing a doctrine from a single passage, or a tiny part of the Bible?

KJVO theology is not the only movement in the church that wreaks spiritual carnage, but it certainly does, and its insistence on the suppression of logic and evidence is a big reason why.