Re: The Flood Hoax

From: Robert Schneider (rjschn39@bellsouth.net)
Date: Tue Sep 17 2002 - 06:05:06 EDT

  • Next message: Hassell, Ian C.: "RE: The Flood Hoax"

    Another matter: In their original introduction, "The Translators to the
    Reader," the KJV translators (who never claimed for their version the
    "inerrancy" at issue here) include a section entitled "Reasons moving us to
    set diversity of senses in the margin, where there is great probability for
    each." In this section they state that for various reasons "it hath pleased
    God in his divine Providence here and there to scatter words and sentences
    of...difficulty and doubtfulness, not on doctrinal points that concern
    salvation...., but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better
    beseem us than confidence.... There be many words in the Scriptures which
    be never found there but once...so that we cannot be holpen of confidence by
    places [i.e., so that help cannot be gained by comparing passages]. Again,
    there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts, and precious stones,
    etc., concerning which the Hebrews themsevles are so divided among
    themselves in judgement, that they may seem to have defined this or that,
    rather because they should say something, than because they were sure of
    that which they said.... Now in such a case doth not a margin[al note] do
    well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or
    dogmatize?" (p. 57-58 in the edition by E. Rhodes and L. Lupas. American
    Bible Society, 1997)

    In an earlier note, Burgy summarizes the views of the KJV only people as "2
    Tim 3:16 refers precisely
    to the 1611 version and to no other. Likewise 2 Pet 1, 20-21. It is on
    account of these verses that we know that the scriptures are God-breathed,
    and that therefore there CANNOT be ANY errors; it is perfect historically,
    scientifically, grammatically and numerically." If his characterization is
    accurate, and I don't doubt him, then how to account for the many "words and
    sentences of...difficulty and doubtfulness" that led the translators to
    include many marginal notes offering alternate readings and translations
    (i.e., interpretations of meaning)? Since many of these doubtful and
    alternate readings have to do with matters that would be classified as
    "science," how would the KJV Perfectionists explain this fact? Or have
    their editions of the KJV eliminated these margins, as they have eliminated
    the lengthy but valuable "From the Translators to the Reader"?

         All readers of Scripture would do well to follow the advice (and emulate
    the humility) of the KJV translators and not "conclude or dogmatize" upon
    every verse of the Bible.

         It is truly unfortunate that this unwarranted claim of inerrancy for the
    KJV should occasion the time and trouble to respond to it. But many of us
    know that there are those in our classrooms or churches who have been
    persuaded of it, and we who know better would be derelict if we did not
    challenge this claim. But let us not spend too much time on it, as the Lord
    has better things for us to do (2 Cor. 5:18-20; Eph. 2:10; Matt. 25:31ff.).

    Bob Schneider

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "bivalve" <bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com>
    To: <asa@calvin.edu>
    Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 8:09 PM
    Subject: Re: The Flood Hoax

    >
    > >My point is that (1) we don't know what the originals said and (2)
    > >to therefore claim inerrancy for them is an empty claim, having no
    > >usefulness.<
    >
    > Useful must be defined. Claiming inerrancy for the originals
    > generally makes more of a claim about God's revelation than about
    > understanding the text. Thus, it is not useful in the sense of being
    > able to directly consult them. However, it does imply that seeking
    > to replicate the original as closely as possible is the way to arrive
    > at an authoritative version. This does have practical applications
    > for understanding Scripture. For example, it contradicts the KJV
    > only view because the KJV includes phrases now considered to be later
    > additions.
    >
    > >My KJV-only friend claims inerrancy for a particular text -- the 1611
    KJV.<
    >
    > The 1611 KJV includes the apocrypha, assorted tables and
    > supplementary information, an introduction, etc. Are all these
    > inerrant, too? What about the previous translations that were used
    > in making the KJV-were they partially inerrant? This is partly an
    > expression of incredulity at the merits of the claim, but partly a
    > question about just what is included in the claim of authority (have
    > they actually seen a 1611 KJV or just later versions, which were
    > revised up to the 1700's?), and so I would be interested in any
    > specific comments from your sources about such things.
    >
    > Dr. David Campbell
    > Old Seashells
    > University of Alabama
    > Biodiversity & Systematics
    > Dept. Biological Sciences
    > Box 870345
    > Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 USA
    > bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
    >
    > That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted
    > Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at
    > Droitgate Spa
    >
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Sep 17 2002 - 10:15:40 EDT