KJV (was The Flood Hoax)

From: John Burgeson (hoss_radbourne@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Sep 18 2002 - 10:57:05 EDT

  • Next message: John Burgeson: "RE: The Flood Hoax"

    My good friend Robt Schneider brings up several points which I, of course,
    agree with. But none of them have any weight to the convinced KJV-only
    proponent, of which Peter Ruckman is the most visible sign.

    Following is the response to Robt's points as I think a KJV-only person
    would address them. BTW -- NOT as Ruckman would address them -- he is a very
    blunt writer. < G >

    >>In their original introduction, "The Translators to the
    Reader," the KJV translators (who never claimed for their version the
    "inerrancy" at issue here)>>

    Agreed that this is so. I'm not sure any of the biblical writers ever
    claimed it either -- at least not explicitly. However, God was pleased to so
    direct the translators in such a way that the results WERE exactly correct
    and inerrant.

    >>... 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)>>

    What the translators may have said or written before, during or after their
    sacred work was done is clearly outside the direct guidance of God and so
    has no more weight than any other commentator.

    >>In an earlier note, Burgy summarizes the views of the KJV only people as
    >>"2Tim 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"?>>

    The marginal notes are just that -- marginal notes. They are not part of the
    text.

    >>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.>>

    Agreed. But we are not speaking here of interpretation, but only upon
    whether the 1611 text is especially God-brathed, inspired and inerrant. The
    claim is that this is so. There is no claim of any particular interpretation
    of the text -- that is another subject.

    >>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.).>>

    Ruckman would say something to the effect that since it is true, you do a
    disservice by rejecting it, and that if you are not convinved it is true,
    you do a disservice by not investigating it.

    Speaking back in character, I somewhat agree with your last sentence. And if
    few people here want to "play," I'll take that as signifying general
    agreement. As I mentioned before, I have a dear friend of 40+ years, a
    retired professional who held technical and managerial positions at BF
    Goodrich and the University of Akron, who really really believes the Ruckman
    claims. My suspicion is that the claim of KJV inerrancy cannot be refuted as
    long as it is viewed as a closed system. But I don't know this.

    Cheers from Denver.

    Burgy

    www.burgy.50megs.com

    _________________________________________________________________
    Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Sep 18 2002 - 13:51:34 EDT