From: John Burgeson (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Sep 18 2002 - 11:26:53 EDT
I had written: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
>>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
Um. Well, OK. I'll concede that much. If you'll say "more authoritative
version" instead of the shorter phrase.
I had written:"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
No. Only the text.
"What about the previous translations that were used
in making the KJV-were they partially inerrant?"
The term "partially inerrant" is like the phrase "slightly pregnant." The
claim is simple -- the 1611 version is inerrant. If a prior, current or
future text disagrees, it is wrong. Even if the greek text from which the
translators worked disagrees, it is wrong.
"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."
They deny that the original 1611 translation has been changed in any way.
Yes -- printer errors did happen -- but what the translators wrote is
inspired, and all the printer errors have been fixed. Spelling changes
between 1611 and the present day are unimportant.
Ruckman is an interesting person. One does not need to wonder where he
stands. He castigates with equal glee John R. Rice, Billy Graham, Warfield
and Hodge, and almost all modern fundamentalists for their taking about the
"inerrant Bible" when they know they do not have it.
He is not a "Fred Phelphs" however. Although he does see mixing of the
"races" as a "liberal plot" and MLK Jr. as "the guy who started riots." Were
he to enter the discussion on my Compuserve forum, he'd find his posts
shuffled off to limbo on a regular basis for calling his opposers "liars."
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Sep 18 2002 - 13:56:58 EDT