Re: The Flood Hoax

From: John Burgeson (
Date: Wed Sep 18 2002 - 11:26:53 EDT

  • Next message: george murphy: "Re: The Flood Hoax"

    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
    inerrant, too?"

    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."
    And worse.


    Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Sep 18 2002 - 13:56:58 EDT