Re: KJV (was The Flood Hoax)

From: Robert Schneider (
Date: Wed Sep 18 2002 - 14:00:52 EDT

  • Next message: Glenn Morton: "Discovery vs production"

    Thanks for playing the "devil's advocate," Burgy. I agree that there is
    probably no way to convince those wedded to this KVJ=actual words of God


    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "John Burgeson" <>
    To: <>; <>
    Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 10:57 AM
    Subject: KJV (was 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
    > 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
    > 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
    > each." In this section they state that for various reasons "it hath
    > 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
    > beseem us than confidence.... There be many words in the Scriptures which
    > be never found there but that we cannot be holpen of confidence
    > places [i.e., so that help cannot be gained by comparing passages].
    > 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
    > 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.
    > >>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
    > 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
    > the lengthy but valuable "From the Translators to the Reader"?>>
    > The marginal notes are just that -- marginal notes. They are not part of
    > text.
    > >>All readers of Scripture would do well to follow the advice (and
    > emulate the humility) of the KJV translators and not "conclude or
    > 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.
    > claim is that this is so. There is no claim of any particular
    > of the text -- that is another subject.
    > >>It is truly unfortunate that this unwarranted claim of inerrancy
    > the KJV should occasion the time and trouble to respond to it. But many
    > 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
    > 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
    > 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
    > claims. My suspicion is that the claim of KJV inerrancy cannot be refuted
    > long as it is viewed as a closed system. But I don't know this.
    > Cheers from Denver.
    > Burgy
    > _________________________________________________________________
    > Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Sep 18 2002 - 14:13:11 EDT