From: Robert Schneider (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Sep 18 2002 - 14:00:52 EDT
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" <email@example.com>
To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>
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 once...so 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
> >>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.
> 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.
> 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 - 14:13:11 EDT