RE: KJV (was The Flood Hoax)

From: Adrian Teo (ateo@whitworth.edu)
Date: Wed Sep 18 2002 - 15:21:21 EDT

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

    Burgy wrote:

    > 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.

    > 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.

    What troubles me about this entire issue is that there is no reliable
    way of establishing if in fact the KJV translation is uniquely
    inspired. Sure the claim was made that...

    > >>"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."

    But wait a minute! 2 Tim 3:16 reads (KJV) "All scripture [is] given
    by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof,
    for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

    This says nothing about inerrancy (nor sola scriptura). The
    translated word is "profitable". It is a far cry from inerrancy.
    Furthermore, in the context of the time at which the letter to
    Timothy was written, there was no NT canon yet. Therefore, "all
    scripture" simply refers to the OT, and probably the Septuagint.

    2 Pet 1:20-21 (KJV) reads: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of
    the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came
    not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as
    they were] moved by the Holy Ghost. "

    Again in historical context, scripture refers to the OT (and note
    that even the canon of the OT was not firmly established yet at that
    time). And Peter was in essence saying that one cannot privately
    interpret the prophecies of scripture, BECAUSE they did not originate
    from man but from God. So how is one to interpret the prophecies of
    scripture? Read the context of the argument from verse 12 on, and the
    ones about false prophets following 21. Peter is saying that it is
    through the testimonies of the eye-witnesses that the truth is handed
    down. The teachings of the apostles is the only reliable
    interpretation. The OT prophecies are to be understood through the
    events in the life of Jesus as witnessed by the apostles. No one is
    able to correctly interpret scripture on his/her own - we need the
    teachings that have been handed down. And with confidence, I can say
    that nowhere in apostolic teachings can one find the teaching that
    the sometime in the 17th century, a new inspired !
    translation in English would be revealed to the English-speaking
    world. Peter says, "no private interpretation." Paul says "hold the
    traditions which ye have been taught, whether by WORD, or our
    EPISTLE." (emphasis mine) Apostolic teaching (handed down by word of
    mouth or in written form) is the key, not the KJV nor the opinions of
    the advocates.

    Adrian.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Sep 18 2002 - 16:51:49 EDT