Comments on: KJV Only: Anatomy of an Argument http://henrysthreads.com/2006/07/kjv-only-anatomy-of-an-argument/ Thoughts on Religion in the World from a passionate, moderate, liberal charismatic Christian Thu, 09 Feb 2012 02:11:25 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Henry Neufeld http://henrysthreads.com/2006/07/kjv-only-anatomy-of-an-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-4793 Henry Neufeld Mon, 24 Jul 2006 20:42:58 +0000 http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?p=253#comment-4793 In response to VH:

I’ll just respond to a couple of minor points. The problem with responding to the KJV only position is that they pack so many errors and/or falsehoods into each sentence that it becomes burdensome simply to list them.

… the text in my e-mail you claimed was “badly abused

]]> By: Kenny http://henrysthreads.com/2006/07/kjv-only-anatomy-of-an-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-4594 Kenny Sat, 22 Jul 2006 19:32:08 +0000 http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?p=253#comment-4594 The most common KJVO argument I've heard (which is sort of addressed in your FAQ) is that God wouldn't allow a text that gained such universal acceptance as Scripture in the English-speaking world to contain errors. This is very similar to the argument found in a few Patristic writings for the 'Septuagint-only' position (there is nothing new under the sun). Something interesting I found recently is that it appears to me that in Hebrews 2:12 (the author of Hebrews almost always quotes the LXX word-for-word) the author appears to me to <i>correct</i> the LXX (NT has <i>apaggelo</i>, meaning 'announce' or 'proclaim' which is what all the translations from the Hebrew that I have say [I read Greek, but not Hebrew or Aramaic], LXX Psalm 21:23 has <i>diegesomai</i>, meaning something like 'expound upon'). If this was the case, I think it would really shut down this kind of argument, since it would show that God didn't similarly preserve the LXX which had a status very much like that of the KJV. However, I only have one edition of the LXX and I don't have an ap. crit. in it and I am similarly lacking in the other resources that would be needed to test this hypothesis. Perhaps you could comment on this? I find this question very interesting, but to me it's purely academic because I find it impossible to take the KJVO position seriously (even seriously enough to take time to refute it as you have done). I do think the claims of inspiration of the LXX are slightly stronger (though still ultimately nonsense) because it is quoted so frequently by the NT, and actually plan to deal with that question on my blog in the near future as part of a series on the rational basis for belief in the Bible (which I hope will be able to move on to a discussion of WHAT to believe about the Bible). BTW, I got here from the Better Bibles Blog link, and will probably become a regular reader. Keep up the good work. The most common KJVO argument I’ve heard (which is sort of addressed in your FAQ) is that God wouldn’t allow a text that gained such universal acceptance as Scripture in the English-speaking world to contain errors. This is very similar to the argument found in a few Patristic writings for the ‘Septuagint-only’ position (there is nothing new under the sun). Something interesting I found recently is that it appears to me that in Hebrews 2:12 (the author of Hebrews almost always quotes the LXX word-for-word) the author appears to me to correct the LXX (NT has apaggelo, meaning ‘announce’ or ‘proclaim’ which is what all the translations from the Hebrew that I have say [I read Greek, but not Hebrew or Aramaic], LXX Psalm 21:23 has diegesomai, meaning something like ‘expound upon’). If this was the case, I think it would really shut down this kind of argument, since it would show that God didn’t similarly preserve the LXX which had a status very much like that of the KJV. However, I only have one edition of the LXX and I don’t have an ap. crit. in it and I am similarly lacking in the other resources that would be needed to test this hypothesis. Perhaps you could comment on this?

I find this question very interesting, but to me it’s purely academic because I find it impossible to take the KJVO position seriously (even seriously enough to take time to refute it as you have done). I do think the claims of inspiration of the LXX are slightly stronger (though still ultimately nonsense) because it is quoted so frequently by the NT, and actually plan to deal with that question on my blog in the near future as part of a series on the rational basis for belief in the Bible (which I hope will be able to move on to a discussion of WHAT to believe about the Bible).

BTW, I got here from the Better Bibles Blog link, and will probably become a regular reader. Keep up the good work.

]]> By: VH http://henrysthreads.com/2006/07/kjv-only-anatomy-of-an-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-4588 VH Sat, 22 Jul 2006 17:43:42 +0000 http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?p=253#comment-4588 A Response to Henry’s “Web

]]>