- Joined
- Dec 10, 2014
- Messages
- 4,347
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
I've observed over the years that many of the arguments made by KJVOist to justify their beliefs.....actually keep showing up in other peoples theology. Even those who oppose KJVOism. Case in point, many of those here. I'll list some of the arguments below....
1. The Self attesting argument.
I hope you'll realize that this argument can made for just about anything. The KJVOist has long appealed to a self attesting argument to justify their beliefs. So do 66 Book Onlyists, Hebrew Onlyist and the like.
The BIG problem is..... there is clearly error in all of these beliefs.
a. Many authoritative figures in the early church held different views on what we would ultimately call the Protestant 66 book canon. In fact, you might be surprised to learn that not one single canon list agrees till over 300 years after the death of the apostles. Not one.
b. It is clear that the apostles used Old Greek texts of the OT in the early church. It is unmistakeable. They used it. They used it extensively. Repeatedly. The overwhelming majority of quotes taken from the OT in the New.... have an Old Greek influence. Yet there are many who refuse to even give the surviving Old Greek texts a "say" in translating the Scriptures. I call these people. Hebrew Onlyist.
2. The Consensus argument.
a. Well. I think anyone can see the failure of this argument. When you ask someone to define the scope of consensus..... they really don't want to talk about it. They point to a short window of time and exclude the vast majority of historical Christianity. Thus.... you're really not talking about any "real" consensus.
b. Another big failure in this type of argument is the fact..... God has never need the "consensus" of any group to establish His purpose. In fact, God often works in the minority and not in the majority.
3. The Authoritative argument.
a. The logical question is.... "who's authority". No matter how you slice it. Someone has made some very important decision for you. You haven't made them. You've just accepted them. Often "blindly" accepting them. It takes time to know the Truth. It really does. Most people don't want to spend time to get to know the Truth. If you look at some of the people that made these decision for you.... .You'll find they are not the best people around. When it comes of choices to be made among different sources.... "Authority" must be earned.
b. I don't know if you've noticed it or not..... but often... authority is really about "power". Sometimes. "Authority" is take and not really earned. Which really boils down the end result of the "Authority" argument....
What is.... is what God wanted. "Nothing could be further from the Truth". At every turn we blindly accept the authority of some and reject the authority of another.
We all use these arguments in some form or manner. HOW we use them is so very important.
My rant is over. So lets argue about it...
1. The Self attesting argument.
I hope you'll realize that this argument can made for just about anything. The KJVOist has long appealed to a self attesting argument to justify their beliefs. So do 66 Book Onlyists, Hebrew Onlyist and the like.
The BIG problem is..... there is clearly error in all of these beliefs.
a. Many authoritative figures in the early church held different views on what we would ultimately call the Protestant 66 book canon. In fact, you might be surprised to learn that not one single canon list agrees till over 300 years after the death of the apostles. Not one.
b. It is clear that the apostles used Old Greek texts of the OT in the early church. It is unmistakeable. They used it. They used it extensively. Repeatedly. The overwhelming majority of quotes taken from the OT in the New.... have an Old Greek influence. Yet there are many who refuse to even give the surviving Old Greek texts a "say" in translating the Scriptures. I call these people. Hebrew Onlyist.
2. The Consensus argument.
a. Well. I think anyone can see the failure of this argument. When you ask someone to define the scope of consensus..... they really don't want to talk about it. They point to a short window of time and exclude the vast majority of historical Christianity. Thus.... you're really not talking about any "real" consensus.
b. Another big failure in this type of argument is the fact..... God has never need the "consensus" of any group to establish His purpose. In fact, God often works in the minority and not in the majority.
3. The Authoritative argument.
a. The logical question is.... "who's authority". No matter how you slice it. Someone has made some very important decision for you. You haven't made them. You've just accepted them. Often "blindly" accepting them. It takes time to know the Truth. It really does. Most people don't want to spend time to get to know the Truth. If you look at some of the people that made these decision for you.... .You'll find they are not the best people around. When it comes of choices to be made among different sources.... "Authority" must be earned.
b. I don't know if you've noticed it or not..... but often... authority is really about "power". Sometimes. "Authority" is take and not really earned. Which really boils down the end result of the "Authority" argument....
What is.... is what God wanted. "Nothing could be further from the Truth". At every turn we blindly accept the authority of some and reject the authority of another.
We all use these arguments in some form or manner. HOW we use them is so very important.
My rant is over. So lets argue about it...
