HOME PAGE

TOPICS PAGE

Scientific Biblical Studies - Advanced Studies

Remember The Back Button On Your Browser

The Life Foundations Nexus

 

 

ANTI KJV SOPHISTRY (SEEMINGLY CORRECT REASONING)

 

 

Copyright October 13, 2005 12:23 AM CST

By Dr. Michael J. Bisconti

 

 

 

We will now address some anti KJV sophistry.  Sophistry is reasoning that SEEMS to be correct but is NOT.  We will address the following points, which were sent to us by an anti KJV partisan:

 

1.      Nearly the whole KJV is a reliable translation.

 

2.      Seriously wrong renderings are infrequent.

 

3.      The great majority of seriously wrong renderings nevertheless state what is true.

 

4.      Even those renderings that introduce errors of fact do not contradict any principle of morality or any major tenet of theology.

 

 

TRANSLATION RELIABILITY

 

Point number 1 is:

 

Nearly the whole KJV is a reliable translation.

 

The first thing wrong with this proposition (and the other three propositions, as well) is that NO EVIDENCE IS PROVIDED TO PROVE ITS TRUTH.  However, let us assume that there is evidence of its truth (and the truth of the other three propositions, as well) and that it (and the other three propositions, as well) is true.  If it were true, then, it would follow that “much less than half of the KJV is an unreliable translation.”  If this is true, then we need someone or something to identify the reliable portion of the KJV and the unreliable portion of the KJV.  Where will we find this “great seat of wisdom” that can tell us what part of the KJV we can count on?  The only trustworthy “seat of wisdom,” from the human perspective, is:

 

The myriad of detailed and intricate analyses, inferences, and conclusions of the vast body of original language and English language works of biblical scholarship.

 

Now, all scholarship STARTS OUT with GUIDING PRINCIPLES.  Where the scholarship takes you DEPENDS ON THE PRINCIPLES that you build on.  These principles are NOT EMPIRICAL.  This means they are NOT SCIENTIFIC.  This means they are a matter of HIGHLY EDUCATED OPINION but OPINION nonetheless.  Therefore, they are NOT INFALLIBLE.  Therefore, all the OPPOSITION OR SUPPORT AFFORDED BY SCHOLARSHIP is INCONCLUSIVE.  Therefore, if proposition number 1 above were true, WE COULD NEVER KNOW WHAT PORTION OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE IS TRUE.  This would mean that THE ENTIRE KING JAMES BIBLE IS QUESTIONABLE.  This, in turn, would mean that we would have to THROW OUT THE KING JAMES BIBLE.

 

Throwing out the King James Bible would be acceptable if it were not for one thing:

 

The same principles that require that we throw out the King James Bible require that we THROW OUT ALL BIBLES.

 

Hence, proposition number 1 requires that we CEASE TO HAVE A BIBLE.  This, of course, is idiotic.  Therefore, proposition number 1, by pure logic, cannot be true.

 

 

WRONG RENDERINGS

 

Point number 2 is:

 

Seriously wrong renderings are infrequent.

 

This proposition leads to proposition number 1.  It, therefore, leads to the same conclusions as in the previous section.  Therefore, proposition number 2, by pure logic, cannot be true.

 

 

RENDERING MAJORITY

 

Point number 3 is:

 

The great majority of seriously wrong renderings nevertheless state what is true.

 

This proposition implies:

 

A minority of seriously wrong renderings state what is false.

 

This proposition leads to proposition number 1.  It, therefore, leads to the same conclusions as in the “Translation Reliability” section above.  Therefore, this proposition, by pure logic, cannot be true.  Therefore, the basis of this proposition, proposition number 3, cannot be true.

 

 

FACTUAL ERRORS

 

Point number 4 is:

 

Even those renderings that introduce errors of fact do not contradict any principle of morality or any major tenet of theology.

 

This proposition involves the following subproposition:

 

There are renderings that introduce errors of fact.

 

This subproposition leads to proposition number 1.  It, therefore, leads to the same conclusions as in the “Translation Reliability” section above.  Therefore, this proposition, by pure logic, cannot be true.  Therefore, the proposition of which this subproposition is a part has no meaning.  In other words, proposition number 4 is a nonsense statement.  A nonsense statement cannot be true.  Therefore proposition number 4 cannot be true.

 

 

CONCLUSIONS

 

Thus, we see that all four propositions stated at the beginning of this article are false and sophistic (only seemingly correct).