Scientific Biblical Studies - Advanced Studies

Remember The Back Button On Your
Browser

The Life Foundations
Nexus

ANTI KJV SOPHISTRY (__SEEMINGLY__ CORRECT
REASONING)

**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).**