The Insane and Inconsistent Bias of Anti KJVO Critics

Posted: October 10, 2015 in King James Only Debate
Tags: , ,

James A, ThM

Critics of the King James Only position (“KJVO”) rarely give an accurate or fair representation of the actual facts supporting our arguments, and often hold to bias and inconsistent contentions. Case in point: KJVO critic, Norman Geisler (who wrote an endorsement for the cover of James White’s “King James Only Controversy”), in attacking the KJVO position, on page 324 of his Systematic Theology, offers the following as his fourth reason for rejecting KJVO views:

“Fourth, the original KJV had the apocryphal books in it. They were not taken out until a 1629 edition, but this did not become general until the nineteenth century. If the original KJV was inspired, then why did it contain the Apocrypha? All fundamentalists reject these books as not being inspired”.

Now watch this: later in the book on the Canonicity of the Bible, when Geisler attempts to argue against reasons for accepting the canonicity of the Apocrypha, Geisler offers this logic as his tenth reason for rejecting the Catholic presupposition for accepting the Apocrypha as inspired authority:

“Apocryphal books appeared in Protestant Bibles prior to Council of Trent, and they were generally placed in a separate section because they were not considered of equal authority” Systematic Theology, page 388.

Geisler is quite aware of the King James Version translators placing the Apocrypha between the testaments (in which the KJV also made a distinct note that they did not consider the Apocrypha inspired), and here Geisler even admits that this is a solid reason for rejecting the Apocrypha. So why then does Geisler use this very fact against KJVOs only a few chapters earlier in attempting to discredit the KJVO position? King James himself stated,

As to the Apocriphe bookes, I omit them because I am no Papist (as I said before) & indeed some of them are as like the dietement of the Spirite of God, as an Egge is to an Oyster.” King James 1, Basilicon Doron, page 13.

It is hardly fair and quite disingenuous to use the same argument in which KJVOs agree with in rejecting the Apocrypha as authoritative, inspired or canonical as Geisler’s logic for rejecting the canonicity of the Apocrypha only to use that very same logic to undermine the KJVO position knowing that neither KJVOs nor the KJV translators (and the KJV predecessors) considered the Apocrypha inspired or canononical. This is right on par with KJVO critics slandering the over 5,000 manuscripts that support the KJV verses the few that support the modern versions, only to praise those received texts/manuscripts when they need their majority evidence to convince skeptics of the Bible’s authenticity and reliability.

Advertisements
Comments
  1. Jim Kerr says:

    You’ve misunderstood Geisler’s arguments. The KJO side says the entire 1611 KJV is the inerrant word of God. Well, that would include the Apocrypha (and all the marginal notes). But no KJO proponent says the Apocrypha is canonical. This logical fallacy is what Geisler is pointing out.

    His point about the Apocrypha vis-a-vis the Roman Catholic position is entirely consistent with his first point. He is pointing out that none of the Protestant Bible producers–including the KJV translators–believed the Apocrypha to be canonical, so they put them in a separate section between the Testaments. This is the same thing he says in his first point, the Apocrypha are not believed to be canonical, even by the KJO people, even though, if they were being consistent, they would consider everything in the 1611 KJV as the word of God.

    So, it is the KJO position on the Apocrypha that is illogical, not Geisler’s.

    • Notice what you just at the end “KJO people, if they were being consistent..would consider everything IN THE 1611 KJV” And that is precisely the point. It is absurd to say KJOs should consider something that by admission was not considered part of the canon, and in the same breath accuse us of being inconsistent because we don’t consider it canonical even though it was placed between the testaments AS A SEPARATE DOCUMENT. Many KJVS back then also included hymnals and Anglican prayer books, should we be accused of inconsistency because we didn’t considered those as well? The Apocrypha was not “IN THE” 1611, and that’s one of the problems with your argument. It was not part of the KJV text. Yet that very fact which is admitted by Geisler is used as an argument against King James Only proponents.

      If you admit that the KJV translators believed that the Apocrypha was not canonical, then what’s the point of attempting to use it as a weapon against KJVOs? Geisler’s position (and yours) and completely self-defeating.

      • Jim Kerr says:

        Firstly, I was merely showing that it was incorrect to accuse Geisler of being illogical. I was not defending or seconding his arguments.

        That being said, it is logically inconsistent to agree with the KJV translators regarding the canon, while at the same time disregarding their opinion as to the inerrancy of their wording. They themselves admit in their forward, and in their use of marginal notes, that their first edition was not perfect and unchangeable. Indeed, there is much in the text of the 1611 KJV that was changed in the first decade of its publication. As well, there were different texts published in those 10 years (E.g. the Cambridge and Oxford editions). So, since these different texts can’t all be the infallible and inerrant word of God, what hermeneutical principal did you use to determine that your favorite edition was the perfect one and why should I believe you?

      • Who’s making the logical fallacies now? The argument was about Geisler’s inconsistent accusation about the Apocrypha, and now you have shifted to a straw man and category fallacy by raising an issue about whether the KJV translators believed their translation was inspired.

        Not even going to bother addressing these kindergarten arguments. I’ll simply refer you to a KJVO Calvinist (since you follow White’s logic that KJVOS are “cultists”, apparently that includes Calvinists) who has addressed those very questions over and over and over again.

        Can Translations Be Inspired? http://brandplucked.webs.com/translationinspired.htm

        Which King James Do You Use? http://brandplucked.webs.com/answerwhitewhichkjb.htm

        And whether the KJV translators claimed inspiration is irrelevant. When Paul told Timothy he knew the scriptures from a child, they were COPIES. Yet Paul never mentioned that the scribes who copied them claimed inspiration for them. When Jesus quoted Isaiah in Luke 4:21, He was quoting from a COPY and yet He called it THIS Scripture. So was Christ quoting from an UNinspired Bible? He is according to YOU. Furthermore, Jesus never mentioned that the copy He quoted from had a message from the scribe that it was an inspired Bible. Inspiration is implicit from the text of Scripture itself, not in the belief of the translators who faithfully translated the copies. In fact, the majority of the OT Hebrew was transmitted through the centuries by Jews that ultimately crucified Christ.

        And whether there were different texts is also an irrelevant argument because KJVOs have never said that difference alone is the issue that raises our controversy. It is the underlying manuscripts of the other versions following known corruptions. When the Bible says that the King of Babylon saw THE SON OF GOD in Daniel 3:25, and all other translations say he saw “a son of the gods”, that is not a mere difference of words, but a blatant corruption of the text; not to mention the deliberate omissions of 1 John 5:7, Acts 8:37, “God” to “He” in 1 Tim 3:16, the last half of Mark 16 (and Dean John Burgon’s book proving the authenticity of those verses has NEVER been refuted read it for yourself IF YOU DARE http://www.gutenberg.org/files/26134/26134-pdf.pdf?session_id=5df9ead20bc899adedb3a8c9c07ce896fe2a7eba ) and thousands more.

        When Modern Version Onlyists claim that the church never had the true Bible until 1881, you have a problem. Westcott & Hort proponents have you believe that those faithful to God purposely corrupted the Bible for 1800 years, and yet scholars who didn’t even believe in inspiration and promoted rationalism, arianism, killing “heretics”, actually faithfully preserved the scriptures (and then put it on a shelf in a VATICAN library).

        Westcott & Hort banked their entire premise on a Genealogical Method, treating the Bible as a normal piece of literature, and not only was there no evidence for their theories (especially the Lucian Recension, not a single historical citation), but they invented ghost manuscripts to fill the gaps.

        And then of course there’s the known forgery of Codex Sinaiticus, forged in 1840 by Constantine Simonides, and NOT a 4th century document “discovered” by Tischendorf. If you contend that Sinaiticus is a 4th document, then explain the following:

        *Why 12th Cent Islamic prophecies are written in the footnote of Revelation 7, and are written IN ARABIC (of course, St Catherine’s monestary was shared with Egyptian Muslims because Muslim relics and documents were also stored there).
        *Why everyone who saw the parchment prior to Tischendorf’s edition sent to Leipzig saw WHITE parchment, yet his copy was stained (as if to appear aged)
        *James White contends it was “in much use”. How does an ms maintain such pristine conditioning in much use, when all the mss in the first centuries decayed and disintegrated quickly? (which explains why there are so many copies in the Textus Receptus family)
        *Why Mark 2 uses a miniscule Beta when those weren’t in use until the 9th century.
        *Why Tischendorf admitted that Simonides had created the only known Greek copy of the Shepherd of Hermes (which ironically, ended up in Tischendorf’s copy of Sinaiticus), but then when Simonides challenged Tischendorf to a public debate to prove that he wrote Sinaiticus, Tischendorf was a no-show, and refused to meet Simonides publicly to debate the authorship of the codex.

  2. Jim Kerr says:

    I said nothing about inspiration.

    • But you were attempting to attack my critique of Geisler, part of which included,

      ““Fourth, the original KJV had the apocryphal books in it. They were not taken out until a 1629 edition, but this did not become general until the nineteenth century. If the original KJV was inspired, then why did it contain the Apocrypha? All fundamentalists reject these books as not being inspired”.

Leave Godly Comments

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s