Monday, October 12, 2009

King James Only Meltdown

In the comments, 'The Puritan' has melted down and made an accusation that is actually actionable at law (not that I'd sue him for defamation of character if I knew who he was, but I could if I felt like it). Wow! I didn't think he was capable of such viciousness. This is an object lesson in what the King James Only sect are like, I'm afraid.

Time and again I asked him to explain why he thought it was acceptable to make like the comic book villain in the last post with B.F. Westcott's words and to accuse Westcott of holding opinions he never held. And he never answered the question. I asked him to justify Gail Riplinger's behavour, and he could not. I think this speaks for itself. It is apparently a tenet of this sect that you may speak all manner of falsehood against those who dare question any of their members' actions. Well, 'm sorry, but I don't find that in any Bible version, least of all the AV. Instead I find "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour." We all sin, and we all break God's law. But to make bearing false witness an acceptable tactic against those you disagree with is frankly antichristian!

The real 'heresy' of Brooke Foss Westcott, according to this pernicious sect, is that he, with Fenton John Anthony Hort (they were probably first introduced by a university friend who said to Hort "Hey, I know a chap why doesn't have any first name, just surnames!"), co-edited an edition of the Greek New Testament that departed from the readings underlying the AV in many places. Then he and Hort were leading lights in the Revised Version project. Undoubtedly both of these projects were flawed. The RV was really a failure. Although many pastors used it in the study, it was generally viwed as unsuitable for the pulpit. In their Greek Testament, Westcott and Hort gave too much weight to two manuscripts, resulting in readings that were not authentic being adopted.

The honest way to deal with this question, then, is to show that the RV is wrong in many places, and that Westcott and Hort's Greek Testament is seriously flawed. Lacking the ability in the original languages to do this, Gail Riplinger instead claimed all modern Bible versions are part of a New Age plot, and made untrue charges against Westcott and Hort. Her follower in turn refused to admit she had lied, even when confronted with the evidence (which is shocking, and which shocked me). Unable to refute the charges, he first attempted to
change the subject, and then attacked me for daring to say that a book which is stuffed with false accusations, altered quotations, logical fallacies and downright lies was... well, a book stuffed with false accusations, altered quotations, logical fallacies and downright lies. A man who began by making a great show of how cultrued he was has ended in the sewers throwing dung. This is the sort of man King James Onlyism either produces or attracts.

Do you wonder why I write against it?


Evangelical books said...

Hi Gervase,

I read and preach from the AV/KJV. But I am look into the NKJV, ESV and even the NIV to see if a better word could be used that fit better with the originial Greek.

I cringe whenever I read arguments used by KJV-only advocates. But that does not stop me from using the time-honoured AV.

Good to see that series come to an end. I appreciate this new post.

Highland Host said...

I use the AV gladly, and have nothing at all against it! I hope that this eries is not misunderstood by anyone to be an attack on the AV itself. It is rather an attack on those who use illegitimate and ungodly methods to uphold the unbiblical idea that the AV is ALONE the Word of God, particularly to the denigration of the study of the original languages engaged in by Gail Riplinger and others.

You will notice that I have not been criticizing the Trinitarian Bible Society or any SANE organisation that promotes the AV and the Recieved Text. This is because I have nothing against them.

Nor was the post that noted that the AV translators were not perfect men intended to imply that the AV is a bad translation, but rather that the KJV-Only crowd's ad hominem methods ar grossly inconsistent. A translation must be assessed on its merits as a translation, not the lives of the translators. Partly because we are all sinners!