How can it be suggested that a specific translation is alone “God ordained” if one sincerely holds to "Scripture alone"? In order to make the argument of God’s choice of translation being made manifest to man, post-biblical revelation is the only option due to the fact that the Bible (regardless of translation) says nothing of the sort. It also implies that not only is Christianity text-centric, but God is as well.
Translation onlyists need to take a little stroll down the textual and manuscript history path. Those who cling earnestly to this mistaken paradigm for a "biblical worldview" seem to be ignorant regarding the logical fallacy of attempting to authenticate a book by quoting from it (done almost exclusively in an anachronistic way). It would be like me quoting myself as proof for why I am correct.
It does not take an experienced historian to make the observation that God is not a patriotic American affiliated with a certain denomination or demographic. He does not have a political designation (save the theocratic party) or a fascination with the English language. He is not a KJV onlyist and certainly does not dislike all the people we do. Re-think what it means to create god in our image and after our likeness.
Bart Ehrman, Jesus Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don’t Know About Them) (2009 Harper Collins), 182.
2 comments:
While I join you in the condemnation of the KJV Only crowd, the statement "attempting to authenticate a book by quoting from it" is not in and of itself a logical fallacy. All systems of thought that are internally consistent must make a circle. If it doesn't it's not a person's ultimate authority. In other words, one can authenticate X by quoting X, when X is his presupposition. One can stand on the hill while defending the hill. - You, presumably, are not your ultimate authority, which is why you'd be commiting a fallacious argument when quoting yourself for proof as to why you are correct. - Also, apart from the Bible it is not possible to give a logically consistent reason for uniform, abstract concepts, such as laws of logic. These only make sense inside a Biblical worldview.
Thanks for the comment. I am not a philosopher, so perhaps the words "logical fallacy" were not the best choice to describe what I was attempting to communicate, maybe "circular reasoning" is better suited. The post was more directed toward textual onlyism and biblical authority on those grounds rather than biblical authority in general. I subscribe to biblical authority and was not intending to convey a disregard for it. In the "onlyist" camps, texts are extracted as "proofs" for why a certain translation is the only trustworthy source of the "word of God." This, in my estimation, has numerous difficulties.
Post a Comment