A Stroll Through Asinine Territory
Under this post, commenter, “c.t.” leaves this knuckle busting comment:
Why would a King James Only person (however you want to define such a person) be shocked by an original 1611 AV? You really think a KJV-O doesn't know about font and spelling differences and the Preface and so on? And why the constant attitude that people who are KJV-O (or whatever) are dumb? You sound like leftists talking about Tea Party people. All this, "You should see the look on their face when I show them a leaf from a 1611 and it's from an apocryphal book..." Really? KJV-O people don't know the Apocrypha was included in the original 1611 between the Old and New Testaments? They don't? Really? How long a shelf life will these straw men have for you guys? If you think the only reason people don't agree with you is because they are stupid you are in asinine territory. Again, think of the idiot glow of self-glorified leftists in our world today. Try to convince them they are village idiots. Can't do it. You don't want to be where they are, guys. Wake up.
Let’s back up and note some highlights:
You really think a KJV-O doesn't know about font and spelling differences and the Preface and so on?
I am not sure what part of Asinine Territory you have ventured through, but from my visits, yes, most individuals who call themselves “KJV-Only” don’t know about font, spelling differences, the preface, and so on. In fact, when I have pointed these things out to them and the problems it presents for their “onlyist” apologetic, many of them react with bewilderment. It’s a similar reaction I use to see when these same “onlyists” learned that “G.A. Riplinger” is really a twice-divorced woman, rather than a man.
And why the constant attitude that people who are KJV-O (or whatever) are dumb?
That’s a dishonest overstatement. I don’t think David Cloud is “dumb.” He’s certainly a bomb thrower, but he’s not “dumb.”
“Dumb” implies they lack intelligence, and even though I have met a few “dumb” “onlyistst” in my life, the majority are bright, intelligent, and have all the best intentions of honoring God. Rather than being “dumb,” I would say “onlyists” are willfully misinformed and seriously lack discernment. Their views are given to tin-foil hat theology and revisionism. Not only does their apologetic devalue God’s ability to protect His Word as He directs His people to transmit it from one generation to the next, the entire system is held together by a dark, nefarious conspiratorial thread that is suppose to exist in the fabric of Church History. Such things as heretics corrupting manuscripts and new age mystics giving us modern translations to blind us to the coming of the Anti-Christ.
But once you show them these conspiracies are pure fiction, the whole KJV-Only tapestry comes unraveled.
Really? KJV-O people don't know the Apocrypha was included in the original 1611 between the Old and New Testaments? They don't? Really? How long a shelf life will these straw men have for you guys?
Regrettably, a good deal of KJV-Onlyists people don’t know the Apocrypha was included in the original 1611. I didn’t know it was included when I was a young, naïve “onlyist.” I think I had to learn that fact from Sam Gipp.
But these remarks miss the point.
The Apocrypha’s inclusion in the original KJV edition is a problem for “onlyists.” They constantly argue how modern versions are translated from manuscripts that were hidden in Catholic monasteries, filed away in the secret vaults of the Vatican library, and that all the modern day textual critics are Pope loving ecumenists. Yet, in the earliest editions of the KJV, it contained the very books that distinguish Roman Catholicism from Reformed Protestantism. If the KJV is the seven-fold purified Word of God kept intact in English as the chorus of KJV advocates proclaim, why would God allow false, soul damning books to be included in the initial translation to begin with? Do you not see the inconsistency?
Moreover, the inclusion of the entire letter from the translators to the readers further exposes “onlyists’” to the absurdities of their mythos regarding the KJV, particularly the fact that the KJV translators utilized a multitude of ancient sources including the LXX, a document the greatest body of “onlyists” insist was a forgery of Origen published some 2 1/2 centuries after Christ. Not to mention the use of inserting marginal readings that clearly provide an alternative translation to various passages, alternative translations that are often found in modern versions, but are criticized by “onlyists” as examples of “corrupting God’s Word.”
You may not like my neighborhood here in Asinine Territory, but at least we are honest and haven’t blinded ourselves to reality.
Labels: Answering KJV Onlyism