Friday, May 12, 2006

I am a Triple-Onlyist

I am KJV-Only

I am Skirts-Only (on women)

I am Slippers-Only (in homes)

I am so intolerant.

Actually, I am most dogmatic about the last one. I am happy to preach with people who use the NIV (but not The Message) and I would never criticise a woman for wearing trousers. I would not dare.


Palm boy said...

lol. Hell hath no fury like an angry woman, so not critizing 'trousers' is a good idea. :D

Why the King James Version?

Jonathan Moorhead said...

I wonder what Angie thinks about this.

Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...

Palm Boy,

Reasons for favouring the KJV:

1. Its foundation in the traditional text.
2. Its literal approach to translation.
3. Its use of italics.
4. The suspect nature of more recent translations.
5. The helpful use of 'thou' which aids accuracy.
6. The testimony of beleivers as to its power and authority.
7. Its beauty and ease of memorability.

You could always ask her.

Every Blessing in Christ


Gordon Cloud said...

Matthew, as patient as you are in discussions with Calvinists, no one could ever accuse you of being intolerant.

Your spirit is a great blessing.

Kc said...

Matthew, no guts, no glory! I say go after the trousers! (hehe)

Actually I agree with Gordon and as I've said before, being opinionated doesn't mean you're intolerant. ;-)

The IBEX Scribe said...

Hmm, Angie reads the NASB (because it is considered the most literal of the modern translations, most of which she does not personally consider suspect) and uses KJV around KJV people because she doesn't have such a strong opinion and doesn't think that Bible translations are the kind of thing that ought to cause divisions among the brethren.

Angie would rather wear pants except during the summer, then she switches to capris during the week and skirts to church. She has worn a skirt or dress three times in the past several months, one of those times was to a wedding and the other two to church. She can't sit still to begin with and becomes even more fidgety when wearing a skirt or dress. She pretty much lives in jeans during the week and wears dress pants to church on Sunday mornings. No one, to her knowledge, has ever mistaken her for a man, even in her be-trousered state.

Angie supports shoes off in the home.

Redeemed said...

I will never compromise with the first one, because I do believe that God is capable of preserving His Word, and thus He has with the KJV. He is not the author of confusion.

I uphold the second one, but I have no objection to certain exceptions.

I have been raised with the third one.

The IBEX Scribe said...

Baiting question for the KJV-Only people out there: God is able to preserve His word, yes? When translations of the Bible are done today into various tribal languages throughout the world and they are not based on the KJV or the "traditional text," is God still preserving His word for these tribal peoples or did He stop preserving in 1611?

Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...

Angie, thanks for the official statement.

Translating the Bible into different languages is a vital work, but their is no promise or guarantee of the an infallible Bible in those languages. The pattern of Scripture is for God to work primarily through one language at a time.

My concern would be the choice of NT textual tradition used in those translations.

Gordon and Kc, thanks a lot. But did you not read my comment to Jazzycat on Rose's Reasonings?

Sarah, thanks for giving your view.

Every Blessing in Christ


The IBEX Scribe said...

Note: This is a response, not an attack. :)

The pattern of Scripture is for God to work primarily through one language at a time.

How so? Is this something that the Bible says will happen? Or is this based on the use of Hebrew when that was the language of the Israelites and the subsequent use of Greek with a smattering of Aramaic thrown in when those were the languages spoken where the original manuscripts were written? Can we expect the time of the English language to pass? Will the modern reliance on textual criticism (not higher criticism, there is a difference) finally overcome God's ability to preserve His word for future languages? What happens when the King James English is no longer comprehensible to English speakers (as is beginning to happen already due to nearly 400 years of "linguistic evolution")? Where is there guarantee that an infallible translation (and only one, at that) will exist in English? Do you think that such a view of translational infallibility was never held for the Vulgate, which has some widely recognized translation problems?

I don't understand this position, quite frankly. It doesn't make any sense to me and seems to be deeply rooted in some kind of anglophonic superiority complex rather than in anything Scriptural. This is not to say that you have that complex, but that somebody once did when they began to hold up the "traditional" translation.

My concern would be the choice of NT textual tradition used in those translations.

That is a valid concern.

Kc said...

Matthew I read it and it only reinforces my opinion. ;-)

Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...

Kc, I meant the one before the last.

Angie, good questions.

I would not be dogmatic about the KJV being 100% God's Word in English.

I think it is very significant the English speaking peoples have been central to Protestantism and the spread of the Gospel. It is quite possible that God has ensured that His Word would be particularly secure in the KJV.

It is hard to find an example of a Bible translation that has such an enduring power as the KJV.

Such is it's cultural impact that it will be a long time before it ever becomes incomprehensible.

It is significant that it enjoys great popularity in Africa. Many non-English speakers are keen to read the KJV.

I would higly recommend reading some KJV-Only material.

Every Blessing in Christ


Ryan S. said...

I was wondering what you thought of James White's critiques of KJV-only?

pecheur said...

I love the seven talking points about the KJV. I am glad you have your reasons fo r "prefering" the KJV over the others.

However, simply stated the KJV is not the best translation because it is based on only 1 family of texts.

How many manuscripts were available in 1611? and how many are there today? When were the Dead Sea Scrolls translated?

Why did the Byzantine family of manuscripts add John 8???? It is not found in the best and oldest manuscripts. Now, what is taught in John 8 is surely biblical, but it is not original.

Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...

Ryan, he is a clever chap, but I do not find him convincing.

Pecheur, actually the KJV does make use of the Latin family of texts, including the Vulgate in places. It has a slightly ecclectic textual basis, though primarily based on the Byzantine family.

The majority of new manuscripts that have been discovered support the Byzantine text.

The Dead Sea Scrolls largely supports the Hebrew Masoretic text.

John 8 may be omitted from the oldest manuscripts, but that does not mean it was not in the orginal.

God has preserved it in the majority of manuscripts.

There are early references to John 8 in Christian literature. There are also understandable reasons why this text would be omitted.

Every Blessing in Christ


pecheur said...


Thanks for stopping by. I was surprised.

And honestly, most of what you said I can concur with.

However, "best" is a subjective term. So, for both of us, how could that term better decome defined more objectively?

And the probelm with the originals, is that they do not exist. Therefore, we have to reconstruct the text from the copies we have.

And how we know that God perserved his Word ONLY thru the Byzantine family?

Concede the point about the DSS in reference to the Maspretic text. Which also means that NT text criticism and OT are different. Granted.

Hey, I hope this is not coming across the wrong way. I by no means am looking for a fight or anything malicious. I have often been accuseed of having a very heavy written tone.

And I have had this conversation many times. Good to have it with someone who is not extreme.

Would like to discuss more if you would like. A little here a little there. Besides, I cut my teeth on KJV. And I used to be KJV preferer also. Nothing wrong with that.

pecheur said...

I think I am on ibex scribe's side. Is that the same person as Angie?

Hey I am new here, and as dumb as dirt so please forgive me.

Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...

Pecheur, I do not know why you should be surprised by my visit.

I certainly appreciate your visits here.

Yes, Miss IBEX is Angie. Do you agree with her about shoes-off in homes as well though? That is a very grave and pressing issue.

Every Blessing in Christ


pecheur said...

Oh I did wish it did not have to come to answering that question. =)

You see, I do respect that custom where it is applicable. So if I were to visit you in Angleterre, I would surely take my shoes off (or anyone's house or culture).

I am afraid though if you were to visit me, you would find my shoes on. But in my defense, I usually do take my shoes off when I get in from school, though they do not come off at the door. I am usually too worked up to take them off there. My wife gets on to me for having shoes everywhere.

The other bad thing. Since I am from the South, I actually prefer going barefooted. So I do not habitually wear slippers. But it is too cold here to go barefooted. BUT...just before I left the States my mother in law did give me a pair of yarn slippers. I love those things. I wear them all the time (that is when I do not have my shoes on).

Current shoe situation:On

Oh put please don't let this news prevent us from being friends. =)


The IBEX Scribe said...

Shoes off! Pecheur, have you visited our Shoes Off at the Door, Please blog?

I, too, "cut my teeth" on the KJV. Most of my Bible memorization was from the KJV, although my parents preferred NASB, which is probably where my personal preference is from in part. I honestly take no issue with it as a translation.

Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...

Thanks for sharing your view, Pecheur.

My main objection to the NASB would be its use of the Westcott-Hort text, but it is also not quite as literal as its publishers claim (see 'Accuracy of Translation' by Robert Martin ((not KJV-Only)) published by Banner of Truth).

Every Blessing in Christ


Consecrated said...

Coming up with a different translation every year can only mean one thing. They did not get it right in the first place.

pecheur said...

To consecrated,

So I guess that would include the KJV, since there were how many English translations before 1611?

The reasons there are so many English translations is that Christians are not reading the Bible in any form! So, to profit from this laziness, if we can produce a sleaker version and market it, we can make money. People will think, "Oh now i can undertstand the Bible, I'll BUY this one." Then, it sits on the self and gathers dust like the Geneva and Bishops and KJV and the Message

Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...

Leila and Pecheur, good points from both of you.

H K Flynn said...

I love that "I would not dare"...

H K Flynn said...

(from the originl post)

Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...

I dare say, Jodie.

I am sure you wear skirts quite a lot.

God Bless


Rose~ said...

You are so controversial, Matthew!

Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...

More than Antonio, Rose~?

Rose~ said...

content - yes
delivery - no

Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...

That is interesting to know, Rose~. Thanks.