KJV-only Fallacy: The False Dilemma

KJV-Only Archive from Jan. 1/2002 to June 30/2002.
Scott McClare
Registered User
Joined: 16 Apr 1999, 13:27

03 Jul 2002, 14:29 #1

KJV-only Fallacy: False Dilemma
The false dilemma fallacy, sometimes called the false dichotomy, occurs when the debator presents an either/or situation as though the two options were the only ones available, when in reality there is at least one more alternative.
Example
This fallacy occurs frequently in nice, patriotic-sounding slogans, for example: "America: love it or leave it." It implies that if you are not 100% for every policy ever instituted by the American government, then you are not worthy to live there and ought to go somewhere else where your views would be better suited (say, Cuba). However, it is a false dilemma because unequivocal approval and unequivocal rejection are not the only options. It is possible, for example, to have a love for one's country, but a disapproval of the current administration. (Plus, the right to dissent is implicit in the Bill of Rights, meaning the dissenter can turn the tables on the debator: since apparently he disapproves of this Constitutional right, he should seek residence where he will find people more sympathetic with his views [say, Cuba].)
Here on the BVDB, the false dilemma occurs frequently whenever a KJV-onlyist makes an all-or-nothing claim concerning the Bible, to the effect that if you do not wholeheartedly approve of every particular wording of the King James Version, you reject it completely. Fallacymeister Brent Riggs, a/k/a "Mitex," expresses the false dilemma thusly in a post titled "'No matter how anyone would answer'?":
It would also show your UNBELIEF of what you call the word of God - the AV. And yes, by saying that any portion of the word of God (AV) is NOT THE WORD OF GOD that my dear sister IS AN ATTACK on the word of God (AV).

Note the all-or-nothing tone of Mitex' claim: either you accept the exact wording of the AV unequivocally, or you are "attacking" the Word of God and in a state of "unbelief." There are, of course, other alternatives:
  • There does exist an exact, inerrant Word of God somewhere but it isn't in the KJV (i.e. Mitex is right in principle, but he is barking up the wrong tree).
  • The KJV is precisely the inerrant Word of God in selected places (e.g. Genesis); however, something else is the inerrant Word of God in Exodus, Leviticus, etc.
  • The KJV is precisely the Word of God except in those particular places where there is a variant reading.
And so Mitex' all-or-nothing approach breaks down.
Remedy
Point out that the alternatives are not exhaustive, and suggest plausible alternatives that fit none of the offered categories.Take care,Scott
Power-hungry Self-serving Moderator,
Bible Versions Discussion Board
The Postfundamentalist Forum
Scott A. McClare, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
[url=mailto:[email protected]][email protected][/url] * ICQ #24034503
ImageFor thinking Christians . . .
Putting the Fun back into Fundamentalism
Take care,




Scott


Ottawa, Ontario, Canada






Image


The Crusty Curmudgeon


On Twitter: RansomOttawa
Reply

Kristi
Registered User
Joined: 23 Apr 1999, 07:38

03 Jul 2002, 16:43 #2

Mainly, I am doing this post to get Scott's post above bumped to the top, but I also wanted to give out this URL again:
HOLY SPIRIT LEADERSHIP ANDTHE BIBLE TRANSLATIONS CONTROVERSY as I think Mitex would benefit greatly from reading this. I can think of one other webpage he should take a look at, but maybe I'll post that later. :0)
I think Mitex should also pick up a copy of One Bible Only? and pay special attention to the sections in this book about the "perfectly preserved" argument. Image





Image >>> Answering Anti-Christianity Arguments & Biases
Reply

greenbranch
Registered User
Joined: 28 Jul 2000, 14:47

03 Jul 2002, 19:20 #3

Scott, I don't know how you would word it so that it is clear, but I see another alternative.
God's word is inerrant in spite of the fact that there are variant readings. Therefore, in spite of certain different readings when the KJV is read side by side with other translations, both are still the word of God. This is shown in the New Testament where both Hebrew and Greek versions of the Old Testament are quoted and variant readings are read, and the Holy Spirit made no statement that either reading was incorrect.
Reply

Mitex
Registered User
Joined: 22 Dec 1999, 04:10

03 Jul 2002, 19:59 #4

Greenbranch:
Quote:

God's word is inerrant in spite of the fact that there are variant readings. Therefore, in spite of certain different readings when the KJV is read side by side with other translations, both are still the word of God. This is shown in the New Testament where both Hebrew and Greek versions of the Old Testament are quoted and variant readings are read, and the Holy Spirit made no statement that either reading was incorrect.
The Bingo prize goes to Greenbranch! That is if she can verify that she actually believes what she just professed!
She professed that "God's word IS inerrant" then she said, "The KJV and other translations are still the word of God" - Question: Does Greenbranch really believe the AV is inerrant? Or does she side with Scott and maintain that "the AV is an imperfect and flawed form of the word God which contains late additions"?
We will now lay the AV side by side with "other translations" showing the variants, will Greenbranch (and those who maintain "all versions are the word of God including the "meanest") maintain her profession? Notice:
1 John 5:7 AV 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
1 John 5:7 NIV For there are three that testify: _________________
1 John 5:7 NASV For there are three that testify:
_________________
1 John 5:7 NWT For there are three witness bearers, _________________

The "other translations" are lacking "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost". Just like Matthew, Mark, and Luke are "lacking" Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus, John has it. Is Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus the word of God? Of course it is. Now, Greenbranch, play the godly woman and take your stand: Is the variant "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost" the word of God or is it a "flawed addition of men" as Scott professes?
Which is it? Speak clearly, plainly and forthrightly!

In Jesus' Name,
Brent Riggs

Do you have eternal life? Have you been born again? Please take this opportunity to give the reason of the hope that is in you (1Pt 3:15). If you fail to do so
for whatever reason, I will have no reason or need to respond.






In Jesus' Name,






Brent Riggs




www.preachinginpoland.com




www.preachinginpoland.com/defense.htm


For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Romans 10:13
Reply

Kristi
Registered User
Joined: 23 Apr 1999, 07:38

03 Jul 2002, 21:08 #5

God's word is inerrant in spite of the fact that there are variant readings. Therefore, in spite of certain different readings when the KJV is read side by side with other translations, both are still the word of God
So that would mean that even though the NIV may not read 100% word for word like the KJV that the NIV is equally and every bit God's Word, yes? Would Mitex "bingo" that or adhere to a double standard?
Image >>> Answering Anti-Christianity Arguments & Biases
Reply

greenbranch
Registered User
Joined: 28 Jul 2000, 14:47

04 Jul 2002, 05:16 #6

Mitex, I will say what I have said all along in the (what is it now, almost 3 years?) that I have posted here.
The KJV is God's word even though those words that are underlined are included. The NIV and the NASB are God's word even though those words that are underlined are not included.
I will not say anything about the NWT. I have said that before. The only answer I have been given regarding the NWT is to not go there. Please don't ask me to comment on that again.
All I know is that it does not meet your definition of the word of God. It is not accepted as God's word by the church of the Living God.
Are you ever going to answer my questions?
Reply