Will Kinney's definition of pure?

Discussion regarding KJV-onlyism. Debate central, but keep it civil. The ONLY forum where KJV-onlyism is allowed to be debated.

dcforrey
Registered User
Joined: 30 Nov 2008, 05:29

27 Sep 2011, 19:04 #1

I think that we may now be able to construct a reasonably accurate definition of “pure” that would be acceptable to Will Kinney based on some statements he has made:



 

“As for Jeremiah 34:16 the plural “ye” is the more correct Hebrew reading, but even if we go with “he” the basic meaning of the passage is still not changed at all.”
“God’s pure words of truth are found in any King James Bible you can buy in the stores today”



 

http://brandplucked.webs.com/answerwhitewhichkjb.htm



 

According to Will any King James Bible is pure if you can find it in a store. Apparently the edition (yes, even the “PCE”) does not matter.



 

Also, in at least one place in the KJV a word with an entirely different meaning may be substituted for the “more correct” word in the text as long as the passage has the same “basic meaning” after the alternative word has been substituted for the “more correct” word.



 

One might wonder how many other places in the KJV that this word substitution could occur and still be considered “pure” according to Will.



 

Further, does Will’s standard apply to other versions as well? What if other versions have different wording from the KJV but are still able to maintain the “basic meaning”? Might some other translations actually be “pure” after all?
Last edited by dcforrey on 27 Sep 2011, 20:53, edited 1 time in total.
Reply

brandpluckt
Registered User
Joined: 04 Jul 2007, 19:26

29 Sep 2011, 13:07 #2

dcforrey wrote:
I think that we may now be able to construct a reasonably accurate definition of “pure” that would be acceptable to Will Kinney based on some statements he has made:



 

“As for Jeremiah 34:16 the plural “ye” is the more correct Hebrew reading, but even if we go with “he” the basic meaning of the passage is still not changed at all.”
“God’s pure words of truth are found in any King James Bible you can buy in the stores today”



 [KW] I am glad that he has admitted that he is a Ruckmanite. His take on Jer 34:16 is exactly what Peter Ruckman teaches. The second statement is not without qualification. He meant to say as long as it is not a NKJV, MKJV, KJV 2000, or other such edition. I wonder how he would reconcile the earlier English translations where they contradict the KJV? Was Tyndale a Bible apostate on some verses? Look at Luke 2:33 for example.
" And his father and mother mervelled at those thinges which were spoke of him." (Luke 2:33 Tyndale NT 1534)



 

According to Will any King James Bible is pure if you can find it in a store. Apparently the edition (yes, even the “PCE”) does not matter.



[KW] This also contradicts previous statements (I believe).

Also, in at least one place in the KJV a word with an entirely different meaning may be substituted for the “more correct” word in the text as long as the passage has the same “basic meaning” after the alternative word has been substituted for the “more correct” word.



[KW] If that is true then we are all KJVO!

One might wonder how many other places in the KJV that this word substitution could occur and still be considered “pure” according to Will.



[KW] Whatever he wants it to mean. He is his own final authority! (HA!)

Further, does Will’s standard apply to other versions as well? What if other versions have different wording from the KJV but are still able to maintain the “basic meaning”? Might some other translations actually be “pure” after all?

[KW] Better yet, he can't name ANY other Bible that is pure!
Ken Willy
Reply

Euthymius
Registered User
Joined: 14 Jun 2005, 02:41

29 Sep 2011, 13:47 #3

In any discussion of the KJVO definition of "pure," we need to take careful account of what (to paraphrase Dostoyevsky) the Grand Equivocater (Steven Avery) has amazingly declared (probably to the chagrin of himself and other rabid KJVOers):
"It is rather amazing, even mind-boggling, that we are still getting the silly argument that pure by definition means perfect.
"Pure water from a spring is wonderful, but it may not be perfect water. The rainwater that feeds can have some pollutants, there can be many ways for the water to be pure, even very pure, extremely pure, yet not quite perfect.
"Similarly, a gold bar that is 99.8% gold can easily be said to be pure gold, yet there is even purer gold (99.99 % and better) and the ideal "perfect" gold would be 100%, or as close to 100% as attainable in the real world.
"Why anybody would still struggle with this is the question. To not understand the distinction between the two words pure and perfect I believe requires either a remedial English level of understanding the language .. or a deliberate attempt to warp basic English.
. . . . . . . . . . . .
"To help along our thinkers.
"1) That which is perfect can often be said to be pure, and will not be impure.
"2) That which is pure may at times be perfect (semantic overlap, thus an auxiliary possible definition). This will be a loose non-literal-synonym "definition" usage.
"3) As a general rule ... that which is pure is not necessarily perfect.
"The phrase 'a pure Bible text', whether the term is used by an AV-defender, or Westcott and Hort or a Hortian or Sam Textcrit, never by definition will necessarily mean a perfect Bible text.
"And I have a feeling that the people struglling [sic] with this . . . . Their understanding of English is warped by their concern that a person can actually read a pure Bible !"
http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.p ... ars/page16
Reply

Maestroh
Registered User
Joined: 15 Feb 2011, 17:18

29 Sep 2011, 20:15 #4

I wish this guy would simply spell out his method. Stop all the gyrating in 600 different directions and: a) show the pure line uncorrupted; b) show the restored line and how you know this; or c)shut up
Reply

Euthymius
Registered User
Joined: 14 Jun 2005, 02:41

29 Sep 2011, 21:46 #5

Maestroh: a) show the pure line uncorrupted; b) show the restored line and how you know this; or c)shut up
You already know the answers to those demands:
a) He can't.
b) He can't.
c) He can't.
Reply

Maestroh
Registered User
Joined: 15 Feb 2011, 17:18

30 Sep 2011, 03:43 #6

Euthymius wrote:Maestroh: a) show the pure line uncorrupted; b) show the restored line and how you know this; or c)shut up
You already know the answers to those demands:
a) He can't.
b) He can't.
c) He can't.

Which is how I came up with the Maestroh Axiom because even they aren't that stupid.
Reply

brandpluckt
Registered User
Joined: 04 Jul 2007, 19:26

01 Oct 2011, 23:30 #7

Euthymius wrote: In any discussion of the KJVO definition of "pure," we need to take careful account of what (to paraphrase Dostoyevsky) the Grand Equivocater (Steven Avery) has amazingly declared (probably to the chagrin of himself and other rabid KJVOers):
"It is rather amazing, even mind-boggling, that we are still getting the silly argument that pure by definition means perfect.
"Pure water from a spring is wonderful, but it may not be perfect water. The rainwater that feeds can have some pollutants, there can be many ways for the water to be pure, even very pure, extremely pure, yet not quite perfect.
"Similarly, a gold bar that is 99.8% gold can easily be said to be pure gold, yet there is even purer gold (99.99 % and better) and the ideal "perfect" gold would be 100%, or as close to 100% as attainable in the real world.
"Why anybody would still struggle with this is the question. To not understand the distinction between the two words pure and perfect I believe requires either a remedial English level of understanding the language .. or a deliberate attempt to warp basic English.
. . . . . . . . . . . .
"To help along our thinkers.
"1) That which is perfect can often be said to be pure, and will not be impure.
"2) That which is pure may at times be perfect (semantic overlap, thus an auxiliary possible definition). This will be a loose non-literal-synonym "definition" usage.
"3) As a general rule ... that which is pure is not necessarily perfect.
"The phrase 'a pure Bible text', whether the term is used by an AV-defender, or Westcott and Hort or a Hortian or Sam Textcrit, never by definition will necessarily mean a perfect Bible text.
"And I have a feeling that the people struglling [sic] with this . . . . Their understanding of English is warped by their concern that a person can actually read a pure Bible !"
http://forums.carm.org/vb...KJV-Only-Scholars/page16
When I first read this, I thought it was a parody. Avery is placing himself at odds with the likes of Will Kinney who holds to an "inerrant" translation. Avery is also making the Reformed view of the scriptures stand on its head.
Richard Muller had much to say on this matter: “If the Westminster confession argues the necessity of translation and the propriety of the use of Scripture by the unlearned, it also insists upon the priority of the Hebrew and Greek originals of the books of the Bible and ultimately lodges all authority in the text as preserved in the ancient languages. The Hebrew and the Greek texts are the “authentic” Scriptures that were “immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages.” [Westminster Confession, I. viii] “Final appeal” in all religious controversy, therefore, must be to the text in the original languages rather than to translations. The detail here is once again greater than that of previous confessions, but it cannot be claimed that we have entered the realm of dogmatic system: there is no elaboration of discussion distinguishing between “Words” (verba) and “substance” (res) such as appears in the systems of the day and no discussion of the autographa... The emphasis of the confession is simply upon the original-language texts currently known to the church.” [Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy; Volume 2: The Cognitive Foundation of Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003), 90.]
 

If this is truly the case it should led the Reformers to the Byzantine Text-form at the very least. (See God’s Word Preserved by Michael Sproul.)

Further Muller says regarding translations and the original language texts: “Over against the more radical proposals of Louis Cappel concerning the critical alteration of the text of the Old Testament in the light of ancient versions, the orthodox took solace in the fact that Hebrew, not Syriac or Greek, was the actual language of the prophets and that variant readings of the text seldom, if ever, caused problems for the substance of Christian doctrine. The versions could never be anything more than versions and could never represent the thoughts of the prophets quoad verba ["as far as or concerning the word"]. [Ibid. p. 414, emphasis mine]

Sounds like KJV Onlyism has no connection with the Reformation. But then again there are those who can read Muller and still arrive at VPP. Go figure!
http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/Preservation/sola.htm
  
Last edited by brandpluckt on 01 Oct 2011, 23:39, edited 1 time in total.
Ken Willy
Reply

Euthymius
Registered User
Joined: 14 Jun 2005, 02:41

02 Oct 2011, 21:48 #8

BP: When I first read this, I thought it was a parody.
Sometimes the KJVOers are their own best parody....Image
On the other hand, the Muller quote, showing the proper interpretation of the Westminster Confession (as well as the Baptist Second London Confession which closely aligns with it), clearly points to the original language texts as the primary and only authoritative source by which "all controversies of religion" are to be established and judged.
That alone puts Avery and other KJVOers on the outs as regards the TR-based Reformation-era Scriptures to which they appeal, since those same Reformers clearly point to the original languages as being Hebrew and Greek -- not the Latin (whether Old Latin or Vulgate), nor back-translations from such, nor even isolated minority readings found among the original language manuscripts (I note in passing Avery's continual reiteration that in his opinion original language statements are of little value, and that there is no reason not to appeal to the Old Latin or the Latin Vulgate [so long as it underlies the KJV, of course], or even other ancient versions as the true seats of revelatory authority -- most definitely, the Reformers are at serious odds with him on that point!)
Rather, the Reformers were ultimately pointing to the general consensus reading found among the manuscripts, whether Hebrew or Greek -- and as Brandpluckt and Muller both point out, this logically and naturally forces a majority text position rather than an isolated declared-by-fiat-faith-based VPP declaration in favor of the 1894 Scrivener-reverse-constructed TR edition that perpetuates minority and even back-translated readings that would be ruled out of court by a true application of the Westminster/Second London/Reformation standards (and certainly not an appeal to any English translation as a never-can-be-altered standard for establishing the original text, whether "pure" by Avery's waffling definition, or otherwise).
Of course, why KJVOs  and VPP TROs can't seem to see the point remains one of life's little mysteries (probably to demonstrate in eternity God's overwhelming sense of humour). Image  
Last edited by Euthymius on 02 Oct 2011, 21:57, edited 2 times in total.
Reply

evmikna
Registered User
Joined: 16 Jul 2008, 22:02

08 Oct 2011, 16:18 #9

The fact that Kinney's definition of pure needs to be sought for by examining his allusions to it shows that he does not work by definition.

KJVOs cannot afford to understand the biblical ramifications and intent of the phrase "Thy words are very pure." It will expose their misuse of the term and David's intent.
Reply