Kjv only
Comments
-
Josh Hunt said:
I am curious, how is this issue different for Catholics. Ignorant question, I am sure, please help.
Well, there's the historical component, of course. The Western Catholic church used the Latin Vulgate for the majority of their existence. English wasn't even a thought, much less a consideration.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
Josh Hunt said:
I am curious, how is this issue different for Catholics. Ignorant question, I am sure, please help.
In Orthodoxy it takes the form of Patriarchal New Testament and the Septuagint as the "preferred text"; in western Catholicism it took the form of the Vulgate as the preferred text. Note, however, the the Vulgate was revised by scholarship and had no definitive text until the Reformation forced the issue. Remember that for two millennia the Anglicans, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, and Oriental Orthodox have happily agreed on the Septuagint as the canon for the Old Testament ... I use "canon" in the sense of "suitable for lessons in worship" and "recommended for personal reading" ... However, it has never bothered them that even within a religious stream, there is not agreement as to what books constitute the Septuagint. And the Oriental Orthodox were quite willing to accept a 27 book canon for the NT and not bother to print or use in worship more than 22 of the books for a millenia and a half. In short, the view of Scripture that requires a definitive canon and a definitive text is tied to a particular interpretation of sola scriptura which is dependent solely on a printed text rather than universal church and tradition. One could mark the divide, perhaps, by asking it scripture is read or proclaimed in worship.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
I am fishing for a simpler answer. Imagine I start attending a Catholic church. I get to talking to my priest about reading the Bible. He tells me to go to Amazon and get... what Bible?
0 -
MJ. Smith said:Josh Hunt said:
I am curious, how is this issue different for Catholics. Ignorant question, I am sure, please help.
In Orthodoxy it takes the form of Patriarchal New Testament and the Septuagint as the "preferred text"; in western Catholicism it took the form of the Vulgate as the preferred text. Note, however, the the Vulgate was revised by scholarship and had no definitive text until the Reformation forced the issue. Remember that for two millennia the Anglicans, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, and Oriental Orthodox have happily agreed on the Septuagint as the canon for the Old Testament ... I use "canon" in the sense of "suitable for lessons in worship" and "recommended for personal reading" ... However, it has never bothered them that even within a religious stream, there is not agreement as to what books constitute the Septuagint. And the Oriental Orthodox were quite willing to accept a 27 book canon for the NT and not bother to print or use in worship more than 22 of the books for a millenia and a half. In short, the view of Scripture that requires a definitive canon and a definitive text is tied to a particular interpretation of sola scriptura which is dependent solely on a printed text rather than universal church and tradition. One could mark the divide, perhaps, by asking it scripture is read or proclaimed in worship.
Fascinating. Awareness about such things is just creeping into my awareness. Thanks for cracking the door open a bit more.
0 -
Josh Hunt said:
I am fishing for a simpler answer. Imagine I start attending a Catholic church. I get to talking to my priest about reading the Bible. He tells me to go to Amazon and get... what Bible?
Not Catholic, but a check of this page shows the Bibles that are part of the Verbum Portfolio package. Douay-Rheims is old school. Newer are NABRE, RSVCE, NRSVCE, and there are others. NABRE is probably the most common of these in American churches.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
Josh Hunt said:
I am fishing for a simpler answer. Imagine I start attending a Catholic church. I get to talking to my priest about reading the Bible. He tells me to go to Amazon and get... what Bible?
Your first should be the NABRE as that is what it used in the Mass. Other versions what frequently finds brought to Bible study are: NAB, JB, NJB, RSVCE, NRSVCE, Community Bible, an occasional DR, CEV from high school
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
David Paul said:
NABRE is probably the most common of these in American churches.
It is currently the only permitted translation (Latin rite/novos ordo) except for Children's services. Elsewhere in the world one finds JB, RSVCE, and NRSVCE as the required text. Those of us living near the border may occasionally fudge a bit ...
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
One could mark the divide, perhaps, by asking i[f] scripture is read or proclaimed in worship.
Well, certainly, in the Tanakh: there is more reference to what we consider to be Scripture being "called" (i.e. spoken). Indeed, the Qaraites (Karaites) identify their chosen distance and separation from Rabbinic teachings and accretions (i.e. Talmuudh) by referring to themselves as "Scripturalists" by their use of the word qaaraa', which means "call" or "call out". When the tohraah was read aloud in the Bible, it is often described as being "called out", and this results in the word many Jews use to describe the Hebrew Scriptures, miq:raa'. [Adding a meim (M) to the front of a verb can turn it into a substantive noun.] Looking at Neh. 8:8 NASB, the word "read" is qaaraa' and the word "reading" is miq:raa'...thus it can be translated as "They CALLED from the scroll, from the instruction of ':Elohhiym, clarifying to give insight so that they understood THE THING BEING CALLED (i.e. the Scriptures)."
Although miq:raa' is used today to refer to the Hebrew Scriptures, TaNaKh: (or simply Tanakh) is more common. It's an acronym word based on the three Hebrew sections of the "Old Testament".
All that said, we must also account for the Bereans, who were described as "searching the Scriptures daily", and this obviously indicates that they had reading matter for daily perusal. Even the terms for "calling" suggest that SOMETHING is being called out, and Neh. 8:8 above shows that this "thing" was a scroll...which obviously had to be read in order to be called out.
I want to add that there is plenty of reason to conclude that YHWH planned for current conditions (ubiquitous Bible reading options, including Logos software) and that what we commonly refer to as "studying" is His fundamental expectation for all who wish to enter His kingdom. Prophecy certainly indicates that will be the case. Worship (which tends to be viewed as collective adulation in song) must be accompanied by intensive reading (to be done individually or in groups).
Parrots can "call out", but that doesn't mean they will be in His kingdom. Wisdom in the form of "insight" and "understanding" are requisite for worship to have any effect at all, because mishandled worship is equivalent to idolatry.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
One book that might be useful is God's Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible. What's nice about it is that it discusses the making of the KJV, its literary qualities and its cultural and religious impact without getting into the "KJV-only" debate. It's a good reminder of why some people still value that translation so greatly. Understanding that might help build some bridges between the two camps.
0 -
MJ. Smith said:David Paul said:
NABRE is probably the most common of these in American churches.
It is currently the only permitted translation (Latin rite/novos ordo) except for Children's services. Elsewhere in the world one finds JB, RSVCE, and NRSVCE as the required text. Those of us living near the border may occasionally fudge a bit ...
Which border? The US/Canadian border? I've been curious about what Canadian Catholics use since the NABRE is from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. I thought I read somewhere that the NRSV was approved for use in the mass in Canada, is that true, and is that what most people use? And do they mostly use the RSV the mass in English-speaking parts of Europe?
0 -
MJ. Smith said:David Paul said:
NABRE is probably the most common of these in American churches.
It is currently the only permitted translation (Latin rite/novos ordo) except for Children's services. Elsewhere in the world one finds JB, RSVCE, and NRSVCE as the required text. Those of us living near the border may occasionally fudge a bit ...
Oh my. NABRE is my mobile Bible ... the notes are really good, and translation choices are refreshingly ... hmmm .... well, agree with my thinking.
Who knew it was the 'only permitted translation' for Catholics?? I thought it was kind of like 'out there', like New Jerusalem (which also has good notes, but not in Logos). I wonder what theology map covers this unexpected situation.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
EastTN said:
One book that might be useful is God's Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible. What's nice about it is that it discusses the making of the KJV, its literary qualities and its cultural and religious impact without getting into the "KJV-only" debate. It's a good reminder of why some people still value that translation so greatly. Understanding that might help build some bridges between the two camps.
I don't know about building bridges, but I'm old enough that I cut my teeth on the KJV, and I think that having that background and familiarity is extremely valuable due to the enormous amount of cultural references that come from the KJV's centuries of English language dominance. These days if you say "mote and beam" you may get a roomful of blank expressions. So I'm glad to have the background, but I only infrequently turn to the KJV these days unless it is one of those rare instances when the NASB fumbles the "literal translation" ball and the KJV is able to recover. One clear example is Rev. 13:8, where the NASB committee caved-in to a textual canard that has become the contemporary fashion.
Comparing Rev. 13:8 NASB with Rev. 13:8 KJV, the KJV retains the EXTREMELY LITERAL interpretation "lamb slain from the foundation of the world" in favor of a translation that does clear violence to the Greek but is similar to a verse four chapters away (Rev. 17:8 NASB). The NASB chooses "written from the foundation of the world in the book". The KJV gets it right because its interpretation is EXACTLY what the Greek says...PLUS there are at least half-a-dozen other verses in the Bible that confirm the idea of the Lamb's death being an established prophetic fact from before creation. So kudos to the KJV (and NKJV) in this case, but overall the NASB is a more literal translation, and since prophecy relies inordinately upon word choice, I prefer the NASB in almost all cases.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
Denise said:
I wonder what theology map covers this unexpected situation.
Denise said:Who knew it was the 'only permitted translation' for Catholics??
Not the "only permitted translation for Catholics", only permitted translation for Mass ... unless it's for children, non-English service, non-Latin rite ... Catholics are permitted to use any translation. The theology is known under the exotic name of "pragmatism", the same theological principle that cost us the second year of readings in the Office of Readings. The lectionary from which the scriptures are proclaimed in Mass is not identical to the scripture as it may be edited for length or given a short incipit to provide the context esp. in Paul where who he is addressing may be many verses back. The are often pre-divided into sense lines to make it easier for the liturgical reader to know how to make it understandable to those listening. So guess what ... the theology of pragmatism moves in - its cheaper to make just one official lectionary .... and, yes, I've known of bishops who've slipped into Canada to get an alternative to use at the cathedral which permits any church in the diocese to do likewise.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Kiyah said:
I've been curious about what Canadian Catholics use since the NABRE is from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
The Canadians use the NRSV which they had approved before the three-way-battle among the Vatican, the US Conference of Bishops, and the NRSV copyright holders. Inclusive language is apparently harmful to Americans but Canadians are immune to its corrosive effects. [Yes, I'm still annoyed with the situation.]
Kiyah said:the mass in English-speaking parts of Europe?
Most of the world is on the Jerusalem Bible (not the NJB). Australia has been attempting to choose a new translation but fell into the same silly muddle as the US. I've not checked on the current state of Australia's efforts.
Kiyah said:and is that what most people use?
I've never seen statistics on what people actually use and the rules for recommended translations changed in the early 80's.
A fairly complete list of our options from Wikipedia:
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Mark said:Denise said:
https://www.amazon.com/Identity-New-Testament-Text/dp/0840757441
Per the reviewers, it smashes up modern day criticism.
Would be nice to have this in Logos also. Always good to have various sides to read for research.
I very much agree - Denise''s suggested book by Wilbur Pickering would be very useful in this discussion and good to have in our Logos libraries.
People may be interested in the Wilbur Pickering collection currently in Pre-pub which will also be excellent when it becomes available: https://www.logos.com/product/43193/wilbur-n-pickering-new-testament-collection
On the wider issue of resources for examining KJ-Only-ism and related debate, I found value in reading Chick Publications view on 'why the KJV?" (See https://www.chick.com/whykjv/ ) or scroll down among the YouTube videos of David Daniels who works for Chick Publications as there is a variety of material and comment there including on why the KJV is preferable, the adverse influence of Codex Sinaticus and much else.(See: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLhmAbEGx-AnRnnY4pE6kwj1XYsqUeH0gY. Whether people agree with the content or not, it is well argued and presented.
Some older hardback books in this area:
David Otis Fuller, DD, "Which Bible? (1975, Institute for Biblical Textual Studies, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503). This is a collection of essays covering issues such as modern criticism, the Textus Receptus, the Westcott-Hort textual theory and much else.
David Otis Fuller, DD, "True or false? (Sequel to "Which Bible?") (1990; Institute for Biblical Textual Studies, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503)
Dean John William Burgon "The Revision Revised: A refutation of Westcott and Hort's False Greek Text and Theory - A Defense of the Authorized Version (1883); (Available Dean Burgon Society Press Box 354 Collingswood, New Jersey 08108; http://www.deanburgonsociety.org ). This is dated and technical, but still an excellent historical resource in explaining how far the emergence of the Westcott-Hort theory adversely affected later Bible translation.
I note the side issue and the comments about which Bibles Catholics might use. My understanding (and I'm open to be corrected) is that following the encyclical Dei Verbum a Catholic may read any Bible they wish.They may be encouraged to read Bibles containing the larger number of books than in the Protestant canon, but there's no obligation. In effect, Catholics are as free to read the King James Bible as the Douay-Rheims. Keep well Paul
0 -
Paul said:
They may be encouraged to read Bibles containing the larger number of books than in the Protestant canon, but there's no obligation.
For purposes of prayer and scripture study, the issue is not canon but ecclesial approval. Canon 825 giving the bodies that can currently give ecclesial approval. As a matter of course, I use a Bible with a broader canon than the Catholic canon in a translation that has an approved Catholic version. There are times and places where the ecclesial approval applies reasonably strictly, there are times when it is treated in the manner of Italian law.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:Paul said:
They may be encouraged to read Bibles containing the larger number of books than in the Protestant canon, but there's no obligation.
For purposes of prayer and scripture study, the issue is not canon but ecclesial approval. Canon 825 giving the bodies that can currently give ecclesial approval. As a matter of course, I use a Bible with a broader canon than the Catholic canon in a translation that has an approved Catholic version. There are times and places where the ecclesial approval applies reasonably strictly, there are times when it is treated in the manner of Italian law.
Canon 825 is certainly relevant in relation to Catholics seeking to publish translations of scriptures. In that case approval is needed from the "Apostolic See or Episcopal Conference". However, that does not appear to affect the right of an ordinary Catholic to use a particular Bible if they choose to do so as a matter of conscience. The issue of "right" interpretation is a different matter which a conservative Catholic would recognise the Catholic church reserves to itself, given its claims to a guardianship over the deposit of faith.
0 -
David Paul said:EastTN said:
One book that might be useful is God's Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible. What's nice about it is that it discusses the making of the KJV, its literary qualities and its cultural and religious impact without getting into the "KJV-only" debate. It's a good reminder of why some people still value that translation so greatly. Understanding that might help build some bridges between the two camps.
I don't know about building bridges, but I'm old enough that I cut my teeth on the KJV, and I think that having that background and familiarity is extremely valuable due to the enormous amount of cultural references that come from the KJV's centuries of English language dominance. These days if you say "mote and beam" you may get a roomful of blank expressions. So I'm glad to have the background, but I only infrequently turn to the KJV these days unless it is one of those rare instances when the NASB fumbles the "literal translation" ball and the KJV is able to recover. One clear example is Rev. 13:8, where the NASB committee caved-in to a textual canard that has become the contemporary fashion.
Comparing Rev. 13:8 NASB with Rev. 13:8 KJV, the KJV retains the EXTREMELY LITERAL interpretation "lamb slain from the foundation of the world" in favor of a translation that does clear violence to the Greek but is similar to a verse four chapters away (Rev. 17:8 NASB). The NASB chooses "written from the foundation of the world in the book". The KJV gets it right because its interpretation is EXACTLY what the Greek says...PLUS there are at least half-a-dozen other verses in the Bible that confirm the idea of the Lamb's death being an established prophetic fact from before creation. So kudos to the KJV (and NKJV) in this case, but overall the NASB is a more literal translation, and since prophecy relies inordinately upon word choice, I prefer the NASB in almost all cases.
David, I'm also old enough to have grown up with the KJV, and like you I tend to prefer the NASB now. But for purposes this discussion I'd rather not get into a debate over which translation is "best." In my opinion, the KJV-only debate has generated far too much ill-will and mistrust. We would all benefit from a better understanding of where the other "side" is coming from - whichever side that might be.
0 -
Kevin Olson said:
Josh Hunt said:
I am looking for a thoughtful discussion of the KJV only debate.
I found that this was a good debate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHR8wJAjNFo
I also profited from James White's book: The King James Only Controversy
https://www.logos.com/product/43390/the-king-james-only-controversy-can-you-trust-modern-translations
I appreciated White's discussion of the spectrum of positions of people that would hold to some form of KJV Only-ism
Group #1: “I Like the KJV Best”
Group #2: “The Textual Argument”
Group #3: “Received Text Only”
Group #4: The Inspired KJV Group
Group #5: “The KJV as New Revelation”
I have been following this thread a bit because my background is KJV-Only. (I will bring this to Logos eventually) I was raised in an IFB KJVO church that was in Group 4 and may have at times slipped into Group 5. I went off to a KJVO bible college and began to wonder about some of the things but by and large accepted it.
I got out of college, planted a church and eventually by God's grace felt the need to dig deeper into the word (I was out of gas in my preaching) I got some various books, but somehow came across Logos and bought a package and began studying Greek. (Really Louw-Nida)
The flashpoint was evangelism, I had serious doubts about the easy-believism that I had been taught now that I was in the ministry. All my life I had seen reports of 100's saved in a weekend but never anything come of it. Using Logos I began to see that the KJV did not teach easy-believism nor did many of the well known teachers that I now had access too. (Spurgeon's sermons etc)
The problem with KJVO in my world was the version was a "badge of orthodoxy" but it was not opened and exegeted. This is what supported a lot of the crazy beliefs, I still have family in the movement, I honestly don't think they grasp what the KJV says. They swoop in to get their proof texts but don't really follow the logic of a text etc. Topical preaching supported by strong personalites is what provided the authority in this world.
Once I started trying to expound the text I continually found myself translating the KJV to the same type of language the ESV used. I remember when I went to the Christian bookstore and bought an ESV, I came home and read the entire NT through in one sitting. I told my wife, it felt like I had been slurping water off a rock all my life and now I could wade in and dunk my head under the water and drink till my heart was content! I get emotional just thinking of how this first felt.
Logos Bible Software played (and still plays) a huge role in my life & ministry. It was a window to good resources and teaching at a time when I was drowning and did not know what to do. Praise God!
I do find the whole debate tedious now, I rarely wade in and engage KJVO people. I rather eat the fresh bread than argue over which one is more fresh!
0 -
here is the video done as a result of my stud into this. https://www.joshhunt.com/2018/12/07/niv-vs-kjv/
0 -
I very carefully worded my response with appropriate respect to the wording below:
[quote]
USCCB Approved Translations of the Sacred Scriptures for Private Use and Study by Catholics
1983 - Present
The 1983 Code of Canon Law entrusts to the Apostolic See and the episcopal conferences the authority to approve translations of the Sacred Scriptures in the Latin Catholic Church (c. 825, §1). Prior to 1983, Scriptural translations could be approved by the Apostolic See or by a local ordinary within a diocese.
What follows is a complete list of the translations of the Sacred Scriptures that have received the approval of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops since 1983.
In addition to the translations listed below, any translation of the Sacred Scriptures that has received proper ecclesiastical approval ‒ namely, by the Apostolic See or a local ordinary prior to 1983, or by the Apostolic See or an episcopal conference following 1983 ‒ may be used by the Catholic faithful for private prayer and study.Paul said:However, that does not appear to affect the right of an ordinary Catholic to use a particular Bible if they choose to do so as a matter of conscience.
I've not seen that particular argument used with regards to choice of translation/canon before. It is generally a rather high bar. However, there is nothing prohibiting the use of unauthorized translations and there are sometimes good reasons to do so.
However, these forums are not where I would choose to pursue the issue further.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
This thread has has gotten me wondering...when is Logos going to start carrying resources in support of Flat Earth?
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
I very carefully worded my response with appropriate respect to the wording below:
[quote]
USCCB Approved Translations of the Sacred Scriptures for Private Use and Study by Catholics
1983 - Present
The 1983 Code of Canon Law entrusts to the Apostolic See and the episcopal conferences the authority to approve translations of the Sacred Scriptures in the Latin Catholic Church (c. 825, §1). Prior to 1983, Scriptural translations could be approved by the Apostolic See or by a local ordinary within a diocese.
What follows is a complete list of the translations of the Sacred Scriptures that have received the approval of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops since 1983.
In addition to the translations listed below, any translation of the Sacred Scriptures that has received proper ecclesiastical approval ‒ namely, by the Apostolic See or a local ordinary prior to 1983, or by the Apostolic See or an episcopal conference following 1983 ‒ may be used by the Catholic faithful for private prayer and study.Paul said:However, that does not appear to affect the right of an ordinary Catholic to use a particular Bible if they choose to do so as a matter of conscience.
I've not seen that particular argument used with regards to choice of translation/canon before. It is generally a rather high bar. However, there is nothing prohibiting the use of unauthorized translations and there are sometimes good reasons to do so.
However, these forums are not where I would choose to pursue the issue further.
Thanks MJ and I appreciate the point you made. My source canon 825 was from "The Code of Canon Law" (Collins Liturgical Publications, London, 1983 so it is the English text of the Code from January 1983. You're right, the question has probably reached the limit for the forum. nevertheless thanks for your reply. Keep well Paul
0 -
David Paul said:
This thread has has gotten me wondering...when is Logos going to start carrying resources in support of Flat Earth?
Any particular references that you would recommend on the subject?
0 -
It was a line that made me smile but also worry about how others might take it. Books defending an indefensible position that has no solid science behind it. There are numerous things that could be placed as examples but I am not one wanting to criticize differing beliefs. One because this is not the place to debate controvers and two because in some cases it could be argued by atheists who I doubt are here, that many of our books fall into that category.
-dan
0 -
David Paul said:
This thread has has gotten me wondering...when is Logos going to start carrying resources in support of Flat Earth?
Let's back the truck up, a bit. A sizable portion of Christianity dumped a translation, while assuring everyone the quoters and theology from the same translation were straight from On High. All with a straight face. So, yes, the earth is flat (mostly).
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
I could give this dismissive attitude to any belief or set of beliefs that looks absurd from my vantage point: large portions of Roman Catholic doctrine, inconsistencies and incoherence within progressive Christianity, etc.
A better approach would be to adopt something like what Alasdair MacIntyre suggests in After Virtue:
"A necessary first step would be for them to come to understand what it is to think in the terms prescribed by that particular rival tradition, to learn how to think as if one were a convinced adherent of that rival tradition. To do this requires the exercise of a capacity for philosophical imagination that is often lacking. A second step is to identify, from the standpoint of the adherents of that rival tradition, its crucially important unresolved issues and unsolved problems—unresolved and unsolved by the standards of that tradition—which now confront those adherents and to enquire how progress might be made in moving towards their resolution and solution."
(Although I'm not saying that KJVO-ism and non-KJVO-ism are incommensurate, which is the context in which MacIntyre gives his advice)
Dismissing certain beliefs by declaring them beyond reasonable consideration is a popular tactic nowadays. And while there are obvious cases of beliefs which are irrational and need no consideration (cf. Alan Jacobs' How To Think), it's also a widely abused method for remaining smug and confirmation bias.
P.S. I know a lot of atheists who would consider every person on this forum to be the intellectual equivalent of a flat-earther and would give the snide remark that FaithLife might as well be publishing flat earth content anyway.
Potato resting atop 2020 Mac Pro stand.
0 -
Denise said:
So, yes, the earth is flat (mostly).
Not round here it isn't - the potholes are taking over.
At one time in the UK we drove on the left – now we drive on what's left!
tootle pip
Mike
How to get logs and post them.(now tagging post-apocalyptic fiction as current affairs) Latest Logos, MacOS, iOS and iPadOS
0 -
Ahhh, yes. The broken wing mirrors!
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
David Ames said:David Paul said:
This thread has has gotten me wondering...when is Logos going to start carrying resources in support of Flat Earth?
Any particular references that you would recommend on the subject?
Youtube? Facebook? Not sure how those could be bottled for Logos...[*-)]
Fwiw, I've also seen some captivating KJVO material on Youtube. There's this guy that draws elaborate pictures while he preaches. Quite a specimen.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0
