A Christian Objection to “Does God Predestine People To Hell”: A Response to Alex, Part I
Buckle in, folks! This is gonna be a good one.
A few months ago, I wrote
a series of articles on the notion of “hell,” and whether or not God destines
or predestines people to it. I dedicated this series of articles to a friend,
named Gavin (a man who is, sadly, stuck in Christian philosophy,) who had asked
me to share why I don’t believe in such a doctrine.
Unfortunately, Gavin opted
not to read the “hell” article that I had addressed to him. Instead, he dismissed
the view entirely and sent the articles to his friend, and his friend wrote
a series of articles in reply.
So, I began this project
a few days ago to consider the objections that this gentlemen, named Alex, had
to say. What I found concerning Alex’s view was so surprising, however,
that halfway through his replies, I genuinely considered scrapping the
whole reply, if not for the work I had already put in, and the fact that I had
already vowed to reply whenever his work was completed.
A Brief Preface
*LET ME GET THIS OUT OF
THE WAY NOW.*
Alex does not like my
writing style. He will make this abundantly clear throughout this
entire series of articles. His disdain toward my style will be front and center
for anyone who reads the original copies of his argument, and they will
catch hints at this disdain in the arguments I do copy/paste here
(almost all of which begin with some sort of declaration that I’m ‘being
fallacious,’ and, later, in his second reply, that I’m “straw-manning” him.)
Some of this is to be expected with any argumentative writing, but it is his primary
claim here – so much so that, at many points, he doesn’t seem to care about
the argument itself, but its style. He finds me to be a bully, my arguments to
be weak and ineffective, takes every other claim as an insult, and takes
offense to almost any joke made. If Alex were to have his way, my writing style,
my personable side, should be sawed-off, and each argumentative point should be
sanded away, to more accurately reflect his theories about what God
says.
I will reply to this
objection the best way I know how.
I believe that Alex’s
view on “proper argumentation” is quite short-sighted; satire, biting
commentary, and strong, decisive diction is an attention-grabber, and always
has been. Many well-written, structured arguments employ similar methods
that I have, and I see no reason that I cannot replicate the attention-grabbing
nature of those arguments (learned for the most part from the inspired
writers of scripture themselves – as we will see in cited verses in this series.)
Alex’s arguments are entirely subjective, and a matter of discourse; opinion.
Conjecture. Stance. Impression. I am not required to adhere to his
57-point plan to writing a perfect argument – nor will my disregard for his ideas
change the fact that God will cause these articles to reach whomever they
must reach to, at the very least, cause them to reflect upon their own
belief system.
Does this invalidate
Alex’s opinion? Of course not. The writing style isn’t for Alex. That’s
not a bad thing! He can simply read other material. No one is asking him to
stay and read a style he fundamentally disagrees with. But he spends so much
time fighting the style, that he loses the time that he could spend
researching the matter itself. He will, throughout the course of my
study, repeatedly ignore my entreaties to study his opponent and
his position before replying. He only replied to this charge once, during his
theory on what the “soul” is (which we will see in part seven of this study,) saying
that he wouldn’t bother reading any material from the concordant group,
since they would “just say the same things I am.” Unfortunately, Alex seems to
dismiss the fact that, if he dislikes my writing style so much, he may
actually appreciate the distinct writing style of A.E. Knoch, or
maybe Vladmir Gelesnoff, or Adlai Loudy, all of whom employ different argumentative
writing tactics that may better suit his taste, and enable him to soak in the
argument with a clearer mindset.
As for you, dear reader –
if you believe that Christian Alex’s disdain for my writing style is indicative
of a writing style that you yourself will not enjoy – then I advise you
stop reading now. I’m not going to make you stay, but I’m being honest: I am
going to rip the doctrine of eternal torment to shreds, and I don’t plan on
holding back. If you do not like this, or if you do not want to hear
this, or if you cannot hear this – then just click out of the tab. You
are free to go. Read a book! Fly a kite. Go speak to those that agree with you
already. No one is making you stay, and I would respect the decision either
way. Not everyone can handle the information that I will be sharing.
However – if you can handle
a more direct writing style, don’t mind a few “Goddamns” and “shits,” and want
some answers as to why the heck there are people that know that “hell” (the
place you’ve been hearing about in your Baptist or Pentecostal church since you
were four) doesn’t exist, then hi! I am GerudoKing, and I’m here
to talk some sense with you. I pray that you give the arguments presented a fair,
and well-rounded consideration. Many of Alex’s stated views (which he
drip-feeds to me throughout his writings, as he criticizes my own,) are views
that I myself have held early in my life (except for his view on what exactly
he believes “hell” looks like, which… well, we’ll deal with that when we get
there.) My goal is to discuss these arguments with any honest truth-seeker. I
welcome any comments and any questions (so long as I haven’t answered them
already – in which case, I will simply cite the article and quote myself, and
wish you a good day.)
So, please! Come in to my
little scripture den. I am a simple man, and this is my rebuttal to Alex’s
objections to my original series of articles which object to “hell” (boy,
that’s a mouthful.)
* * *
When I first began this
reply, my initial structure had been the same structure that I’ve always done –
consider each line that my opponent writes, and ensure that I quote them fully,
so as not to rip them out of context. When arguing against folk like Aaron
Welch (see the “Pre-existence” tab in the hamburger menu to the left,) this is
a very easy, honest structure that enables us both to have a say in the
matter at hand. Moreover, Aaron Welch is a practiced writer that takes great
pains in his argumentative structure (which, I believe, somewhat identifies
with my own organization method.)
However, Alex is neither
a practiced writer, nor did he take care in his argumentative structure (beyond
limiting his prose to each individual article.) I must note that this is
not some charge against Alex (because, when I shared the first draft
with him, he took offense to this statement and listed his credentials.) It is
a simple statement of fact – I’ve had to rectify many grammatical and
argumentative errors for his sake throughout this entire series, and you will
find that, save a few important remarks which relate directly to the argument,
I hardly spend time on this fact apart from right here, in this
paragraph.
I believe that any should
be able to write what they think and present it, and I am more than
willing to hear a perspective apart from grammatical accuracy. With that said:
unless, dear reader, you want to hear a big, repetitious argument that
fundamentally repeats the same points, then I think I would be better off
considering each argument by point, not by line.
Moreover, since this
series of articles was sent to him personally, Alex has since sent me another
200+ pages with repetitious arguments (blaming this repetitious writing style
on me, mind you.) I will be commenting on a few of his replies for the sake of
clarification, but I don’t feel it necessary to break down 200 pages of an
unstructured argument that was already lacking in Scriptural evidence the first
time around. If he brings more evidence to the table, I will share with you,
but I won’t be repeating his “you’re not worthy” non-sequiturs repeatedly.
I will also note that
Alex’s argument is unpublished, anywhere but here. So, if anyone else really
wants Alex’s argument, I have a pdf with all of his unedited
commentary that I can email you, so that you can be satisfied that I’m still not
ripping him out of context or anything.
The
King James: Fact or Fiction?
Alex begins his
objections to “Part 1” of my study, saying,
“First of all, you mention that you will base your study on the
‘original Greek Scriptures.’ Let’s be honest, here: the originals are long
gone. They do not exist anymore. What we do have are the copies, of
the copies, of the copies, of the originals. There are the “Critical Texts” and
there are the “Majority Texts” for the Greek. Other than that, there are other
“originals” in other languages.
Now, it’s interesting that you attack the KJV a lot, being that it is
supported by the Majority Texts. They’re called Majority Texts because they
make-up the vast majority of all the extant Greek Manuscripts in existence.
You may rebut that the Majority Texts are newer, and not older, like
the Critical Texts, but recent discoveries such as the “Dead Sea Scrolls” (3rd
century BC – 1st century AD) support the Majority Text rendering.”
Alex adds more to his
claim, but I want to pause for a moment to consider the points made, here. This
is, in truth, his biggest charge against me. The root of his entire
argument stems from the notion that the KJV is a proper translation, and
the Concordant Literal is not. The reason I say this (even if Alex objects,) is
because it is one of two arguments presented by him that hint at any
sort of research on the matter. This, I believe, will be thoroughly proven
throughout this first article, and the lackluster evidence in his later
articles will prove this.
Now, you would think that
the proper way to refute this error is by showing a few nonsensical passages
from the King James, and then contrast these same verses using a concordant method
of translation. But Alex, as we will find out soon, is not interested in
even using a concordance, and would rather presume that everyone else’s
definition (say, on the blue letter bible,) is automatically and
unequivocally true. What he has immediately presumed about my position
is that it is directly found in the Concordant Literal, when in truth it
is found in God’s use of the Koine Greek. As such, he is barking
up the wrong tree. I gravitate to the concordant version because they verify
the conclusions that I’ve reached apart from them. The concordant
brethren have become a great source of information – but they did not start
as such. Trust takes time to build, and the simple truth is that,
unlike the King James Version, which, by definition, required King James’
final word to publish, the concordant version did not have to rely on man’s pre-supposed
or honorific mentalities, and were able to follow a consistent method
of translation that did not require interpretive reasoning. Most often,
they provide concrete evidence to their initially-questionable
translations in thousands upon thousands of pages of careful word
study.
Now, Alex has since
replied to me, saying, “Let me throw this statement back at you. ‘The KJV
brethren have become a great source of information – but they did not start as
such. Trust takes time to build, and the simple truth is that, unlike the Concordant
Literal Translation, which, by definition, required the Concordant Brethren’s
final word to publish, the King James Version did not have to rely on man’s
pre-supposed or honorific mentalities, and were able to follow a consistent
method of translation that did not require interpretive reasoning.’”
Such argumentative
writing is hardly… well, ‘argumentative,’ for the statement must be true to
be reversed like this. The ‘King James’ folk provide little information apart
from their introduction to the KJV – hardly a rationale to claim that
they are a ‘great source’ of information (especially considering the
information found later in this very article.) Moreover, the CLV folk
did not require anyone’s “final say” to publish. They relied on a consistent
method of translation, and not any man’s ideals (which Alex would
know if he studied the CLV’s methodology – more on that in a moment.)
Moreover, the KJV
factually did rely on King James’ final word to publish. He required fourteen
different rules that had to be met, or the work could not be
published. These fourteen rules can be read here–
15
Rules of Translation for the King James (KJV) – PeterGoeman.com
None of
these rules can be cited in Scripture (whereas the methodology of the
CLV can, in 2 Tim. 1:13.) In contrast, all of these rules can be
understood within the context of a king who desired to portray his religious
institutions in a “popular” or “good-natured” light. Make of it what you will,
but all of it points to a false equivalency on Alex’s part.
Now, thankfully, I
have already written a good 30 pages considering the validity of the concordant
translation, and I will link that in a moment. But first:
The “original Greek
Scriptures” that I am referring to are, of course, not the original originals.
I am not arguing this, nor will I ever. The closest we have are the
three oldest Greek manuscripts, by which all of my theology is based. My
aim, in this evil world, is to find the most accurate copies of the
original transcripts that I can possibly find, and scrutinize them.
In that, I do not find
the critical or the majority texts to be viable options for proper
study. As Alex points out, the “majority text” KJV covers the majority of
Greek texts. This is problematic enough, considering there are thousands
upon thousands of discrepancies between the older and newer manuscripts (even
by 1611 standards.) But to add random additional languages, such as Egyptian or
Latin, with “a bunch of random Greek manuscripts bound together” is completely
disingenuous to the oldest Greek manuscripts, which are undoubtedly the closest
in thought to the originals.
Alex takes issue with
this, instead believing that there are somehow more errors between three
documents (the critical texts that the concordant uses,) than there are
errors between three hundred documents (the majority texts that
the KJV uses.) Alex seems to believe that any old Greek manuscript will
do, and we need not distinguish their age – noted by the fact that he favors
the KJV’s ‘majority texts.’ He also seems content with including these random
languages, simply because they could be the first of their kind. There is no
rhyme or reason behind these distinctions, making them arbitrary.
The argument that Alex
makes, that the Dead Sea Scrolls verifies the KJV’s accuracy, falls
short in a number of ways.
Well, no, actually. Let
me rephrase that. Alex isn’t really making an “argument,” with a claim, and
evidence, and a conclusion, so much as he is making a “statement” that isn’t
really elaborated on. How do the Dead Sea Scrolls verify the KJV’s
accuracy? Alex cites the general time that the Dead Sea Scrolls were written. Okay…
so what? Does this prove your point? Alex does not return to this
argument at all, and mentions the Dead Sea Scrolls two times in
his entire argument, with no elaboration.
As fun a topic as the
‘Dead Sea Scrolls’ are, they are not pertinent to this study, as there are no New
Testament manuscripts found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which is where almost all
of my talking points are found. Are we kicking off this refutation with a
completely unrelated claim? Are we trying to prove the KJV’s validity, or get
to the bottom of the oldest text we can, to find what was actually
written?
Alex has later admitted in
a response to me that he misrepresented himself, here, and had mis-typed. This
is understandable; we are human, and the rough draft I sent to him was far from
perfect. He rectifies himself by making this statement instead:
“The argument that I make is not so much about whether or not I can
verify the validity of the KJV’s rendering using the Dead Sea Scrolls. Rather, it
is about how the KJV’s Old Testament (which stemmed from the Masoretic Texts)
is supported far more than whatever Hebrew you have for your Old
Testament. And, if you say your Old Testament was in Greek, then you solidify my
argument that I have much older evidence that verifies the Old Testament
for the KJV. How? Check up the date for the Dead Sea Scrolls.”
This is a far more understandable
argument, and far less implausible than his original response to me.
However, this still reveals his lack of study on the Concordant Version, for
the Concordant Old Testament does take the Dead Sea Scrolls into
consideration. If you study the CVOT’s pages, you will find that they
explicitly make note of each differentiation between the Dead Sea Scrolls
(marked by a little letter ‘Q,’ for ‘Qumran scrolls,’) and the Hebrew Masoretic
Text from early 1000s AD – while still adhering to a consistent and
reliable method of translation. To claim that the KJV ‘is accurate’
because it uses the Dead Sea Scrolls would inadvertently give the CLV the same
admission. As such: let’s not make ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’ the basis of
whether or not the version we are reading is accurate, and instead consider a pattern
of sound words, like our apostle asks us to adhere to (2 Tim. 1:13.)
(One more thing, and I
think it’s small, but… the ‘Septuagint,’ which is the Greek version of the Old
Testament, which the Concordant Literal also makes considers and takes note
of with the symbol ‘LXX,’ is slightly older than the Dead Sea Scrolls!
The Greek Old Testament is actually one of the most reliable versions of
the Old Testament, and while I use it as a resource and not a foundation, I
cannot deny that anyone considering Scripture with the Septuagint are undoubtedly
doing their research.)
Alex concludes his
opening statement by saying,
“Both the KJV and the Concordant Publishing are basing themselves off
of an ‘original’ Greek.”
In order to grasp what an
absolute lie this parallel is, I would implore any who do not
know how the Concordant group are translating the Scriptures to stop
what they’re doing, sit down, and read the Introduction to the Concordant Greek
Text, which you can find below:
I may also recommend the
first two chapters of Adlai Loudy’s book, “God’s Eonian Purpose,” found here:
Both of the above
resources go into great detail differentiating among the “Majority” and
“Critical” texts, and the “Concordant” version. Alex’s lack of understanding as
to how the Concordant team have translated the oldest Greek manuscripts into
English highlights that Alex either a) did read the above materials, and
is about to explain to us why they are inherently wrong in their
translational method, or b) did not read the above materials, and threw
in “Dead Sea Scrolls” to show that he has studied the translations he prefers,
as opposed to honest, rounded academic considerations.
For my brief personal,
non-argumentative thoughts on the Concordant Version and their translation
method, please take a look at the links below, which will take you to the first
three articles of my “Romans” study, where I go into greater detail on the
matter.
https://gerudoking007.blogspot.com/2023/03/the-beginning-of-a-long-study-romans.html?m=1
https://gerudoking007.blogspot.com/2024/05/romans-series-overview-part-2-which.html?m=1
https://gerudoking007.blogspot.com/2024/05/romans-study-overview-part-3-which.html?m=1
“Now, according to the Concordant Bible website, they use the
Alexandrinus (5th Century AD,) Vaticanus (4th Century
AD,) and Sinaiticus (4th Century AD) Greek texts for their
translation. These hardly count as “more original” than the evidence
supporting the Majority Text rendering (i.e. the dead sea scrolls.)”
The Concordant Publishing does use those three manuscripts, as
well as considerations from some editors’ notes on the original papyrus on
those manuscripts. These indeed do count as “more original” than the
Majority Texts, being the three oldest manuscripts that we currently have. If
these are the oldest, then let’s stick to them, being the closest we
can get to God’s original expression. The only reason one has to keep
the newer ones is if they know their personal theology would be called
into question if they gave them any leeway.
Moreover, we can establish an inconsistency in Alex’s doctrine right
away, being that he recognizes the ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’ as an invaluable
resource, yet cannot appreciate oldest Greek manuscripts available.
“Now, you say that the English versions of the Bible are not
pertinent. You need to say why they’re not pertinent. I say, of course
they’re pertinent, and that’s why we’re having this debate! Your
understanding and my understanding of the English is different.”
Thank you for providing me the opportunity! The English versions of the
Bible are not pertinent, no. Not that they are useless, but that, when
we are seeking to capture the original thought that God presents, we
shouldn’t be looking at the KJV, or the NIV, or the CSB, or even the CLV. We
should be studying the oldest Greek texts by which these English
versions are inspired. If you’re going to sit here and tell me that God gives
“eternal life” because you read it in John 3:16 one day, I will kindly advise
you to study the original Greek, where the thought is more accurately
portrayed as eonian life (a topic we are sure to reach later in
this very series of articles.) Study the Greek, not man’s interpretation
of the Greek. Pay attention to God, not man’s feelings about God.
The “pertinence” in view, then, is not of the English language itself,
but in the preference of English interpretations over the facts of
the Greek language. English is a beautiful, but messy, language, which
is why God entrusted His text to the Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic
languages – not English.
Finally: I believe, Alex, that our understanding of English is rather
same-y. I’m living in the same generation that you are. I’m not here to
argue your knowledge of prepositional phrases, or challenge you as to whether
“running” is a verb or an adverb, a process or an action, or present or future.
Where we differ is in our understanding of the Greek language. I
am here to help with what I’ve been gifted on the Greek language,
which is why I’m writing this at all. We will consider these discrepancies as
we proceed.
Alex does not proceed to immediately elaborate on any particular
point he’s made thus far. Instead he hops from piece to piece, losing focus,
and returning at later points (which can be proven to anyone who wishes I send
them a copy of his rebuttal.) This breakneck pace severely hinders each
point he makes.
I would like to remain on topic, so let’s skip ahead to a later
point in this rebuttal (we will return to this portion later,) where Alex
returns to his claim that the KJV supersedes the oldest Greek manuscripts (on
which the CLV is founded.)
“Ultimately, we need to use exegesis to understand the original
meaning that the authors had in their head when they wrote. What did Paul,
Peter, Matthew, Mark, Luke, (etc.) want to actually say to their 1st
century Jew/Gentile audiences? You see, that’s the weakness of a translation
like the Concordant. It does not capture the message or intent adequately
enough because it is too literal.”
Unfortunately, there is no
proof that we must include our interpretations of Scripture in order
to understand the original meaning of the text. In fact, there are a plethora
of verses that state the opposite, being that we should not be
considering our own reasoning with the Scriptures, but
appreciating what they say. Here’s a handful of examples, for kicks and
giggles. Starting with Matt. 15:19–
For out of the heart are coming wicked reasonings, murders,
adulteries, prostitutions, thefts, false testimonies, calumnies. These are
those which are contaminating a man…
Romans 1:21-22 –
…knowing God, not as God do [irreverent and unjust men] glorify
or thank Him, but vain were they made in their reasonings, and darkened
is their unintelligent heart. Alleging themselves to be wise, they are made
stupid…
1 Cor. 3:20–
The Lord knows the reasonings of the wise, that they are vain.
1 Cor. 4:6–
…in [Paul and Apollos] you may be learning not to be
disposed above what is written…
Ph. 2:14–
All be doing without murmurings and reasonings, that
you may become blameless, and artless, children of God, flawless…
From these examples (of
which there are many more, especially in relation to the Pharisees,) one
cannot and should not be making the claim that we “need extraneous
material in order to understand Scripture.” Alex took issue with these
citations, of course, claiming that, in context, these don’t apply to him. I
would reply that they indeed do – especially Romans 1:18-23, where we
read of disrespectful men blindly ignoring God with vain reasoning,
leading them to worship a false god, as opposed to the legitimate, loving One.
Paul completed the
word of God (Col. 1:26.) God does not need human help in order to
get His point across; He’s doing just fine on His own, thank you very much
(Acts 17:24-25.) If He wants to reveal Scriptural secrets to someone, He
will, and He doesn’t need the latest and greatest commentary, “Concordant”
or otherwise, to do it. And, no, telling me that this is a non-sequitur because
“Paul helped God complete His Word” is nonsense. God employed Paul; Paul did
not earn or show God what to say. Anyone who claims that we must
read a commentary in order to understand God is either misunderstood
or lying to you.
Extraneous material is fun,
but only flavor text. It is not fact. If Alex is telling me that
we do need extraneous material, and yet God tells me that He is not
attended by human hands, as if requiring anything, then who should I
be trusting? The Creator, or the created?
Let’s skip ahead a little farther. Alex brings up some
very common arguments in favor of the KJV, and I’d like to stand them up
here, at the beginning of my reply, in the hope that every reader
is no longer ignorant to the facts. Alex was criticizing my disdain for the KJV’s
poor translation of James 3:6–
“You stated something here, ‘Ah! Now this is clearer. What was
once a bunch of gobbledygook of Old English and inconsistent translating has
been made clearer with a harmonious, concordant translation of each
Greek word.’
I will ask this plainly… do you have any idea what English the KJV was
written in? Surely, you do not. It is not ‘old English,’ nor is it ‘middle
English.’ It is actually early modern English. Makes sense, because when you
read the KJV, you can understand most of the words there because we have
them in our own modern-day vocabulary. What, a few ‘thee, thou, art, ye’ scare
you?”
Thank you, Alex, I
actually did know this, in part because of the first couple of chapters
of the book ‘God’s Eonian Purpose’ by Adlai Loudy, who breaks down a brief
history of the KJV’s development in its time period. I was enacting a form of
satirical argumentative writing called ‘sarcasm.’
I do not ‘dislike’ the
KJV solely for its early modern English roots; I went into great detail throughout
my original study as to why I’m not a fan of the KJV (i.e. it’s not some
blind, unfounded rage at a book.) Almost all of my criticism stems from the
lack of methodical translating, adhering to a pattern of sound words,
and no distinguishing between the manuscripts that are being translated.
Its cultural impact is clear! It has had a great impact on many. Its spiritual
impact, however, has also been clear, having negatively impacted
The Many’s perception of God – Alex included.
“Most of the English idioms we use today stems from the KJV, as
stated by Dr. Daniel Wallace, a textual critic. Although he hates the
underlying texts of the KJV, he also praises the KJV as one of the best English
translations out there.”
Good for Daniel Wallace.
In the meantime, “Wisdom are we speaking among the mature, yet a wisdom not
of this eon, neither of the chief men of this eon, who are being
discarded.” 1 Cor. 2:6.
“Furthermore, you should read up on the team that was translating the
KJV. They were Cambridge and Oxford graduates who knew several languages. It is
a mighty bold statement to say that they mistranslated it, especially
when you think about how they cross referenced with many other older bibles.
They have the majority texts and the early church fathers backing them
up as well. And, finally, they lived closer to the time of the New
Testament Documents than the people who wrote your Concordant, meaning they had
a little more understanding of the Greek and Hebrew!”
I guess I’m a mighty
bold person, then.
Let’s briefly cover why
he thinks we should listen to the human beings and not think for
ourselves concerning the Greek. We have already considered the danger in
using majority texts, as most of them do not agree, and must be smushed
together into one big text (called the ‘Byzantine text’) in order to look
cohesive (when it’s anything but.) This was the KJV group’s first
mistake. It does not matter how intelligent someone is, here, Alex,
and God is very clear on this. He says He “knows the reasonings of the
wise, that they are in vain.” 1 Cor. 3:20. Irrespective of how
knowledgeable the KJV folk really are, the fact is that they were not
using the proper manuscripts, and they were not using any sort of
method that would purge their own bias from the text. They were mixing
translation with interpretation, and you can gather this very clearly
from their own introduction, where they say:
“It was, of course, the
task of our predecessors to be called upon to remove errors and to correct the
translations of the Bible. In this work, we have strived to avoid the errors of
the previous translations. This task is not without its difficulties.
The manner of translating is subject to various interpretations. The
translation of the Bible into the vernacular language is an undertaking that
demands not only accuracy, but also an understanding of the context and
nuances of both the original text and the target language.”
This quote shows that
they clearly do not have a method of translation, but decided to interpret
the verses as to what made the most sense to them. There was no
science of textual criticism that we have with modern resources.
What’s more is that they did not have access to the three oldest
manuscripts, versions, and quotations that we do have today. Codex Sinaiticus,
the most complete ancient manuscript, was not discovered until 1844,
over 200 years after the KJV’s completion! Codex Vaticanus, the
oldest ancient manuscript, was in Rome’s Vatican library, and it
was completely inaccessible to scholars until 1868! And Codex Alexandrinus, the third-oldest
manuscript from the 5th century, was presented to Charles I in 1628,
seventeen years too late to be included in the formation of the King James.
So, the three most accurate transcripts that we have today were not
given to these men for their translation! This is not an insult to their intelligence,
but a simple reality check. They were temporally incapable of
translating the oldest manuscripts available today.
Of course, Alex dismisses
this claim because “They had access to the early church father’s quotes,” and
“these quotes are far older than your codices.” Unfortunately, the “early
church fathers” are not the scriptures, and as such we have no reason
to listen or consider their personal views when translating one text to
another. If I write a book, and someone else writes his opinion on that book,
it does not mean that said opinion should suddenly be considered in
anyone’s translation of my book. They are not the final-say-so on any
text, and if this is anyone’s best argument for the validity of the
KJV, then it’s no wonder that Paul says, in 2 Tim. 3:1-2,3-5–
…In the last days perilous periods will be present, for men will be
selfish, fond of money, ostentatious, proud… averse to the good, traitors,
rash, conceited, fond of their own gratification rather than fond of God;
having a form of devoutness, yet denying its power.
This completely negates
Alex’s claims that I’m just blindly ‘dismissing’ anything the KJV did. It’s not
that the KJV isn’t a translation, but that it is a mixture of translation
and conjecture. It also negates the claim that, because the CLV was
completed in the previous century, that this means that it can’t be as
accurate. The CLV does have the science of textual criticism readily
available for us today, and it uses the three oldest Greek manuscripts
to effect its goals (Alex would know this if he had studied the CLV’s
translation method.)
Alex has since rebutted
that the Greek words used for both the CLV and the KJV are the same, so textual
criticism doesn’t really matter, here. He explicitly says, “Explain to me how
having the same underlying Greek/Hebrew word in the same place in two different
Bible translations is going to be affected by textual criticism.” The explanation
is… well, it’s the obvious: they have been impacted by textual
criticism, as we now have a concordant translation. There has been much
debate as to how these words should be translated. The only difference
is that the CLV has a method, whereas the KJV does not, and
instead had an extra rulebook from King James himself.
Moreover, you do not need
a scholar to learn the language for yourself. Consider the elements on
your own, Alex; don’t act as though we desperately need some input
from some scholar in order to grasp a point. Cut out the middle man and
go study the Greek! “Endeavor to present yourself to God qualified, an
unashamed worker, correctly cutting the word of truth!”
Alex loathed the
previous paragraph I wrote, saying,
“Stop putting words in my mouth. This is just horrible debating on
your part. But if you are going to quote verses, so will I:
Prov. 1:5 – The wise one may also hear and add
to his education, And the one of understanding may acquire skills—
Prov. 1:7 – The fear of Yahweh is the
beginning of knowledge; wisdom and admonition the foolish ones despise.
Prov. 11:14 – When there are no strategies a
people shall fall, Yet in many counselors there is safety.
Prov. 12:15 – The way of a fool seems upright in
his own eyes, Yet a wise man hearkens to counsel.
Prov. 15:22 – Designs are quashed when there is
no deliberation, Yet with many counselors they shall stand firm.
Prov. 15:32 – He who renounces admonition
rejects his own soul, Yet he who hearkens to reproof acquires heart wisdom.
That is from the Concordant by the way. There is nothing wrong with
seeking counsel from other people, Stephen. You seem to not be reading those
verses. Now, if someone who is very well experienced in scripture and biblical
languages is able to help me, then why not?”
And this is a sweet
sentiment, I guess, but it’s not what we’re talking about, here, Alex. I have
to ask others very regularly for assistance in apprehending many a
passage. To this day, there are numerous passages I struggle to fully apprehend.
1 Cor. 11:20-27, Rom. 3:30, and 2 Cor. 13, to name a few. If you have taken a
look at my careful study on Romans, you will find that, when I reached Rom.
3:30, I made sure to be honest with my audience, and admit what I did
not apprehend. I followed this up by both disagreeing with someone I usually
listen to, and citing someone who has spent a wealth of time with
the three oldest Greek manuscripts in reference.
Who you
learn from is undeniably critical. If you ask a 4-year-old spoiled rich
kid how to change a tire, you’re undoubtedly asking the wrong person.
Similarly, if you ask a Pharisee what God said, you’re undoubtedly asking
the wrong person. This is not “ignorance to reproach,” nor does asking for
help imply in any way that you are “unqualified.” It is when you attempt superannuate
the text (to use a gaming term,) in prioritizing the opinions of man over
the text itself, that discredits one’s teaching. A man’s reputation does not
dictate whether or not they are actually correct about a scriptural
topic.
Brief example: if I said,
“I believe that God is the Savior of all mankind, because A.E. Knoch said it in
the 1930s!” The irrefutable objection would be, “Stephen, you can’t root
your belief in A.E. Knoch’s random statement! Believe the Bible!” And,
similarly, if I said, “I believe that God is the Savior of all mankind, because
it’s written in 1 Tim. 4:10, and Knoch said it as well in the 30s!” Then
anyone who is anyone would have any right to say, “Okay, uh… I
don’t care that this guy I don’t know said it in the 30s.” It’s a trap either
way, which many employ to stick to their feelings on any matter. So,
let’s break the trend. Let’s not shift the goalposts, and just stick
to the written text, while maintaining a pattern of sound words!
The best part is that
none of this would even need to be highlighted if Alex and others like
Alex would consider the evidence at hand. Alex told me to go
“learn how the KJV translated the text.” This was an empty charge, as I have
not only done so, but the only active, elongated argument that
Alex will give, throughout this entire study, is only on this topic. And
all it boils down to is, “Well, the KJV guys said it was true, and I like them
more than I like your guys.”
Alex has, again, since replied
to my statement here, saying,
“You attack the KJV’s legitimacy. I provide evidence for why it is
legitimate. To be quite honest, I don’t quite care about using the KJV for our
debate. I can use any other modern translation which uses your Codices. You’ve
truly shown me that you have no idea what I am arguing about. Nor do you have
the slightest idea why I am arguing what I do.”
This is extremely telling,
as it reveals that Alex really doesn’t care about this point, and is only
going into it because he wants to prove an eternal torment chamber –
not because he wants to get to the bottom of the truth! This is extremely
negligent, for, if it were true (I don’t believe it’s true,
because Alex has given me a manifesto of notes since I sent him my first draft
of these replies, but even if it were true,) it would mean that he is completely
wasting both my time and his in replying to this at all. If
you don’t care, Alex, then stop mentioning it. It does nothing but drag this
out further.
Moreover, I don’t know
what this guy’s arguing about, to be honest. He claims that he’s “being clear,”
but we will not receive a hint of the position Alex is taking until much
later in his replies. An argument should establish the position at the beginning,
so that the opponent isn’t blindsided by random, new information at a later
point in the argument. It makes the body of work feel more cohesive, and less
of a blind “disagreement” with someone online for no real reason.
* * *
This is all hypocritical,
as it appears that, from his argument, all Alex “researched” concerning the
concordant was a brief look at their website, and nothing more. If Alex had
studied his opponent for more than 20 minutes, he would have learned all
of the information I’ve provided in this article (which is very easily find-able,
with a basic Google search,) saving him from asking these questions, and
enabling him to effect his energy on the rest of his arguments.
This is the truth, ladies
and gentlemen: the articles here are, in truth, not just ‘designed to disprove
hell.’ Alex’s reasoning will do a pretty good job of that on its own. The secret
agenda to this article is, in truth, to show exactly the reason
why the Concordant group felt the need to properly translate the Greek
language with a method that could effectively remove man’s reasoning into
modern-day English.
To do this, this study
will show the heart of man’s reasoning; when man is faced with the evidence
in the original Greek, they dismiss it in favor of the pre-supposed
doctrine which would severely limit the good news of the evangel. They assume
it is true first, and then find the verse to prove it. In reality,
the verse should be shaping the view, not the assumption.
Man tells other man,
“Study the King James method of translation” without studying his opponent.
This man’s “refutation” will be a primary example of confirmation bias on
the doctrine of eternal torment. A confirmation bias on a
doctrine that proclaims the perpetual, burning flesh of an ever-expanding,
infinite (eternal) number of human beings that are being thrown
into it.
Such a doctrine, fellow
men, requires the burden of proof on those who proclaim it. You
are required to bring evidence to such a radical thought, or no
one needs to consider your radical thought. This is, as such, the last series
of articles I am going to be talking about eternal torment, unless someone
can bring me a verse that directly teaches it. I don’t want your opinion on
“metaphor,” or feigned “allusions.” I want a verse that directly teaches
that God will eternally burn people for any reason, whatsoever.
(to be continued)
- GerudoKing
Comments
Post a Comment