Stumbling into the Scarecrow’s Position

An extended sequence from the Message Board postings described in my essay The Face of the “King-James-Anti” Movement

Introduction by T.L. Hubeart Jr.: In the postings given below, originally written in May 2000, I have not changed any wording, but I have rigorously deleted or obscured individuals’ names, screen names, and URLs to protect the privacy of all involved. Where there was a question as to the propriety of doing so, I have erred on the side of caution, although two of the participants and the web site owner whose site link I deleted are authors of books and could arguably be considered figures involved publicly in this topic (and so able to be named). The point of these postings, however, was not to bring positive or negative attention to the individual participants, but to illustrate my “King-James-Anti Movement” essay for those interested. (I have left a reference to James R. White in one posting as this is a publicly-known author who was not a participant in the discussion, and because the reference helps to identify his named book.)

For clarity, I have identified my own postings with the name “Tom” in brackets (replacing the screen name I used in that forum) and placed the headings in red to allow them to be more easily located. Those who wish to jump directly to my contributions can make use of these hyperlinks and capsule summaries:

My first post: Correcting a participant—here designated as M*****–who had attempted to attribute to the Scarecrow some positions on a site to which the Scarecrow had contributed.
My second post: Defending M***** from allegations made by the Scarecrow that the former had attributed the remarks in bad faith.
My third post: Further rebuttal of Scarecrow’s attacks on M***** and of the former’s nebulous “positions” which no one could pin down.
My fourth post: On early English translators and a question for Scarecrow (which was by the way never answered).
My fifth post: Defending another participant—here designated as Dr. H—from more bad faith claims by Scarecrow, and further exposure of Scarecrow’s non-position “position.”
My sixth post: Responding to another—here designated as 9**Rob—regarding the ongoing discussion.
My seventh post: Further rebuttals of Scarecrow’s accusations against Dr. H, exposure of a faulty source used by Scarecrow, and observation that his “position” is in tatters.
My eighth post: Seconding Dr. H’s statement that some answers were needed from Scarecrow (which answers, of course, were never provided).

The formatting (or lack thereof) in the Scarecrow’s postings is unchanged from the copy in my archives.

Enjoy the debate!!—TLH.

(Picture credit: Cropped version of this public domain image of scarecrows from Wikipedia.)

From: M*********

To: ALL

161.1

Is this [Scarecrow’s]'s position? I found this at:

[LINK DELETED TO PROTECT WEBSITE OWNER’S PRIVACY.]

"I believe the Majority Text (MT) most represents the originals. It is similar to, but not identical with, the Textus Receptus (TR) that the KJV and NKJV are based on. The MT is much more similar to the TR than the Critical Text (CT) that most other new versions utilize. For more on these different versions, and the reasons for my accepting the MT, see the articles listed under "Greek Text Types" on my Bible Versions Controversy page." [Scarecrow](???)

"NT manuscript tradition is rather unassailable, as I demonstrate in articles on my site [see Have precious Truths Been Lost from the Bible? and Introduction to Textual Criticism]." [Scarecrow] (???)

"There is really no relationship to the manuscript tradition and the inspiration of the originals." [Scarecrow] (???)

"Fourth, my position is and always has been that Christian theology should be based on the Hebrew and Greek texts, not on any English translation. Hence why Bible colleges and seminaries all include classes on Hebrew and Greek. Those who teach the Bible should most definitely, IMO, be trained in these Biblical languages. They should have some knowledge of Greek at the very least." [Scarecrow] (???)

"But given that, I also give detailed defenses on my site as to why I believe the NKJV, and yes the KJV, are very reliable translations of the Hebrew and Greek." [Scarecrow] (???)

As there is no "signature" on this page it is hard to tell "who" the author is. It "seems" (to quote [Scarecrow]) to me that the author is none other [the Scarecrow]!

May [Scarecrow] step forward and confirm or deny this.

In Jesus' Name,

************

From: [SCARECROW] May-21 11:17 pm

To: M********* (2 of 12)

161.2 in reply to 161.1

The [NAME DELETED] web site is not mine. If

you had checked this web site more carefully, you

would have found the name of the man that made this

web site. It was made by G*** Z******. G*** Z******

describes his ministry as "a teaching ministry focusing

on issues of theology, apologetics, the cults, and

related subjects." G*** Z******also wrote a book entitled [NAME DELETED].

G*** Z****** has posted some articles that I wrote at

his web site, but I think that those articles are

clearly identified as written by me.

An examination of the [NAME DELETED] web site

would clearly show that G*** Z****** is the one that

posted his own comments in an email correspondence

with someone. I know of no indication at this web

site that pointed to me as the author so I don't know

how you jumped to this wrong conclusion. Why aren't

you more careful in your research instead of expecting

me to confirm or deny your faulty assumption? Are

you suggesting that you are entitled to accuse

another believer even incorrectly or falsely and that it

then becomes their responsibility to confirm or deny your accusation?

Are you joining those KJV-only advocates that

attempt to make every believer that dares disagree

with the unproven and inconsistent assumptions of

KJV-onlyism the target for their hasty accusations

and thus distract attention away from KJV-onlyism's many

inconsistencies, inaccuracies, and even false claims?

Is this an example of the fallacy where the messenger

or poster is attacked in order to avoid dealing with

the documented evidence that shows that many KJV-only

claims are inaccurate or false?

In Christ, [SCARECROW]

From: [TOM] May-22 12:53 am

To: M******** (3 of 12)

161.3 in reply to 161.1

In a message dated 21-May-2000 4:29pm M****** writes:

As there is no "signature" on this page it is hard to tell "who" the author is.

I appreciate these efforts of yours, M******. However, Mr. [Scarecrow] is quite right in saying that these words are not his. I recently had a correspondent who pointed me to the web site you referenced, calling it “[Scarecrow]’s web site,” so you were by no means the only one confused. But if you check out the following URL on this site--

[LINK DELETED]

--as I did after my correspondent’s e-mail, you will find that Mr. [Scarecrow] is listed as one of many “additional authors on this site.” The “director” of this site, as Mr. [Scarecrow] notes, is a man named G*** Z******; the above URL notes that Mr. Z***** is “author [of] all items on this site unless otherwise indicated.” I personally find Mr. Z*****’s writing style somewhat different than Mr. [Scarecrow]’s, but I don’t see why Mr. [Scarecrow] takes such seeming offense at the attribution. ;)

In Christ,

[TOM]

From: M******* May-22 12:57 am

To: [SCARECROW] (4 of 12)

161.4 in reply to 161.2

[LINK DELETED]

Go to the url I posted above and you will see:

"BY [SCARECROW]"

The only NAME on that PAGE! I went to that page directly from another link.

[Scarecrow], I can't "make" you do anything. No one can "make" you state CLEARLY and DIRECTLY your position.

In Jesus' Name,

M*******

Edited 5/22/00 4:35:56 PM ET by M*******

From: [TOM] May-22 1:01 am

To: [SCARECROW] (5 of 12)

161.5 in reply to 161.2

In a message dated 21-May-2000 11:17pm [SCARECROW] writes:

An examination of the [NAME DELETED] web site would clearly show that G*** Z****** is the one that posted his own comments in an email correspondence with someone. I know of no indication at this web site that pointed to me as the author so I don't know how you jumped to this wrong conclusion.

Very true; if you look for the information, you will find Mr. Z***** is the proprietor of this site. Then again, as I noted in my previous post, I recently had someone else write me who made a similar mistake. Without venturing to say that anything is wrong with the current layout of this web site, I submit that it would perhaps help readers if Mr. Z***** would put a notification regarding his authorship of site materials otherwise unattributed on the main page.

Why aren't you more careful in your research instead of expecting me to confirm or deny your faulty assumption? Are you suggesting that you are entitled to accuse another believer even incorrectly or falsely and that it then becomes their responsibility to confirm or deny your accusation?

With all due respect, Mr. [Scarecrow], isn’t this a little extreme? I certainly do not share Mr. Z*****’s opinions, but his writing is not at all unaccomplished. And the attribution of his comments to you may be mistaken, but it certainly doesn’t strike me as derogatory in any way. Maybe gratitude to M****** for trying to help define your position would be too much to expect, but wouldn’t a more appropriate response be something along the lines of “No, I did not write these words, but I fully endorse Bro. G***’s views on this matter”? Or “No, Bro. G*** is a good man and a fine Christian, but I have a different view of such-and-such than he does”? Instead, you assail poor Bro. [M****] for even asking the question, implying that his research is careless, that he falsely accuses people, and that he is irresponsible regarding his accusations! (I wonder if you really meant to imply such things about someone else, given your own sensitivity when you feel others “impugn [your] motives and question [your] credibility and character” [109.33].)

Are you joining those KJV-only advocates that attempt to make every believer that dares disagree with the unproven and inconsistent assumptions of KJV-onlyism the target for their hasty accusations and thus distract attention away from KJV-onlyism's many inconsistencies, inaccuracies, and even false claims?

No, he seemingly is “joining those KJV-only [sic] advocates”--and others whom you cannot so stigmatize--who have been trying to find out your position. He even went to the trouble of finding you one which is by no means inarticulately presented, and which might reasonably be guessed to be close to your own given that your writings appear on its author’s web site. And yet you unleash these torrents of abuse on the poor guy, as though he had tried to associate you with atheism or Socinianism or Mormonism! If I were Mr. Z*****, I think I might be insulted at the lengths you are going to distance yourself from what he said.

Is this an example of the fallacy where the messenger or poster is attacked in order to avoid dealing with the documented evidence that shows that many KJV-only claims are inaccurate or false?

Oh, excuse me, I was thinking this was the “ad hominem (poisoning the well) fallacy” again. You know, I have a hard time keeping up with all these “fallacies” you lay at people’s doorsteps. (And you never did explain what “ad hominem” and “poisoning the well” had in common.) Maybe as a public service you could begin a thread dedicated to defining them, so readers of this forum can keep track? ;)

In Christ,
[TOM]

From: [SCARECROW] May-22 2:03 am

To: M****** (6 of 12)

161.6 in reply to 161.4

The point was that my name was not on the page
that you earlier had posted a link to. Since
I have emailed you before and since you know that
my email address is posted at the other Bible
Translation Discussion Board that you have posted at,
you could and should have emailed me privately
to ask whether or not the statements were mine
before you posted a mistaken assumption.
That would have been much better than to add my
name to statements that you did not know that I
had made, and than for you to demand that I
either confirm or deny them. In addition,
your title of this thread seemed to be mocking
my beliefs concerning Bible translation in violation
of this forum's rules. My views are stated many
times in various posts at this forum so that you
did not have to "stumble" across them. You also know
my views from my posts at the other forum where
I responded to several of your own posts. I
have stated my position several times.

My position is that the preserved Scriptures in
the original languages should be the standard for
making and evaluating all translations. How is that
supposedly not a clear and direct position? Early
translators and believers in the 1500's and 1600's
made statements in agreement with that position.
My view of Bible translation is the same view as
that held by the early English translators. That is
clearly taking a specific and direct position regardless
of whether or not you agree with the view of Bible
translation held by the early English translators.
As I have also noted before, my view is also that a Scriptural view of Bible translation would be true both before and after 1611. I have also noted that the illuminating and guiding of the Holy Spirit in the early [pre1611] English translations is the same as the illuminating and guiding of the Holy Spirit in the KJV. There are many positive statements stating or indicating my view of Bible translation in many posts at this forum so long as you don't ignore them and seek to make me the object of your attack instead of discussing the actual evidence that relates to this issue of Bible translation. I have also positively contended that the truth is consistent; therefore, I oppose inconsistent claims and double standards. In my opinion, the KJV-only view is not stated clearly enough since I do not consider assumptions or claims that are not applied
consistently to be clear. KJV-only advocates have
not provided any clear and consistent evidence that shows that the Scriptures in the original languages and even in
translations teach and demand a KJV-only view. Have
KJV-only advocates provided clear and consistent evidence that shows that the KJV has a clearer, better, and more accurate rendering of every verse when compared to the Scriptures in the original languages and thus showing
that the KJV is a perfect translation as they have implied? Expressing opposition to inconsistent, inaccurate, misleading, and even false KJV-only claims is also one way to be clear in showing my acceptance of the truth.

Does the KJV-only view take the easy way out in
dealing with this complex issue of Bible translation
by implying or assuming that the interpretations of
one group of translators in English must be perfect
and in effect greater in authority than the preserved
words of the prophets and apostles in the original
languages and thus implying that the interpretations of
all other English translators including William Tyndale,
Miles Coverdale, Geneva Bible translators, Baptists
in 1842, and Bible-believing translators today are
always somehow and someway inferior to all those of this
one exclusive group of Church of England interpreters
even though they accepted and believed some wrong
doctrines?

From: [DR. H] May-22 1:56 pm

To: [SCARECROW] (7 of 12)

161.7 in reply to 161.6

[Scarecrow]:

You write: >>My position is that the preserved Scriptures in the original languages should be the standard for making and evaluating all translations.<<

This says nothing. What are the “preserved Scriptures in the original languages”? If they are the standard for making and evaluating ALL translations, we must know what these preserved Scriptures are. How can we tell, when there are textual variants, which Scriptures in the original languages are the preserved one?

>>My view of Bible translation is the same view as that held by the early English translators.<<

No, it is not.

First, the early English translators presented their textucopia (limited as it was) so that we might understand how or where they derived their textual reading.

Second, I know of no early English translator that spent any time disparaging other early English translations. For example, the KJV translators did not spend any time writing against or speaking out against any other early English versions. Nor, do I know of any early English Bible translator that followed the KJV that spent a great deal of energy finding faults with the KJV (or other early English versions). However, everything I read from you seeks to find fault with the Authorized Version in one form or another.

From: [TOM] May-22 2:34 pm

To: [SCARECROW] (8 of 12)

161.8 in reply to 161.6

In a message dated 22-May-2000 2:03am [SCARECROW] writes:

So he asked the question in a public forum. So what? He also "add[ed] your name to statements" with several question marks following, denoting the speculative nature of his attribution. Again, so what? Do you feel defamed in some way by being linked to Mr. Z*****'s position? I cannot see why. If M****** has gone out of his way to find some stumbling, inarticulate rebuttal of so-called "KJV-Onlyism" and attributed it to you, I could understand your taking offense. But as far as I can tell, Mr. Z*****'s writing does not fit this description at all. From this circumstance, one deduces either that 1) you wish to distance yourself from Mr. Z*****'s statements (which, if I were Mr. Z*****, I might not take very kindly, especially given the fact that he has supported your efforts by posting many of your essays on his site); or 2) you wish to associate yourself with no clear position at all on this forum, for reasons only known to yourself but which others are free to guess at.

In addition, your title of this thread seemed to be mocking my beliefs concerning Bible translation in violation of this forum's rules.

Here we go with the "seems" business again. I can't speak for M******, but I know what I would do if I felt someone had clearly violated "this forum's rules" and attacked me: I'd e-mail the moderator to get his (or her) opinion and let said moderator handle it. Given your similar (and groundless) accusations against me on the "Just What Was Bro. [Scarecrow]'s Position?" thread, I have to consider this accusation, too, as mere bluster and no substance.

My views are stated many times in various posts at this forum so that you did not have to "stumble" across them. You also know my views from my posts at the other forum where I responded to several of your own posts. I have stated my position several times.

That's not what numerous participants on this board, on both sides of the issue, believe and have stated on the "Bro. [Scarecrow]'s Position" thread.

No, there's nothing "specific," "direct," or "clear" about it. Saying you have "the same view as that held by the early English translators" yet again clarifies nothing, any more than it did the last fifteen times you said it. Saying that "the preserved Scriptures in the original languages should be the standard for making and evaluating all translations" means nothing as no one disagrees with that statement. (In fact, you even remarked on the fact that Dr. H***** chose not to "disagree with the various statements made by the early English translators and those who defended and explained their view" in your Fifth Rebuttal.) Expressing statements with which no one disagrees is, both in politics and in this forum, directly opposite to being "specific" and "clear."

I have also positively contended that the truth is consistent; therefore, I oppose inconsistent claims and double standards.

What an impressive "position"! And for the record, I, too, would like to state that my "position" is pro-motherhood, pro-apple pie, and pro-Sunday picnic. I support sunshine and lemonade; I oppose tooth decay and potholes. I am all for baby birds and cute little fuzzy animals; I oppose vultures, barracudas, and vipers. I am for everything that's consistent, likeable, and generally nice, and against anything inconsistent, mean, or sneaky. If you vote for me in November . . . Excuse me, I was getting carried away there! :)

Seriously, though, Mr. [Scarecrow], do you really believe that this qualifies as a "position"? You "oppose inconsistent claims and double standards"? So does everyone else on the planet. Everyone feels that their own beliefs are consistent and that those who oppose them have inconsistent beliefs. Everyone feels that their way of thinking is logical. Even seriously deranged criminals often can be shown to have a logic to their actions, although it will inevitably be based on a seriously skewed 'reality.' So when you claim to be for truth and consistency, you again say nothing to define your position. The approach should be, not blanket statements claiming that you are 'pro-truth and pro-consistency,' but 'let me show you why my approach is truthful and consistent.'

Expressing opposition to inconsistent, inaccurate, misleading, and even false KJV-only claims is also one way to be clear in showing my acceptance of the truth.

That may be, but again, anyone can take potshots at any subject on earth. Thus when you subsequently ask if the KJV side "take[s] the easy way out in dealing with this complex issue," I can only smile at the irony. Exactly why is it not "the easy way out" for you to refuse to take anything but a vague, nebulous, undefined "position" with regard to this issue?

And why is it that when someone like Dr. H***** speaks in specifics, you arbitrarily choose to deny that his position is clear, simply because it doesn't conform to your standards? You write, "In my opinion, the KJV-only view is not stated clearly enough since I do not consider assumptions or claims that are not applied consistently to be clear"--a nice bit of illogic since consistency and clarity are by no means synonymous (e.g., it's easy to imagine hearing a Mormon detailing his beliefs in a way that one would understand because they are "clear" but which we would not consider "consistent" at all). In so writing, you may have done a spectacular job of convincing yourself that you have stated a position, and that Dr. H****** has not because it's not up to your standards, but I doubt very much that anyone on either side will share your view.

From: [TOM] May-22 2:44 pm

To: [DR. H] (9 of 12)

161.9 in reply to 161.7

In a message dated 22-May-2000 1:56pm, [DR. H] wrote:

Indeed. In fact, did not the "Translators to the Reader" in the KJV specifically decline to do so? Did they not say something to the effect of that their predecessors were used by God and that their memory ought to be blessed? In fact the only time of which I am aware when an early English translator spoke out against another version is when William Tyndale warned the readers of his 1535 NT not to be fooled by George Joye's adulterated edition of Tyndale's own work, as it replaced "resurrection" in a way that taught heresy.

This leads to another question for Mr. [Scarecrow]: which of the numerous 'KJV errors' he has so copiously posted on this and other forums demonstrates the heresy of the KJV translators? After all, if his position is the same as "the early English translators," surely his criticisms of the KJV should have the same kind of justification that someone like Tyndale had for criticizing George Joye. Right?

From: [SCARECROW] 2:31 am

To: [DR. H] (10 of 12)

161.10 in reply to 161.7

Bro. H******,

How kind and considerate of you to make a
false caricature of my view and then to attack
your straw man misrepresentation of my view.
Is your attempt to attack me an effort to cover over
the many many inconsistencies and false claims of
KJV-onlyism that you seem to ignore or tolerate?

You know that disagreeing with the man-made
assumptions of KJV-onlyism is not the same thing
as the "disparaging" of many good English translations
that KJV-only advocates continually engage in.
Do you allow your fellow KJV-only advocates to
disparage the NKJV, the MKJV, and other good translations
at the KJV-only forum that you host or moderate?
The early English translators including the KJV
translators disagreed with and refuted the inconsistent
and inaccurate claims of the one-perfect-translation-only view of their day [the Latin Vulgate-only view] just as other
Bible-believers today disagree with and refute the
inconsistent claims of a view that uses these warmed-over
claims made by the Roman Catholics.

It is only by defending the greater authority of
the preserved Scriptures in the original languages
that the proper secondary and derived authority of
good translations such as Tyndale's, the Geneva Bible,
the KJV, Webster's Bible, the NKJV, the MKJV, the
Spanish Valera, Luther's German Bible, etc. can be
established.

It is KJV-onlyism that is harmful with its many
inconsistencies, misleading arguments that are
often fallacies, unproven accusations, inaccurate
caricatures of other believers that dare disagree
with their man-made theory, and false claims.
KJV-onlyism was not taught in the preserved Scriptures
in the original languages and is not taught in
translations of them. There is no need to legislate
a KJV-only command that God has not spoken. It is
harmful to promote as divine or scriptural a view that
is only human in origin. A Scriptural view of Bible
translation would be true both before and after 1611.

From: [TOM] May-23 11:28 am

To: [SCARECROW] (11 of 19)

161.11 in reply to 161.10

In a message dated 23-May-2000 2:31am [SCARECROW] writes:

How kind and considerate of you to make a false caricature of my view and then to attack your straw man misrepresentation of my view. Is your attempt to attack me an effort to cover over the many many inconsistencies and false claims of KJV-onlyism that you seem to ignore or tolerate?

If it is a "false caricature," then you should be able to show that it is such instead of expecting us to take your ipse dixit on the matter. What exactly in Dr. H******'s statement--

--constituted a "misrepresentation"? Is it not true that the general thrust of what you write has been "to find fault with the Authorized Version"? If I go to other threads on this forum, or to the numerous web sites where your friends have posted your writings, what will I find on any other subject than either allegations of KJV errors or attacks on those connected with the KJV?

Given the fact that you have taken pains not to establish your own position--and in fact have clearly run away from the position detailed by Mr. G*** Z***** on his web site, which carries your articles (and given that you personally attacked M**** for asking you if you wrote the comments about this matter on Mr. Z*****'s site)--why on earth would people not conclude that the main thrust of what you apparently conceive to be your ministry is "to find fault with the Authorized Version"? And as I've said on another thread, why on earth can you not understand that people who do not know anything about this controversy--such as weak Christians and non-Christians--probably get the message from your posts that 'the KJV is the longest-standing, most widely-respected Bible out there--and yet Mr. [Scarecrow] says there are all sorts of errors in it, and writes articles about so many of them, and he seems like a smart man,[[see 2005 note at end of post]] so it must be true that any Bible I can get hold of will have errors, and therefore there is no point in my even bothering trying to understand the Bible'? You allege that "It is KJV-onlyism that is harmful," but isn't this arguably just as "harmful"?

Isn't it also "harmful" for you to write articles about KJV "errors" that could destroy a believer's faith in the KJV? A believer who knows nothing about any of the issues at hand, but only trusts the KJV Bible he or she has, must inevitably be distressed on reading the many, many errors you "seemingly" find in the KJV. Do you think it's more positive for him and her to believe the KJV as it stands--even though you think the Geneva was better here, or you don't like "candle" instead of "lamp" there--, or to conclude from your articles that the KJV is untrustworthy in every respect? For that is assuredly the conclusion that one must draw from your numerous writings: that the KJV is dubious at a great many points, its translators suspect, those who compiled its Greek texts "unsound." Wouldn't you consider it "harmful" if through your writings someone who knows and cares nothing about Riplinger, Ruckman, or Erasmus lost faith in the KJV that is the "Bible" to him or her?

You might reflect on what you consider a "false caricature" and consider whether perhaps it doesn't have more truth to it than not. While your image of yourself might be "valiant fighter against 'KJV-Onlyism,'" and while you may consider what you say mighty blows in your titanic struggle against such a "movement," what others derive from your writings could be very different--especially if Riplinger, Ruckman, and Erasmus mean nothing to them, but the KJV in their hands does.

[Note added 7/13/2005: As the reader will surmise, my reference to an imaginary person thinking the Scarecrow is a “smart man” is a clear example of tongue-in-cheek writing!!—Tom.]

From: [DR. H] May-23 11:28 am

To: [SCARECROW] (12 of 19)

161.12 in reply to 161.10

Brother [Scarecrow]:

You write: >>How kind and considerate of you to make a false caricature of my view and then to attack your straw man misrepresentation of my view.<<

In all due respect, my friend, sarcasm is not your forte. I was direct and blunt, but I was never unkind or unconsiderate. I neither presented a straw man argument, nor did I misrepresent your position. Instead, I again asked you a direct question to which you have repeatedly failed to supply a direct answer.

>>Is your attempt to attack me an effort to cover over the many many inconsistencies and false claims of KJV-onlyism that you seem to ignore or tolerate?<<

I have not attacked you, unless you consider a direct question or observation an attack. You have not responded to my questions. You know it. I know it. Other KJV supporters know it. Supporters of modern versions know it. And, even those who agree with you know it (as can be seen in other postings). Your position has NOT been clearly defined. You do not state where these “preserved Scriptures in the original languages” are, nor do you inform us how we are to understand the correct reading when there are textual differences. You attempt to disarm the KJV supporter by finding what you consider to be errors in the KJV, which is something I find void in the position of early English translators. Therefore, you mostly (from all that I have read) attack the KJV in one or more reading, attack the KJVO movement for one or more reason, and yet do not clearly define your own position and how you derive at that position.

I am, therefore, repeating my post here. Please answer the questions and not avoid them with non-augments. [[See 2005 note at end of post.]] Thank you.

Here is the original posting:

[Scarecrow]:
You write: >>My position is that the preserved Scriptures in the original languages should be the standard for making and evaluating all translations.<<

>>My view of Bible translation is the same view as that held by the early English translators.<<

No, it is not.

First, the early English translators presented their textucopia (limited as it was) so that we might understand how or where they derived their textual reading.

[[Note added 7/13/2005: The word “non-augments” is no doubt a typo and the term “non-arguments”appears to have been intended.—Tom.]].

From: 9**Rob May-23 12:20 pm

To: [DR. H.] (13 of 19)

161.13 in reply to 161.12

My Brothers (since this reply is to [Tom] as well) -- You are critical of [Scarecrow] for seeming so critical of the KJV and I understand where you're coming from. But the nature of the debate as you have framed it requires at least some of it. You claim that the KJV has special status above other translations while [Scarecrow] claims that although it is a good translation, there are other good translations. After candidly admitting that I'm no expert here, your views seem new with respect to translations to the extent that you are claiming something more than that the KJV is simply the best translation available in English. By claiming special status for the KJV you are inviting the (entirely logical) response of finding fault with the translation (or finding preferable renderings) to disprove your claim. This approach is (at least somewhat) unfortunate for the reasons you mention and why I asked the questions I did about the "real issue" on another thread. However, I never got a response from someone holding what seems to me to be a typical KJVO view (M****** kindly responded at length, but his view seems unique to me).

From: [SCARECROW] May-23 2:04 pm

To: [DR. H] (14 of 19)

161.14 in reply to 161.12

Bro. H******,

You yourself was the one was started a thread
entitled "Mistranslation?" and that stated
"it is proper to argue a better translation might be"
(post #33.1). You asked for such examples and now
you attack me for presenting examples where another
English translation may be better or more accurate
than the KJV when compared to the preserved Scriptures
in the original languages.

I think that you know that you are misrepresenting
my view. I consider the earlier English Bibles
including the KJV to be good translations of God's Word
while you inaccurately imply that I am a Bible "disparager,"
"Bible corrector," or "Bible critic." You seem to be
willing to join those many other KJV-only advocates that paint
an inaccurate picture of believers that question
KJV-onlyism as "dangerous disseminators of doubt."

The KJV translators were not disparaging the Bible or even translations of it when they disagreed with the claims of the Latin Vulgate only view. Even though the KJV translators admitted or argued that the Latin Vulgate was not perfect and
that it had errors, they still had high regards for it
as a translation and considered it to be the Word of God.
Would leading KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes take a
text for his sermons from the Latin Vulgate if he did not
consider it to be the Word of God? KJV translator John
Bois wrote a book "in which the renderings of the Vulgate
are in the main defended" (DICTIONARY OF NATIONAL BIOGRAPHY,
p. 775).

In their preface, the KJV translators stated:
"There is no reason therefore why the translated Word
should be denied to be the Word, or forbidden to be
in common use, notwithstanding that some imperfections
and blemishes may be noted in setting it forth."

Are you claiming that the KJV translators were
disparaging translations of God's Word when they
admitted that translations have "imperfections
and blemishes?"

If anything makes the KJV looks bad, it is attempting
to apply the claims of KJV-only advocates themselves
consistently. KJV-only advocates harm the KJV more
by their use of inconsistencies, double standards,
inaccurate accusations, fallacies, and false claims
then the attempts of other true believers to show the
serious problems with man-made KJV-onlyism. Do
KJV-only advocates have the attitude that "anything goes"
so long as it is supposedly intended to defend
KJV-onlyism? If you would present consistent and
Scriptural evidence that proves that all believers
are actually commanded to use only the KJV in English,
you wouldn't need to misrepresent and attack your fellow believers that do not consider your assumptions,
opinions, and speculations to be infallible and perfect.
The evidence for KJV-onlyism must be very weak
for you to seem to make your fellow believers the target
when they dare to examine the evidence for themselves.

From: [DR. H] May-23 2:46 pm

To: [SCARECROW] (15 of 19)

161.15 in reply to 161.14

Brother [Scarecrow]:

Once again, my friend, you failed to respond to my questions and you have not clearly defined your own position.

Instead, you write:

>> You yourself was the one was started a thread entitled "Mistranslation?" and that stated "it is proper to argue a better translation might be" (post #33.1). You asked for such examples and now you attack me for presenting examples where another English translation may be better or more accurate than the KJV when compared to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.<<

How have I attacked you? I differ with you and have repeatedly asked for you to respond to the questions that I have raised regarding your position . . . but I have not attacked you.

>>I think that you know that you are misrepresenting my view. I consider the earlier English Bibles including the KJV to be good translations of God's Word while you inaccurately imply that I am a Bible "disparager," "Bible corrector," or "Bible critic." You seem to be willing to join those many other KJV-only advocates that paint an inaccurate picture of believers that question KJV-onlyism as "dangerous disseminators of doubt."<<

How have I misrepresented you? It is clear to anyone who reads what you write that the version you seek to find error in is the KJV. You do so in an attempt to disprove the KJVO movement. I do not see early English translators doing the same thing. If you from time to time said "a better rendering might be" that would be one thing. But the vast majority of everything I have seen from you (in our debate, in this forum, in our e-mail exchanges, and in other forums) seeks to disprove the KJVO position by finding error in the KJV. YET YOU HAVE NOT CLEARLY DEFINED YOUR OWN POSITION. Instead, you make general claims such as "I believe the preserved Scriptures in the original languages is the basis for all translations." This really says nothing other than what almost anyone making a translation would say (including KJV advocates such as myself). Or else, "my position is that of the early English translators" and yet do not clearly define their position when there are textual differences. Nor have you demonstrated where any of them have spent as much time finding fault with other early English versions as you have with the KJV.

My friend, I do not care if you seek to find fault with this or that reading in the KJV. Nor do I care if you use versions other than the KJV (early English or modern). That is between you and the Lord. What I find fault with is that you do not clearly present your own position. You claim to believe in Biblical preservation, but do not tell us where these preserved words ARE. You generally state that they are in the traditional Hebrew and Greek texts, but offer NO presentation as to how we can determine the correct reading when there are textual differences in these texts.

In all honesty, my friend, you seem more interested in disproving the KJVO position than presenting your own position. Therefore, you give the appearance of one who is concerned about presenting their position for fear that it will not withstand careful examination. Individuals may not agree with my views regarding the KJV and/or Biblical preservation. But there should be no question as to what I really believe and why I believe as I do. Nor am I fearful in presenting them for others to examine. And yet, there have been several strings in this forum seeking to have you define your position and why you hold to it.

To this day I do not know where you think the preserved words of God are/were when there are textual differences. I do not know how you derive at a certain reading when there are textual differences. I do not know what English translation you think is the best translation. I do not know what you think of modern versions, or the Alexandrian text-type. You claim to support the traditional Hebrew and Greek texts, yet I have not read anything from you that defends that position and/or opposes the critical texts. However, I do know that you oppose KJVO advocates. I know that you think there is a Catholic-Church of England link involving the KJV translators. I know that you have questioned the lives and testimonies of some of the KJV translators. And, I know that you think there are several errors in the KJV. Therefore, you give the appearance of one who is more interested in attacking a position than defining one.

[Scarecrow], all I'm asking you to do is define your position clearly. To tell us where you believe the preserved words are and why. To tell us how you handle textual differences. Additionally, I would be interested in your position regarding modern versions and their underlining text-type. If pointing out that you have failed to do this over the past few months here (and years elsewhere) is some sort of attack, than I am guilty. But I do not think anyone with a fair and open mind thinks that getting someone to define their position is an attack.

From: [DR. H] May-23 3:50 pm

To: [SCARECROW] (16 of 19)

161.16 in reply to 161.14

Brother [Scarecrow]:

Over the past few months I have repeatedly asked you most of the questions listed below. As of this date I have not read a response to these questions. Allow me to make it easy. I will post the questions in test form (a total of seven questions) and you can select the answer that best fits your position. You will not need to expound on them unless you choose "Other." You may also select two or more answers, but would like for you to explain if you do.

1. Since you believe in Biblical preservation, where are these preserved words?
A. I do not believe in Biblical preservation.
B. In the vast host of all existing manuscripts regardless of text-type.
C. In the vast host of all existing manuscripts but mostly in the Alexandrian text-type.
D. In the vast host of all existing manuscripts but mostly in the Byzantine/Traditional text-type.
E. Other (please explain).

2. When there are textual differences how do you determine which reading is correct?
A. We cannot be certain which reading is correct, we can only make an educated guess.
B. By applying the standard rules of modern textual criticism such as oldest is most likely the correct reading, or shortest reading is most likely the correct reading.
C. The reading in the majority of existing manuscripts is most likely to be the correct reading.
D. The reading that best fits the text (i.e., internal evidence) is most likely to be the correct reading.
E. The reading in the Traditional Text is most likely to be the correct reading.
F. Other (please explain).

3. If you chose E to question 2 how do you explain textual differences within the Traditional Text (e.g., John 8:36 or 2 Peter 1:1)?
A. There are no differences in the Traditional Text.
B. The oldest reading is the correct reading.
C. The reading in most of the existing manuscripts is the correct reading.
D. By implementing one or more of the methods found in question 2.
E. Other (please explain).

4. Since you believe in Biblical preservation, what do you do when the text/manuscripts is missing something from the text (such as in 2 Sam. 21:19)?
A. Recognize that some portion has been lost in the process of transmission.
B. Claim that nothing is missing and that it must be somewhere in some unknown Hebrew or Greek manuscript.
C. Recognize that Biblical preservation is not limited to the original languages and that some readings may be preserved in other languages.
D. Other (please explain).

5. Which NT Greek text best reflects your position?
A. The Critical Text (UBS-4th or NA-27).
B. The Majority Text.
C. The Textus Receptus.
D. Other (please explain).

6. If you chose C for your answer, which edition best reflects your position?
A. Erasmus
B. Stephanus
C. Beza
D. Elzevirs
E. Other (please explain).

7. Of the following English translations easily found in the market place, which do you consider best?
A. RSV
B. NASB
C. NIV
D. KJV
E. NKJV
F. Other (please list).

Thank you.

From: [TOM] 10:08 am

To: 9**Rob (17 of 19)

161.17 in reply to 161.13

In a message dated 23-May-2000 12:20pm 9**ROB writes:

With respect, 9**ROB, I'm not sure exactly where you are coming from with regard to "the debate" requiring "at least some of it." Some of what? What you describe as Mr. [Scarecrow]'s position is something I recognize in the statements of several on this board, such as "Max G*****.." I do not presently recognize it in the statements of Mr. [Scarecrow]. Perhaps if Mr. [Scarecrow] channeled his energies into, say, advocating the superior virtues of the Geneva Bible by giving examples of its excellent translations--rather than directing them toward second-guessing the KJV--, his stance would come across as "there are other good translations [than the KJV]," rather than (to borrow, tongue-in-cheek, from the words he accuses others of applying to him) as a "dangerous disseminator of doubt."

By claiming special status for the KJV you are inviting the (entirely logical) response of finding fault with the translation (or finding preferable renderings) to disprove your claim.

But you see, my friend, that is an extremely problematic area to be engaged in, both for reasons obvious (e.g., the danger of inadvertently correcting something that is really "God's Word" rather than just fixing a translation) and not so obvious (e.g., the need to have a wide breadth and depth of knowledge, and often to research many different avenues--particularly the predecessor translations to the KJV--in order to understand fully why the KJV men chose the rendering they did in a given area). Even celebrated men, such as James R. White (The King James Only Controversy), have stumbled badly from straining to count things as KJV "errors" which a wider view of the evidence--including the earlier translations--would have demonstrated are no such things. For what it's worth, I give Mr. [Scarecrow] considerable credit for knowing that the early English translations are important and that they are worth investigating. Although I respectfully dissent from the use to which he puts these materials, it is noteworthy that he has hit upon their relevance in a way that even men as eminent as Dr. White apparently have not.

This approach is (at least somewhat) unfortunate for the reasons you mention and why I asked the questions I did about the "real issue" on another thread. However, I never got a response from someone holding what seems to me to be a typical KJVO view (M***** kindly responded at length, but his view seems unique to me).

What was the thread on which this exchange appeared?

From: [TOM] 10:13 am

To: [SCARECROW] (18 of 19)

161.18 in reply to 161.14

In a message dated 23-May-2000 2:04pm [Scarecrow] writes:

I think that you know that you are misrepresenting my view. I consider the earlier English Bibles including the KJV to be good translations of God's Word while you inaccurately imply that I am a Bible "disparager," "Bible corrector," or "Bible critic." You seem to be willing to join those many other KJV-only advocates that paint an inaccurate picture of believers that question KJV-onlyism as "dangerous disseminators of doubt."

Why the quote-marks? I do not recall reading any posts at any time by Dr. H***** calling you "a Bible 'disparager,' 'Bible corrector,' or 'Bible critic,'" or a "dangerous disseminator of doubt." If these posts exist, produce them or provide references to them. If they do not, then in all candor you are embarrassing yourself by in one breath accusing Dr. H***** of "misrepresenting [your] view," and in the next blatantly misrepresenting him by manufacturing quotations he did not write. (Nor do your fudge words "imply" and [again] "seem" mitigate this by much, given your use of quotation marks in such a context.)

Given your description of a 17th century "Latin Vulgate only view" opposed by early English translators, may I ask why, if you really wish to claim "the same view as that held by the early English translators," you do not write essays pointing out the deficiencies in the Vulgate? That, after all, would be more true to the views of these translators than endeavoring to cast doubt on an English translation such as the KJV, given that they declined to attack other English versions (cf. KJV's "Translators to the Reader") unless said versions taught heresy (cf. Tyndale warning people against George Joye's adulterated NT in 1535). There seemingly is a lack of continuity between the early English translators and yourself in this regard.

In their preface, the KJV translators stated: "There is no reason therefore why the translated Word should be denied to be the Word, or forbidden to be in common use, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in setting it forth."

Wrong-o. Bzzzzt! The KJV preface actually reads (in the Thomas Nelson reprint of the KJV first edition):

. . . No cause therefore why the word translated should bee denied to be the word, or forbidden to be currant, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting foorth of it. . . .

The version you quote is a modernization--which has, incidentally, quite a few blunders--from the KJV/NKJV Parallel Reference Bible (Nashville: Nelson, 1991), p. xiv. The fact that this version is an altered one is clear by a comparison with the original text, and also because p. vi of the KJV/NKJV Parallel remarks that the version of "Translators to the Reader" in that volume has been "updated to modern English." This is the first opportunity I have had to remark upon it, but I must say that I have been more than a little astonished to see you quoting this text repeatedly (for instance, in your Fifth Rebuttal) from the KJV/NKJV Parallel's inauthentic version, apparently without realizing that you were not quoting the actual words of the KJV translators. Someone who assails M***** for not being "more careful in [his] research" regarding quotes from G*** Z*****'s site (161.2), and then makes a blunder like this, does not inspire the reader's confidence in other areas.

Excuse me, is this the "poisoning the well" fallacy, the "ad hominem" fallacy, or the "fallacy where the messenger or poster is attacked"? You seem such a great expert on fallacies that I hope you will explain this for us. ;)

. . . and false claims then the attempts of other true believers to show the serious problems with man-made KJV-onlyism. Do KJV-only advocates have the attitude that "anything goes" so long as it is supposedly intended to defend KJV-onlyism?

That would certainly seem to be your own attitude, considering the number of threads you have opened accusing the KJV of errors, only to abandon the thread--and start new ones--when someone shows that your specific example doesn't hold water (most recently, H****** exposing the invalidity of your arguments with regard to "sincere" vs. "pure"). If trying to throw as much mud at the KJV in the hope that something will stick isn't an example of an "anything goes" attitude, what is? Isn't it a clear example of such an "anything goes" attitude to be so completely unconcerned at the probability that many who read your posts and only know one Bible, the KJV, may come to distrust it (and therefore any Bible) as a result of your incessant fault-finding?

If you would present consistent and Scriptural evidence that proves that all believers are actually commanded to use only the KJV in English, you wouldn't need to misrepresent and attack your fellow believers that do not consider your assumptions, opinions, and speculations to be infallible and perfect.

If you would present a position of your own that is not mere quote-copying from dead Puritans; if you would resist the urge to flee from even the suggestion that you might have a substantive position (for instance, when you personally attacked M***** for asking if you wrote G*** Z****'s position statements); most of all, if you would keep from deviating into utter illogic and Romans 2:1-worthy double standards yourself (e.g., complaining the KJV side takes "the easy way out" while you take the easy road of having no position; attacking others like M***** personally while complaining falsely that others are doing this to you; complaining about M******'s research while your own is wanting), you would not have to pretend to be misrepresented and attacked as a last resort to keep from having to face reality.

The unfortunate reality is that your current 'position' on this forum is a shambles.

From: [TOM] 10:19am

To: [DR. H] (19 of 19)

161.19 in reply to 161.15

In a message dated 23-May-2000 2:46 pm, [DR. H.] writes:

>>In all honesty, my friend, you seem more interested in disproving the KJVO position than presenting your own position. Therefore, you give the appearance of one who is concerned about presenting their position for fear that it will not withstand careful examination.<<

I couldn't agree more with this statement. It is to be hoped that the multiple choice format you've provided in a subsequent post, Dr. H*****, will offer an opportunity for much-needed clarification in this regard. The questions at hand simply cannot be more cogently put, or more easily answered, than in your multiple choice form.

And an answer of some kind is, I submit, sorely needed at this time.

Return to The Face of the “King-James-Anti” Movement