Last night I watched a LIVE debate between Nick Sayers, a King James Version proponent, and C.J. Cox who, as best as I can tell, is mostly a King James advocate but has reservations. You can find the debate here.
A large portion of the debate centered around an assertion made by Cox that there are minor errors in the Authorized Version which, in his mind, eliminates the KJV as the only legitimate English Version in his view. That said, Sayers handily dealt with each instance of minor error raised by Cox and the objections amounted largely to nothing.
The thing that struck me though was the fact that Cox’s objections are old and stale, and with one simple Google search anyone looking for a reasonable answer as to why the KJV rendering is a good rendering could easily find such a reason. This is not to pick on Cox. Such is the standard practice of the opposition. Still, I do see the point.
Because we hold such a strict stance on the verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture and preservation of the substantia doctrinae [i.e., meaning] in the receptor language i.e., English, we hold a kind of deductive position. If our opponents can show even one place in the KJV where the substanita doctrinae is not upheld, then the KJV is not inspired in substantia doctrinae as we claim it is.
But again, if our opponents wanted a reasonable answer all they would have to do is do a Google search and with a slight bit of effort would come upon said answer. Why they don’t Google their own gotcha questions makes the question, at a minimum, insincere, mercenary, and even contrived.
As a result, StandardSacredText.com has partnered with Will Kinney of Brand Plucked to make answers to these gotcha questions more accessible to both sides of the discussion. In the days to come we will be making some of his work available to our readership for two reasons:
1.) To show that gotcha questions like, “Why did the KJV translators translate pasca as Easter?” or “Why did the KJV translators translate the text ‘robbers of churches’ instead of “robbers of temples” in Acts 19:37?” have already been answered.
2.) To show that those answers are easily accessible.
Finally, let me say a word on what accounts as a reasonable answer. A reasonable answer is one that evinces sufficient explanatory force and scope. The more explanatory force and scope the more reasonable the answer. So when you read an answer you must ask, does it account for all or most of the relevant material [i.e., explanatory scope] and does it do so in a consistent and cohesive way [i.e., explanatory force].
Considering our opponents more often than not begin with different epistemological presuppositions than we here at StandardSacredText.com do, no doubt our opponents will demur with us on the points of force and scope, but if they take our presuppositions into account I think they will find our answers to possess considerable explanatory force and scope, and robustly so.
The question now is, whose epistemological presuppositions are most consistent with Scriptural exegesis and historic orthodox theology?
3 thoughts on “Gotcha Questions in the Age of Google”
I also watched the debate last night. Mr. Cox was a very polite and likable guy, but you’re correct that he didn’t bring any arguments to the table that haven’t been decisively rebutted many years ago, answers to which are readily available on the internet at places like kjvtoday.net or Will Kinney’s site. It is disappointing. Further, the other side believes they can win this debate by exposing a single flaw in the KJV, whereas there side refuses to argue for, or even concede there is, an alternative standard text of Scripture we should use. I love the way Taylor DeSoto characterizes there position, “we don’t have a perfect Bible, and you can’t have one either”. Their purpose is seemingly not to stake out a position on God’s Word they are willing to defend, but merely inject confusion into the conversation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Excellent observations. kjvtoday.net is an excellent resource. Thanks for the comment.