Proof by tautology

A tautology is a statement that says the same thing twice (often as a result of poor word choice), or which logically is formulated in such a way that it is necessarily true. Examples of the first type of tautology include legal phrases such as cease and desist or last will and testament. Examples of the latter type might include If you gotta go, you gotta go, or Either it's going to rain, or it isn't.

Despite their complexity, tautologies don't convey any useful information.¹ They do have the benefit of being true no matter what, however. So, on either count, it's not surprising to see KJV-onlyists using them.

On the CARM forums, KJV-onlyist "marke" posted this litany of tautologies:

You can keep whatever standard you are using to grade bibles, I find the KJV is perfect according to the standard I go by, which is the KJV. . . .

I find the KJV is perfect, however, when compared to the standard of perfection, the KJV. . . .

But, like I said, I find the KJV perfect according to the standard, which is the KJV. . . .

Well, there you go. When you compare the KJV to itself, amazingly there are no differences between them! Wow! It's magic!

Problem is, it really proves nothing, because it proves too much. Why should this proof be limited to the KJV? Set any other Bible translation up as the "standard," and compare it to itself. Not surprisingly, it turns out to be perfect!

In fact, by the very same logic, I can declare any arbitrary book to be the "standard": let's say It, by Stephen King. When I compare It with It, I find to my great astonishment that they agree perfectly in every detail! Astounding! By marke's reasoning, this must be evidence of divine inspiration. There is no God but Pennywise the Clown, and Stephen King is Its prophet!

It surprises me, incidentally, that to date I haven't blogged the most common of all KJV-only fallacies: petitio principii, better known as "begging the question" or "circular reasoning." You certainly can't get any more circular than marke's outright declaration that when he assumes the perfection of the KJV from the outset, he inevitably discovers it to be perfect.

Footnote

¹ Tautologies may, however, be used figuratively conveying non-propositional truth. For example, If you gotta go, you gotta go simply expresses resignation to the inevitability of a bathroom break. And the infamous quadruple tautology in Unam Sanctum, the papal bull of Pope Boniface III—"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff"—is there for emphasis.

Proof by Theft

It's well known that aberrant religious groups (for example, Mormonism and various "New Age" movements) like to take Christian terminology and redefine it for their own use. For example, Ron Rhodes argues that for the Theosophy school of New Age thought, "the Christ" is actually a "Supreme World Teacher" who "enters the body of a disciple in order to assist and guide the spiritual evolution of man." Thus the "the Christ" entered into the man Jesus his baptism. Jesus was but the fifth inacarnation of "the Christ," the first four being Buddha, Hermes, Zoroaster, and Orpheus.¹ (New Age religion is nothing, if not syncretistic!)

Obviously, this concept of "the Christ" is a far cry from the Jewish doctrine of Yahweh's anointed one, the Messiah ("Christ" is simply the Greek synonym for "Messiah"), or the Christian doctrine of Jesus Christ as Yahweh himself clothed in human flesh from his conception. New Ageism is full of "stolen" Christian jargon, repurposed to present Eastern pantheism to a Western audience.

This raises a question: Once the New Agers have "stolen" a word or phrase from Christians, are the Christians allowed to have it back? The unspoken assumption of this "goofy proof" is no: Christian terminology co-opted by New Agers is now off-limits. This is, of course, absurd. Nonetheless, it is used as a serious argument by more than one KJV-onlyist.

This forum of argumentation is used frequently by Gail Riplinger who, in the original edition of New Age Bible Versions, wrote: "Liberty University's Dean Norman Geisler adds: 'We should be particularly wary when someone refers to Jesus Christ as "the Christ . . ."'"² She then excoriates several modern versions for using the title "the Christ" of Jesus. Of course, as is typical with Riplinger, she is guilty of quote mining: what Geisler actually wrote was, "We should be particularly wary when someone refers to Jesus Christ as 'the Christ spirit' or 'Christ-consciousness.'"³ Riplinger has done more than merely identify Christian language co-opted by the modern pagans: she has manufactured it (so as to make modern Bible translations look worse).

Following in Gail Riplinger's dishonest footsteps is author Lisa Ruby. Her biggest claim to fame so far is God's Wrath on Left Behind, a critique of LaHaye and Jenkins so appallingly inane that she spends most of the time scolding the novels' fictional characters for what she feels is inappropriate speech or behaviour. Her "discernment ministry" (basically herself) branches out somewhat into other territory, including the Bible version debate.

She writes: "The ecumenical, one world church serves another Jesus and another spirit that is preparing them to serve the World Teacher (the One). It is no coincidence moern versions refer to their Jesus as 'the One' and 'the Coming One'" (Source, emphasis in original). As evidence, she quotes one of those ever-reliable, tertiary source, KJV-only Web sites:

The New Age Movement and the occult are longing for one called the Maitreya . . . In the [sic] "The Great Invocation," a "prayer" highly reverenced among New Agers and chanted to "invoke" the Maitreya, says, [sic] "Let Light and Love and Power and Death, Fulfil the purpose of the Coming One." (Source)

This is in reference to the wording of the NKJV at Luke 17:19-20, which reads:

And John, calling two of his disciples to him, sent them to Jesus, saying, "Are You the Coming One, or do we look for another?" When the men had come to Him, they said, "John the Baptist has sent us to You, saying, 'Are You the Coming One, or do we look for another?'"

The King James Version originally used the phrase, "he that should come" - which is a perfectly adequate rendering of the Greek word erchomai, which means "a person who is coming." Of course, "the Coming One" is also a perfectly adequate rendering.

Jesus replies by citing Isaiah, showing that his coming is the one fortold by the Scriptures themselves. In context - again, happily ignored by KJV-onlyists - it is obvious that this "Coming One" is the Jewish Messiah himself, not some fruity, revered New Age guru. But forget context. It's not important, right? And never mind the everyday meanings of words; we know better than to believe the Bible was written in ordinary language instead of secret code-words known only to KJV-only and "discernment ministry" Gnostics. The NKJV speaks the magic word "Coming One," and so it is a New Age Bible.

Here is another example to show how over-the-top Ruby's arguments become:

[T]he ESV equates Jesus Christ with Antichrist via another TITLE. They do this by using a title of the New Age Christ - the Righteous One" in reference to Jesus Christ. This is no accident. This is a marking - an occult marking. (Source)

She follows this up immediately with:

What's wrong with the term, the Righteous One?

This title is not in the real Bible. It is, however, in this Interfaith (One World Church) poem that I have pasted below. . . .

Know that all the Great spiritual redeemers

of bygone ages were all by the self same cosmic spirit informed,

from Moses to Osiris, from Hermes to Zoroaster

Jesus and Mohammed, all by the One divine, omniscient spirit led.

Known through the ages as the Righteous One,

the nameless and limitless radiance,

the Christ and the Iman Madi,

His influence and light is all of life's reality.

Through the millenia, in many guises has he walked

teaching and healing in perpetual serenity. (Source)

SYNCRETISM is "the attempt to reconcile contrary beliefs, often while melding practices of various schools of thought." That is the goal of the new Bibles. The new Bibles like to use TITLES of the New Age Christ in reference to Jesus Christ. This is necessary conditioning to bring about a One World Church - a "church" that is inclusive of every one's [sic] idea of "Christ." (Source)

Once again, this is a simple matter of accurate translation. "Righteous One" is a valid translation of the Greek word dikaios, an adjective that describes one who is morally upright and obedient to God's laws. The KJV translates this term as "the Just One" frequently when referring to Jesus; it (like the ESV) adds the pronoun "One," rendering the adjective as a noun, for the sake of good English. "Just" and "righteous" are synonymous, so if the KJV can refer to Jesus as the "Just One," then certainly the ESV may call him the "Righteous One."

Think it through. Was Jesus Christ righteous? Of course - perfectly so. Has anyone else been perfectly righteous? Of course not - of all men, Jesus is the only one ever to have been sinless. Therefore, he is quite accurately called "Righteous One." New Age nuts have not "stolen" titles of the Lord Jesus from Christians, except in the imaginations of the more superstitious kind of KJV-onlyist.

What kind of twisted thinking could turn orthodox Christology on its head and argue that Jesus Christ cannot be called the "Righteous One," because that title is reserved for the Antichrist?

Ruby's superstitious attacks on the Bible take an even worse turn, however, one that would undermine traditional Christian terminology, even that used in the KJV itself:

Cyrus I. Scofield, editor of the Scofield Reference Bible (1909, 1917), associated the Cross of the Lord Jesus Christ with "at-one-ment," which is an occult term straight out of the New Age Movement. . . .

At-one-ment is New Age/occult "salvation":

At-one-ment, or absorption into the One energy that is God, is a prominently held view of most New Agers' understanding of salvation. It is the unfolding of one's consciousness to the point that the "True Self," the divine nature, is realized. As a flower unfolds petal by petal, so too does spiritual evolution unfold, revealing the deeper realms of God-consciousness. . . .

Cyrus Scofield did not provide the correct meaning of the word, "at-one-ment" nor did he warn his reader that this word has a specific occult connotation. Instead, he set the stage for the insertion of the word, "at-one-ment," in place of the proper word, atonement in a doctrinal statement about the Cross of Jesus Christ. . . . C. I. Scofield's switch to New Age terminology linked the work of the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross with the work of the New Age "Christ," who purposes to bring the planet into what New Agers call at-one-ment: "absorption into the One energy that is God."⁴

Oooh, spooky!

Here's the problem, though. Scofield - and, for that matter, the New Agers - get the etymology of the word atonement right. It comes from at-one-ment and has been a part of English since at least the early Middle Ages, well before there was any New Age movement to worry about. As some more mainstream theological helps explain:

The meaning of the word is simply at-one-ment, i.e., the state of being at one or being reconciled, so that atonement is reconciliation. Thus it is used to denote the effect which flows from the death of Christ.⁵

The English word is derived from the phrase "at one," and signifies, etymologically, harmony of relationship or unity of life, etc. It is a rare instance of an [Anglo-Saxon] theological term; and, like all purely English terms employed in theology, takes its meaning, not from its origin, but from theological content of the thinking of the Continental and Latin-speaking Schoolmen who employed such English terms as seemed most nearly to convey to the hearers and readers their ideas. . . .

The basal conception for the Bible doctrine of atonement is the assumption that God and man are ideally one in life and interests, so far as man's true life and interest may be conceived as corresponding with those of God. Hence, it is everywhere assumed that God and man should be in all respects in harmonious relations, "at-one." Such is the ideal picture of Adam and Eve in Eden. Such is the assumption in the parable of the Prodigal Son; man ought to be at home with God, at peace in the Father's house (Luke 15). . . .⁶

The derivation of atonement is indubitably at-one-ment. Understood in its orthodox Christian context, it is synonymous with reconciliation. Christian theologians have always understood the term to mean men are "at-one" with God in the sense that sin had broken the relationship between them, and it was the sacrificial death of Christ on the cross that healed the breach. However, pagans and unbelievers of all kinds have always "stolen" Christian terminology and redefined it for their own purposes. For certain New Age proponents, "at-one" means not a unity of relationship, but a pantheistic oneness of being with the Divine.

If Ruby were merely warning Christians that unbelievers sometimes co-opted Christian jargon for their own use, there would be no argument. Unfortunately she goes way too far in her reaction. She not merely criticizes New Age abuse of Christian terminology, but she essentially claims it has been completely stolen from the Christian vocabulary. In doing so, she undermines traditional theology and Christology. We need zeal for Christ. We don't need Lisa Ruby's brand of zeal.

Footnotes

¹ Ron Rhodes, "The Christ of the New Age Movement," http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/ChristNAM.html (accessed Jul. 29, 2011).

² G. A. Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions, 650. (As always, page numbers for NABV refer to screen numbers of a hypertext version that a Pensacola-based KJV-onlyist made available from his BBS for a time in the early 1990s. Anyone wishing to see a more authoritative edition cited is welcome to donate one.)

³ J. Yutaka Amano and Norman L. Geisler, The Infiltration of the New Age (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1989), 142.

⁴ Lisa Ruby, "Cyrus I. Scofield: 'The Cross . . . Made At-One-Ment," http://www.libertytothecaptives.net/scofield_at-one-ment.html (accessed Jul. 29, 2011).

⁵ M. G. Easton, "Atonement," Illustrated Bible Dictionary, 3rd ed. (Thomas Nelson, 1897), http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/eastons-bible-dictionary/atonement.html (accessed Jul. 29, 2011).

⁶ William Owen Carver, "Atonement," International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr (Eerdmans, 1915), http://www.studylight.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T942 (accessed Jul. 29, 2011).

Proof by "Monkey See, Monkey Do"

This is one of my favourite "goofy proofs" for KJV-onlyism (probably second only to proof by time travel) because you see it fairly often, and it's almost always a source of fine unintentional comedy.

Proof by "monkey see, monkey do" occurs when a KJV-onlyist attempts to turn the tables on his opponent: substituting "KJV" for a key term in the original argument, he throws it back at him, then leans back and waits for him to go completely to pieces at such a clever retort. Unfortunately, rather like a trained monkey, the KJV-onlyist usually didn't understand the nature or purpose of the argument being made, so these would-be show-stoppers usually end up being unintentionally hilarious.

Here's one of my favourite examples of "monkey see, monkey do." Several years ago on the BaptistBoard, a poster named "Swordsman" began a thread titled "Is the KJV of God or man?" He remarked, "I thought that this question should get to the root of the version issue." More recently, on the Bible Versions Discussion Board, another Riplingerite KJV-onlyist named Keith Whitlock pulled this classic out of his hat as well.

It's easy to see where it comes from. The question alludes to the one Jesus posed to the priests in Matt. 21:25, when they challenged his authority:

And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority? And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? (Matt. 21:23-25 KJV)

The priests talk amongst themselves, and realize that Jesus' question has trapped them:

And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him? But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet. And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things. (25-27 KJV)

Jesus had impaled the priests on the horns of a dilemma, and they knew it. Either alternative forced them to admit that John the Baptist carried a lot more authority than they did, and they didn't want to acknowledge it.

"Aha," thinks the KJV monkey-boy. "All I have to do is take out 'the baptism of John' and replace it with 'the King James Bible'! Then I've got those godless Bible correctors over a barrel for sure!" The only problem is: Jesus had the priests trapped because his question exposed an inconsistency in their thinking. But the question doesn't make that dilemma; it only works if there is a dilemma to be exposed.

Non-KJV-onlyists stand to lose nothing here. The KJV came from God: it is a faithful and accurate translation of the God-breathed Scriptures. The KJV also came from men, because translation is a human work, and because the quality of the translation sometimes shows up the limitations and fallibility of human knowledge where the Scriptures are concerned.

You can't just slap a "KJV" into a good argument and automatically expect to get another good argument. You have to understand the context of the original argument, and how it may or may not apply to the current issue. Unfortunately, as we see all too many times, KJV-onlyism and context are rarely on speaking terms.

Proof by Time Travel

A few years ago, I started collecting a form of argument I called "Goofy Proofs": arguments that might "preach well" in the amen corner of a KJV-onlyist church, where you might find it repeated ad nauseam, but so obviously fragile that it falls apart at the slightest touch of critical examination. These are so plain silly, that they don't even rise to the level of logical fallacy.

Every once in a a while, a KJV-onlyist will advance an argument in favour of the KJV that is so obviously anachronistic, it would require time travel technology to work. Clearly the KJV translators, the apostle Paul, or the ancient Jews knew how to build time machines. The KJV-onlyists certainly do, as arguments like these prove, and the cheapskates aren't sharing this wonderful secret with the rest of us.

A common argument amongst KJV-onlyists, especially those in the Peter Ruckman camp, is that there was no such thing as a pre-Christian Septuagint. The Septuagint (or LXX) is the traditional Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures that were in use by Greek-speaking Jews at the time of Christ (and subsequently by Christians). The name comes from the tradition that it was translated by 72 Jewish scholars (rounded to 70) at the request of Ptolemy II, who wanted to include it in the Library of Alexandria. It is generally believed today that there was not one single Greek Old Testament, but multiple translation traditions. Nonetheless, the early Christians made heavy use of the Greek Scriptures: the majority of Old Testament citations in the New Testament are taken from the LXX. It's fairly easy to see why the Ruckmanites would want to discredit it: if even Jesus and the Apostles quoted authoritatively from a flawed translation of the Scriptures and considered it the Word of God, it undermines their most basic assumption, that a corrupt translation cannot be considered the Word of God.

In The Bible Answer Book, Samuel C. Gipp writes:

First, let's define what the LXX is supposed to be. An ancient document called "The Letter of Aristeas" revealed a plan to make an OFFICIAL translation of the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) in Greek. This translation was to be accepted as the official Bible of the Jews and was to replace the Hebrew Bible. Supposedly this translation work would be performed by 72 Jewish scholars (?), six from each of the twelve tribes of Israel. The supposed location of the work was to be Alexandria, Egypt. The alleged date of translation was supposedly around 250 BC, during the 400 years of silence between the close of the Old Testament in 397 BC and the birth of Christ in approximately 4 BC (due to a four year error in the calendar). . . .

This so called "Letter of Aristeas" is the sole evidence for the existence of this mystical document. There are absolutely NO Greek Old Testament manuscripts existent with a date of 250 BC or anywhere near it. Neither is there any record in Jewish history of such a work being contemplated or performed.

When pressed to produce hard evidence of the existence of such a document, scholars quickly point to Origen's Hexapla written around 200 AD, or approximately 450 years later than the LXX was supposedly penned, and more than 100 years after the New Testament was completed. The second column of Origen's Hexapla contains his own (hardly 72 Jewish scholars) Greek translation of the Old Testament including spurious books such as "Bel and the Dragon", "Judith" and "Tobit" and other apocryphal books accepted as authoritative only by the Roman Catholic Church.¹ (emphasis in original)

Basically, what Gipp argues is this: The only evidence for a pre-Christian LXX is a spurious, pseudepigraphal letter describing its origins, and the earliest extant copies of the LXX date from 4-500 years later. Therefore, the Septuagint, instead of being a third-century-BC Greek Jewish translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, is a third-century-AD Greek Christian translation of the Hebrew Old Testament being passed off as a third-century BC Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament.

Ha. Busted!

Or, maybe not. Here's the problem: It is believed that the Letter of Aristeas was written by a Hellenized Jew, to defend the superiority of the LXX over other Greek versions, during the second century BC. But if the LXX didn't exist until the third century AD, then why would anyone write a pre-Christian letter describing its origin? Clearly, pseudo-Aristeas had a time machine, which he used to travel to the future and read Origen's Hexapla.

But Gipp has an answer:

There is little doubt amongst scholars today that it was not written by anyone named Aristeas. In fact, some believe its true author is Philo. This would give it an A.D. date. If this were true, then its REAL intention would be to deceive believers into thinking that Origen's second column is a copy of the LXX. A feat that it has apparently accomplished "in spades".

Philo's real feat is being familiar with Origen's works. He was an Alexandrian Jew who died around AD 50. Origen also lived in Alexandria, but 200 years later. Apparently, it was Philo who had the time machine.

"Dr. Samuel C. Gipp, Th.D" (as he styles himself virtually everywhere) is, not surprisingly, a "graduate" of Peter Ruckman's Pensacola Bible Institute. If this kind of sloppy research is typical of PBI alumni, I wouldn't be as hasty to flaunt his academic "credentials."

Footnote

¹ Samuel C. Gipp, The Answer Book (Miamitown, OH: DayStar, 1989), http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_09.asp (accessed December 8, 2010).