Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2018 March 31

= March 31 =

Questions about the King James Only movement
1. What is the reaction of the movement to scholarly consensus that the sources used for the King James Version were inaccurate compared into other sources? The article mentions some reactions but they don't go into too much detail.

2. What are the thoughts of the KJV-only movement to scholarly consensus that certain verses included in the KJV (such as the Comma Johanneum, the Jesus and the adulterous woman story, the doxology in The Lord's Prayer, and the longer ending of Mark 16, among others) were likely not to have been in the original texts?

3. Why does the movement continue to exist when the Textus Receptus is believed by scholars to not be the best source for Biblical translations?

Before anyone asks, I've read the article on the KJV-only movement, but it doesn't really go into much detail on the questions I've asked. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * That article was longer and more informative in the past (for example ). Anyway, the "inspired KJV" groups adjust things to fit their basic premise that the KJV is divinely inspired... AnonMoos (talk) 04:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I've spoken with a range of people who prefer the NKJV for textual reasons (it uses the same manuscript tradition as the KJV), so they're relevant here. Basically, I've been told "the Alexandrian text-type is based on manuscripts that were discarded by the authors, because they made transcription mistakes", but I've never heard any explanation of how that can be determined, and also there's been a preference for the Byzantine text-type because it represents a majority of witnesses and because it has such a long history of use.  As far as the Comma, I've been told "it appears in a 14th-century Greek manuscript, so Erasmus didn't add it", but no explanation of why one rather late manuscript (or maybe a few; it's been a while since I was told this) can trump the vast majority of witnesses in this specific case even while you're arguing for majority rule in most situations.  This kind of thing tends to come up via rabbit trails from other discussions, so I don't tend to push the discussion too far because it arises when I'm not prepared.  And finally, it makes sense for the KJV Only movement to continue among people who reject the established consensus on #1 and #2, while if you hold that the KJV is new inspiration from God, the scholarly consensus on the ancient texts shouldn't particularly matter, since the KJV is inspired and they're talking about one that isn't inspired.  Nyttend (talk) 03:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * In any case, I have the strong impression that most of the ordinary "inspired KJV" believers don't know or care about Greek, since they aren't motivated in their beliefs by anything having to do with Greek texts. Debates between KJVO Protestant fundamentalists and non-KJVO Protestant fundamentalists are more likely to be along the lines of the non-KJVOs taunting the KJVOs that King James was a homosexual, while the KJVOs celebrate the fact that King James was strongly against smoking... [[Image:SFriendly.gif|20px]] -- AnonMoos (talk) 05:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * You're asking why believers in a particular religious doctrine aren't swayed by evidence contradicting it? The thing about religious beliefs is they're frequently not subject to examination by those holding them. After all, as Martin Luther tells us, "reason is the greatest enemy that faith has". KJV-only isn't even that crazy, in my opinion, compared to some other, more widely-held beliefs. You know most of the events in the Tanakh, like The Exodus, didn't happen, right? Now go ask some random Westerners if they did, and I bet most will say "yes". And then there are things like prosperity gospel, young Earth creationism, or evolution denial. --47.146.60.177 (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * 47.146.60.177 -- I'm not sure why you're juxtaposing an event from semi-mythical times before the Israelites kept written historical records with the results of rigorous philological researches based on the documentary evidence of manuscripts written over 1,200 years later. These are not at all comparable things, and I really don't know what would be gained by pretending that they are.  Anyway, it didn't take place as written in the Book of Exodus, but on the other hand, it's probable that refugees from Egypt were among the components which coalesced into the Israelites in the West Bank hill-chain area in the period before 1000 B.C... AnonMoos (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Because both the belief in the literalness of the Tanakh/Old Testament narrative and the belief that the King James Version of the Bible (well, there are technically multiple KJV editions) is divinely ordained are fundamentalist beliefs contradicted by evidence. You seem to be doing some conflating yourself; to a biblical literalist, "the Old and New Testament are literal historical records of events, including the Exodus, that happened exactly as stated in the text", and "there may be some scraps of fact behind these myths, but they aren't a literal narrative" are definitely not the same thing. --47.146.60.177 (talk) 05:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Christian Responses to Friedrich Nietzsche?
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen

I am currently studying Friedrich Nietzsche (I am studying Ancient History, that is the reason I became interested into Nietzsche, because Nietzsche did somewhat of an Antiquity reception back in his day), and was wondering, who did the most famous Christian response to Friedrich Nietzsche`s works was. Let me phrase my question this way: who did the most effective Christian apologetics against Nietzsche? Who was his biggest religious concurrent? I once heard that some consider C. K. Chesterton`s answer to Nietzsche in "Orthodoxy" as one of the best apologetics of the day (Chesterton apparently started writing while Nietzsche was still alive), but I really do not know much about Christian apologetics and theology in general.

Thank you for your answers

With kind regards--2A02:1205:502E:4030:212B:BBDD:6B91:C909 (talk) 10:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Personally, I also know little about Christian apologetics and theology, but there was a discussion of this question over at Reddit a couple of years ago, many Christian rebutters of Nietzsche being suggested. You might find that an interesting read unless you were the OP there as well, in which case possibly not. --Antiquary (talk) 17:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)