Tuesday, February 26, 2008


squir-me-neu-tics (skwûrm'mə-nōō'tĭks)
n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)

1. the science of misinterpretation, esp. of the Scriptures, to such a degree that it causes listeners with any common sense to squirm.
2. misinterpretation of the Scriptures so absurd that it causes one to question whether or not it could possibly be for real.

Tominthebox, a popular theological humor/satire site, has written a serious post here, which is very sobering. The rather crass video which is linked in their post goes way beyond any satire that can be currently thought of, and yet it is real. It truly is KJV-Onlyism to its logical conclusion, I guess.


Anonymous said...

I'm not too keen on the KJV-only debate only because my church (Bible-Presbyterian) has gone through that phase pretty badly in recent times.

I used to be of that camp, but not anymore. Reasons are many so I won't go into details here.

That said, I think the video is also about how taking some things in the Bible too literally and not reading them in context can be disastrous.


Daniel C said...


actually I am not that keen either. But as my church is very conservative, and uses the KJV (although I don't), I would of neccessity face the issue in one way or another, although my church isn't KJVO, at least not in theory.

And about the video, yes, it was originally used to illustrate the point that ripping a verse out of context can be disastrous. However, it has to do with KJVO also, as you can hear from the argumentation of the "preacher".

vincit omnia veritas said...

dear Sicarii and Daniel,

There is a more important issue to address, and it has nothing to do with translations.

VPP aside - and let's please throw away all our BP associations/biases - how would you answer this question:

Why is the eclectic Greek text updated once every few years (we get a new edition every time don't we)? Doesn't it mean that we don't "really" know what are the actual words which God inspired in the autographs? That said, how can we be so SURE (I'm talking about logical and mathematical certainty) that what we exegete/exposite on the pulpit are the actual, inspired "words" of God?

And do not tell me that the variant punctuation or the "loss" of a word doesn't affect theology. If you know basic Greek at all, a different punctuation mark in John 1:1 would make the difference between Orthodoxy and heterodoxy/heresy.

So what's your take on this, brethren?


Daniel C said...


Eh... does the answer 'by faith' works? After all, God IS sovereign over the workings of Man.

vincit omnia veritas said...

Hey Daniel,

Jeffrey Khoo's famous phrase for his defense of the VPP doctrine:

"By the logic of faith..."

In other words, "by faith," which is his "logic."

Does it work for you? ;)

vincit omnia veritas said...

Hi Daniel,

I posted a reply ... did you receive it?

Daniel C said...


yes, I did receive it, but I wasn't free to check my email on Friday.

And no, I reject Jeffrey Khoo's reasoning, because such a 'faith' is incompatible with the facts of Scripture. God has promised to preserve His Word, but nowhere is it stated that He promises to preserve (or re-inspire) an exact replica of the original autograph such that we will have the exact words as found in the original, nevermind that this "exact replica" is in English not Greek.

vincit omnia veritas said...

Dear Daniel,

1) How should we understand this statement of yours:

"God has promised to preserve His Word."

What is meant by "His Word?" God has promised to "preserve" some of His inspired Words or all of His inspired Words? Or is it just the "message"?

2) You wrote, "...nevermind that this "exact replica" is in English not Greek."

:) Does Jeffrey Khoo believe this i.e. that the "replica" of God's Word "is in English not Greek?" I thought that was Peter Ruckman of Pensacola Bible Institute. ;)

We both would enjoy an exchange of thoughts, and I think this issue should be discussed or thought through sooner or later. It's no taboo to me ...

In His Love,

vincit omnia veritas said...

I am actually more keen to discuss this issue with Sicarii, since he is/was from a BP church and had gone/is going through the controversy.

So Isaiah, which BP church are you attending, or have you left the BP movement?

Daniel C said...


1) I take it to mean organic preservation, as a whole and extending to individual words/tenses etc when such is required.

2) Yes, that is Ruckmanism. But even then, in practice they don't seem that different, don't they? I mean, Jeffrey Khoo has not and I doubt he will ever mention that the KJV should be revised according to the Majority text ie Dean Burgeon. Did he mention such a thing? I must have missed it...

Anyway, the impression that I have gotten from Isaiah is that he is not keen to talk about the issue, but you can always try...

MC said...

oh dear i sometimes pee sitting down :P

Daniel C said...

Marn Chi:

haha :P

vincit omnia veritas said...

Hey Daniel,

We can always discuss this over coffee ;)

Wouldn't press you with more questions ... i.e. "when such is required" etc ...

This matter of textual criticism is an important point of debate if we are to defend the Bible against its enemies e.g. Muslim.