The Holy Scriptures and the Law of Non-Contradiction

Vaticanus (B) - Palimpsest at the ending of the Gospel of Mark

In Dr. James White’s book entitled The King James Only Controversy, he goes about to dismantle the KJV-onlyism of Peter Ruckman and Gail Riplinger with as much grace as he can muster. Still, early in White’s book he makes clear that “there are a number of Biblical translations [he] would personally not recommend” [18] while at the same time proclaims that he has “no desire to get everyone to read the NAS (New American Standard Bible), or the NIV, or the NKJV (New King James Version), or the RSV (Revised Standard Version) or any modern translation.” [17]
 
White appears willing to recommend some English Bibles and refuses to recommend others. In this case, White and others seem to approve of a plurality of English Bibles for English speaking Christians. The question for today’s post is, “Is such a plurality rational, given the theological content of Christian orthodoxy?”
 
Before we ever get into the nuts and bolts of exegesis, theology and textual criticism there seems to be one glaring question of the elementary sort. How does the Law of Non-Contradiction comport with the espousal of plural Bibles for the English-speaking community?
 
The Law of Non-Contradiction is one of the most basic laws of logic and it states that:
 
“A” cannot be “A” and “non-A” at the same time and in the same way.
 
For example: Peter cannot be Peter and James at the same time and in the same way.
 
Even though Peter and James bear many similarities (caucasian, male, facial hair, two eyes, two feet, two ears, one nose etc), Peter cannot be Peter and James at the same time and in the same way.
 
Thus, when asking the question, “What is the word of God in English?” and our options are KJV, ESV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, RSV we seem to run into a simple but exceedingly problematic situation.
 
To say that the KJV, ESV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, RSV are all the word of God is at best a gross conflation violating the Law of Non-Contradiction.
 
For example:

1. (Logically) The ESV cannot be the ESV and the NIV, RSV, KJV etc at the same time and in the same way.
2. (Logically and Theologically) The word of God cannot be the word of God and not the word of God at the same time and in the same way.
3. Therefore, if the word of God is the ESV, then the word of God cannot be the NIV, RSV, KJV etc.
4. If it is postulated that the word of God is all of them, and they are different in the Greek and English (albeit little or much), then on the aggregate level (i.e. words and sentences) to say that the KJV, ESV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, RSV are all the word of God is to violate the Law of Non-Contradiction.
5. It is possible at this point to say that each of these words of God contain in a large portion the word of God, but it is illogical to say that they all ARE the word of God in the Greek or English.
6. The language of “contains” is of course terribly problematic when preaching from the pulpit, teaching from the lectern, and worshipping around the kitchen table.

 
The Forward of Dr. White’s book begins with these words, “In the age of uncertainty, the last thing we need is the suspicion that the Word of God is somehow faulty and misleading.” [11]
 
If Dr. White and those who speak in similar conflations seek to avoid uncertainty and suspicion, they have not done so. Saying that a plurality of canons in English or Greek ARE the word of God is illogical, unreasonable, and unbiblical. The Church is in need of a standard sacred text and scholars and theologians speaking in terms of a plurality of God's word impede that aim and goal. Your move Dr. White and company. 

---