The KJVonlyists...

[Jin-Roh]

I've ran into one of them online. He thinks that the NIV is connected with the whore of babylon. He also would frequently spam forums with links to conspiracy-nut sites. According to him, I'm probably not saved. I also saw a thread a while back here that was linked to a website of another KJVonlyist who was also busy burning strawman against Calvinism. Oh yeah, I visited Brother Ronnie's website once too.

What are the arguments for KJVonlyism? Other than holiness-preacher craziness of course.

[Jaltus]

There are two major arguments, one historical and one theological.

1) The KJV is based on the Majority Text

The Majority Text (MT from now on, a.k.a. Byzantine Text) is the type of manuscripts of the Greek text of the New Testament which have been most commonly found, such that there are more of them than all other text types combined. The KJVOs believe that this validates their position.

However, the most does not mean the best. 1000 copies of a mistake equals 1000 bad copies. Text criticism looks for the copies least likely to have errors. Therefore, what matters more is going to be age (oldest is generally going to be best), most carefully handled, and those with the least amount of first-hand editing (many manuscripts show editing, but often done by a different hand than the one that wrote the original, and having a later hand edit does not count against how good the original was, only the first-hand editing marks count against how good the copy is). The MT loses out in all respects, for it is the least carefully handled and the oldest (most edited is going to be on a manuscript by manuscript basis, so no text type will be seen as "most edited").

Newer versions (such as the NIV) are going to be based on older manuscripts which are generally better copies.

2) The doctrine of preservation

KJVO's will often argue that the Bible must have been preserved by God, and therefore since the KJV is the oldest translation in English (which is a lie) and is the Greek text behind it was used the most in the church (which is actually more or less true), then God must have meant the KJV to be the only true translation in English.

Of course, this theory holds some obviously major flaws.

1) It assumes that God preserves everything. The reason this is false is because we know for a fact that we do not hold any of the original documents of the Bible. We do not have a first copy of Romans or Isaiah. Therefore, this concept of preservation is wrong.

2) It assumes God can at least preserve the text if not the original. The reason this is false is because we have thousands of manuscripts of the Majority Text which do not agree with each other. This is a major hole in the argument and should be pointed out time and again until a KJVO actually deals with it.

3) It assumes that God can at least preserve the Majority Text appropriately. This is also quite wrong because the King James version is actually based on 4 manuscripts which were considered anamolous even for the Majority Text. For some reason, Erasmus (who compiled the Greek text which lies behind the KJV) picked some very poor manuscripts which do not line up with even most of the MT, let alone other manuscripts of different text types.

4) This doctrine of preservation is not biblical. Now KJVOs will quote a verse from the KJV to show tyhat it is a biblical principle, but the problem is that this verse does not appear the same in any other manuscript type. This verse from Psalms (IIRC) is not translated correctly in the KJV, and modern versions update this verse correctly.

5) In general, KJVOs reject all other translations. The problem with this is it restricts scripture to being found only in English, which is truly nonsensical since the Bible was written originally in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. How can English be the correct version if the Bible was not even originally written in English?

6) KJVO's reject the idea of multiple translations into one language being allowed by God. THe problem with this is that the New Testament authors used many different versions of the Old Testament in their Greek writings. An author can use a literal translation of the Hebrew, the LXX (which is a less literal rendering of the Hebrew and often has minute changes or additions), and some personal translations with slight changes. If the biblical authors used multiple translations, why is it wrong for us?

7) The KJVOs will respond by saying that Origen wrote the LXX, it did not come from before him. Their are numerous problems with this. First, Origen knew of the LXX, but he also listed at least 4 oither translations of the Hebrew text into Greek that he knew of, none of which he took credit for. Second, there are no links between Origen and any person in church history claiming he wrote the LXX. Third, there is some evidence of the LXX before Origen, not the least of which would be manuscripts dating from around the time of Origen from the New Testament which record both LXX quotations as well as nonLXX quotations. Fourth, KJVOs need to claim that Origen changed many of the quotations of the OT into his LXX version, but none of them can adequately say why Origen did not replace all OT quotations with his alleged LXX version.

8) The KJVOs must assume that languages line up 1 to 1, such that one word in Greek corresponds to one word in English. This is also obviously false, for it misses the true fluidity of language and flexibility of translation. The word "love" in English has 3 counterparts in Greek. The word "hour" in Greek has at least 3 counterparts in English. This does not even include grammatical rules, such as the genitive case in Greek being able to be taken more than 10 different ways in English. This means that some verses can be understood in multiple ways, and the only way to guard against this is to have an inerrant translator who understands the Greek better than the original author did (especially when many of the ambiguities in the original was put there intentionally, and the KJV makes decisions such that this intentional ambiguity is no longer present in the English translation).

9) KJVOs claim that the original translators and compilers of the KJV were especially inspired to the point where the translation holds no errors. This is obviously problematic in that there is no reason why the KJV translators can have that inspiration and nobody else can, especially when one realizes that the KJV was not the first translation of the Bible into English. The real question is why should we believe the KJVO translators were more inspired? KJKVOs will tell you it is because they were holy men with lots of scholarship. The problem with this answer is that it is pure speculation, for we know next to nothing about the people who translated the KJV.

10) Finally, the KJVO will talk about how holy these translators were. However, they miss one great big glaring lie on the part of the translators, there was nobody named James in the Bible. The name translated James is actually Jacob, but the translators changed the name in order to thank King James for his sponsorship of their work. Therefore, they changed a biblical name into something it is not, which is in fact a lie.

[darcutm]

Well the answer is obvoius I think...It's the Bible that Jesus and the apostles carried.

[Thomas2003]

Jin-Roh:

I've ran into one of them online. He thinks that the NIV is connected with the whore of babylon. He also would frequently spam forums with links to conspiracy-nut sites. According to him, I'm probably not saved. I also saw a thread a while back here that was linked to a website of another KJVonlyist who was also busy burning strawman against Calvinism. Oh yeah, I visited Brother Ronnie's website once too.

What are the arguments for KJVonlyism? Other than holiness-preacher craziness of course.

I'm not really sure, but I've been called one before - but I don't really know what they meant by it.

I simply believe the Authorized Version is the Holy Scripture translated into the English language, that it is correct and accurate rendition of the Holy Scripture; but I also subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith.

I think it would be good to update the Authorized Version with a version that explains some words in the footnotes.

For example, consider this Scripture:

Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake: 1 Corinthians 10:25

I would like to see an edition with something like this:

Whatsoever is sold in the shambles (1), that eat, asking no question for conscience sake: 1 Corinthians 10:25

(1) Shambles is a term meaning "marketplace." [The place where butcher's meat is sold, Websters 1828]

I think this would be very helpful to restore the Authorized Version to it's preeminance.

Why I hold to it's supremacy is because it forms the foundation of the Common Law that James 1 codified. There is Covenantal continuity between the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Solemn League and Covenant and the organic foundation of the several states and our nation. The Authorized Version is sandwhiched in this Covenantal continuity from which the law is derived.

I don't waiver from the Authorized Version because I don't have authority to change the Law; the same reason I don't waiver from the Constitution or have my own "version" of the United States code. I presume the lawmaker codified the law for it to be law.

Can you imagine coming together with people to learn the law and there being 13 versions of the Constitution? What does your Constitution say? Everybody has their own truth - you cannot do that and hope to have unity. If every man gets to decide what the law says for himself, then every man gets to do what is right in his own eyes.

The modern Plantonic thinking on this matter is heresy - there is covenantal continuity in Christendom between the spiritual and physical realities of life. What God says is the only authoritative source of law and no man, King or majority, can legislate contray to it and it be valid. To the extent they do they negate their own authority and must be resisted.

The First Amendment prohibits the alteration of the English Holy Scripture as a matter of Law. It's the fixed foundation of the Common Law, every state goes back to common law codified by James 1.

I do find that most higher criticism is dishonest with unbelieving presuppositions and it's intentions are the same as the intentions of the 1788 alterations to the Westminster Confession - to attack the Covenantal continuity of God's Providence. Whig political theory was the philosophical basis of the American presbyterian revision of the Confession, the same unbelieving political theory formed the foundation of higher criticism 100 years later, and the same unbelieving political theory is the philosophy behind the re-introduction of the Roman bible in America. (NIV, NASV &c)

I would say that this gentlemen referred to the NIV being related to the whore of babylon because it is the Roman Catholic bible, he's probably a premillienialist. Holding to the Westminster Confession I too would be opposed to the text that supports the antichrist premises of the papacy. (small "a") If you are a Roman Catholic then buy a Roman Catholic bible, if you aren't a Roman Catholic then why do you want a Roman Catholic bible?

It's identical in conception to the way the United States Supreme Court alters our Constitution - both concepts hold that law is a living document that changes. I don't believe that, the English Authorized Version is God's Law in English - it's fixed. It was fixed in the law, to change the law is to attack the very foundation of law and the peace and liberties of the Gospel that flow from God's Providence honoring His covenant.

What needs to be changed is the perversion of our language. If believing Scholarship would spend 1/10th the time in working on lifting up God's words and proclaiming them as Holy and Just, then we'd put down a lot of the rebellion today by the simple acquiesence of the conscience.

I happen to believe the English Protestant Reformation and the outworkings from that are beautiful manifestations of God's Covenant and Grace upon His children in History and that we are born into a historical narrative, upon the shoulders of Christians before us.

Sin had a stranglehold on the Gospel for a thousand years in the errors of Romanism and when God broke that grip He birthed forth an explosion of Christian progress. I believe the Authorized Version of Holy Scripture has a special place in God's Providence because of that Covenantal continuity and a reclamation of the original text. His blessings always follow His covenant and cursings always follow that which breaks His covenant.

By their fruit ye shall know them works for me, I've never seen any fruit come out of higher criticism's attack upon the Holy Scriptures. All I've seen is the destruction of Christian civilization over the past 100 years in America, thus the destruction of civilization itself, flowing directly from an attack upon the Authorized Version of Holy Scripture and the doctrines of the Reformation exegeted from the Protestant bible.

Cordially,


Thomas

[Socrates]

Today @ 12:05 PM post located here
Thomas2003, replying to:

Jin-Roh:

I've ran into one of them online. He thinks that the NIV is connected with the whore of babylon. He also would frequently spam forums with links to conspiracy-nut sites. According to him, I'm probably not saved. I also saw a thread a while back here that was linked to a website of another KJVonlyist who was also busy burning strawman against Calvinism. Oh yeah, I visited Brother Ronnie's website once too.

What are the arguments for KJVonlyism? Other than holiness-preacher craziness of course.

I'm not really sure, but I've been called one before - but I don't really know what they meant by it.

I simply believe the Authorized Version is the Holy Scripture translated into the English language, that it is correct and accurate rendition of the Holy Scripture; but I also subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith.

However, there are many errors in the King Jimmy. Why not use the Geneva Bible which was more in line with the WCF, and was the Bible of the Pilgrim Fathers, Shakespeare, and, wait for it, the KJV translators in their preface? Why would Americans who rejected the monarchy think that a Bible commissioned by a king who persecuted the Pilgrim Fathers, which is why they fled! And why are there so many Baptist KJVOs when the translators were instructed to support Anglican ecclesiasms such as "easter", "bishop", the transliteration "baptize" instead of the translation "dip" or "immerse"?

No KJVO here has addressed my post "Corruptions" in the TR/KJV. Jaltus' post above lists a number of fatal flaws with KJVO.

I think it would be good to update the Authorized Version with a version that explains some words in the footnotes.

Wouldn't it be easier to update the TEXT so it fits the original languages (which God inspired) best, rather than treat the archaic English translation? After all, what KJVOs forget is that their own version is actually Blayney's 1769 of the original 1611 version!

[align=center]The REAL 1611 King James Version[/align]

There is a strange new doctrine being taught in some circles -- the doctrine that the King James Version of the Bible alone is the Word of God, and all modern versions of the Bible (such as the New American Standard Bible or the New International Version) are "corrupt perversions." Advocates of this KJV-Only position strongly insist that "the 1611 KJV is the only real Bible." The irony is, most KJV-Onlyists have never actually seen a real 1611 KJV. They would be surprised and even shocked to see how different the 1611 KJV was from the "modern" KJVs they read today!

This website will list of some of the material found in the actual 1611 KJV, though not found in today's KJVs. But don't take my word for it... click on the links to see what these pages looked like in the 1611 KJV itself. (Note: these graphics files are big... around 100 Kb. each. If you want to see the larger full versions, use your browser's "view image" function.)

What Will You Find in the REAL 1611 KJV?

The REAL 1611 KJV had a Preface from the Translators to the Reader, which included:

• a passage explaining why translation is necessary (page 3);
• a passage explaining how God caused the Septuagint to be written; and of praise for Origen's Hexpla (page 4);
• a passage of praise for St. Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate (page 5);
• a passage answering the question, "weren't the older translations good enough?" (page 6);
• a passage declaring that even the worst English translations are still God's Word; that even a translation with errors is still God's Word; and that the Septuagint is God's Word (page 7);
• a passage where the KJV translators boldly refer to themselves as Bible correctors (page 8);
• a passage explaining why a new translation is necessary (page 9);
• a passage affirming that God's Word was originally given in Hebrew and Greek; and explaining why marginal notes with alternate translations of words are necessary; and on the importance of using a variety of translations (page 10);
• a passage explaining why translators should be free to use more than one English word to translate a word in the original languages; and the need for a translation in language that could be understood by the most common of common people (page 11)

*Significance: the arguments in the Translators Preface answer the same objections of today's KJV-Onlyists against modern translations.

*Significance: some KJV-Onlyists believe Jerome and Origen were "corrupt," and that the Septuagint is "corrupt" (some go so far as to say that the Septuagint didn't even exist, and was Origen's invention!

The REAL 1611 KJV had this Table of Contents

• note that the 1611 KJV contained the Apocrypha, including the passage on prayer for the dead (2 Maccabees 12:43-45).

* Significance: most KJV-Onlyists consider the Apocrypha not to be inspired or authoritative, yet apparently King James himself thought it important enough to spend the time and resources to have it translated and printed.

* Significance: KJV-Only literature is filled with examples of how modern versions remove words, verses, and even entire passages from the KJV, yet today's KJVs remove entire books that appeared in the original 1611 KJV

The REAL 1611 KJV had a calendar for each month of the year. The calendar for the month of October contains such things as

• a list of designated saints days' (Oct. 18, Luke the Evangelist; Oct. 28, Simon and Jude);
• a list of designated fast days (Oct. 27 and 31);
• a notation about which sign of the zodiac the sun is in that month (Oct. 12, "Sol in Scorpio");
• a schedule of Scripture readings for morning and evening prayer which includes passages from the Apocrypha (Judith, Oct. 6-13; Wisdom, Oct. 14-17; Ecclesiasticus, Oct. 18)

* Significance: saints' days and fast days are considered "popish" and "Romanist" by some KJV-Only advocates, yet there they are listed in the 1611 KJV

* Significance: many KJV-Only supporters consider astrology "New Age" and "of the devil," yet there it is in the 1611 KJV

* Significance: the 1611 KJV encourages rather than discourages the use of the Apocrypha in devotional reading and public worship, which is strange if the Apocrypha is not considered in some way inspired and authoritative Scripture

The REAL 1611 KJV had a list of Holy Days to be observed throughout the year, including

• Christmas ("The Nativitie of Our Lord") and Easter
• The Purification of the Blessed Virgin
• The Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin
• All Saints' Day
• other saints' days

* Significance: Some KJV-Onlyists regard Christmas and Easter as pagan holidays not to be observed and celebrated by Godly people, yet there they are in the 1611 KJV

* Significance: saints' days and days honouring Mary are considered "popish" and "Romanist" by some KJV-Only advocates, yet there they are in the 1611 KJV

The REAL 1611 KJV had marginal notes showing alternate translations and readings based on Greek and Hebrew manuscript evidence

• Judges 19:2 - "Or, a yeere and foure moneths. Heb. dayes, foure moneths"
• Ezra 10:40 - "Or, Mabnadebai, according to some copies"
• Psalm 102:3 - "Or, (as some reade) into smoke"
• Matthew 1:11 - "Some reade, Iosias begate Iakim, and Iakim begat Iechonias"
• Matthew 26:26 - "Many Greeke copies haue, gaue thanks."
• Mark 7:3 - "Or, diligently, in the originall, with the fist: Theophilact, up to the elbowe."
• Luke 10:22 - "Many ancient copies adde these words, And turning to his Disciples he said"
• Luke 17:36 - "This 36. verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies"
• John 18:13 - a marginal note indicating that this verse, which is identical to verse 24, appears in verse 13 is some manuscripts
• Acts 1:20 - the note in the margin reads, "Or, office: or, charge" -- often used in modern translations, a less Anglican translation than "Bishopricke."
• Acts 13:18, 34 - a marginal note containing the Greek text of an alternate reading "according to the Sept. [Septuagint] and so Chrysost." [John Chrystostom, one of the church fathers], as well as a cross-reference to the Apocrypha (2 Maccabees 7:27)... see for yourself!
• Acts 25:6 - "Or, as some copies reade, no more then eight or ten dayes"
• Ephesians 6:9 - "Some reade, both your, and their master"
• James 2:18 - "Some copies reade, by thy workes"
• 1 Peter 2:21 - "Some reade, for you"
• 2 Peter 2:2, 11, 18 - three alternate readings in the margins on the same page... see for yourself!
• 2 John 8 - "Or, gained. Some copies reade, which yee haue gained, but that ye receiue &c."

* Significance: when similar marginal notes appear in modern translations, many KJV-Onlyists raise a great hue and cry about how they "cause the reader to doubt the Word of God," yet there they are in the 1611 KJV

The REAL 1611 KJV had verses that are worded differently from today's KJVs

• Ruth 3:15 - "...and he went into the city." Today's KJVs read "...and she went into the city."
• Psalm 69:32 - "...and your heart shall liue that seeke goode." Today's KJVs read, "...and your heart shall live that seek God."
• Jeremiah 34:16 - "...and euery man his handmaide, whom yee had set at libertie...." Today's KJVs read, "...and every man his handmaid, whom he had set at liberty...."

* Significance: KJV-Only advocates believe that the KJV is the "inerrant, pure, perfect, preserved Word of God." Which KJV are they referring to... the 1611 KJV or the KJV used today?

The REAL 1611 KJV had marginal cross-references to books of the Apocrypha

• Daniel 8:25 - the note in the margin reads, "2 Macc. 6:9," a cross-reference to a book of 2 Maccabees in the Apocrypha
• Matthew 6:7 - the note in the margin reads, "Ecclus. 7:16," a cross-reference to a book of Ecclesiasticus in the Apocrypha
• Matthew 23:37 - the note in the margin reads, "Wisd. 2:15,16," a cross-reference to a book of Wisdom in the Apocrypha
• Matthew 27:43 - the note in the margin reads, "4 Esd. 1:30," a cross-reference to a book of 4 Esdra in the Apocrypha
• Luke 14:13 - the note in the margin reads, "Tob. 4:7," a cross-reference to a book of Tobit in the Apocrypha
• John 10:22 - the note in the margin reads, "1 Macc. 4:59," a cross-reference to a book of 1 Maccabees in the Apocrypha
• Hebrews 11:35 - the note in the margin reads, "2 Macc. 7:7," a cross-reference to a book of 2 Maccabees in the Apocrypha

* Significance: why have a cross-reference to an "uninspired," "unauthoritative," "unscriptural" book?

The REAL 1611 KJV had these other marginal notes of interest

• Isaiah 14:12 - "How art thou fallen from heauen, O Lucifer, sonne of the morning?" The marginal note reads, "Or, O daystarre"

* Significance: KJV-Onlyist literature attacks modern translations which read morning star or day star instead of Lucifer because they allegedly "equate Satan with Jesus (cf. Rev. 22:16)." Yet the marginal reading in the 1611 KJV is the same as the one found in modern translations.

[Socrates]

Today @ 07:21 AM post located here
Jaltus:

4) This doctrine of preservation is not biblical. Now KJVOs will quote a verse from the KJV to show that it is a biblical principle, but the problem is that this verse does not appear the same in any other manuscript type. This verse from Psalms (IIRC) is not translated correctly in the KJV, and modern versions update this verse correctly.

Yes, you do RC as usual. The passage is:

Scripture Verse:

Psalms 12:6-7 (KJV) "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. [7] Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

Yet the "preserve them" is masculine, while the word for "words" is feminine, so this passage has nothing to do with preserving the words. Rather the preservation applies to the people in verse 5:

Scripture Verse:

Psalms 12:5 (KJV) "For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him."

The King Jimmy translators actually had the right idea, as shown by the REAL KJV-1611:

Psalms 12:5-7 (1611 KJV) "For the oppreffion of the poore, for the fighing of the needy, now will I arife (faith the LORD,) I will fet him in faftie from him that puffeth at him. [6] The wordes of the LORD are pure words : as filuer tried in a fornace of earth purified feuen times. [7] Thou fhalt keepe them, (O LORD,) thou fhalt preferue them, from this generation for euer."

They had a marginal note (ya know, one of those satanic things that all those modern perversions have ): "Heb. him, i. euery one of them."

See also Psalms 12:6-7 A Great "Word Preservation" Passage — Or Is It?

Of course, another problem is, even if the KJVOs were right about this passage, they have done absolutely nothing to demonstrate that God preserved the words in the KJV! There is a huge gaping logical hole from "God has preserved his words" to "God has preverves Hid words in this particular way." E.g. why the 1769 revision of the King Jimmy 1611 as opposed to the Geneva Bible or ESV; or in the so-called Textus Receptus as opposed to the MT or NU/UBS texts.

[themuzicman]

If you were to translate the constitution into greek, say, 1500 years from now, you'd have 150 different translations of it, because languages change over time, and all translations have some degree of abiguity in it.

Why would a non-anglican want an Anglican translation anyway?

:Muz:

[Pilgrim]

I find it a little disturbing that the bulk of thomas' argument was based on the earthly authority of a King, and a King known to not be so perfect at that.

[David O]

Today @ 02:34 PM post located here
Pilgrim:
a King known to not be so perfect at that.

Is this where the gossip starts?

Was David perfect?

Here is a good defence; http://www.icr.org/bible/kjv.htm

I have been trying all the versions I can find, and have concluded that the KJV is consistently superior to all the others. Dynamic equivalence is artistic license. Look what the NIV folks have created now.

[David O]

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/rumors.htm

[spl_cadet]

If the KJV is so superior, then why did they use the Douay-Rheims (DRV), which came out two years earlier, for much of their translations. Especially as the DRV was translated from the Vulgate.

[Socrates]

Today @ 02:08 AM post located here
David O:

Is this where the gossip starts?

Not necessarily, unless a KJVO resorts to ad hominems against modern textual critics or translators, as per that article you cite. If they do, then it's fair to use tu quoque arguments and not fair for you to object.

Here is a good defence; http://www.icr.org/bible/kjv.htm

That's a dreadful article, as James White shows in A Response to a Brother in Christ. It's a shame that ICR has that article on the site -- AiG fortunately is not KJVO and I have hopes that ICR will see the light soon because they are mostly an excellent organization.

I have been trying all the versions I can find, and have concluded that the KJV is consistently superior to all the others. Dynamic equivalence is artistic license. Look what the NIV folks have created now.

All translations have some dynamic equivalence. Even the KJV, e.g. "God forbid" although the Greek [greek]mh genoito[/greek] literally means something like "may it never be", without any mention of the word "God"

[Pilgrim]

Today @ 11:08 AM post located here
David O:



Is this where the gossip starts?

Was David perfect?

Here is a good defence; http://www.icr.org/bible/kjv.htm

I have been trying all the versions I can find, and have concluded that the KJV is consistently superior to all the others. Dynamic equivalence is artistic license. Look what the NIV folks have created now.

Relax and don't be so defensive or make assumptions about where I was going. You're aweful quick to defend KJ;s sexual prefs even though I never mentioned them.

What I was getting at is the fact that KJ was merely human and so to trust him over the living word is a little dangerous don't you think? And what does David have to do with it? Did David commission a Bible to be written? Poor analogy and a it looks like a something I would have out in a corn patch to scare away the crows.

[Jaltus]

The closest to the originals that I have read, in terms of communicating into English, is the ESV put out by Crossway books.

[Pragmatist]

Well I seem to remember something and tell if I am wrong. I think John said that the word was made flesh and walked among us. So to me that says God´s Word=Jesus not some piece of paper.


Pragmatist