Correction on the KJV Position

[Ehud]

The first I know of who took a KJV position on this issue was Seventh Day Adventist Benjamin C. Wilkinson, whose book Our Authorized Version Vindicated (1930) John Of Japan

John of Japan this is the view that came from the book “From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man” Yes Wilkinson defended the text but there were plenty of men before him .Unfortunately the authors left out:

Henery John Todd 1765-1845 A vindication of Our Authorized Translation and translators of the Bible 1819
John Jebb 1775-1883
John Dowling 1807-78
Trinitarian Bible Society of England Formed in 1831 in defense of the received text and the KJV

"WE MUST NOT PERMIT OUR JUDGMENT TO BE OVERAWED BY GREAT NAMES IN THE REALM OF BIBLICAL "SCHOLARSHIP" WHEN IT IS SO CLEARLY EVIDENT THAT THE DISTINGUISHED SCHOLARS OF THE PRESENT CENTURY ARE MERELY REPRODUCING THE CASE PRESENTED BY RATIONALISTS DURING THE LAST TWO HUNDRED YEARS" (if the foundations be destroyed, TBS Article No. 14

William Aberhart 1878-1943
Philip Mauro 1859-1952-

Ehud .:thumbs:

 

[Salamander]

Uh-oh, I believest thou hast scorched not a few hides.:wavey:

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

And the AV is worthy of defence.

It is a fine translation that has served the English speaking church for almost 400 years - Praise the Lord for it.

I would like to read the resources to see if their vindication included the idea that it was the only acceptable version.

 

[Mexdeaf]

I have not read any in their entirety, but the ones I have read lead me to believe that they were writing in reaction to inferior translation methods rather than from a viewpoint of proving KJVOism.

You can find many of the sources quoted on Google books. Just don't read them too close to bedtime. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Ehud]

there's that 4 letter word again!

I would like to read the resources to see if their vindication included the idea that it was the only acceptable version.

Oooooo noooo, there's that 4 letter word again, O-N-L-Y. :laugh:

I think Mexdef answered that.

I have not read any in their entirety, but the ones I have read lead me to believe that they were writing in reaction to inferior translation methods rather than from a viewpoint of proving KJVOism.

I wonder what Bible they ONLY used. Hummmmmmmm

Also,that would take care of every version after 1881. So we could LOGICALLY conclude what they would have accepted. :thumbs:

Ehud
"There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."Ephesians 4:4-6 I wonder if God needs only one Bible.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Could you provide some quotes from those sources please where the writers say that the AV is the only Bible ever to be used?


BTW, God doesn't need any Bible, He wrote it.

 

[Rippon]

I wonder what Bible they ONLY used. Hum So we could LOGICALLY conclude what they would have accepted. :thumbs:

And you have made quite an illogical leap.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Ehud
"There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."Ephesians 4:4-6 I wonder if God needs only one Bible.

Don't you think that if God wanted "one translation" in that verse He could have it there without Ehud's help?

 

[Ehud]

Could you provide some quotes from those sources please where the writers say that the AV is the only Bible ever to be used?

C4k Could you provide some quotes from those sources please where the writer says modern versions or versions that deviate from the TR text is ok to use.

Ehud

 

[Ehud]

BTW, God doesn't need any Bible, He wrote it.

BTW, down here on planet earth he does. :applause:

Ehud

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

C4k Could you provide some quotes from those sources please where the writer says modern versions or versions that deviate from the TR text is ok to use.

Ehud

The burden of proof is on you to "Correct the KJV position." That was the name of your thread.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

BTW, down here on planet earth he does. :applause:

Ehud

God doesn't need a Bible, we do, and in our own language.

And we don't need one where you add "one Bible" to His inspired words.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Oooooo noooo, there's that 4 letter word again, O-N-L-Y. :laugh:

I think Mexdef answered that.


I wonder what Bible they ONLY used. Hummmmmmmm

Also,that would take care of every version after 1881. So we could LOGICALLY conclude what they would have accepted. :thumbs:

Ehud
"There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."Ephesians 4:4-6 I wonder if God needs only one Bible.

God's "logic" is higher than our "logic", and His ways are higher than our ways. He doesn't need the help of people who would try to 'defend' His words by adding to them.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

He doesn't need the help of people who would try to 'defend' His words by adding to them.

I find it astounding that such a defender of God's word, as Ehud had proven himself, would add to the word of God has he has here.

 

[Logos1560]

Trinitarian Bible Society of England
Ehud .

In his Companion Bible, in his Lexicon, and in his book Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, E. W. Bullinger, who was secretary of the Trinitarian Bible Society for 46 years, indicated that there were some errors in translating in the KJV.

 

[Logos1560]

this is the view that came from the book From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man
Ehud .

Did you prove that John took his statement from this book or was that an assumption on your part?

You claimed that there was a needed correction for certain information, but so far you have refused to provide evidence to show that your claim is valid.

Because certain men wrote a book that was said to defend the Textus Receptus and the KJV in the 1800's is not proof that they held the exact same view as the modern or present-day KJV-only position. In addition, can you provide evidence that shows that the founders of the present-day KJV-only position based their position on these earlier authors you mentioned?

 

[Trotter]

There is but one Bible. It is man who has made many differering translations, and it is man who sees fit to fight, fuss, and argue over them. The Author needs not a translation as He is already intimately familiar with all of His text.

Sorry, guys. What used to make my blood boil now makes me chuckle at the complete silliness of it. "God needs a bible here on earth." Good one.

And the whole TR/RT vs non-TR/RT is complete foolishness, as well.

God gave us His word, and we would all be better served over studying IT and teaching what IT says instead of spitting and fuming over whether or not my granddaddy's pappy's uncle's cousin's copy is better than your cousin's uncle's pappy's granddaddy's.

I mean, really, people. Do any here think God is uplifted and glorified over all the petty squabbling? Do any here think they are earning anything toward their heavenly reward by trying to split hairs over a man-made translation, or whether that ONE is the be-all-and-end-all? If everyone would stop and think about it, this forum would actually be what it supposed to bo... a place to discuss the merits of the different offerings. Instead it resembles something closer to Hiroshima...

 

[AntennaFarmer]

And the whole TR/RT vs non-TR/RT is complete foolishness, as well.

Wescott and Hort didn't think it was foolishness. They thought it was important enought to spend sizable chunks of their careers on the matter.

 

[Ehud]

complete silliness of it. "God needs a bible here on earth." Good one.

This is

silliness

. O my, without the Bible here on earth No one could be saved or know who God is or how to live the Christian life.

I find it astounding that such a defender of God's word, as Ehud had proven himself, would add to the word of God has he has here.

O ,so Westcott and Hort can add to God's word and even take away from them. All Modern Scholarship has added to God's Word and has taken away from God's word.
ALL modern versions since 1901 has words added unto them. I make a statement ABOUT the Bible( re read the verse. I did not do a Westcott and Hort with the verse) and you are astounded C4K. what hypocrisy.:laugh:

God's "logic" is higher than our "logic", and His ways are higher than our ways. He doesn't need the help of people who would try to 'defend' His words by adding to them.

Another hypocritical statement. All modern scholarship has added to God''s words 2 timothy 3:16 Who added "He" for God. What a bunch of Pharisees, But that is ok:tonofbricks:

Next

Did you prove that John took his statement from this book or was that an assumption on your part?

No I did not ask Him. John did you read the book and take it from the book.

Because certain men wrote a book that was said to defend the Textus Receptus and the KJV in the 1800's is not proof that they held the exact same view as the modern or present-day KJV-only position.

Uh ya ok, Another one raised on modern versions...

The burden of proof is on you to "Correct the KJV position." That was the name of your thread.

No I was correcting a statement about when and how the KJV position started.C4k I did not see you attempt to make sure this statement was true or false

Well class, enough instructions for this class. Remember do not fight to hard to prove God did not keep His word in a book you can hold in your hand and call it 100% God's perfect word.

Professor Ehud Phd... Post Hole digger... Next class will resume shortly:sleeping_2:
"If you do not stand for something, you will fall for everything"

 

[Askjo]

Westcott and Hort can add to God's word and even take away from them. All Modern Scholarship has added to God's Word and has taken away from God's word.
ALL modern versions since 1901 has words added unto them.

If the Scriptures warned concerning adding or taking away God's Words, we see these modern versions are here. That is very obvious.