-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Does The KJVO sect really want Dean Burgeon as their patron saint?
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
As a former KJVO Devotee - we were given a false narrative concerning John Burgon's POV of the 1611 KJV text with quotes from his writings extracted out of context.
I think it is well worth reading what Burgon had to say without using him as (yet) another stick with which to beat the KJV-only brigade.
That makes my point, as the ONLY credible textual critic can claim would be Dean B, but he was not really KJVO!
He seemed to be pro kjv, but not to the point of not seeing the real need to revise and update and correct both the Greek text and the kjv!
he did though seem to indicate that both the TR and the Kjv needed to be updated and corrected, which KJVO would disagree with him on!
correct
"seem to indicate"? He out right said both the TR and KJV needed revision. He was all for it. He disagreed with the way it was done, and rightfully so.
Just ironic that the most qualified textual expert they like to quote would not be in agreement with their views!
So you are saying that he defeated both KJVOnlyist and Westcott /Hort & Alands/ Metzger in one fell swoop. I am forced to agree.
Actually, there is a good case to be made thst ther latest Critical Greek texts, say 26th forward, effectively killed of Westcott/Hort, as now much more open to Bzt and other influences than they were!
Dean B. didn't have the modern translations we now have. Besides the KJV & earlier versions, he had only the RV as a modern version, & I believe we all agree it's rather groddy. No wonder Dean B. soundly criticized it !
But he also said the TR could stand yet another thorough revision, but it was not his calling to make one. However, he pointed out a few goofs in Matthew to give people the idea the TR needed more revision.
But he also said the TR could stand yet another thorough revision, but it was not his calling to make one. However, he pointed out a few goofs in Matthew to give people the idea the TR needed more revision.
He also soundly and truthfully pointed out what was wrong with Westcott & Horts Greek Text, and by simple extension Nestle/Aland.
I believe he finished the book of Matthew complete before he passed on.
Again, think that with the last 2 versions of NA, they have made a decision to really back off of W/H, and do seem to be allowing for more Bzt and other readings to be considered as legit!
Having read Revision Revised and The Last Sixteen Verses of Mark, my guess is the KJVOs are operating on the premise of the enemy of my enemy is my friend,
I think it's more of the fact they just haven't read his works. I mentioned to several kjvo that I've read Dean Burgon and their response was along the lines of "So you know how many holes W/H text has, and we do use facts to prove that they are wrong and the kjv is perfect." But I know for a fact they have never actually read them. I told them that Burgon said if you include 1 John 5:7 you call into question the entirety of the New Testament text and they were shocked he said that, along with the fact he attempted his own Greek text.
Kjv only has evolved from believing it's the best translation (which compared to the RV I'd have to agree) to it's the only translation and perfect. But you can see it evolve especially when you compare Dean Burgons and J Edward Hill's works, which are pretty solid (especially Burgons work), compared to let's say Ruckman and Riplinger, which are just a joke. However most people will claim both groups and believe they argued the same thing which they clearly didn't. Even hill who argued that the kjv should be the only translation showed there were certainly poor translations in it and often agreed with the margin writing. It's just plain ignorance imo, either that or they just don't care and try to rely on the fact that you know nothing on the subject and in that case Rickman's arguments sound somewhat convincing.
The late Dr. Thomas Cassidy, formerly an Admin. here, was a member of the Burgon Society until he found its main purpose was to make Burgon a poster boy for the KJVO myth, not dealing that much with the truth of what Burgon believed. Burgon eas not at all against a new English Bible translation, long as it was an accurate translation from authentic manuscripts.