Harold B. Sightler, John R. Rice, and other great fundamentalists and KJV-onlyism.

I will begin my post by clearly stating for the Record that "I am not a Ruckmanite, nor do I advocate anyone who believes the translators of the KJV were inspired." This is a false and erroneous position. There is much false information out there from the KJVO camp. Spoudazo, I am sorry that you had to endure such a horrific experience in the KJVO camp. You simply were with the wrong group and I do not blame you for leaving...I would have left to. Maybe I can persuade you into an alternative that is not to be mixed with the Ruckmanites! I resolved early on in my ministry that I would study for myself and not try to fit into a particular camp and simply 'follow the leader.' I do not get invitations to a lot of "Camp Meetings", but I sure do enjoy my church and studying God's Word!

I also re-state the DBS position and my position concerning my KJVO definition: "...though we can refer to the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek texts that underlie the KJB for further clarification and study, we use ONLY THE KING JAMES BIBLE in our preaching, memorization, public reading from the pulpit, Bible school literature, Bible school classrooms, Bible Institutes, colleges, universities, seminaries, and in similar areas. This is the position of our Dean Burgon Society. It is a defensible position, and one of which we are not ashamed. We urge friends of the KING JAMES BIBLE not to cringe when hearing the "smear" on the part of KJB enemies, of the term "KING JAMES ONLY"! When it is used, we would urge you to ask those using it to "define that term, please!" Since when is it a crime to exalt the KING JAMES BIBLE to its supreme place in the English speaking world? Since when is it a crime to hold that the KING JAMES BIBLE is the most accurate translation available in the English language today? What crime is it to suspect as inferior the modern versions of the Bible? Burgon--Only KJB!"

Concerning what Dean Burgon believed, your (4His _glory) extrapolation of Burgon's view does not give the whole truth. I would hope you would not rely upon James White's book for all your information, as I know this is where your/the doubt of Burgon's belief stems. He wrote Revision Revised with the whole intend of showing the great errors of W/H and the reliability of the Authorized Version. I have read his book and can affirm the following:

"It may be confidently assumed that no `revision' of our Authorized Version, however judiciously executed, will ever occupy the place in public esteem which is actually enjoyed by the work of the translators of 1611,--THE NOBLEST LITERARY WORK IN THE ANGLO-SAXON LANGUAGE." [Dean John W. Burgon, Revision Revised, p. 113]

"Verily, those men understood their craft! `There were GIANTS in those days.' . . . the Spirit of their God was mightily upon them." [Burgon, Revision Revised, p. 196]

"The method of such a performance [that is, any revision of the KJB], whether by marginal notes or in some other way, we forbear to determine. But certainly ONLY AS A HANDMAID is it to be desired. AS SOMETHING INTENDED TO SUPERSEDE OUR PRESENT ENGLISH BIBLE, WE ARE THOROUGHLY CONVINCED THAT THE PROJECT OF A RIVAL TRANSLATION IS NOT TO BE ENTERTAINED FOR A MOMENT. FOR OURSELVES, WE DEPRECATE IT ENTIRELY." [Burgon, Revision Revised, p. 114]

It is without question that Burgon held to a solid view of the inspiration of scripture. In his book "Inspiration and Interpretation" he wrote, "Holy Scripture is inspired from the Alpha to the Omega of it; --not some parts more, some parts less, but all equally, and to all overflowing; --that we hold it to be, not generally inspired, but particularly; that we see not how with logical consistency we can avoid believeing the words as well as the sentences of it; the syllables as well as the words; the letters as well as the syllables; every 'jot' and every 'tittle' of it, (to use our Lord's expression,) to be divinely inspired:"

Burgon's Works definitively state that his belief was that he would only use the Authorized Version of the Bible as his sole authority in the English language.

He further stated in Revision Revised, "The ENGLISH (as well as the Greek) of the NEWLY `REVISED VERSION' IS HOPELESSLY AT FAULT. It is to me simply unintelligible how a company of Scholars can have spent TEN YEARS in elaborating such a VERY UNSATISFACTORY PRODUCT. Their UNCOUTH PHRASEOLOGY and their JERKY SENTENCES, their PEDANTIC OBSCURITY and their UNIDIOMATIC ENGLISH, contrast painfully with `the happy turns of expression, the music of the cadences, the felicities of the rhythm' of our AUTHORIZED VERSION. . . ."

James White's misrepresentation of Burgon's beliefs would be known and understood, if people would simply read Burgon's books. Furthermore, James White et. al., cannot, in my opinion, come close to the scholarship of Burgon.

More to come...

 

Every letter is inspired? Interesting, since the letters differ in virtually every KJV edition.

 

Dr. Bob was a student of Dr. Richard Clearwaters, who a famous Fundamentalist and certainly NOT KJVO. I'm sure Dr. Bob will clue you in about Dr. Clearwaters first chance he gets.

 

Obviously, "We can look way back into church history and see nothing by the way of KJVOism until the 20th century." This is because the KJV was not initially translated until 1611. The debate was not needed to the extent it has become until W/H. The majority (99%) of all extant manuscripts agree with the RT underlying the KJV. This issue, as I have stated previously deals with historical providential preservation. I serve a God who is able and has left me an UNSHAKEABLE FOUNDATION, one by which hell itself trembles!

The KJV translators when they stated "We do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest [poor] translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession... containeth the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwihstanding that some imperfections and blesmishes may be noted in the setting forth of it" were not implying that they advocated a Critical Text Bible. If I had lived in the days of Tyndale, I would have read a Tyndale Bible, and been burned at the stake for it. You are adding and reading "extra-historical" information into their quote. When you read their writing place yourself in "their timeframe."

In Love..."Charity rejoiceth in the truth!"

 

TBC 1611:

First, the doctrine that the KJV is the ONLY English translation worthy of use is totally WRONG. there's only ONE valid reason to be KJVO, and that's PERSONAL PREFERENCE. All other "reasons" are merely EXCUSES, & are incorrect.

Next, we've just concluded a long discussion about Psalm 12:7 and have PROVEN that the AV translators believe this verse is about PEOPLE. rather than being repetitious, I'll ask you read the thread for yourself.

BTW, we still have a thread open about Ps. 12:6. Feel free to read and comment.

Next, you're quoting from some of the "party line" KJVOs who follow at least in part the original current KJVO myth which is full of mistakes, guesswork, fables, and some outright DISHONESTY. Dr. Moorman is a well-known parrot of this party line, while Dr. Waite has deliberately ignored many of the differences between the AV 1611 and later editions such as the 1769 Blayney's Edition. Also, as perz of the Burgon Society, Dr. Waite quotes Burgon ONLY where Burgon's words seem favorable to the KJVO myth. He NEVER mentions that Burgon wrote that the Textus Receptus could stand a thorough revision.

You have every right to use only the KJV, but when you speak against all other English BVs, you're guilty of telling a big fat prevarication.

The KJVO myth is a later addition to many IFB churches, and was NOT a part of the original IFB statement of faith. There are several IFB pastors here who will confirm this. KJVO is an entirely man-made myth, WITH ABSOLUTELY *NO* SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT! I know you posted a list of Scriptures you may believe DO support KJVO, but please, PLEASE try to show us any basis at all for limiting their application to ONLY THE KJV. Those Scriptures existed long before the KJV did, and are applicable to every valid BV in any language.

 

C4K,
I have not, nor did Burgon state that the KJV is inspired...

However, concerning letters of scripture:

Any view of Inspiration that does not include the word VERBAL, is an unbiblical definition.

I continue to be amazed at the misunderstanding of the Doctrine of Inspiration. Inspiration is explained as follows:

All SCRIPTURE is given by INSPIRATION OF GOD, and is profitable for . . ." (2 Tim. 3:16a). THE GREEK for the first eight words of this verse contains just three words: pasa graphE theopneustos. PASA means "all" or "every" from which we get the word, "plenary," "plenty," or plentitude." GRAPHE means "writing" or "what is written down" from which we get "verbal" (extending to EACH LETTER!). THEO-PNEUSTOS is from THEOS (God) and PNEUO (to breathe), and means "GOD-BREATHED" from which we get that it is TOTALLY INERRANT and TOTALLY INFALLIBLE since God Himself who is INERRANT and INFALLIBLE is its Author.

Holding to a sound doctrine of bibliology, including verbal, plenary inspiration and preservation, does not mean holding to the position of "Dual Inspiration" or "Advanced Revelation." - Dr. Thomas Strouse

Strouse further writes, "Jn. 17:8, states, "For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me." The verse teaches that Christ's responsibility before the Father is to give His believers the Father's words (remata). Several questions must be answered. What and where are these words? Has Christ fulfilled His responsibility in preserving the Father's words to His immediate audience and to future generations (cf. v. 20)? The answer to the first question is that the Father's words are the canonical Scriptures. The second question must be answered in the affirmative. The Lord Jesus Christ has the power, character and means to preserve the Scriptures. Not only has the Lord preserved His Word to His immediate audience, but He has preserved it through their word (logou, e.g., the NT Scripture) for future generations.

This passage also teaches the Christian's responsibility toward Christ's preserved words of the Father. Christ states that believers "have received them." The word "received" translates elabon which is a 3rd person, plural, 2nd aorist, indicative, active verb from lambano and it means "take" or "receive." The believer's responsibility is not to restore the 4th century text (i.e., Westcott and Hort) [Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, pp. 124-146] through the science of textual criticism (advocates of modern versions), but to receive the providentially preserved words of Christ. When the doctrine of Providential Preservation is rejected or ignored, all that is left is man's imperfect and rationalistic efforts. Biblically, Christians have had the expectation from this passage to receive the providentially preserved words from the Father, through Christ, through the autographa of the apostles. Believers of the 17th century confirmed their belief in receiving the providentially preserved Scripture by naming the common Greek text the textum...nunc ab omnibus receptum ("the text now received by all")."

What did Jesus believe about the Scriptures, (Strouse)

"Early in His ministry the Lord Jesus Christ was tempted by Satan. The Lord answered the tempter with three references from Deuteronomy (Mt. 4:1-11). The first answer is significant. "It is written, man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (v. 4, cited from Dt. 8:3). This response summarizes the Lord's bibliology.

1. He affirmed the doctrine of the verbal, plenary inspiration of the autographa by stating the source of Scripture--"the mouth of God."

2. He affirmed the authority of Scripture, and consequently its infallibility and inerrancy, by upholding it as a standard by which "man shall live."

3. He affirmed the doctrine of the verbal, plenary preservation of Scripture by the expression. "It is written (gegraptai). The perfect tense which He utilized expresses a completed action with a resulting state of being (A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, 1934, p. 858ff). In effect, the Lord said "It was written and still is written."

 

For what then do you and Burgon claim letter for letter inspiration? Or even letter for letter preservation?

 

tbc, How did you decide that the KJV was the single act of Providential Preservation in the English language?

Is your choice arbitrary, experential, or biblical?

 

Question: How do you translate punctuation when there was none in the original manuscripts?

Shouldn't we also run our words together (getting rid of those "added" spaces) and get rid of the added chapter and verse numbers?

 

C4K;
It is apparent to this "non-scholar" that tbc1611 answered your question in the remainder of his post. How did you miss it? Did you read it all?

Just asking. Not fighting.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

Wycliffe's translation, the Douay Rheims and other English translation (which were in "their timeframe") were not TR-based, but Vulgate-based. Yet they called them "the word of God" anyway. As well, they called the Septuagint (which is FAR more different from the traditional text than the critical text is) "the word of God". If they could call these Bibles "the word of God", I really doubt they would have a problem with attributing the same title to the critical texts even if they would have prefered the traditional texts.

 

Then how do you explain the LETTER differences between different editions of the KJV, and between the KJV and every previous Bible (in Engilsh or not)?

 

TBC 1611:

Have you ever compared Isaiah 61:1-3 and Isaiah 42:7 with what JESUS READ ALOUD in Luke 4:16-21 as recorded in the KJV? Please make a careful comparison and you'll see they don't match. Obviously, what JESUS read doesn't match the Masoretic Text version of Isaiah. But, does any Baptist dare say JESUS was reading from a bogus edition?

Your quotes of Strouse's writings does nothing to boost the KJVO myth. As Baptists, we all believe in the verbal, plenary preservation and final authority of Scripture. However, JESUS, The Word, is NOT limited to just one version of Scripture, and WE shouldn't be, either. After all, if we took a Japanese Bible, a Russian Bible, and a French Bible & translated them all into English, we'd have three differing English versions.

 

AV 1611 Jim: I think at the very least this will prove to the many opposers of KJVo that we do indeed do our homework.

But ya can't make omelettes outta cucumbers. Adding spice to an incorrect doctrine won't make that doctrine right.

tbc1611 is much more thorough, to my chagrin.

But the more thorough one is with a wrong premise, the more thoroughly wrong one is.

 

Robycop3, hasn't it been shown that Jesus actually quoted from the Septuagint in at least some of these Scriptures?

 

I can't say for sure, Phillip, as I don't read Greek...but I HAVE been told by a Greek friend that many of the NT quotes of OT Scripture DO match the LXX, including JESUS' reading of Isaiah in Luke.

Jesus was merely using the language(s) of His neighbors. As The Word, He coulda used any language there ever was or will be...but would His fellows have understood a word he said? Many of'em had trouble with the familiar Aramaic he used while on the cross.

You prolly know a lot more about this than I do, Phillip, so I'll defer to YOUR take on this.

 

C4K,

The Traditional Text, designated TR, RT, MT etc. has been handed down with precision and accuracy, read Burgons book 'The Traditional Text' Volume 1 and 2. Scribal errors in manuscripts are discernable and are overcome. If you were to ask Jesus this question (concerning inspiration) what would He have said? Did Jesus believe in Verbal Inspiration? YES. (Read my previous citations)

My Bibliology will not allow me to believe that I have a Bible with errors. Jesus believed He had a perfect OT Bible. The Original language texts (Traditional Greek and Masoretic Hebrew) have been faithfully preserved for us to use in translation into any and all languages of the world. Your letter for letter question implies more than just a doubt on English Translation, but rather a question on the integrity of any Bible you hold in your hand. How confident are you in your Bible? Can you, with authority claim any of it is true? If you pick and choose which parts are accurate, what method do you use? Do you throw out parts that you may not like? I propose that without a belief in VERBAL INSPIRATION in the (and you must choose a text and stand upon it) original autographs and a faithful, providential transmission of a preserved text, you cannot speak with Biblical Authority.

A final question I pose, If God is big enough to save us by His grace, big enough to raise the dead, big enough to rise Himself from the dead, and big enough to inspire a text thousands of years ago, why is He not big enough to preserve us what He gave to His disciples? If He did not preserve what He gave them, that we may know exactly what He said, then why should I even trust Him to save me for eternity?....

 

Actually, I do not. You make a good point. It will be interesting to try to research this and determine if it is true. I took Greek, but I am by no-means a scholar of it and I struggle with it.

Maybe a good Greek scholar will provide us a good answer.

Thanks

 

There is absolutely no proof that Jesus and the disciples quoted from the LXX. This is a false teaching propogated by a "lost letter" found to be a hoax. Material is currently being written to refute this error. Origin promoted the LXX and actually compiled/wrote most of the LXX. There is not one ounce of Historical proof that 70 Jews assembled at Alexandria and translated the LXX. Rather than Jesus and the disciples quoting the LXX, the LXX is a plagerism of the gospels.

 

Do you not understand? Where was the jot-and-tittle-perfect-preserved-word-of-God (TM) before those scribal errors were discerned and overcome? If God's promise of preservation is true now (and it is), it was true then, before those scribal errors were discerned and overcome. And if God's promise of preservation was true then (and it was), then jot-and-tittle-perfect-preserved-word-of-God (TM) does not need to exist now for God's promise to still be true. To make a DOCTRINE out of the idea that it DOES, it to make a new, extra-Biblical, non-authoritative doctrine.

Totally confident. All of it is true, for the truth is not contained in the ink, but in the message rightly divided regardless of minor imperfections in the ink.

He IS, and he DID - just not in the way you think.