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

Don't worry, Brother Tbc1611, this post will NOT count
against you.

Supporting scripture:
Acts 16:16-18 (KJV1611):

And it came to passe, as we went to prayer,
a certaine Damosell possessed with a spirit
of diuination, met vs: which brought her masters
much gaine by soothsaying.
17 The same followed Paul and vs, and cried, saying,
These men are the seruants of the most hie God,
which shew vnto vs the way of saluation.
18 And this did she many dayes: but Paul being grieued,
turned and said to the spirit, I command thee
in the Name of Iesus Christ, to come out of her.
And he came out the same houre.

BTW, Brother , I recommend this topic/post
for a good short read:

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/4/1993.html


According to it, i am a KJVO#1. As you see
now that i have the electronic copy of the
KJV1611 edition in e-Sword, i like to use
it a lot.

 

Throughout church history, the idea of the pre-Christ LXX was virtually universally believed and accepted. Many OT quotes in the NT match the LXX much better than the Hebrew. The LXX contains pseudepigraphal books that were written before Christ. Early church fathers talked about it and how/when it was produced. The reasonable explanation, without substantial evidence to the contrary, is that the LXX (or some semblance of it) existed before Christ. Scholars throughout history believed it (including the KJV translators, who even called it "the word of God"), and as far as I am able to determine, it is only KJV-only supporters in the last few decades who are the first in history to question this - without evidence and with ulterior motives (because the NT quoting from a Greek OT demolishes the KJV-only concept of single-Bible word-preservation).

I'm not saying the above reasons are absolute proof, but to me it seems by FAR the most sensical explanation, until someone can prove otherwise.

I disagree. A "tittle" (Greek "keraia") refers to little marks in either language. Thayer's lexicon says "used by Greek grammarians of the accents and diacritical points".

 

The KJV is NOT the "only" one.

Most of the pre-KJV English Bibles used it (KJV-only author D.A. Waite lists the KJV as the 17th complete English translation). Some post-KJV Bibles that use the TR are Webster's, Darby's, Young's Literal, the Revised Webster's, the MKJV, the World English Bible, the Hebrew Names Version, etc. Two of those (namely the MKJV and Young's Literal) are accepted as being more accurately translated from the TR than the KJV is.

I personally have reprints (which anyone can buy for themselves at many online bookstores) of Tyndale's, Cramner's, the Geneva, etc. All English, all TR-based.

Are any/all of the above English Bibles "the word of God" in your opinion?

As well, many other-language Bibles are TR-based but differ from the KJV. For example, Luther's German does not have 1 John 5:7 (because the first 2 editions of the TR did not have it either). Is Luther's "the word of God" in German, even though it (and early editions of the TR) have these textual variations?

 

I read the source saying that Dr. John R. Rice used the Roman Catholic Bible and witnessed to lost souls who are Roman Catholics.

A lady shared with me about her testimony on discussing with Roman Catholics. She notified me that she was awestruck to learn something about the Roman Catholics. I asked her, is RC a cult? She admitted saying, "YES, it is." Surprise!

See 2 different details above.

Any thoughts?

I will explain about the RC Bible that Dr. John Rice used for winning Roman Catholics to Christ in next post later.

 

OK, I'm back!

tbc1611,

I've done a bit of reading from a thread posted here on the BV/T forum in September/October 2002, in order to research some comments made by myself and others which are basically a mirror of the same subject being discussed here on this thread.

In regard to 'providential preservation', I will post below the comments from Pastor Larry:

Now, for my comments about your comments about 'providential preservation'. After having read the posts by others who hold to the same position(s) that I hold to, that is being that we repudiate the false teaching of KJV-onlyism, I think that the issue of how 'providential preservation' is being defined does injustice to the doctrines of inspiration, inerrancy, infallibility, and illumination. In order for you to defend your position, you need to seriously answer Pastor Larry's questions above, and even more seriously, that you need to ask yourself what and how you define the doctrines of inspiration, inerrancy, infallibility, and illumination. All of the Bible passages that are quoted by KJV-only/preferred proponents do not address providential preservation, but rather they are proof-texts of the doctrine of infallibility. The hermeneutical approach that IFB's have historically adopted is the historical/grammatical (literal) interpretation of Scripture, yet it seems that KJV-only/preferred proponents actually 'read into' these passages of an a priori presupposition of their view of 'providential preservation'.
The problem with the KJV-only/preferred definition of 'providential preservation' is that it demands that God should somehow preserve the very exact words, and that those words were somehow providentially preserved in the TR. Remember that you had said earlier that, "This subject is one of defining 'Inspiration and Preservation.' I believe God inspired the original words of scripture and consequently preserved these words in the Masoretic and Textus Receptus." Here you are equating preservation with inspiration, and consequently that definition is that if the Word of God is verbally inspired in the original autographs (to which we all agree!), then you make the assumption that the exact words of the text of the Bible have been [/i]providentially preserved in the MT of the Old Testament and the TR of the New Testament[/i]. The problem here is that there is no Bible verse to support this view of 'providential preservation', nor does this view account for the fact that during the copying and transmission of the text of the Bible, errors were entered into the text of the OT Hebrew and NT Greek. There is not a single Greek manuscript in existence today that is without a copying error in it; even the KJV acknowledged thirteen different textual variants in the marginal notes! This fact is a glaring contradiction to the KJV-only/preferred view of 'providential preservation'. Secondly, you also stated in another post that, "My Bibliology will not allow me to believe that I have a Bible with errors. Jesus believed He had a perfect OT Bible." I believe strongly that you have confused the correct and biblical view that inerrancy is applied to only the original autographs versus with the wrong KJV-only/preferred view that inerrancy is being applied to the copied manuscripts. Nowhere in the Scriptures is it stated that Jesus assumed or even stated that he had a 'perfect' OT Bible! Jesus acknowledged that the OT text in which he read from, whether the Hebrew or LXX, was authoratative, not 'perfect'.

The fact that.... (1.) the Scriptures are silent about the mode in which God preserved the text of the Bible, (2.) the Scriptures were inspired (theopneustos) and inerrant in the original autographs only, (3.) the copies of the manuscripts all have copying errors in them (sometimes referred to as 'corruptions'), (4.) no text-type can be proven with absolute certainty that they read word-for-word as the original autographs do since the autographs have been lost, and (5.) that no version translated into the English language are without translational/textual/grammatical errors despite many being faithfully translated from their respective underlying text....
does not mean that the Bible in which you have, whether the KJV or ESV, is not authoratative and infallible in that they all faithfully reflect the Word of God as given in the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek languages. I am NOT saying that the Bible is full of errors-- that is an unjust accusation of my position-- but that the kinds of errors, those that were unintentionally entered into the text of the Bible through the transmission of the copied manuscripts, do not subtract from the infallibility of the Scriptures. As given from the pen of the apostles and prophets, the Scriptures were originally God-breathed and..... see 2 Tim. 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:21 (especially 2 Peter 1:21-- it is only through the apostles and prophets that the gift of 'inspiration' was given, thus, what they wrote was an inspired, inerrant product!).

tbc1611,

I've read your gracious comments and commend you for your temperament. I will admit that mine has not been so often this way; I've been corrected often by the moderators, both MV-preferred and KJV-preferred alike. It is with those like yourself that the "KJV-only" controversy can be debated well. I have other posts here to make in response to your statements, so keep reading!

 

tbc1611,

In response to your comments on Psalm 12:5-7, I had also gone back to remarks that I made from a BV/T thread back in Sept/Oct 2002. Here's an exegesis from this passage:

 

Correction: perhaps an oversight by tbc1611, but this quotation is from the Westminster Confession.

In order to put this confessional statement into perspective, and into the context in which it was written, I will again quote from Doug Kutilek, ( http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_westminster_confession.htm ) regarding the statements in the Westminster Confession:

It is easily seen that the KJV-only/preferred view of providential preservation cannot be sustained by the statements of the writers of the Westminster Confession, nor of the other Baptist confessions (London Baptist Confession & New Hampshire Baptist Confession).

I can agree with the spirit of tbc1611's statement here, so as that preservation is just that: an observation of God's providence in allowing the written Word of God to come down to us, even with the allowance of transmissional errors. One cannot make a doctrinal statement with clear references from the Scriptures that 'providential preservation', as KJV-only/preferred proponents define it. To demand that God perfectly preserve (mmmm.... pickles! ) the exact readings of the text of the Bible, and even beyond that, to perfectly preserve (mmmm.... pickles! ) the text of the Bible exactly as how the TR reads is untenable and unsustainable either Biblically, historically, or textually.

The above statements, not made by tbc1611, but rather were quoted by him from another author, is historically inaccurate.
1. The transmission of the text of the Bible was primarily done by scribes, both Jewish (in the OT), and either Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox (in the NT). A great number of these manuscripts were copied by scribes who *did not* know the Lord, and if they did, they believed Jesus Christ in spite of the Roman/Eastern Catholic church. There is not a single iota of evidence that these scribes, despite being Catholic, had attended to defame, distort, or twist the readings of the copies that they made. The nature of the errors in the copied manuscripts were largely ones that were due to human error!
2. The allusion to J.M. Carroll's book, "The Trail of Blood" has been documented with historical inaccuracies and distortions, with the resultant error being 'Landmarkism'. ( see http://www.volstate.net/~credo/page13.html and
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8297/landmarkism.pdf and http://www.yellowstone.net/baptist/history.htm

For a larger work on Baptist History, see H. Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage (Nashville: Broadman Press )

There is no proof for this kind of historical analysis of Baptist history, nor is it proof that the providential preservation of the Biblical text was made solely by 'Baptist' believers through the ages.
3. Whether or not a believer can or cannot distort Scripture is not relevant to the discussion about the transmission of the text of the Bible nor is it relevant to providential preservation. Again, during the transmission of the text of the Bible, scribes were copying the Bible, and in a limited few instances did anyone attempt to deliberately corrupt the text.

This statement is completely baseless and without factual evidence. The conjecture of this author's statements is based on a distorted view of 'Baptist history', which has been disproven above. Secondly, whether or not the manuscripts were written in any place (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus being 'written' in Alexandria? Conjecture at best!) is not indicative of the biases of the copyists. This kind of argument is called 'guilt by association' and is liken to saying that independent, fundamental Baptist churches in Las Vegas, Nevada are corrupted by the excesses, sin, and idolatry of the city! There is no proof that Greek NT manuscripts were deliberately 'corrupted' by the biases of the copyists with exception to a handful of minor infractions.

This statement most certainly takes the cake for originality!
Where is the historical evidence that Erasmus was supplied manuscripts by 'Waldensian churches'?? I think that this statement is tbc1611's direct quote, but I'm not sure. If this is the case, then this distortion of history is without a shred of integrity! In order to promote his case, historical facts are either concocted, manufactured, or seriously distorted. I'm not saying that tbc1611 is deliberately twisting historical facts, but his statements are a stretch of faith that cannot be sustained under scrutiny.

In order for those of the KJV-only/preferred view to prove their case ligitimately, they must not resort to basing their arguments on historical mis-statements, let alone faulty hermeneutical analysis of Bible passages that do not teach 'providential preservation' as they define it. Too often it has been the case that exegetical fallacies and historical errors are deliberately committed in order to prove their point. Under the scrutiny of 'Berean Christians', such statements fall short of being true and honest.

 

What? No replies? Hellloooo? Anyone home?

 

tbc1611
"Please give historical and credible evidence for the existence of the LXX pre-Christ."
'
There are still fragments in existance of the LXX that predate the year 0. Pictures of these fragments can even be found on the internet.
http://www.christianseparatist.org/ast/hist/thumb.htm

 

tbc1611
"Thus, the KJV being the only English Bible in our day translated completely and exclusively from the TR family once received,"
"
The first edition of the TR was published in 1624 by the printingfirm Elsevier in the Netherlands, that's 13 years after the KJV was printed for the first time....
So no the KJV is not a TR translation, it was based on the edition of the Greek NT of Erasmus just as the TR is, but they're not the same.

 

mioque;

Read the sentence you quoted again please.
The man said, "TR family.


In HIS service;
Jim

 

LRL71...

If the psalm 12:7 thingy as advocated by some KJVOs were true, it'd be another nail in the coffin of the KJVO myth, as clearly no two valid English BVs are alike. God has indeed preserved His word ACCORDING TO HIS OWN CHOICES and He is NOT limited by any man-made myths and legends.

 

robycop3,

Good statement about Psalm 12!

The exegesis of Psalm 12 does not lend any support toward the 'providential preservation' doctrine. Even if Psalm 12 had taught providential preservation, it does not teach, as many KJV-only/preferred proponents assert, that God preserved the Word of God:
1. Into the Textus Receptus or the Majority Text, or into any 'family' of texts or manuscripts.
2. That the exact reading of the original manuscripts would be preserved in the copied manuscripts.
3. That the KJV is the only English Bible that God would 'preserve His Word' into.

Secondly, since there seems to be a drought of KJV-0nly posters (with exception to av1611jim) since my last three long posts, it seems to me that those who hold to 'KJV-onlyism' or "TR-onlyism" don't have anything further to promote their false teachings. Doctrinally or historically, there is nothing to be gained from teaching/promoting/adhering to a doctrine, being defined by KJV-onlyists, that does not have any Biblical basis.

Thirdly, I seriously doubt that KJV-onlyists have read my earlier posts, and because of that, their 'silence' is deafening!!!

 

av1611jim
One could claim that the TR family got its start in 1624.
That may be a bit dishonest though.

A point of interest; a number of KJVO arguments work better when applied to the Statenbijbel of 1637 than when applied to the KJB and a number of attacks on KJVonlyism don't work when used to attack Statenbijbelonlyism (yes there is such a movement).
Maybe it's time to take up the Statenbijbel as the one true translation.
One would never have to defend the inclusion of the word Easter ever again (it reads Pasen) and one could proudly claim that it is the only Bible translated from the true TR on earth.

 

The phrase "Byzantine text type" or even "Traditional Text" would have been better.

Burgon who understood all the differences called it the "Traditional Text" given the functional name of the TR - the Textus Receptus, or the "received text" of the Church of which there are currently several versions which have gone under the title of "Traditional Text" that Burgon refers to many times in his books The Revision Revised and The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels.

One must also remember that Burgon was himself Anglican and when he speaks of "The Church", his view would conceptually be significantly different than the baptistic view of "The Church" with some Baptists denying the view of a "universal church" and most all others denying apostolic successionism.

HankD

 

I notice those two quotes are very close to each other, so I looked them up. Right before the two quotes, he admits the possibility of "representing certain words more accurately,-here and there translating a tense with greater precision,-getting rid of a few archaisms". In between the two quotes, he says, "As a companion in the study and for private edification: as a book of reference for critical purposes, especially in respect of difficult and controverted passages :- we hold that a revised edition of the Authorized Version of our English Bible, (if executed with consummate ability and learning,) would at any time be a work of inestimable value."

Yes, Burgon generally opposed Westcott and Hort's theories, but he did not believe the KJV was perfectly preserved to each and every word. Nor did he believe the KJV was always superior to the Revised Version: for example, he said "It is often urged on behalf of the Revisionists that over not a few dark places of S. Paul's Epistles their labours have thrown important light. Let it not be supposed that we deny this. Many a scriptural difficulty vanishes the instant a place is accurately translated: a greater number when the reading is idiomatic." (pg. 72)

More interesting info at http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/burgon.htm

 

Many of us have posted similar Burgon quotes.


HankD

 

Hello again,

Time has been against me lately! I have/am enjoying the discussions on these issues. With all the retoric aside, I would like to proclaim my approach to the Words of God.

When I sit down and read the text of Scripture I do not have the pride to Correct the text. This is modern man's idea that he can fix the problems with the Bible. Now, ye may not be consciously thinking in this manner, but this is where the argument leads.

Psalm 12 is not the ONLY text which speaks of preservation. If you don't like the verse in your bible, then cut it out! If the KJV translators didn't believe that what they translated was correct here, why did they translate it THEM, instead of US. It is a false claim to indict them concerning this 'interpretation.' One cannot 'interprete' THEM as US. The fight concerning this verse would seem as though, if the KJV reading is correct, then the opposing side loses the debate. This, to me, seems to be the spirit of the attack of this verse.

It is like the false 'interpretation' of 1 Tim. 3:16, where some texts read 'os' who, not he, as the modern versions translate it; where the TR reads theos. GNOSTIC influence!

Will anyone here admit to any corruptions? Do any deny gnostic influences on the text of scripture? Will anyone admit that the devil hates the bible and would love to see it destroyed? It is sad that the days are gone, where Christianity looks to One authoritative Bible. This is the cause of much disunity and is destroying the church within.
Both sides of the debate have failed in many areas. My position is a HISTORICAL position. I HAVE NOT deviated from the course of church history. It is the modern movement that promotes evolution in Textual Criticism, language, etc.

I seek the welfare of the people of God. In this, I believe it is important that we stand upon a solid foundation. In my view, the modern position is on sinking sand.

We have past the age where we would ever get the churches as a whole to agree upon a text. Is not this a sign of the times? Because of this, we should accept that which we have had and which has blessed us for the past 400 years.

Is there anyone out there who believes the Word of God is 'Incorruptible', 'Pure',etc.? Very hard to find...

If ye approach the Word of God as a human book, tainted by human hands, you are in error...

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

The WORDS we speak of are NOT man's words! May we be very careful how we DISECT them.

There are over 5,200 manuscripts which are TR (this term was coined because of the historical evidence that the readings were TRADITIONAL) manuscripts. There are less than 50 which support modern readings! No human being will ever be able to collate all 5,000 manuscripts, thus it has been the historical position of the church to RECEIVE that which was handed down by the FAITHFUL.

[snipped]Men like ERASMUS were great men and do not deserve the criticism. Read some of his works. I am not a cultic, minority pastor who chooses historically rejected readings. I am a Christian who chooses to stand upon a Bible that has been accepted for HUNDREDS of years and believe there is NO PERSON, NO COMMITTEE, NO CHURCH, NRGANIZATION in our day qualified to undertake in improving the English translation we have. Are there achaic words? Yes. Does my newspaper use archaic words? Yes. Thess are petty issues. The problem I see is God's people declaring to a lost and dying world that "We aren't really sure about anything." I recently had a Hindu man tell one of my members when told he ought to read the Bible that we "Christians don't even have our act together on which Bible we should use." Thus, he sees INCONSISTENCY on the part of believers.

[attack snipped - watch your choice of words]

May God have mercy upon us all.

ps. If I remain silent, it is not because I have given up or without an answer. Some things need not a response.

Another post, In Love

[ February 22, 2005, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob ]

 

ps. I must say AGAIN, I do not use the term 'perfect preservation' for the KJV. The KJV is a translation only. It is the words underlying it that I believe are preserved, thus in a manner of speaking I can say I have the preserved words of God translated into English...

Preservation only extends to the various languages of the world by way of accurate translating from a proper text. I would not advocate creating a Bible in another language from the KJV. The KJV is a product, not the Source.

 

I like the verse, in all versions.

I disagree. I believe the KJV's rendering here is entirely correct. It is the usual KJV-only interpretation of the verse I disagree with. I believe "them" refers to the poor and needy of verse 5. Which would include "us", if the writer of the Psalm was including himself in that group, which context seems to indicate he was.

Again, do not confuse the text with the interpretation of the text. Perhaps "os" appears because of Gnostic influence, maybe not (I'd like to see PROOF either way), but one can still arrive at the correct interpretation regardless.

Of course! But how do we conclusively identify such corruptions? By what "sounds better" to some arbitrary person?

Yes, I will admit to corruptions. And I believe it is extremely possible that some of the corruptions were not only due to a negative influence, but also to a positive influence, such as a scribe wanting to "solidify" or "clarify" or better harmonize a passage, deliberately or by mistake. Do you deny this is possible?

Very short history. The church historically has accepted the KJV as the word of God, but never it nor the TR under it as the exclusive, word-perfect word of God.

No. The church historically has never universally agreed upon a text.

I do! See, not so hard to find.

Yet no two of them agree 100%.

Westcott and Hort were great men. I have read their works. Have you?