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

"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]

"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]
[/QUOTE]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)


Response...
Burgon did not just "generally oppose" W/H. He opposed them with all his credentials, energy, time and effort. The revisionists were apostates and any truth which might be found in their text will be acknowledged, but not at the expense of the remainder of the Book, RR. It is misleading to characterize Burgon as an advocate of the Revision, HE WAS NOT...thus the Book!

I left my orginal quote of Burgon, because it tells his view of the issue in a balanced way

 

He believed their work was a step backwards. But he also admitted that occasionally they did manage to make an improvement to the text.

Were not. Not even Burgon questioned them in this regard, even though he was vocally opposed to their theories and effort. Do you have info not even Burgon and other contemporaries had? If so, put it forth. If not, please cut the slander.

I agree. He was against the Revision. But he was not against every detail of the Revision.

 

Natters,

As a matter of 'interpretation', I can see typology, etc. in Psalm 12. For if God preserves His Words, He must preserve His people. I hope you believe in 'the security of the believer!' This does not, however, allow me to change the TEXT based on interpretation. I understand that more than one meaning (surface and deeper; literal and prophetic, etc.) may be seen, if the literal is not neglected nor denied.

Regarding negative vs. positive influence on the text, the only reason there are questions about verses which 'solidify' a position would be because an arian et. al, etc. would deny the doctrine. I have no proof someone 'added' a text because they were worried about losing a doctrine, nor do I believe, if this happened that it would be right. We cannot add to nor take from the Words. There is proof that individuals OUTSIDE the church added or subtracted from the Word.

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Character of God's people...

2 Corinthians 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

Thus, whether negative or positive, both are really of the same cloth...wrong.

Westcott and Hort were not great men, but apostates who denied the fundamentals of the faith.

The variations of the TR concern less than 1.3 % of the Words and of those 1.3%, we have version, church fathers, lectionaries, etc. to confirm the readings. The chasm is not what is implied. You overlook 5210 manuscripts opposing 43.

To say 'one can arrive at a proper interpretation' is not our issue. The Words cannot be changed BASED on interpretation. Hermeneutics is another issue that we will never reach if we cannot be settled upon the TEXT.

 

I didn't ask if you had proof. I asked if you could admit it was possible.

Yes, but where is the proof that any of the textual variants under debate are a direct result of these individuals?

Again, not even Burgon questioned them in this regard, even though he was vocally opposed to their theories and effort. Do you have info not even Burgon and other contemporaries had? If so, put it forth. If not, please cut the slander.

I do not over look them. I simply acknowedge that 1.3% is not 0%.

 

Who here has 'pride', as you falsely allude to our actions as being sinful! You assume falsely that the text of the KJV is 'perfect', and which all of us have demonstrated that it is not. TBC1611, your problem lies with a false view of Scripture and how it was transmitted through the extant manuscripts. The KJV is NOT an inspired and inerrant Bible; only the original autographs can make this claim. Textual variants have entered into the text of the Bible throughout history and therefore have errors in them, and likewise, the various translations of those manuscripts (or, texts) into the English language have errors in them. You falsely accuse us of 'correcting' the Bible, but if the KJV, as well as other English translations, have errors in them, we are in no way 'correcting' the Word of God!

Have we 'lost the debate'? I think that this would be true if it were just yourself to resolve this! Instead of debating our points about the exegesis of Psalm 12, you begged the question. If this Psalm is a part of other verses that support your 'doctrine of preservation', then please expound them here!

1. You cannot prove a 'gnostic influence' that caused this variance in the Greek NT. Oh, those eeeeevil Gnostics!
2. What about the uses of 'os' in Philippians 2:6, Colossians 1:15, and Hebrews 1:3. Just because the pronoun isn't using 'theos' doesn't mean that the text is denying the deity of Christ!

Such corruptions, as you have suggested, do not exist in any textual variant, nor does any textual variant demonstrate that there is a 'Gnostic' influence in the earlier manuscripts. You may continue to post drivel about your Gnostic conspiracies, but they don't stand the test of historical evidence.

What exactly are you saying here? We have proven our points about the historical evidence, which does not prove your erroneous views about how the text of the Bible was transmitted. In order to promote your arguments, you need to do better than this. In arguing for a perfectly providentially preserved (mmmmm.... PICKLES! )KJV, you have to distort the historical record to fit your false doctrine.

In our view, your position is already stuck on the sand! If we are wrong about our assertions, then prove your point. Don't make blind assertions that your position is the right one.

Experience does not equal truth. You can continue to use the KJV because it is the Word of God, but it is not exclusively the Word of God in the English language. You are demanding uniformity rather than unity!

You have again made the false assumption that the KJV = inspired/perfect original autographs. We have demonstrated that the KJV has errors in it. Does this detract from the Word of God? Absolutely not! Again, you are demanding perfection in something that is demonstrably imperfect.

1. This is completely untrue! Don't assert facts that you have no idea are true or not. There are more than fifty manuscripts that support the modern/eclectic Greek NT.
2. You don't 'count noses' and then decide what is the Word of God! If this is true, then you are just as guilty in 'deciding' what's the Word of God and what is not!

Uh, another fallacious statement you have made! All of the extant manuscripts have been carefully evaluated and documented in the various modern Greek NT's-- including the Majority Text!

So, do you, tbc1611, have the qualifications to evaluate the academic qualifications of others? Those who have translated the Word of God from the original languages (Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek) today are as equally qualified to translate as the KJV translators did. Erasmus, as well as Westcott and Hort, had their limitations and shortcomings. Just because you think one is great because of your a priori bias toward another does not detract from the excellent qualifications of all three men.

So, does a Hindu man believe that the KJV is the Word of God? Again, experience does not mean truth; KJV does not equal inspired, inerrant original autographs.

Do you think that this statement goes along with the spirit of debate? Methinks that heresy doesn't end with Westcott & Hort!

tbc1611, I think that you are sincere in your beliefs, but sincerity does not make one postulate error any better, nor does sincerity validate error as being the truth. I would seriously examine your statements above, as well as the statements of others here who have made mincemeat of your false assertions, brother!
KJV-onlyism has done more to distort and destroy one's faith in the Word of God, and it does an injustice to the HISTORICAL doctrines of inspiration (theopneustos), inerrancy, infallibility, illumination, and preservation.

 

OK, that makes sense! I just wish that other KJV-onlyists here would say the same. The problem with this statement is how do you say that the underlying text, specifically the TR, is 'providentially preserved'? I say it this way, how can you make such a conclusion? If God preserved His Word, why the TR? Why not the modern eclectic Greek NT's (UBS and N/A)? You see, this is the problem: God did not 'perfectly providentially preserve' His Word into any text-type, manuscript, or family of manuscripts. If the TR has errors in it, then your theory goes kaboom!

Again, you are doing better than most KJV-onlyists that post here, but what does preservation have to do with translations? The KJV is not the 'preserved translation' no more than the TR is the 'preserved text'.

The biggest problem for KJV-onlyists is in proving that the TR = the autographa. God did not manipulate the copying of manuscripts to preserve the text from errors. Thus, the KJV-only 'doctrine' of providential preservation is null and void.

 

BUMP!

This topic is too important NOT to read!

 

Dr. Bob, et. al.,

May I quote the KJV 'Anglican' translators who have helped us in the meaning...

Psal. XII

6 The wordes of the LORD are pure wordes: *as siluer tried in a fornace of earth purified seuen times.

(Margin) * 2 Sam. 23:31, psal. 18:29 &119 ver. 140. prou. 30:5

7 Thou shalt keepe them, (O LORD,) thou shalt preserue †them, from this generation for euer.

(Margin) †Heb. Him, i. euery one of them.

I am not sure were you got your information concerning the 'Anglican'(I quote this because of the reality of your spirit that does not like anyone really using the KJV for ANY reason. If it's no problem as a 'preference', why knock it?) translators enlightening us on the Hebrew. They enlightened us alright, they reinforced the translation "EVERY ONE OF THEM."

May I remind you that HIS NAME IS CALLED THE WORD OF GOD. Though Jesus Christ and the Bible are different, they are INSEPARABLE.

Thanks for the advise to get out my 1611 and look at the notes. I'm a slow learner when it comes to grammar.

I concur with your statement concerning determining interpretation from the original text. This is what I do. I look to the Greek and Hebrew for assistance and clarity, for IT is the Word of God.

Diddos LRL71, read, read, read!

 

You forgot the Him. the side-note says:
Him, i. euery one of them.

Him refers to the righteous man, and every one of them will be preserved. The Geneva Bible says him right in the text with no note. So, we can be assured that the verse is about people.

 

Which one do you agree with? Burgon or Westcott? They were Anglicans, but I wonder why they disagreed each other in regard of the Word of God.

 

I disagree with Gary Hudson in his website.

 

You jump too far to verse 5. You are incorrect.

I agree with tbc1611.

I agree with tbc1611.

Natters, I told you.

 

So, you believe someone elses lies about W & H instead of what they wrote themselves? You are incorrigible.

 

Getting past the trolling from our local troll....

The major problem for you tbc1611 is the 1611 KJV. Other posters have handled your myths very well so I will not repeat what has already been stated.

If Wescott and Hort were apostates then are the AV1611 translators apostates for creating a new bible and changing the Geneva Bible which is more accurate than the KJV? Why change the Geneva? Why did Blayney change the KJV is circa 1769? Oh I almost forgot the AV1611 was corrected in 1613! Yikes those bible correcting translators!

*I use the word apostate in order to show the slander coming from the KJVO Camp.

 

Depends on the specific issue. Sometimes I agree with one, sometimes with the other. Sometimes I am unsure.

That's nice. Care to say why?

Says who?

Agree all you want, but I put forth the same comments to you that I put forth to him (which he has thusfar ignored):

Were not. Not even Burgon questioned them in this regard, even though he was vocally opposed to their theories and effort. Do you have info not even Burgon and other contemporaries had? If so, put it forth. If not, please cut the slander.

Claim it all you want, Askjo. But the fact remains that claiming it does not make it so. You do not post their quotes in context, nor retract when context is provided. When we went through this a couple of months ago with you and Michele, Michele and your final conclusion was that they didn't ever write or say anything heretical, because they "wanted to hide their real beliefs". In other words, not a speck of proof for your views, and even an admission that this is the case. Do you remember that? Do we really need to go through all that again?

There is a rhyming cliché in debates, and the tactful version is this: provide your evidence, or politely stop talking about it. Have you read any of their books??? "Prov 18:13 He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him." Don't let this be folly and shame unto you, Askjo.

 

Ah, it is your dilemma.

You said, "Yes, Burgon generally opposed Westcott and Hort's theories"

Why oppose? Is your dilemma obvious? I think it is nonsense.

 

Neither Burgon nor Spurgeon nor any other contemporary condemned Wescott or Hort of being apostates. So, unless you have evidence that they indeed were apostates, you should knock off the libel. KJVO authors that quote other KJVO authors is not proper evidence.

 

Ah, it is your dilemma.

You said, "Yes, Burgon generally opposed Westcott and Hort's theories"

Why oppose? Is your dilemma obvious? I think it is nonsense. </font>[/QUOTE]No dilemma, my brother. You're the one who continues to answer a matter before your hear it. Whatever, Askjo. Live in ignorance and denial if you want to. As for me, I choose honesty and to study to show myself approved.