Interesting Pre-1881 Quotes

[franklinmonroe]

I picked up some books from the local Christian college's library recently. One I choose quickly based primarily upon the force of a quotation of Alexander Campbell. Campbell produced an 'immersion' version of the New Testament compiled primarily from the work of three separate men. Campbell's Sacred Writings (1826) is briefly discussed in Bible Translations: A History Through Source Documents (1992) by Roland H. Worth, Jr. Following that description comes a long quote (from p.154 under the heading of "79. No Word of God without the King James Version?") --

So badly taught are many christians that they cannot think that any translation of the scriptures deserves the the title of the Word of God except that of king James. ...​

These quotes are originally from a Campbell article in a 1870 Baptist publication; later he states --

... And that the king James version needs a revision is just as plain to the learned and biblical student, as that the Scotch and English used in the sixteenth century, is not the language now spoken in these United States. And this may be made as plain to the common mind, as it is that the coat which suited the boy of twelve, will not suit the same person when forty years old. As the boy grows from his coat, so do we from the language of our ancestors.​

 

[stilllearning]

Alexander Campbell was an interesting fellow..........

"Alexander Campbell's family background was Presbyterian (they were from Scotland), but he and his father became Baptists in 1812. Campbell became a popular Baptist preacher and editor of a widely circulated paper, The Christian Baptist.
Rejecting a variety of elements in the Baptist churches of his time, Campbell later formed the Churches of Christ denomination. Campbell rejected infant baptism and confessions of faith, especially the Philadelphia Confession of Faith (1742). Campbell's maxim was "Where the Bible speaks, we speak; where the Bible is silent, we are silent."

"Campbell also had serious soteriological differences with the Baptists. He taught a doctrine that sounded very much like baptismal regeneration, denying the direct agency of the Holy Spirit in conversion............."


http://www.adherents.com/people/pc/Alexander_Campbell.html

 

[BobinKy]

It would be interesting to know the number of Baptist churches (and members) that migrated to the Stone/Campbell movement.



In central Kentucky you continue to see an occasional Christian Baptist Church. And emotions still run high in some rural areas about Baptist church property lost to the Campbellite movement. This occurred primarily in central and western portions of the state. The campbellite movement never gained much footing in the eastern (mountain region) of the state--home of the regular and united Baptist churches. Appalachian church history is very interesting and much different than church history among the flatlanders.

. . .

I am a Kentucky/Ohio flatlander; however, my heart and family history is Appalachian. I return to Appalachia ever chance I get.



...Bob

 

[franklinmonroe]

So badly taught are many christians that they cannot think that any translation of the scriptures deserves the the title of the Word of God except that of king James. ...​

I thought these words were interesting in light of many folks thinking that the 'versions debate' is of somewhat modern origins. Often it is assumed that the issue of various translations was initiated by the debute of W&H and the RV (1881). Many people point to Benjamin Wilkinson as the beginning (1930); some others give the credit to David Otis Fuller and J.J. Ray in the mid-1950s. Some claim that 'KJV-Onlyism' did not really rise until Ruckman and Riplinger. But this quote indicates that sides were being drawn before 1870.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Another provocative quote by Campbell (from an 1832 article) --

The faith of Christians who read many versions must necessarily be stronger than the faith of those who read but one. Some, indeed, think otherwise; but they confound faith and opinion. Nothing but facts, or the testimony concerning facts, can be the object of faith. No man can believe that the Moon is inhabited, but many may be of opinion that it is. Where there is no testimony there can be no faith, and where there are no facts, real or alleged, there can be no testimony. But these matters have been fully canvassed in our pages. Now he that reads numerous versions has more testimony than he that reads but one: more testimony in favor of the certainty of the facts which he reads in one version; because all translations in our language exhibit all the same facts, and only differ in the degrees of strength, perspicuity, precision, and beauty in which they present them. No new fact in the gospel history is brought to light — no new character introduced — no new transactions exhibited in any version in the modern tongues of the earth. He that reads numerous versions has greater assurance that he has a trust-worthy translation of the original, than he that reads but one — because the more independent versions he reads, the more witnesses he has that the facts which he believes are the facts reported in the original tongue, seeing that all translators, however they may differ about the meaning of the facts, agree in the narration of the facts.

Various translations are like the four gospels — which, indeed, are four versions of the same history. Though not translations of the same original tongue, they are versions of the same original story, or such parts of it as each narrator thought most conducive to the object he had in view in reference to those addressed. Infidels object to four gospels and a plurality of translations from the same logic and from the same motives. But the intelligent Christian can appreciate the value of four testimonies, and for the same reasons he will appreciate various versions of the New Testament, until there is a perfect and universal agreement in favor of one; which is not to be expected before the Millennium.
​

This quote may be read in its complete context at
http://www.bible-researcher.com/campbell2.html

 

[Ed Edwards]

I like this from Campbell:
// ... all translations in our language exhibit all the same facts, and only differ in the degrees of strength, perspicuity, precision, and beauty in which they present them ... \\

which tends to show the truth of my trailer/signature block

 

[stilllearning]

Totally off topic post

 

[franklinmonroe]

The following quote comes from one of the introductory chapters of Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible by John W. Haley which was originally published about 1874. A wonderful book that thoroughly defends the Bible (page 48) --

The famous Bentley{4}, one of the ablest critics England has ever seen, observes: "The real text of the sacred writers does not now (since the orignals have been so long lost) lie in any single manuscript or edition, but is dispersed in them all. 'Tis compentently exact indeed, even in the worst manuscript now extant; nor is one article of faith or moral precept either perverted or lost in them, choose as awkardly as you can, choose the worst by design, out of the whole lump of readings." Again he adds,

"Make your thirty thousand (variations) as many more, if numbers of copies can ever reach that sum; all the better to a knowing and serious reader, who is thereby more richly furnished to select what he sees genuine. But even put them into the hands of a knave or a fool, and yet with the most sinistrous and absurd choice, he shall not extinguish the light of any one chapter, nor disguise Christianity but that every feature of it will be the same."

{4} Remarks upon a late Discourse of Free Thinking, Part i, Sec. 82

​

 

[RAdam]

I wouldn't exactly hold up an Alexander Campbell quote as justification for a revision of the KJ. The man was pretty flakey.

 

[franklinmonroe]

One of the books I'm currently reading is Baptists And The Bible (1980, page 98) by L. Russ Bush and Tom J. Nettles. I want to share a quote from a man named Benjamin Keach, who may be known due to his having produced The Baptist Catechism based upon the Second London Confession (1677), from one of his many books (from 1779 edition, with a really looong title) --

The Word of God is the Doctrine and Revelation of God's Will, the Sense and Meaning, not barely or strictly the Words, Letters, and Syllables. This is contained exactly and most purely in the Originals, and in all Translations, so far as they agree therewith. ...​

In its context, I understand him by "in the Originals" to indicate the original languages, not the original documents.

 

[franklinmonroe]

A quote from the same Baptists And The Bible (page 28) by John Smyth sometime before 1612. He is thought by some to have founded the Baptist denomination --

Men are of two sortes: Inspired, or ordinary men. Men Inspired by the Holy Ghost are the Holy Prophets & Apostles who wrote the holy scripture by inspiration. 2 Pet 1,21, 2 Tim. 3.16, Rom. 1.2 namely the Hebrue of the ould Testament & and the greeke of the new Testament.
The holy Scriptures viz. the Originalls Hebrew & Greek are given by Divine Inspiration & in their first donation were without error most perfect & therefore Canonicall.​

I'm not sure why "Hebrue" is also spelled "Hebrew" in the same quote (I just copied it as it was printed before me).

 

[Jim1999]

Is there a way to get these interesting quotes in a readable size print?

Cheers, thanks,

Jim

 

[franklinmonroe]

My apologies to Jim and others that may have difficulty reading the smaller text size. The quotes I choose have a direct application to statements being frequently made or implied on the BB.

These two recent quotes are evidence that Baptists have historically believed that God's inspired words are those found in the original languages, that the Hebrew & Greek should be the standard that translations are measured by, but that all proper translations were considered sufficient.

I thought that these were key words in the Smyth quote --

The holy Scriptures viz. the Originalls Hebrew & Greek are given by Divine Inspiration & in their first donation ...​

I thought that these were key words in the Keach quote --

This is contained exactly and most purely in the Originals, and in all Translations, so far as they agree therewith.​

 

[Jim1999]

Thanks Franklin....After me next surgery on Feb 3rd...my eyes should be ok. I may need reading glasses, but at least then they can be prescribed.

Cheers, bless,

Jim

 

[franklinmonroe]

Thanks Franklin....After me next surgery on Feb 3rd...my eyes should be ok. ...

I am praying for that result, or even better! I want you reading here on the BB for as long as its your desire. God bless you, sir; and Merry Christmas.

 

[franklinmonroe]

A quote attributed to Alvah Hovey below from the book Baptists and the Bible (p.281). Hovey attended and then taught at Newton Theological Institution (missionary Adoniram Judson alum) --

III. Because infallibility in the original Scriptures requires for its complement infallibility in all copies, translation, and, some would say, interpretations of them. For otherwise, we are told, the benefit of infallibility is lost to all but the primitive readers. But this, again, is a mistake; for the errors from transcription, translation, &c., are such as can be detected, or at least estimated, and reduced to a minimum; while errors in the original revelation could not be measured [pp. 83-84]​

Apparently this was his third answer (of 12) to possible objections that might be raised against his view of Scripture found in his Manual of Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics (1877).

 

[HankD]

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

John Burgon, The Revision Revised, Page 114.

For Jim

"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"

This as quoted from a declaration made by the Convocation of the Southern Province in February of 1870, of which Burgon approved.

However in full disclosure, Burgon considered the 1881 Revision not to be that “Revised Authorized Version”
but an unacceptable “replacement” of the AV.


HankD

 

[franklinmonroe]

From essay No.49 entitled "On the Impropriety of Publically Adopting a New Translation of the Bible" in Viscesimus Knox's second edition of Essays, Moral and Literary (1782) --

We have received the Bible in the very words in which it now stands from our fathers; we have lerned many passages of it by heart in our infancy; we find it quoted in sermons from the earliest to the latest times; so that its phrase is become familiar to our ear, and we cease to be startled at apparent difficulties. Let all this be called prejudice; but it is a prejudice which universally prevails in the middle and lower ranks; and we should hardly recognize the Bible, were it to be read in our churches in any other words than those which our fathers heard before us.

It is true, indeed, that some very devout and wellmeaning people carry the prejudice too far, when they profess to believe, that our traslation was written with, the finger of the Almighty, and that to alter a tittle of it is to be guilty of blasphemy. But still, as the faith of such persons is strong, and their intentions pious, it would be imprudent to shock their minds by an innovation, which they could not help considering as an insult on heaven. If the lessons in the church were to be read in different words from those which they have heard from their infancy, their faith might be more endangered than by all the arguments of the deists. And such persons, though the sarcastic may stigmatise them as weak brethren, are too valuable members, especially in this age, to be wantonly cut off from the body of the church.​

The above is from page 224, and can be found online at Google books.

 

[robycop3]

I can't find any evidence that many REAL KJVOs lived B4 1930, especially any who had much impact upon public opinion. And the CURRENT KJVO myth started with Wilkinson's book, although the flame wasn't fanned until Ray & Fuller came by, along with modern media.

The most important thing is that the whole theory is entirely MAN-MADE, without one quark of Scriptural support, not even in the KJV itself.