KJVO

[rsr]

Reply from David Cloud:

when and if I do publish another edition of that book, I will include more of the context so that it can be noted that Hort expressed mild distaste for “excessive finery and meanness of ornaments” and “superstition.” But it is obvious to me that he did not abhor it as he should have and as the Psalmist would have (Ps. 119:128). He spoke of the fallen grandeur of the Romish church. There never was any grandeur to the Romanish “church” so called. And I can see no good reason why he would want to kneel at such a place for hours.
As for someone challenging me about this in the past and me not correcting it according to their challenge, I don’t recall it and I have no idea what such a person might have said exactly. I can tell you, though, that there has only been one “edition” of Bible Version Hall of Shame, and any modifications I have made through the years remain unpublished so far. So the idea that I have simply refused to correct an error is wrong. I am all about truth, my friend. God knows my heart.
David Cloud
Way of Life Literature
dcloud@wayoflife.org
www.wayoflife.org

I do hope this is not verbatim. Cloud's target should not be Hort, but Westcott, who was, BTW, 22 at the time. (Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott ... Vol. 1, page 81, London, 1903.) I would have a difficult time believing Hort said any such thing, given that Westcott was more prone to pietism than Hort.

As to its importance, you can read the whole passage and remember that — Surprise! — Wescott was Anglican (but certainly not Anglo-Catholic or an apostate like Henry Newman). Later on in the passage he remarks that he found a crucifix and "I wish it had been a cross. I wish earnestly we have not suffered superstition to have brought that infamy on the emblem of our religion which persecution never could affix to it. But I am afraid the wish is in vain."

But the real question is what does this snippet have to do with Westcott's Greek New Testament? Not a blessed thing. That Cloud would feel free to repeat (and inflate) such things damages his credibility and puts him closer to the KJVO crazies than he professes to be.

 

[37818]

The "omissions" KJVOs cite are actually ADDITIONS in the KJV.

That is a generalization. As generalizations go, generalizations are usually wrong. There are a few such cases where there is little or no Greek manuscript support. In 1 John 5:7 and in Acts 9:5-6 to cite two such cases.

 

[Yeshua1]

I do hope this is not verbatim. Cloud's target should not be Hort, but Westcott, who was, BTW, 22 at the time. (Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott ... Vol. 1, page 81, London, 1903.) I would have a difficult time believing Hort said any such thing, give than Westcott was more prone to pietism than Hort.

As to its importance, you can read the whole passage and remember that — Surprise! — Wescott was Anglican (but certainly not Anglo-Catholic or an apostate like Henry Newman). Later on in the passage he remarks that he found a crucifix and "I wish it had been a cross. I wish earnestly we have not suffered superstition to have brought that infamy on the emblem of our religion which persecution never could affix to it. But I am afraid the wish is in vain."

But the real question is what does this snippet have to do with Westcott's Greek New Testament? Not a blessed thing. That Cloud would feel free to repeat (and inflate) such things damages his credibility and puts him closer to the KJVO crazies than he professes to be.

Some KJVO have made those 2 out to be wizards and into occult and séances, but really think for their time, both were pretty conservative Christians!

 

[Yeshua1]

That is a generalization. As generalizations go, generalizations are usually wrong. There are a few such cases where there is little or no Greek manuscript support. In 1 John 5:7 and in Acts 9:5-6 to cite two such cases.

The 2 biggest bugaboos for KJVO seem to be the end of Mark's gospel and 1John 5:7, as if any modern bible not dully supporting that are satanic based!

 

[Rippon]

The 2 biggest bugaboos for KJVO seem to be the end of Mark's gospel and 1John 5:7, as if any modern bible not dully supporting that are satanic based!

Most English Bible translations contain those passages. In the case of 1 Jn. 5:7,8 most versions have a full footnote referencing the disputed words.

As far as the false ending(s) of Mark 16 goes verses 9-20 are printed, though in small print, within brackets.

 

[JonC]

Bottom line is "KJO-ism" depends on the heresy of double inspiration (even if it's adherents don't recognize it).

 

[37818]

Most English Bible translations contain those passages. In the case of 1 Jn. 5:7,8 most versions have a full footnote referencing the disputed words.

As far as the false ending(s) of Mark 16 goes verses 9-20 are printed, though in small print, within brackets.

Mark 16:9-20 are represented in 99.8% of the evidence. Only about 3 manuscripts omit the reading. One of them has a blank column where it would have fit..

 

[37818]

The 2 biggest bugaboos for KJVO seem to be the end of Mark's gospel and 1John 5:7, as if any modern bible not dully supporting that are satanic based!

They are not the same. 1 John 5:7 has more evidence than Mark 16:9-20 has for its omission.

 

[tyndale1946]

Bottom line is "KJO-ism" depends on the heresy of double inspiration (even if it's adherents don't recognize it).

Well Jon I'm not in that group and really don't care what translation another brother studies, reads and quotes from... I leave them alone and they leave me alone... Being ignorant of this on going battle as I am KJV, pray tell me what is double inspiration?... Brother Glen

 

[Logos1560]

, pray tell me what is double inspiration?..

The term "double inspiration" is sometimes used for those who claim that the KJV is inspired or given by inspiration just as the original language Scriptures are. The claimed inspiration for the KJV would be considered the second or double inspiration.

Those who claim that the KJV is inspired would not typically say that the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision are inspired so in effect they would be suggesting a new or second inspiration for the KJV.

 

[tyndale1946]

The term "double inspiration" is sometimes used for those who claim that the KJV is inspired or given by inspiration just as the original language Scriptures are. The claimed inspiration for the KJV would be considered the second or double inspiration.

Those who claim that the KJV is inspired would not typically say that the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision are inspired so in effect they would be suggesting a new or second inspiration for the KJV.

Thank you!... Now I understand... Brother Glen

 

[JonC]

Well Jon I'm not in that group and really don't care what translation another brother studies, reads and quotes from... I leave them alone and they leave me alone... Being ignorant of this on going battle as I am KJV, pray tell me what is double inspiration?... Brother Glen

That God inspired the Anglican translators (as a second and special inspiration) to produce the KJV. As such the KJV is the only transmission that is Gods word in the English language (other translations are human products lacking this special inspiration).

 

[37818]

That God inspired the Anglican translators (as a second and special inspiration) to produce the KJV. As such the KJV is the only transmission that is Gods word in the English language (other translations are human products lacking this special inspiration).

Why do you think that? As good as I think the KJV is, there are no inerrant translations and this includes the KJV.

 

[tyndale1946]

That God inspired the Anglican translators (as a second and special inspiration) to produce the KJV. As such the KJV is the only transmission that is Gods word in the English language (other translations are human products lacking this special inspiration).

Thank you Jon I have my own thoughts on the matter and will not go into it but I will step aside and let you two brethren argue about it... Just asking... Brother Glen

 

[JonC]

Why do you think that? As good as I think the KJV is, there are no inerrant translations and this includes the KJV.

I believe the KJV is the inerrant Word of God, but the translation is not alone (my NASB is also the inerrant Word of God). The reason is that we are speaking of translations.

 

[Logos1560]

Why do you think that?

The poster is not saying what he thinks about the KJV, but what KJV-only reasoning would suggest.

Holders of a KJV-only view would in effect attempt to suggest, assume, or claim that the KJV is the word of God in English in some different sense than any other English translation is the word of God in English.

While perhaps admitting the fact that the KJV is a translation, holders of a KJV-only view attempt in effect to treat the KJV as though it is in a different category than all other English translations or as though it is not a translation in the same sense (univocally) as other English Bibles.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

That God inspired the Anglican translators (as a second and special inspiration) to produce the KJV. As such the KJV is the only transmission that is Gods word in the English language (other translations are human products lacking this special inspiration).

I don't hear people on this board arguing this way, and in fact, I've never heard anyone argue this way. What the KJVO people in Britain argue is simply that the KJV is much the best translation. I don't agree with that, but it's a viewpoint.

Those who jump on the KJV-onlyists from such a great height seem to me to be erecting a straw man.

 

[JonC]

I don't hear people on this board arguing this way, and in fact, I've never heard anyone argue this way. What the KJVO people in Britain argue is simply that the KJV is much the best translation. I don't agree with that, but it's a viewpoint.

Those who jump on the KJV-onlyists from such a great height seem to me to be erecting a straw man.

Where I live we have several IFB churches that believe the KJV is the only Bible that is God's Word in the English language. I attended one for awhile recently (and would gladly go back to visit).

The pastor told me he didn't believe in "double inspiration" and disagreed with Peter Ruckman on that issue (I understand why you wouldn't be familiar with Ruckman, but he was popular in certain circles on this side of the pond). I believe that in practice his position affirms the doctrine he would otherwise deny.

The strawman suggestion is out of ignorance, but I understand it is most likely due to differences in our cultures. I know many who prefer the KJV, or believe it the best translation we have available to us. But those opinions are not what I'd argue against.

 

[Yeshua1]

Most English Bible translations contain those passages. In the case of 1 Jn. 5:7,8 most versions have a full footnote referencing the disputed words.

As far as the false ending(s) of Mark 16 goes verses 9-20 are printed, though in small print, within brackets.

Yes, but the KJVO take big issues with that, as to them both passages would have no need to have brackets/margins/footnotes, as both were in the originals per them period!

 

[Yeshua1]

That God inspired the Anglican translators (as a second and special inspiration) to produce the KJV. As such the KJV is the only transmission that is Gods word in the English language (other translations are human products lacking this special inspiration).

Just as the Holy Spirit was involved in the inspiration of the originals, he was doing the same thing to make sure the 1611 team created the perfect English translation, but they neglect to accept that even the 1611 has had numerous revisions done to it over time!