KJVO

[robycop3]

Roby, Dean Burgon was not KJVO. He's been drafted by the KJVOs at gunpoint. The good dean was rather a critic of Wescott and Hort.

Yeah, I knew that. And he was certainly not TR only. he said the TR could stand another throough revision.

And Dr. Cassidy left the "Dean Burgon Society" due to its misrepresentation of its poster boy.

 

[robycop3]

The very bottom line in all this is there's simply NOTHING FROM GOD favoring any particular translation of His word. I believe He causes His word to be translated into a particular language as He chooses, mwhen He chooses, & He's apparently chosen to keep it translated into current English, among others.

In other words, the KJVO myth has no AUTHORITY FROM GOD supporting it. That's why it's a myth!

And let us remember that God controls all languages, causing/allowing changes in them at His discretion.

 

[Logos1560]

If you are referencing the H. D. Williams/D. A. Waite VPP, those guys say they are open to other than the KJV, but in practice they defend the KJV as inerrant.

D. A. Waite does try to have it both ways, claiming that he should not be called KJV-only while making claims for the KJV that would be soundly identified as KJV-only.

Although noting the fact that a translation should not be called "inerrant" or "perfect," D. A. Waite still seemed to give the impression that the English words of one translation (the KJV) are perfectly translated or "inerrant" when he wrote: "I have not found any translation errors in the King James Bible" (Defending the KJB, p. 246). Waite again maintained: "I do not say that the King James Bible is 'fallible' or 'errant.' I don't believe that there are any translation errors in the King James Bible” (Fuzzy Facts, p. 44). Waite wrote: “I do not use the term ‘inerrant’ for the King James Bible. That does not mean I believe it to be ‘errant,‘ however” (Critical Answer to Michael, p. 4). Waite asserted: “I don’t believe the KJB is ‘imperfect’” (Ibid., p. 104).

Claiming that there are “no errors” in the English text of the KJV or that the English text of the KJV is not errant at any point could be considered another way of implying that it is “inerrant.“ If the English words of the text of the KJV are claimed not to be “errant,” that would be the same thing as claiming the KJV was inerrant. The same thing cannot be both “not inerrant” and “not errant” at the same time.

Waite claimed that “the King James Bible accurately translates every Hebrew and Greek Word into the English language” (Foes, p. 39). When Waite contended that the KJV “is ’God’s Word kept intact’” and that means “nothing harms or defiles it,” he would also seem to be in effect claiming or implying perfection for the KJV (Defending the KJB, p. 1).

 

[Logos1560]

David Sorenson described his view as "the preserved text position" (Touch Not, p. 30). He implied that this view is inaccurately and unfairly associated with the KJV-only view (p. 32). He claims that other fundamentalists have not thought "through the logical conclusions of their own position" (p. 29), but he evidently chooses to ignore the logical conclusions of his own position and some of his very own claims concerning the KJV.

Does Sorenson's position actually accept any other English translation of the preserved or received text as equal in authority to the KJV or as possibly more accurate than the KJV in some verses?

Sorenson's own appendix concerning the NKJV (pp. 240-244) indicates that he does not accept other English translations of the received text such as the NKJV, the MKJV, the KJ21, or KJ2000 as being the "word of God" in the same sense as the KJV.

Sorenson's book also depends heavily on one of the main arguments of a typical KJV-only view--the two-streams-of-Bibles argument. Sorenson does not apply his own conclusions concerning the principle of separation consistently and justly to the Bible translation issue.

Doug Kutilek maintained that Sorenson’s book “takes it cues from false assertions by D. O. Fuller, D. A. Waite and David Cloud” (Sproul, God’s Word Preserved, p. 363).

David Sorenson asserted: “Though the King James Version as a translation is not inspired, verbal preservation has carried the results of inspiration through to this hour in the King James Version. Those results are inerrancy and infallibility” (God’s Perfect Book, p. 211).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

the KJVER as far as I know, has an error in that it says Christ is a living spirit, while in the KJV it says quickening spirit. Living spirit is an error, to quicken means to make alive, the Greek word means to vitalize, to make alive, or to give life. living is an error.

The NKJV has 'life-giving spirit.'

I can't remember if it retains the singular and plural 2nd person pronouns or not, but I am a fan of retaining the thees and thous for clarity and accuracy.

I understand the importance of clarifying 2nd Person singulars and plurals, and IMO this is the KJV-onlyists' strongest card. However, using archaic language with which a steadily-decreasing number of people can understand, is not the way forward. There are several ways of clarifying if a 'you' is singular or plural.
1. Put a note at the bottom of the page.
2. Add the person's name, where it is singular, and add an 'all' where it is plural. e.g. John 3:7. "Do not marvel that I said to you, Nicodemus, you must all be born again.'
3. My favourite: where the 'you' or 'your' is plural, space the letters out. "Do not marvel that I say to you, y o u must be born again."

 

[robycop3]

The NKJV has 'life-giving spirit.'

I understand the importance of clarifying 2nd Person singulars and plurals, and IMO this is the KJV-onlyists' strongest card. However, using archaic language with which a steadily-decreasing number of people can understand, is not the way forward. There are several ways of clarifying if a 'you' is singular or plural.
1. Put a note at the bottom of the page.
2. Add the person's name, where it is singular, and add an 'all' where it is plural. e.g. John 3:7. "Do not marvel that I said to you, Nicodemus, you must all be born again.'
3. My favourite: where the 'you' or 'your' is plural, space the letters out. "Do not marvel that I say to you, y o u must be born again."

Where I grew up, the easiest way was to say "y'all".

 

[John of Japan]

I have all three of David Sorenson's books on the version issue. I recommend them. I also have a book by Metzger on the other side of the issue.

Sorenson is a good man, I've been told, though I don't remember ever meeting him, so I can't say for myself. I only have one of his books, Touch Not the Unclean Thing, but I read it carefully and have some bones to pick with him. Overall he does a pretty good job, though I think he blows it with Westcott and Hort (as do many KJVO authors) setting up straw men which cannot be defended. I do have the W&H Greek NT from 1886, and have read some of their other stuff. I believe them to simply be the product of their times, normal Ch. of Eng. men. It does the KJVO side no good to misrepresent them as many of them do. They were not theological liberals, and they did not believe in spiritism. (Unbelievably, Sorenson quotes Riplinger about this on p. 171.)

Back to Sorenson, I very strongly object to the subtitle of the mentioned book: "The Text Issue and Separation." He writes at the end of the book, "A thesis of this writer is that the critical text is unholy through its manifod associations with apostasy" (p. 224). What this means to Bibliology is that humans can weaken and make unholy God's eternal Word. I object to this with every fiber of my being.

If you quote John 3:16 in the pulpit, but leave out a word, have you weakened the Bible? 1000 times no! If you are translating into a foreign language, and accidentally leave out a phrase or even a verse (I have done this), is your translation then powerless? Not in a million years!!!

My problem with many of the books mentioned above is that they use shallow arguments to defend the KJV. The KJV can be defended scholarly without resorting to taking verses out of context.

This I agree with. Personally, I don't see the need to defend the KJV. (Nor should we attack it.) It's a sword, and as I tell my students, you don't defend a sword, you take it out and stab someone with it! Let's preach the Word of God and forget Sorenson's position of ecclesiastical separation with other good men who disagree with our position.

 

[John of Japan]

That is true. Riplinger's books are garbage in my opinion. I do admit that I see some problems with Waite's writings as well now that I think about it. Can't say I have read anything by Williams. Waite's book on defending the KJV has good sections dealing with the KJV translators lingusitic skills, and the issue of the foundational language texts, I did feel like his section on KJV being better because of it's superior theology to be basically circular reasoning, he does have a good section on the translation technique of the KJV. I don't agree with everything Waite says, but he makes some good points. But personally, Cloud's books on the KJV are why I am KJVO.

I haven't read much of Cloud on the KJV, so I can't speak to his work. Concerning Waite, I've read much of his stuff and think that he doesn't live up to the admittedly impressive advanced degrees he has. He could do a much better job in researching his opponents than he does.

My own recommendation for reading on the textual issue I recommend the works of John Burgon (groundbreaking but crashingly boring), but not the Jay Green edited ones; Edward F. Hills (I don't always agree); and Maurice Robinson. I hold Dr. Robinson's position of Byzantine priority. You can find some of his stuff on the Internet. There are two good essays in the Byzantine Textform Greek NT. (The second is pretty technical.)

 

[John of Japan]

D. A. Waite does try to have it both ways, claiming that he should not be called KJV-only while making claims for the KJV that would be soundly identified as KJV-only.

Although noting the fact that a translation should not be called "inerrant" or "perfect," D. A. Waite still seemed to give the impression that the English words of one translation (the KJV) are perfectly translated or "inerrant" when he wrote: "I have not found any translation errors in the King James Bible" (Defending the KJB, p. 246). Waite again maintained: "I do not say that the King James Bible is 'fallible' or 'errant.' I don't believe that there are any translation errors in the King James Bible” (Fuzzy Facts, p. 44). Waite wrote: “I do not use the term ‘inerrant’ for the King James Bible. That does not mean I believe it to be ‘errant,‘ however” (Critical Answer to Michael, p. 4). Waite asserted: “I don’t believe the KJB is ‘imperfect’” (Ibid., p. 104).

Claiming that there are “no errors” in the English text of the KJV or that the English text of the KJV is not errant at any point could be considered another way of implying that it is “inerrant.“ If the English words of the text of the KJV are claimed not to be “errant,” that would be the same thing as claiming the KJV was inerrant. The same thing cannot be both “not inerrant” and “not errant” at the same time.

Waite claimed that “the King James Bible accurately translates every Hebrew and Greek Word into the English language” (Foes, p. 39). When Waite contended that the KJV “is ’God’s Word kept intact’” and that means “nothing harms or defiles it,” he would also seem to be in effect claiming or implying perfection for the KJV (Defending the KJB, p. 1).

Good post. In a plain English idiom, the men of the DBS waffle on inerrancy. They want it both ways.

 

[John of Japan]

If anyone is interested, here are my critical reviews of books by DBS "translation" expert H. D. Williams, and erstwhile KJV historian:
https://www.amazon.com/Word-Transla...Plenary/dp/1568480563?ref=pf_ov_at_pdctrvw_dp
and
Amazon.com: Customer reviews: Forever Settled, a Survey of the Documents and History of the Bible

For a festschrift honoring Dr. Robinson (unfortunately sold out) and presenting the Byzantine priority position (with essays by my son and me), see: https://www.amazon.com/Digging-Trut...&qid=1539794292&sr=8-8&keywords=John+R.+Himes

 

[Rippon]

3. My favourite: where the 'you' or 'your' is plural, space the letters out. "Do not marvel that I say to you, y o u must be born again."

I've always pointed out this device started by the esteemed N.T. commentator William Hendricksen (1900-1982).

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

The NKJV has 'life-giving spirit.'

I understand the importance of clarifying 2nd Person singulars and plurals, and IMO this is the KJV-onlyists' strongest card. However, using archaic language with which a steadily-decreasing number of people can understand, is not the way forward. There are several ways of clarifying if a 'you' is singular or plural.
1. Put a note at the bottom of the page.
2. Add the person's name, where it is singular, and add an 'all' where it is plural. e.g. John 3:7. "Do not marvel that I said to you, Nicodemus, you must all be born again.'
3. My favourite: where the 'you' or 'your' is plural, space the letters out. "Do not marvel that I say to you, y o u must be born again."

in a technical sense, You all is not the same as you plural. the plural does not necessarily mean all, it just simply means addressing more than one person.

However, personally, I am not opposed to the idea of having a footnote or even a subscript to indicate singular or plural second person.

Even though I am KJVO, I am sympathetic and open to the concept of an updating of the KJV into Modern English, However the attempts that I have seen to do it are lacking. the NKJV has too many changes of substance, the MEV also has some issues, the closest thing to anything that I would use is the KJVER by Whitaker House.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yeah, I knew that. And he was certainly not TR only. he said the TR could stand another throough revision.

And Dr. Cassidy left the "Dean Burgon Society" due to its misrepresentation of its poster boy.

He trhought that the TR had some real mistakes in it that should have been corrected, but he was also no fan of the 1881 attempt to do just that!

Spurgeon used the 1881 though at times, as a correction to the Kjv itself.also!

 

[Yeshua1]

in a technical sense, You all is not the same as you plural. the plural does not necessarily mean all, it just simply means addressing more than one person.

However, personally, I am not opposed to the idea of having a footnote or even a subscript to indicate singular or plural second person.

Even though I am KJVO, I am sympathetic and open to the concept of an updating of the KJV into Modern English, However the attempts that I have seen to do it are lacking. the NKJV has too many changes of substance, the MEV also has some issues, the closest thing to anything that I would use is the KJVER by Whitaker House.

The team that did the NKJV used the same sources as the Kjv team had access to though!

 

[robycop3]

Please remember:

The KJVO myth was invented outta thin air by MEN. There's not one word of SCRIPTURE supporting it, not even in the KJV itself.

All false doctrines of faith/worship are man-made. TRUE doctrines of faith/worship are found ONLY IN SCRIPTURE, & every doctrine found in Scripture is true.

Men twist scripture to try to make it fit their various agendas, but JESUS said "Scripture cannot be broken", which is just what man-made private interps of Scripture are trying to do.

""THE KJVO MYTH - PHONY AS A FORD CORVETTE!""

 

[Yeshua1]

Please remember:

The KJVO myth was invented outta thin air by MEN. There's not one word of SCRIPTURE supporting it, not even in the KJV itself.

All false doctrines of faith/worship are man-made. TRUE doctrines of faith/worship are found ONLY IN SCRIPTURE, & every doctrine found in Scripture is true.

Men twist scripture to try to make it fit their various agendas, but JESUS said "Scripture cannot be broken", which is just what man-made private interps of Scripture are trying to do.

""THE KJVO MYTH - PHONY AS A FORD CORVETTE!""

The kjv is a good translation, no problem with anyone preferring it for study, but BIG problem with KJVO!

 

[SovereignGrace]

I wonder if those who are KJVO and claim that the Lord speaks to them(I don't believe it for one second), does He speak to them in 17th century Elizabethan English?

Whenever the Lord speaks to me, He does it through the NIV, NASB, ESV, (H)CSB, and sporadically through the KJV.

 

[Katarina Von Bora]

Might I encourage you to read Cloud or Waite for a more balanced viewpoint?

As someone on the side of KJVO, I would not recommend Riplinger, Ruckman or Gipp as sound defenders of the KJVO position.

Jordan,

Do you know that David Cloud did not research the facts in his book Modern Bible version hall of shame? He used the prolific lies by KJVO's.

I personally sent him an email inquiring as to why he did this? I also sent him this link:
Westcott and Hort Resource Centre

David did reply, and he was not happy. How dare I question his words? Then he goes on to tell me that when he wrote the book the internet did not exist, so he had to rely on other sources. If he had read the books by Westcott and Hort (and son), he would have known there was a problem. But he didn't read them.

Go to this link:

The Modern Bible Version Hall of Shame, Way of Life Literature

A link to the book (PDF version) is available, and free.

On page 101 you will find these quotes:

“I have been persuaded for many years that Mary worship and Jesus worship have very much in common in their causes and their results” (Hort to Westcott, 1865, cited in Life of Hort, Vol. II, p. 50). [COMMENT: This is another evidence of Hort’s Romeward leanings.]



“After leaving the monastery, we shaped our course to a little oratory which we discovered on the summit of a neighbouring hill. … Fortunately we found the door open. It is very small, with one kneelingplace; and behind a screen was a ‘Pieta’ the size of life [an image of Mary and the dead Christ] … Had I been alone I could have knelt there for hours” (Westcott in 1847 on a visit to a Catholic shrine in Europe, cited in Life of Westcott, Vol. I, p. 81). [COMMENT: Westcott shared Hort’s enthusiasm for Mary worship and dead ritualism. I have visited many such Catholic shrines in various parts of the world, including in Rome itself, but unlike Westcott, Rome’s idolatry repels and revolts rather than draws me.]

Compare these quotes to Westcott and Hort Resource Center.

Houston, we have a problem.

I was glad to be able to see the updated book. It confirmed what I suspected. David Cloud did not go back and either remove the quotes or clarify the truth of the matter.

Now me, I couldn't sit under the leadership of such a man who would slander others without any evidence. If he had taken the time to actually read the evidence which is in the books, I don't think he would have done this.

 

[SovereignGrace]

@Katarina Von Bora , where can I find those quotes from that site? I looked by have zero clue where to even begin searching. Thanks a bushel.

 

[Katarina Von Bora]

@Katarina Von Bora , where can I find those quotes from that site? I looked by have zero clue where to even begin searching. Thanks a bushel.

You'll find them under the heading "Frequently assaulted quotes"

I only used two examples, but you will find more.

God Bless dear friend.