Philp Mauro's KJV defense online

Why waste time reading so much materal to end up with the wrong conclusion?

Even the KJV translators did not think their work would produce a final English bible.

 

How do you know that is Mauro's conclusion?

 

Philip Mauro:
"The conclusion to which the facts constrain the writer of these pages is that, conceding that there are improvements (and perhaps many) in the R.V., nevertheless, the Greek Text upon which it is based is so corrupt, that it is not safe to accept any reading which differs from that of the A. V. until the reader has ascertained that the change in question is supported by preponderating testimony."

The nature of this topic is to show the KJV superior to the MV's. The articles was written to show the KJV's superiority over the RV, which was the new version in Mr. Mauro's time.

Surely the real reason for this is to somehow imply that the KJV is better than the all the MV's since I do not believe that the RV is even in print.

If someone already believes the KJV to be superior, this article will, perhaps, bolster this view. However, if someone believes the MV's are the best choice, which is what I believe, this article is not likely to change their mind.

 

I think he "hit the nail on the head."

 

My point, Terry, is that if you don't read the material, you don't know the conclusion. Obviously, you did read at least part of it.

 

rlvaughan,
I never claimed to have read it. I did, however, read the conclusion.
Since my mind is made up concerning the bible translation issue, why should I read the entire article?

I use several versions, especially the NIV. However, I find that I now seldom use the KJV. I feel that there are too many superior translations to choose from to continually refer back to an out-dated version.

I will state again that I have no reason to read this or any other article that claims that the KJV is superior. I find this position to be inconsistent with facts and with church history.

I have no problem with someone who prefers the KJV. They seem to be the only ones who have the problem. Somehow, many of these people feel that it is their duty to convert everybody else who chooses to use MV's to the KJV only side. I have been there before and do not desire to go back to such bondage.

 

Here are two quotes extracted from:

THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER Preface to the King James Version 1611

HankD

 

Mark R,
Prov 18:13
13 He who answers before listening-- that is his folly and his shame. (NIV)

Now that I have read this verse in English let me say: I am not answering anything.

I have been exposed to this translation issue long before you were even saved (since, according to your profile you were saved in 1978). I have listened to the pro-KJV propaganda time and time again.

At the risk of being redundant, I have already made up my mind, and I am pro-MV. So, unless there has been some new developments, why should I waste my time?

 

Upon reading the text, when find that Mauro:
</font>

1. was not KJVO</font>
   • </font>
   • "...it became increasingly evident that, notwithstanding the excellencies of that great and admirable work...it [KJV] admitted of (and indeed called for) correction."</font>
   • "...those who translated it, though godly and scholarly, and though assisted, as we doubt not they were in large measure, by the Holy Spirit, were but human, and therefore compassed with infirmity."</font>
   • "...in the course of the years following the completion of their labors, discoveries were made which affected the original text of the New Testament, and other discoveries which threw fresh light upon the meaning of obscure words and difficult passages."</font>
   • "It was found also that corrections in translation were demanded here and there, particularly in regard to the tenses of verbs."</font>
   • "...changes had meanwhile occurred in the meanings of not a few English words and expressions."</font>
   • "For all these reasons it appeared desireable that our excellent and justly admired Authorized Version should have such a revision..."</font>
2. did not consider the concept of a new version Satanic</font>
   • "...the very worst Text that could be construed from the abundant materials available would not disturb any of the great truths of the Christian faith."</font>
   • "...a revision of the Version of 1611...would no doubt have been a gain and a blessing to all the English-speaking nations, and through them to all mankind."</font>
   </font>
3. preferred the KJV over the RV</font>
   • "...the Authorized Version is vastly superior to that of 1881."</font>
   • "as regards style and composition, the advantage is so greatly with the Old Version..."</font>
   </font>
4. rejected the RV on the textual question</font>
   • "...mere antiquity was not a safe test of reliability where witnesses were in conflict, and that a late copy of a correct original should be preferred to a corrupt Ms. of earlier date."</font>
   • "The conclusion to which the facts constrain the writer of these pages is that, conceding that there are improvements (and perhaps many) in the R.V., nevertheless, the Greek Text upon which it is based is so corrupt, that it is not safe to accept any reading which differs from that of the A. V. until the reader has ascertained that the change in question is supported by preponderating testimony."</font>
   </font>
5. believed the RV committee was deceptive</font>
   • "...the Revision Committee was appointed in the year 1871...it should be understood that what was contemplated by those who were responsible for the appointment of that Committee was simply a revision of the Version of 1611;"</font>
   • "...the Committee brought forth (so far at least as the New Testament was concerned) a New Version. This fact was not disclosed by them. The "Preface to the Edition of A.D. 1885" gives no indication of it;"</font>
   • "...it is to be noted...that the instructions under which the Revisers acted did not contemplate the making of a New Greek Text; nor did they have the qualifications needed for such a complicated task."</font>
   </font>

Mark, thanks for giving us this link. Mauro is an important example of one of the early fundamentalists - in the "fundamentalist/modernist" controversy - who
held to the KJV and Majority Text type as demonstrably better a revision based on preferring readings from the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus (in this case particularly the RV & Westcott-Hort). Mauro authored several chapters in The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth. Some authors of The Fundamentals were evidently not in agreement with Mauro on the Text/Version question, but they nevertheless seem to have labored together without disfellowshipping on another. One may not agree with the points that I have highlighted above, but I feel they are a correct representation of what Mauro believed.

 

How would you classify Mauro's eschatology?

 

Thanks for mentioning the web site about Philip Mauro. I've read about him in David Clouds book "Myths of Modern Bible Versions". It's a really excellent book on this subject.
God Bless BrentK