A Pre 1930's Defense of KJV

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Lil Sister, Jan 25, 2004.

  1. Lil Sister

    Lil Sister
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    96
    Likes Received:
    0
    I apologize for opening yet another topic on the subject of defending the KJV. But I saw a question I could not find again this morning. (Probably not enough coffee!) Someone asked if there was anything written before the 1930's on the subject of trusting the KJV above other versions? Below is a link to one of those:
    www.radiomissions.org/gleanings/authvers.html
     
  2. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Glad you posted that link!

    But I notice it was written before any of the well-known modern versions were made, Mr. Philpot apparently having died in 1869. And I wonder how well-distributed his article was among the common people?
     
  3. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Granted.. but,all of the variants found in the "club's" 200+ conflicting authorities were readily available to every one,even back then;that blows your hackneyed "post 1930 KJBO" rubbish out of the water..
     
  4. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Granted.. but,all of the variants found in the "club's" 200+ conflicting authorities were readily available to every one,even back then;that blows your hackneyed "post 1930 KJBO" rubbish out of the water.. </font>[/QUOTE]Your info is wrong again, as usual. There were no MVs generally distributed in those times. And MODERN KJVO certainly didn't exist then, nor did the modern KJVO chants.
     
  5. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    You obviously are ignorant(willfully I wager)of Church history;Christians have been rejecting Papal mss. and "bibles" that came from them for a lot longer than you have been led to think;they knew a snake when they saw one then...
     
  6. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    The history of English bible translation is quite a bit more extensive than robycop seems to be aware of.

    Webster's Bible, 1833

    Murdock New Testament 1851

    Revised English Version, 1865

    Young's Literal Translation, 1862, revised 1887 and 1898.

    English Revised Version 1881

    Improved Revised English Version, 1883

    Darby Bible, 1871, revised, 1884

    Waymouth Bible, 1890

    Douay Rheims Version (Revised) 1899

    The Twentieth Century New Testament: A Translation into Modern English 1902

    Rotherham Bible 1902

    Worrell New Testament, 1904

    Moulton (Modern Readers') Bible 1907

    The Holy Scriptures According to the Masoretic Text, New Translation, 1917

    American Translation NT, 1923; OT, 1927

    Moffat Bible N.T. 1913, O.T. 1924

    Centenary Translation, 1924

    Montgomery New Testament, 1924

    Smith-Goodspeed or "Chicago " Bible 1930


    And that is by no means complete. So much for the "no MVs generally distributed in those times" argument! [​IMG]
     
  7. Caretaker

    Caretaker
    Expand Collapse
    <img src= /drew.gif>

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    634
    Likes Received:
    0
    http://www.radiomissions.org/gleanings/authvers.html


    Merits of the Authorized Version
    Remarks by J. C. Philpot, M.A., 1802-1869
    Strict Baptist Minister, England
    and Editor of the "Gospel Standard Magazine," 1849-69

    "The more a man's heart is alive unto God, the more will he read his Bible; nor can there be a surer sign of a sickly state of soul than distaste to the Word of God…But we made a remark also on the grace and wisdom bestowed upon our translators to give us such a faithful and noble, clear and beautiful, yet simple and plain version. The blessing which has rested upon our English Bible in the thousands of souls who by it have been quickened and fed, liberated, sanctified, and saved, eternity alone can unfold. But much of this, under the blessing of God, has been due to the plain, simple, yet strong and expressive language which our translators were led to adopt. They were deeply penetrated with a reverence for the Word of God, and therefore they felt themselves bound by a holy constraint to discharge their trust in the most faithful possible way. Under that divine constraint they were led to give us a translation unequalled for faithfulness to the original, and yet at the same time clothed in the purest and simplest English. How suitable is all this to the simplest understanding, and how in this way the most precious truths of God are brought down to the plainest and most uncultivated mind.


    "We fully admit that there are here and there passages, of which the translation might be improved; as for instance, "love" for "charity" all through I Cor. 13; but we deprecate any alteration as a measure that for the smallest sprinkling of good would deluge us with a flood of evil. The following are our reasons:

    "1. Who are to undertake it? Into whose hands would the revision fall? What an opportunity for the enemies of truth to give us a mutilated false Bible! Of course, they must be learned men, great critics, scholars, and divines. But these are notoriously either Puseyites or Neologians; in other words, deeply tainted with either popery or infidelity. Where are there learned men sound in the truth, not to say alive unto God, who possess the necessary qualifications for so important a work? And can erroneous men, men dead in trespasses and sins, carnal, worldly, ungodly persons, spiritually translate a book written by the blessed Spirit? We have not the slightest ground for hope that they would be godly men, such as we have reason to believe translated the Scriptures into our present version.

    "2. Again, it would unsettle the minds of thousands, as to which was the word of God, the old translation or the new. What a door it would open for the workings of infidelity, or the temptations of Satan! What a gloom too it would cast over the minds of many of God's saints, to have those passages which had been applied to their souls translated in a different way, and how it would seem to shake all their experience of the power and preciousness of God's word!


    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Thank you Sister Lil Sister, for the link, and the precious perspective.

    I take up my King James daily, and with reverence that I can trust every Book, Chapter, verse, as revealing God's truth. I have many translations but the others seem diluting, as if the Word has been watered-down.

    As a fire-fighter I must depend upon my truck to respond to the fire, and pump a full stream of water when I get there. The other versions are like attacking the fire with an uncharged line.


    A servant of Christ,
    Drew
     
  8. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    BUZZZZ!

    I suggest you read a thorough bio of Erasmus to see who made a "papal" ms.
     
  9. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Yes, there were at least fifty other English versions made between 1700-1900, with many of them being NT only, or denominational versions such as Challoner's 1750 translation of the LV into English, or Purver's 1764 Quaker version.

    Of the versions you name, only the Webster's, YLT, RV of 1881-83, Moffat, & Goodspeed versions had much more than local readership. And it was the RV which started the first rumblings of KJVO aside from the occasional individuals such as Philpot, and even then it was confined mostly to the world of scholars & theologians.

    I'm sure there were many other pre-AV English BVs that aren't found in history books because they had only a local readership with few copies being made. And I'm sure there are/were "onlyists" for every well-known version ever made. But any way you look at it, the modern monster known as KJVO did NOT begin until after 1930. KJVO is unique among the many other false Onlyist movements in that it has many more literary works than any other such movement. Fact is, it's just as false as the others are.

    Try as you might, you cannot find any pre-1930 KJVO book that is as well-known as are those we've mentioned many times such as "New Age Bible Versions".

    Modern KJVO is a fairly recent movement, plain & simple.
     
  10. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Originally posted by Caretaker:


    I take up my King James daily, and with reverence that I can trust every Book, Chapter, verse, as revealing God's truth.

    So do I, except that I'm no more limited to just the one version than GOD is.

    I have many translations but the others seem diluting, as if the Word has been watered-down.

    That's simply because you're used to the KJV with its archaic English. The MVs aren't watered-down; they're merely written in today's English which I assume you use most of the time. Therefore it seems commonplace while the archaic English stands out more to you because it's unusual. Same thing would happen if you were to read or attend a performance of a Shakespeare play.

    As a fire-fighter I must depend upon my truck to respond to the fire, and pump a full stream of water when I get there. The other versions are like attacking the fire with an uncharged line.
    If your FD had been using Pierce-brand apparatus for years, and this year began adding E-One trucks, would you stomp & pout because the new trucks arent your old reliable Pierces? Or would you learn the controls of the E-One truck & realize that it pumps just as much water with just as much pressure as the Pierce, seeing that the E-One's controls are much-easier to use? Yes, you'd be prepared to use either a Pierce or an E-One, whichever was available to respond to a given alarm, knowing that either truck was just as reliable to perform as the other.

    Same with various BVs. Before automatically rejecting every modern version, get to know them first. And remember, KJVO is a man-made false doctrine, not supported whatsoever by Scripture.

    I salute ALL honest firefighter-rescue workers, who, IMO, have the most dangerous non-military job on earth.
     
  11. Caretaker

    Caretaker
    Expand Collapse
    <img src= /drew.gif>

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    634
    Likes Received:
    0
    Roby I just would not use something which is produced by corrupt sources, and a company which makes counterfeit parts and equipment.

    I place my trust in the KJV because it is trustworthy. The modern versions are counterfeit.


    A servant of Christ,
    Drew
     
  12. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Sorry, Drew, you just cannot prove it. You cannot prove that a MV such as the NASB is corrupt, nor that the KJV isn't corrupt. All you can do is express opinion. Just saying "It ain't the KJV; therefore it's corrupt" won't cut it.
     
  13. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    You just keep saying the same untruth over and over again in hopes that people will abandon all rationality and just believe it because you have said it so often? No matter how many times you say it, it is STILL untrue!
     
  14. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    I understood every word you wrote. And so are you telling us that your English is inferior to that of the KJV? After all you used modern English and not 1611 language. If older is better then you just contradicted yourself by the words you used.

    If I said that you cut for yourself a rabbet of ignorance and ploughed a groove for yourself to acomodate a panel of gullibility along with a dado that considers KJV only would you understand that? Probably not. I would probably have to translate that or you would have to use a dictionary to understand it very well. Then perhaps you still might not.

    Even during the time of Spurgeon there were the KJVO's. He wrote about that too.

    Why do you think they have made changes since discovering so many manuscripts since the few that were used in the translation tomake the KJV?
     
  15. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    BUZZZZ!

    I suggest you read a thorough bio of Erasmus to see who made a "papal" ms.
    </font>[/QUOTE]Do you mean to say that there just might be some corruption when Erasmus added a Greek text he wrote himself?
     
  16. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why would anyone make such a dishonest statement? It is dishonest for the KJVOs to say the Critical Text began with Westcott and Hort and it is just as dishonest to say that Erasmus "wrote (it) himself." This type of deceit should be beneath anyone who is called a Christian."
     
  17. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    You just keep saying the same untruth over and over again in hopes that people will abandon all rationality and just believe it because you have said it so often? No matter how many times you say it, it is STILL untrue! </font>[/QUOTE]No, it's NOT untrue. If it's untrue, then where is the proliferation of pre-1930 KJVO literature that one would expect to see if KJVO were very widespread? Instead, all we have is an occasional short article such as the Philpot article in another post, and occasional commentary within other works whose main theme isn't KJVO. Now, we have a whole crop of KJVO authors who have the advantage of modern communications media from which to peddle their wares. Prior to 1930, was there such a plethora of KJVOs dumping on the people of that time? Printing was well-developed, & commercial radio was growing by leaps & bounds. Even at that, KJVO didn't really start to grow until the early '60s, and it REALLY became a full-fledged monster after Dr. Fuller's 1970-1975 book.

    Modern KJVO is a modern monster, made in modern times.
     
  18. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    Once again you dance around rather than admit you are wrong. KJOV predates the 20th century. That has been conclusively proven. Modern media presentations don't change the fact that KJVO existed long before 1930 and the Wilkinson book. Your thesis have been proven false but you seem to lack the character to admit it.
     
  19. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Your problem is that we(the Bible believer)have Church history on our side.As I stated before,Church history proves that Christians have been rejecting modern "bibles"(214 now) from inferior Papal mss.now for centuries;problem is,the "bibles" from those Popish mss. were Catholic "bibles",and were quickly rejected;now the post 1880 "bibles" are from the same mss. -but in a Protestant wrapper- and are still being rejected.


    Granted that with media,internet,and other modern luxuries people can do more than people before could.But never the less,Church history shows that people back then(pre 1930's) knew a snake when they saw it,and the Bible believer still does today.. For the most part anyway.


    So much for your "post 1930 KJBO" hoopla..
     
  20. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] If this board ever has a "funniest post of the year award", this has my nomination.
     

Share This Page

Loading...