Harold B. Sightler, John R. Rice, and other great fundamentalists and KJV-onlyism.

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Spoudazo, Feb 12, 2005.

  1. Spoudazo

    Spoudazo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    500
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am curious about something. I realize that John R. Rice wasn't KJV-only, Dr. Harold B. Sightler was (but wasn't extreme), and several other old-time fundamentalists both were and weren't.

    Can some name some who were and weren't?

    Oliver B. Greene I would not classify as "KJV" only. Many times he would reverently acknowledge a certain word or passage could be translated better.

    Dr. Sightler stood against those who believe that the KJV itself is inspired.

    I have read and seen several on both sides of the issue, and both have those who were used by God and had great power with God.

    As one teacher of mine said, this issue isn't a spiritual one, but a scholastic one.

    Sorry if my post is a little scattered [​IMG]
     
  2. tbc1611

    tbc1611
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello, I have not necessarily kept up with all the fundamental preachers who have or have not used the KJV. Your posts were accurate. I would like to comment on why some of these men believed one way or the other. There is much mis-information that has been written on the subject of translations. I only read the KJV and believe it to be a superior translation. Many in fundamental circles are promoting KJV inspiration which is very much in error. I would have to somewhat disagree with the professors statement of scholastic vs. spiritual. This subject is one of defining 'Inspiration and Preservation.' I believe God inspired the original words of scripture and consequently preserved these words in the Masoretic and Texus Receptus. Read info from the Dean Burgon Society, of which I am a member. Dr. D.A. Waite has an excellent book on the superiority of the KJV translation. As a Pastor, I must study the hebrew and greek text and 'give the sense' to my people. Anyone who has studied the original languages can tell you that a translation is just that, a translation. Here we get into translation techniques, etc. I, however, am charged with teaching my people how to study the text for themselves. I do not believe the KJV is inspired, but that it is the only translation in English worthy of our time and study. We must recognize that the devil has and is attacking the words of our Saviour. To believe that any version is ok, is naive and dangerous. We will be judged by the words of God. David Cloud has a book that catalogs the beliefs of many preachers of old who held to the KJV position. Their position, however may have varied and thus I do not have an answer for you. If you would like to know more about the subject, ask. Of course, you may already know! God Bless
     
  3. LRL71

    LRL71
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    0
    ^^^

    Yeah, riiight. :confused:

    Would Dean Burgon join the Dean Burgon society? Probably not! [​IMG]

    You said, "This subject is one of defining 'Inspiration and Preservation.' I believe God inspired the original words of scripture and consequently preserved these words in the Masoretic and Texus Receptus."
    Um, where did God say that He would do exactly as you assert that He did? Show us some Bible, please..... :rolleyes: Secondly, if you are 'educated' in the original languages, as you say you are, then how do you account for all the copying errors in the transmission of the text? If God preserved the text of the Bible as they read in the originals, then did God preserve the errors, too?

    You assume too much to say, with any kind of 'authority', that God preserved His Word in the TR only. Your views, which are full of errors and half-truths, are invalid. You asked if we would like to read more about the subject, so please enlighten us!
     
  4. Ps104_33

    Ps104_33
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2001
    Messages:
    4,005
    Likes Received:
    0
    If someone uses the King James only, wouldnt that make him "King James only"? John R Rice quoted frequently fron thew RSV even though he used the KJV 90% of the time. Therefore he wasnt KJV only. Lester Roloff never quoted from anything but the KJV therefore he was KJV only. I use only the KJV even though I attend a church where the Pastor uses the NIV. Am I KJV only?
    There used to be (I dont know if it is still there) a plaque inside the pulpit at Bob Jones University that read "Use only the King James Version from this Pulpit" even though Stewart Custer and the rest of the Bible department would tear it apart and warn that it is an inferior translation. That isnt KJV only. Adrian Rodgers uses the KJV so I guess he is KJV only. I think Billy Graham uses the KJV.
     
  5. tbc1611

    tbc1611
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    LRL71, I am amazed at the spirit of your response to my post. Is the intent of your post to imply that God has not preserved His Words as He promised? Call me naive, but I believe the promises of scripture. One cannot approach the scriptures without the eye of faith. I believe I am saved by faith. I believe God's Word is true by faith. I believe God has preserved His words by faith. A carnal mind is enmity against God. If you really want to know...........

    1. Psalms 12:6-7 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. (7) Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
    2. Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
    3. Psalms 119:89 LAMED. For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

    Notice the quote of the DBS position:
    "The following doctrinal statement testifying to various historical churches' belief in the providential preservation of the original language texts of Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek is found virtually word for word in the following Historic Confessions: (1) The London Baptist Confession of 1677 and 1689; (2) the Philadelphia Baptist Confession of about 1743; (3) the Westminster Confession of 1646; (4) and the Savoy Confession of 1652. The wording from the LONDON BAPTIST CONFESSION of 1689 is:
    8. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old,) and the New Testament in Greek, (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, AND BY HIS SINGULAR, CARE AND PROVIDENCE KEPT PURE IN ALL AGES, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them 13. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read16 and search them,17 therefore, they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,18 that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope.19.
    (Chapter I, "OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES" "8," pp. 9-10 of "Things Most Surely Believed Among Us--The BAPTIST CONFESSION OF FAITH OF 1689"; Evangelical Press, 136 Rosendale Road, London, S.E.21.)"

    The TR only position is one of historical as well as doctrinal integrity. God has not, as you seem to imply preserved His words with 'various words.' He either preserved them for us, or He didn't. Providential preservation does not mean that transmission errors did not occur. The plan of God is that he has used His people to transmit faithfully the text.

    Note the following from my close friend, Dr. H.D. Williams:

    "The mechanisms for the preservation of the Words of God are recorded for us in many passages of Scripture. Many people are surprised by this insight. The mechanisms include literal as well as providential means. The first step of preservation was to "write" His Words in a book. [Ex. 17:4, 34:27; Num. 5:23; Deut. 31:24; Jos. 23:6; Isa. 8:1, 30:8; Jer. 30:2; Rev. 1:19] It is very interesting that "written in the (or this) book" occurs 93 times.

    Second, His Words are written in many books. [Acts 1:20, 7:42, 13:33, 15:15, 24:13; Mat. 5:17, 23:35 ]

    Third, all His Words were commanded to be written. [Ex. 24:3, 4; Deut. 9:10, 27:3; Jer. 30:2, 4]

    Fourth, copies of all His Words were to be made. [Deut. 10:2,4; 17:8, 27:3; Jos. 8:32; Jer. 25:13, 36:2, 28, 32, 51:60; Psa. 40:7, 102:12, 18]

    Fifth, the Words were to be read. [Ex. 24:7; Deut. 17:19; Jos. 8:34; 2 Kings 23:2, 2; Chron. 34:30; Jer. 36:6, 10] The Hebrew word, Kara, used in all these passages also means to proclaim, publish, and preach the Words.

    Sixth, all generations have been com- manded to keep (guard, protect, preserve, observe) the Words. [Ex. 15:26, 20:5-6; Lev. 18:4-5; Deut. 29:9; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings. 17:13; 2 Chron. 34:31; Neh 1:9; Eccl. 12:13; Ezek. 11:20; Dan. 9:4; Jn. 14:15, 23]

    Seven, all generations have been com- manded to keep the Words on their hearts. [Deut. 6:6-9; Prov. 3:3; Psa. 40:8, 119:11; Jer. 31:33; Mat. 28:19-20; Jn. 14: 15, 21] This also means to understand them well enough to teach them, particularly to children.

    Eight, individuals should recognize that God’s Words are specific as to the mech- anisms already presented, and those to follow. This specificity should be recognized just like Biblical facts are recognized and appreciated. [Ezek. 13:9, 24:2, 43:11; Dan. 5:24, 25; Dan. 9:13; Hos. 8:12; Mic. 2:5; Mat. 21:13; John 12:6]

    Nine, the phrase "it is written"occurs 93 times in the Bible, and invariably it means the Words were written in the past and are still present now and in the future. [Dr. D. A. Waite, Defending the King James Bible, pp. 9-11; and Kent Brandenburg, Editor, Thou shalt Keep Them, David Sutton, p. 75-81]

    Ten, God guaranteed the preservation of the covenant, His Words. [Ex. 24:7; Deut. 7:9, 33:9; 1 Chron. 16:15; Psa. 12:6-7, 89:34, 105:8; Mat 4:4, 5:17-18, 24:35; 1 Pet. 1:23-25]

    Eleven, The Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit were the means for man to receive the Words, which were recorded. [Jn. 3: 31-33, 5:34, 7:38-39, 12:47-48, 14:17, 16:13-14, 17:8, 20:22; 2 Tim. 3:15-17]

    Twelve, "God gave responsibility of preservation of the Old Testament to Israel." [Thou Shalt Keep Them, p. 104] [Gen. 17:9-10; Ex. 20:6; Deut. 6:6-9; Isa. 26:2; Acts 7:38; Rom. 3:1-2, 9:3-5]

    Thirteen, the Old Testament saints were to keep the Words in the tabernacle or temple, their place of worship. [Deut. 31:26, 34:30; 2 Kings 23:2]

    Fourteen, in the New Testament times, the members of the churches were to go, to keep (observe, protect, guard, and preserve), to teach, to receive, and to recognize His Words. [Mat. 28:19-20; Jn. 10:27, 17:8, 14:21, 15:20; 1 Cor. 7:19; Gal. 2:5; 2 Tim. 2:24-26; Tit. 3:10; 1 Jn 3:22-24; Rev. 1:3, 14:12, 12:17; 22:7, 9, 18, 19].

    Fifteen, our local church is to be "the pillar and ground of the truth." [1 Tim. 3:15]

    Sixteen, believers in the churches are to be the stewards of God’s Words. [1Tim. 1:11, 18-20, 4:6-16; 1 Cor. 4:1-2; Eph. 3:9] [Many of the preceding concepts were obtained from Thou shalt Keep Them.]

    The New Testament era has an even better way for preservation of God’s Words than the Old Testament times. Dr. Jack Moorman sums up the present era’s preservation of the Scripture by saying, "Just as the divine glories of the New Testament are brighter far than the glories of the Old Testament, so the manner in which God has preserved the New Testament Text is far more wonderful than the manner in which He preserved the Old Testament text. God preserved the Old Testament text by means of something physical and external, namely, the Aaronic priesthood. God has preserved the New Testament text by means of something inward and spiritual, namely, the universal priesthood of believers." [Dr. Jack Moorman, Forever Settled, [DBS #1428] 1999, p. 62]

    Yes, the churches, which are filled with Bible believing saints are responsible for "keeping" the Words of God; and they have done it. There has been a record of independent churches who were filled with the priesthood of believers throughout the centuries. There are many authors who would dispute this fact, and they would argue that individuals within the churches wrote fraudulent books to counter other ideologies seeking dominance. [Bart Ehrman, Lost Christianities, p. 203-227]. The truth about these authors, however, is that they use speculation, theory, and circumstantial evidence. The truth is that a born-again believer sealed with the Holy Spirit could not knowingly change even one jot or tittle of Scripture.

    There has been a continuous presence of independent Bible believing churches that have preserved the text. Much evidence of the existence of these churches has been provided in books such as Alexis Muston’s, The Israel of the Alps, A History of the Waldenses published in 1875. Muston writes, "In the first centuries of the Christian era, each church founded by the disciples of Christ had a unity and an independence of its own. They were united by the same faith, but that faith was not imposed by authority upon any one." [p. 4] He proceeds to discuss briefly the concept of the formation of the state-church under Constantine, but acknowledges the persistence of independent churches. He even states that Ambrose (339-397 A.D.) "did not acknow- ledge any authority on earth superior to that of the Bible." [p. 5] In the 6th century, Muston relates the story of nine pastors who "separated themselves from the Roman Church, or rather they solemnly renewed the protestation of their independence of it." [p. 7] He quoted a 7th century a pastor in Milan: "To combat the opinion that the pope is head of the church, he directs attention to the fact that the Councils of Nice, Constantinople, Chalcedon, and many others, had been convoked by the emperors, and not by the pope." [p. 8] Muston relates "the resistance [to the papal see] also becoming more vigorous in the following centuries, and we can follow its traces quite on to the 12th century, when the existence of the Vaudois [Waldensians] is no longer doubted by anybody." [p.8] He reports that "the Kingdom of Lombardy itself was solicitous for the preservation of this independence." He says, "thus the doctrines which characterized the primitive [apostolic] church and which still characterized the Vaudois Church at the present day [the 1870's], have never remained without a witness in the countries inhabited by the Vaudois; and if men had been silent, the Bible would have spoken." [p.9] The Bible has spoken and the evidence for the preservation of God’s Words is over- whelming. God’s precious Words have been preserved in the New Testament era by the mechanisms announced in Scripture, and independent churches still honor, revere, protect, guard, and defend the very Words of the Living God. The Dean Burgon Society was formed to assist the churches to defend, guard, protect, and keep the Words of the Living God.

    During the early centuries, corruptions arose, but independent churches still con- tinued to flourish. G. H. Orchard says, "During the rise and growth of these corruptions, the churches for three centuries remained as originally formed, independent of each other, and were united by no tie but that of charity." [G. H. Orchard, A Concise History of the Baptists, Chapter 1, Section III.4] "During the first three centuries, Christian congregations, all over the East, subsisted in separate independent bodies, unsupported by government, and conse- quently without any secular power over one another." [Orchard, Chapter 1, Section III.7]

    By the fourth century, groups of independent churches formed to resist the corruption of centralized power, wrong discipline, wrong doctrine, and the wrong philosophical influences of neo-Platonists in Alexandria, Egypt, that led men like Pantaneus, Ammonius Saccas, and Origen, to reject the Scriptures as written. The Alexandrian center of apostasy is very likely the source of the modernist textual critics’ favorite manuscripts, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. The independent groups that were formed to resist these encroachments on apostolic doctrine were maligned by Rome and derogatorily called "Puritans."

    G. H. Orchard says,"One Novatus, of Carthage, coming to Rome, united himself with Novatian, and their combined efforts were attended with remarkable success. It is evident that many persons were previously in such a situation as to embrace the earliest opportunity of uniting with churches whose communion was scriptural. Novatian became the first pastor in the new interest, and is accused of the crime of giving birth to an innumerable multitude of congregations of Puritans in every part of the Roman empire; and yet ...these churches flourished until the fifth century. . . . The churches thus formed upon a plan of strict communion and rigid discipline, obtained the reproach of Puritans; they were the oldest body of Christian churches, of which we have any account, and a succession of them, we shall prove, has continued to the present day. Novatian’s example had a powerful influence, and Puritan churches rose in different parts, in quick succession. So early as 254, these Dissenters [from Rome] are complained of, as having infected France with their doctrines, [Mezeray’s Hist., p. 4. Miln. Ch. Hist., c. 3, c. 13] which will aid us in the Albigensian churches, where the same severity of discipline is traced, [Allix’s Pied, c. 17, 156] and reprobated." [Orchard, Chapter 2, Section 1] [All emphases are mine.]

    The influence of these independent churches would be felt through the dark ages and into the Reformation. It is a well known fact that the men of the Reformation were influenced by members of the Waldensian churches. It was the independent Waldensian churches which supplied the manuscripts that Erasmus et al. used to print the first Traditional or Received Text. The evidence of preservation provided by translations into other languages, lectionaries, the writings of church fathers, and manuscripts is enormous. The independent, believer churches have preserved, guarded, and protected the Words of God as commanded. Will we continue? Are we still able to defend the Truth AGAINST ALL THREATS, and as my Pastor says, against the GOLIATHS?"

    Dr. Thomas Stouse, said "The omniscient Lord Jesus, Who is the Truth (Jn. 14:6), never questioned the pure Words of the truth of the preserved OT (Prov. 30:5-6; Ps. 19:9), referred to the OT as truth (Mk 12:14; Lk. 4:25; Jn. 17:17), and bore witness to the truth (Jn. 16:7; 18:37). To suggest that the Lord’s view on the inerrancy of the OT was an “errant inerrancy” position of inspired and preserved errors (“typos’) is not only an example of blatant Neo-Orthodoxy but of horrific blasphemy."

    Dr. Jefreey Khoo stated, "The 19th century Warfieldian concept of the inerrant autographa as reflected in contemporary evangelicalism ought to be expanded to include the infallible apographa. According to Richard Muller of Calvin Theological Seminary, "The Protestant scholastics do not press the point made by their nineteenth-century followers that the infallibility of Scripture and the freedom of Scripture from error reside absolutely in the autographa, and only in the derivative sense in the apographa; rather, the scholastics argue positively that the apographa preserve intact the true words of the prophets and the apostles and that the God-breathed (theopneustos) character of Scripture is manifest in the apographa as well as in the autographa. In other words, the issue primarily addressed by the seventeenth-century orthodox in their discussion of the autographa is the continuity of the extant copies in Hebrew and in Greek with the originals both quoad res, with respect to the thing or subject of the text, and quoad verba, with respect to the words of the text." It is quite clear that the Reformation scholars believed in the 100% inspiration and 100% preservation of the very words of Scripture that God has breathed out, and not simply the doctrines (2 Tim 3:16, Ps 12:6-7, Matt 5:18, 24:35). Without the words, where the doctrines? It must be pointed out that the current neo-evangelical and neo-fundamental view of (1) verbal inspiration and total inerrancy in the autographs per se, and (2) conceptual inspiredness and limited inerrancy in the apographs contradicts reformed and fundamental dogmatics."

    I close with a notable quote from Dean Burgon himself,

    "I hear some one say,—It seems to trouble you very much that inspired writers should be thought capable of making mistakes; but it does not trouble me.—Very like not. It does not trouble you, perhaps, to see stone after stone, buttress after buttress, foundation after foundation, removed from the walls of Zion, until the whole structure trembles and totters, and is pronounced insecure. Your boasted unconcern is very little to the purpose, unless we may also know how dear to you the safety of Zion is. But if you make indignant answer,—(as would heaven you may!)—that your care for GOD’s honour, your jealousy for GOD’s oracles, is every whit as great as our own,—then we tell you that, on your wretched promises, men more logical than yourself will make shipwreck of their peace, and endanger their very souls. There is no stopping,—no knowing where to stop,—in this downward course. Once admit the principle of fallibility into the inspired Word, and the whole becomes a bruised and rotten reed. If St. Paul a little, why not St. Paul much? If Moses in some places, why not in many? You will doubt our LORD’s infallibility next! … It might not trouble you, to find your own familiar friend telling you a lie, every now and then: but I trust this whole congregation will share the preacher’s infirmity, while he confesses that it would trouble him so exceedingly that after one established falsehood, he would feel unable ever to trust that friend implicitly again."

    Hope this helps...
     
  6. izzaksdad

    izzaksdad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    126
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, LRL71? Waiting for a reply here... :confused:

    TBC, I am not KJVO, but I would have to say that your post is as thorough and as christian mannered as I have seen concerning this topic in a long time.
     
  7. LRL71

    LRL71
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    0
    tbc1611,

    I hope that you didn't bother to type all of this up by yourself! If you wish to discuss this issue further, you will need to post this on the BV/T forum.

    As for your statements, which I have only read the first two paragraphs, your assertion that Psalm 12:5-7 is NOT a proof of providential preservation! Your exegesis is fallacious, since you obviously don't know your Hebrew! Two recent threads on Psalm 12 were discussed on the BV/T forum, and perhaps you should read them there.

    I am not saying that your statements here don't deserve comment, but perhaps this is not the best forum to discuss them at.

    Secondly, you did not answer my questions:
    1. Does the Bible say that your definition of providential preservation is biblical.
    2. If you can develop a biblical definition of providential preservation, can you assume that such preservation only applies to the TR? I think not!
    3. If the text of the Bible was providentially preserved, as how you define it, then how do you account for the errors in the manuscripts? Did God preserve the errors if you assume that God preserved exactly the words of the text of the Bible?

    Providential preservation, as you define it, does an injustice to the biblical doctrines of inspiriation, inerrancy, and infallibility.

    Please post your comments on the BV/T forum, thanks!
     
  8. tbc1611

    tbc1611
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    It might be best for you to read more than just the first two paragraphs before you ask for more response. I think, as I suspected you are not interested in what I may say, only attempting to win an argument.

    I am convinced that my exegesis of Psalm 12, is proper. (It is late tonight, and will give evidence later) I will read the posts you mention.
    If, for a moment we lay Psalm 12 aside, there are many other sound verses for preservation...

    Psalms 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

    God considers His Words very important!

    1 Peter 1:23-25 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. (24) For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: (25) But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

    and

    Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

    notice the word "every"

    Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

    notice the plural "words"

    Questions
    1. Yes it does, read my previous response. The Jews were commanded to keep the words of God. Romans 3:1-2 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? (2) Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

    the word committed is επιστευθησαν, which means to have faith. God placed(committed, entrusted) His words into the hands of the Jews and they were charged to protect and keep them.

    The church was commanded to preserve the text: Matthew 28:19-20 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: (20) Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

    notice "teaching them to OBSERVE" the word observe here is τηρειν which Strong's defines as "From τηρός teros (a watch; perhaps akin to G2334); to guard (from loss or injury, properly by keeping the eye upon; and thus differing from G5442, which is properly to prevent escaping; and from G2892, which implies a fortress or full military lines of apparatus), that is, to note (a prophecy; figuratively to fulfil a command); by implication to detain (in custody; figuratively to maintain); by extension to withhold (for personal ends; figuratively to keep unmarried): - hold fast, keep (-er), (ob-, pre-, re) serve, watch."

    notice "ALL THINGS" these things are the WORDS He gave them.

    The NT uses this word (tareo) in its Bibliology and it is often translated "keep". The churches responsibility is to protect the Words of the NT from corruption and error and to transmit the words into all languages of the world.

    This is providential preservation, God working through His people to preserve His WORDS.

    John 17:8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

    1 Timothy 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

    The church is the "pillar and ground of the truth"

    2. Yes. When less than 50 manuscripts support your position and over 5000 support mine, I believe the preponderance of the evidence falls into the TR category.
    3. Would you state this question to the unbeliever? Do you evangelize and ask lost people to believe in WORDS which you yourself question? There are transcript errors, which any spiritually minded believer can overcome when we compare all the manuscripts. I believe not one letter has been lost. I must restate that my approach is not secular, nor liberal. I believe this BY FAITH. "Whatsoever is not of FAITH is SIN."
    I answer your question with a question, (as Jesus often did) So your position is that YOUR Bible has errors and that you do not believe the exact WORDS of the Text are present today? Are you sure the ones you trusted in for your salvation did not contain error?

    My view of Biblical Inspiration, Inerrancy and Infallibility are Scriptural and follow the historical and traditional beliefs of the 'priesthood of believers'...

    John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

    It is vitally important that we have His WORDS. What kind of God would judge us with WORDS that we do not have, are unsure of, or are in error. My God's character is such that He will keep His promises and provide me an ability to keep His WORDS, which He has preserved through His people.

    I will begin to post on the BV/T forum, but for now I believe my reply is more than sufficient.

    Faithfully His
     
  9. LRL71

    LRL71
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    0
    ^^^

    tbc1611,

    Again, I don't want to post comments regarding 'our' discussion here because they don't belong on this thread. The moderators will chastise us if we continue this here! If you give your consent, I can repost this on the BV/T forum so that we can carry on there! :cool:
     
  10. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Just give the word and we can switch this over to the BVT forum. What do you think fellas.

    1) Leave this thread here and discuss leaders and thier views on KJVO, opening a new thread to discuss tbc1611's post in the BVT forum.

    2) Move this thread there.

    At your service.
     
  11. LRL71

    LRL71
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    0
    ^^^

    C4K,

    I'll make the first move and say that this thread should be moved to the BV/T thread. I'm not so sure if this topic belongs in the Fundamental Baptist Forum. Both tbc1611 and Spoudazo are 'newbies' here and may not be aware of how vigilant you moderators are! :cool:
     
  12. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Since Spoudazo is the author of the OP I will wait for a word from him. Good spirit so far, it is just tending toward the wrong place for it.

    If it continues as a KJV discussion it will have to be moved anyway.
     
  13. LRL71

    LRL71
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    0
    ^^^

    Roger that, C4K.

    tbc1611 and Spoudazo, I won't be able to post on this topic for a few days (until the weekend!). Be patient..... I'll be back :cool:
     
  14. tbc1611

    tbc1611
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    No problem on moving my stuff. The questions warranted answers and were posed on this thread. I think LRL71 needs backup! (Just kidding!) I did not want to "double thread" against the rules. I assume the moderator will "copy/paste"??? thanks
     
  15. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Simply going to move the whole thread.
     
  16. av1611jim

    av1611jim
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Now that the thread has been moved, I very anxiously await replies from LRL.

    I think at the very least this will prove to the many opposers of KJVo that we do indeed do our homework.

    tbc1611 is much more thorough, to my chagrin. [​IMG]

    This will be interesting.
    In HIS service;
    Jim
     
  17. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    I read the long posts in this thread. I fail to see what exactly their purpose is, for I disagree with very little of the comments and facts presented in them, yet I am strongly anti-KJV-only. I saw nothing in them that prove KJV-onlyism is older than the 20th century.

    The facts remain:
    - there are many different editions of the TR
    - the oldest "TR" is less than 100 years older than the KJV
    - the KJV matches none of them perfectly
    - no two manuscripts in general are the same
    - Psalm 12 was completely true in 1605, before the KJV was finished, and also 1505, before the first TR existed
     
  18. 4His_glory

    4His_glory
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,884
    Likes Received:
    0
    natters,

    I agree. We can look way back into church history and see nothing by the way of KJVOism until the 20th century. Not even the KJV translators themselves are KJVO:

    "We do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest [poor] translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession... containeth the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God. No cause therefore why the word translated shoud be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwihstanding that some imperfections and blesmishes may be noted in the setting forth of it."

    The King James Translators
     
  19. 4His_glory

    4His_glory
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,884
    Likes Received:
    0
    tbc1611,

    Since you like to quote Burgon, how about this one found on page 21 of the "Revision Revised":

    "Once for all, we request it may be clearly understood that we do not, by any means, claim perfection the Received Text. We entertain no extravagant notions on this subject. Again and again we shall have occasion to point out that the Textus Receptus needs correction."

    Sure sounds like J.W. Burgon understood that the TR is not a perfect text, so he probably would not be comfortable with the current postion of the Dean Burgon Scociety that sees to postulate from Dr. Burgon on this fact.
     
  20. Spoudazo

    Spoudazo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    500
    Likes Received:
    0
    tbc1611:
    Wow, thanks for those helpful replies. I'm not saying I agree with your or the Dean Burgon Society, but I do respect your views.

    I thoroughly enjoy the works of John W. Burgon and plan on buying more of his books. His _Revision Revised_ has been very helpful in helping me to have a balanced view of the textual choices we have today.

    Dr. D.A. Waite is also another good brother in the Lord. I have some of his books (or at least used to , I gave a lot of them away to others when I was KJV-only [​IMG] ). I have heard him teach/preach in public, on the radio, and in a debate with Dr. James White. Waite has a lot of information, but I think a lot of his information is "stretched" ranging from the verses he uses to the historical evidence he claims but doesn't provide the. . .evidence ;)

    My goal in life is to one day be able to pick up the Greek New Testament with the same ease I'm able to read the KJV or NASB. I haven't had much formal education with Greek but I've had several years of personal studying of Greek using Mounce's beginner's grammar (started using it when I was a Jr. in Highschool), Parsons computer program called _Greek Tutor_ and other helps. I also wish to be able to have just as a strong grasp on the Hebrew Old Testament. I have only learned a little of it (as the learning curve is quite high at first) but it too is lovely.

    Many of the verses you quoted are great verses, however I do not think a proper exegesis of those passages corroborate what you're saying. Only through eisegesis could you come up with those. It took me quite a while to see I was mistaken in regards to Psalm 12:6-7.

    Though I'm still in college, I have been involved in this important issue since I was about 14 (almost 7 years, I'm 21 now) so I've seen all sides of it. Surely on both sides there are those who are just simply infatuated with a certain text, translation, or text type. Many KJV-onlys cannot provide nearly as much support for their beliefs as you have, but merely resort to ad hominem attacks. It is quite sad indeed that a lot of them are known by their anger and not by Christian piety.

    If you haven't read in any of my other posts, before I was saved and right after I was saved I was very "Ruckmanite-ish" in my beliefs. Before I was saved I remember writing a very mean-spirited letter to a previous pastor who uses the NIV, and this was when I was about 14 years old so you can imagine the "sound reasoning" [​IMG] especially coming from a lost church brat [​IMG]

    I mention this because I have met so many people who have basically *no* fruits to show that they're a Christian, yet they're so staunch on the KJV-only issue that that's all they will *and can* talk about.

    Surely Christendom as a whole is in a mess and this is just another example of it (2 Chron. 7:14).

    As for David Cloud, I have read a lot of his writings, books, and have even corresponded with him shortly over email a few times but he didn't take too kindly to my questions. He has an awesome website (www.wayoflife.org) with tons of valuable information, but I think in this area he is in error.

    God bless [​IMG]
     

Share This Page

Loading...