The Burgon-Hills Theory

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Craigbythesea, Jan 29, 2004.

  1. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    Today’s King James Bible Only movement is based on the Burgon-Hills Theory (John W. Burgon and Edward F. Hills). The theory goes something like this:

    The New Testament was inspired by God word for word. Therefore God was obligated to preserve His word and He did so in the Textus Receptus. Most English speaking people can not read Greek, therefore God was obligated to translate the Greek New Testament into English and He did so in the King James Bible. Since all other translations into English are different than the King James Bible, they are contrary to the Word of God and therefore Satanic in origin.

    My first rebuttal to the Burgon-Hills theory:

    We have nothing even remotely comparable to the Textus Receptus for the Old Testament. The closest thing we have to it is what is known as the Masoretic Text, a comparatively recent Hebrew text. However, this text was viewed by the translators of the King James Version as a corrupted text, and in very many places they resorted to translating from the Latin, Syriac, Greek, or Coptic. That this is so can be proved from all of the early editions of the King James Bible which included marginal notes to this effect. In addition, the translators themselves wrote a lengthy preface to their translation in which they explained why they believed that it was necessary to do so. Therefore, according to a strict interpretation of the Burgon-Hills theory, the Old Testament was NOT inspired word for word, if at all, and this contradicts what their inspired New Testament says about the Old Testament.
     
  2. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Actually, in his book The Revision Revised, Burgon was quite critical of the TR, saying it could stand to undergo a thorough revision. This is something that Dr. Waite, the president of the Dean Burgon Society, avoids.
     
  3. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Craig, do you do dope? Or did you take a lot of heavy mind altering drugs in your youth? Something about your posts makes me wonder, that is why I ask.

    Anyway, could you provide some specific example of where the King James Bible used the Syriac, or the Greek, or the Latin, or Coptic instead of translating the Hebrew texts in the Old Testament. I don't mean examples of where the Latin translated the Hebrew in the same way as the KJB does, but where clearly the Hebrew reads one way and the KJB rejected that reading and followed those other sources. Now, I can easily prove the NIV, NASB, ESV all depart from the Hebrew and go with the Greek, Syriac, Latin, etc. in the O.T. because they tell us they do this in their footnotes. But the KJB?

    Also, I noticed you never got back to me with your answer. You accused me of human foolishness and blasphemy. I would appreciate a little honesty from your side. Tell me where you stand.

    Here is our previous interchange.

    Craigbythesea posts: "
    Mr. Kinney, you wrote,
    quote:
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    God providentially guided the TEXT of the KJB. . . .
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    What translation of the Bible did you get that from? My King James Bible sure doesn’t say anything like that. How can you say that God did something that the Bible does not say that He did? Did God call you up on the telephone and tell you that he “providentially guided the TEXT of the KJB”? I don’t think so. That is not even human wisdom; it is human foolishness bordering on blasphemy.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Craig, it is my firm belief that the Holy Bible (KJB, of course) has God telling us in many different ways that He will preserve His inerrant, complete words. I am merely expressing where I believe these words of God are found today.

    Would you care to give us your view of where exactly God's inerrant, complete, pure words are today? I'm sure many of us would be most interested to compare your thoughts with what the Bible says about itself.

    One of the first things that must occur for someone to no longer believe in a complete, infallible, inspired Bible is to somehow not believe or explain away the following verses that the Holy Bible says about itself.

    THE PRESERVED WORD OF GOD
    The Bible cannot be clearer concerning it's preservation:
    Isaiah 40:8: "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever."

    Psalm 12:6-7: "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

    Psalm 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."

    Psalm 100:5: "For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations."

    Psalm 33:11: "The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations."

    Psalm 119:152, 160: "Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever. ... Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

    Isaiah 59:21: "... My Spirit that is upon thee [Isaiah], and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever."

    Matthew 5:17-18: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 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."

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

    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. 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: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you."

    John 10:35: "... the Scripture cannot be broken."

    Instead of believing God has preserved His infallible words in any single Book, the Bible of the Month Club member, who promotes a multitude of conflicting versions all based on different texts and changing the meanings of hundreds of verses, believes the true words of God are found "somewhere out there" in all the manuscripts, except where these have been corrupted by scribal errors.

    Now Craig, if your view does not match this last paragraph, then please disabuse me of my foolishness and blasphemy, and tell me where you personally think God's pure words are today.

    Thank you,
    Will
     
  4. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Will J. Kinney asked:

    Anyway, could you provide some specific example of where the King James Bible used the Syriac, or the Greek, or the Latin, or Coptic instead of translating the Hebrew texts in the Old Testament.

    Isaiah 14:12. The proper name Lucifer does not appear in the Hebrew, it comes from Latin:

    . . . where it means "morning star." (Compare 2 Pet. 1:19 in the Vulgate and KJV.)
     
  5. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    Craig, I think you need to re-read Burgon! Neither Burgon nor Hills took the position you claim for them. Burgon took exception to many words and phrases in the TR as did Hills. Both believed the TR was badly in need of revision. Neither believed in the "perfect preservation" theory of the TR and certainly did not believe any such nonsense regarding the KJV. Please, don't misrepresent these men out of a misdirected sense of outrage over the errors of KJVOism. To do so is to become more like them! :(
     
  6. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ransom posts: Isaiah 14:12. The proper name Lucifer does not appear in the Hebrew, it comes from Latin:
    quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes (Isaiah 14:12 Vulgate, emphasis mine)

    Hi Ransom, Sorry, this won't do. I asked about where the KJB departs from the Hebrew, not where it happens to agree with the Vulgate rendering of the same Hebrew text.

    This whole discussion about Lucifer is going on at another thread. It is a matter of interpretation and translation, but not a case of departing from the Hebrew.

    Give us a clear example of where the KJB translators supposedly departed from the Hebrew texts and a legitimate translation thereof, and followed some other source.

    What Craigbythesea posted is just a huge lie. I would like to see him both answer my question to him after he accused me of blasphemy and foolishness, and give us one clear, undeniable example of his charge against the KJB.

    Will
     
  7. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Will J. Kinney said:

    I asked about where the KJB departs from the Hebrew, not where it happens to agree with the Vulgate rendering of the same Hebrew text.

    According to your own interpretation of this passage, it is about the fall of Satan, and Lucifer is a person, not a planet.

    You are trying to have your cake and eat it, too. If the KJV at Isaiah 14:12 describes the fall of Satan, then it departs from the Hebrew.
     
  8. txor1611av1

    txor1611av1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2004
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ransom,just to "add" to what Bro. Will has been asking-SHOW ME FROM SCRIPTURE HOW THE AUTHORISED VERSION"DEPARTS FROM THE HEBREW" in the Book of Isaiah? SOME of us have HAD "Bilical Languages" from University courses-I have -AND I HAVE NEVER SEEN WHERE THE AV IS IN ERROR HERE. The HEBREW WORD IS "helel." Your "opinion" is NON-RELATED to the fact-that Hebrew word is USED ONLY ONE TIME IN ALL THE HEBREW OLD TESTAMENY--right here in Isaiah chp. 14. " lucifer" MEANS LIGHT-BEARER OR SHINING ONE." Thank you
     
  9. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think the KJV departed from the Masoretic in Isa 14:12, but KJV-onlyists usually don't understand the translational issue of this verse - in other words, "Lucifer" is a correct translation, but people sometimes misunderstand what "Lucifer" means in the first place. That's sort of Ransom's point - if the word in Isa 14:12 is refering linguistically to Satan, then the Hebrew would be wrong because the Hebrew is talking about Heylel - and thus the KJV would have departed from the Hebrew if that interpretation is correct. Ransom is saying Will can't logically win both arguments at the same time.

    I will try and post some instances of where the OT of the KJV followed the LXX instead of the Masoretic later tonight.

    Also, here are numerous documented instances of where the KJV translated from the *margin* of the Masoretic (the "qere") instead of from the main text itself (the "kethiv"). Do those count as "departing from the Hebrew"? ;)
     
  10. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    Will wrote,

    Will,

    Thank you for this comment. I was writing from memory but when I read your comment I reviewed the facts regarding the text of the KJV and it appears to me that the translators of the KJV stayed very close to the Hebrew texts that they had to work with, which were those found in the Complutensian Polyglot (1517) and the Antwerp Polyglot (1572). [​IMG]
     
  11. paidagogos

    paidagogos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2003
    Messages:
    2,279
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nonsense! This is a corruption of what these men believed and argued. At least, give an an accurate rendition of what they believed even though you may disagree with them. Too many people posting here, even those in opposition, know that you have misrepresented Hill and Burgeon. A retraction of the preceding post would be graceful and in order. Thank you for your consideration.
     
  12. paidagogos

    paidagogos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2003
    Messages:
    2,279
    Likes Received:
    0
    However, these are separate and independent issues. The interpretation is not necessarily a textual issue. It is a matter of metaphor and symbolism.

    So, do we necessarily buy into the older is better reasoning. Is it possible that the LXX is the better reading even though in translation? Did the LXX translators know something that we don't know? The problem is that we assume modern scholars have greater knowledge and resources than those in antiquity. Yes, in a sense, we do have greater knowledge and resources due to communication and technical advances. However, we may have lost essential data as well. Are we hogtied to the Masoretic text?

    Again, how strongly are we tied to the Masoretic text? The Masoretic text, itself, is a compiled and edited text. If W-H, Aland, et. al. can second-guess the Eramus, Stephens, Scrivener, and the KJV translators, what is wrong with deviating from the Masoretic scribes?

    We are talking about details here that have absolutely nothing to do with the whole picture. It is really a matter of which paradigm we accept. The rest is trivia. The question is not as much departing from the Hebrew as whether the Hebrew is accurate.

    Thanks for your time.
     
  13. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think it is entirely possible they had access to a Hebrew text that was unknown to modern scholars (post dark ages) until the discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls. They discovered what they called the "Septuagint type" Hebrew text which is now called the Vorlage (German "before translation") text.
     
  14. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    Here is an interesting quote from Eward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended, pp. 216-217

     
  15. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    Will, I read these verses but I don't see any mention in any of them of the King James Bible. These words were not written about the King James Bible or any other TRANSLATILON of the Bible.
     
  16. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Paid & Skan, both you gents apparently have access to some mss & a better knowledge of Greek & Hebrew than I have. Perhaps one of you can tell us from which version of Isaiah that Jesus read aloud in Luke 4:16-21?
     
  17. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not only Paid & Skan, but anyone else. I always thought it was the LXX, but was told I was wrong the other day. I really want to know which version. Also is it the same for the scripture that Philip and the eunich used.

    I'm not trying to provoke anyone, I really want to know. If I was wrong, I want to be right.
     
  18. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    Regarding the Masoretic text, Keil and Delitzsch wrote on 2Sam. 21:19,

    Ver. 19. (vid., 1Ch_20:5). In another war with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan the son of Yaare-Orgim of Bethlehem smote Goliath of Gath, whose spear was like a weaver's beam. In the Chronicles, however, we find it stated that “Elhanan the son of Jair smote Lahmi the brother of Goliath of Gath, whose spear,” etc. The words of our text are so similar to those of the Chronicles, if we only leave out the word ארגים, which probably crept in from the next line through oversight on the part of a copyist, that they presuppose the same original text, so that the difference can only have arisen from an error in copying. The majority of the expositors (e.g., Piscator, Clericus, Michaelis, Movers, and Thenius) regard the text of the Chronicles as the true and original one, and the text before us as simply corrupt. But Bertheau and Böttcher maintain the opposite opinion, because it is impossible to see how the reading in 2 Samuel. could grow out of that in the Chronicles; whereas the reading in the Chronicles might have arisen through conscious alteration originating in the offence taken by some reader, who recalled the account of the conflict between David and Goliath, at the statement that Elhanan smote a giant named Goliath, and who therefore altered את הלחמי בית into אחי לחמי את. But apart from the question whether there were two Goliaths, one of whom was slain by David and the other by Elhanan, the fact that the conjecture of Bertheau and Böttcher presupposes a deliberate alteration of the text, or rather, to speak more correctly, an intentional falsification of the historical account, is quite sufficient to overthrow it, as not a single example of anything of the kind can be adduced from the whole of the Chronicles. On the other hand, the recollection of David's celebrated officer Elhanan of Bethlehem (2Sa_23:24; 1Ch_11:26) might easily lead to an identification of the Elhanan mentioned here with that officer, and so occasion the alteration of לחמי את into הלחמי בית. This alteration was then followed by that of גלית אחי into גליה את, and all the more easily from the fact that the description of Lahmi's spear corresponds word for word with that of Goliath's spear in 1Sa_17:7. Consequently we must regard the reading in the Chronicles as the correct one, and alter our text accordingly; since the assumption that there were two Goliaths is a very improbable one, and there is nothing at all strange in the reference to a brother of Goliath, who was also a powerful giant, and carried a spear like Goliath. Elhanan the son of Jairi is of course a different person from Elhanan the Bethlehemite, the son of Dodo (2Sa_23:24). The Chronicles have יעוּר, instead of Jairi (the reading according to the Chethib), and the former is probably the correct way of writing the name.
     
  19. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    Not only Paid & Skan, but anyone else. I always thought it was the LXX, but was told I was wrong the other day. I really want to know which version. Also is it the same for the scripture that Philip and the eunich used.

    I'm not trying to provoke anyone, I really want to know. If I was wrong, I want to be right.
    </font>[/QUOTE]During that time there was more than one Greek translation in circulation. At times Jesus praphrased quotes as well. Paul makes quotes that we don't even know the source of them.
     
  20. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let me blast this theory before i read the other comments:

    Burgon-Hills Theory: "The New Testament was inspired by God word for word."

    I believe the Bible to be inspired and inerrant.
    God's form of "inspired" is not word for word.
    Those who like to use the Bible for divination (a sin)
    would like to think God inspired the New Testament
    letter by letter.

    Burgon-Hills Theory: "Therefore God was obligated to preserve His word
    and He did so in the Textus Receptus."

    Actually, the original edition of the KJV1611 contains sidenotes
    denoting 37 variant readings within the Textus Receptus documents.
    (That is the New Testament, there are 2,156 in the TR Old Testament
    documents).

    Burgon-Hills Theory: "Most English speaking people can not read Greek,
    therefore God was obligated to translate the Greek New Testament
    into English and He did so in the King James Bible."

    God isn't limited to three KJVs, He has over 200
    Holy Bible versions in English alone.

    Burgon-Hills Theory: "Since all other translations into English
    are different than the King James Bible, they are contrary
    to the Word of God and therefore Satanic in origin."

    There are IMHO 3 different versions of the KJB on my computer
    desk. In light of that, this segment of the Theory is
    nonsense. (Well, unless you construe that 2 of the 3 are
    Satanic KJVs. I'm sure not willing to go THERE. [​IMG] )

    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page

Loading...