Dean Burgon on 1881 RV Committee.doc

AVBunyan said "Aren't some of you folks glad Bro. Dean is not around today on these forums?!?!"

No, I wish he was here. He would prove to Michelle and others that one can be in disagreement with their approach to textual critcism without falsely questioning and attacking their orthodoxy.

 

You are wrong. If these men lived today, you would be false labeling these men also as KJVO, because they would in no way consider the modern versions based upon those corrupt texts that they so earnesty fought against, to be the word of God. They would be warning against them, and DEFENDING the true word of God, and EXPOSING the errors EVIDNENT in the modern versions.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle, we wouldn't label Burgon as KJVO, because he wasn't. Simply opposing modern versions does not make someone KJVO.

 

\

--------------------------------------------------
Michelle, we wouldn't label Burgon as KJVO, because he wasn't. Simply opposing modern versions does not make someone KJVO.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Then how come you label me with KJVO label? If you label me, you would also label them falsely.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Name one English translation other than the KJV that is the word of God.

 

Michelle said "Then how come you label me with KJVO label? If you label me, you would also label them falsely."

I label you KJVO because you apparently believe Only the KJV is perfect and inerrant, God's perfect word. You have stated that God didn't give us his perfect word until 1611, and that all Bibles since are in error in some way. That makes you KJVO. Burgon did not believe that way, he preferred the traditional texts but did not believe the KJV was inerrant nor the only Bible that could be called the word of God.

 

I beg to differ brother,the KJV IS the only perfect,inerrent Word of God for the English speaking people. Before 1611 it was around but these versions were hastily rushed out in an attempt to have something,anything in the English language. It is interesting to note that within a few years the KJV had supplanted ALL the other versions then in use. And it drove the Catholics out of England. And the Catholics declared it NOT TO BE USED. Pretty good recomindation to me. Have they had problems with any of the new versions like that?

 

Dean Burgon defended the KJV against W/H's ERV. Dean refuted W/H and proved W/H are wrong.

 

KJVBibleThumper said "I beg to differ brother,the KJV IS the only perfect,inerrent Word of God for the English speaking people."

Some KJVO people limit their "onlyism" to English, some do not. Those that do are unable to explain how God has different readings in Bibles in other languages (e.g. most believe Luther's Bible is the "only" word of God in German, yet it has "Morgenstern" ("morning star") in Isa 14:12).

 

--------------------------------------------------
I label you KJVO because you apparently believe Only the KJV is perfect and inerrant, God's perfect word. You have stated that God didn't give us his perfect word until 1611, and that all Bibles since are in error in some way. That makes you KJVO. Burgon did not believe that way, he preferred the traditional texts but did not believe the KJV was inerrant nor the only Bible that could be called the word of God.
--------------------------------------------------

And if Burgeon and the others were alive today, they would believe this very same thing. He did believe the bible was the inerrant word of God, every single word of it, without errors.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Askjo said "Dean Burgon defended the KJV against W/H's ERV."

Basically correct. But that doesn't make him KJVO. What he really was doing was defending the tradition texts against Westcott and Hort's text, but he still believed both the traditional text and KJV needed correction.

 

Michelle said "And if Burgeon and the others were alive today, they would believe this very same thing."

No, he wouldn't. Burgon said:

"Once for all, we request it may be clearly understood that we do not, by any means, claim perfection for the Received Text. We entertain no extravagant notions on this subject. Again and again we shall have occasion to point out (eg. at page 107) that the Textus Receptus needs correction" (Burgon, The Revision Revised, p. 21, note 3)

"I am not defending the Textus Receptus’; I am simply stating the fact of its existence. That it is without authority to bind, nay, that it calls for skillful revision in every part, is freely admitted." (Burgon, The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, London, George Bell & Sons, 1896, p. 15)

"But pray, who in his senses,--what sane man in Great Britain,--ever dreamed of regarding the Received,’--aye, or any other known ‘Text,’ --as ‘a standard from which there shall be no appeal’? Have I ever done so? Have I ever implied as much? If I have, show me where...I mistake the Received Text, (you simply,) for the Divine Original, the Sacred Autographs, --and erect it into ‘a standard from which there shall be no appeal,’--‘a tradition which it is little else but sacrilege to impugn.’ That is how you state my case and condition: hopelessly confusing the standard of Comparison with the standard of Excellence" (Burgon, Revision Revised, pp.385, 387)

"But (what is a far more important circumstance) we are further CONVINCED that a prior act of PENANCE to be submitted to by the REVISERS would be the RESTORATION OF THE UNDERLYING GREEK TEXT to very nearly--not quite--the state in which they found it when they entered upon their ill-advised undertaking. ‘Very nearly--not quite:’ for, IN NOT A FEW PARTICULARS, THE ‘TEXTUS RECEPTUS’ DOES CALL FOR REVISION, CERTAINLY;". (Burgon, REVISION REVISED, op. cit., p. 107.)

"It is often urged on behalf of the Revisionists that over not a few dark places of S. Paul’s Epistles their labours have thrown important light. Let it not be supposed that we deny this. Many a scriptural difficulty vanishes the instant a place is accurately translated: a greater number whenthe reading is idiomatic" (Burgon, Revision Revised, pp. 216-217).

 

--------------------------------------------------
Basically correct. But that doesn't make him KJVO. What he really was doing was defending the tradition texts against Westcott and Hort's text, but he still believed both the traditional text and KJV needed correction
--------------------------------------------------

If this is correct, then why did he say this:


"I am asked whether I believe the words of the Bible to be inspired, - I answer, To be sure I do, - every one of them: and every syllable likewise. Do not you? - Where, - (if it be a fair question,) - where do you, in your own wisdom, stop? The book, you allow, is inspired. How about the chapters? How about the verses? Do you stop at the verses, and not go on to the words?.. No, Sirs! The Bible (be persuaded) is the very utterance of the Eternal; - as much God's word, as if High Heaven were open, and we heard God speaking to us with human voice. Every book of it, is inspired alike; and is inspired entirely...The Bible is none other than the voice of Him that sitteth upon the throne! Every book of it, - every chapter of it, - every verse of it, - every word of it, - every syllable of it, - (where are we to stop?) - every letter of it - is the direct utterance of the most High!...Well spake the Holy Ghost, by the mouth of the many blessed men who wrote it. - The Bible is none other than the Word of God: not some part of it, more, some part of it, less; but all alike, the utterance of Him who sitteth upon the Throne; - absolute, - faultless, - unerring, - supreme!"
(Sermon III, pp. 75, 76, 89).
(David Cloud: Myths about the Modern Bible Versions, pg.181)


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle said "If this is correct, then why did he say this:"

Because he defines "the Bible" in that paragraph as that which was uttered by God, and written by the original writers. Those comments do not preclude him believing in translational errors in any particular translation of the Bible.

 

--------------------------------------------------

Don't have one?
We'll set one up for you.

The Revision Revised: A Refutation of Westcott and Hort's False Greek Text and Theory
by Dean John Willi Burgon



Publisher: learn how
customers can search
inside this book.
List Price: $24.99
Price: $24.99 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. See details.
Availability: This title usually ships within 4 to 6 weeks. Please note that special order titles occasionally go out of print, or publishers run out of stock. These hard-to-find titles are not discounted and are subject to an additional charge of $1.99 per book due to the extra cost of ordering them. We will notify you within 2-3 weeks if we have trouble obtaining this title Learn more


Edition: Hardcover


See more product details

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Product Details

Hardcover: 549 pages ; Dimensions (in inches): 1.85 x 8.82 x 5.76
Publisher: Dick Sleeper Distribution; (May 1997)
ISBN: 1888328010

Average Customer Review: Based on 4 reviews. Write a review.

Amazon.com Sales Rank: 467,460
(Publishers and authors: improve your sales)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our Customers' Advice
See what customers recommend in addition to, or instead of, the product on this page.
Recommend an item!


***Use the button below to tell us if this recommendation is inappropriate.***
1 person recommended Defending the King James Bible in addition to The Revision Revised: A Refutation of Westcott and Hort's False Greek Text and Theory

Is this an appropriate recommendation?
See more customer buying advice
Let us know if this recommendation is inappropriate.
Finished giving feedback? Click here to hide the feedback button.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editorial Reviews
Excerpted from The Revision Revised by Dean John Willi Burgon. Copyright © 1997. Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved
[This selection is from Article 2--The New English Version.] Whatever may be urged in favour of Biblical Revision, it is at least undeniable that the undertaking involves a tremendous risk. Our Authorized Version is the one religious link which at present binds together ninety millions of English-speaking men scattered over he earth's surface. Is it reasonable that so unutterably precious, so sacred a bond should be endangered, for the sake of representing certain words more accurately,--here and there translating a tense with greater precision, getting rid of a few archaisms?
It may be confidently assumed that no 'Revision' of our Authorized Version, however judiciously executed, will ever occupy the place in public esteem which is actually enjoyed by the work of the Translators of 1611,--the noblest literary work in the Anglo-Saxon language. We shall in fact never have another 'Authorized Version.' And this single consideration may be thought absolutely fatal to the project, except in a greatly modified form.

To be brief,--As a companion in study and for private edification: as a book of reference for critical purposes, especially in respect of difficult and controverted passages:--we hold that a revised edition of the Authorized Version of our English Bible, (if executed with consummate ability and learning,) would at any time be a work of inestimable value. The method of such a performance, whether by marginal Notes or in some other way, we forbear to determine. But certainly only as a handmaid is it to be desired. As something intended to supersede our present English Bible, we are thoroughly convinced that the project of rival Translation is not to be entertained for a moment. For ourselves, we deprecate it entirely.

On the other hand, who could have possibly foresee what has actually come to pass since the Convocation of the Southern Province (in Feb. 1870) declared itself favourable to 'a Revision of the Authorized Version,' and appointed a Committee of Divines to undertake the work? Who was to suppose that the Instructions given to the Revisionists would be by them systematically disregarded?

Who was to imagine that an utterly untrustworthy 'new Greek Text,' constructed on mistaken principles,--(say rather, or on no principles at all,)--would be the fatal result? To speak more truly,--Who could have anticipated that the opportunity would have been adroitly seized to inflict upon the Church the text of Drs. Westcott and Hort, in all its essential features,--a text which, as will be found elsewhere largely explained, we hold to be the most vicious Recension of the original Greek in existence?

Above all,--Who was to foresee that instead of removing 'plain and clear errors' from our Version, the Revisionists,--(besides systematically removing out of sight so many of the genuine utterances of the SPIRIT,)--would themselves introduce a countless number of blemishes, unknown to it before?

Lastly, how was it to have been believed that the Revisionists would show themselves industrious in sowing broadcast over four continents doubts as to the Truth of Scripture, which it will never be in their power either to remove or to recall? "Nescit vox missa reverti."

For, the ill-advised practice of recording, in the margin of an English Bible, certain of the blunders--(such things cannot by any stretch of courtesy be styled 'Various Readings')--which disfigure 'some' or 'many' 'ancient authorities,' can only result in hopelessly unsettling the faith of millions.

It can not be defended on the plea of candour,--the candour which is determined that men shall 'know the worst.' 'The worst' has NOT been told: and it were dishonesty to insinuate that it has. If all the cases were faithfully exhibited where a 'few,' or 'some,' or 'many ancient authorities' read differently from what is exhibited in the actual Text, not only would the margin prove insufficient to contain to the record, but the very page itself would not nearly suffice . . . . It is the gross one-sidedness, the patent unfairness, in a critical point of view, of this work, (which professes to be nothing else but a Revision of the English Verses of 1611,)--which chiefly shocks and offends us.

Book Description
This present book, The Revision Revised, is another of Dean John William Burgon's masterpieces. It contains, as do all of his books, overwhelming evidence from manuscripts, lectionaries, ancient versions, and church fathers showing clearly three deficiencies: (1) the deficient Greek Text of Westcott and Hort; (2) the deficient English translation based upon it; and (3) the deficient theory underlying the Greek text. His arguments are powerful and convincing!

The appendix of this edition shows conclusively that the false revised Greek text and theory of Westcott and Hort are virtually identical to the false revised Greek text and theory of Nestle-Aland and the United Bible Society. Therefore, The Revision Revised forms a strong basis for a refutation of the false Greek texts and theories rampant today which form the basis for the modern English versions.

In the way Dean Burgon repudiates the English Revised Version of 1881 and defends the Authorized King James Bible, this book will also form a strong basis for defending the King James Bible against the modern versions such as the NASV, NIV, RSV, NRSV, NEB, TEV, CEV, and the others.

You will want to order several copies of this book and distribute it widely! Order a copy for your pastor, your church library, your missionaries, you favorite schools, and your friends!

The text of this Burgon Reprint is based on a complete photographic reproduction of Burgon's 1883 Revision Revised. The reprint publisher has post-scripted Burgon's work with a thirty-five paged "Westcott and Hort's Greek Text and Theory Refuted: Summarized from Dean Burgon's Revision Revised" written by D. A. Waite, Th.D, Ph.D.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

And your point is? I already said Burgon was opposed to the Greek NT put out by Westcott and Hort. That does not mean he believed the TR or the KJV to be inerrant.

BTW, I own that book. This is not new to me.

 

--------------------------------------------------

posted August 22, 2004 10:34 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle said "If this is correct, then why did he say this:"

Because he defines "the Bible" in that paragraph as that which was uttered by God, and written by the original writers. Those comments do not preclude him believing in translational errors in any particular translation of the Bible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If this is true, how then can the common English speaking man/woman, to whom he was addressing, be asked the questions he asked, if they have no knowledge, nor understanding of the Hebrew and Greek? He was speaking of the Authorized Version, the Holy Bible. It was a SERMON to English speaking people, to which the Bible was called later the King James Version.

You like to twist everything don't you.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle asked "If this is true, how then can the common English speaking man/woman, to whom he was addressing, be asked the questions he asked"

"I don't know, you'll have to ask him."