KJB Defense Is Not Heresy

This confession doesn't say anything about God's words being kept pure only in the TR or the Masoretic texts.

Andy

 

Men greater than these have been wrong before.

ACtually, it is your problem.

Then please, by all means, show us where God said what you say. So far you have quoted Burgon, McClure, the PBC, and Nolan, men who have never been confused with God. You claim God said it, but you quote men who are not God. Why not just quote God. Tell us where he said that the KJV or its underlying text are the "exact words" that he gave us.

This is a great testimony to the fallacy fo the KJVO position. God's word is true from the beginning (not from 1611) and will endure forever (not end when the 1611 is finally gone should the Lord tarry).

 

See Baptist Board Link </font>[/QUOTE] I am still missing it. All I saw was your reference to a couple of books. Many people write books... Wilkinson for instance. Writing a book doesn't mean that the book is factually accurate. Even if it is factually accurate, it may not be an accurate interpretation of the facts.

I am not aware of Dr. Cassidy, who is my Textual Criticism and Manuscript Evidence teacher, ever citing an anonymous someone. He is very careful in his cites. The two mentioned are actually a primary and secondary cite of the same source, but they reflect the experience of one of the founders of Baptist Fundamentalism regarding those who believed what Dr. Riley called "the old conception"</font>[/QUOTE] You just repeated the citation of the anonomous "someones". "Those who believed" is an anonomous group.

When he participated here, Dr Cassidy said basically the same thing. It was no more conclusive proof of your assertion when he said it than it is now.

Maybe Dr Riley gave more details identifying groups or even individuals that held these beliefs. If he did, I would be extremely interested in those details. But unless he did, we can only assume who he might have been referring to.

Which is what I was referring to above. These are not formulized, informed, developed beliefs. For all I can tell from the info that you have provided thus far, these folks believed this out of pure, ignorant, superstition. Someone handed them an AV Bible and told them that it was God's Word without explaining the history or origin of the Bible. From that point, perhaps these folks were left to themselves to fill in the gaps from their own imagination. They might not have even known that the Bible characters spoke something other than KJV English.

My bottom line point is this: The KJVOnlyism that I oppose is not those who are uninformed. The KJVOnlyism I oppose is those who reject the truth and spread mis-information. Frankly, I was KJVO at one time out of ignorance. However when shown that the belief is false, I didn't continue to hold to it.

There are a great range of reasonable, orthodox beliefs on this topic that are consistent with historical fact and the Bible's teachings. KJVOnlyism or even TROnlyism simply aren't among them.

 

You asked for the cites, I provided them.

And if you refuse to read the cited passages in the books you will never know.

So read the portions of the books cited. If I had given you the entire quote you would have found some reason to accuse me of not copying the passage correctly or taking it out of context or some other error or dishonesty. This way you can read it for your self and see what both Dr. Dollar and Dr. Riley were saying.

If you refuse to do your own homework you will have to remain in the dark regarding the writings of the two men in question.

Try reading the books!

You will never know if you don't read the books.

And how would they differ from modern KJVOs. Are you suggesting modern KJVOs are very spiritual scholars?

You mean like most of the modern KJVOs?

Who you oppose and why is irrelevant to the discussion. Robycop said KJVO began with Wilkinson. I gave cites to show that is not true.

Irrelevant to the discussion of when KJVO started.

[ January 23, 2004, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: skanwmatos ]

 

And if you refuse to read the cited passages in the books you will never know.</font>[/QUOTE] Please do not be obtuse. I haven't "refused" to read anything. I don't have the books you cite.

So read the portions of the books cited. If I had given you the entire quote you would have found some reason to accuse me of not copying the passage correctly or taking it out of context or some other error or dishonesty.</font>[/QUOTE] How do you know? Someone once asked, 'why assume... why not just ask?'

If you are going to make an assertion, you should be willing to support it. If I think you are being deceptive then I will ask for more info or endeavor to check out your references.

You seem to be evading a discussion of what they actually said. Are you?

If not, please provide the quote that you think substantiates your claims.

I don't "refuse" to do my homework. However, this is a debate forum. If you are going to make assertions, you should be willing to substantiate it... not demand that those who challenge you prove it for you.

And how would they differ from modern KJVOs. Are you suggesting modern KJVOs are very spiritual scholars?</font>[/QUOTE] No. But they do have every reason and opportunity to reject their false doctrine but don't. If someone doesn't have information proving KJVO false, they can hardly be held to the same level of accountability.

 

Please do not be insulting.

Every good bible college or seminary library should have them.

W. B. Riley stated in his book "The Menace of Modernism" (New York: Christian Alliance, 1917), the Modernist believes the Bible's "inspiration exists only in its ability to inspire...its interpretation is a matter of mental conscience." Dr. Riley goes on to say there were a group of men whom he describes as the "old conception," who believed the Authorized Version or King James Bible was inerrant. He states on page 11, "On this point we are inclined to think that, even unto comparatively recent years, such a theory has been entertained." He then ascribes this belief to ignorance, and says, "I think it would be accepted without fear of successful controversy that such fogies in Biblical knowledge are few, and their funerals are nigh at hand." He continues, on page 13, "To claim, therefore, inerrancy for the King James Version...is to claim inerrancy for men who never professed it for themselves..."

Dr. Dollar stated, in reference to Dr. Riley's book, "(1) the Bible was finished in heaven and handed down, (2) the King James Version was absolutely inerrant, and (3) its literal acceptance was alone correct." (Page nine of Riley's book as quoted by Dr. George W. Dollar in his book "History of Fundamentalism in America", Page 114)

I gave you the cites. I was not aware you lived in Podunk, Iowa, and did not have access to a library, or that your internet service did not allow access to such writings via the web.

But the point is not the KJVOs but when KJVO started. I suggest it existed long before Wilkinson. The quotes substantiate that position.

 

I've been reading your discussions about when the KJVO movement, it's beginnings, etc. I think it's been demonstrated that a few good men, I think the minority, believed the KJV was inerrant, etc(before 1930). However, at the same time I think that after B Wilkinson wrote his infamous book in 1930 (or famous, depending on your view of the A.V.), that the movement was "born again" after J.J.Ray, D.O.Fuller, etc took off w/ it and ran! Perhaps this is a poor example, and I welcome your opinions and corrections, but it seems like the KJVO movement was "pregnant", before 1930 and it "birthed" in 1930 w/ B. Wilkinson, and it's "growing pains" through the 60's and 70's w/ Ray, Fuller, Ruckman, and 80's and 90's it's "maturity" w/ Waite, Cloud, etc and now in the 21st Century? (Okay, I know this is a stretch)

 

Please do not be insulting. </font>[/QUOTE] Wasn't aware that I was being insulting.

Every good bible college or seminary library should have them.</font>[/QUOTE] Which assumes that I have one close by. I don't.

W. B. Riley stated in his book "The Menace of Modernism" (New York: Christian Alliance, 1917), the Modernist believes... </font>[/QUOTE] I have read what Dr. Cassidy claims about the subject. But two facts remain that undermine his interpretation: 1) It is a single source without corroboration. 2) The quotes given do not necessarily lead to the conclusions that you and Doc C say.

I said that KJVOnlyism was not a formulized belief until Wilkinson wrote his book. You respond with citations showing that previously people held opinions in ignorance. It may be a fine point but the proof of KJVOnlyism's prior existence that I am asking for is that someone knew the orthodox position, knew the KJVO position, and chose the KJVO position.

I grew up in a small NC mountain town in the '70's. I didn't know that there even was another version of the Bible or that the Bible wasn't originally given in English.

I gave you the cites. I was not aware you lived in Podunk, Iowa,</font>[/QUOTE] I don't. I live in Bumfuzzle, Missouri...

Seriously, the closest Baptist seminary to me is several hours away.

This might be an option. Do you know of on-line resources for this?

I disagree. The issue is KJVOnlyism and its origin. Believing something ignorantly is not the same as believing something willingly.

 

No. I think that is a pretty good analogy.

 

I noticed Burgon was mentioned as being KJVO a few posts back. Wasn't he the one that had some problems with Matthew and suggested the TR needed some changes. If so, then how can he be KJVO?

 

In other words, you know that KJVOism existed prior to 1930 but are loath to admit it? Is it really so terrible to agree with Brother Cassidy when he is right?

You have created a false dichotomy. KJVO is KJVO regardless of why one believes it. And, quite frankly, all KJVOism is, in my opinion, the result of ignorance. Willful or otherwise.

Well, that explains a lot!

Believing something is believing something. I did not mention, nor did Robycop, anything about reasons, only the age of the KJVO position. It has been conclusively established from the pens of those who were there that KJVOs existed not only prior to Wilkinson's book in 1930, but prior to the turn of the 20th century. If you want to ignore that, go ahead, but it seems to me you would be guilty of doing exactly the same thing the KJVOs do, ignore facts that mitigate against their position.

 

Anyone who claims Burgon was KJVO has obviously never read Burgon!

 

hmm, does it bother u at all that Jesus' n Paul's selection of OT texts differs fr KJBOs' insistence on the Masoretic?

 

Burgon defended the "Traditional Text" (or "Majority Text," meaning the text found in the majority of extant MSS); he did *not* defend the TR (the text behind the KJV which contains many *minority* text readings like 1 Jn. 5:7). Burgon believed that the TR/KJV were flawed and in need of correction.

“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 no occasion to point out (e.g. at page 107) that the Textus Receptus needs correction.” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, p. 21, n. 3).

"...for, in not a few particulars, the 'Textus receptus' does call for Revision, certainly..." (Burgon, The Revision Revised, p. 107).

"The Hebraism μετα σαλπιγγος φωνης μεγαλης (St. Matt. xxvi. 31) presents an uncongenial ambiguity to Western readers, as our own incorrect A.V. sufficiently shews." (Burgon, The Causes of Corruption of the Traditional Text, p. 179).

 

Just like you keep digging up the same ol' garbage, and putting it into a new container. It was pointed out to you, with supporting quotes, that KJVOism did not start with SDA Wilkinson, but predated him by several decades, but you keep "digging up the same ol' garbage and putting it into a new post, er, I mean "container." Now, is that heretical or not? </font>[/QUOTE]No, it is NOT heretical, but TRUE. Notice I said *MODERN* KJVO. The early sources mentioned had an audience of perhaps three pastors or theologians, while the general public ignored them in droves. In fact, even Wilkinson's book was largely ignored by the general public until J.J.Ray's work caught on, and people began to seek Ray's sources for his info. Then, when more modern versions were being published, the KJVO myth really blossomed as later authors began to bring the work of Wilkinson, Ray, & Fuller to the public's attention through the modern media, while writing works of their own which ARE the same garbage in a different bag. I'm 55 years old, & have lived through a large part of the history of modern KJVO, having attended Baptist churches since childhood, and I noticed the KJVO hick-hack long before I was saved, even though I gave it little attention for many years.

And no one has shown us that the buzzwords & slogans of modern KJVO were used before 1930, as far as KJVO goes. Can anyone show us a pre-1930 book that applies Psalm 12:6-7 to God's words? Can anyone show us a pre-1930 book that says MVs substitute Jesus for the devil in Isaiah 14:12? We can go on & on with such questions, and the correct answer to each of them will be "No".

I know that many of the newer BVs such as the NIV didn't exist in 1930, but there's no denying that the more modern KJVO authors have built upon the legacy of incorrect info first written by Wilkinson, Ray, & Fuller. That's an undeniable fact.

The modern KJVO sticks with a doctrine that's been proven wrong many times over. Is that heretical or not? Or is it merely self-delusion?

 

Uh, well, I hate to have to admit it, but I do! Proverbs 8:15 "By me kings reign, and princes decree justice."

Uh, well, I might remind, you, Skan, that some of these "kings" were Ahab, Attila, and Hitler.

 

KJVO IS quite divisive, mainly because it's incorrect. The devil has fooled the well-meaning KJVOs into attacking God's word.

 

First, the men you cite lived before many of the mss now known to us were found, or any modern BVs were made.

Second, Dean Burgon said that the Textus Receptus could stand a thorough revision. Today's KJVO generally ignores this, using only the statements of Burgon which furthers the KJVO myth.

 

That is not 100% true.They had access to ALL of the variations found in todays "bibles,"
found in the Jesuit Douay-Rheims for example...

 

But the point is not the KJVOs but when KJVO started. I suggest it existed long before Wilkinson. The quotes substantiate that position.

Skan, there have most likely been KJVOs since 1612, but how well-known to the GENERAL PUBLIC were they? And if they were wrong then, they're still wrong now.

Once again, we're referring to *MODERN* KJVO, which certainly did NOT exist before 1930.