1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

KJVO

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Jordan Kurecki, Oct 13, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jordan Kurecki

    Jordan Kurecki Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,911
    Likes Received:
    126
    Faith:
    Baptist
    How many of you have read books from reliable authors from both sides of the KJVO debate?

    I would say that two books arguing against the KJV only debate would be
    James White's the KJVO controversy
    D.A. Carson's the King James Ony Debate
    Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible by Mark Ward

    Then for the side of the KJVO I would say
    Faith vs the Modern Bible Versions by David Cloud
    For love of the Bible by David Cloud
    the KJV defended by Edward Hills
    Defending the King James Bible by D.A. Waite

    I do not consider G.A. Riplinger a good source for the KJVO position and Ruckman is definately iffy at the very least.

    a worthy mention, though not necessarily a KJO position, is the Revision Revised by Dean Burgon, Dean Burgon utterly obliterated the Textual theories of Wescott and Hort in this book, and many of the textual choices made by Wescott and Hort that were destroyed by Dean Burgon have made their way into many of our modern translations.

    I am just curious how many of us on both sides of this have read books from the other side?
     
    #1 Jordan Kurecki, Oct 13, 2018
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2018
  2. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    584
    Faith:
    Baptist
    D.A. Carson and James White obliterated the KJVO stance.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  3. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,535
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I have. A former KJVO devotee.
    I have several of John Burgon's books.

    Actually the turning point was reading the publications of Peter Ruckman.

    I could not in any way accept the theory of dual inspiration, the originals and the 1611 English of the "Authorized Version" and then Advanced Revelation, the door of revelation is still open.

    Yes some try to deny that he taught these doctrine but if you go back into the BB archives you will find the quotes from his books in the KJVO debates (and there were many and some were wild!) which are now difficult to find and he has gone on to be with the Lord.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Jordan Kurecki

    Jordan Kurecki Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,911
    Likes Received:
    126
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I understand, I also do not hold to the idea of dual inspiration, I am not a Ruckmanite.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Ready to Harvest

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2016
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    4
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I have read the ones you mentioned, Ward, White, and Carson, Hills, also Pickering's Identity, Brandenburgs Thou Shalt Keep them and a couple dozen others. Read Daniel Wallaces articles. Watched White's videos. Heard the Ruckman position too. Disageee with Riplinger, Ruckman and Gipp.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    584
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No manmade production --even a Bible translation is without error. For anyone to make that claim is in serious error.
     
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Ready to Harvest

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2016
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    4
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I suppose that means even this statement you have just made must have an error in it.
     
  8. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    584
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You are mistaken and missing the point entirely.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    584
    Faith:
    Baptist
    "In light of the manifold criticisms of WH's opinions regarding the transmission of the text, it is astonishing that their text is so good still today. This is on the other hand primarily due to the fact that their basic result, to follow B whenever possible, is not so bad as it really is normally accepted today, and on the other hand, that their opinions regarding the textual history are, with some qualifications, probably also basically correct." (Wieland Willker)
     
  10. Jordan Kurecki

    Jordan Kurecki Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,911
    Likes Received:
    126
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Might I encourage you to read Cloud or Waite for a more balanced viewpoint?

    As someone on the side of KJVO, I would not recommend Riplinger, Ruckman or Gipp as sound defenders of the KJVO position.
     
  11. Jordan Kurecki

    Jordan Kurecki Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,911
    Likes Received:
    126
    Faith:
    Baptist
    That's simply because most of your modern scholars and textual critics have accepted WH's textual theories without critical thinking. in Revision Revised Dean Burgon obliterated WH's theories and textual choices. THe following posts are from a thread I made in 2013:

    "I've also been going through the NIV as i have been reading this book and I have been marking places where I find that the NIV has a reading with extremely little manuscript evidence, the NIV follows the R.V. of 1881 in many places, I have seen quotes of scholars that much of the "Accepted theories" of textual criticism lean heavily on Wescott and Hort, and my study and research on the NIV is confirming much of this independently.
    Here is an example.

    Luke 6:1 (KJV) And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first, that he went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands.

    Luke 6:1 (NIV) One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and his disciples began to pick some heads of grain, rub them in their hands and eat the kernels.
    the next portion is from Revision Revised pg 73-74:

    "It is in this way that a famous expression in S. Luke vi. 1 has disappeared from codices א b l. The reader may not be displeased to listen to an anecdote which has hitherto escaped the vigilance of the Critics:—

    “I once asked my teacher, Gregory of Nazianzus,”—(the words are Jerome's in a letter to Nepotianus),—“to explain to me the meaning of S. Luke's expression σάββατον δευτερόπρωτον, literally the ‘second-first sabbath.’ ‘I will tell you all about it in church,’ he replied. ‘The congregation shall shout applause, and you shall have your choice,—either to stand silent and look like a fool, or else to pretend you understand what you do not.’ ” But “eleganter lusit,” says Jerome180. The point of the joke was this: Gregory, being a great rhetorician and orator, would have descanted so elegantly on the signification of the word δευτερόπρωτον that the congregation would have been borne away by his mellifluous periods, quite regardless of the sense. In other words, Gregory of Nazianzus [a.d. 360] is found to have no more understood the word than Jerome did [370].

    Ambrose181 of Milan [370] attempts to explain the difficult [pg 074] expression, but with indifferent success. Epiphanius182 of Cyprus [370] does the same;—and so, Isidorus183 [400] called “Pelusiota” after the place of his residence in Lower Egypt.—Ps.-Cæsarius184 also volunteers remarks on the word [a.d. 400?].—It is further explained in the Paschal Chronicle,185—and by Chrysostom186 [370] at Antioch.—“Sabbatum secundo-primum” is found in the old Latin, and is retained by the Vulgate. Earlier evidence on the subject does not exist. We venture to assume that a word so attested must at least be entitled to its place in the Gospel. Such a body of first-rate positive IVth-century testimony, coming from every part of ancient Christendom, added to the significant fact that δευτερόπρωτον is found in every codex extant except א b l, and half a dozen cursives of suspicious character, ought surely to be regarded as decisive. That an unintelligible word should have got omitted from a few copies, requires no explanation. Every one who has attended to the matter is aware that the negative evidence of certain of the Versions also is of little weight on such occasions as the present. They are observed constantly to leave out what they either failed quite to understand, or else found untranslateable. On the other hand, it would be inexplicable indeed, that an unique expression like the present should have established itself universally, if it were actually spurious. This is precisely an occasion for calling to mind the precept proclivi scriptioni præstat ardua. Apart from external evidence, it is a thousand times more likely that such a peculiar word as this should be genuine, than the reverse. Tischendorf accordingly retains it, moved by this very consideration.187 It got excised, however, here and there from manuscripts at a very early date. And, incredible as it may appear, it is a fact, that in consequence of its absence from [pg 075] the mutilated codices above referred to, S. Luke's famous “second-first Sabbath” has been thrust out of his Gospel by our Revisionists.

    But indeed, Mutilation has been practised throughout. By codex b (collated with the traditional Text), no less than 2877 words have been excised from the four Gospels alone: by codex א,—3455 words: by codex d,—3704 words.188"
     
  12. Jordan Kurecki

    Jordan Kurecki Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,911
    Likes Received:
    126
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Heres another example:

    1 Timothy 3:16
    New International Version (NIV)
    16 Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great:

    He appeared in the flesh,
    was vindicated by the Spirit,[a]
    was seen by angels,
    was preached among the nations,
    was believed on in the world,
    was taken up in glory.

    KJV 1Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

    According to pg 486-496 Revision Revised
    The Evidence for Theos "God" is the following:
    N.T. Greek Manuscripts-289
    Ancient N.T. versions-2
    Greek Church Fathers- 20

    Evidence for Ho "Which"
    N.T. Greek manuscripts-1
    Ancient N.T. versions-5
    Greek Church Fathers-2

    Evidence for HOS "Who":
    N.T. Greek Manuscripts-6
    Ancient N.T. Versions-1
    Greek Church Fathers-0
     
  13. Jordan Kurecki

    Jordan Kurecki Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,911
    Likes Received:
    126
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Here's one more:
    Matthew 18:11(NIV): Non Existent
    Footnote reads: Some manuscripts include here the words of Luke 19:10.

    Matthew 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

    Revision Revised pg 92
    "The blessed declaration, “The Son of Man is come to save that which was lost,”—has in like manner been expunged by our Revisionists from S. Matth. xviii. 11; although it is attested by every known uncial except b א l, and every known cursive except three: by the old Latin and the Vulgate: by the Peschito, Cureton's and the Philoxenian Syriac: by the Coptic, Armenian, Æthiopic, Georgian and Slavonic versions:329—by Origen,330—Theodoras Heracl.,331—Chrysostom332—and Jovius333 the monk;—by Tertullian,334—Ambrose,335—Hilary,336—Jerome,337—pope Damasus338—and Augustine:339—above all, by the Universal Eastern Church,—for it has been read in all assemblies of the faithful on the morrow of Pentecost, from the beginning. Why then (the reader will again ask) have the Revisionists expunged this verse?"

    Since when does some mean all except 6? this is an outright lie.
     
  14. Ready to Harvest

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2016
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    4
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I have read both. Reread my post. I said I disagree with Riplinger Ruckman and Gipp.
     
  15. Ready to Harvest

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2016
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    4
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I hold to Verbal Plenary Preservation. I reject Ruckmanism. I dont believe the KJV is the only valid Version. Plenty of other languages have God's preserved word. I also havent found anything textually wrong with the KJVER or KJ21.
     
  16. Rob_BW

    Rob_BW Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    4,275
    Likes Received:
    1,224
    Faith:
    Baptist
    If the definition of thinking critically is "anyone who comes to the same conclusions as I," then maybe.
     
  17. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    4,845
    Likes Received:
    199
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I have read all the books that you list for the KJV-only side plus many more.

    David Cloud and D. A. Waite are not nearly as balanced as you try to make them out to be. They can be just as extreme and unbalanced as Peter Ruckman and Gail Riplinger in some of their unproven claims and allegations, especially in their claims concerning the NKJV.

    David Cloud and D. A. Waite will dodge or avoid facts which conflict and contradict some of their claims. David Cloud has blindly trusted and repeated inaccurate claims made by D. A. Waite, and he would not check and examine the evidence for himself when it was provided freely to him.
     
  18. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    584
    Faith:
    Baptist
    /
    The above is absolute nonsense. Why would someone like Willker feel free to disagree with some textual decisions made by WH then? The same goes for Philip W. Comfort. He's a big fan of WH yet disagrees with a number of their textual decisions, while agreeing with most.

    To say these N.T. scholars accept WH's textual theories is absurd. Why it's as if you haven't read their works.
    He gives his reasons, but he majors in vituperative language.
    The majority of English translations have:
    One Sabbath or on a Sabbath.
    Dean Burgon was a wild man.
    Burgon did not believe that the TR, in whatever form, or the KJV, in whatever form was perfect. With all the differences how could he.

    However, he makes what he calls the Traditional Text the standard by which any deviation from it fails. When portions of the TR are not found in more ancient texts he says passages have been excised. More likely the TR has added rather than the more ancient texts have removed passages.
     
    #18 Rippon, Oct 14, 2018
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2018
  19. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    584
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Most English translations have "He" in the text. The NIV is not singular in that respect.
     
  20. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    584
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Quoting James White's book under the heading Added or Deleted?
    "It is much easier to understand how the passage would be inserted elsewhere when appropriate than to understand why it would be deleted in the important ancient witnesses. But we note again that since the material in the verse appears elsewhere in all the Greek manuscripts, it is impossible to suggest someone purposefully was trying to hide or change anything." (pages 199,200)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...