• 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!

The Bible war.

Status
Not open for further replies.

HankD

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
ONLY because the KJVO made it so!

Actually it goes back to a debate between Westcott And Hort (W&H) versus John Burgon (JB).

This debate is contained (for the most part) in the Book The Revision Revised John Burgon, 1871.
There are others...

Free.

The Revision Revised by John William Burgon

Basically W&H felt that older is better (mss B and Aleph) shorter is better in that they felt the Byzantine priests/scribes embellished and conflated the "Traditional Text" (as Burgon called it) to smooth it out.

JB had his own schema of authenticity.The Seven Tests of Truth found in The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels.

This present book is another of Dean John William Burgon's masterpieces. It is loaded, as are all of his books, with overwhelming evidence from manuscripts, lectionaries, ancient versions, and church fathers. Dean Burgon does three things in this volume: (1) He outlines his seven tests of Scriptural truth; (2) He proves the superiority of the traditional received text; and (3) He shows the inferiority of Westcott and Hort's favorite manuscripts-Vatican and Sinai, that is, B and Aleph. His arguments are powerful and convincing!

The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
 

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
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 (hereafter AV) 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."

Dr. Riley believed there were still a few of the "old conception" men in his day that still believed in an inerrant AV, that they were mostly old men, and were soon to pass away. If these men were old men when Riley wrote his book, they must have dated to at least the latter part of the 19th century. Over one hundred years ago, a group of "old conception" men existed who still believed in the inerrancy of the AV. This appears to indicate the "King James Only" position is not of recent origin.

Thus we can see, in Riley's day, a group of men still existed who believed, "(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) We can easily see that W. B. Riley (1861 - 1947), understood this group of men to believe exactly as the "King James Only" crowd does today, and believed it long before any of the contemporary antagonists were born!
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Actually it goes back to a debate between Westcott And Hort (W&H) versus John Burgon (JB).

This debate is contained (for the most part) in the Book The Revision Revised John Burgon, 1871.
There are others...

Free.

The Revision Revised by John William Burgon

Basically W&H felt that older is better (mss B and Aleph) shorter is better in that they felt the Byzantine priests/scribes embellished and conflated the "Traditional Text" (as Burgon called it) to smooth it out.

JB had his own schema of authenticity.The Seven Tests of Truth found in The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels.



The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
But even Dean saw the obvious need to have both the Tr and the Kjv revised and updated!
 

HankD

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Wouldn't that be the Majority text?
Sort of, but according to his writings (The Traditional Text) The Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza Greek New Testaments were representative of what he called the "Traditional Text". Elzivir came later, Scrivener much later.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sort of, but according to his writings (The Traditional Text) The Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza Greek New Testaments were representative of what he called the "Traditional Text". Elzivir came later, Scrivener much later.
Which one of those would be the real perfect one then, by the Kjvo position?
 

HankD

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Which one of those would be the real perfect one then, by the Kjvo position?
Probably Scrivener (1894), compiled/distilled from the several Greek texts underlying the KJVO English.

Other than that probably Stephanus although a Ruckmanite would discard them all.

Actually I have read books and articles written by Ruckman in which he actually refers to the Greek (didn't say which one - probably Scrivener)!
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Probably Scrivener (1894), compiled/distilled from the several Greek texts underlying the KJVO English.

Other than that probably Stephanus although a Ruckmanite would discard them all.

Actually I have read books and articles written by Ruckman in which he actually refers to the Greek (didn't say which one - probably Scrivener)!
Do any of the current Kjv version use that Greek text of 1894 for their base though?
 

HankD

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Do any of the current Kjv version use that Greek text of 1894 for their base though?

KJV yes for the most part and as far as I know (Cambridge, Oxford, Nelson; 1611-1769).

NKJV:
Though KJVO folks even here visiting the BB years ago claimed that the NKJV used Alexandrian readings (CT readings) which was proven false.

What had happened is that the NKJV ENGLISH translation agreed with the ASV or RSV over a disputed choice of a word.

KJV Acts 12:4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

ASV Acts 12:4 And when he had taken him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to guard him; intending after the Passover to bring him forth to the people.

NKJV Acts 12:4 So when he had arrested him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four squads of soldiers to keep him, intending to bring him before the people after Passover.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
KJV yes for the most part and as far as I know (Cambridge, Oxford, Nelson; 1611-1769).

NKJV:
Though KJVO folks even here visiting the BB years ago claimed that the NKJV used Alexandrian readings (CT readings) which was proven false.

What had happened is that the NKJV ENGLISH translation agreed with the ASV or RSV over a disputed choice of a word.

KJV Acts 12:4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

ASV Acts 12:4 And when he had taken him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to guard him; intending after the Passover to bring him forth to the people.

NKJV Acts 12:4 So when he had arrested him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four squads of soldiers to keep him, intending to bring him before the people after Passover.
Which would be the correct rendering!
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I use the KJV. And "passover" is the correct translation. Did you know early English translation in the OT also had translated "passover" as "Easter?"
IF the TR was wrong in some reading, should we not choice to use instead the more correct one from either the MT/CT?
 

37818

Well-Known Member
IF the TR was wrong in some reading, should we not choice to use instead the more correct one from either the MT/CT?
The TR proves to be more often correct than the CT. Luke 4:4. 1 Timothy 3:16. John 3:13.

Give 10 references where the CT has the correct reading over the TR.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The TR proves to be more often correct than the CT. Luke 4:4. 1 Timothy 3:16. John 3:13.

Give 10 references where the CT has the correct reading over the TR.
1 John 5-17
Shorter ending Nark
John 8 woman caught in adultery
Titus 2:3
to name a few!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top