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!

This is Must Reading On the KJVO Position!

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Yeshua1, May 28, 2020.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    49,493
    Likes Received:
    2,548
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Just finished reading thru this work, was really excellent!
    ttp://www.truth.sg/resources/KJV Onlyism - a New Sect - Introduction - Dr J Price.pdf
     
  2. 37818

    37818 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2018
    Messages:
    6,035
    Likes Received:
    517
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Have not read it yet, it looks good.
     
    #2 37818, May 28, 2020
    Last edited: May 28, 2020
  3. 37818

    37818 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2018
    Messages:
    6,035
    Likes Received:
    517
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The PDF is only the table of contents and the introduction for the book.
     
  4. Origen

    Origen Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2020
    Messages:
    167
    Likes Received:
    36
    Faith:
    Baptist
  5. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    30,023
    Likes Received:
    1,350
    Faith:
    Baptist
    File not found
     
  6. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    49,493
    Likes Received:
    2,548
    Faith:
    Baptist
  7. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    49,493
    Likes Received:
    2,548
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Use the link from origen!
     
  8. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    49,493
    Likes Received:
    2,548
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Use the link from origen!
     
  9. 37818

    37818 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2018
    Messages:
    6,035
    Likes Received:
    517
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Print copies may soon become hard to come by.
     
  10. Origen

    Origen Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2020
    Messages:
    167
    Likes Received:
    36
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes I have. I think Price does an excellent job.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    49,493
    Likes Received:
    2,548
    Faith:
    Baptist
    He explains a very technical issue in terms pretty much most can understand, and he pretty much shows just how silly KJVO position really is!
     
  12. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    30,023
    Likes Received:
    1,350
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You may be correct -
    but the answer that the ultra KJO will give is

    "Don't confuse me with the facts, I have made up my mind"
    well, maybe not in those words - but thats what they mean
     
  13. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    49,493
    Likes Received:
    2,548
    Faith:
    Baptist
    What cracked me up was reading that dean burgeon, patron saint to the KJVO, actually wanted to have the Kjv updated in many verses and passages!
     
  14. Origen

    Origen Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2020
    Messages:
    167
    Likes Received:
    36
    Faith:
    Baptist
    While Burgon believed that the TR was superior to all the other Greek texts of the time, he was well aware that the TR needed correcting. The same is true of his friend, colleague, and posthumous editor Edward Miller.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    49,493
    Likes Received:
    2,548
    Faith:
    Baptist
    he probably would have looked at the most current majority text edition as his one of choice!
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. Origen

    Origen Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2020
    Messages:
    167
    Likes Received:
    36
    Faith:
    Baptist
    That's what Price agues. See page 224 ff.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    49,493
    Likes Received:
    2,548
    Faith:
    Baptist
    How do you stand on this issue of which Greek text is a viable option?
     
  18. 37818

    37818 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2018
    Messages:
    6,035
    Likes Received:
    517
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The readings which all text types agree. A majorty text across all text types.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  19. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    49,493
    Likes Received:
    2,548
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The Critical text seems to be agreeing with the best manuscripts though!
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  20. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    4,721
    Likes Received:
    188
    Faith:
    Baptist
    John William Burgon actually supported revision of the Textus Receptus and the KJV (The Revision Revised, pp. 21, 107, 114, 224, 236, 269).

    For example, John William Burgon wrote: "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 that the Textus Receptus needs correction" (p. 21, footnote 3). Burgon maintained that “in not a few particulars, the ‘Textus receptus’ does call for Revision” (p. 107). Burgon wrote: “That some corrections of the Text were necessary, we are well aware” (p. 224, footnote 1). Burgon himself asked: “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” (p. 385). Burgon himself asserted: “If, on the contrary, I have ever once appealed to the ‘Received Text,‘ and made it my standard, --why do you not prove the truth of your allegation by adducing in evidence that one particular instance?“ instead of bringing against me a charge which is utterly without foundation (p. 388). Burgon asked: “Who, pray, since the invention of printing was ever known to put forward any existing Text as ‘a final standard’?“ (p. 392). Burgon asserted: “So far am I from pinning my faith to it [the Textus Receptus], that I eagerly make my appeal from it to the threefold witness of Copies, Versions, Fathers, whenever I find its testimony challenged” (Ibid.). In 1864, Burgon maintained that “the accumulated evidence of the last two centuries has enabled us to correct it [the Textus Receptus] with confidence in hundreds of places” (Treatise on the Pastoral Office, p. 69).

    After discussing the inspiration and infallibility of the Scriptures, Burgon asserted: “Our remarks apply in strictness only to the sacred autographs” (Treatise on the Pastoral Office, p. 64). Burgon added: “God has not seen fit to work a succession of miracles for the protection even of His Word” (p. 64). Burgon claimed: “To some, it may seem a matter of regret that a perpetual miracle has not guarded the ispissma verba of the Spirit; but the wiser will judge differently” (p. 77). Burgon observed: “It is obvious that a really ancient Codex of the Gospels must needs supply more valuable critical help in establishing the precise Text of Scripture then can possibly be rendered by any translation, however faithful; while Patristic citations are on the whole a less decisive authority, even than versions” (Last Twelve Verses, p. 19).

    In his introduction to Burgon’s book, Edward Miller wrote: “In the Text left behind by Dean Burgon, about 150 corrections have been suggested by him in St. Matthew‘s Gospel alone“ (Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, p. 5). Burgon and Miller advocated “the Traditional Text,“ not the Textus Receptus (p. 5). Burgon as edited by Miller asserted: “I am not defending the ‘Textus Receptus’” (p. 15). Burgon added: “That it is without authority to bind, nay, that it calls for skillful revision in every part, is freely admitted. I do not believe it to be absolutely identical with the true Traditional Text” (Ibid.). Burgon asserted: “Where any part of it conflicts with the fullest evidence attainable, there I believe that it calls for correction” (Ibid.). Edward Miller concluded that the Traditional Text advocated by Dean Burgon would differ “in many passages” from the Textus Receptus (p. 96). In the introduction to another of Burgon’s books, Edward Miller asserted: “The Traditional Text must be found, not in a mere transcript, but in a laborious revision of the Received Text” (Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text, p. 1).

    Edward Miller maintained that Burgon thought that there were “additions to the Received Text” at Matthew 6:18, Matthew 25:13, and Matthew 27:35 (Burgon, Causes of the Corruptions of the Traditional Text, p. 171). Burgon as edited by Miller noted: “An instance where an error from an Itacism has crept into the Textus Receptus may be seen in St. Luke 16:25” (p. 60). Under the heading “Burgon and Miller’s system,” Edward Miller asserted that “The Textus Receptus, which was adopted in the revival of Greek learning, though it agrees substantially with our Canons, fails under the first, which is the virtual embodiment of them all; because some of its readings are condemned by the balance struck upon all the evidence which as been assembled under the unprecedented advantage afforded in this century” (Oxford Debate, p. xiii). Burgon wrote: “S. Luke’s history of the Temptation (4:8) contains five words which some ancient copyist must have inserted from remembering too well the parallel place in S. Matthew 4:10, and confounding it with the language of S. Matthew 16:23” (Treatise on the Pastoral, p. 76). Burgon asked: “See you not that the state of the text of the Bible has no more to do with the Inspiration of the Bible, then the stains on yonder windows have to do with the light of God’s sun?” (Inspiration and Interpretation, p. 119).

    Marvin Vincent observed: “With Dean Burgon, he [Scrivener] stood for the position that all available authorities, and not the most ancient only, should be considered in the settlement of the text” (History of the Textual Criticism, p. 141). Vincent maintained that “John W. Burgon, Dean of Chichester, was the friend and coadjutor of Scrivener” (p. 142). Peter Ruckman asserted that “Burgon claimed the AV has several corrupt readings in it” (Ruckman’s Battlefield Notes, p. 100). John William Burgon referred to “what, in the A. V. is nothing worse than a palpable mistranslation” (Revision Revised, p. 72). Burgon suggested that “the inaccurate rendering” of two Greek words in the KJV at Matthew 3:10 and Luke 3:9 was “retained” in the Revised Version (p. 164). Burgon indicated that there are some places where the Revisionists remedy “an inaccuracy in the rendering of the A. V.“ (p. 220). Burgon wrote: “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 far greater number, when the rendering is idiomatic” (pp. 216-217). Concerning Luke 5:2, Burgon as edited by Miller asserted: “The translators of the 1611, not understanding the incident, were content, as Tyndale, following the Vulgate, had been before them, to render [the Greek words]--’were washing their nets” (Traditional Text, p. 212). Burgon then maintained that the Revisers of 1881 retained “the incorrect translation” found in the 1611 KJV at this verse (Ibid.).
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...