Featured Trying To Understand KJVOnlyism

My post here seems to have been lost in the crowd. I think it's a valid question and a simple one at that. Please address it.

 

DJA,you haven't replied to my post number 44. I answered most of your questions. Please respond.

 

John W.Burgon in a sermon at Oxford in 1884

"To educate young women like young men,and with young men,--a thing both inexpedient and immodest."

 

I will give a thorough response to this later but you still have not shown any connection between where the KJVOs cited Wilkinson, and the specific portions of what they cited being wrong.

Nevertheless, what is ironic is that KJVO are accused of virtually plagiarizing Wilkinson, when the same argument isn't applied equally to KJV critics-like this entire article being copied almost verbatim from Doug Kutilek's website.

 

From Revision Revised By Dean Burgon

"Once for all,we request it be clearly understood that we do not,by any means,claim perfection for the Received Text. We entertain no extravagant notions on that subject. again and again we shall have occasion to point out...that the Textus Receptus needs cporrection." (p.548)

 

Gregory Perry Sr:

Well, you would be in a constant state of abhorrence if you surf the net for KJVO sites. I see you've posted on a certain board with "Baptist" in its name that's home to some of the worst wing nuts in the KJVO camp. Its owner is a fanatic ruckie homeboy who believes the 'serpent seed' doctrine because Ruckman does.

I agree.

Then, why did you enter it to begin with?

Nobody said you were until YOU YOURSELF did.

You COULD if you STUDY a little bit. merely memorizing info does one no good unless he UTILIZES it and confirms its veracity. How mant folx do you know who've memorized many Bible verses, but don't apply them or know their meanings?

No, you DON'T hafta live with it! You can easily LEARN THE TRUTH, and drop the KJVO myth(not the KJV) like a hot potato.

It should be obvious to you that both sides CANNOT be right! And remember, while Satan can't take your salvation, he CAN deceive you to the point where you're not a very effective witness for CHRIST. He uses the KJVO myth to cast doubt upon God's word by deceiving KJVOs into heaping aspersions upon other valid English versions of God's word. Satan has a bottomless bag of trix, & is constantly manufacturing new ones, so it's important to remember his power, second only to that of GOD.

You cannot adequately defend the KJVO myth, not because of any ignorance or stupidity on your part, but because there's NOTHING TO DEFEND IT WITH!!!!!! You're trying to plow the sea. You can't make something from nothing; only GOD can do that. The whole KJVO thingie is MAN-MADE, with a cultic and dishonest beginning, as was shown here earlier, and it doesn't have the first quark of SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT.

Lacking any evidence to support the KJVO myth, you repeat some of the old lame excuses made early in its life, or you try to invent some new ones. well, it WON'T WORK! Again, you cannot make something from nothing.

No one is trying to get you to ditch the KJV. We are trying to get you to dump the FALSE KJVO MYTH. That doctrine remains patently false, no matter what. The KJV is NOT the ONLY valid English Bible version out there!

Now, THINK before you diss any other valid English version to anyone, what GOD said would be the fate of all unforgiven liars.....

The TRUE witness is 100% truthful and accurate in his/her witness and testimony. One CANNOT be 100% truthful if he/she subscribes to KJVO, simple as THAT!

Actually, it DOES advance God's work by exposing a man-made false doctrine about His word.

Well, I've never made a penny fighting the KJVO myth, and don't plan to. And the same knowledge you attribute to others is readily available to YOU. For instance, all you need do to see what I've written about the origin of the KJVO myth is READ THE THREE BOOX I CITED, that is, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated(Wilkinson), God Wrote Only One Bible(Ray), and Which Bible?(Fuller). See how Ray plagiarized from Wilkinson, Fuller copied from both, and also verify to what Logos added to what I'd written. Also, see how the later KJVO stuff you've read stacks up against those three boox.

This is not to mention the FALSEHOODS within all those boox!

"KJVO IS A POISON MUSHROOM!"

 

Typical KJVO response to a valid, pertinent question...deafening silence.

 

The chief use of Burgon by KJVOs is that he fiercely opposed most of the manuscript work of Westcott and Hort. Burgon wrote that the Textus Receptus edition of his day could stand a thorough revision.

Dr. Donald Waite is prez of the "Dean Burgon Society", and a FORMER member of it, Dr. Thomas Cassidy, is a member here. and it's apparent to many who've extensively studied the life and writings of Burgon that, were he here today, he would NOT join the org named after him.

And let us not forget that Burgon was an ANGLICAN, the same denom that's largely Catholic in doctrine, without the pope or celibate clergy, which admits open homosexuals to its clergy.

 

I'm not saying anyone here has said the following, but does a person's relationship with Christ depend on a 17th century Anglican translation of the Bible?

 

I guess my shorter post are the hardest for the KJVOs to answer. Actually mine should be easier.

This is my third repost of questions that are fair.Please are there any KJVOs that are willing to give an answer? Even B4L can step up. Give it a whirl B4L.

 

KJV-only claims about Waldensian Bibles

My research and post was my writing. Some of my articles and writing are posted at other people's web sites.

If you compared typical KJV-only claims about Waldensan Bibles to the claims made by Wilkinson, you could see the indirect or direct connection. Some KJV-only authors even directly quote from Wilkinson as the evidence for their claims.

David Sorenson maintained that the Waldenses “used translations of the Bible based upon the Received Text from the second century up to and including the time of the Reformation” (Touch Not, p. 47). In his Appendix E entitled “Evidences of a historical connection between the Waldenses and the KJV,“ Sorenson wrote: “Though there is no conclusive evidence that Beza used Waldensian manuscripts, circumstances allow theories to arise suggesting the possibility. If this is the case, then there could be a direct lineage of the Received Text from the end of the first century through the Italic churches to the Vaudois to the Waldenses to Beza to the King James’s translators” (p. 261). Waite wrote: “I do believe that the Waldenses had a Bible that was founded on the Traditional Received Text” (Critical Answer to Michael, p. 28). Waite asserted: “The Waldenses’ Bible both in the early 2nd Century and the later centuries did use the text that underlies the King James Bible” (Ibid., p. 49). Waite wrote: “The Waldensians (120 A. D. and onward) used the Received Text” (Defending the KJB, p. 46). Jack Moorman also asserted that “the noble Waldenses in northern Italy still possessed in Latin the Received Text” (Forever Settled, p. 108). Will Kinney suggested that God may have preserved His perfect words “in the Waldensian latinized Bibles till the time of the Reformation” (Flaming Torch, April-June, 2003, p. 18). Peter Ruckman wrote: “When the world is a Latin speaking world, God has a Book in the Old Latin of the Waldenses and Albigenses which is carried all over the world” (Alexandrian, Part Seven, p. 12). Ruckman maintained that “the AV translators had available three Waldensian Bibles” (Bible Babel, p. 72). In his commentary on the Minor Prophets, Ruckman indicated that “the sacred text“ (“a blood-bought, blood-stained text”) “came to us through the Waldenses [and] Albigenses” (I, p. 347). Ruckman referred to “the Old Latin Bible of the Waldenses, Vaudois, and Albigenses who used a text like the King James’ Bible” (Monarch of the Books, p. 7). Gail Riplinger maintained that “the pure Old Latin Bible became the Romaunt, Provencal, Vaudois, Toulouse, Piedmontese, and Romanese Bibles” (Hazardous Materials, p. 1105). David Loughran asserted that the Waldenses “used the Old Latin Vulgate and rejected Jerome’s Vulgate” (Bible Versions, p. 9).

In a quotation that is from Benjamin Wilkinson’s book, Floyd Jones claimed “the translators of the 1611 had before them four Bibles which had come under Waldensian influences: the Dioadati in Italian, the Olivetan in French, the Lutheran in German, and the Genevan in English” (Which Version, p. 105). Robert Sargent presented a chart in his book that showed the Waldensian Bibles leading up to the same four Bibles (English Bible, p. 103). This statement in Jones’ book is also quoted in Joe Gresham’s book, and Gresham quoted Wilkinson’s claim that the KJV translators had before them “at least six Waldensian Bibles written in the old Waldensian vernacular” (Dealing with the Devil’s Deception, p. 49). Kelly Gallagher claimed that “Six Waldensian bibles sat at the desks of the King James translators” (Perfect Bible, p. 21). David Cloud suggested that the Romaunt New Testaments used by the Waldenses “represented the Traditional Text” and that the Tepl was a Waldensian version that “represents the Traditional Text“ (Faith, pp. 139-140). Cloud indicated that “the Scripture was also preserved . . . in the translations from Latin such as the Waldensian Romaunt, the old German Tepl” (Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 92). Gail Riplinger claimed that “the Codex Teplensis (Tepl Bible) of 1389 is thought to be of the Waldensian type (KJV) and not a Latin text type (In Awe, p. 977). Riplinger asserted that “Luther used the German Tepl Bible, which represented a translation of the Waldensian Bible into German” (Which Bible, p. 53). Riplinger wrote that “God has spoken to men around the world through a text like the KJV in the German Tepl Bible” (p. 74). Floyd Jones also maintained that the “Tepl ms represented a translation of the Waldensian Bible into the German dialect which was spoken before the time of the Reformation” (Which Version, p. 105).

 

Yes, I do know what I'm talking about, and the KJV was NOT based upon an Erasmus edition (his 5th edition was published nearly 70 years before 1604), nor solely based upon any single Greek text. The king's revisers drew upon many printed Greek (probably primarily Beza's latest edition), Latin, Hebrew and other language sources. I think you are in error and betray a serious bias by portraying the KJV as only being derived from Erasmus (or his MSS sources).

 

Since the later TR editions by Stephanus and Beza are derived from Erasmus' editions and are basically and mostly the same, how is it wrong to acknowledge that fact that even some KJV-only authors have admitted? Was it actually asserted that the KJV's New Testament was based solely on Erasmus' edition?

KJV-only author Floyd Jones wrote: "Basically it is Erasmus' work which is the foundation of the King James Bible" (Which Version, p. 44). Gail Riplinger acknowledged that one of the works used by the final committee of the KJV translators was “the Greek New Testament of Erasmus” (In Awe, p. 533). In a sermon later transcribed into an article, David O. Fuller stated: “Erasmus was responsible for the Textus Receptus, or the Received Text, that Greek text upon which the King James Version is founded” (Flaming Torch, Oct.-Dec., 2004, p. 6). KJV-only author David Cloud wrote: “The Greek Received Text was first published by Desiderius Erasmus” (Faith, p. 145). D. A. Waite wrote: “The Erasmus Greek New Testament (1516) used the Received Text” (Defending the KJB, p. 47). Yet in a later book, Waite claimed that the KJV is not “based on the Erasmus text” (Foes, p. 113).

The Oxford Illustrated History of the Bible confirmed that “it was Erasmus’s editions that were to be the parents of the text of the subsequent centuries” (p. 113). This source added that “it is the text descended from Erasmus that is their [KJV translators/revisers] base” (p. 117). C. J. Ellicott maintained that “in the fourth edition of Erasmus we really have the mother-text of our own Authorized Version” (Considerations on the Revision, p. 35). Henry Fox noted: “The Greek text used by our [KJV] translators was substantially that of Erasmus” (On the Revision, p. 10). Clarence Stuart wrote: “As Beza followed Stephens, and Stephens, in his folio edition, followed almost exclusively Erasmus, the authority for the Greek text in use in 1611 was little else than the fifth edition of Erasmus” (Textual Criticism of the NT, p. 23).

 

KJV-only view's dependance on fallacies

You skipped over or missed the point that Wilkinson's arguments and claims were incorrect and the point that KJV-only advocates kept hidden the fact that Wilkinson was a Seventh-Day Adventist.

Are you in effect admitting that KJV-only advocates rely on an incorrect guilt by association game when they repeatedly try to associate all modern translations with Westcott and Hort and with the Jehovah Witnesses' translation?

Applying typical KJV-only claims consistently and back to the KJV-only view or to the KJV is not actually using a guilty by association argument, but it is demonstrating that problem with KJV-only arguments. The advocating of a man-made KJV-only view relies upon the use of fallacies.

Where is your sound evidence that Westcott and Hort were supposedly Roman Catholics? Westcott and Hort were members of the Church of England and held basically the same Church of England doctrinal views as were held by the translators of the KJV.

I would assert that the same standards should be applied to all textual editors and translators including the translators of the KJV and oppose the use of divers measures or double standards.

Do you object to the fact that the makers of the KJV borrowed a number of renderings from the work of a Jesuit Roman Catholic Gregory Martin in the 1582 Rheims New Testament? The fact that the KJV borrowed renderings from a Roman Catholic translation in their corrupt stream of Bibles is a serious problem for the KJV-only view's two streams of Bibles argument.

 

So in other words, you're saying that David Kutilek quoted YOU, instead of you copying word for word his articles from his website.
:thumbs: Gotcha!

Your response here, without even quoting anything from Wilkinson books that shows the connection other than you SAYING these are Wilkinson quotes, would only show that those who wrote about the history of some of the KJV sources agreed with Wilkinson about the Waldensian connection, and you say that like it's a bad thing.

Was the Waldensian texts the ONLY texts the KJV translators had available out of the 5,000 plus mss? No. Did you show evidence that the Waldensian texts were corrupt? No. Furthermore, you have only given allusion to the fact that Wilkinson actually did borrow heavily from Nolan.

Again, what you have not done is show specifically where the KJVO quoted from Wilkinson, and where those specific quotes are in disagreement with others who hold to the veracity of the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus (NOT the same thing). You are still merely attacking the source of the information instead of showing that the stream of sources were in error about their research. The only question you have cast doubt on is whether Dean Burgon thought the LATER edition of the Textus Receptus needed corrected, and yet Burgon made clear that the KJV DID NOT NEED UPDATED OR ALTERED.

Now let me ask you something that the KJVO critics ask of us when positing "where was the word of God before 1611?"

Where was the word of God before Tischendorf found the Codex Siniaticus? You have us believe that the 45 witnesses that constitute the Codex Siniaticus from which ALL MODERN VERSIONS are based on, which disagree with each other every 2 verses, that all disagree with the Majority Text and the Vaticanus, have entire chapters missing (for example, almost all of Genesis), are "the oldest and best" manuscripts: then how did the churches survive all these centuries without a Bible?

So we KJVO's are actually in error when we say that Psalm 12:7 is a promised of preservation, but yet all of the apostles said "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God", "preach the word, be instant in season and out of season" and yet somehow God expects the church to evangelize the world without the "best and most reliable manuscripts" with KJVO critics admit were only discovered within the last few hundred years?

SO where was the word of God before Westcott & Hort?

 

Your main 2 questions are silly:

1. Prove that the KJV is infallible
2. Do KJVO believe God caused the NIV to sell.

First of all, the burden of proof is on the accuser. You expect someone to write on a small comment in a forum, something that covers 31,000 verses, and 5,000+ manuscripts to prove something you are predisposed to deny. It's like an atheist asking a believer to "prove God exists". It's not on us to prove that He exists, it's on you to prove that He does not. It's not on us to prove the KJVO is perfect. There are already plenty of resources that prove this, it's on you to prove that it's not.

Secondly, whether or not the KJV sold more copies is irrelevant to the KJV's infallibility. Whether a book sells well or not is an erroneous criteria for judging it's veracity. I'm sure you would rebut "well that's what all your KJVO advocates claim". Well then they would be silly in regards to THAT specific line of reasoning for upholding the KJV. It's not important how many people BUY IT, it's important how many people READ IT.

 

You (and Doug Kutilek) are taking these quotes entirely out of context. When the KJV translators did their work, they have thousands of manuscripts from the Majority Text available and the other texts they had were used to compare to the Erasmus text which was a complete compilation. The KJV translators used Erasmus not only because of its accuracy, but because it was convenient to use a text where all of the mss were in one volume so instead of sifting through thousand of mss, they could walk through Erasmus text and then compare verse by verse his text to the Erasmus text as well as other completed texts.

There are some verses that were not available AT ALL like 1 John 2:23. The KJV translators place the entire verse in italics, and yet the verse was later found mss that were part of the MT, in which Nestles included in his 1979 Greek text edition. So nobody can claim that God was not part of the translation process. The 'original' is in heaven, and there's no reason to believe that God could not have supplied the KJV translators with verses they may not have had available at the time because time has proven that they were right.

 

I didn't bring up infallibility at all in my post.

One of the main things that KJVO representatives give for their belief in the KJV as the be-all and end-all of every Bible translations is its long life span and usage. They say it is due to the providence of the Lord. Well,to be consistent,if you believe that,then you would therefore have to believe that the Lord has caused the NIV to be the most popular and used Bible translation for almost 40 years.