King James Only Movement

Status
Not open for further replies.

JM

Puritan Board Doctor
From Wikipedia :

* "I Like the KJV Best" This division is represented by individuals who simply prefer the KJV over other translations. These are people who like the version because their church uses it, they have always used it, or because they like its style. The Trinitarian Bible Society would fit in this division. They have said, "The Trinitarian Bible Society does not believe the Authorised Version to be a perfect translation, only that it is the best available translation in the English language."

* "The Textual Argument" - Individuals here believe the KJV's Hebrew and Greek textual basis are the most accurate. These conclude that the KJV is based on better manuscripts. Many in this group may accept a modern version based on the same manuscripts as the KJV. White claims Zane C. Hodges is a good example of this group.

* "Received Text Only" - Here, the traditional Hebrew and Greek texts are believed to be supernaturally preserved. The KJV is believed to be a translation exemplar, but it is also believed that other translations based on these texts have the potential to be equally good.

* "The Inspired KJV Group" - Individuals in this group believe that the KJV itself was supernaturally inspired. They see the translation to be preserved supernaturally by God and as accurate as the original Greek and Hebrew Manuscripts found in its underlying texts. Sometimes this group will even exclude foreign versions based on the same manuscripts claiming the KJV to be the only Bible.

* "The KJV As New Revelation" - This group of individuals would believe that the KJV is a "new revelation" from God, and can and should be the standard from which all other translations originate. Adherents to this belief may also believe that the original-language Hebrew and Greek can be corrected by the KJV. This view is often called "Ruckmanism" after Peter Ruckman, a staunch KJV supporter.

White, James (1995). The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 5. ISBN 1556615752.
 

Barnpreacher

Puritan Board Junior
Honestly, from what I've heard I think that Ruckman has backed off his stance that the AV corrects the originals. I can't swear to that, but that is what I've heard from some guys that associate themselves with him.

He's still a staunch supporter of the AV, and he would call you an ugly name to your face if you told him you used any other version.
 

Grymir

Puritan Board Graduate
JM - nice quote! Mark me as a #1 and #2. Gives us KJV people an way to define KJV groups. The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly! :cheers:

Reformed Baptist, I found this quote on your blog - "Kutilek wrote, “All writers who embrace the KJV-only position have derived their views ultimately from Seventh-Day Adventist missionary, theology professor and college president, Benjamin G. Wilkinson (d. 1968).”" Is that taken from the James White book? That sounds like a Ruckman type person on the other side. Ruckman give us Real KJV people a bad name.
 

Reformed Baptist

Puritan Board Sophomore
JM - nice quote! Mark me as a #1 and #2. Gives us KJV people an way to define KJV groups. The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly! :cheers:

Reformed Baptist, I found this quote on your blog - "Kutilek wrote, “All writers who embrace the KJV-only position have derived their views ultimately from Seventh-Day Adventist missionary, theology professor and college president, Benjamin G. Wilkinson (d. 1968).”" Is that taken from the James White book? That sounds like a Ruckman type person on the other side. Ruckman give us Real KJV people a bad name.

It's not in the book. Is the reference to that idea not clear in my blog? If not, I will edit it to reference it better. I am pretty sure there is a link there.

Honestly, I leave the "history" open to scrutiny. I could not really find a history of the doctrine and admitted in my blog a reliance on that man's work. James White, I would agree, is more level headed in the debate. But I disagree with his views on the Greek texts. I am actually a KJVO kinda guy myself. I do favor the majority text position. I oppose the more radical forms of KJVO.
 

Jie-Huli

Puritan Board Freshman
From Wikipedia :

* "I Like the KJV Best" This division is represented by individuals who simply prefer the KJV over other translations. These are people who like the version because their church uses it, they have always used it, or because they like its style. The Trinitarian Bible Society would fit in this division. They have said, "The Trinitarian Bible Society does not believe the Authorised Version to be a perfect translation, only that it is the best available translation in the English language."

* "The Textual Argument" - Individuals here believe the KJV's Hebrew and Greek textual basis are the most accurate. These conclude that the KJV is based on better manuscripts. Many in this group may accept a modern version based on the same manuscripts as the KJV. White claims Zane C. Hodges is a good example of this group.

* "Received Text Only" - Here, the traditional Hebrew and Greek texts are believed to be supernaturally preserved. The KJV is believed to be a translation exemplar, but it is also believed that other translations based on these texts have the potential to be equally good.

* "The Inspired KJV Group" - Individuals in this group believe that the KJV itself was supernaturally inspired. They see the translation to be preserved supernaturally by God and as accurate as the original Greek and Hebrew Manuscripts found in its underlying texts. Sometimes this group will even exclude foreign versions based on the same manuscripts claiming the KJV to be the only Bible.

* "The KJV As New Revelation" - This group of individuals would believe that the KJV is a "new revelation" from God, and can and should be the standard from which all other translations originate. Adherents to this belief may also believe that the original-language Hebrew and Greek can be corrected by the KJV. This view is often called "Ruckmanism" after Peter Ruckman, a staunch KJV supporter.

White, James (1995). The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 5. ISBN 1556615752.

I do not believe it is accurate to say that the Trinitarian Bible Society (which I support) simply prefers the KJV because of its style. While it certainly would hold that the KJV's style is superior, its main reasons for upholding the KJV as the best and most faithful translation are textual.

Kind regards,

Jie-Huli
 

Jerusalem Blade

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
RE Kutilek and his Seventh-Day Adventist theory

In a response to Dr. White's book, David Cloud has this paragraph:

WHITE LUMPS ALL KING JAMES BIBLE DEFENDERS INTO THE RUCKMAN CAMP.

In the beginning of his book, White divides "KJV Only" into five categories: Those who like the KJV best, those who support the KJV textually, those who are Received Text only, those who believe the KJV is inspired and inerrant, those who believe the KJV is advanced or new revelation. In the body of the book, though, White almost exclusively applies his pet term, "KJV Only," to a Ruckman-type position. In the chapter entitled "The King James Only Camp," White claims that the scholars of the past (such as John Burgon and H.C. Hoskier) who defended the textual tradition underlying the KJV, cannot be included in the "KJV Only" camp. Thus he contradicts his own definition given in chapter one, by refusing to label men as "KJV Only" who are defenders of the textual tradition underlying the KJV.​

Excerpted from, EXAMINING [James White's] THE KING JAMES ONLY CONTROVERSY
 

SolaGratia

Puritan Board Junior
I like this from the same excerpt above:

The King James Only Controversy is straw man, smokescreen apologetics at its best. This is serious, because many men who read White’s book will become severely biased against "King James Onlyism" and, as a consequence, will never make the effort to read for themselves the many important materials written in defense of the Received Text and the KJV. It reminds us of a statement made by Dr. Alfred Martin, former vice president of Moody Bible Institute, in his doctoral thesis at Dallas Theological Seminary in 1951:

"In spite of the notable work of Burgon, Hoskier, and others who supported them, the opponents of the Westcott-Hort theory have never had the hearing which they deserve. How many present-day students of the Greek New Testament ever heard of the two men just mentioned, and how many ever saw a copy of The Revision Revised or Codex B and Its Allies, to say nothing of actually reading these works? ... THE PRESENT GENERATION OF BIBLE STUDENTS, HAVING BEEN REARED ON WESTCOTT AND HORT, HAVE FOR THE MOST PART ACCEPTED THE THEORY WITHOUT INDEPENDENT OR CRITICAL EXAMINATION. To the average student of the Greek New Testament today it is unthinkable to question the theory at least in its basic premises. Even to imply that one believes the Textus Receptus to be nearer the original text than the Westcott-Hort text is, lays one open to the suspicion of gross ignorance or unmitigated bigotry. That is why this controversy needs to be aired again among Bible-believing Christians. There is little hope of convincing those who are unbelieving textual critics, but IF BELIEVING BIBLE STUDENTS HAD THE EVIDENCE OF BOTH SIDES PUT BEFORE THEM, INSTEAD OF ONE SIDE ONLY, THERE WOULD NOT BE SO MUCH BLIND FOLLOWING OF WESTCOTT AND HORT" (Alfred Martin, A Critical Examination of the Westcott-Hort Textual Theory, Th.D. Thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, May 1951, pp. 4,46,47).
 

Galatians220

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I like this from the same excerpt above:

The King James Only Controversy is straw man, smokescreen apologetics at its best. This is serious, because many men who read White’s book will become severely biased against "King James Onlyism" and, as a consequence, will never make the effort to read for themselves the many important materials written in defense of the Received Text and the KJV. It reminds us of a statement made by Dr. Alfred Martin, former vice president of Moody Bible Institute, in his doctoral thesis at Dallas Theological Seminary in 1951:

"In spite of the notable work of Burgon, Hoskier, and others who supported them, the opponents of the Westcott-Hort theory have never had the hearing which they deserve. How many present-day students of the Greek New Testament ever heard of the two men just mentioned, and how many ever saw a copy of The Revision Revised or Codex B and Its Allies, to say nothing of actually reading these works? ... THE PRESENT GENERATION OF BIBLE STUDENTS, HAVING BEEN REARED ON WESTCOTT AND HORT, HAVE FOR THE MOST PART ACCEPTED THE THEORY WITHOUT INDEPENDENT OR CRITICAL EXAMINATION. To the average student of the Greek New Testament today it is unthinkable to question the theory at least in its basic premises. Even to imply that one believes the Textus Receptus to be nearer the original text than the Westcott-Hort text is, lays one open to the suspicion of gross ignorance or unmitigated bigotry. That is why this controversy needs to be aired again among Bible-believing Christians. There is little hope of convincing those who are unbelieving textual critics, but IF BELIEVING BIBLE STUDENTS HAD THE EVIDENCE OF BOTH SIDES PUT BEFORE THEM, INSTEAD OF ONE SIDE ONLY, THERE WOULD NOT BE SO MUCH BLIND FOLLOWING OF WESTCOTT AND HORT" (Alfred Martin, A Critical Examination of the Westcott-Hort Textual Theory, Th.D. Thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, May 1951, pp. 4,46,47).

:applause:

Margaret
 

Stomata leontôn

Puritan Board Sophomore
Theoretically, is it possible for a translation to be inspired or partially inspired? By that I mean, can translators have special guidance of the Holy Spirit?
 

Grymir

Puritan Board Graduate
Hi Peter H! The translators can have the special guidance of the Holy Spirit, but inspired would apply to the originals.
 

Grymir

Puritan Board Graduate
I like this from the same excerpt above:

The King James Only Controversy is straw man, smokescreen apologetics at its best. This is serious, because many men who read White’s book will become severely biased against "King James Onlyism" and, as a consequence, will never make the effort to read for themselves the many important materials written in defense of the Received Text and the KJV. It reminds us of a statement made by Dr. Alfred Martin, former vice president of Moody Bible Institute, in his doctoral thesis at Dallas Theological Seminary in 1951:

"In spite of the notable work of Burgon, Hoskier, and others who supported them, the opponents of the Westcott-Hort theory have never had the hearing which they deserve. How many present-day students of the Greek New Testament ever heard of the two men just mentioned, and how many ever saw a copy of The Revision Revised or Codex B and Its Allies, to say nothing of actually reading these works? ... THE PRESENT GENERATION OF BIBLE STUDENTS, HAVING BEEN REARED ON WESTCOTT AND HORT, HAVE FOR THE MOST PART ACCEPTED THE THEORY WITHOUT INDEPENDENT OR CRITICAL EXAMINATION. To the average student of the Greek New Testament today it is unthinkable to question the theory at least in its basic premises. Even to imply that one believes the Textus Receptus to be nearer the original text than the Westcott-Hort text is, lays one open to the suspicion of gross ignorance or unmitigated bigotry. That is why this controversy needs to be aired again among Bible-believing Christians. There is little hope of convincing those who are unbelieving textual critics, but IF BELIEVING BIBLE STUDENTS HAD THE EVIDENCE OF BOTH SIDES PUT BEFORE THEM, INSTEAD OF ONE SIDE ONLY, THERE WOULD NOT BE SO MUCH BLIND FOLLOWING OF WESTCOTT AND HORT" (Alfred Martin, A Critical Examination of the Westcott-Hort Textual Theory, Th.D. Thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, May 1951, pp. 4,46,47).

Mega Dittos and :amen:
 

JohnGill

Puritan Board Senior
JM - nice quote! Mark me as a #1 and #2. Gives us KJV people an way to define KJV groups. The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly! :cheers:

Reformed Baptist, I found this quote on your blog - "Kutilek wrote, “All writers who embrace the KJV-only position have derived their views ultimately from Seventh-Day Adventist missionary, theology professor and college president, Benjamin G. Wilkinson (d. 1968).”" Is that taken from the James White book? That sounds like a Ruckman type person on the other side. Ruckman give us Real KJV people a bad name.

It's not in the book. Is the reference to that idea not clear in my blog? If not, I will edit it to reference it better. I am pretty sure there is a link there.

Honestly, I leave the "history" open to scrutiny. I could not really find a history of the doctrine and admitted in my blog a reliance on that man's work. James White, I would agree, is more level headed in the debate. But I disagree with his views on the Greek texts. I am actually a KJVO kinda guy myself. I do favor the majority text position. I oppose the more radical forms of KJVO.

You should also read Letis' assessment of White and Riplinger's books. They're available here: Theodore P. Letis Resources Scroll down past the book pics. I've read White's book myself. I think Riplinger's book is better. It has a bigger bibliography. You just have to get past all that nonsense that comes before the bibliography.
 

SolaGratia

Puritan Board Junior
More from the same excerpt above:

Let me summarize my findings about the history of the modern versions. First of all, most of the key textual critics of the 19th century rejected the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. This category includes J.L. Hug (1765-1846), Carl Lachmann (1793-1851), Johann Griesbach (1745-1812), Friedrich Tischendorf (1815-1874), B.F. Westcott (1825-1901) and F.J.A. Hort (1828-1892). Of the work of these men, Robert L. Dabney, 19th-century Presbyterian scholar, testified: "We shall find them continually varying, each one obnoxious to grave objections, and the question still unsettled. ... Their common traits may be said to be an almost contemptuous dismissal of the received text, as unworthy not only of confidence, but almost of notice" (Dabney, "The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek," Discussions Evangelical and Theological, pp. 350,52,54; this first appeared in the Southern Presbyterian Review, April 1871). Again, we would ask James White if Robert Lewis Dabney (1820-1898) was a member of a Ruckmanite cult?

Let see, should we follow Westcott, Hort, Tischendorf, etc. (critical text adherents)

OR

Our very owned Robert Lewis Dabney (a defender of our Reformed Faith that God has given us from His word).

Again, I will put it before you.

Should we read the RSV=ASV=ESV, NASB, NIV, NLT, The Messenger, CEV (you name it!)

OR

The Authorized Version/KJV?

Hmmm!:think:
 

jwithnell

Moderator
Staff member
Ok, I'm probably leaping in way over my head here (I'm still chasing smoke in Northern California, so go figure ...) Anyway, are y'all making a link between the Alexandrian texts and a theology based in viewing that scriptures as less than inerrant?
 

CDM

Puritan Board Junior
More from the same excerpt above:

Let me summarize my findings about the history of the modern versions. First of all, most of the key textual critics of the 19th century rejected the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. This category includes J.L. Hug (1765-1846), Carl Lachmann (1793-1851), Johann Griesbach (1745-1812), Friedrich Tischendorf (1815-1874), B.F. Westcott (1825-1901) and F.J.A. Hort (1828-1892). Of the work of these men, Robert L. Dabney, 19th-century Presbyterian scholar, testified: "We shall find them continually varying, each one obnoxious to grave objections, and the question still unsettled. ... Their common traits may be said to be an almost contemptuous dismissal of the received text, as unworthy not only of confidence, but almost of notice" (Dabney, "The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek," Discussions Evangelical and Theological, pp. 350,52,54; this first appeared in the Southern Presbyterian Review, April 1871). Again, we would ask James White if Robert Lewis Dabney (1820-1898) was a member of a Ruckmanite cult?

Let see, should we follow Westcott, Hort, Tischendorf, etc. (critical text adherents)

OR

Our very owned Robert Lewis Dabney (a defender of our Reformed Faith that God has given us from His word).

Again, I will put it before you.

Should we read the RSV=ASV=ESV, NASB, NIV, NLT, The Messenger, CEV (you name it!)

OR

The Authorized Version/KJV?

Hmmm!:think:

I would suggest we neither follow Westcott, Hort, Tischendorf, etc or the good R.L. Dabney. Rather, Dr. Alfred Martin, from your earlier post, has the right idea:

"...How many present-day students of the Greek New Testament ever heard of the two men just mentioned, and how many ever saw a copy of The Revision Revised or Codex B and Its Allies, to say nothing of actually reading these works? ... THE PRESENT GENERATION OF BIBLE STUDENTS, HAVING BEEN REARED ON WESTCOTT AND HORT, HAVE FOR THE MOST PART ACCEPTED THE THEORY WITHOUT INDEPENDENT OR CRITICAL EXAMINATION..."

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. <2Tim. 2:15>

Short of this, you are taking someone else's word for it.
 

Stomata leontôn

Puritan Board Sophomore
I didn't see this link posted here yet, so I thought I would add it to the discussion: Bible Devotionals and the Greek Majority Text

See the sections under "Wilbur Pickering."

After reading this and Burgon, I wonder how Westcott and Hort, and Nestle-Aland's NT gained so much weight. For example the textual "canon" of choosing a poor reading over a clear reading is wholly unconvincing and contradicts another canon that an older manuscript must always be used instead of a newer text. In the W-H method, there is a built in bias toward corrupt texts.
 

Galatians220

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I didn't see this link posted here yet, so I thought I would add it to the discussion: Bible Devotionals and the Greek Majority Text

See the sections under "Wilbur Pickering."

After reading this and Burgon, I wonder how Westcott and Hort, and Nestle-Aland's NT gained so much weight. For example the textual "canon" of choosing a poor reading over a clear reading is wholly unconvincing and contradicts another canon that an older manuscript must always be used instead of a newer text. In the W-H method, there is a built in bias toward corrupt texts.

Just a guess: in the late 19th century, the occult was in vogue, and Westcott and Hort were "down" with that. People also wanted "a change" from the KJB; Catholics didn't want "that Protestant Bible" around, which is why parochial schools gained such ascendance. Other things factored in as well. Other people here on this board are much more schooled than I (although in my first degree, I majored in British history) and can give you a much more cogent and correct picture of exactly what happened to eclipse the Received Text to the degree that it has been so eclipsed.

I also offer this link: THE WESTCOTT AND HORT ONLY CONTROVERSY -By Dr. Phil Stringer.

Margaret
 

Blueridge Believer

Puritan Board Professor
While listening to a podcast from a familiar Baptist church last night, the speaker noted that the last 12 verses of Mark 16 are not part of the scripture and were added at a later date by an unknown indiviual. I thought to myself,how does he know that? This is the kind of criticism, in my opinion, that is destructive to peoples faith. When he said that, I stopped listening.
Pray for me. That kind of stuff grieves my spirit.
 

Reformed Baptist

Puritan Board Sophomore
More from the same excerpt above:

Let me summarize my findings about the history of the modern versions. First of all, most of the key textual critics of the 19th century rejected the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. This category includes J.L. Hug (1765-1846), Carl Lachmann (1793-1851), Johann Griesbach (1745-1812), Friedrich Tischendorf (1815-1874), B.F. Westcott (1825-1901) and F.J.A. Hort (1828-1892). Of the work of these men, Robert L. Dabney, 19th-century Presbyterian scholar, testified: "We shall find them continually varying, each one obnoxious to grave objections, and the question still unsettled. ... Their common traits may be said to be an almost contemptuous dismissal of the received text, as unworthy not only of confidence, but almost of notice" (Dabney, "The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek," Discussions Evangelical and Theological, pp. 350,52,54; this first appeared in the Southern Presbyterian Review, April 1871). Again, we would ask James White if Robert Lewis Dabney (1820-1898) was a member of a Ruckmanite cult?

Let see, should we follow Westcott, Hort, Tischendorf, etc. (critical text adherents)

OR

Our very owned Robert Lewis Dabney (a defender of our Reformed Faith that God has given us from His word).

Again, I will put it before you.

Should we read the RSV=ASV=ESV, NASB, NIV, NLT, The Messenger, CEV (you name it!)

OR

The Authorized Version/KJV?

Hmmm!:think:

I would suggest we neither follow Westcott, Hort, Tischendorf, etc or the good R.L. Dabney. Rather, Dr. Alfred Martin, from your earlier post, has the right idea:

"...How many present-day students of the Greek New Testament ever heard of the two men just mentioned, and how many ever saw a copy of The Revision Revised or Codex B and Its Allies, to say nothing of actually reading these works? ... THE PRESENT GENERATION OF BIBLE STUDENTS, HAVING BEEN REARED ON WESTCOTT AND HORT, HAVE FOR THE MOST PART ACCEPTED THE THEORY WITHOUT INDEPENDENT OR CRITICAL EXAMINATION..."

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. <2Tim. 2:15>

Short of this, you are taking someone else's word for it.

I have Burgons' work. It is difficult to go through without some knowledge of Greek. But this should be remedied in a bit...lol
 

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
More from the same excerpt above:

Let me summarize my findings about the history of the modern versions. First of all, most of the key textual critics of the 19th century rejected the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. This category includes J.L. Hug (1765-1846), Carl Lachmann (1793-1851), Johann Griesbach (1745-1812), Friedrich Tischendorf (1815-1874), B.F. Westcott (1825-1901) and F.J.A. Hort (1828-1892). Of the work of these men, Robert L. Dabney, 19th-century Presbyterian scholar, testified: "We shall find them continually varying, each one obnoxious to grave objections, and the question still unsettled. ... Their common traits may be said to be an almost contemptuous dismissal of the received text, as unworthy not only of confidence, but almost of notice" (Dabney, "The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek," Discussions Evangelical and Theological, pp. 350,52,54; this first appeared in the Southern Presbyterian Review, April 1871). Again, we would ask James White if Robert Lewis Dabney (1820-1898) was a member of a Ruckmanite cult?

Let see, should we follow Westcott, Hort, Tischendorf, etc. (critical text adherents)

OR

Our very owned Robert Lewis Dabney (a defender of our Reformed Faith that God has given us from His word).

Again, I will put it before you.

Should we read the RSV=ASV=ESV, NASB, NIV, NLT, The Messenger, CEV (you name it!)

OR

The Authorized Version/KJV?

Hmmm!:think:

I would suggest we neither follow Westcott, Hort, Tischendorf, etc or the good R.L. Dabney. Rather, Dr. Alfred Martin, from your earlier post, has the right idea:

"...How many present-day students of the Greek New Testament ever heard of the two men just mentioned, and how many ever saw a copy of The Revision Revised or Codex B and Its Allies, to say nothing of actually reading these works? ... THE PRESENT GENERATION OF BIBLE STUDENTS, HAVING BEEN REARED ON WESTCOTT AND HORT, HAVE FOR THE MOST PART ACCEPTED THE THEORY WITHOUT INDEPENDENT OR CRITICAL EXAMINATION..."

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. <2Tim. 2:15>

Short of this, you are taking someone else's word for it.

Do you believe that it is every Christian's duty to decide for themselves which Bible most accurately represents the Word of God?
 

CDM

Puritan Board Junior
More from the same excerpt above:

Let me summarize my findings about the history of the modern versions. First of all, most of the key textual critics of the 19th century rejected the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. This category includes J.L. Hug (1765-1846), Carl Lachmann (1793-1851), Johann Griesbach (1745-1812), Friedrich Tischendorf (1815-1874), B.F. Westcott (1825-1901) and F.J.A. Hort (1828-1892). Of the work of these men, Robert L. Dabney, 19th-century Presbyterian scholar, testified: "We shall find them continually varying, each one obnoxious to grave objections, and the question still unsettled. ... Their common traits may be said to be an almost contemptuous dismissal of the received text, as unworthy not only of confidence, but almost of notice" (Dabney, "The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek," Discussions Evangelical and Theological, pp. 350,52,54; this first appeared in the Southern Presbyterian Review, April 1871). Again, we would ask James White if Robert Lewis Dabney (1820-1898) was a member of a Ruckmanite cult?

Let see, should we follow Westcott, Hort, Tischendorf, etc. (critical text adherents)

OR

Our very owned Robert Lewis Dabney (a defender of our Reformed Faith that God has given us from His word).

Again, I will put it before you.

Should we read the RSV=ASV=ESV, NASB, NIV, NLT, The Messenger, CEV (you name it!)

OR

The Authorized Version/KJV?

Hmmm!:think:

I would suggest we neither follow Westcott, Hort, Tischendorf, etc or the good R.L. Dabney. Rather, Dr. Alfred Martin, from your earlier post, has the right idea:

"...How many present-day students of the Greek New Testament ever heard of the two men just mentioned, and how many ever saw a copy of The Revision Revised or Codex B and Its Allies, to say nothing of actually reading these works? ... THE PRESENT GENERATION OF BIBLE STUDENTS, HAVING BEEN REARED ON WESTCOTT AND HORT, HAVE FOR THE MOST PART ACCEPTED THE THEORY WITHOUT INDEPENDENT OR CRITICAL EXAMINATION..."

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. <2Tim. 2:15>

Short of this, you are taking someone else's word for it.

Do you believe that it is every Christian's duty to decide for themselves which Bible most accurately represents the Word of God?

No.
 

SolaGratia

Puritan Board Junior
From the scriptures we have the following:

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me (John 10:27).


For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ (2 Corinthians 2:17).


And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea (Colossians 4:16).


I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren (1 Thessalonians 5:27).

According to Paul NO, but "by the Lord" within the church/es the scriptures should be cause to be read. There is no such thing as a private Christian or a Lone Ranger Christian.
 

Stomata leontôn

Puritan Board Sophomore
While listening to a podcast from a familiar Baptist church last night, the speaker noted that the last 12 verses of Mark 16 are not part of the scripture and were added at a later date by an unknown indiviual. I thought to myself,how does he know that? This is the kind of criticism, in my opinion, that is destructive to peoples faith. When he said that, I stopped listening.
Pray for me. That kind of stuff grieves my spirit.
The vast majority of manuscripts have it but the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts favored by W & H and used in Nestle-Aland do not. Thus the only English translations that keep it unbracketed are the Authorised Version and the NKJV, both based on the Textus Receptus.
 

CharlieJ

Puritan Board Junior
According to Paul NO, but "by the Lord" within the church/es the scriptures should be cause to be read. There is no such thing as a private Christian or a Lone Ranger Christian.

If this is true, shouldn't we all use the UBS4, since the great majority of Christians and the great majority of knowledgeable critics have accepted it?
 

CharlieJ

Puritan Board Junior
I'm sorry, I read "Bible" and was still thinking Greek text, since that was the topic of most of the surrounding posts.

I'm trying to understand the import of answering "NO" to KMK's question. If a Christian does not, in some sense, decide for himself which version is the best to use, how does moving the responsibility to the corporate Church help?
 

Stomata leontôn

Puritan Board Sophomore
How does this relate to the discussion here?

VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; (Matt. v. 18) so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them. (Isa. viii. 20; Acts xv. 15; John v. 39, 46.) But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them (John v. 39.), therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, (Cor. xiv. 6, 9,11, 12, 24, 27, 28). that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner (Col. iii. 16.), and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.
 

CharlieJ

Puritan Board Junior
I'm not sure how much bearing that has upon the discussion. I assume the relevant phrase is "by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages."

But, the WCF does not address where or how they were preserved. All theories of text criticism acknowledge, as I assume the WCF framers would, that not all the manuscripts are identical. So... how do we determine which are the pure?

And, once again, how is this a corporate rather than individual choice?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top