Harold B. Sightler, John R. Rice, and other great fundamentalists and KJV-onlyism.

I have a few of questions for you that have been a problem in seeing your position; maybe you can shed some light on these.

First, I want to say that I do not limit God's capacity to do anything, including hand a Bible out to everybody in the world in their dialect and at their reading level--each year on their front doorstep; but He obviously chose not to do this.

Obviously, you are King James only, am I correct? If so, do you believe the KJ is correct word-for-word, no errors whatsoever?

Now, depending on how you answer that, if you say the TR is 100% accurate, then do you agree with the accuracy of the NKJV since it is translated from the TR (not talking about footnotes, just consider the text)?

Why are there differences between the TR and the KJ and in which version did the KJ become perfect?

Finally, if you do believe in a word-for-word perfect translation, what was it in 1550?

I am honestly not trying to trap you. I have just never heard answers which are sufficient to satisfy these questions.

 

Robycop3,

You seem to want me to give you a verse that says the KJV is the only Bible? This is not the point of my replys. The men you mention, Waite, Moorman, etc. are more than adequate Bible Scholars, and we all will quote our "party lines." The key to your statement is "any VALID BV." So, this means you also have a measuring stick by which you test the accuracy of a translation! I have attempted to share my view and the response I get is that my statements are Unbiblical. Thank you for reminding me that I have every right to use the KJV, I know I am a "party liner" and do not have my act together. Enough of the sarcasm! I will continue this venture later this evening. I must go home and give my wife some Valentine Candy!! I'll be back, His Servant, Doug

 

tbc1611,

For your information, I have never read White's book, nor would I rely simply on one mans writtings for information. Explain how I performed an etrapolation of Burgon's views, I smiply quoted directly from Revision Revised.

 

I did some comparison of the orginal languages as well to see if Christ accutally quoted from the LXX. I found that the LXX reads very similarly to the TR and the Majority Text, I will acknowleged I noticed slight variation. The majority of biblical scholars seem to lean towards the idea that Christ actually quoted from the LXX.

 

Without actual proof that "the LXX is a plagerism of the gospels", that seems to be the realistic explanation. Which is why many KJV-only supporters need to believe the LXX was not produced until after Christ, regardless of any actual evidence.

 

4His _glory,

Your statement sounds of regurgitated material from James White. Sorry, if I assumed to far.

The quote does not represent the thesis and belief of Burgon. I have added statements above from his book that show he was not 'anti-TR' or anti-KJV, but rather a proponent of them. This is simply a deviation from the matter and once again not a plausible argument.

 

I appreciate that tbc1611 answered his excellent posts here. I recommend tbc1611's comments. I strongly agree with tbc1611.

 

Correct. I strongly agree with you, tbc1611.

 

Natters,

Please give historical and credible evidence for the existence of the LXX pre-Christ. I am not trying to create evidence, but only provide it. Many today want to say things and not quote the source. I have read many books saying the LXX existed before Christ, but none footnoting their statement with validation.

Jesus DID NOT verify the LXX, but the HEBREW Scriptures. Note, Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Jesus said "jot and tittle"; A jot and a tittle are only found in the Hebrew, not the Greek. These are the smallest parts of the Hebrew language. Jot translates the word iota, which English has adopted as the transliterated iota, still meaning something of minute size. The iota cooresponds to our English letter I, and in the text refers to the Hebrew letter yodh. The Hebrew yodh is smaller than all the Hebrew consonants, being perched above the writing line. He substantiated the HEBREW text. This we are sure of, and others may speculate the LXX, but on shaky ground.

 

C4K, (Attempting to quote, then respond. Working on learning how to post, etc.!)

First, I want to say that I do not limit God's capacity to do anything, including hand a Bible out to everybody in the world in their dialect and at their reading level--each year on their front doorstep; but He obviously chose not to do this.

Accepted...The method in which God has given us His Words is what is at issue. Read my post concerning methodology.

Obviously, you are King James only, am I correct? If so, do you believe the KJ is correct word-for-word, no errors whatsoever?

I am KJ only, by the previous definitions I have given. I am not a KJV inspirationist, a Ruckmanite, or one who Deifies the KJV. The issue is more than just a simple answer to your question. Follow my argument: Since I believe that God inspired His WORD S at the instant He gave them to His people (writers) and since I believe these very words have been passed down through the 'priesthood of believers' and that they were charged to keep them; and that the fundamental churches did keep them; as I believe there were those who corrupted, changed and tampered with certain manuscripts for there own purposes (Gnostics, etc.); that subsequently "families" of texts arose (although the word family is not completely accurate, because it is not as collated as the word families implies, see Burgon's Traditional Text V1); that the faithful churches new from generation to generation which text was faithful to the original, the True text was RECEIVED from generation to generation. I thus believe that the text received by the majority of the faithful and rejected by Rome, is the true text. This text(s) was/were known by the KJV translators to be accurate and faithful to the original autographs. When the KJV translators translated they used the only acceptable and logical method of translation. Thus, the KJV being the only English Bible in our day translated completely and exclusively from the TR family once received, is the only translation which should be used for english speaking people. Other english versions are not translated from the same original language texts(CT vs. TR), thus, in my view and the view of many scholars past and present should not be used.
If I believe the TR is the Word of God, then only those versions translated from it can be correct insofar as the languages will allow.

Now, depending on how you answer that, if you say the TR is 100% accurate, then do you agree with the accuracy of the NKJV since it is translated from the TR (not talking about footnotes, just consider the text)?
The NKJV is not entirely translated from the same text as the KJV. They have used a different MT in which the manuscripts have never been collated. Though the NKJV is much better than the other BV, I have to discount its underlying texts.


Why are there differences between the TR and the KJ and in which version did the KJ become perfect?

There are differences between the two, which have and are considered inconsequential. I have not stated perfection in the KJV, as you may be implying. Often in my studies, I find there are other words that could be used for a particular passage. However, I have always found the word in the KJV to be acceptable, thus not incorrect. And I do not want to imply that I am more of a scholar than any of the KJV translators. In my opinion, they were exceptional with regards to the original languages.

Please refer to my position on PROVIDENTIAL PRESERVATION.

Finally, if you do believe in a word-for-word perfect translation, what was it in 1550?

I am honestly not trying to trap you. I have just never heard answers which are sufficient to satisfy these questions.

Hope some of the clarifies my position.

 

Natters,

Not sure if I said, "I AM NOT A KJV INSPIRATIONIST." My statements continue to go unread or properly understood. The definition of inspiration is lost in the mud of the threads........

 

tbc1611,

Which edition of the TR do you claim to be perfect? Also how can you claim the TR to be the "true text RECIEVED from generation to generation" when it is a compilation of only a small number of munscripts. John Burgon did not even believe that the TR was the text of the Apostles.

"Since the sixteenth century- we owe this also to the good Providence of God- one and the same text of the New Testament Scriptures has been generally received. I am not defending the 'Textus Receptus'; I am simply stating the fact of its existence. That is is without authority to bind, nay, that is calls for skillful revision in every part, is freely admitted. I do not believe it ot be absolutely identical with the true Traditional Text. (Traditional Text pg. 15)

 

tbc 1611: Robycop3,

You seem to want me to give you a verse that says the KJV is the only Bible? This is not the point of my replys.

I know there's no verse saying,"Thou shalt use the KJV alone', nor anything close to it...but I also know Scripture doesn't even HINT at such a notion.

ANY doctrine ABOUT Scripture MUST BE SUPPORTED by Scripture in order to be true, since there's no higher written authority. The KJVO myth doesn't have one scintilla of such support, by implication, not to mention empirical. Therefore it's false.


The men you mention, Waite, Moorman, etc. are more than adequate Bible Scholars,

Maybe so, but they're often willfully "ignorant" or outright DECEPTIVE. Case in point...their support of the false assertion that psalm 12:7 is about GOD'S WORDS...in the face of the AV translators' indicating in their marginal note that it's about PEOPLE. Also, there's Dr. Waite's selective quotes of Dean Burgon and his deliberate miscounting of the differences between the 1769 KJV and the AV 1611. I could type PAGES of other such misrepresentations, errors, and flat-out LIES by some KJVO advocates.


and we all will quote our "party lines."

The party line to which I refer is the one begun in 1930 by Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson, a SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST preacher/teacher/official with his book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, & spread by two dishonest authors, J.J.Ray and Dr. D.O.Fuller. Ray plagiarized Wilkinson & added some hooey of his own, while Fuller plagiarized both Wilkinson and Ray, even going so far as to attempt to hide Wilkinson's cult affiliation. Virtually every present KJVO author uses material from these roots of the KJVO myth to some extent...and the problem is that BW's book was full of mistakes and misinformation and those who followed didn't bother to check out the material and correct the mistakes...they simply COPIED them.


The key to your statement is "any VALID BV." So, this means you also have a measuring stick by which you test the accuracy of a translation!

~sigh~

Seems I or someone hasta explain this every week...a valid BV is ine that follows its sources within the limits of the differences of languages. Thus, we consider the NWT as bogus because it often departs from any known Scriptural manuscripts.


I have attempted to share my view and the response I get is that my statements are Unbiblical.

That's all WE are doing! Our view is based, first, upon the fact that neither the KJVO myth nor any other Onlyism is supported whatsoever by Scripture. Second, far as the KJVO myth is concerned, there's simply no other evidence supporting it. It's totally man-made, totally false.


Thank you for reminding me that I have every right to use the KJV, I know I am a "party liner" and do not have my act together. Enough of the sarcasm! I will continue this venture later this evening. I must go home and give my wife some Valentine Candy!! I'll be back, His Servant, Doug

Yeah, PUH-LEEZE, don't forget yer wife's gift lest she go postal on ya, hiding yer umbrella & praying for rain!

Hope ya take time to study the KJVO party line to see what a bummer it is. That's not knocking your preference for the KJV, but is a gentle reminder that when one declares the KJV(or any other one version) to be the ONLY valid English Bible, it's WRONG.

 

Not in John 1:18,just like it's twin the NASB.

 

tbc 1611: Follow my argument: Since I believe that God inspired His WORD S at the instant He gave them to His people (writers) and since I believe these very words have been passed down through the 'priesthood of believers' and that they were charged to keep them; and that the fundamental churches did keep them; as I believe there were those who corrupted, changed and tampered with certain manuscripts for there own purposes (Gnostics, etc.); that subsequently "families" of texts arose (although the word family is not completely accurate, because it is not as collated as the word families implies, see Burgon's Traditional Text V1); that the faithful churches new from generation to generation which text was faithful to the original, the True text was RECEIVED from generation to generation.

OK, please follow MY argument...God's writers wrote in THEIR languages, and NO one language will translate 100% into any other language. Now, if we were to see God's words as originally written, we wouldn't understand one squiggle of them. Thus, when we read a translation, it is NOT God's original words, but an approximation of them as covered by the differences in the languages.

None of this is lost on GOD...after all, HE created, and controls, all languages. For a long time, He has caused/allowed men to translate His word into THEIR languages, the languages GOD CREATED for them. The KJV and other translations were Good News for 17th century man, as the Geneva Bible and other translations were Good News for 16th C.man, and modern translations are Good News for 21st C. man.

God knows His original words cannot be exactly translated into modern languages. Now, why He does it this way is beyond me, but there's simply no denying that fact. So, the "exact words" argument was stillborn when it started.

 

There are other English translations available today that are translated as completely from the TR family as the KJV is. Some examples include the 1833 revision of the KJV by Noah Webster that was reprinted in 1987, the 1982 NKJV,
the 1990 Modern KJV by Jay Green, the 1994 21st Century KJV, the 1998 Third Millennium Bible, and the 2000 King James 2000 Version. While the NKJV made use of a different printed edition of the Massoretic Text, they had a list of all the differences between it and the MT edited by Jacob ben Chayyim and printed by Daniel Bomberg and followed Bomberg MT rendering in the places where the two editions differed. Thus, in effect, the NKJV still followed the same MT as the KJV. In addition, there are editions of the earlier English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision available today. Modern spelling editions of Tyndale's Bible are available, and facsimile reprints of the Geneva Bible are also available.

How can you claim that the KJV is translated completely and exclusively from the TR family when the KJV is a revision of earlier English Bibles that were partially translated from the
Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate? The KJV has renderings from the Latin Vulgate such as "Lucifer" at Isaiah 14:12. "Pygarg" at Deut. 14:5 comes either from the Greek LXX "pygargos" or Latin Vulgate's "pygargus" or both. The KJV borrowed several renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament instead of using the rendering of one of the good early Protestant English Bibles (Tyndale's to Bishops').

Are you sure that your statement measures up as being completely accurate according to all the available evidence? There are the same-type differences between the earlier English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision and the KJV as you can find between the KJV and later English translations from the same underlying texts. The differences you see actually probably only involve a difference in how to translate the same underlying texts instead of involving the use of a different text.

 

While I can accept the concept of TR onlyism much better than any version only-ism, I still battle with which version of the "TR" is letter for letter perfect.

 

Uh, 'scuse me, but not only is this an old KJVO story, the LXX could NOT have been a plagerism of the gospels. All you have to do to prove this is look at the LXX itself.