Manual Facts on King James Only Debate

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Facts on King James Only Debate file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Facts on King James Only Debate book. Happy reading Facts on King James Only Debate Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Facts on King James Only Debate at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Facts on King James Only Debate Pocket Guide.
Facts on King James Only Debate - Kindle edition by John Ankerberg, John Weldon. Download it once and read it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets.
Table of contents

David books 33 friends. Michael books 65 friends.

The Facts on the King James Only Debate

Mar 05, I thought you didn't read Ruckman? I may make an exception for the purpose of research, we'll see.

KJV Onlyism Debate - James White vs Jack Moorman

I felt it only fair to add all the main books to the bible issue list, not just the ones I thought I would prefer. Search for a book to add a reference. We take abuse seriously in our discussion boards. Only flag comments that clearly need our attention. We will not remove any content for bad language alone, or being critical of a particular book. My Books or a Search. How to Vote To vote on existing books from the list, beside each book there is a link vote for this book clicking it will add that book to your votes. Inappropriate The list including its title or description facilitates illegal activity, or contains hate speech or ad hominem attacks on a fellow Goodreads member or author.

Spam or Self-Promotional The list is spam or self-promotional.

  • ?
  • Erasing Your Criminal Background Legally: DELAWARE Edition!
  • Crazy Talk: A Study of the Discourse of Schizophrenic Speakers (Cognition and Language: A Series in Psycholinguistics).

Incorrect Book The list contains an incorrect book please specify the title of the book. Just a moment while we sign you in to your Goodreads account. The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? Lists with This Book. This is a very short book maybe even a pamphlet. I believe the author does a decent job at summarizing most of the questions surrounding the King James Only movement.

King James Only Debate

The author of this book is much closer to this debate, which is why he is able to pinpoint many of the key points of conflict. I didn't enjoy the writing style at all, but it's a short book, so that wasn't really a big problem. The chapter on inerrancy and preservation seemed out of place and a little overdone - like it was only included to establish the author's orthodox views on the Scriptures. Some of the chapters were focused on very insignificant points in the debates, but again, that's pro The author of this book is much closer to this debate, which is why he is able to pinpoint many of the key points of conflict.

Some of the chapters were focused on very insignificant points in the debates, but again, that's probably a feature of being so close to the debate. Russ rated it really liked it Sep 13, Tim DuBois rated it it was ok Nov 21, Cia rated it liked it Dec 19, Leslie A Williams rated it it was amazing Feb 05, Danny rated it really liked it Oct 28, Jonathan rated it it was amazing Nov 19, Phil rated it liked it Oct 28, Terry rated it really liked it May 23, Fred rated it it was amazing Oct 03, Harris rated it really liked it Feb 25, Philip Christman rated it it was amazing Jan 02, The wisdom of Dr.

Fuller and the knowledge ability of Mr. King not to imply that Fuller is not knowledgeable or King not wise! The specific proposition is: Each of the writers presented a paper on the proposition without having seen that of the other. Then, each was given a copy of the other's major article and asked to write a rebuttal. The articles appear here in the order: It is our conviction that one of the finest ways to arrive at truth on any disputed question is through open and free debate.

Where both sides of a subject are presented side by side, it is possible to make comparisons and to reach conclusions. We have confidence in the "average man" as to his ability to weigh evidence and reach a decision. Both sides cannot be right in the question now before us, but both sides do deserve to be heard. We trust that our readers will study with open minds. From to is a long time in any man's language; three centuries plus sixty-one years.

People Who Voted On This List (6)

It is still going strong despite the attempts of liberals and --alas! Let us ask a few pointed and practical questions. We as evangelicals believe the Bible to be the verbally inspired Word of God, inerrant, without error. So we ask, Is there one version extant among the multiplicity of versions which is without error today? If there is not, then we worship a God who is either careless or impotent to keep His Word pure through the ages.

  • See a Problem?!
  • Frühlingskranz (German Edition)?
  • How to Vote.
  • Duration, Convexity, and Other Bond Risk Measures (Frank J. Fabozzi Series).

How can we say we believe in the inerrancy of the Word of God and yet say there are errors in every translation? We do not say that the KJV does not permit of changes. There are a number that could be and should be made, but there is a vast difference between a change and an error. In the early church there came a time or times--just when or where we have no reliable record--when some godly men definitely directed of the Holy Spirit selected the twenty-seven books which comprise our New Testament and arranged them in that order.

That this was done over a long period of time could well be and probably was, but it was done; we have the evidence at hand to prove it. This writer is just as firmly convinced that the Holy Spirit played a very definite part in bringing together the brilliant scholars who in time produced the KJV of These men were the greatest scholars of their day or any day, so erudite that the scholarship of today pales by comparison.

John Boys was able to read the Bible in Hebrew at the age of five years! He was a proficient Greek scholar at the age of fourteen, and for years he spent from four o'clock in the morning until eight o'clock at night in the Cambridge library studying manuscripts and languages. The chairman of the committee was Lancelot Andrewes who was the greatest linguist of his day, being at home in twenty different languages. The Holy Spirit knew what He was doing, as He always does, when He gathered these dedicated minds for such a purpose.

True, there were High Churchmen among them and those with whom we might disagree on minor points of doctrine, but without exception all held in highest esteem and deepest reverence the Bible as the verbally inspired Word of God, and treated it as such.

King James Only Debate — Truth Magazine Online

We venture to say, never in all history has there been such a convocation of scholarly men of God as that which produced the masterpiece of the KJV, hailed by the greatest literary lights in every age since, as the lodestar of literature which has led all writings to the present hour. The scholars used as the basis for their version the Textus Receptus which was originally collated by Desiderius Erasmus, and later improved by Stunica, Robert Stephens, the Elzavirs, and Beza's five editions.

The Renaissance of Europe produced that giant intellect and scholar, Erasmus. The common proverb then was, "Erasmus laid the egg and Luther hatched it. The vast bulk of manuscripts in Greek are practically the Received Text; not identical, of course, but most of the variations are superficial, and in general character and content they represent the same kind of text. Moreover, the text Erasmus chose had such an outstanding history in the Greek, the Syrian, and the Waldensian churches, that it constituted an irresistible argument for, and proof of, God's providence.

God did not write a hundred Bibles; there is only one Bible, and the others are at best only approximations. In other words, the Greek New Testament of Erasmus, known as the Received Text, is none other than the Greek New Testament which successfully met the rage of its pagan and papal enemies. Two hundred seventy years passed which brings us to and the publication of the Revised Version.

Three brilliant scholars dominated the whole committee: Ellicott was swung over to the position of Westcott and Hort, so much so that he aided and abetted them in the pledging of the rest of the committee to absolute secrecy when each received a copy of the newly published Westcott and Hort Greek Text. That remains to be seen. Our study, over a period of ten years, of this whole subject has confirmed the conviction that this was what Burgon calls "a conspiracy. They have gone on record as saying it was to be treated like any other book. It is our studied belief that this was one of Satan's subtlest assaults on the purity and integrity of God's Holy Word and the repercussions of this assault have been felt through the decades to this very hour.

All of this has to do with the Westcott and Hort textual theory which the vast majority of evangelicals have accepted at its face value without being given the truth about it. Both of these Cambridge professors, for one thing, elevated antiquity above accuracy and thus championed the two oldest manuscripts of the Scriptures in existence: Both of these have been branded by Herman Hoskler, John Burgon, and Prebendary Scrivener as being filled with errors and contradictions; two of the "foulest" of manuscripts in the words of Burgon. Westcott and Hort put all of their eggs in these two baskets, completely ignoring and at times deprecating the hundreds of Greek manuscripts which agreed with the Received Text, on which the KJV was founded, in 90 to 95 per cent of their contents.

It is clearly shown in the writings of some of the greatest scholars in our book, Which Bible? Practically every version of the Bible from the publication of the RV in down to the present time has followed the Westcott and Hort Greek text and theory almost in full. In the words of Dr. Alfred Martin, "During the past seventy years it has often been considered textual heresy to deviate from their position or to intimate that, sincere as they undoubtedly were, they nay have been mistaken. Let us face this fact: They were influenced either consciously or unconsciously by the liberal tendencies of their tine.

This theory had tremendous repercussion in every area of life. Both Westcott and Hort seem to have been theistic evolutionists. Men are always seeking some self-evident principle that will explain everything. This theory enabled the two editors to reject as of no value about 95 per cent of the available evidence, and in effect, to make the text of Vaticanus the magic touchstone. If anyone would doubt this, then listen to Hort's own words on the subject: Its text throughout is Pre-Syrian, perhaps purely Pre-Syrian, at all events with hardly any, if any, quite clear exceptions.

Highest interest must already be seen to belong to a document of which thus far we know only that its text is not only Pre-Syrian but substantially free from Western and Alexandrian adulteration.

  • .
  • Sand to the Arabs : Memoirs of a Serial Salesman!
  • Bride Of The Emerald Isle (Mills & Boon Cherish).

Prebendary Scrivener was on the committee of the RV of and was about the only one who had the great scholarship and courage necessary to cross swords with Westcott and Hort. Listen to his words: Hort's system, therefore, is entirely destitute of historical foundation. He does not so much as make a show of pretending to it; but then he would persuade us, as he has persuaded himself, that its substantial truth is proved by results With all our reverence for his [Hort's] genius and gratitude for much that we have learned from him in the course of our studies, we are compelled to repeat as emphatically as ever our strong conviction that the hypothesis to whose proof he has devoted so many laborious years, is destitute , not only of historical foundation, but of all probability resulting from the internal goodness of the text which its adoption would force upon us" Plain Introduction , Volume 2, pages , A further sweeping, although not impassioned, refutation came from the pen of Dean Burgon, who with his superb sense of satire reduced the whole hypothesis to an absurdity.

No matter how many heretics there were in the church in the third and fourth centuries, and there were many, they would not have dared to handle the sacred text of Scripture in the way that Hort supposes. Even if they had dared to do so, they could not have succeeded with impunity. There would have been some writers who would have raged against them as Burgon did against Westcott and Hort in the nineteenth century.

If there is no Syrian text —-and there could be none without some such recension as Hort imagines-- then there is no Westcott and Hort theory. One may not agree with all of Burgon's views, nor can one condone the irascibility and smugness which he at times exhibited, but one who believes the Bible cannot but rejoice at his love for God's Book and admire his masterly defense of verbal inspiration.

The opponents of Westcott and Hort have not hesitated to impeach Vaticanus as a fallible and false witness. It is clear that the traditional text and Vaticanus cannot both be right; and if the traditional text is at least as old as Vaticanus--Hort admits this--why should the authority of one manuscript be acknowledged against the host of manuscripts, versions, and Fathers which support the traditional text? When the King James Version was first translated in l6ll, the general public did not immediately view the revision as manna from heaven.

Affections were divided between the Geneva Bible, the Great Bible, and the Bishop's Bible, and fifty turbulent years passed before the King's new version attained supremacy. No doubt, the translators had this very problem in mind when they commented in The Translators to the Reader:. We do not deny nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession..

Yet before we end, we must answer a third cavil and objection of theirs against us, for altering and amending our Translations so oft; wherein truly they deal hardly, and strangely with us. For to whomever was it imputed for a fault by such as were wise to go over that which he had done and to amend it where he saw cause?