Wife is VERY anti-Catholic

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catolico_Romano
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
They may end up saying that only the “Pure Cambridge Edition” (of coursed, based on Oxford scholar Blayney’s work) from ca. 1900-1970 is a “true” and “inspired” King James Version, but with a little learning of the textual history of the KJV and a little logic (if the original translators made errors, whoops - but they’ll say they didn’t, except for spelling errors, etc.), showing a KJV w/ the Apocrypha is a good way to prick the bubble of some KJVOs.

Some more sophisticated KJVOs (Edward F Hills, David Otis Fuller, Dean Burgon, FHA Scrivener, Donald Waite*) have elaborate arguments for why the KJV translators translated the Apocrypha as books of history and not as inspired Scripture, mainly based on some statements out of the Thirty-Nine Articles, and the fact the Apocrypha translation team didn’t translate any of the protocanon, and the protocanon translation teams didn’t translate the Apocrypha.

However, the lines between the translation teams were not drawn sharply, and there were a few who helped on both deutero- and proto-canon (I believe Andrewes was one), and the oversight committee who put it all together (led also by Lancelot Andrewes) also worked on both.

*I realize it may be a bit improper to call Edward Hills or David Fuller “KJV only”. They’re not, the accuse it of having many errors but believe it is the best English translation, like the TBS, but many "KJV1611 Independent First Baptists Church"es use their arguments in any case.

Dean (John William) Burgon and FHA (Frederick Henry Ambrose) Scrivener were by no means KJV only - they wrote in an era where there were two versions, the KJV and the ERV/ASV, and defended the traditional text as opposed to the Westcott and Hort (which method also underlay modern Nestle-Aland texts) text and critical method. They believed the KJV was errant - FHA Scrivener was an elite textual critic, and a member of the Reviser’s Board for the ERV as a force of conservation and doing the mission given to the Revisers, of removing “clear and obvious errors”, but not creating a new Greek NT, but was overruled in debate by the forceful personality of Hort - but that the Critical Text, especially with all the artificial and false support W&H gave to it (“neutral text”, “Syrian recensions”) in their day to make it acceptable (it’s just presumed to be acceptable now, and no longer really defended) was far, far more erroneous.

Still, John Burgon and FHA Scrivener’s arguments sometimes are used by more sophisticated KJVOs today - it usually suffices to point out that they themselves were far from KJVO, but some will say they either didn’t know what use God would raise them to, or were in denial, or, plainly, were in error whenever they disagreed with the pastor of their church.

I have great sympathy for John Burgon and Scrivener (I own most of their books, which are very hard to find today), if one couldn’t tell.
 
Khalid said:
They may end up saying that only the “Pure Cambridge Edition” (of coursed, based on Oxford scholar Blayney’s work) from ca. 1900-1970 is a “true” and “inspired” King James Version, but with a little learning of the textual history of the KJV and a little logic (if the original translators made errors, whoops - but they’ll say they didn’t, except for spelling errors, etc.), showing a KJV w/ the Apocrypha is a good way to prick the bubble of some KJVOs.

Some more sophisticated KJVOs (Edward F Hills, David Otis Fuller, Dean Burgon, FHA Scrivener, Donald Waite*) have elaborate arguments for why the KJV translators translated the Apocrypha as books of history and not as inspired Scripture, mainly based on some statements out of the Thirty-Nine Articles, and the fact the Apocrypha translation team didn’t translate any of the protocanon, and the protocanon translation teams didn’t translate the Apocrypha.

However, the lines between the translation teams were not drawn sharply, and there were a few who helped on both deutero- and proto-canon (I believe Andrewes was one), and the oversight committee who put it all together (led also by Lancelot Andrewes) also worked on both.

*I realize it may be a bit improper to call Edward Hills or David Fuller “KJV only”. They’re not, the accuse it of having many errors but believe it is the best English translation, like the TBS, but many "KJV1611 Independent First Baptists Church"es use their arguments in any case.

Dean (John William) Burgon and FHA (Frederick Henry Ambrose) Scrivener were by no means KJV only - they wrote in an era where there were two versions, the KJV and the ERV/ASV, and defended the traditional text as opposed to the Westcott and Hort (which method also underlay modern Nestle-Aland texts) text and critical method. They believed the KJV was errant - FHA Scrivener was an elite textual critic, and a member of the Reviser’s Board for the ERV as a force of conservation and doing the mission given to the Revisers, of removing “clear and obvious errors”, but not creating a new Greek NT, but was overruled in debate by the forceful personality of Hort - but that the Critical Text, especially with all the artificial and false support W&H gave to it (“neutral text”, “Syrian recensions”) in their day to make it acceptable (it’s just presumed to be acceptable now, and no longer really defended) was far, far more erroneous.

Still, John Burgon and FHA Scrivener’s arguments sometimes are used by more sophisticated KJVOs today - it usually suffices to point out that they themselves were far from KJVO, but some will say they either didn’t know what use God would raise them to, or were in denial, or, plainly, were in error whenever they disagreed with the pastor of their church.

I have great sympathy for John Burgon and Scrivener (I own most of their books, which are very hard to find today), if one couldn’t tell.
Click to expand...
Khalid,

It is easy to point out a fact of history that the only reason that the Deuterocanonicals are missing from Protestant Bibles is because Protestant printing companies could print them cheaper without including them.
 
That’s one commonly-cited reason, but it actually has more to do with the schism over Unitarian involvement in the British and Foreign Bible Societies, which formed the Trinitarian Bible Society (those who would not admit Unitarians to positions of leadership). The TBS adopted in its initial charter, that the purpose of the society was for the promulgation of Protestant, or uncorrupted, versions of the Scriptures.

The schism with the Unitarian-friendly BFBS had attracted conservative Protestants, and this during the beginning of Catholic Emancipation and the Tractarian Movement; so they adopted, right off the bat, a statement excluding the Deuterocanonical books from their versions, which leads to the assumption that this was at least a contributing factor in the schism.

Now, the BFBS all but stopped publishing full Bibles within ten years, as well. (Disclosure: I financially support the Bible translation efforts of the TBS as being the best amongst many poor choices.)

Did cost have something to do with it? Probably. But, I’ll agree with Luther here, if there were out to save souls cheaply, all they had to do was bind the Gospel and First Epistle of John, Romans, Galatians, 1 Corinthians, and the First Epistle of Peter together, containing “all that is necessary for salvation”.

To this day many outreach groups print copies of John’s Gospel or the NT separately and distribute them en masse, so I don’t think price was a prime consideration.
 
Khalid said:
That’s one commonly-cited reason, but it actually has more to do with the schism over Unitarian involvement in the British and Foreign Bible Societies, which formed the Trinitarian Bible Society (those who would not admit Unitarians to positions of leadership). The TBS adopted in its initial charter, that the purpose of the society was for the promulgation of Protestant, or uncorrupted, versions of the Scriptures.

The schism with the Unitarian-friendly BFBS had attracted conservative Protestants, and this during the beginning of Catholic Emancipation and the Tractarian Movement; so they adopted, right off the bat, a statement excluding the Deuterocanonical books from their versions, which leads to the assumption that this was at least a contributing factor in the schism.

Now, the BFBS all but stopped publishing full Bibles within ten years, as well. (Disclosure: I financially support the Bible translation efforts of the TBS as being the best amongst many poor choices.)

Did cost have something to do with it? Probably. But, I’ll agree with Luther here, if there were out to save souls cheaply, all they had to do was bind the Gospel and First Epistle of John, Romans, Galatians, 1 Corinthians, and the First Epistle of Peter together, containing “all that is necessary for salvation”.

To this day many outreach groups print copies of John’s Gospel or the NT separately and distribute them en masse, so I don’t think price was a prime consideration.
Click to expand...
Khalid,

I believe that Jimmy Akin has a simple, easy to follow, factual explanation found here…

ewtn.com/library/answers/deuteros.htm

**
The Reformation Attack on the Bible**
The deuterocanonicals teach Catholic doctrine, and for this reason they were taken out of the Old Testament by Martin Luther and placed in an appendix without page numbers. Luther also took out four New Testament books—Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation—and put them in an appendix without page numbers as well. These were later put back into the New Testament by other Protestants, but the seven books of the Old Testament were left out. Following Luther they had been left in an appendix to the Old Testament, and eventually the appendix itself was dropped (in 1827 by the British and Foreign Bible Society), which is why these books are not found at all in most contemporary Protestant Bibles, though they were appendicized in classic Protestant translations such as the King James Version.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top