The KJVO Myth Has NO Scriptural support!

kiwimac · Jul 31, 2019

Dr. Jack said:
Is the following an accurate "quote"?

"I reject the infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly."
(Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.207).

No, it is not.
"I reject the word infallibility of Holy Scripture overwhelming." (Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.207)
This misquote comes in several flavours. Sometimes you will see it with or without a hyphen (sometimes the hyphen is removed to make it appear even more like a continuous thought, a complete sentence). Other times, you may also see the word "overwhelming" changed to "overwhelmingly", in an attempt to fix the grammar problem that arises from chopping off the first half of the original sentence. Both alterations are attempts to remove the clues that something is amiss with the quote - and there is definitely something amiss.

It comes from Life and Letters of Westcott, Vol. I, p.207, and here it is in entirety (misquote in bold, context in underline):

"My dear Hort - I am very glad to have seen both your note and Lightfoot's - glad too that we have had such an opportunity of openly speaking. For I too "must disclaim setting forth infallibility" in the front of my convictions. All I hold is, that the more I learn, the more I am convinced that fresh doubts come from my own ignorance, and that at present I find the presumption in favor of the absolute truth - I reject the word infallibility - of Holy Scripture overwhelming. Of course I feel difficulties which at present I cannot solve, and which I never hope to solve."

This quote is part of a three-way discussion between Westcott, Hort and Lightfoot, when they were initially considering working together to produce a commentary of the entire New Testament. Part of the discussion is lost, but a couple of letters from Hort remain. The quote as originally presented was not the complete sentence, but was prefaced with with an affirmation of "the absolute truth of Holy Scripture". Any "difficulties" and "doubts" he sees in scripture "come from my own ignorance" - i.e. when he sees a problem, he recognizes and admits that the problem is with him, not with Scripture.

Also, how can he reject the infallibility of Scripture and affirm the "absolute truth" of Scripture in the same sentence? Note that Westcott is not rejecting the concept in inerrant scripture (as numerous other quotes demonstrate), but rather he has problems with the word "infallibility", which he felt was limited and "mechanical". Elsewhere, Westcott said "Mere mechanical infallibility is but a poor substitute for a plenary Inspiriation, which finds its expression in the right relation between partial human knowledge and absolute Divine truth." (Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, Westcott, p.41). By saying "I reject the word infallibility", he is not saying he rejects the idea that scripture is inerrant, but rather dislikes the word because he feels it is inadequate and doesn't go far enough - he feels it is "poor substitute for plenary inspiration.

kiwimac · Jul 31, 2019

Kate30 said:
Kiwimac Dean Burgon was around the same same time as Wescott & Hort. He never excepted their text of scripture over the authorised version. Why was that you think. What is your westcotthort web page that would be interesting to look at.

Frankly, I don't care about Burgon's opinion. He was entitled to his view of the RV but he is also not the standard by which we judge how good an English translation is. Just type 'westcotthort' into your search bar, it'll come up in the results.

Kate30 · Jul 31, 2019

kiwimac said:
Frankly, I don't care about Burgon's opinion. He was entitled to his view of the RV but he is also not the standard by which we judge how good an English translation is. Just type 'westcotthort' into your search bar, it'll come up in the results.

Kiwimac thank you for the web site name. I shall look up. You don’t care much about Dean Burgons opinion . That’s ok we all must make choices with what we believe.

nolidad · Jul 31, 2019

kiwimac said:
I know Westcott and Hort very well. I run the westcotthort web page which counters the lies and cribbed quotes of KJV-Onlyists about those men of God.

Lot more than KJV only-ists. As I am not a KJV only person.

nolidad · Jul 31, 2019

ralfyman said:
From what I read, the Dead Sea Scrolls predate the Masoretic Text, which is why translators consulted that and others for the NRSV:

The dead sea scrolls had only preserved the book of Isaiah from Scripture. The errors between the two were only three grammatical. Two may have been simply dirt smudges as well.

eleos1954 · Jul 31, 2019

robycop3 said:
The Origin of the Current KJVO myth
By robycop3

Ever wonder where KJVO-the false doctrine that the KJV is the only valid English Bible translation out there came from? Here's the skinny:

In 1930, a 7th Day Adventist official, Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson(1872-1968), published a book he named "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated" in response to a squabble within the SDA cult. This book is a collection of snippets in favor of the KJV of God's holy word, and is full of goofs, such as the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie". Apparently, Wilkinson didn't bother to check 0ut the VERACITY of any of the info he gathered. And he copied PARTS of Dean John Burgon's writings, omitting anything that was critical of the Textus Receptus.

He obtained a Scottish copyright for this book, which he apparently allowed to lapse many years ago, as interest in his book was mostly limited to the SDA cult, and for only a short time.

There's no doubt that SDA is a pseudo/quasi-Christian cult, and that Dr. W was a full-fledged SDA official, teacher, and preacher, who often argued for the inerrancy of Ellen Gould White's writings, placing them on a par with Scripture. Several SDA buildings and libraries are named after him.

In 1955, someone called J. J. Ray of Eugene, OR discovered that book, and wrote his/her own book, "God Wrote Only One Bible". Ray copied much of Dr. W's book verbatim in GWOOB without acknowledging him whatsoever, copying many of the goofs in Dr. W's book. Whether Ray obtained Dr. W's permission to use his book, or simply plagiarized it is unknown, but at any rate, Ray used the power of modern media to publicize his/her book, thus starting the idea of KJVO among some of the general public.

Now, try Googling "J. J. Ray" in the Eugene, OR. area. The only one I've found whose lifetime fit the 1955 timeline was a used-car salesman, now deceased, who apparently never published any book. Ray's company, Eye-Opener Publishers, only published that one book. Apparently, "J. J. Ray" is a pseudonym. Now, why would any REAL MAN(or woman) OF GOD use a pseudonym? Apparently, "Ray" was concerned that Dr. W might speak out about his plagiarism.

Then, in 1970, Dr. D. O. Fuller, a Baptist pastor, published "Which Bible?"(3rd revision, 1972), a book which copied much from both Ray and Wilkinson, including many of the original goofs. Like W and Ray before him, he didn't bother to check out the VERACITY of the material he published. And, while he at least acknowledged W, he made absolutely NO mention of W's CULT AFFILIATION. It was this book which brought the public's attention, especially in Baptist circles, to the other two boox, and to KJVO in general. Soon, a whole genre was developed of KJVO boox, all of which drew a large portion of their material from those first three boox.

Now, while Ray's plagiarism and Fuller's deliberate omission of W's CULT AFFILIATION might've been legal, it was certainly DISHONEST, not something any devout Christian would do!

Now, I have not forgotten Dr. Peter S. Ruckman's 1964 works, "Manuscript Evidence" and "Bible Babel". These goof-filled worx was derived largely from Wilkinson's and Ray's books, repeating many of their booboos, such as the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie". and copying an erroneous chart from Ray's book. Ruckman referred to the title of Ray's book as "God Only Wrote One Book", which hints at the inaccuracy of Ruckman's work. However, Ruckman's works was not among the "foundation stones" of the KJVO myth, as were Ray's and Fuller's boox, both derived from Wilkinson's book.

Virtually every current KJVO author, from Riplinger to Bynum to Melton to Grady to whomever, uses material from those first three boox in their own work, often re-worded, but still the same garbage in a different dumpster. About the only newer material in any of these boox is their criticism of newer Bible versions as they came out. We see a pattern of DISHONESTY in KJVO authorship, as many of its authors copy from each other without any acknowledgement, all of them drawing from a KNOWN CULT OFFICIAL'S book! HOW CAN ANY CHRISTIAN, SEEING ALL THIS DISHONESTY AND ATTEMPTS TO CONCEAL OR JUSTIFY IT, BELIEVE KJVO IS FROM GOD?

These facts are easily verified, either on the Internet or in most public libraries. Unlike KJVOs, we Freedom Readers deal in VERIFIABLE FACT, not fishing stories, opinion, and guesswork. All the boox I mentioned are available online legally, in public libraries, many religious bookstores, or are for sale at various web sites of many religious book stores.

Thus, you see why I, and many other Christians who try to serve God in all aspects of life, are so vehemently against the KJVO myth! It's Satanic in origin, definitely NOT FROM GOD!

I challenge any KJVO to show us any book written before 1930 that is largely about KJVO, and which can be traced to having started the current KJVO doctrine.

nothing but opinions .... including your own, some prefer it ... some do not ... what's the big deal my friend? Seems like making mountains out of molehills to me.

Isn't the import that people are in the Word of God regardless of their choice of translation?

ralfyman · Jul 31, 2019

nolidad said:
The dead sea scrolls had only preserved the book of Isaiah from Scripture. The errors between the two were only three grammatical. Two may have been simply dirt smudges as well.

It involves much more than that. More details in the preface linked to earlier.

kiwimac · Jul 31, 2019

nolidad said:
Lot more than KJV only-ists. As I am not a KJV only person.

And your problem with Westcott and Hort would be?

nolidad · Aug 1, 2019

kiwimac said:
And your problem with Westcott and Hort would be?

A few quotes from them on their own!

1848 July 6th - Hort: "One of the things, I think, which shows the falsity of the Evangelical notion of this subject (baptism), is that it is so trim and precise...no deep spiritual truths of the Reason are thus logically harmonious and systematic...the pure Romish view seems to me nearer, and more likely to lead to, the truth than the Evangelical...the fanaticism of the bibliolaters, among whom reading so many 'chapters' seems exactly to correspond to the Romish superstition of telling so many dozen beads on a rosary...still we dare not forsake the Sacraments, or God will forsake us...I am inclined to think that no such state as 'Eden' (I mean the popular notion) ever existed, and that Adam's fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants" (Life, Vol.I, pp.76-78).

Dec. 23rd - Westcott: "My faith is still wavering. I cannot determine how much we must believe; how much, in fact, is necessarily required of a member of the Church." (Life, Vol.I, p.46).

1858 Oct. 21st - Further I agree with them in condemning many leading specific doctrines of the popular theology as, to say the least, containing much superstition and immorality of a very pernmicious kind...The positive doctrines even of the Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue...There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, and especially the authority of the Bible" (Life, Vol.I, p.400).

1864 Sept. 23rd - Hort: "I believe Coleridge was quite right in saying that Christianity without a substantial Church is vanity and dissolution; and I remember shocking you and Lightfoot not so very long ago by expressing a belief that 'Protestantism' is only parenthetical and temporary. In short, the Irvingite creed (minus the belief in the superior claims of the Irvingite communion) seems to me unassailable in things ecclesiastical." (Life, Vol.II, p.30,31).

1865 Sept. 27th - Westcott: "I have been trying to recall my impressions of La Salette (a marian shrine). I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry bears witness; and how we can practically set forth the teaching of the miracles".

Nov. 17th - Westcott: "As far as I could judge, the 'idea' of La Salette was that of God revealing Himself now, and not in one form but in many." (Life, Vol.I. pp.251,252).

Oct. 17th - Hort: "I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and 'Jesus'-worship have very much in common in their causes and their results." (Life, Vol.II, p.50).

I could brin much more if you feel the need.

nolidad · Aug 1, 2019

ralfyman said:
It involves much more than that. More details in the preface linked to earlier.

What is more involved than that!

ralfyman · Aug 1, 2019

nolidad said:
What is more involved than that!

To find out, please read the preface linked to in my earlier post.

kiwimac · Aug 1, 2019

nolidad said:
A few quotes from them on their own!

1848 July 6th - Hort: "One of the things, I think, which shows the falsity of the Evangelical notion of this subject (baptism), is that it is so trim and precise...no deep spiritual truths of the Reason are thus logically harmonious and systematic...the pure Romish view seems to me nearer, and more likely to lead to, the truth than the Evangelical...the fanaticism of the bibliolaters, among whom reading so many 'chapters' seems exactly to correspond to the Romish superstition of telling so many dozen beads on a rosary...still we dare not forsake the Sacraments, or God will forsake us...I am inclined to think that no such state as 'Eden' (I mean the popular notion) ever existed, and that Adam's fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants" (Life, Vol.I, pp.76-78).

Dec. 23rd - Westcott: "My faith is still wavering. I cannot determine how much we must believe; how much, in fact, is necessarily required of a member of the Church." (Life, Vol.I, p.46).

1858 Oct. 21st - Further I agree with them in condemning many leading specific doctrines of the popular theology as, to say the least, containing much superstition and immorality of a very pernmicious kind...The positive doctrines even of the Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue...There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, and especially the authority of the Bible" (Life, Vol.I, p.400).

1864 Sept. 23rd - Hort: "I believe Coleridge was quite right in saying that Christianity without a substantial Church is vanity and dissolution; and I remember shocking you and Lightfoot not so very long ago by expressing a belief that 'Protestantism' is only parenthetical and temporary. In short, the Irvingite creed (minus the belief in the superior claims of the Irvingite communion) seems to me unassailable in things ecclesiastical." (Life, Vol.II, p.30,31).

1865 Sept. 27th - Westcott: "I have been trying to recall my impressions of La Salette (a marian shrine). I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry bears witness; and how we can practically set forth the teaching of the miracles".

Nov. 17th - Westcott: "As far as I could judge, the 'idea' of La Salette was that of God revealing Himself now, and not in one form but in many." (Life, Vol.I. pp.251,252).

Oct. 17th - Hort: "I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and 'Jesus'-worship have very much in common in their causes and their results." (Life, Vol.II, p.50).

I could brin much more if you feel the need.

As I thought just more of the old nonsense which would be dealt with if only people would READ what W & H had to say rather than selectively grabbing quotes and then cribbing them further to make them say what they want them to.
As for their disdain for Evangelicals, so what? They were high-church Anglicans of the 19th Century and you would expect such from them.

kiwimac · Aug 1, 2019

Let me give an example of what I mean.

1858 Oct. 21st - Further I agree with them in condemning many leading specific doctrines of the popular theology as, to say the least, containing much superstition and immorality of a very pernicious kind...The positive doctrines even of the Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue...There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, and especially the authority of the Bible" (Life, Vol.I, p.400).

Note the ellipsis (...) in the above quote taken from the lot posted by nolidad. The presence of the ellipsis means that there is a 'break' in the quotation and that words are missing. Let's take a look at the whole quote. First, you will note that the reference given is merely Life, vol.1, pg 400 which is most unhelpful. Further the quoted passage does not appear on page 400 of Westcott's life, so let us check Hort's life vol 1, pg 400 and it is here we find part of the reference;

...Further I agree with them in condemning many leading specific doctrines of the popular theology as, to say the least, containing much superstition and immorality of a very pernicious kind.
But I fear that in our own positive theology we should diverge
widely. I have a deeply-rooted agreement with High Churchmen as to the Church, Ministry, Sacraments, and, above all, Creeds, though by no means acquiescing in their unhistorical and unphilosophical treatment of theology, or their fears and antipathies generally. The positive doctrines even of the Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue. There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, and especially the authority of the Bible ; and this alone would make my position among you sufficiently false in respect to the great questions which you will be chiefly anxious to discuss.

Note the parts in italics whcih are entirely missing from the quote further note the ending which Hort states thusly "...and this alone would make my position among you sufficiently false in respect to the great questions which you will be chiefly anxious to discuss..."

Who is he talking to? This quote is part of a letter written from Hort to the Rev. Dr. Rowland Williams who had asked Hort (via a mutual friend) to consider contributing an article to a volume he was writing in Essays and Reviews. Hort here is gently turning the request down.

robycop3 · Aug 2, 2019

eleos1954 said:
nothing but opinions .... including your own, some prefer it ... some do not ... what's the big deal my friend? Seems like making mountains out of molehills to me.

The KJVO myth is a false doctrine, and Christians are to oppose all false doctrines of faith/worship. KJVO has NO Scriptural support, even in the KJV itself, so it CANNOT be true.

Isn't the import that people are in the Word of God regardless of their choice of translation?

Yes, and that's the evil of the KJVO myth. Its groupies teach that no other English Bible translations are valid, thus casting doubt upon legitimate English Bible translations. That's some of why we should oppose & speak out against KJVO.

nolidad · Aug 2, 2019

kiwimac said:
As I thought just more of the old nonsense which would be dealt with if only people would READ what W & H had to say rather than selectively grabbing quotes and then cribbing them further to make them say what they want them to.
As for their disdain for Evangelicals, so what? They were high-church Anglicans of the 19th Century and you would expect such from them.

So are you saying these are intentional and deliberate misquotes of them? Proof?

Disdain for brethren is not a good spirit to revise the bible with.

kiwimac said:
Note the ellipsis (...) in the above quote taken from the lot posted by nolidad. The presence of the ellipsis means that there is a 'break' in the quotation and that words are missing. Let's take a look at the whole quote. First, you will note that the reference given is merely Life, vol.1, pg 400 which is most unhelpful. Further the quoted passage does not appear on page 400 of Westcott's life, so let us check Hort's life vol 1, pg 400 and it is here we find part of the reference;

So they didn't misquote him at all!!!!! They just left out and noted so by the ellipsis a point that wasn't as pertinent to the general theme. People do that all teh time. and by you quoting what was omitted, you just show it true! He considered evangelical doctrine perverted.

nolidad · Aug 2, 2019

kiwimac said:
Who is he talking to? This quote is part of a letter written from Hort to the Rev. Dr. Rowland Williams who had asked Hort (via a mutual friend) to consider contributing an article to a volume he was writing in Essays and Reviews. Hort here is gently turning the request down.

And why is he turning him down? Based on the quote- He had a grave disdain for evangelicals and he said that would make the reader of the letter (Dr. Williams) "and this alone would make my position among you sufficiently false in respect to the great questions which you will be chiefly anxious to discuss."

So he knew that his opinions and feelings would make Williams reject his answers as false! Even He said he knew his opinion would not be well received which is why he refused to contribute!

nolidad · Aug 2, 2019

ralfyman said:
To find out, please read the preface linked to in my earlier post.

Which earlier post? So I can find it and read it.

eleos1954 · Aug 2, 2019

robycop3 said:
The KJVO myth is a false doctrine, and Christians are to oppose all false doctrines of faith/worship. KJVO has NO Scriptural support, even in the KJV itself, so it CANNOT be true.

Yes, and that's the evil of the KJVO myth. Its groupies teach that no other English Bible translations are valid, thus casting doubt upon legitimate English Bible translations. That's some of why we should oppose & speak out against KJVO.

I think people choose which version(s) they want to use and don't pay any mind to KJVO advocates.

"KJVO has NO Scriptural support" no "translations" have scriptural support ... they are what they are ... translations ... and people pick their preferences.

Its groupies teach that no other English Bible translations are valid, thus casting doubt upon legitimate English Bible translations.

People see through this.

I don't see how vilifying (accusing them of false doctrine) KJVO people , (who are our brothers and sisters) serves any good purpose at all.

We can ... and should ... simply disagree without accusations.

Agree to disagree without accusations fo "false doctrine".

ralfyman · Aug 2, 2019

"Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today"

kiwimac · Aug 3, 2019

nolidad said:
So are you saying these are intentional and deliberate misquotes of them? Proof?

Disdain for brethren is not a good spirit to revise the bible with.

So they didn't misquote him at all!!!!! They just left out and noted so by the ellipsis a point that wasn't as pertinent to the general theme. People do that all teh time. and by you quoting what was omitted, you just show it true! He considered evangelical doctrine perverted.

So? He was entitled to his opinion just as you are to yours; that YOU think Evangelicals are just the bees knees doesn't mean every christian does nor should they have to.

The KJVO Myth Has NO Scriptural support!

Bishop of the See of Aotearoa ROCCNZ;Theologian

Bishop of the See of Aotearoa ROCCNZ;Theologian

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

God is Love

Active Member

Bishop of the See of Aotearoa ROCCNZ;Theologian

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Bishop of the See of Aotearoa ROCCNZ;Theologian

Bishop of the See of Aotearoa ROCCNZ;Theologian

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

God is Love

Active Member

Bishop of the See of Aotearoa ROCCNZ;Theologian

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency