Scott McMahan
Scott McMahan  |  Internet
Email Us!Our Website
Our Blog
Older
Newer
Blog
Post+
Search
  
Filter By

Bible Versions - Seminar Over
THURSDAY, JULY 20, 2006
Posted by: Scott McMahan | more..
2,150+ views | 100+ clicks
I had to give up on the King James Bible Seminar #10. I got through about 11 parts before throwing in the towel. I imagine that's more than most people, and it was only a spirt of dogged determination (I sometimes listened to a 50-min segment in the morning before I got up to have time) that got me that far.

There is a lot of confusion in the reasoning behind the Dean Burgon Society material. Pastor Waite said a school was questionable because it had books by the Anglican writer C.S. Lewis in its bookstore, whereas he names his own society after the Anglican Burgon. The claims about the Textus Receptus are so muddled I can't make sense of them. The KJV itself is largely a product of Tyndale, and he used Erasmus' text. The later KJV revisers had a slate of editions available. Scriber's text was created long after the KJV to have a basic Greek NT which mirrored the KJV readings, for study. I just gave up trying to understand that tangle of illogic. Similarly, Waite protests that people claim textual changes do not change doctrine, but I can't remember him giving any examples other than parallel passages that were removed, or duplicates. There are a few controversial passages like 1 Tim 3:16, which ought to be debated and fixed, but these are a small number. Even Waite's sympathizers at the seminar asked him about the Septuagint quotations in the NT and what implications it had for the TR, and he gave a rambling answer about the Septuagint not existing then (tht would be news to Paul, who quotes from it!) which made no sense. And so on. This has nothing to do with either side being right or wrong, it's just muddled thinking. I guess I have too much C.S. Lewis in me. He was a sharp, logical thinker who would have listened to this KJV Seminar and shaken his head in sadness. I'm not attacking Waite, or anyone at the Dean Burgon Society personally. I commend them for sticking to their beliefs. All I am saying is I have listened to their presentations in great detail (even eleven or twelve parts is just about a solid day of material), and haven't been convinced of their position.

What I think is happening is the final generation that grew up with the King James Bible is passing. This was a big issue when there was a choice between the old KJV and new modern Bibles. But the new Bibles aren't new anymore. More people now than not have had an entire lifetime in which they've used readbable Bibles in modern English, and just don't see why the issue is important. Those who do think it is important (like me) will listen to something like the King James Bible Seminar #10 and think the KJV-Only issue the realm of muddled thinking and strange reasoning, and abandon it. Maybe a few will find the more reasonable Free Presbyterian and other material and be convinced that the KJV is a solid, reliable translation. But will they use it exclusively, or like me, combine it with modern translation? I'm positive that some will use it exclusively. But the sun is setting.

Category:  King James Plus

post new | clone this | rss feed | blog top »
Our Blog
Older
Newer
Top