New Book to dispel the VPP error!
King
James Onlyism:
A New Sect
Author: Rev Dr James Price
To pre-order, please email
Rev Yap Beng Shin
65602410 (O)
Read the introduction here.
Table of
Contents
Preface
List of Figures
List of Tables
List of Charts
INTRODUCTION: The King James Only Doctrine Is a New Idea
-
Original Languages Were
Authoritative for Baptists
-
Original Languages Were
Authoritative for Presbyterians
-
Original Languages Were
Authoritative for Lutherans
-
Original Languages Were
Authoritative for the Evangelical Free Church of America
-
Original Languages Were
Authoritative for Interdenominational Churches
-
Original Languages Were
Authoritative for Historical Leaders
-
Fundamentalism Is Divided over
the King James Only Issue
-
This Book Discusses the Problems
of the King James Only View
1. Early English Versions Were Incomplete until Wycliffe
-
Translating Is an Ancient
Tradition
-
Bible Translations before
Wycliffe Were Incomplete
-
Wycliffe Translated the First
Complete Bible
-
Wycliffe’s Bible Was Opposed
2. Tyndale Was the First to Translate from Hebrew and Greek
-
Tyndale’s First New Testament Was
in 1526
-
Tyndale Translated the Pentateuch
in 1530
-
Tyndale Revised the New Testament
in 1535
-
Tyndale Was Martyred in 1536
-
Tyndale Translation Exhibited
Literary Excellence
3. Tyndale’s Translation Was Revised Seven Times
-
Coverdale Revised Tyndale’s Bible
-
Matthew’s Bible Was a Revision of
Tyndale and Coverdale
-
The Great Bible Was a Revision of
Matthew’s
-
Sample of the Great Bible
-
The Geneva Bible Was a Revision
of Tyndale
-
The Bishop’s Bible Was a Revision
of the Great Bible
-
The Rheims-Douay Bible Was
Translated from Latin
4. The King James Version Was a Revision
-
Fifty-Four Translators
Participated
-
The Qualifications of the
Translators
-
The Theology of the Translators
-
The Character of the Translators
-
The Translators Had Fifteen
Instructions
-
The Translation Was Carefully
Edited
-
The Translation Exhibits Literary
Excellence
-
The First Printing Was in 1611
5. The King James Version Was Revised Several Times
-
The KJV Was Revised at Cambridge
in 1629
-
The KJV Was Revised at Cambridge
in 1638
-
The KJV Was Unsuccessfully
Revised in 1653
-
The KJV Was Revised at Cambridge
in 1762
-
The KJV Was Revised at Oxford in
1769
-
Nearly 24,000Changes Were Made
6. Current Editions of the King James Version Differ
-
Known Discrepancies Exist
-
Misprints Exist
-
Other Inadvertent Oversights
Exist
-
Many Archaic and Obsolete Words
Remain
-
Current Editions Differ
-
Current Differences Are Recorded
7. The Biblical Text Was Preserved through Ancient Bibles
-
The Texts May Have Been Preserved
by Various Means
-
The Hebrew Text Was Preserved in
Ancient Hebrew Bibles
-
The Greek Text Was Preserved in
Ancient Greek Bibles
-
Various Types of Manuscripts
Exist
-
The Manuscripts Are Variously
Distributed
-
Conclusion: Many Witnesses Exist
for the Hebrew and Greek Texts
8. The Biblical Text Was Preserved in Ancient Translations
-
The Greek Versions Preserved the
Text
-
Aramaic Versions Preserved the
Text
-
The Syriac Versions Preserved the
Text
-
Latin Versions Preserved the Text
-
The Coptic Versions Preserved the
Text
-
Ethiopic Version Preserved the
Text
-
The Armenian Version Preserved
the Text
-
The Georgian Version Preserved
the Text
-
The Waldensian Version Is Wrongly
Represented
-
Conclusion: The Witness of the
Versions Is Secondary
9. The Biblical Text Was Preserved in Patristic Quotations
-
Quotations of the Old Testament
Preserved the Text
-
Quotations of the New Testament
Preserved the Text
-
Conclusion: The Witness of the
Quotations Is Incomplete and Secondary
10. Some Recognize the Alexandrian Text as the Preserved Text
-
Textual Theories Have Early
History
-
Westcott and Hort Developed a New
Theory
-
The Westcott and Hort Theory Was
Modified Later
-
The Reasoned Eclectic Theory
Follows Sound Methodology
-
Alternative Theories Exist
-
Stemmatic Methods Were Developed
-
The Thoroughgoing Eclectic Method
Was Developed
-
Conclusion: The Reasoned Eclectic
Method Is Preferred
-
Old Testament Textual Criticism
Lags Behind
-
Opponents Wrongfully Charge the
Westcott-Hort Method with Problems
11. Some Recognize the Majority Text as the Preserved Text
-
The Masoretic Text Is the Hebrew
Majority Text
-
John W. Burgon Preferred the
Greek Majority Text
-
Burgon Has Several Modern
Advocates
-
The Lucian Recension Has
Historical Support
-
Popular Misconceptions of the
Majority Text Exist
-
Conclusion: The Majority Text
Method Is Not Preferred
12. Some Recognize the Textus Receptus as the
Preserved Text
-
Some Regard the Bomberg Edition
as the Traditional Hebrew Text
-
Some Regard the Greek Textus
Receptus as the Traditional Text
-
Hills Argued the Case for the
Textus Receptus
-
Hills Had an Underlying KJV
Agenda
-
Some Regard the Text of the
Reformation as Authority
-
Conclusion: The Textus Receptus
Is Not to Be Preferred
13. Textual Emendations Were Made in the King James Version
-
The Greek and Hebrew Were
Authoritative in 1611
-
Two Hebrew Texts Were Used
-
Other Authorities Were Used
-
Emendations Were Made to the Old
Testament
-
Some Emendations Were Justifiable
-
Some Emendations of the Old
Testament Were Unjustifiable
-
Conclusion: The King James
Version Does Not Follow the Traditional Hebrew Text
14. Modern English Versions Are Evaluated
-
The English Revised Version of
1881
-
The American Standard Version of
1901
-
The Revised Standard Version of
1952
-
The Jerusalem Bible of 1966
-
The New American Standard Version
of 1970
-
The New English Bible of 1971
-
The New International Version of
1978
-
The New King James Version of
1982
-
The English Standard Version of
2001
-
The Holman Christian Standard
Bible of 2002
-
Other Modern Versions
15. Modern Versions Support Orthodox Doctrine
PART ONE: The Versions Support the Deity of Christ
PART TWO: The Versions Support the Virgin Birth
-
Isaiah 7:14
-
Matthew 1:23
-
Luke 1:27
PART THREE: The Versions Support the Blood of Jesus
PART FOUR: The Versions Support Faith, Justification,
Forgiveness, and Sanctification
PART FIVE: The Versions Support the
Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ
PART SIX: The Versions Support the Second Coming of
Christ
PART SEVEN: The Versions Support Salvation by Grace
through Faith
PART EIGHT: Criticism of the Versions Is Faulty
-
Modern Versions Allegedly
Contain Errors
-
Modern Versions Allegedly
Correct the Word of God
-
A Balanced View Is
Necessary
-
Modern Versions Help a
Person Understand the KJV
-
Conclusion: Modern Versions
Support Orthodox Doctrine
16. Textual Uncertainty Is Insignificant
-
The Large Number of Variants Is
Insignificant in the Big Picture
-
The Many Differences Are
Insignificant in the Big Picture
-
Uncertainty Exists in the
Exegesis of the English Bible
-
Uncertainty Exists in the Meaning
of Words
-
Uncertainty Exists in
Interpretation
-
Uncertainty Is the Occasion for
Faith not Doubt
17. Conclusion: Use Versions with Discernment
Appendix A: Changes in the AV Since 1611
Appendix B: Catalogue of Variants in Current Editions of the
AV
Appendix C: Examples of Late, Secondary Byzantine Readings
Appendix D: An Evaluation of Burgon’s Test of Antiquity
-
The Overall Witness of the
Ancient Versions Is Inadequate
-
The Citations of the Church
Fathers Are Insufficient
-
The Combined Witness of Versions
and Fathers Is Inadequate
Appendix E: An Evaluation of Hodges’ Majority Text Theory
Appendix F: A Mathematical Analysis of Hodges' Statistical
Model
Appendix G: The Greek Text of the Authorized Version
Appendix H: Partial List of Differences Between The Textus
Receptus and the Byzantine Text
Appendix I: Textual Emendations in the Authorized Version
Appendix J: Differences Between the NA-27 Text and the R-P
Byzantine Text
Glossary of Terms
Bibliography
Index of Persons and Topics |