Sunday, January 31, 2021
Saturday, January 30, 2021
I thought I had posted this in the past, but failed to find it. So…
Keith Harper of Southeastern Seminary reviewed Materials Toward a History of Feet Washing Among the Baptists in The Journal of Baptist Studies (Volume 4, 2010, pp. 91-94). This gives an idea of what the book is about.
“…feet washing defies all attempts at categorization, beginning with nomenclature….agreeing on a reason for practicing the right is almost as challenging as agreeing on terminology. That is, even those groups who practice feet washing do so for different reasons.”
Friday, January 29, 2021
“The student of the Bible is shocked to read the statement of the revisers, ‘After two years of debate and experiment it was decided to abandon these forms (Thou, Thee, and Thine) and to follow modern usage, except in language addressed to God.’
“In the Revised Standard Version Jesus is addressed as ‘You.’ See Matthew 4:3 for a case, ‘If you are the Son of God, etc.’ The translators intentionally did this. According to their statement Jesus is not divine. The revisers say that they debated two years over this matter and decided to address only God with ‘Thou’.
“The sum total of the translators’ statement is that they do not believe in the deity of Jesus Christ.” [ii]Edward B. Warren, Orrville, Alabama[iii]
[ii] “Revision of the Bible,” in the “Tell It to Old Grandma” column, The Montgomery Advertiser, Sunday, December 15, 1946, p. 4-A. See also “Revised Standard Version,” in “Letter Box” column, The Selma Times-Journal, Sunday, December 15, 1946, p. 4.
[iii] Warren graduated from the Presbyterian College in Clinton, South Carolina and Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. He pastored Orrville Baptist Church for over 40 years. Apparently progressive in methodology, Warren gave a “Stereopticon Lecture” at a church in 1936. (Wilcox Progressive Era, Camden, Alabama, Thursday, December 10, 1936, p. 3)
Thursday, January 28, 2021
“How can an absolutely Sovereign GOD not be the AUTHOR of all things even if we regard them as occurring from a secondary source ordained by HIM to cause these things to occur? Are we afraid that it is possible for men to impugn the character of GOD or that we must get him off the hook by our sophistry? If as the scientists tell us gravity occurs because of the mass and rotation of the earth does this make GOD any less or more the AUTHOR of gravity because it occurs as the result of a principle which HE directed to occur but rather than mystically bringing it to pass HE did so by a law of physics?” -- Mike McInnis
“There is a difference in the way God governs over inanimate or physical creation and the way He governs over mankind. Therefore, every element in the creation of gravity is the result of His directly causal creation of that element. There is no unrighteousness with God and He does not cause unrighteousness in men. Unrighteousness arises from men. Thus there is a difference in the way God governs over physical inanimate creation and mankind. God governs over every thing that takes place in His universe either causing them to take place, or suffering/permitting them to take place or restraining them from taking place.” -- Mark Thomas
“I will say without any fear that every person born of the Spirit, whenever that may occur, will believe on Jesus as their Lord and worship Him with whatever grace God may be pleased to give him or her. It will do no good to propose the case of the idiot or the heathen. Who can tell what great work the Lord may work in them, and that without the assistance of a preacher or speaker. Is God limited to the aid of man? If He has chosen one to eternal life there will be no obstacle to hinder belief.” -- James F. Poole
Wednesday, January 27, 2021
Q. What was the birth order of Noah’s children?
A. It is often assumed that Shem was Noah’s firstborn. When all three are listed together, Shem is always mentioned first (Genesis 5:32, 6:10, 7:13, 9:18, 10:1, and 1 Chronicles 1:4). However, there are clues in the text of Genesis that suggest this assumption is incorrect.
- First, in Genesis 10:21, the Bible cites Japheth as “the elder” in reference to Shem.
- Second, in Genesis 9:24, the Bible calls Ham Noah’s younger son.
- Third, in Genesis 11:10, the Bible lists Shem’s age in reference to the flood.
Genesis 5:32 And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
Without context – such as Genesis 9:24, 10:21, and especially 11:10 – we might assume Noah fathered triplets in his 500th year. Even with triplets, there can be an elder and a younger! However, by comparing Genesis 11:10 with Genesis 5:32 and Genesis 7:6, we can conclude by God’s mathematics that Shem was not Noah’s firstborn. We know from Genesis 5:32 that Noah was 500 when he began to have children, but Shem was not born when Noah was that age. Genesis 11:10 tells us that Shem was 100 when he begat Arphaxad two years after the flood. Noah was 600 when the flood waters came upon the earth (Genesis 7:6). If Shem was 98 years old when the flood came, he was born when Noah was 502 years old. He could not be the eldest without contradicting these harmonized Scripture texts.[i]
Japheth is “the elder” just as Genesis 10:21 states. Ham was the younger of the three (Genesis 9:24). Shem is listed first because the history of the Old Testament, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, will primarily be a history of the descendants of Shem – not Ham and Japheth.
[i] Interestingly, many modern translations insert a contradiction in this line of thought, making Shem “the elder brother of Japheth” and Ham Noah’s youngest son. Therefore Shem would have to be the oldest son. But if Shem was the oldest son and was born when Noah was 502, this does not harmonize with Genesis 5:32.
Tuesday, January 26, 2021
John Leland (1754-1841) wrote the following piece on the Bible in 1836. In it he briefly addresses translation, even mentioning that some of King James’s words were out of use in his day. However, in asking, “should there be a new translation” – though he does not answer directly, his answer seems to be “no.” He allows that a new Bible will suffer the same consequences, and that we are moving further away from, not closer to, understanding the languages of the Hebrews and the Greeks. He thinks that a new translation will not answer our questions, or make us “any better in this world.” Further, he seems to question the integrity of a translation made in the (his) present age, which does not observe the Bible so carefully in its practice.
Words, sentences, aphorisms, and customs that where significant, and well understood in the days of king James, are now out of use and obscure. Should there be a new translation, according to modern diction, is it not probable that two or three centuries hence it would be as obscure? And is there any hope of improving more from the original, when every century removes both Hebrews and Greeks farther off from understanding their respective languages as they were spoken in the days of the inspired authors? Would a new translation of the Bible, according to the modern use of words, taken from the most ancient copies of the Old and New Testaments, give us certain information, without doubt, on the question which has perplexed the Christian world for many centuries, “whether Christ died for only a part, or for every soul of man?” Or is this a mystery, locked up in the treasures of God, in a book not to be read in until we go to another state 1 as the Jews do not allow their children to read the nine last chapters of Ezekiel, and the book of Daniel, until they are thirty-nine years old. But stop and ponder. Would a certain solution of this question make men any better in this world? If not, would it not be beneath the dignity of Jehovah, to reveal that to men which would be of no service to them?
Would not a new translation of some passages in the New Testament, according to our present dialect and customs, be acceptable? In Matthew, x., 7: And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Read thus: And as ye go, preach to the people, your money is essential to the salvation of sinners, and, therefore, form into societies, and use all devisable means to collect money for the Lord’s treasury; for the millennium is at hand. Mark, xvi., 16: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. Read: He that has attended Sunday schools, had his mind in formed by tracts, contributed to support missions, and joined in societies to support benevolent institutions, shall be saved; the rest shall be damned. Matthew, x., 17: Be ye therefore, wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Read: Be ye wise as serpents in your guile to deceive men; keep out of sight that ye have to receive part that you collect for your mendicancy; show great concern for poor benighted heathen, but let your neighbors have none of your prayers, exhortations, or alms; but strive to appear harmless as doves; put on gravity and holy awe; make others believe that ye are too devotional to labor for a living, and that they must labor to support you; for if you do not appear uncommonly holy, you will not deceive the simple and get their money. Acts, iv., 34-35: And brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostle’s feet, and distribution was made to every man, according as he had need. This work of receiving and distributing was soon after given to seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom. Acts, vi. 3: Would it not be better to read—The convention appointed a board of directors; any man who would cast into the fund one hundred dollars, should be one of them for life, to dispose of the money at discretion, and mark out the destination of the missionaries. Read Acts, xiii., 1,2,3, 4, and translate it thus, if the Greek will admit of it: Now there was at Antioch, a convention of Christians, and among them five directors; and as they fasted and prayed, they were moved to select two of them as missionaries, and when they had supplied them with a good outfit, and promised them liberal supplies, to make Christianity appear honorable among the heathen,—they sent them forth with a solemn charge to devise all means in their power to keep the money market open, and invent employment for thousands that were longing for agencies. Acts, xx., 33, 34, 35: I have coveted no man’s silver or gold; ye, yourselves, know that these hands have ministered to my necessities, and to them that were with me; I have showed you all things, how that, so laboring, ye ought to support the weak, etc. These sentences are so little used in this day of great light, that a new translation is unnecessary.
It reminds me of past events. At the close of the apostolic age, and the age of miracles, philosophy was resorted to for a substitute, and every art and science was called into requisition to make Christianity appear honorable in the eyes of worldly men. Schools and teachers, of various descriptions, were set on motion to weld cold iron and hot together. The persecutions against Jews and Christians, for denying the divinity of the Pagan gods, and the worship of idols, did not stop the gradual and ruinous assimulation of church and world together. All things being ready, in the beginning of the fourth century, the union was consummated by Constantine the Great, who established Christianity for the religion of the empire, and suffered none but Christians to hold any offices of honor or profit, for whom he made great donations in salaries, temples, etc. At this change, the young preachers, and professors of Christianity greatly rejoiced, but the aged trembled with fear. From that day until this time, with partial exceptions, the Christian church (so called) has been governed by the laws of men. In all these Christian establishments, by legal force, there has been a great number of non-conformists; but they have been overpowered and reduced to oppression, sometimes to bloody persecutions. To persecute the greatest fanatics, except for overt acts, is poor policy; it only inflames their zeal, and augments their numbers; but to persecute harmless, peaceable subjects because they do not believe what they cannot believe, and are so honest that they will not say they believe what they do not, is the work of bloody monsters, in the shape of man.
From The Writings of the Late Elder John Leland, Including Some Events in His Life, John Leland, Miss L. F. Greene, New York, NY: G. W. Wood, 1845, pp. 685-687
Monday, January 25, 2021
“The high octane of personal pleasure fuels faster speed down the broad road.” -- Kent Brandenburg
“If at age 20 you are not a Communist then you have no heart. If at age 30 you are not a Capitalist then you have no brains.” -- George Bernard Shaw
“America and England are two countries, separated by a common language.” -- credited to George Bernard Shaw
“Sometimes not having the answers is what finally points us to the One who is the answer - Jesus Himself.” -- Alisha Headley
If “the God of all grace” has indeed “called you unto his eternal glory,”—if he has indeed touched your heart with his blessed finger—remember you will have to walk, from beginning to end, in a path of suffering; for the whole path, more or less, is a path of tribulation. And, while walking in this path, and suffering from sin, Satan, the world, and the evil of your own heart, it is only to lead you up more unto “the God of all grace;” it is only that God may, in his own time, “make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, and settle you.” And when your soul has passed through these trials, you will see God’s hand in all, praise him for all, and will perceive how good it was for you to have been afflicted, and to have walked in this painful path; that having suffered with Christ Jesus, you might sit down with him in his eternal glory!
Sunday, January 24, 2021
Free from tumult, noise, and show;
Gaudy toys - the worldling pleases -
We are dead to all below,
Since we found him—
Who shall endless life bestow.
Saturday, January 23, 2021
Friday, January 22, 2021
“There are several distinct KJV groups which include: 1) people who prefer the KJV above all other Bibles but could not be classified as KJV only; 2) people who argue that the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts used by the KJV translators are superior to all other texts. Thus group would not necessarily argue that such texts are inspired but that they more accurately reflect the original writings; 3) those who argue that onlythe Textus Receptus (TR) has been supernaturally preserved and inspired and is therefore inerrant. (The TR is the text on which the KJV is based; there are over 30 editions, none 100 percent identical.) For those who hold this view, the KJV translation itself would not necessarily be inspired; 4) the most dominant group are those who argue that the KJV translation itself constitutes an inspired and inerrant text. Categories 3 and 4 comprise the core of the controversy and are our principal concern.The Facts on the King James Only Debate, by John Ankerberg and John Weldon, ATRI Publishing, 2011.
Written later than the categorizations of James R. White, Ankerberg and Weldon choose to condense the categorizations to four rather than White’s five. Is this better or worse? Makes no difference?
Thursday, January 21, 2021
We have here an extraordinary example of the persistence of a blunder through centuries. The word “faith,” given here by the A. V., instead of hope — breaking up the beautiful triad of vv. 22, 23, 24, — faith, hope, love, — was a mere mistake, hope being the original, without any variety of reading, and hope being accordingly the rendering of all the English versions previously to 1611. And yet this is the version which some would have us regard as infallible, and receive as the written word of God!
We do not deny that there have been some wild and unfounded assertions on the subject, just as there is even now, with some ignorant persons, an assumption of the infallibility and equality with the original of some particular translation, as the Vulgate, or King James’s, or Luther’s.
There are at least three features of the old conception, each of which has now passed away. They are, first, that the Bible was finished in heaven and handed down; second, that the King James Version was absolutely inerrant; third, that its literal acceptance and interpretation was, alone, correct...Is the King James version absolutely inerrant?On this point we are inclined to think that, even unto comparatively recent years, such a theory has been entertained.
“There at some who think the King James Version is or contains the word of God and that anything recent or modern cannot be good.”
Wednesday, January 20, 2021
In 1995, in his book For Love of the Bible, David W. Cloud mentioned Canadian pastor Mark Buch as a defender of the King James Version Bible.[ii] Cloud has noted various defenders of the KJV outside the purported trilogy of “Wilkinson, Wray, and Wruckman.” The anti-KJV crowd sells stock in this trilogy line. It makes a great strawman argument. They hold up an Adventist, Plagiarist, and Extremist as the originators of the “King James Only” view of the Bible. The anonymous Ruckmanism.org website downplays the contributions of Buch, since persons such as he do not help sell any of their stock. The article “First Influence” questions the actual beliefs of Buch about the Bible. Further, it claims that no KJV defender “has written mentioning Buch as having influenced him” and that no one has listed “Buch in the bibliographies of their writings before David Cloud mentioned him.” Buch’s own pronouncements clarifies the first question. The latter ignores the influence a preacher has through his preaching ministry.[iii] It is not necessary for Buch to have written a book to be influential. Further, if he did not write a book, he would be listed in no one’s bibliography.[iv]
Mark Buch was saved in 1931. Shortly thereafter he felt called into the ministry.[v] He studied under William Aberhart at the Calgary Prophetic Bible Institute. He was ordained Friday May 13, 1938.[vi] He pastored Emmanuel Baptist Church in Vancouver, British Columbia, before organizing the People’s Fellowship in 1939.[vii] Buch preached at churches and Bible conferences in the United States, including Bob Jones University. He shared platforms with other notable fundamentalists such as Ernest Pickering, J. Frank Norris, John R. Rice, G. B. Vick, and Charles Woodbridge. Bob Jones, Sr., Ian Paisley, P.W. Philpott, Ernest Weller (China Inland Mission), and many others spoke at People’s Fellowship Tabernacle in Vancouver. In the late 1960s, he served on the BJU cooperating board of trustees.[viii] In 1977, Charles Woodridge and the Community Bible Church made Mark Buch an associate minister. Whatever this involved, Buch continued to pastor the People’s Fellowship Tabernacle.[ix] The announcement stated that Buch “is widely known, both in Canada and the U.S.A, as a radio preacher of great power. His cassette tape ministry is a blessing to multitudes.” Woodbridge also said, “Mr. Buch and I are of one mind in proclaiming the inerrant inspiration of the Bible and the purity of the church—and all this against the fearful odds of modern ecumenical compromise.”[x]
Markvor Buch was born in Denmark, November 30, 1910. He came with his family to Canada in 1924. He learned his ABCs from an Irish schoolteacher, and later mastered the English language “by repeated reading of the Authorized (1611) version of the Bible.”[xi] He spoke Danish as well as English, and was able to preach in both languages. Early sermon titles suggest an interest in the “Bible versions debate.”[xii] His opposition to the Revised Standard Version brought his Bible views to the fore. Unlike some other fundamentalists, Buch’s message was not just negative toward the RSV, but positive toward the King James Version. He traveled widely and spoke at rallies opposing the RSV. Announcing a rally at People’s Fellowship Tabernacle, the newspaper reported “Mark Buch will cite objections to key texts, and deal with original sources, ‘to prove why the King James’ version is the divinely-preserved Word of God to English-speaking peoples of the world.’”[xiii] Speaking at this rally, “He [Mark Buch, rlv] reiterated an earlier claim the King James version was the only true version of the Bible.” He further pointed out that the RSV’s claim “to change only the wording of the scriptures ‘is a fraud’.”[xiv] On November 28, 1952, Mark Buch debated Vernon Fawcett, professor of Union College at the University of British Columbia, “Is the New Translation of the Bible an Improvement Over the Old?”[xv] In December, he traveled to Calgary for a rally at the Bethel Baptist Church, telling the crowd “the battle for these two books will go down in history as the greatest battle of the 20th century.”[xvi]
In June of 1953, Pastor Buch wrote a series of four articles for The Vancouver Province newspaper – apparently initially intended to be three:
“Rev. Mark Buch, pastor of the People’s Fellowship Tabernacle, Vancouver, has forwarded a series of three articles on his opinions as to the true Bible and its origin. The Province prints these articles in the hope that they, along with the recent series on ‘The Revised Standard Version,’ by Dr. Ernest Marshall Howse of the United Church, will help its readers to draw their own conclusions.”
In the first article, he discusses three theories of inspiration; the fact we do not possess the originals, but that God has preserved his word; and the pure and impure streams of the Scriptures. He sets the Revised Standard Version in the impure stream, but does not yet discuss the AV/KJV per se. He does write, however, “To say then that one believes in the verbal inspiration of the original only, holds little encouragement today for those who grope for the truth, for what good are inspired originals which are lost? Have we then lost the faultless Word of God? No!”[xvii]
In the second, Buch delineates two lines of Bibles. “The big question to us then is not, ‘Did God inspire the original manuscripts?’ We know that He did, but has God preserved that perfect revelation through time in copying and translation? Again and again the Word itself emphatically states He has...I have now brought you along the path of pure Scriptures to the era of the translation commonly known as the Authorized Version of the Bible. Thus you see the basis of the Authorized Version is the oldest and purest in the world. It springs from a line and history altogether different from the spurious line, such as the Revised Standard Version.”[xviii]
In the third, Buch defends the King James Bible as best. “Has God preserved His Word intact for this generation? If it were lost in the passing of the original manuscripts, then with it has also passed the doctrine of individual responsibility to God. Then at best we shall drift on and on until we become shipwrecked upon the dark reefs of eternity’s unknown night…Let me sum up this article by saying that the Authorized Version is a correct translation of a perfect copy of an infallible original.”[xix]
In the fourth and final article, Buch compares of texts of the two Bibles, KJV and RSV. He writes of the King James Version, “This Book is God’s peculiar gift to the English-speaking world. Read it! Heed it! Believe it!”[xx]
Buch had a local ally in W. M. Robertson, pastor of the Metropolitan Tabernacle. “A number of Fundamentalist and other ministers are also opposed to the new version. Rev. W. M. Robertson in Metropolitan Tabernacle [bold original] on Sunday evening, entitling his sermon “The Unholy Bible,” will assert that ‘the extravagant claims made for the new version are not warranted by the facts, and any minor gains of languages are more than offset by grave errors that undermine some of the vital truths of the Gospel.”[xxi] In another issue of The Sun reported,
“Because of the controversy over the new version of Scripture, Rev. W. M. Robertson in Metropolitan Tabernacle [bold original] on Sunday evening will speak on ‘What Bible?’ with special reference to the claim that the King James version is the only true one. He will assert that from the days the Church has been in possession of a truly authentic Scripture.”[xxii]
David Cloud relates from Buch’s scrapbook: “In the Fall [probably circa 1933, rlv] I went back to the Prophetic Bible Institute in Calgary [William Aberhart’s school]. I came to the second year of Apologetics. It opened the subject of Divine Inspiration and preservation in particular, of the original manuscripts.” In the scope of the Institute’s “Apologetics B” course, Buch would have learned:
1. It establishes the infallibility of the Bible and proves its claim to divine inspiration.
2. It traces the sources of the various versions and establishes the divine inspiration of the Authorized Version.
3.It examines the difficult passages and apparent contradictions and demonstrates the perfection and harmony of the Bible as a whole.[xxiii]
Mark Buch maintained a pro-KJV position over the course of some 60 years, and defended it against various comers. Pastor Markvor “Mark” Buch died at his home September 22, 1995, leaving behind family members, wife, Sylvia; daughter, Ingrid; son, Wesley; and many other family members. He is buried at Ocean View Burial Park in Burnaby, Vancouver, British Columbia.
Those who refuse to acknowledge “The Burning Buch” as a “King James Only” advocate have their proverbial heads buried in the sand.[xxiv]
[ii] See also, https://www.wayoflife.org/database/buch.html
[iii] Buch’s preaching went out over radio and by cassette tape, meaning his influence reached beyond the physical walls of the sanctuaries and auditoriums where he preached. “Rev. Mark Buch Preaches Again,” Santa Ynez Valley News, Thursday, February 2, 1978, p. 13A. His radio ministry was not limited to Vancouver. For example, he was on KWSO in the Santa Ynez Valley of California, and 50,000-watt KERI in Bakersfield. Santa Ynez Valley News, Thursday, May 22, 1980, p. C3; Thursday, October 17, 1991, p. 12A.
[iv] In 1977, Buch published a ”fifty-eight page scrapbook,” In Defence of the Authorized Version: One Pastor’s Battle. Free distribution of the scrapbook occurred at the 25th anniversary of Buch’s debate with Vernon Fawcett about the RSV vs. KJV. At the anniversary service, Buch preached a message of the same title as the book. See The Vancouver Sun, Saturday, November 26, 1977, p. F13.
[v] “Rev. Mark Buch Preaches Again,” Santa Ynez Valley News, Thursday, February 2, 1978, p. 13A.
[vi] The Daily Province, Saturday, May 14, 1938, p. 5.
[vii] Apparently in late summer. He was still pastor of Emmanuel at least as late as June 1939, according to newspaper accounts, and is mentioned at People’s Fellowship in August. People’s Fellowship Tabernacle was at the least baptistic, but usually advertised as independent, fundamental, and non-denominational. According to David Cloud, circa 1990 “People’s Fellowship Tabernacle merged with the Bethel Baptist Church to become the Tabernacle Baptist Church of Vancouver. Its pastor is Gordon Conner, who continues to hold a standard for the King James Bible and biblical Fundamentalism in western Canada.”
[viii] “Bob Jones To Confer About 400 Degrees,” The Greenville News, Wednesday, May 31, 1967, p. 11.
[ix] In this arrangement, apparently the Community Bible Church in Solvang “rendered honor to whom honor is due,” received visits from time to time from Buch, and recognized his Danish heritage. Danes founded Solvang (Sunny Field, aka “The Danish Capital of America”) in 1911 on the Rancho San Carlos de Jonata Mexican land grant. "His presence in our area will be a blessing to Danish speaking residents of our Valley," Woodbridge said. “Community Bible Church appoints associate minister,” Santa Ynez Valley News, Thursday, December 1, 1977, p. 18A.
[x] “Community Bible Church appoints associate minister,” Santa Ynez Valley News, Thursday, December 1, 1977, p. 18A.
[xi] “Rev. Mark Buch Preaches Again,” Santa Ynez Valley News, Thursday, February 2, 1978, p. 13A.
[xii] For example, “Have We Today an Infallible Copy of the Bible?” on Sunday, March 19, 1939, 7:30 p.m. The Vancouver Sun, Saturday, March 18, 1939, p. 35. See also, “Is The Bible Trustworthy and Reliable,” in The Vancouver Sun, Saturday, June 30, 1951, p. 12; “Bible Versions Under Study,” The Daily Province, Saturday, June 30, 1951, p. 41; and “True Bible Man’s Need,” in The Daily Province, Saturday, July 14, 1951, p. 21 (all before the full RSV was published).
[xiii] “Protest Rally Called Against New Version,” The Vancouver Sun, Saturday, November 1, 1952, p. 13.
[xiv] “Sponsors of New Bible Dubbed ‘False Prophets’,” The Vancouver Province, Saturday, November 8, 1952 p. 9.
[xv] “Bible Revision Will Be Debated,” The Vancouver Sun, Thursday, November 27, 2952, p. 23.
[xvi] “Vancouver Minister Scores New Bible,” The Calgary Herald, Wednesday, December 17, 1952, p. 27.
[xvii] “Tabernacle Pastor Discusses Theories,” by Mark Buch, The Vancouver Province, Saturday, June 6, 1953, p. 21.
[xviii] “Christians Took Scrolls Into Alps,” by Mark Buch, The Vancouver Province, Saturday, June 13, 1953, p. 21.
[xix] “King James Version Defended As Best,” by Mark Buch, The Vancouver Province, Saturday, June 20, 1953, p. 22.
[xx] “Comparisons Made Between Two Books,” The Vancouver Province, Saturday, June 27, 1953, p. 47.
[xxi] “Protest Rally Called Against New Version,” The Vancouver Sun, Saturday, November 1, 1952, p. 13.
[xxii] “Says Church Has Authentic Bible Since Early Era,” The Vancouver Sun, Saturday, November 15, 1952, p. 10. Robertson was born Scotland in 1883. A Regular Baptist Church, Metropolitan Tabernacle joined the Independent Fundamental Churches of America in 1931. See Pilgrims in Lotus Land: Conservative Protestantism in British Columbia, 1917-1981, Robert K. Burkinshaw, Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press, 1995.
[xxiii] Calgary Prophetic Bible Institute, Apologetics B, The Scope of the Subject. http://www.aberhartfoundation.ca/PDF%20Documents/Prophetic-%20Berean%20Cirriculum/Prophetic/Apologetics%20B%20-CPBI.pdf
[xxiv] Even James R. White in The King James Only Controversy allows for “I Like the KJV Best” and “The Textual Argument” to be part of the “King James Only” camp (pp. 23-24). Surely Mark Buch, whose position was so much more, earns a place among the contemporary defenders of the King James Bible. The Anti-KJVO folks need to find their own “just weights and measures” if they can’t figure that out.
Tuesday, January 19, 2021
About King James Only before “Wilkinson, Wray, and Ruckman”
- B. F. Dearmore and the KJV
- Bethel Baptist Association, 1850
- Campbell and KJVO
- Bits of Bio, W. W. Simkins
- DeWitt Talmage and King James-Onlyism
- “Enemy” Testimony and KJVO
- In search of J. J. Ray
- John Dowling and KJVO
- King James, T. M. Elliott, and T. D. Talmage
- KJV in 1905 Articles of Faith
- King James in the Menace of Modernism
- KJV-Only predates Wilkinson
- Mark Buch and the KJV
- S. C. Crawley and the KJV
- The King James Only “Movement”
- Translation opposition, 1850
- W. C. Bitting and KJVO in 1898
- W. W. Simkins and KJVO
- Answering the Anti-KJV Agenda, Part 1
- Answering the Anti-KJV Agenda, Part 2
- Answering the Anti-KJV Agenda, Part 3
- Answering the Anti-KJV Agenda, Part 4
- Assessing the Meaning of “Baptist Voices for the KJV”
- More Baptist Voices for the KJV: Independent Baptist
- More Baptist Voices for the KJV: Reformed Baptist
- More Baptist Voices for the KJV: Other Baptists
- More Baptist Voices for the KJV: United Baptist
- More Baptist Voices for the KJV: Southern Baptist
- More Baptist Voices for the KJV: Primitive Baptist
- More Baptist Voices for the KJV: Old Regular
- More Baptist Voices for the KJV: American Baptist Association
- More Baptist Voices for the KJV: Missionary Baptist
- More Baptist Voices for the KJV: Free Baptists
- More Baptist Voices for the King James Bible
- Baptist Voices: VSA to the RSV
- Various KJVO Statements by Baptists
- Various Voices for the KJV
- 4 Categorizations of KJV-Only
- 5 positions on original Bible manuscripts
- Another Scheme for Categorizing “KJVO”
- Categorizing “KJV-Only” beliefs
- Three Levels of Adherents to the KJV Bible
- A wrong approach, Timothy Morton
- Pure Cambridge Edition Bible, Matthew Verschuur
- The King James Bible, Jack Hyles and Peter Ruckman
- The King James Bible and Jack Hyles
- The King James Bible and Peter Ruckman
- The King James Bible and Nic Kizziah
- Abbrevations for Bible Translations
- How many Bibles?
- New Bibles Galore, Part One: Many English Bibles
- New Bibles Galore, Part Two: Reading comprehension
- New Bibles Galore, Part Three: Finishing Up
- Spurgeon on Revised Version
- The 2011 NIV Bible
- The Holy Bible: a Purified Translation
- The Inclusive Bible
- The QJV, a derivative Bible
- Inspiration, Preservation
- Preservation of the Scriptures
- Preservation: Historical considerations, continuity
- Preservation: Not a KJVO debate
- Preservation: Historical considerations, Confessions
- Preservation: Historical considerations, Christian individuals
- Preservation: Public access or availability
- Preservation: The texts No. 1
- Preservation: The texts No. 2
- Preservation: The texts No. 3
- Preservation: Concluding thoughts
- A Bible AND a Version
- A. Campbell’s New Testament and the KJV
- A Century with Versions and Editions
- An “Authorized” Book Review
- An Examination of the NKJV
- Avoid warping scripture
- Beza, Revelation 16:5
- Bible reading ease (or not)
- Bible text comparisons
- Bible Translation
- BMAT on the Revised Standard Bible, 1952
- Correction; Apologies to Bruce Metzger
- Difficult reading?
- Easter in the King James Bible
- English Bibles published before 1611
- George Ide on Bible
- God forbid
- Irenaeus and Mark 16
- Is it Okay to write in your Bible?
- Kentucky, King James, and A. Campbell
- KJV and archaic terminology, reprise
- KJV and sorrow, grief, or comfort
- KJV to “UNV” to KJVO: a Journey
- Lord, Lord, and lord
- My View of King James Only
- Online Greek Septuagint Lexicon
- Pericope adulterae in early church writings
- I John 5:7 Grammar argument
- Random Ruminations on the KJV
- Research links
- Saints removed
- Should Acts 8:37 be included in the Bible?
- Should χριστός be translated Messiah?
- Tertullian on Scriptures?
- The Bible, by John Leland
- The Bible in Spanish
- The Desirability of Keeping the Authorized Version, Philpot
- The Johannine Comma
- The New Testament Canon
- The Protestant Priest
- The Transcendent Word
- Thoughts on King James
- Translating the Word of God
- Use of “-est” and “-eth” in the KJV
- What’s Wrong with the Greek?
- Why the Ye’s and Thou’s
- 3 positives of the King James Bible, and a 4th