A little over two years ago I posted On Bible revisions and King James in newspapers, a string of excerpts gleaned from newspapers, 1852-1965. Today I am posting more gleanings, 1870-1998. Quite of few of these were discovered by Christopher Yetzer, a friend of the King James Bible and a Baptist missionary preaching in Milan, Italy. For those who might have access to Newspapers.com, I have included the links.
“Like Lord Shaftesbury, they [English converts to Catholicism] complain of the ‘tyranny of professors,’ and seek to close all controversy by proclaiming the infallibility of the Pope, just as the Evangelical leader proposed to end it by affirming the infallibility of the authorized version of the Bible.” [Lord Shaftesbury is Anthony Ashley Cooper (1801-1885), a social reformer and leader of the evangelical movement in the Church of England.]
“The Dominion of Converts,” The Pall Mall Gazette (London, Greater London, England), Monday, December 06, 1869, p. 10
“The thought of touching the present version of Scriptures, in the hope to improve it, will doubtless strike many of our readers as sacriligeous. Some regard the present Bible as verbally inspired; not only the Hebrew and the Greek, but the English; not only the thoughts and sayings which were read to the churches of the second century, but the division into chapters and verses, the head-lines, and the italic interpolations which were added by King James’ forty-seven.”
“Shall the Bible Be Revised,” Daily Davenport Democrat (Davenport, Iowa), Saturday, May 28, 1870, p. 3
“It cannot be denied that a strong prejudice against the proposed revision exists in the minds of a a large number of Christian people, many of whom appear to believe not only that the Bible was written by inspired men, but that King James’s translators were equally inspired when they produced the present authorized version. Were it not so, one would suppose that the firmest believers in plenary inspiration would be the most anxious to secure verbal accuracy in the received text. But strange to say they are the most zealous opponents of the revision of the Bible…Truth cannot be served by error, and if there exists any popular belief in the infallibility of the authorized version of the Scriptures, the sooner it is destroyed the better for the cause of truth.”
“The Revision of the Bible,” The Hertford Mercury (Hertford, Hertfordshire, England), Saturday, June 11, 1870, p. 2
“The international Bible revisers, who have just completed their work, will appear like sacrilegious iconoclasts to many earnest religious souls—who have believed that the very words of the old English King James Bible were of divine inspiration.”
The Pacific Commercial Advertiser (Honolulu, Hawaii), Saturday, November 13, 1880, p. 2
“The doctrine of the infallibility of the King James version can no longer be maintained, and devout Protestants must limit infallibility to the original Hebrew and Greek text.”
“The Baptist Bible,” The New York Times (New York, New York), Sunday, May 27, 1883, p. 6
“There are those who still hold to the absolute infallibility of the King James translation, although the publication of the revised version has somewhat disturbed their faith.”
The Falls City Journal (Falls City, Nebraska), Friday, June 08, 1883, p. 2
“No meaning of the meaning of this declaration [of belief in the Holy Scriptures, at the ordination service] has been made by the church. If it means that infallibility in every line of Scripture, then no clergyman ordained prior to the late revision of the New Testament can accept any of the changes made by the revisers, for he has solemnly engaged to believe in the infallibility of the King James version…To insist that he declaration in the ordination service to uphold the infallibility of the entire Bible is to render hundreds of even ‘evangelical’ clergymen liable to be prosecuted for heresy, and to commit the church to the absurdity of decreeing the infallibility of the translators and printers of the King James version.” [the article about why Mr. Newton “is not Likely to be Tried for ‘Heresy’” indicates Newton’s idea against the belief “that every sentence from Genesis to the Apocalypse is dictated by the Holy Spirit and is hence infallible” will differ from “a majority of members of the church [of England], who believe “that the Bible is the thoughts of God in the language of God.’]
“Newton’s Position,” The Buffalo Commercial Advertiser (Buffalo, New York), Monday, January 28, 1884, p. 2
“I take up this book of King James’ translation. I consider it a perfect Bible, but here are skeptics who want it torn to pieces.”
“Laughter of the Bible,” a sermon by T. Dewitt Talmage, The Daily British Whig (Kingston, Ontario, Canada), Monday, April 19, 1886, p. 1
“Dr. Vincent ridicules the theory of the inerrancy of Scripture and asserts that the devout critic is the best and most efficient champion of revealed religion…but the common people, trained in the faith that every word and syllable in the King James Bible was sacred and inspired, treated the conclusions of scholarship as an assault of the devil. The publication of the revised translation, sanctioned by the most honored names in the Church, was the first announcement to many that there was a possibility of error in the sacred pages, and it was a painful shock to thousands to whom it gave an entering wedge to long-excluded doubt.”
“Biblical Criticism,” The Brooklyn Times, Friday, September 25, 1891, p. 2
“Why not have a joint debate between Lyman Abbott and Joseph Cook, the topic to be ‘The Inerrancy of the King James Translation of the Bible?’ How adjectives would fly and theological thunders would roll, to the delight of the multitude that such a meeting of champions would surely bring together.”
The Boston Daily Globe (Boston, Massachusetts), Wednesday, February 17, 1892, p. 10
“Some ministers seem to take pleasure in pointing out little flaws in our English Bible, and to extol the original to the dispraise of our version now in general acceptance, thereby creating the false and unwholesome impression that our grand English Bible is a mere translation of an inspired Book, which inspired Book no one now on earth ever saw or could see. The wily Talleyrand would characterize such a criticism ‘as worse than a crime, a blunder.’ Because when any preacher ministering to English-speaking people belittle the word of God as rendered in the version now in use, he undermines thereby his own ministry.” [for argument’s sake, the author granted “that our version may be somewhat short of perfection (for a perfect translation is probably impossible)…]
“The English Bible—Is it an Inspired Book?” (“A Paper read by Rev. L. E. Jones of this city at a meeting of the Greenville Ministerial Association…”), TThe Greenville Journal (Greenville, Ohio), Thursday, February 09, 1893, p. 1
“The New York papers of Tuesday reported an interesting and somewhat exciting discussion that took place at the meeting of the Methodist clergy of the Metropolitan district on Monday over the verbal infallibility of King James’s version of the Bible…In the course of his remarks Dr. Buckly said: ‘There are some, even in these days, who believe in the verbal inspiration of the King James version. But I do not believe that there are four men in this room who so believe.’”
“King James’s Version and the Ministers,” Rochester Democrat and Chronicle (Rochester, New York), Friday, February 19, 1897, p. 6
“Dr. Buckly, editor of the Christian Advocate (Methodist) said recently in a meeting of preachers in New York that he did not believe that the King James version of the Bible was inspired, and further if a vote of the assembly on the question were taken that not four of those present would disagree with him.”
The Irish Standard (Minneapolis, Minnesota), Saturday, February 27, 1897, p. 4
“On the following day and on Wednesday morning the New York Journal published a number of interviews with clergymen of various denominations, and only one advanced the belief in the absolute infallibility of the King James version. He was the Rev. Dr. John Hall, of the Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church.”
“‘Open Your Eyes, Cries Ingersoll,” The Leavenworth Times (Leavenworth, Kansas), Sunday, February 28, 1897, p. 7
“Many defenders of the inerrancy of the Bible are equally defenders of the King James translation.”
“New Opportunities,” The Weekly Courier (Fort Collins, Colorado), Friday, December 06, 1912, p. 8
“Interpretation is everything. To question the literal inerrancy of the King James Version is in ‘disrespect of the Holy Bible,’ from the point of view of Mr. Bryan and of the Rev. John Roach Straton.”
“Darwin in Washington, Too,” The Brooklyn Daily Eagle (Brooklyn, New York), Thursday, July 23, 1925, p. 6
“…these chapters by the director and principal librarian of the British museum, should of themselves serve to impart a much needed and sane view as to the claim of literal immutability and infallibility of the authorized King James Version.”
“An Excellent Book,” (a letter to the editor from Robert Adger Bowen), The Greenville News (Greenville, South Carolina), Sunday, October 09, 1938, p. 6
“William ‘Bible Bill’ Aberhart was very much a home-grown Canadian…Mr. Aberhart also believed in the inerrancy of the King James Version of the Bible, claiming that the text on which the KJV is based had been preserved by God in the Swiss Alps, beyond contamination of the Roman Catholic Church.
“In the 1920s, Mr. Aberhart began broadcasting Sunday School lessons over the radio in Calgary. By 1935, he was broadcasting five hours every Sunday over several stations, reaching hundreds of thousands of people.”
“God: Americans Spread Gospel northward,” The Ottawa Citizen (Ottawa, Ontario, Canada), Saturday, June 20, 1998, p. B3
No comments:
Post a Comment