THE INFERIORITY OF THE ENGLISH
REVISED VERSION (1881)
AND OTHER VERSIONS OF TODAY
Let's take a look at a few of Dean Burgon's own words and
discover for ourselves his
CONFIDENCE IN THE KING JAMES BIBLE.
A. The
Inferiority of the English Revised Version (E.R.V.) of 1881
Compared to the
King James Bible. Dean Burgon wrote how the English Revised Version (E.R.V.) of
1881, was inferior to the King James Bible: "The English (as well as the Greek)
of the newly revised version is hopelessly at fault. It is to me simply
unintelligible how a company of Scholars can have spent ten years in
elaborating such a very unsatisfactory product. Their uncouth phraseology and
their jerky sentences, their pedantic obscurity and their unidiomatic English,
contrast painfully with `the happy turns of expression, the music of the
cadences, the felicities of the rhythm' of our AUTHORIZED VERSION. . . ." You
can see from this very clearly Dean Burgon's contempt for the English Revised
Version of 1881, and-at the same time-his love for the King James Bible! He
continued as follows: "The transition from one to the other, as the Bishop of
Lincoln remarks, is like exchanging a well-built carriage for a vehicle without
springs, in which you get jolted to death on a newly-mended and
rarely-traversed road. But the "REVISED VERSION" is inaccurate as well;
exhibits defective scholarship, I mean, in countless places."
If Dean
Burgon were living today, would he be critical of this new versions of our day
like the Dean Burgon Society that bears his name? I believe he would. The
English Revised Version is but one example of how he would take his stand
against the versions of our day and for the same reasons.
B. The English
Revised Version Silently Revised the King James Bible.
Dean Burgon
wrote: "With some slight modifications, our authorised English version has been
silently revised." That has also been done by our modern versions. They have
"silently revised" our King James Bible.. "silently, I say, for in the margin
of the English no record is preserved of the underlying textual changes which
have been introduced by the revisionists. On the contrary. Use has been made of
that margin to insinuate suspicion and distrust in countless particulars as to
the authenticity of the Text which has been suffered to remain unaltered."
Notice Dean Burgon's comment on the insinuation of "suspicion and distrust."
Isn't that what we have in the "margins" of our versions today, "suspicion and
distrust"? We have the same thing in the New American Standard Version with its
footnotes, revisions, and changes, We have it in the New King James Version,
the New International Version, the Revised Standard Version, the New Revised
Standard Version, and all the others.
Yes, our Authorized, King James Bible
has been "silently revised." That is deceptive. The readers of these new
versions don't know that in 5,604 places the Greek text that underlies our King
James Bible (the Textus Receptus) has been altered and "silently revised" by
Westcott and Hort and their followers! The readers don't know that the 5,604
places include a total of 9,970 Greek words (30 words short of 10,000) which
have either been added to the Greek text, subtracted from the Greek text, or
changed in some other way. If those people pick up one of the new versions and
are not aware of these facts, then this is certainly "silently revision" is it
not? Dean Burgon would be against the versions of today for the same reasons he
was against the competing version of his own day, the English Revised Version
of 1881. He would have just as much confidence in the King James Bible today as
he had during his lifetime!
C. The Expectation of the English Revised
Version to Supersede the King James Bible
Dean Burgon wrote: "Not
unreasonable therefore is the expectation entertained by its Authors that the
`New English version founded on this New Greek Text is destined to supercede
the AV of 1611" That was their expectation, and that is the expectation, we
dare say, of every version and perversion that has been produced in English
since the King James Bible. May the expectation of those authors and publishers
be thwarted by our God! The new versions all want to be "king." The New
International wants to be king.
D. The English Revised Version blotted
Out "Many Precious Words" from the King James Bible.
Notice what Dean
Burgon wrote about the E.R.V.'s "blotting out precious words" of the Bible: "We
shall therefore pass on, when we have asked the revisionists in turn-how they
have dared so effectually to blot out these many precious words from the book
of life, that no mere English Reader, depending on the revised version for his
knowledge of the Gospels, can by possibility suspect their existance?"
Some of the "precious words" that have been "blotted out" from the "Book of
Life" are seen in John 6:47 where the Lord Jesus said, "Verily, verily, I say
unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life." (John 6:47 KJB) If
you look at John 6:47 in these new versions, such as the New American Standard,
New International, New King James (in the footnotes at least), New Berkeley,
Revised Standard, The New Revised, you will notice that they "blot out the
precious words," "ON ME." They all say, words to this effect: "he that believes
. . . has everlasting life." They blot out the precious words ON ME, in many
cases without even a footnote to inform you that they are gone. The poor sinner
who reads John 6:47 in these perversions will go to Hell because he thinks just
by "believing" he can have everlasting life, without the necessity of
"believing in the Lord Jesus Christ." He might "believe" in Buddhism, in
Shintoism, in Muhammadanism, in Atheism, in Communism, in the Tooth Fairy, or
several other things.
This is what Dean Burgon calls "blotting out precious
words." If Dean Burgon were living today, would he not expose and criticize
these new versions just as he did the English Revised Version of 1881, and for
the same or similar reasons? Yes, he would! Would he stand up for the King
James Bible as over against all these other English versions just as he did
against the English Revised Version of 1881? Yes, he would! So far as the
English Versions, would he use and be in favor of ONLY the King James Bible?
Yes, he would--ONLY the King James Bible
Back To
FAQs?