Would Waite agree with co-founder of his Dean Burgon Society?

L

logos1560

Well-known member
Alfred Martin as edited by David Otis Fuller wrote: “The traditional text is not synonymous with the Received Text, but the latter does embody it in a rather corrupt form” (Which Bible, fifth edition, p. 148). Alfred Martin asserted: “One cannot say that the Textus Receptus, for example, is verbally inspired. It contains many plain and clear errors, as all schools of textual critics agree” (p. 149). Alfred Martin wrote: “Admitted, it [the Textus Receptus] will have to undergo extensive revision. It needs to be revised according to sound principles which will take account of all the evidence” (p. 173). Alfred Martin quoted H. C. Hoskier as observing that Burgon “did not contend for the acceptance of the Textus Receptus, as has so often been scurrilously stated” (p. 153).

Would Waite agree with these clear statements by Alfred Martin as favorably edited and reprinted by David Otis Fuller, who was a member of the Organizing Committee which established the Dean Burgon Society as well as being one of its first two vice-presidents (Dean Burgon News, January, 1979, pp. 1, 6)? David Cloud asserted that “Fuller was a co-founder of the Dean Burgon Society with Donald Waite” (O Timothy, Vol. 12, Issue 5, 1995, p. 4).

In his article "Why This Book" in the book Which Bible that he edited, David Otis Fuller wrote: "Without impairing or destroying their individual personalities and style, the Spirit of God 'carried along' those inspired writers of His words, so that they did in fact record the very words of God" (p. 5).

D. A. Waite claimed that referring to "inspired prophets and apostles" is "theological error" (Foes, p. 26) or is “serious theological heresy“ (Critical Answer to Michael, p. 4). Waite even maintained that referring to “inspired writers” was “gross theological error” and “a terrific error” (Bob Jones, p. 20). Waite maintained that “it is rank heresy” to say that “God inspired the original authors” (Critical Answer to Michael, p. 47).
 
Last edited:
Is the DBS meeting accepting or tolerating your anti-trinitarian view?

Are they accepting your unproven speculations and opinions that you try to pass off as facts when they are not?
 
Buzzard said:
Thankx Steven, were you there,
should be interesting, I'll watch it
Click to expand...

Waite has openly stated that the KJV is wrong in at least one place along with the possibility of a few others. By your own requirements, he should be your enemy.

Waite is a little better than most KJVOists but not much.

The self proclaimed "Dean Burgon Society" is nothing more than a "echo chamber" full of crowing roosters. They've fought among themselves for many years.
 
Alfred Martin, of Moody Bible Institute, Executive Review Committee member,
"We admit that the Textus Receptus is a somewhat corrupt form of the traditional type of text, but in our judgment it is closer to the original than the Westcott-Hort critical type.”
Given in English Language Bible Translators p. 79 By William E. Paul

ALFRED MARTIN (Vice President, Moody)
“At precisely the time when liberalism was carrying the field in the English churches the theory of Westcott and Hort received wide acclaim. These are not isolated facts. Recent contributions on the subject--that is, in the present century--following mainly the Westcott-Hort principles and method, have been made largely by men who deny the inspiration of the Bible” (Alfred Martin, “A Critical Examination of the Westcott-Hort Textual Theory,” Th.D. Thesis, Dallas Seminary, May 1951).


Here is his position:

Is the King James Version Nearest to the Original Autographs?
by David Otis Fuller (This pamphlet is a resume of the book Which Bible?, edited by David Otis Fuller, both of which are available from Tabernacle Baptist Church, P. O. Box 3100, Lubbock, Texas 79452.)

Practically every version of the Bible from the publication of the Revised Version of 1881 down to the present has followed the Westcott and Hort Greek text and theory almost in full. In the words of Dr. Alfred Martin (see Which Bible?, p. 254) "The theory was hailed by many when it came forth as practically final, certainly definitive. It has been considered by some the acme in the textual criticism of the New Testament. Some of the followers of W & H have been almost unreasoning in their devotion to the theory; and many people even today, who have no idea what the Westcott-Hort theory is, or at best only a vague notion, accept the labors of those two scholars without question. During the past seventy years it has often been considered textual heresy to deviate from their position or to intimate that, sincere as they undoubtedly were, they may have been mistaken."

To continue Dr. Martin's presentation. "Most work in textual criticism today has at least a Hortian foundation; nevertheless there are fashions in criticism as in women's clothing, and the trend of scholars in more recent years has been away from the original Westcott-Hort position. . . . An amusing and amazing spectacle presents itself; many of the textbooks, books of Bible interpretation, and innumerable secondary works go on repeating the W & H dicta although the foundations have been seriously shaken even in the opinion of former Hortians and those who would logically be expected to be Hortians."

"In spite of the notable work of Burgon, Hoskier and others who supported them, the opponents of the W & H theory have never had the hearing which they deserve. How many present-day students of the Greek New Testament ever heard of the two men just mentioned, and how many ever saw a copy of The Revision Revised; or Codex B and Its Allies, to say nothing of actually reading these works? . . . This is a controversy; there can be no mistake about that. This disagreement raged long before 1861 and it is still raging. For it cannot be denied that the controversy is still very much alive; no amount of pontificating of present-day writers can obscure that fact. The reason for dwelling on this point is that today most writers, even though they differ from Westcott and Hort in conclusions, insist upon a W & H point of departure and milieu. It is commonly said that the older controversy around the Textus Receptus (or the Received Text) is dead, but this cannot be true: for if it can be shown that Westcott and Hort were wrong in their basic premises, then it will be necessary to go back before W & H and to take up the study afresh. If the direction is wrong, further supposed progress only leads farther from the truth."

"If the Westcott-Hort theory can be disproved, it can be seen that the traditional text is closer to the original autographs than any other. If it be objected that strong feeling obtrudes itself at times into the discussion, it can only be replied in extenuation that this is the kind of subject which engenders strong feeling. There are tremendous issues involved; the text of the Word of God is in question! How can one hold oneself mentally aloof? . . . There is a cause and it is a more important cause than many Bible students have yet realized. The writer is soundly convinced from years of reading and thinking upon this question that the Westcott-Hort theory is false and misleading!"

"A Bible-believing Christian had better be careful what he says about the Textus Receptus, for the question is not at all the precise wording of that text, but rather a choice between two different kinds of texts, a more complete one and a shorter one. One need not believe in the infallibility of Erasmus, or his sanctity, or even his honesty; because he merely followed the type of text which was dominant in the manuscripts although he probably was not aware of all the implications involved. He undoubtedly could have done much better than he did, but he also could have done a great deal worse. If some regret that the Vatican manuscript was not available to, or was not used by him, one may reply that it may yet be proved that the mercy of God kept him in his ignorance from following a depraved text that had been rejected by the church at large for at least a thousand years before his time."
Click to expand...
 
Steven Avery said:
Alfred Martin, of Moody Bible Institute, Executive Review Committee member,
"We admit that the Textus Receptus is a somewhat corrupt form of the traditional type of text, but in our judgment it is closer to the original than the Westcott-Hort critical type.”
Given in English Language Bible Translators p. 79 By William E. Paul

ALFRED MARTIN (Vice President, Moody)
“At precisely the time when liberalism was carrying the field in the English churches the theory of Westcott and Hort received wide acclaim. These are not isolated facts. Recent contributions on the subject--that is, in the present century--following mainly the Westcott-Hort principles and method, have been made largely by men who deny the inspiration of the Bible” (Alfred Martin, “A Critical Examination of the Westcott-Hort Textual Theory,” Th.D. Thesis, Dallas Seminary, May 1951).


Here is his position:

Is the King James Version Nearest to the Original Autographs?
by David Otis Fuller (This pamphlet is a resume of the book Which Bible?, edited by David Otis Fuller, both of which are available from Tabernacle Baptist Church, P. O. Box 3100, Lubbock, Texas 79452.)
Click to expand...

Spammer Avery. Cut and paste. Cut and paste. Doesn't matter if it is relative to the discussion or not.
 
Steven Avery said:
The topic is Alfred Martin, and you are upset that I explained his position in a more balanced way than Rick Norris.

Strange.
Click to expand...
Typical response from you......the comment about Martin is from JULY 6TH..... You responded on September 8th.... while ignoring other comments specifically to you. Including my own.

What planet are you circling today in your cerebral cortex?

You're not "balanced" in any way shape or form. Especially not in comparison to Rick.

It is rather obvious that you're not actually involved at any meaningful level with any these people. If you were, you'd "trumpeting it everywhere".
 
Steven Avery said:
The topic is Alfred Martin, and you are upset that I explained his position in a more balanced way than Rick Norris.
Click to expand...
You did not demonstrate that you presented his position in a more balanced way than I did. I accurately presented what he said. I did not suggest that he would accept the Westcott/Hort text so there was no need for the additional quotations that you cited.

Alfred Martin as edited by David Otis Fuller wrote: “The traditional text is not synonymous with the Received Text, but the latter does embody it in a rather corrupt form” (Which Bible, fifth edition, p. 148). Alfred Martin asserted: “One cannot say that the Textus Receptus, for example, is verbally inspired. It contains many plain and clear errors, as all schools of textual critics agree” (p. 149). Alfred Martin wrote: “Admitted, it [the Textus Receptus] will have to undergo extensive revision. It needs to be revised according to sound principles which will take account of all the evidence” (p. 173).

Alfred Martin quoted H. C. Hoskier as observing that Burgon “did not contend for the acceptance of the Textus Receptus, as has so often been scurrilously stated” (p. 153).

Do you agree with Alfred Martin that the Textus Receptus will have to undergo extensive revision according to sound principles which take account of all the evidence?

KJV-only advocates do not present any sound textual principles that they will apply justly while taking account of all the evidence.
 
logos1560 said:
Alfred Martin quoted H. C. Hoskier as observing that Burgon “did not contend for the acceptance of the Textus Receptus, as has so often been scurrilously stated” (p. 153).
Click to expand...

Do you have a quote from Hoskier?
Which book?

Who "scurriously stated?"
What did they actually say, in context?

And this attack on the unknown actual quote is according to who? (Martin, Hoskier, other?)

Did you make any effort to check Hoskier?
 
logos1560 said:
That is merely your unbalanced, biased, one-sided KJV-only opinion.
Click to expand...

You do not like to quote anybody with full paragraphs to aid in comprehension.
You always like small quote-snippets.

Are you gong to answer about your second or third hand "scurrilously" accusation?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top