Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: boatbums
The topic "Inspiration of the Bible" is, for us, what the various writers claim it to be. We have to choose. Here is a definition supplied by the Dean Burgon Society, a global organization of believers supporting the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Received Text as the legitimate bases for the English Authorized Version translations. For your information, an except from that organization's web site:

Dean Burgon Society

A. THE BIBLE.

We believe in the plenary, verbal, Divine inspiration of the sixty-six canonical books of the Old and the New Testaments (from Genesis to Revelation) in the original languages, and in their consequent infallibility and inerrancy in all matters of which they speak (). The books known as the Apocrypha, however, are not the inspired Word of God in any sense whatsoever. As the Bible uses it, the term "inspiration" refers to the writings, not the writers (); the writers are spoken of as being "holy men of God" who were "moved," "carried" or "borne" along by the Holy Spirit () in such a definite way that their writings were supernaturally, plenarily, and verbally inspired, free from any error, infallible, and inerrant, as no other writings have ever been or ever will be inspired.

We believe that the Texts which are the closest to the original autographs of the Bible are the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Text for the Old Testament, and the traditional Greek Text for the New Testament underlying the King James Version (as found in "The Greek Text Underlying The English Authorized Version of 1611").

We, believe that the King James Version (or Authorized Version) of the English Bible is a true, faithful, and accurate translation of these two providentially preserved Texts, which in our time has no equal among all of the other English Translations. The translators did such a fine job in their translation task that we can without apology hold up the Authorized Version of 1611 and say "This is the WORD OF GOD!" while at the same time realizing that, in some verses, we must go back to the underlying original language Texts for complete clarity, and also compare Scripture with Scripture.

We believe that all the verses in the King James Version belong in the Old and the New Testaments because they represent words we believe were in the original texts, although there might be other renderings from the original languages which could also be acceptable to us today. For an exhaustive study of any of the words or verses in the Bible, we urge the student to return directly to the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Text and the Traditional Received Greek Text rather than to any other translation for help.

31 posted on 05/14/2014 10:40:09 PM PDT by imardmd1 (Fiat Lux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: imardmd1
>>>The books known as the Apocrypha, however, are not the inspired Word of God in any sense whatsoever. <<<

Some of the Apocryphal books were part of the King James 1611 version for over 250 years. Many commentaries reference them, such as Matthew Henry's commentaries. In particular Henry referenced 1 Maccabees in his commentary on the Maccabean revolt in Daniel 11 & 12 to explain, in part, the first "abomination of desolation" that occurred during the tyranny of the Syrian, Antiochus IV, about 170 BC. You can see some of Henry's references to 1 Maccabees in the following links:

http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/matthew-henry/Dan.11.21-Dan.11.45
http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/matthew-henry/Dan.12.5-Dan.12.13

Some others over the years who make use of the Apocrypha for the book of Daniel are:

Calvin, John: Commentaries by John Calvin, 16th Century (b1509-d1564))
Gill, John: John Gill’s Old Testament Commentary, 18th Century (b1697-d1771)
Newton, Sir Isaac: Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St John, 1733
Clarke, Adam: Commentary on the Whole Bible, pub. 1810-1832
MacDonald, James M: The Coming of the Lord - A Key To The Book of the Revelation, 1846
Lee, Samuel: Inquiry into the Nature, Progress, and End of Prophecy Book I, 1849
Stuart, Moses: Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 1850
Fairburn, Patrick: Prophecy, 1866
Keil & Delitzsch: Biblical Commentary on the Books of the Prophet Daniel, 1872
Cowles, Henry: Ezekiel and Daniel with Notes, 1875
Gray, James Comper: The Biblical Museum - Old Testament Vol 10 - Daniel Minor Prophets, 1876
Lange & Schaff: Commentary on the Old Testament Vol XIII - Ezek Daniel; 1876
Desprez, Philip S: Daniel and John or The Apocalypse of the Old and that of the New Testament, 1878
Ewald, Heinrich: Commentary on Haggai Zechariah Malachi Jonah Baruch Daniel - 1881
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown: A Commentary - Old Testament Vol II - Proverbs to Malachi, 1884
Farrar, F W: The Book of Daniel, 1895
Terry, Milton S: Biblical Apocalyptics, 1896
Smith, Uriah - Daniel and the Revelation - 1897
Cobern, Camden M: Commentary on The Old Testament Vol III Ezekiel & Daniel, 1901
Swete, Henry Barclay: An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 1914
Howie, Carl G: The Laymans Bible Commentary Vol 13 - Ezekiel & Daniel, 1961

Philip

56 posted on 05/17/2014 12:48:51 PM PDT by PhilipFreneau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson