KJOs need to be a LOT more careful than this!

Well, a Christian commentator whose talks on a variety of last-days issues I've appreciated pretty much for a few months now, despite some lapses, has gone over the edge this time. He's reading a text that would have us revere all the misspellings of the original KJV as God's own inspired word:

Believers Beware of Counterfeit King James Bibles.

Of course there were misspellings in the 1611 KJV -- it was one of the many sorts of errors, or was it merely inconsistent spellings -- corrected between then and the 1869Cambridge edition, misprints, typos, misspellings, inconsistent spellings and whatnot. Or if they were all merely inconsistent and not misspellings for that reason, what difference does it really make? (I'm answering someone who has taken me to task for this in the comments section).

On the list of words the writer thinks have been mistakenly altered in some new editions of the King James is the word "ought" which later editions have replaced with "aught." He INSISTS that "aught" is wrong. "Ought has been changed to aught," he complains, and in a Bible quote at the top of the page he emphasizes what he believes to be the correct spelling:

Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. [his emphasis].

It takes someone ignorant of the English language to prefer this spelling in this place.

The reader of this tract on counterfeit King James Bibles also happened to recommend the 1828 Webster's Dictionary in this same talk, obviously unaware that Webster himself disagrees with his source about the spelling "ought:"

Webster's 1828 Dictionary:

OUGHT. See Aught, the true orthography.

AUGHT, n. ...
This word should not be written ought. [my emphasis]

1. Any thing, indefinitely. But go, my son, and see if aught be wanting.
2. Any part, the smallest; a jot or tittle.
There failed not aught of any good thing which the Lord had spoken. Josh. 21.

I didn't check all the words our anxious adviser listed to be held as pure and untouchable, but one I recall is the old spelling asswaged as opposed to assuaged, so I did check the Webster's 1828 again, and found:

Webster's 1828 Dictionary

ASSWA'GE, See Assuage.

Is the old Webster's the authority or not?

Another King James Bible purist on this subject accepts changes in spelling up to the 1869 Cambridge edition but is adamant that that edition is the zenith of perfection and equivalent to God-breathed scripture, in which no one should dare change one dot or semi-colon:

http://www.bibleprotector.com/

Really, if we have to accept typos and misspellings and inconsistent spellings and archaic terminology as the ordained perfect word of God not to be tampered with we'll drive ourselves stark raving bonkers. We have to leave SOME room for human error and natural change over time in this enterprise. The first English Bibles were not perfect. This is acknowledged by all. Yet they were God's word nevertheless. It is only the King James that has been decreed perfection. The King James translators themselves do not seem to have held this opinion of their work; I have to agree with James White about that much. They assured their readers that they had only the intention of making a good translation better. According to the judgment of the next two and a half centuries they succeeded admirably. Nevertheless that 1611 translation underwent a number of editions with corrections and changes (by whom I'm not clear). And still, by the mid-19th century there were apparently reasonable voices raised -- I suppose they were reasonable -- Dean Burgon seems eminently reasonable -- advocating some further minor changes in the Authorized Version, which eventually led to the convening of the Convocation of the Southern Province of the Church of England for this purpose. Had they done what they were charged to do, we'd have a slightly different King James Bible now that had the status of THE Authorized Version, and we would not have the hundreds of other versions. But this gathering of scholars issued after many years in The New Greek Text produced by Westcott and Hort, by the best opinion (in my opinion) a desecration of the word of God, yet it is now the foundation of the vast majority of the Bibles in the English-speaking world, and even beyond as they are also the basis for translations into other languages.

I have not seen any opinion from that time that the King James was perfect exactly as is. I may be wrong but I haven't yet seen it. That opinion seems to have sprung up in the 20th century. Correct me if I'm wrong please. [8/28: I recall that the Northern branch of the Anglican church refused to be involved in revising the Authorized Version. I suppose it might be possible to find some statements from them].

============================================

The commentator whose reading of the Bible Counterfeits page at the Biblebelievers site I'm commenting on also seemed to be saying that any use of the lower case "s" when referring to the Spirit or spirit of God shows tampering with the text. The page he read does not say that, but he seemed to be saying that. In answer to him it has to be pointed out that the original 1611 King James has it that way, and all the Bibles since then have it both ways but unfortunately all do not agree on which should be where. I do not know whether the 1611's choices are acceptable to those who object to the misuse or not:

Ge 1:2 And the earth was without forme, and voyd, and darkenesse was vpon the face of the deepe: and the Spirit of God mooued vpon the face of the waters.
Ge 6:3 And the LORD said, My Spirit shall not alwayes striue with man; for that hee also is flesh: yet his dayes shalbe an hundred and twenty yeeres.
Ge 41:38 And Pharaoh said vnto his seruants, Can we find such a one, as this is, a man in whom the spirit of God is?

The point is that he is wrong if he thinks ANY use of the lower-case "s" is a case of "leaven" (the introduction of false teaching among the words of truth)! Comparing the original with the current KJV on my Swordsearcher Bible program I do see that the usage is not the same between them. But the point is that lower case "s" is sometimes correct. It depends on the context which should be lower case and which upper case, so you have to understand the reasoning for each choice. I'm not up on this, except that some of them are clearly referring to the Holy Spirit of the Trinity and others are referring to God's spirit in something like the sense of the human spirit, the spirit of God Himself. But again, the point is that there ARE valid uses of the lower case "s" in relation to God. Bible Protector explains this somewhere. This is really an issue for the experts. This guy at biblebelievers who wrote the text is setting himself up as the judge of things he doesn't know enough about!

And double please! BRITISH SPELLINGS are not God-ordained over American spellings! "Saviour" is no more God-ordained than "Savior!"

No, no, no! This is myopia and superstition!

==================================================

I agree that too many Bibles are changed by publishers who have no business doing it. But that doesn't mean that some changes are not needed from time to time, only that the right people should be doing them. It should be a very serious undertaking done by true Bible-believing experts, scholars in the relevant language, appointed by some body of church authorities who share the same basic theology. Changes were made to many editions of the 1611 up to the time of the 1869 Cambridge. Who made them? Why do we accept them but not later ones? This is a serious question. Who is it that decreed that Check List on Biblebeliever's site and why should I trust THEM?

(I have had to rewrite this post a few times before getting it more or less clear. I hope I have finally succeeded. Sorry if I have confused all one and a half persons who might have visited during the reconstruction process.)

Taking a punch to the gut from the modern Bible versions defenders

Well, now I've ventured into the camp of the new versions defenders and find Burgon dismissed as overstating his case (I have to agree he probably does that, at least he seems to enjoy dramatizing it, but his case is solid without it), and Scrivener brushed off as simply one of the conservatives, and so on, while they respect the reply to Burgon by one Bishop Ellicott (which in my opinion Burgon demolished beyond recovery), and treat Westcott and Hort as respectable contributors to the history of Bible translation.

They don't condemn the fact that W&H completely disobeyed their assignment to MINIMALLY revise the Authorized Version / King James. Shouldn't the character of the revisers matter?

Have they compared the attitude of the AV (King James) translators which demonstrates their reverence and fear of God with the attitude of W&H who sound like regular secular academics?

Do they care that W&H expressed the typical rationalistic doubts of their time about the supernatural elements of the Christian revelation?

They don't seem to be bothered much that there were eminent scholars of the time who considered the texts used by W&H to be corrupted and in fact known to and dismissed by the King James translators. No, they just wave this away: Oh it's not all that bad.

It doesn't seem to bother them that W&H not only used a whole other set of corrupted texts, but also changed thousands upon thousands of words in the English, most of them tiny little changes without any justification whatever, which Bishop Wordsworth described as "change for change's sake." This is something I discovered for myself in this blog when I looked at the various versions of Psalm 91. (How ironic that White opens his book with a sanctimonious little sermon against change for change's sake when if you do any comparisons at all you have to see that that kind of change is HUGE in the new versions).

And it doesn't bother them that Christians can't quote the Bible to each other without having to stumble over different terminology and sometimes not even be able to recognize the passage being quoted.

And it doesn't bother them that ordinary Christians, including Christian pastors, are burdened with the job of translation and textual criticism as part of their normal Bible study without the slightest expertise. We're just supposed to expect this extra work as part of our commitment to Christ (James White says something like this). I see nowhere that all Christians are expected to be Bible translators and critics, far from it, we are told to conform ourselves to the image of Christ, period. We should be able to trust that God has provided us those gifted to take care of such responsibilities for us. It appears that the last time He did so was with the King James translation.

Something went very very wrong in this Bible revision enterprise. Surely it has a lot to do with the influence of rationalism that had already corrupted the church of England by that time. It must also have a lot to do with the habits of intellectual work, which can easily pollute the spiritual life if not diligently brought into submission to Christ. Yeah, when they sound like academics instead of Christians, something's wrong. And many seminary trained pastors sound like that too.

Quite the towering multiply-interlocking snare the devil has built on this one. The smooth condescending tone by Christians in praise of the revisers and their coup against the church, plus the stubborn superstitiousness and intemperate revilings by the Christians who take the KJO position out to nevernever land, seal the deal.

Well, the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty through God for the pulling down of strongholds. However, if this is judgment against the church, the only thing that will work is Christians waking up and repenting.

I'm finding this awfully exhausting and discouraging right now. But I'm going to keep slogging through White.

How the Bible Version Truth-Tellers have been Suppressed

A couple of quotes found in Dean Burgon's The Revision Revised, from Bishop Wordsworth, a contemporary of Westcott and Hort, commenting on their Revised Version of 1881:

I fear we must say in candour that in the Revised Version we meet in every page with small changes, which are vexatious, teasing and irritating, even the more so because they are small; which seem almost to be made for the sake of change.

[The question arises,] ---Whether the Church of England, ---which in her Synod, so far as this Province is concerned, sanctioned a Revision of her Authorized Version under the express condition, which she most wisely imposed, that no Changes should be made in it except what were absolutely necessary, --- could consistently accept a version in which 36,000 changes have been made; not a fiftieth of which can be shown to be needed, or even desirable."

---Bishop Wordsworth

Why is it that such worthies as this Bishop, and Dean Burgon himself, and Prebendary F.H.A. Scrivener who was on the revising committee with Westcott and Hort -- all of whom denounced the Westcott and Hort revision in no uncertain terms, conclusively denounced it, and in the case of the latter two from a position of scholarship certainly equal to and likely exceeding theirs -- are completely ignored by the advocates of the new versions???

Apologists for the new versions simply ignore them or slightingly quote some minor point, if they mention them at all, and most seem never to have heard of them. James White's The King James Only Controversy, paperback edition, has one index reference to Dean Burgon, and three to F.H.A. Scrivener. He mentions both on page 91 only to affirm that neither was a purist King James supporter, seeing a need for some corrections in it. (I cannot find any reference to Scrivener on pages 78 and 80 although the index lists those pages for his name. Perhaps I'm tired and I'll find his name tomorrow.)

But these are the ONLY references to the thoughts of the GIANTS of scholarship who found Westcott and Hort's work to be utterly worthless {note, 1/23/10: according to a comment posted below today Scrivener found some merit in some of W&H's choices}, in probably the most influential book by the biggest name on the side of the new versions.

Burgon's work is monumental and should have been lethal for Westcott and Hort, yet HE fell into obscurity while THEIR execrable doings have infected God's word around the world???

Oh surely the church is indeed under God's judgment!

Here's a quote from Scrivener:

Prebendary Scrivener was on the committee of the Revised Version of 1881 and was about the only one who had the great scholarship and courage necessary to cross swords with Westcott and Hort. Listen to his words taken from his Plain Introduction, Vol. II., pp. 291-92 and 296,

"Dr. Hort's system, therefore, is entirely destitute of historical foundation. He does not so much as make a show of pretending to it; but then he would persuade us, as he has persuaded himself, that its substantial truth is proved by results. . . . With all our reverence for his (Hort's) genius, and gratitude for much that we have learned from him in the course of our studies, we are compelled to repeat as emphatically as ever our strong conviction that the hypothesis to whose proof he has devoted so many laborious years, is destitute not only of historical foundation, but of all probability resulting from the internal goodness of the text which its adoption would force upon us."

Thus you have a clear, unimpassioned criticism from a learned contemporary of Westcott and Hort. . . . http://users.aol.com/libcfl/autogrph.htm

A Biblical comment on leftist politics

Thought I'd post Edward Hills' short political remarks in his book about the King James. Anyone up on the current political situation has to recognize how prescient such a comment was back in 1956. The passage was updated, but he died in 1981 so that's as far as the updating went. They knew more about the real threat of the Communists even in 1956 than they are given credit for, and today the same threat has just about taken us over from within and people remain blind to it still. The leftist propaganda mills have been only too effective.

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kjvdcha2.htm

Adam Smith's famous book had far-reaching effects. For one thing, it transformed economics from a practical concern into an academic matter. Soon economics was taught in universities and written about in scholarly publications by theorists, many of them with little actual experience in commerce and industry. Then, as the years rolled by, these scholarly "economists" grew more ambitious. No longer content merely to teach and write but desiring to rule, they gravitated more and more toward socialism. Discarding Adam Smith's principle of laissez-faire, they founded organizations and political parties to work for state ownership and control of economic resources. One of the best known of these socialistic associations was organized in 1884 by a group of English radicals. Since their strategy was to bring about social changes gradually, they named themselves the Fabian Society after the ancient Roman general Fabius, who won a decisive victory through the policy of delay. Not less sinister, all through the later 19th century there lurked in the background the communist party of Marx, Engels, Bukharin, and Lenin, who developed Adam Smith's emphasis on the importance of labor into a program of world-wide revolution and world-wide governmental ownership and control allegedly for the benefit of the workers.

The catastrophic changes of World War I fanned all these smoldering embers into flames which reached our own country in 1933. Since that date the government of the United States has fallen increasingly under the domination of subversive elements (socialists, Fabians, communists) commonly called the "Liberal-left." With this Liberal-left at the helm, our American ship of state has met with disaster after disaster, especially in the international sphere. Since World War II communists have taken over Eastern Europe, China, Cuba, and parts of other regions such as Indochina, the Near East, Africa, and South America. More than one billion human beings have been enslaved. And when we come to armaments, the situation is still more frightful. In 1962 the United States had 2 1/2 to 10 times as much nuclear firepower as the Soviet Union. (102) In 1972, after the signing of the Salt I armament agreement in Moscow, Dr. Henry Kissinger acknowledged that the Soviets had a 3-to-1 advantage over the United States in explosive tonnage. (103) But the only response of the Liberal-left to this terrible danger has been to cancel the B-1 Bomber, delay production of the neutron bomb, and give away the Panama Canal.

For many years it has been evident that the long-term objective of the Liberal-left leaders is to bring about the surrender of the United States to the Soviet Union. This drastic step, they believe, is necessary in order to establish a World Government. In 1958 the U. S. Senate was thrown into furor by tidings of a book entitled "Strategic Surrender," which had been prepared by the Rand Corporation, the first and greatest of the federal government "think-factories," and distributed to the U. S. Air Force. (104) In 1961 a bulletin was prepared by the State Department proposing surrender of military power to a United Nations Peace Force. (105) This also was discussed in the Senate, but this time there was no furor. Instead the bulletin was defended by a liberal Senator as "the fixed, determined, and approved policy of the Government of the United States of America." (106) In 1963 a study was made by a group of 60 scientists and engineers headed by Nobel-prize-winning physicist Eugene P. Wigner in the area of civil defense. The group proposed a tunnel grid system which for the price of $38 billion would provide all U. S. cities of over 250,000 population with protection against nuclear attack. Their report was submitted to the Defense Department and placed in storage. (107) Similarly, on Feb. 9, 1967, the Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended a plan providing a thin anti-missile defense for the entire United States and added protection for the 50 largest cities. (108) A bill endorsing this plan was passed by the Senate 86 to 2 on Mar. 21, 1967, but Defense Secretary McNamara said it would be too expensive ($4 billion a year for 10 years), and so nothing was done about it. (109)

In 1969 appropriations were voted for two anti-missile sites, but only one was constructed, and even this was abandoned in 1975. In contrast, the Russians have a fully operative anti-missile system around Moscow. Most of their new factories are built away from large urban areas, and Russian society is now equipped to go underground at short notice, with immense shares of foodstocks buried. Missile sites also have been hardened to about 15 times the strength of those in the United States. (110)

If the projected "strategic surrender" of the United States to a Russian dominated United Nations actually takes place, Bible-believing Christians everywhere will be facing persecution and death, and the preaching of the Gospel will well nigh cease. Until Jesus comes, therefore we must do our duty as Christian citizens. We must expose and oppose the evil program of the Liberal-left and work for the re-armament and security of our country. All available resources must be allocated to this end. Wasteful programs must be discontinued.

Does this mean that we are to return to the economic doctrines of Adam Smith? Not quite. For Smith was a skeptic, a friend of David Hume, and because he was a skeptic he failed to appreciate, or even to consider, the most important of all the causes of the wealth of nations, namely, the blessing of God and the influence of Christian Truth. But seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you (Matt. 6-33). Even earthly interests prosper best under the sunlight of the Gospel. This is why even unbelievers, even those who reject the Saviour whom the Gospel proclaims, prefer to live in Christian countries rather than non-Christian countries and in Protestant countries rather than in Roman Catholic countries. And the testimony of history is to the same effect. The Near East, for example, was once the richest region in Christendom, but after the Mohammedan conquest it speedily became poverty stricken. At the time of the Reformation Spain and Italy were the most wealthy nations in Europe, while England was poor and Scotland barbarous. Then the Gospel came to Britain, and this relationship was reversed. And in all North and South America the only wealthy nation is our own United States, in which alone (with the exception of the Protestant provinces of Canada) the preaching of the Gospel has had free course.

While defending our country, therefore, we must not forget to defend the Bible, for this is still more basic. Honesty, moral purity, and trust in God are the foundations of national and personal prosperity, and these fundamentals are taught only in the holy Scriptures. Two things have I required of Thee; deny me them not before I die: Remove far from me vanity and lies: give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with food convenient for me (Prov. 30:7-8). But my God shall supply all your need according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus (Phil. 4:19).

Edward Hills versus James White

Another beautiful book by a beautiful Christian scholar, Edward F. Hills. You can even read it online.

Section III., 3., (d) How to Take Our Stand—Through the Logic of Faith

How do we take our stand upon divine revelation? Only in one way, namely through the logic of faith. For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life (John 3:16). Since this Gospel is true, these conclusions logically follow: First, the Bible is God's infallibly inspired Word. This must be so, because if our salvation depends on our believing in Christ, then surely God must have left us an infallible record telling us who Jesus Christ is and how we may believe in Him truly and savingly.

Second, the Bible has been preserved down through the ages by God's special providence. This also must be so, because if God has inspired the holy Scriptures infallibly, then surely He has not left their survival to chance but has preserved them providentially down through the centuries.

Third, the text found in the majority of the biblical manuscripts is the providentially preserved text. This too must be true, because if God has preserved the Scriptures down through the ages for the salvation of men and the edification and comfort of His Church, then He must have preserved them not secretly in holes and caves but in a public way in the usage of His Church. Hence the text found in the majority of the biblical manuscripts is the true, providentially preserved text.

Fourth, The providential preservation of the Scriptures did not cease with the invention of printing. For why would God's special, providential care be operative at one time and not at another time, before the invention of printing but not after it? Hence the first printed texts of the Old and New Testament Scriptures were published under the guidance of God's special providence. Thus when we believe in Christ, the logic of our faith leads us to the true text of holy Scripture, namely, the Masoretic Hebrew text, the Textus Receptus, and the King James Version and other faithful translations. It is on this text, therefore, that we take our stand and endeavor to build a consistently Christian apologetic system.

I fled to this book to cure me of the depressing effect of reading some of James' White's The King James Controversy earlier this evening. I'm getting far deeper into this topic than I ever wanted to get. I've prayed that the Lord would show me if He really wants me to do this or not, if it's necessary or of any real use for me to do it, and to guide me by His Spirit if so. It's a chore to do this, I can never read enough, but I do continue to read. I haven't even finished Burgon's book. I've had White's book for a long time, even read some of it years ago. I still agree with the notes I wrote in the margins then, but now I know more so my notes are going to increase quite a bit.

In his chapter 2, A Short History of Unbelief, Hills gives a wonderfully concise history of how the naturalistic and liberal approaches to textual criticism grew out of rationalism.

The contrast with White is striking. White's assumptions are all rationalistic even though he uses Christian and Biblical concepts freely. Hills' are the language of faith, which is the ONLY way we should approach the problem of Bible translation.

Repenting of disdainful and intemperate attitudes

I think I'll copy here at the top the note I added at the bottom of the post Extreme KJVOs lose the debate for the rest of us, where I lament my acceptance of a pejorative term:

Sat, Aug 23. I would like to confess that I was uneasy with the phrase "fever-swamp" although I indulged it in the above discussion. I shouldn't support insulting terms. I fell into it because I agree with Wilson's basic position, and because, well, it's descriptively apt. Some of the extreme KJVOs tend to be pantingly preoccupied with the devil's doings to the point of losing a humble reasonable and Christian perspective and making war on mere flesh and blood. However, I've never really liked the style of Credenda/Agenda either. There's a flippancy and jocularity to it that puts me off. (And a sort of artsy snobbism too). I'm glad to find them on the side of the KJV (really, the Textus Receptus), however, and hope they will continue to fight this particular fight.

And while I'm confessing and repenting, I'd like to say something about how I understand the KJVO impulse to denounce and revile an opposition that has so much apparent demonic influence as the modern Bible versions defense does, but truly that's an impulse of the flesh and accomplishes nothing. In fact I may personally have been cured forever from that particular fault by seeing how it misleads otherwise good defenders of the KJV like Gail Riplinger into indefensible accusations of other good defenders such as David Cloud, and the inexcusable way Texe Marrs dealt with James White as shown on White's series about Marrs at You Tube. Does this make me "disdainful" of God's people, and enjoying the company of the Critical Text people, as a poster here has suggested?

Well, in sharing Douglas Wilson's term "fever-swamp" as far as I did, to that extent I shared in his disdain for the extreme KJVO people. But I've repented of that. As for favoring the company of the opposition, I can hardly abide listening to James White, if you want to know the truth, it's a struggle to hear or read him. It's just that when someone on the KJV-only side attacks him the way Marrs did, I'm no happier with our side, and worse, it gets harder to see how the important issues can be rescued from such irrational and unChristian behavior.

Humility is always the right path, even when you are dealing with the devil, in fact it's the most powerful position to take against the devil. Confess your sins and he has nothing he can bring against you. We are not always right, and I don't see anything in scripture that tells us we're to revile the devil, let alone any human being. In fact "revilers" are on the list of those who will not inherit the Kingdom of God, along with fornicators and drunkards and extortioners and so on. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

Webster's 1828 has: REVI'LE, v.t. re and vile.
To reproach; to treat with opprobrious and contemptuous language.
She revileth him to his face.
Thou shalt not revile the gods. Ex. 22.
Blessed are ye when men shall revile you. Matt. 5.
REVI'LE, n. Reproach; contumely; contemptuous
language. Not in use.

Mt 27:39 And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads,
Mr 15:32 Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him.
Joh 9:28 Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses' disciples.
1Co 4:12 And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it:
1Pe 2:23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:

Yes, this controversy is an arena where we're bound to experience plenty of spiritual warfare, but fair criticism is not spiritual warfare unless you resist it. It's really too bad when the people who are on the right side are attacking others on the same side, using the devil's own weapons.

Update on Bible translators losing their voices

I've been working on collecting some links on the Bible versions controversy and ran across this on David Cloud's site. This is on his page where he criticizes Gail Riplinger's book, New Age Bible Versions. The implication seems to be that it was Mrs. Riplinger who started the whole idea that the translators of the new versions had lost their voices, but whether she did or not, apparently her accusation that Westcott lost his voice is false:
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/newage.htm

6. On page 448 Mrs. Riplinger says:

“Westcott's biographer cites that in 1858 ‘he was quite inaudible’ and by 1870 ‘his voice reached few and was understood by still fewer.’”

Riplinger uses this quote to support her claim that Westcott lost his voice and sees that as a judgment of God for tampering with the Bible.

The fact is that Westcott did NOT lose his voice. Riplinger cites volume one of The Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, but the quotes are misused. The first quote is from a statement about how that Westcott, as a young student, disliked public speaking. “He [Westcott] took his turn of preaching in Chapel, but he dreaded and disliked the duty, and he was quite inaudible to many of the boys” (The Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, vol. 1, p. 198).

There is nothing here about Westcott losing his voice. The second of Riplinger’s quotes is taken from a letter from a Dr. Butler, who said that Westcott, when he was 35 years old and teaching at Harrow, still had a weak public speaking voice.

“His voice was not yet a force in the chapel. It reached but few, and it was understood by still fewer” (The Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, vol. 1, pp. 272-273).

Again, there is not a hint that Westcott lost his voice. It is a figment of Mrs. Riplinger’s fertile imagination.

To my mind this also casts some doubt on the KJVO version of the incident on the 1995 John Ankerberg Show where Texe Marrs and other KJVOs claim the NASB translator Dr. Wilkins temporarily lost his voice. However, from the video exchange at You Tube that I posted earlier,

http://watchpraystand.blogspot.com/2008/08/side-issues-to-be-avoided-in-kjv.html

I still can't see that the segment posted by James White could possibly have been what the KJVO people were remembering. Unfortunately I suppose we'll never know.

The readiness of the extreme KJVO advocates to read God's judgment into such incidents, and also to personally pronounce God's judgment against their opponents, on almost any aspect of this discussion, does not speak in their favor.