PDA

View Full Version : C. H. Spurgeon and the KJV


stilllearning
12-13-2008, 11:25 PM
On Textual Critics and the Authorized Version
If the Book be not infallible, where shall we find infallibility?
We have given up the Pope, for he has blundered often and terribly; but we shall not set up instead of him a horde of popelings fresh from college.
Are these correctors of Scriptures infallible? Is it certain that our Bibles are not right, but that the critics must be so?
Now, Farmer Smith, when you have read your Bible, and have enjoyed its precious promises, you will have tomorrow morning to go down the street to ask the scholarly man at the parsonage whether this portion of the Scripture belongs to the inspired part of the Word or whether it is of dubious authority...
We shall gradually be so be-doubted and be-criticized that only a few of the most profound will know what is Bible and what is not, and they will dictate to the rest of us.
I have no more faith in their mercy than in their accuracy...and we are fully assured that our old English version of the Scriptures is sufficient for plain men for all purposes of life, salvation, and goodness.
We do not despise learning, but we will never say of culture or criticism, "These be thy gods, O Israel."

This quote come from, “Extracts on Science” by C. H. Spurgeon
--------------------------------------------------
I normally don’t submit the words of others, but these words are so in line with my opinion, that I would do it this one time.

Samuel Owen
12-14-2008, 12:10 AM
I find a lot of wisdom in Spurgeon's words, which I will agree with 100%. :thumbs:

rsr
12-14-2008, 01:26 AM
The quotes (heavily elided as they are) are from The Greatest Fight in the World, which was, in part, a defense of the inspiration and sufficiency of Scripture.

Spurgeon is taking to task not textual critics per se but the higher criticism of the German school:

"The old silver is to be depreciated; but the German silver, which is put in its place, is to be taken at the value of gold." (This quote immediately follows "but that the critics must be so?" in the original.)
And:

"It will be well for you to know whether it was written by the Isaiah, or whether it was by the second of the “two Obadiahs.” (Which followed "whether it be of dubious authority.")
As an example of Spurgeon's true sentiments, I would suggest looking at his sermon Heart Disease Curable, based on Isaiah 61:1:

I intended to have preached from these words in Luke 4:18, but when I looked at the Revised Version and found that the words were not there at all I was somewhat startled. I began to ask whether the emission was a correct one or not and, without making pretense to scholarship, I feel convinced that the revisers are acting honestly in leaving it out.

It was not in the original manuscript of Luke, but probably some pious person added it with the intention of making the quotation more complete. Whatever the intention may have been and however natural the added words may appear, it is a pity that the unknown Brother ventured to improve that which was perfect from the beginning.

Preaching on Deuteronomy 33:24-25 (Shoes of Iron, and Strength Sufficient: A New Year's Promise) Spurgeon vouches for the Authorized Version's rendering but says:

I find that the passage has several translations; and, though I think that which we have now before us is by far the best, yet I cannot help mentioning the others, for I think they are instructive. These interpretations may serve me as divisions in opening up the meaning. I take it as a rule that the Lord's promises are true in every sense which they will fairly bear. A generous man will allow the widest interpretation of his words, and so will the infinitely gracious God. ...

The Revised Version has it, "Thy bars shall be iron and brass;" and certainly the original text bears that meaning. "Thy bars shall be iron and brass:" there shall be protection around him. The city gates shall be kept fast against the enemy, so as to preserve the citizens.

Or you can check "And We Are" – A Jewel From the Revised Version" in which he preached on I John 3:1:

Dear friends, the most of my text will be found in our Old Version, but for once I shall ask you to look elsewhere for a part of it. A genuine fragment of Inspired Scripture has been dropped by our older translators and it is too precious to be lost. Did not our Lord say, “Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost”? The half lost portion of our text is restored to us in the Revised Version. Never did a translation of the New Testament fail more completely than this Revised Version has done as a book for general reading, but as an assistant to the student, it deserves honorable mention, despite its faults! It exhibits, here and there, special beauties and has, no doubt, in certain places, brought into notice words of sacred Scripture which had fallen out. We have a notable instance in my present text. Turn to the First Epistle
of John, the third chapter, at the first verse—

“Behold, what manner of love the Father has bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God.”

So far we keep to our Authorized Version. Now read the Revised Version, and note the words added—

“Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed upon us, that we should be called children of God: and such we are.”

The word “such” is not in the original. We therefore leave it out and then we get the words—AND WE ARE. There are only two words in the Greek—“and we are.” That the addition is correct I have not the slightest doubt. Those authorities upon which we depend—those manuscripts which are best worthy of notice—have these words and they are to be found in the Vulgate, the Alexandrian and several other versions. They ought never to have dropped out. In the judgment of the most learned and those best to be relied on, these are veritable words of Inspiration. So far as doctrine is concerned, it does not matter, much, whether they are or are not in the original text because we get the same words farther on. “Beloved, now are we children of God, and it is not yet made manifest what we shall be. We know that if He shall be manifested, we shall be like He; for we shall see Him even as He is.”

The point that struck me as being most worthy of notice was that when the Apostle had said, “We shall be called children of God,” he then adds—We are not only to be called so, but we are so. The glory of it is that we now have this thing. We have it in possession—“and we are.” This little interjected assertion, “and we are,” brings most forcibly before my own mind the truth of our present sonship towards God—“That we should be called children of God: and we are.”

stilllearning
12-14-2008, 11:30 AM
Hi rsr

Nice to hear from you, but you missed the point of this post.
(But it is my fault, because of it’s title....“C. H. Spurgeon and the KJV”.)

I should have entitled it, “A statement, that I agree with”
--------------------------------------------------
You will notice, the statement that I made in this post.......
“I normally don’t submit the words of others, but these words are so in line with my opinion, that I would do it this one time.”

The point being made, is my agreement with this statement;
The fact that C. H. Spurgeon made this statement, is of secondary importance.

In other words, Spurgeon was just a man, like you or I, and he made mistakes like everyone does. But this statement, that he made about the KJV, was right on, so therefore I posted it.

I was aware that he sometimes used other translations, but this particular statement of his, is the point that I was making.


Sorry for the misunderstanding

Jim1999
12-14-2008, 11:48 AM
In the early days right up to the mid fifties, we all defended the KJV. It was part of being a "fundamentalist" and not liberal. We were often aware of the mistakes in the KJV. Some we labelled "seeming contradictions".

In later years, as better revisions came along, we started the move to more reliable versions, and even backed off some on the RSV.

I think we must understand Spurgeon's remarks in light of the great controversy in the British Baptist Union and why he was expelled from that Union along with his church. Spurgeon actually favoured the more common version of his day. At least, that is what you will find in most of his books.

Cheers,

Jim

Baptist4life
12-14-2008, 12:16 PM
In later years, as better revisions came along, we started the move to more reliable versions, and even backed off some on the RSV.



Cheers,

Jim
That's simply YOUR opinion. Please don't post it as if it's a fact. :thumbs:

Jim1999
12-14-2008, 12:24 PM
My friend, it is fact from where I come from. I was not born yesterday.

Cheers,

Jim

rsr
12-14-2008, 12:40 PM
But this statement, that he made about the KJV, was right on, so therefore I posted it.
Then you are the one who has missed the point. Spurgeon was not talking about the KJV as opposed to modern versions; he was talking about higher criticism and the inspiration and sufficiency of Scripture.

I know that Spurgeon's works have been looted to make it appear he thought the Authorized Version infallible, but such quotes — as in this case — are taken out of context and at odds with what he really believed.

You have, in fact, presented Spurgeon as saying something he didn't say if you imply or state that he was talking about the KJV, or even textual criticism, in the OP. That was the point.

Baptist4life
12-14-2008, 12:45 PM
My friend, it is fact from where I come from. I was not born yesterday.

Cheers,

Jim
How can you make a statement like that? Show me absolute PROOF that there are BETTER, MORE RELIABLE translations than the KJV? ANY "proofs" you supply will only be "opinions". No one knows WHICH is the BEST translation really, because there are arguments over which manuscripts are better, and more close to the original text. So, your statement continues to be your OPINION, not fact. Hence, all these KJV vs. MV threads! :laugh:

4His_glory
12-14-2008, 12:55 PM
How can you make a statement like that? Show me absolute PROOF that there are BETTER, MORE RELIABLE translations than the KJV? :

Well, my Spanish version (RVR 1960) is better and more reliable because the grammar structure of spanish is closer to greek than that of english to greek. :smilewinkgrin:

Baptist4life
12-14-2008, 01:01 PM
Well, my Spanish version (RVR 1960) is better and more reliable because the grammar structure of spanish is closer to greek than that of english to greek. :smilewinkgrin:
Again, that would depend on which manuscripts you used in your translation, wouldn't it? And right now, and possibly forever, that is a matter of OPINION as to which is better. :smilewinkgrin:

4His_glory
12-14-2008, 01:04 PM
Again, that would depend on which manuscripts you used in your translation, wouldn't it? And right now, and possibly forever, that is a matter of OPINION as to which is better. :smilewinkgrin:

Manuscripts aside, the fact still remains true regarding the grammar. Which means that at least in one sense, a spanish translation will follow the original grammar structure closer than english if a sound translation principle is used.

Jim1999
12-14-2008, 01:18 PM
If one reads what I wrote, you will uderstand I was giving an historical step of actions taken by "fundamentalists" in the face of modernism, which came to a head, in Canada, in 1927. The battle continued on into the mid 50's and even was arond in the 60's.

I never said a word about the validity of translations by actual study or scientific evidence. WE just accepted the KJV in the pulpit in general. We made corrections, as did Mr. Spurgeon, as we went along.

This is why so many heated arguments get going. Too many do not read what is said.

Cheers,

Jim

gb93433
12-14-2008, 01:53 PM
I think we must understand Spurgeon's remarks in light of the great controversy in the British Baptist Union and why he was expelled from that Union along with his church. Spurgeon actually favoured the more common version of his day. At least, that is what you will find in most of his books.
That is what I have read among Spurgeon's writings as well. He preferred the authorized version rather than a more archaic translation and commented even though it was not perfect it was still the best they had at the time.

gb93433
12-14-2008, 02:02 PM
That's simply YOUR opinion. Please don't post it as if it's a fact. :thumbs:
al you gacve us was your opinion. So show us the facts to the contrary. Show us that what you commented on is nothing more than opinion by the facts you provide.

It never ceases to amaze me how many have no facts with their attacks.

Attacks with no facts are nothing more than lies.

Baptist4life
12-14-2008, 02:11 PM
al you gacve us was your opinion. So show us the facts to the contrary. Show us that what you commented on is nothing more than opinion by the facts you provide.

It never ceases to amaze me how many have no facts with their attacks.

Attacks with no facts are nothing more than lies.
Just my point! I don't post things as FACT, since NO one can PROVE one version better than another, it's all personal preference.



Perhaps you should have addressed this to Jim1999 since HE is the one who posted something as FACT?

Rippon
12-14-2008, 02:13 PM
That is what I have read among Spurgeon's writings as well. He preferred the authorized version rather than a more archaic translation and commented even though it was not perfect it was still the best they had at the time.

"He preferred the authorized version rather than a more archaic translation"?Are you saying that Spurgeon preferred the KJV more than the Geneva,Bishop's Bible etc.?I don't understand your point.

EdSutton
12-14-2008, 02:17 PM
In later years, as better revisions came along, we started the move to more reliable versions, and even backed off some on the RSV.

That's simply YOUR opinion. Please don't post it as if it's a fact. :thumbs:Is the opinion of Jim1999 necessarily any worse (or any better) than that of your own, which would appear to be that the KJV is a more reliable version than are the so-called "MVs"? Or are either of your opinions necessarily any better or any worse than my own opinion, which is not even in view, here?

And I do seem to recall a couple of times where Baptist4life has posted an opinion about a version, as though it were fact, I believe.

Personally, I fail to see any qualitative difference between the opinion(s) of Jim1999 and/or that of Baptist4life, and/or that of EdSutton, frankly.

Ed

Rippon
12-14-2008, 02:18 PM
BFL,most modern versions are more reliable than the KJV.And most conservative scholars believe that the TR is inferior .

Baptist4life
12-14-2008, 02:27 PM
BFL,most modern versions are more reliable than the KJV.And most conservative scholars believe that the TR is inferior .
Of course they do, but they can not prove that as FACT. Neither can I prove the KJV is the more accurate. It's all personal preference, that's ALL I'm saying. NEVER did you see a post where I state "the KJV is MORE accurate, and that's a FACT".

Rippon
12-14-2008, 02:44 PM
Of course they do, but they can not prove that as FACT. Neither can I prove the KJV is the more accurate. It's all personal preference, that's ALL I'm saying. NEVER did you see a post where I state "the KJV is MORE accurate, and that's a FACT".

People have personal preferences.Really?You say such controversial things.

You would indeed have a huge task in proving that the KJV is more accurate than some modern versions.

BTW,I was looking at an old thread where you trashed the NIV --saying something to the effect that it wouldn't be good enough to prop up a table with a broken leg.That's not an opinion -- that's trash talk.I would never demean the KJV in such a manner.

For being a non-KJVO you sure talk like onemost of the time.

C4K
12-14-2008, 02:49 PM
BFL,most modern versions are more reliable than the KJV.

Well, there's an opinion for you.

And most conservative scholars believe that the TR is inferior .

Most?
How do you define conservative?
What numbers indicate 'most'?
Even if you could somehow back up your assertion, since when does a majority opinion prove truth?

Jim1999
12-14-2008, 02:53 PM
Again, in plain English, I did not defend nor show preference for any translation. I stated an historical fact through which I lived. We defended the KJV against the modernists of the day who were using the RSV. I know what I say to be true because I lived through it.

If you want to discuss translations, then we shift the course to another thread that is dealing with translations.

A lot of us pastors in those days were not even scholars per se..We were simple preachers of the gospel and pastors doing pastoral things and defending the faith against the modernist movement.

Please don't try to express my views on the various translations beause you can't do it.

Cheers,

Jim

Baptist4life
12-14-2008, 02:57 PM
People have personal preferences.Really?You say such controversial things.

You would indeed have a huge task in proving that the KJV is more accurate than some modern versions.

BTW,I was looking at an old thread where you trashed the NIV --saying something to the effect that it wouldn't be good enough to prop up a table with a broken leg.That's not an opinion -- that's trash talk.I would never demean the KJV in such a manner.

For being a non-KJVO you sure talk like one most of the time.
Those are ALL my opinions...NEVER stated as FACT. And I NEVER said I could PROVE the KJV was more accurate. Why are you trying to put words in my mouth. Also quit accusing me of being KJVO please. I AM KJV preferred, but I also really like the NKJV and the HCSB. I couldn't prove for a FACT that one was better than another though. Don't get so angry [people.:godisgood:

Baptist4life
12-14-2008, 03:04 PM
In the early days right up to the mid fifties, we all defended the KJV. It was part of being a "fundamentalist" and not liberal. We were often aware of the mistakes in the KJV. Some we labelled "seeming contradictions".

In later years, as better revisions came along, we started the move to more reliable versions, and even backed off some on the RSV.



Cheers,

Jim
You never said "we changed our minds or we decided to not worry about it" you said "better revisions came along, we started the move to more reliable versions". Why didn't you say "What we thought to be better revisions came along, we started the move to WHAT WE BELIEVED TO BE more reliable versions". That I wouldn't have any problem with. The problem I have is people posting things like "more reliable" "better version" "more accurate" when there is no proof to back it up...only preference. This could go on and on.............enough............if you can't see what I'm saying by now, you never will.

EdSutton
12-14-2008, 03:05 PM
Just my point! I don't post things as FACT, since NO one can PROVE one version better than another, it's all personal preference.



Perhaps you should have addressed this to Jim1999 since HE is the one who posted something as FACT?Would this be a good place to point out that Jim1999 did not say anything about what you claimed he posted to be a "fact", until "after-the-fact"?

:confused:

Ed

Baptist4life
12-14-2008, 03:06 PM
Would this be a good place to point out that Jim1999 did not say anything about what you claimed he posted to be a "fact", until "after-the-fact"?

:confused:

Ed
Maybe.....if I understood what you just said!!! :laugh:

EdSutton
12-14-2008, 03:31 PM
Of course they do, but they can not prove that as FACT. Neither can I prove the KJV is the more accurate. It's all personal preference, that's ALL I'm saying. NEVER did you see a post where I state "the KJV is MORE accurate, and that's a FACT".This is likely technically true, as to stating something to be a fact, although it oftentimes appears that you definitely believe the KJV to be more accurate, than, say, the NIV.
In fact, I note that you said, in your very first post on the BB, which happened to be in a thread about versions, these words - Bible attack deleted.
Last edited by C4K : 06-02-2007 at 02:36 AM.
Oh, nevermind! :rolleyes:

Ed

Baptist4life
12-14-2008, 03:35 PM
This is likely technically true, as to stating something to be a fact, although it oftentimes appears that you definitely believe the KJV to be more accurate, than, say, the NIV.
In fact, I note that you said, in your very first post on the BB, which happened to be in a thread about versions, these words - Oh, nevermind! :rolleyes:

Ed
Oh yes, there are LOTS of things that I said that I wish I had never said.

Dr. Bob
12-14-2008, 07:13 PM
Spurgeon prefered the AV (not sure which revision he used). Many people still do. That is their prerogative.

As Jim stated, it was a part of fundamentalism (the movement) to oppose the RSV and praise the ASV1901 or the KJV1769 Oxford. The RSV was too greatly influenced by Higher Criticism and a poor English translation.

Today, thankfully, we have a number of good English translations in language people actually understand without a dictionary of archaic words. One can be a fundamentalist and prefer a wide variety of translations.

The only thing we know for sure about C H Spurgeon, "If Spurgeon were alive today, he'd be 174 years old."

Logos1560
12-14-2008, 07:22 PM
In the June, 1989, issue of Bible Believers' Bulletin, Peter Ruckman claimed Charles Spurgeon as a Ruckmanite. Ruckman placed Spurgeon in his list of "believers of the Word" (Bible Babel, p. 118). KJV-only advocate William Bradley maintained that Spurgeon "held our view" (Purified, p. 124). Without any documentation from any of the many sermons and books by Spurgeon, KJV-only advocate Bruce Cummons incorrectly claimed that Spurgeon "vowed that he would withdraw fellowship immediately from any preacher or group of preachers who made light of, or 'down-graded' the KJV" (Foundation and Authority of the Word of God, p. 45).

Of course, many quotations by Spurgeon where he defends completely the inspiration and inerrancy of God's Word can be accurately given. On the other hand, no statements or quotations made by Spurgeon have been provided where he claimed that a translation such as the KJV was inspired and inerrant.


Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892) loved the KJV, but he did not hold to the views of KJV-only advocates. Spurgeon said: "I do not hesitate to say that there is no mistake whatever in the original Holy Scriptures from beginning to end. There may be, and there are, mistakes of translation; for translators are not inspired" (The Scriptures: Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, p. 257). In his preface to the 1859 book The English Bible by Mrs. H. C. Conant, Spurgeon noted: "And it is because I love the most Holy Word of God that I plead for faithful translation; and from my very love to the English version, because in the main it is so, I desire for it that its blemishes should be removed, and its faults corrected" (p. xi). In his same preface, Spurgeon wrote: "I ask, from very love of this best of translations, that its obsolete words, its manifest mistranslations, and glaring indecencies should be removed" (p. xii). In a sermon entitled "The Bible Tried and Proved," Spurgeon stated: "We have occasionally heard opponents carp at certain coarse expressions used in our translation of the Old Testament; but the coarseness of translators is not to be set to the account on the Holy Spirit, but to the fact that the force of the English language has changed, and modes of expression which were correct at one period become too gross for another" (Infallible Word, p. 20).

Yet again, Spurgeon noted: "Concerning the fact of difference between the Revised and Authorised Versions, I would say that no Baptist should ever fear any honest attempt to produce the correct text, and an accurate interpretation of the Old and New Testaments. . . . By the best and most honest scholarship that can be found we desire that the common version may be purged of every blunder of transcribers, or addition of human ignorance, or human knowledge, so that the Word of God may come to us as it came from his own hand" (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, XXVII, pp. 342-343). In a book of quotations from Spurgeon’s writings, Kerry James Allen cited where Spurgeon noted: “I do not say that either of our English versions is inspired, for there are mistakes in the translation” (Exploring the Mind, p. 43). In his commentary on Matthew, Spurgeon wrote concerning verse 23 of chapter 12: "Our Revised Version very properly leaves out the 'not' ... as it is not in the original, we must not allow the 'not'" (Gospel of the Kingdom, p. 89). Taking his text from 2 Corinthians 4:3-4, Spurgeon commented: “I think in this case the Revised New Testament gives a better translation than the Authorized Version, and I will therefore read it” (Williams, God’s Word, p. 63). Spurgeon declared: "Let us quote the words as they stand in the best possible translation, and it would be better still if we know the original, and can tell if our version fails to give the sense" (The Greatest Fight, p. 23).

Dale-c
12-14-2008, 08:42 PM
How can you make a statement like that? Show me absolute PROOF that there are BETTER, MORE RELIABLE translations than the KJV? ANY "proofs" you supply will only be "opinions". No one knows WHICH is the BEST translation really, because there are arguments over which manuscripts are better, and more close to the original text. So, your statement continues to be your OPINION, not fact. Hence, all these KJV vs. MV threads!
I have been on the BB for a long time and I have seen some really bad posts but this is one of the worst arguments I think I have seen.

It looks as if this is the argument:

1. Show be Proof!
2. Any proof you show, I will not believe.
3. You then can't prove your point.

Or an example:

Person 1: Water is wet.

Person 2: No it is not! Show me proof!

Person 1 throws a glass of water on person 2

Person 1: See, now you are wet.

Person 2: No I am not! That is just an OPINION, you cannot prove to me that I am wet.


What kind of logic is that anyway?

Jim1999
12-14-2008, 08:53 PM
The kind of reason that drives one bonkers!

Cheers,

Jim

Rippon
12-14-2008, 08:56 PM
most?


Yes.Most.


How do you define conservative?


Most biblical conservatives hold to Confessions of Faith which are well-known such as the Westminster Confession or the Baptist 1689.Those are considered to be biblically conserative documents.Take a look at the first chapter of both of the aforementioned for their view of the authority of Scripture.


What numbers indicate 'most'?


I can't furnish you with a specific number.But 'most' would indicate the majority.

The Bible scholars who endorse the Received Text one could count on the digits of one hand.In other words they are in the decided minority.


Even if you could somehow back up your assertion, since when does a majority opinion prove truth?

It doesn't.But it is something that should give one pause.If the majority of conservative scholars say that the TR is based on inferior manuscripts.You need to consider their decision well.Read their findings.

Baptist4life
12-14-2008, 09:12 PM
Bible scholars quickly begin debate of new gender-neutral NIV revision

Posted on Jan 30, 2002 | by Art Toalston

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--The accuracy of the new "Today's New International Version" revision of the popular New International Version has quickly become a topic of debate among Bible scholars.

"Accuracy and clarity are prime with us," said Larry Lincoln, communications director for the International Bible Society, copyright holder of both the new TNIV and the 1984 NIV.

On the other side of the debate, Randy Stinson, executive director of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, said the TNIV contains "absolute mistranslations." The CBMW's Internet site, www.cbmw.org, already cites three key examples.

Lincoln told Baptist Press that the TNIV should be called a "gender-accurate" translation instead of the term used by some in the media, including Baptist Press, as "gender-neutral." The TNIV, he said, uses "generic language" for men and women "only when the text was meant to include both men and women." An overview of the TNIV is available on the Internet at www.tniv.info.

Lincoln noted that the TNIV makes no changes in Scripture's male-oriented references to God and Jesus.

Stinson of the CBMW noted that the three examples of mistranslation on the organization's website are "representative types of changes that they've made," referencing the International Bible Society and the Committee on Bible Translation (CBT), a 15-member group of scholars with authority over the NIV translation, such as the revision of the text into the TNIV's gender-neutral language.

Of the changes, Stinson said, "They're significant. They do change the meaning. These are absolute mistranslations."

IBS and CBT may cite a Greek dictionary lexicon to defend their revisions, Stinson said, but those revisions "are just not the case with the major reputable lexicons."

Steve Johnson, IBS vice president for communication and development, sent an e-mail to Baptist Press after its Jan. 28 news story on the TNIV, stating: "I wish to state for the record that the overriding concern of the CBT is ALWAYS accuracy and clarity. While there may be differences within the body on the specific rendering of Greek and Hebrew, the influence of social agenda into any translation is NEVER permitted. We regret that once again, the issue of providing God's Word to the next generation of English-speakers has become an issue of division in the Body of Christ."

Several Southern Baptist leaders were quoted in the story as seeing a thrust for political correctness in the IBS effort to release a gender-neutral revision of the NIV.

The three references cited by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood as mistranslations in the TNIV are:

-- Revelation 3:20: "I will come and eat with them, and they with me."

"The removal of 'him' and 'he' completely drains the passage of the individual nature of the relationship between a person and Christ," the CBMW states on its website, noting that the TNIV has "many instances where the singular generic 'he' is replaced with the plural 'they' or 'them.'"

-- John 11:25, in which Jesus is translated as saying: "Anyone who believes in me will live, even though they die."

The CBMW's concern: "Not only does this convolute the personal nature of the relationship between a person and Christ, but it betrays the fact that Jesus himself used the generic 'he' even though he was speaking to a woman (Martha)."

-- Acts 20:30: "From your own number some will arise."

The CBMW's concern: "This is problematic because the Greek word for 'aner' is translated 'some' when this is a specific word that can only mean men. Not only is this a mistranslation but it communicates the idea that the passage may also refer to women who would 'arise.' Since this passage refers to the elders, that would not be the case. Even if one affirms that there actually could have been women elders, it is still not appropriate to change the translation to reflect this belief."

"Evangelicals must be able to count on Bible translators to have accuracy as their primary objective and not cultural appeasement," Stinson writes on the CBMW website. "Unnecessarily changing the words of the biblical text in order to accommodate those who think certain phrases are offensive is dangerous and irresponsible. The question one must ask is 'What will be next?'

"As Evangelicals we affirm the verbal inspiration of scripture which means each word is inspired by God. The conscious and unnecessary mistranslation of these words by IBS has produced an unreliable edition of the Bible about which all Christians should be concerned," Stinson wrote.

The CBMW also complained that "IBS has broken its agreement it made in [a] 1997 press release, 'The International Bible Society (IBS) has abandoned all plans for gender-related changes in future editions of the New International Version (NIV).' Although they will certainly argue that this is not the NIV but the TNIV, the public should not appreciate this kind of double talk."

Lincoln of the IBS stated that less than 2 percent of the TNIV involves gender-related revisions of the NIV. Other changes account for 5 percent in an overall 7 percent revision of the NIV, he said.

"We're concerned about a generation of people who are turning their backs on the Bible because they don't see it as relevant, largely because they don't understand it," Lincoln asserted, noting that 100 million people in America are under the age of 30 and that language has changed since the NIV New Testament was initially published in the 1970s.

The TNIV was announced to the public in a Jan. 28 news release by the International Bible Society and Zondervan, the publisher of the NIV. The TNIV New Testament will be published this spring, the news release stated, with the complete Bible "expected in 2005."

Controversy over gender-neutral translation erupted in 1997 when World magazine, based in Asheville, N.C., reported that the IBS had decided to produce a gender-neutral NIV for the U.S. market by 2001 but had made no announcement of its plans. World's 1997 articles appeared in its March 29, April 19 and May 3 issues. A storm of theology-related objections was raised by a number of U.S. evangelicals over various revisions to the NIV.

The IBS, in a May 27, 1997, news release, announced a reversal, saying it would "forgo all plans" to revise the NIV translation. The Colorado-based IBS, in its May 27 statement, also committed to revising its New International Readers Version (NIrV) Bible "to reflect a treatment of gender consistent with the NIV." The NIrV was a gender-neutral translation already used in a Zondervan Publishing House children's Bible. And the IBS committed to negotiate an end to the publishing of a gender-neutral NIV text already completed by the Committee on Bible Translation and released in 1996 in England by Hodder and Stoughton.

Also on May 27, 1997, key parties in the controversy found common ground in a joint statement and a page of suggested translation guidelines now known as the "Colorado Springs Guidelines," or CSG. "Specifically, we agree that it is inappropriate to use gender-neutral language when it diminishes accuracy in the translation of the Bible," the statement, released June 4, noted, "and we therefore agree to the attached guidelines for translation of gender-related language in Scripture." The statement also noted: "We agree that Bible translations should not be influenced by illegitimate intrusions of secular culture or by political or ideological agendas."

However, in announcing its TNIV Jan. 28, the International Bible Society acknowledged in a separate letter to various evangelical leaders, dated Jan. 18, that it was "withdrawing its endorsement" of the guidelines.

Among the statement's 12 signers in 1997 were Bruce E. Ryskamp, Zondervan's president and CEO; Lars Dunberg, then-president of the IBS; Ronald Youngblood, now chairman of the IBS board of directors and a Committee on Bible Translation member; Wayne Grudem, then-president of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood; John Piper, a member of the council and senior pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis; and theologian R.C. Sproul, chairman of Ligonier Ministries.

The IBS now has difficulty with the part of the CSG involving "some very specific guidelines [about translation of gender-related terms] that those present generally agreed with, or at the time were willing to endorse," the Jan. 18 IBS letter states, referencing the 1997 Colorado Springs meeting convened by Focus on the Family founder James Dobson.

"However, upon further review and consideration, and in consultation with other evangelical scholars, IBS has determined that many of the technical guidelines are too restrictive to facilitate the most accurate possible text in contemporary English," the IBS letter states.

In its Jan. 18 letter, the IBS noted that its ongoing work has been conducted "in accordance with its own guidelines and the guidelines established by the International Forum of Bible Agencies," which encompasses "18 of the leading global translation ministries, including IBS, Wycliffe Bible Translators, United Bible Societies, Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL), New Tribes Mission and others ... responsible for more than 90 percent of the translation work done around the world [and seeking to do] uncompromisingly accurate translations in contemporary language."

The IBS letter did not list the other guidelines nor discuss whether those guidelines address gender-related translation issues.
--30--



Source:http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=12635

Rippon
12-14-2008, 09:28 PM
BFL,so you think trotting out a nearly seven year old article is worth something?

Bottom line:For those who appreciate the ESV and HCSB relating to how they handled the 'gender matter' -- the TNIV agrees with them most of the time.We're speaking of less than one percent of the TNIV which differs from the ESV and HCSB.I,of course,find no problem with the way the TNIV handled the matter.The NLTse treats the issue about the same -- so does the NET Bible,for the most part.

Things were deliberately blown up out of proportion by advocates primarly of the ESV rival translation.There are a number of folks who have been on the other side of the subject before and now know that the TNIV is solid and conservative -- an excellent translation.

stilllearning
12-14-2008, 11:42 PM
Hi rsr

I said......
“This statement, that Spurgeon made about the KJV, was right on, so therefore I posted it.”

Then you said........
“Then you are the one who has missed the point. Spurgeon was not talking about the KJV as opposed to modern versions; he was talking about higher criticism and the inspiration and sufficiency of Scripture.”

I think that you have hit the nail on the head here:
(1) Since Spurgeon was talking about “the inspiration and sufficiency of Scripture.”:
(2) He had to have been talking about “the KJV as opposed to the newer versions”:

Because this was the only way anybody could successfully attack the Bible.

This is “my” main intent, when ever I post anything about the KJV.
i.e. (There are those who hate God the Bible, and this is the way they attack the inspiration and sufficiency of the Scripture, is to cast doubt upon God’s Word, by coming out with “new and improved” Bibles.)

How can any man, “improve upon” God’s Word.
--------------------------------------------------
My whole argument has always been, that from 1769, God’s Word for English speaking people, had been the KJV.
(Talk to any “average” English speaking Christian in that era, and they would say that the KJV was God’s Word, and was 100% perfect.)

Before the late 1800's, there was NEVER any talk among Christians, about the mistakes in the Bible.(It has no mistakes)

But in 1881 or so, the new versions started coming out, that promised to “improve” the Bible and make it better.

Now take a look around and see what these “new and improved” Bibles have done.

The more “improvements” we make to the Bible the more ungodly and worldly the Church becomes.
--------------------------------------------------
Last year, I posted a message here on the BB, called, “Christendom we have a problem”, where I laid out my explanation as to why the Church has gone to pot, over the last 100 years or so.

Well, I had more than one person tell me, that I was crazy, and one person even suggested, that this change was because our modern Churches have air conditioning.


Of all the issues, that we can discuss, God’s Word is by far the most important;
(Because it is the foundation of our faith!)

Psalms 11:3
“If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?”

stilllearning
12-14-2008, 11:58 PM
Hi Jim1999

Nice to hear from you.

You said.......
“We defended the KJV against the modernists of the day who were using the RSV. I know what I say to be true because I lived through it.”

I would like to ask, what Bible are all the “modernists” of today using?
(And aren’t today’s “modernists”, still attacking the KJV?)
--------------------------------------------------
Then you said......
“A lot of us pastors in those days were not even scholars per se..We were simple preachers of the gospel and pastors doing pastoral things and defending the faith against the modernist movement.”

This is very interesting: You have “pastors” and then you have “scholars”.
Who does the Bible instruct, to defend the faith?
Titus 1:6-11
V.6 ¶ If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
V.7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
V.8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate;
V.9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.
V.10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:
V.11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake.

--------------------------------------------------
I don’t have any “proof” of this(maybe some of you can help me), but I believe that most “scholars”, refuse to sit under a “pastor”.

Who did God give to the Church........
Ephesians 4:11-12
V.11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
V.12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

It is possible, that “scholars”, are the worst thing that ever happened to the Church.

C4K
12-15-2008, 12:02 AM
I think that you have hit the nail on the head here:
(1) Since Spurgeon was talking about “the inspiration and sufficiency of Scripture.”:
(2) He had to have been talking about “the KJV as opposed to the newer versions”:

Because this was the only way anybody could successfully attack the Bible.


This is simply incorrect and poor reasoning. Spurgeon was praising the new versions. He was defending the word of God against a much more insidious opposition which attacks it veracity in any version.

Rippon
12-15-2008, 12:08 AM
This is “my” main intent, when ever I post anything about the KJV.
i.e. (There are those who hate God the Bible, and this is the way they attack the inspiration and sufficiency of the Scripture, is to cast doubt upon God’s Word, by coming out with “new and improved” Bibles.)


"God the Bible"?!

How are newer translations casting doubt on God's Word?If those versions are faithful to the original and speak in the language of today's reader -- there is no problem.

Are you against new and improved versions in other languages too?


How can any man, “improve upon” God’s Word.


God's Word is not in one version.Old translations of course can be improved.No translation is set in stone.



My whole argument has always been, that from 1769, God’s Word for English speaking people, had been the KJV.


I wonder how long your position has "always been" that.The KJV was primarily the only version English-speaking people used back then.But I don't think people back than were KJVO.


(Talk to any “average” English speaking Christian in that era, and they would say that the KJV was God’s Word, and was 100% perfect.)


No.They probably would not have said a translation was perfect -- only the original autographs.How do I know that?I went back in my time machine and spoke to Average Joe and he told me so.


Before the late 1800's, there was NEVER any talk among Christians, about the mistakes in the Bible.(It has no mistakes)


What have I told you about needing to read Church History?



But in 1881 or so, the new versions started coming out, that promised to “improve” the Bible and make it better.


Webster's Bible came out in 1833 because there was a need to update the KJV.He changed it only slightly.But the alterations he made were used by the RV revisers.



The more “improvements” we make to the Bible the more ungodly and worldly the Church becomes.


That's an absurd idea.So it's your contention that the modern Bible versions contribute to the worldliness of modern Christians?

C4K
12-15-2008, 12:12 AM
How can any man, “improve upon” God’s Word.


Did not the translators in 1611 attempt to do just that?

Rippon
12-15-2008, 12:25 AM
I would like to ask, what Bible are all the “modernists” of today using?


There is no single translation they are using.Among Evangelicals the NIV and NLTse are rather popular.But the NASBU,NKJ,ESV and HCSB among others are appreciated.



This is very interesting: You have “pastors” and then you have “scholars”.
Who does the Bible instruct, to defend the faith?


All Christians are "to contend for the faith that the Lord has once and for all entrusted to us,his people."(Jude 3) It says in verse 1 :"To those who have been called,who are loved in God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ." It's not some special class of Christians -- all Christians.


I don’t have any “proof” of this(maybe some of you can help me), but I believe that most “scholars”, refuse to sit under a “pastor”.


It's just another of your absurd notions.


Who did God give to the Church........


God gave His Son to the Church."Christ loved ther church and gave himself up for her."(Eph.5:25)

I know what you mean though.The Lord gave pastors/teachers to the Church.



It is possible, that “scholars”, are the worst thing that ever happened to the Church.

Not by a long stretch! There are indeed liberal scholars.But in the 2,000 plus year History of the Church Bible scholars,for the most part,have been dear friends of the Church.Many have been exceptionally godly as well as incredibly diligent in the service of the Lord and His people.

Jim1999
12-15-2008, 12:33 AM
Hi Stilllearning,

When I say I was not a scholar, please don't misunderstand me. Anyone who knows me appreciates that I am an academic and well educated. Still, I am a simple preacher. I wasn't much different when I lectured at the university.

At my city church, where I also taught at the university, I had other professors, students and learned people in the assembly. Still, I preached simply. We don't have to use 50 dollar words to have everyone understand. I was preaching Jesus Christ and His word, not Jim 1999.

When I say we weren't scholars i the early days was not to meant we didn't study hard, but we realized the needs of the people accordingly.

We mostly used the KJV, but we didn't have many options in those days. The most common Bible everywhere was the KJV. It would be foolish to bring out a Greek New Testament and preach from it. That wold be like preaching a sermon in French in an English congregation.

We were also defending against modernism and it would serve no purpose to be knocking the one Bible everyone used. We preferred to preach sound doctrines and build up the defences of the people, the common people; the ditch diggers, the farmers, the truckies, the store clerks, the homemakers. Some with only lower school education. We taught or preached as it were against the attacks against the bible from liberal churches. We stood up for the word of God.

I still have my 1945 KJV and I still preach from it. It has many, many corrections written in the side spaces and when I read from it, I read the corrections without comment. They have become a part of my KJV.

Does this make it a little clearer?

Cheers,

Jim, BA, BTh.,ThM., ThD, certificate in architecture, and I taught the philosophy of the Christian religion for 25 years until age 65 in a local university.

stilllearning
12-15-2008, 12:49 AM
Hi Rippon

You asked........
“How are newer translations casting doubt on God's Word?”

By removing words and verses, or even worse, leaving them in, then having a footnote at the bottom of the page, that says........
“This verse isn’t found in the best Greek manuscripts”

Now, what is a person to do. This is simply casting doubt.
--------------------------------------------------
You also said......
“If those versions are faithful to the original and speak in the language of today's reader -- there is no problem.”

You are right: But that is a big “if”.

For hundreds of years, Christians believed the TR to be exact copies of their Greek originals.
Those so-called “best Greek manuscripts”, were around back then, but everybody agreed that they were inferior copies.
(What changed?)
--------------------------------------------------
You asked.....
“Are you against new and improved versions in other languages too?”

I know absolutely nothing about Bible’s being used by Christians of other lands.
--------------------------------------------------
Then you said.......
“God's Word is not in one version. Old translations of course can be improved. No translation is set in stone.”

You know you are right. The KJV, could be “improved”, by making it’s language more up-to-date.
But there is not a single scholar on the planet, that I would trust to update it.

So I will just have to muddle along.
--------------------------------------------------
Then you said........
“I wonder how long your position has "always been" that. The KJV was primarily the only version English-speaking people used back then. But I don't think people back than were KJVO.”

You are right. I have not “always” been KJVO.
I have come to that conclusion(for one reason), because everyone that I know, that isn’t KJVO, doesn’t seem to have a reverence for God’s Word.
--------------------------------------------------
Next you said.....
“No. They probably would not have said a translation was perfect -- only the original autographs.”

Here is that “pat” answer(“only the original autographs”), that gets under my skin.

To say, that only the original autographs are God’s inspired Word, is a cop out.
(Because as we all know, they no longer exist.)

If God is God, than He was able to “PERFECTLY PRESERVE HIS WORD” in the copies that were made of the originals.

Believe it or not, there was a time when most(99%), of professing Christians, believed that their English Bible was 100% correct.

All this talk of “an imperfect Bible”, is a lie, to rob us of faith.
--------------------------------------------------
Next you said.......
“What have I told you about needing to read Church History?”

Who’s version of Church History, are we talking about?
--------------------------------------------------
Next you responded to my statement.......
“The more “improvements” we make to the Bible the more ungodly and worldly the Church becomes.”

And you said........
That's an absurd idea. So it's your contention that the modern Bible versions contribute to the worldliness of modern Christians?

Well this is my opinion.

By the way, what do you attribute “the worldliness of modern Christians” to?

stilllearning
12-15-2008, 12:52 AM
Hi C4K

I said.......
“How can any man, “improve upon” God’s Word.”

Then you asked........
“Did not the translators in 1611 attempt to do just that?”


You might be right.

But these Christians were different back then.

gb93433
12-15-2008, 12:57 AM
Just my point! I don't post things as FACT, since NO one can PROVE one version better than another, it's all personal preference.



Perhaps you should have addressed this to Jim1999 since HE is the one who posted something as FACT?
He did post a historical fact. That fact is just as valid as God created in Genesis.

You cannot prove that God created in Genesis any more than you can disprove what Jim stated as a historical fact.

stilllearning
12-15-2008, 01:00 AM
Hello Jim1999

Thank you very much, for the explanation.

And yes, I do understand your position.

C4K
12-15-2008, 01:10 AM
Hi C4K

I said.......


Then you asked........



You might be right.

But these Christians were different back then.

I have no problem with your preference for the KJV, but you claimed that man cannot improve on God's word. There were good, solid English versions in 1610 - were they not godly men who did that work as well?

Do you think that Christians in 1611 did not deal with sin and the flesh? Do you think they were somehow more godly than believers in 2008? What do you mean that 'these Christians were different back thne?'

gb93433
12-15-2008, 01:41 AM
Do you think they were somehow more godly than believers in 2008? What do you mean that 'these Christians were different back then?'
Of course they were different. Peter cut off a man's ear. Moses killed a man. Paul killed a few men and later planted churches.

EdSutton
12-15-2008, 06:39 AM
Then you (Rippon) said.......

You know you are right. The KJV, could be “improved”, by making it’s language more up-to-date.
But there is not a single scholar on the planet, that I would trust to update it.

So I will just have to muddle along.Personally, I find this 'bolded' statement to be outlandish, considering the number of folks who apparently hold Dr. Benjamin Blaney, to a far different standard, than any so-called 'scholar' of today.Then you said........

You are right. I have not “always” been KJVO.
I have come to that conclusion(for one reason), because everyone that I know, that isn’t KJVO, doesn’t seem to have a reverence for God’s Word.A bit of 'pigeonholing' don't you think??Here is that “pat” answer(“only the original autographs”), that gets under my skin.

To say, that only the original autographs are God’s inspired Word, is a cop out.
(Because as we all know, they no longer exist.)I believe this to be an inaccurate statement, as well. It is an accurate statement to say that , to our knowledge, we do not have any of the 'originals', however.

Incidentally, were one actually permitted to hold an original in their hand, how would they know that? Are there any known copies of the 'handwriting' of any of the Biblical authors, with which to compare this??If God is God, than He was able to “PERFECTLY PRESERVE HIS WORD” in the copies that were made of the originals.I fully agree, here. The question is did He do exactly that, however?? Read Luke 4:15-21 and then tell me exactly which OT version or translation Jesus actually read from?? I suggest it was neither the LXX or any known Hebrew text, by the actual words Jesus read, and then pronounced to be Scripture.

Ed

EdSutton
12-15-2008, 06:44 AM
Hi C4K

I said.......

Quote:
“How can any man, “improve upon” God’s Word.”

Then you asked........

Quote:
“Did not the translators in 1611 attempt to do just that?”


You might be right.

But these Christians were different back then.How so??

And who says??

Ed

EdSutton
12-15-2008, 06:49 AM
I have no problem with your preference for the KJV, but you claimed that man cannot improve on God's word. There were good, solid English versions in 1610 - were they not godly men who did that work as well?

Do you think that Christians in 1611 did not deal with sin and the flesh? Do you think they were somehow more godly than believers in 2008? What do you mean that 'these Christians were different back thne?' (sic) Let me here note that I had not gotten to this post of C4K, when I posted my last one.

Ed

EdSutton
12-15-2008, 06:58 AM
Bible scholars quickly begin debate of new gender-neutral NIV revision

Posted on Jan 30, 2002 | by Art Toalston

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--The accuracy of the new "Today's New International Version" revision of the popular New International Version has quickly become a topic of debate among Bible scholars.

"Accuracy and clarity are prime with us," said Larry Lincoln, communications director for the International Bible Society, copyright holder of both the new TNIV and the 1984 NIV.

On the other side of the debate, Randy Stinson, executive director of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, said the TNIV contains "absolute mistranslations." The CBMW's Internet site, www.cbmw.org (http://www.cbmw.org), already cites three key examples.

Lincoln told Baptist Press that the TNIV should be called a "gender-accurate" translation instead of the term used by some in the media, including Baptist Press, as "gender-neutral." The TNIV, he said, uses "generic language" for men and women "only when the text was meant to include both men and women." An overview of the TNIV is available on the Internet at www.tniv.info (http://www.tniv.info).

Lincoln noted that the TNIV makes no changes in Scripture's male-oriented references to God and Jesus.

Stinson of the CBMW noted that the three examples of mistranslation on the organization's website are "representative types of changes that they've made," referencing the International Bible Society and the Committee on Bible Translation (CBT), a 15-member group of scholars with authority over the NIV translation, such as the revision of the text into the TNIV's gender-neutral language.

Of the changes, Stinson said, "They're significant. They do change the meaning. These are absolute mistranslations."

IBS and CBT may cite a Greek dictionary lexicon to defend their revisions, Stinson said, but those revisions "are just not the case with the major reputable lexicons."

Steve Johnson, IBS vice president for communication and development, sent an e-mail to Baptist Press after its Jan. 28 news story on the TNIV, stating: "I wish to state for the record that the overriding concern of the CBT is ALWAYS accuracy and clarity. While there may be differences within the body on the specific rendering of Greek and Hebrew, the influence of social agenda into any translation is NEVER permitted. We regret that once again, the issue of providing God's Word to the next generation of English-speakers has become an issue of division in the Body of Christ."

Several Southern Baptist leaders were quoted in the story as seeing a thrust for political correctness in the IBS effort to release a gender-neutral revision of the NIV.

The three references cited by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood as mistranslations in the TNIV are:

-- Revelation 3:20: "I will come and eat with them, and they with me."

"The removal of 'him' and 'he' completely drains the passage of the individual nature of the relationship between a person and Christ," the CBMW states on its website, noting that the TNIV has "many instances where the singular generic 'he' is replaced with the plural 'they' or 'them.'"

-- John 11:25, in which Jesus is translated as saying: "Anyone who believes in me will live, even though they die."

The CBMW's concern: "Not only does this convolute the personal nature of the relationship between a person and Christ, but it betrays the fact that Jesus himself used the generic 'he' even though he was speaking to a woman (Martha)."

-- Acts 20:30: "From your own number some will arise."

The CBMW's concern: "This is problematic because the Greek word for 'aner' is translated 'some' when this is a specific word that can only mean men. Not only is this a mistranslation but it communicates the idea that the passage may also refer to women who would 'arise.' Since this passage refers to the elders, that would not be the case. Even if one affirms that there actually could have been women elders, it is still not appropriate to change the translation to reflect this belief."

"Evangelicals must be able to count on Bible translators to have accuracy as their primary objective and not cultural appeasement," Stinson writes on the CBMW website. "Unnecessarily changing the words of the biblical text in order to accommodate those who think certain phrases are offensive is dangerous and irresponsible. The question one must ask is 'What will be next?'

"As Evangelicals we affirm the verbal inspiration of scripture which means each word is inspired by God. The conscious and unnecessary mistranslation of these words by IBS has produced an unreliable edition of the Bible about which all Christians should be concerned," Stinson wrote.

The CBMW also complained that "IBS has broken its agreement it made in [a] 1997 press release, 'The International Bible Society (IBS) has abandoned all plans for gender-related changes in future editions of the New International Version (NIV).' Although they will certainly argue that this is not the NIV but the TNIV, the public should not appreciate this kind of double talk."

Lincoln of the IBS stated that less than 2 percent of the TNIV involves gender-related revisions of the NIV. Other changes account for 5 percent in an overall 7 percent revision of the NIV, he said.

"We're concerned about a generation of people who are turning their backs on the Bible because they don't see it as relevant, largely because they don't understand it," Lincoln asserted, noting that 100 million people in America are under the age of 30 and that language has changed since the NIV New Testament was initially published in the 1970s.

The TNIV was announced to the public in a Jan. 28 news release by the International Bible Society and Zondervan, the publisher of the NIV. The TNIV New Testament will be published this spring, the news release stated, with the complete Bible "expected in 2005."

Controversy over gender-neutral translation erupted in 1997 when World magazine, based in Asheville, N.C., reported that the IBS had decided to produce a gender-neutral NIV for the U.S. market by 2001 but had made no announcement of its plans. World's 1997 articles appeared in its March 29, April 19 and May 3 issues. A storm of theology-related objections was raised by a number of U.S. evangelicals over various revisions to the NIV.

The IBS, in a May 27, 1997, news release, announced a reversal, saying it would "forgo all plans" to revise the NIV translation. The Colorado-based IBS, in its May 27 statement, also committed to revising its New International Readers Version (NIrV) Bible "to reflect a treatment of gender consistent with the NIV." The NIrV was a gender-neutral translation already used in a Zondervan Publishing House children's Bible. And the IBS committed to negotiate an end to the publishing of a gender-neutral NIV text already completed by the Committee on Bible Translation and released in 1996 in England by Hodder and Stoughton.

Also on May 27, 1997, key parties in the controversy found common ground in a joint statement and a page of suggested translation guidelines now known as the "Colorado Springs Guidelines," or CSG. "Specifically, we agree that it is inappropriate to use gender-neutral language when it diminishes accuracy in the translation of the Bible," the statement, released June 4, noted, "and we therefore agree to the attached guidelines for translation of gender-related language in Scripture." The statement also noted: "We agree that Bible translations should not be influenced by illegitimate intrusions of secular culture or by political or ideological agendas."

However, in announcing its TNIV Jan. 28, the International Bible Society acknowledged in a separate letter to various evangelical leaders, dated Jan. 18, that it was "withdrawing its endorsement" of the guidelines.

Among the statement's 12 signers in 1997 were Bruce E. Ryskamp, Zondervan's president and CEO; Lars Dunberg, then-president of the IBS; Ronald Youngblood, now chairman of the IBS board of directors and a Committee on Bible Translation member; Wayne Grudem, then-president of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood; John Piper, a member of the council and senior pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis; and theologian R.C. Sproul, chairman of Ligonier Ministries.

The IBS now has difficulty with the part of the CSG involving "some very specific guidelines [about translation of gender-related terms] that those present generally agreed with, or at the time were willing to endorse," the Jan. 18 IBS letter states, referencing the 1997 Colorado Springs meeting convened by Focus on the Family founder James Dobson.

"However, upon further review and consideration, and in consultation with other evangelical scholars, IBS has determined that many of the technical guidelines are too restrictive to facilitate the most accurate possible text in contemporary English," the IBS letter states.

In its Jan. 18 letter, the IBS noted that its ongoing work has been conducted "in accordance with its own guidelines and the guidelines established by the International Forum of Bible Agencies," which encompasses "18 of the leading global translation ministries, including IBS, Wycliffe Bible Translators, United Bible Societies, Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL), New Tribes Mission and others ... responsible for more than 90 percent of the translation work done around the world [and seeking to do] uncompromisingly accurate translations in contemporary language."

The IBS letter did not list the other guidelines nor discuss whether those guidelines address gender-related translation issues.
--30--



Source:http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=12635This may have been (and still be) a valid post and argument, but it is completely off-topic for this thread, and the Mods should consider removing it, IMO.

Start a new thread on this, is my suggestion.

Ed

EdSutton
12-15-2008, 07:07 AM
BFL,so you think trotting out a nearly seven year old article is worth something?

Bottom line:For those who appreciate the ESV and HCSB relating to how they handled the 'gender matter' -- the TNIV agrees with them most of the time.We're speaking of less than one percent of the TNIV which differs from the ESV and HCSB.I,of course,find no problem with the way the TNIV handled the matter.The NLTse treats the issue about the same -- so does the NET Bible,for the most part.

Things were deliberately blown up out of proportion by advocates primarly of the ESV rival translation.There are a number of folks who have been on the other side of the subject before and now know that the TNIV is solid and conservative -- an excellent translation.Ditto to my last post!

As this is not germane to either C. H. Spurgeon or the KJV,

as the children's song goes, when the one stuck their head in a little 'skunk'-hole -

"... and the little skunk said, 'Take it out! Take it out! Take it out! Remove it!' "

Ed

gb93433
12-15-2008, 07:35 AM
By the way, what do you attribute “the worldliness of modern Christians” to?
I had been in business and worked in busiensses long enough to notice people from all areas of life who lied cheated and stole. In one church I pastored there were some KJVO folks who always complained about the world going to hell because they didn't read the KJV. While I was pastoring that church the complainers never won one single person to Christ or ever discipeld anyone. Duringthat same time I saw people who preferred the KJV and others who liked theirown Bibkle win people to Christ and make disciples.

The real answer to your question is the fact that people are sinners and choose to do their own thing. Their life revolves around self and not Christ.

The vast majority of early Christians (about 98%) could not read and still lived for Christ.

Rippon
12-15-2008, 07:46 AM
By removing words and verses, or even worse, leaving them in, then having a footnote at the bottom of the page, that says........
“This verse isn’t found in the best Greek manuscripts”

Now, what is a person to do. This is simply casting doubt.


If a verse isn't found in the best Greek manuscripts should the translators hide that information from the reader?Don't you value honesty?



Those so-called “best Greek manuscripts”, were around back then, but everybody agreed that they were inferior copies.
(What changed?)


Most manuscripts weren't discovered until way past the 17th century.Since folks didn't know of their existence how could they agree that the manuscripts were inferior?!


But there is not a single scholar on the planet, that I would trust to update it.


You set the bar rather high.I'm surprised that Mr.Paris and Mr.Blayney met with your approval.



You are right. I have not “always” been KJVO.
I have come to that conclusion(for one reason), because everyone that I know, that isn’t KJVO, doesn’t seem to have a reverence for God’s Word.


Funny,KJVO's seem to have a knack for knocking modern versions with most despicable language.That doesn't evidence reverence for God's Word.




To say, that only the original autographs are God’s inspired Word, is a cop out.
(Because as we all know, they no longer exist.)


We don't know that for sure.It is a possibility that they may no longer exist;it's not conclusive one way or the other.



All this talk of “an imperfect Bible”, is a lie, to rob us of faith.


All translations are of course imperfect -- none are directly inspired.Since when does truth-telling rob someone of their faith?



Who’s version of Church History, are we talking about?


Just factual historical data is what I'm specifically talking about.You apparently know nothing of Mr.Mill (1700)and Mr.Bengal (1730's).You don't seem to be aware of Mr.Lachman (1831).You have no idea about Mr.Tregelles (his work was between 1852-1872).They all labored to bring the biblical knowlege of their time into a better Greek text of the New Testament.There were others as well.

Mexdeaf
12-15-2008, 07:57 AM
Well, my Spanish version (RVR 1960) is better and more reliable because the grammar structure of spanish is closer to greek than that of english to greek. :smilewinkgrin:

:thumbs::thumbs::laugh: ¡Lo aprobará¡

Baptist4life
12-15-2008, 08:58 AM
This may have been (and still be) a valid post and argument, but it is completely off-topic for this thread, and the Mods should consider removing it, IMO.

Start a new thread on this, is my suggestion.

Ed
Ed, it was posted in response to THIS statement by Rippon:BFL,most modern versions are more reliable than the KJV.



So I feel it IS "on topic" for this thread. But it really doesn't matter if someone wants to start a new thread. I'm trying to not be argumentative. If I'm coming across that way, I apologize.

stilllearning
12-15-2008, 09:05 AM
Hi C4K

You asked.........
“What do you mean that 'these Christians were different back thne?”

What I mean, is that several hundred years has passed, and God’s warning is still true......
2 Timothy 3:13-14
V.13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
V.14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned [them];

--------------------------------------------------
It may appear, that we are getting smarter and smarter, but the Bible disagrees.

Mexdeaf
12-15-2008, 09:15 AM
Hi C4K

You asked.........


What I mean, is that several hundred years has passed, and God’s warning is still true......

--------------------------------------------------
It may appear, that we are getting smarter and smarter, but the Bible disagrees.

And they weren't "smarter" in 1611 than they were in 1557 or 1381?

Your logic is fallible.

stilllearning
12-15-2008, 09:25 AM
Hi EdSutton

I said.......
“If God is God, than He was able to “PERFECTLY PRESERVE HIS WORD” in the copies that were made of the originals.”

And you responded with.......
“I fully agree, here. The question is did He do exactly that, however?? Read Luke 4:15-21 and then tell me exactly which OT version or translation Jesus actually read from?? I suggest it was neither the LXX or any known Hebrew text, by the actual words Jesus read, and then pronounced to be Scripture.”

Although this is making a different point:
(I was talking about God’s ability to perfectly preserve the book of Luke.)
-And your questioning the content of Luke.-

But I will respond anyway.
--------------------------------------------------
I believe that passage that you are looking for is, Isaiah 61:1-3

And although I agree, that there are some differences between Isaiah 61:1-3 & Luke 4:18,19, I take into consideration who it is, that it making the changes.

When our Lord Jesus Christ quotes an old testament passage, and states it a little differently, I mark it down, as “the Lord giving us more light”.

This is something to praise the Lord for, and not an excuse to cast doubt on God’s Word.

C4K
12-15-2008, 10:52 AM
Hi C4K

You asked.........


What I mean, is that several hundred years has passed, and God’s warning is still true......

--------------------------------------------------
It may appear, that we are getting smarter and smarter, but the Bible disagrees.

I didn't realise that 'evil men and seducers' there referred to believers. So the men in 1611 were wxing worse and worse than those of fifty years earlier. We must go back to the first English translation to avoid the 'evil men and seducers?'

gb93433
12-16-2008, 03:14 AM
By removing words and verses, or even worse, leaving them in, then having a footnote at the bottom of the page, that says........
“This verse isn’t found in the best Greek manuscripts”

Now, what is a person to do. This is simply casting doubt.

Better to cause doubt than lie. While some may want to instill confidence by avoiding the truth or lying, there are others who tell the truth.
For hundreds of years, Christians believed the TR to be exact copies of their Greek originals.
Those so-called “best Greek manuscripts”, were around back then, but everybody agreed that they were inferior copies.
The flat earth society still exists today. Are they right or wrong?
You are right. I have not “always” been KJVO.
I have come to that conclusion(for one reason), because everyone that I know, that isn’t KJVO, doesn’t seem to have a reverence for God’s Word.
To prove my point give us the accurate interpretation of Is. 45:7
Believe it or not, there was a time when most(99%), of professing Christians, believed that their English Bible was 100% correct.
About 98% of the early Christians during the time of the NT could not read.
By the way, what do you attribute “the worldliness of modern Christians” to? A lack of fear for God and disobedience to Him.

stilllearning
12-16-2008, 07:45 AM
Good morning gb93433

Glad to respond.

Please forgive me: (I have so much to do today, with so little time:)
-So right now, I will only have time to respond to your first point!-
--------------------------------------------------
I had said.......
“The way new Bible versions cast doubt on God’s word, is by removing words and verses, or even worse, leaving them in, then having a footnote at the bottom of the page, that says........
“This verse isn’t found in the best Greek manuscripts”
Now, what is a person to do. This is simply casting doubt.”


Then you said.......
“Better to cause doubt than lie. While some may want to instill confidence by avoiding the truth or lying, there are others who tell the truth.”


Someone else made this same statement, but I never got a chance to get back to them.

My response is “what truth”?

The statement: “the best Greek manuscripts”, is a misnomer.

The ONLY criteria that they are using to declare these manuscripts as “the best”, is there age. (They are the oldest)

As if to say, it wouldn’t matter what they said or didn’t say; If they are older, they must be “the best”.
--------------------------------------------------
Now don’t get me wrong, I am a big fan of “old things”: (Old commentaries), (Old Dictionaries) etc.
-And the reason that older commentaries & Dictionaries are generally better, is because all the newer ones are generally more “liberal”.

Here is just one example:
Look up the “Red sea”, in an old Bible dictionary, and it will say e.g. “The sea known to us as the Red Sea was by the Israelites called "the sea", and goes on to tell us where it was located and how the Jews miraculously crossed it on dry ground”

But when you look up the “Red sea”, in a newer Bible dictionary, is might say:
“The Red sea(actually the reed sea), was a short stretch of shallow water, by which the Israelites escaped the approaching Egyptian army. Where some of the Egyptians were injured when they got stuck in the mud.”

Note: Don’t try to find either one of these definitions in any dictionary: I was just quoting them from memory.

But as you can see, when it comes to “man’s writings”, older is indeed better; Because invariably, as time goes by, men(including professing Christians), seem to get farther and farther away from the truth’s of God’s Word.

But this same rule, DOES NOT APPLY TO GREEK MANUSCRIPTS.
--------------------------------------------------
Logically, you would think; (Well the older manuscript is better, because that means that it hasn’t been “recopied” as much, therefore it has fewer chances of having been “influenced”, by the copyist.)

Now this logical holds water, when it comes “man’s writings”:
But when it comes to God’s writings, it doesn’t apply. (Because God will protect His writings!)

Now some might ask; (If God protects His writings, how can even one “bad copy” of God’s Word even exist?)
-This is an interesting question.-

Why does God allow false teachers to exist?
(This is a perfect topic for another thread.)

But the fact remains, these “Oldest manuscripts”, are not necessarily the “better ones”!
--------------------------------------------------
When these handful of older manuscripts(that don’t even agree with each other), differ from the vast majority of what the newer manuscripts(that all agree with each other), than each of us have a decision to make.

Are we gong to continue to believe God’s preserved Word, that the Church has loved and accepted for hundreds of years?

Or are we going to allow some world-wise eggheads, convince us that our dear old Bible is wrong, and start removing or changing verses.
--------------------------------------------------
Boy I have got to go; But let me say one more thing.

I have learned, how to give preachers a quick test.
When ever I find some new preacher(new to me), on the internet, that allows me to download MP3's of this messages, I quickly search for one of his messages out of 1John 5:, and listen to what he says, when he comes to V.7.

The last time I used this test, the preacher mutilated the verse, then went on to explain that “the oldest manuscripts”, do not say, “and these three are one”.

We are allowing this one criteria, to rob God’s Word of some of it’s power.



I have got to go.
I will finish later!

jonathan.borland
12-16-2008, 08:48 AM
When these handful of older manuscripts(that don’t even agree with each other), differ from the vast majority of what the newer manuscripts(that all agree with each other), than each of us have a decision to make.

The vast majority of the newer manuscripts have 1 John 5:7? What are your sources? Last time I checked, out of the 500 or so Greek manuscripts that contain 1 John, only five or so have 1 John 5:7. Also, using old math, five out of 500 has never constituted a "vast majority." To look at another place, this time in John's Gospel (7:53-8:11), it is certain that hundreds of Byzantine Greek manuscripts (out of 1600 or so) omit the pericope, and that the ones that contain it represent at least ten, and perhaps as many as 20, various independent streams of the passage. In other words, they are not identical but disagree with each other in many places over the span of but 12 verses of text. For more information on this, see Maurice A. Robinson, "Preliminary Observations regarding the Pericope Adulterae Based upon Fresh Collations of Nearly All Continuous-Text Manuscripts and All Lectionary Manuscripts containing the Passage," Filologia Neotestamentaria 13 (2000) 35–59.

franklinmonroe
12-16-2008, 10:18 AM
This quote come from, “Extracts on Science” by C. H. Spurgeon
--------------------------------------------------
I normally don’t submit the words of others, but these words are so in line with my opinion, that I would do it this one time.
stilllearning, what was your source for this quote? I could not find any connection between Spurgeon and the title "Extracts on Science"; nor did I find "On Textual Critics and the Authorized Version" to be original with Spurgeon.

First, you should give complete and accurate source information. And as rsr has previously posted, your 'quote' is very heavily edited (I have included the full original text below). Second, if using a partial quote all the missing portions should be properly indicated (punctuated). But I easily did find extremely similar edits of these words of Spurgeon on two different pro-KJVO websites; so it seems it is being repeated without regard to accuracy. Thirdly, care should be taken when using quotes (especially partial ones) that the author's meaning is preserved outside the original context. Even with the entire Spurgeon quote his statements be misunderstood.

From the "Our Armoury" section of The Greatest Fight in the World (I have underline the words omitted from the OP [source: spurgeon.org])--
If this book be not infallible, where shall we find infallibility? We have given up the Pope, for he has blundered often and terribly; but we shall not set up instead of him a horde of little popelings fresh from college. Are these correctors of Scripture infallible? Is it certain that our Bibles are not right, but that the critics must be so? The old silver is to be depreciated; but the German silver, which is put in its place, is to be taken at the value of gold. Striplings fresh from reading the last new novel correct the notions of their fathers, who were men of weight and character. Doctrines which produced the godliest generation that ever lived on the face of the earth are scouted as sheer folly. Nothing is so obnoxious to these creatures as that which has the smell of Puritanism upon it. Every little man's nose goes up celestially at the very sound of the word "Puritan"; though if the Puritans were here again, they would not dare to treat them thus cavalierly; for if Puritans did fight, they were soon known as Ironsides, and their leader could hardly be called a fool, even by those who stigmatized him as a "tyrant." Cromwell, and they that were with him, were not all weak-minded persons—surely? Strange that these are lauded to the skies by the very men who deride their true successors, believers in the same faith. But where shall infallibility be found? "The depth saith, it is not in me"; yet those who have no depth at all would have us imagine that it is in them; or else by perpetual change they hope to hit upon it. Are we now to believe that infallibility is with learned men? Now, Farmer Smith, when you have read your Bible, and have enjoyed its precious promises, you will have, to-morrow morning, to go down the street to ask the scholarly man at the parsonage whether this portion of the Scripture belongs to the inspired part of the Word, or whether it is of dubious authority. It will be well for you to know whether it was written by the Isaiah, or whether it was by the second of the "two Obadiahs." All possibility of certainty is transferred from the spiritual man to a class of persons whose scholarship is pretentious, but who do not even pretend to spirituality. We shall gradually be so bedoubted and becriticized, that only a few of the most profound will know what is Bible, and what is not, and they will dictate to all the rest of us. I have no more faith in their mercy than in their accuracy: they will rob us of all that we hold most dear, and glory in the cruel deed. This same reign of terror we shall not endure, for we still believe that God revealeth himself rather to babes than to the wise and prudent, and we are fully assured that our own old English version of the Scriptures is sufficient for plain men for all purposes of life, salvation, and godliness. We do not despise learning, but we will never say of culture or criticism. "These be thy gods, O Israel!"

franklinmonroe
12-16-2008, 11:51 AM
... Before the late 1800's, there was NEVER any talk among Christians, about the mistakes in the Bible...
This is just one example of stilllearning's many erroneous statements (as if they were fact). I guess he is unaware of Sir Isaac Newton's An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture (published 1754 posthumously). Coincidently, one of the notable corruptions that Newton discusses is 1 John 5:7.

For your convenience -- http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=cIoPAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA1

Baptist4life
12-16-2008, 12:31 PM
This is just one example of stilllearning's many erroneous statements (as if they were fact). I guess he is unaware of Sir Isaac Newton's An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture (published 1754 posthumously). Coincidently, one of the notable corruptions that Newton discusses is 1 John 5:7.

For your convenience -- http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=cIoPAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA1
In all fairness I believe he was just talking "in general" there weren't all these discussions between the average "guy next door" Christians. I think he's just saying that BEFORE all the versions we have now, .............and YES, there are a LOT more than their used to be,....................... the average Christian didn't DEBATE his particular version like we do now. There seem to be THOUSANDS of debates on the internet about Bible versions! There are a LOT of bitter words and un-Christlike things said to one another about it. If nothing else Satan has to be enjoying that.:tear:

franklinmonroe
12-16-2008, 12:39 PM
... The statement: “the best Greek manuscripts”, is a misnomer.

The ONLY criteria that they are using to declare these manuscripts as “the best”, is there age. (They are the oldest)

As if to say, it wouldn’t matter what they said or didn’t say; If they are older, they must be “the best”....
This is another error; "the best" does not only refer to the age of a manuscript. For examples: the quality of the physical specimen (damage or deterioration) could be being described; the evidence or absence of later editing (additions or erasures) could be being described; or the inclination of the scribe (sloppy or attentive) to make errors in his text could be being described.

It seems that some folks do not discern the difference between textual criticism and forensic paleography. The textual critic seeks to explain how each variant may have entered the text, either accidently or intentionally, as scribes transmitted the original text when copying it. A paleographer studies the characteristics of ancient writing for the purpose of deciphering and reading manuscripts. Diplomatics (a branch of study) seeks clues from the materials, handwriting, grammar, historic references, etc. to establish the date and authenticity of ancient manuscripts. These are different disciplines.

franklinmonroe
12-16-2008, 01:21 PM
... Now this logical holds water, when it comes “man’s writings”:
But when it comes to God’s writings, it doesn’t apply. (Because God will protect His writings!)... Copying a document is not the same as the original "writing" of inspired literature. There are no verses that explicitly state God will preserve the written Scriptures in a book on Earth throughout all periods of history. This is a demonstrated fact recorded in Scripture itself.

... Now some might ask; (If God protects His writings, how can even one “bad copy” of God’s Word even exist?)
-This is an interesting question.-
You shouldn't allow yourself to delay answering this "interesting" question. There is not just one "bad copy" but rather every manuscript (of any considerable length) exhibits some defect. You must have an answer that will reconcile these corrupt witnesses with your assertion that "God will protect His writings". And what about all the sacred scrolls and codices that have perished over the centuries?

gb93433
12-17-2008, 12:33 AM
The ONLY criteria that they are using to declare these manuscripts as “the best”, is there age. (They are the oldest)

There is much more to it than that. It is not so simplistic.
Here is just one example:
Look up the “Red sea”, in an old Bible dictionary, and it will say e.g. “The sea known to us as the Red Sea was by the Israelites called "the sea", and goes on to tell us where it was located and how the Jews miraculously crossed it on dry ground”

But when you look up the “Red sea”, in a newer Bible dictionary, is might say:
“The Red sea(actually the reed sea), was a short stretch of shallow water, by which the Israelites escaped the approaching Egyptian army. Where some of the Egyptians were injured when they got stuck in the mud.”

Do you trust the Hebrew Masoretic Text or the Greek Septuagint more? They are very different.

One is the text and the other is an interpretation of the text.

While you point out something rather interesting. A historical study is in order to correctly interpret the text you gave about the Red Sea. In light of the theology of a number of calvinists I find it quite interesting to see how a number of them try to explain their theology instead of interpreting the texts of Amos 3:6, Is. 45:7 and Lam 3:38.

stilllearning
12-17-2008, 07:43 AM
Good morning jonathan.borland

Nice to hear from you.

You said......
“The vast majority of the newer manuscripts have 1 John 5:7?”

How new, are you talking about? (?1881-ff?)

I have already stated my distrust of modern scholarship.
So this could be where we disagree.
--------------------------------------------------
You also asked.........
“What are your sources?”

This is an interesting question.
My source is “the traditional view” of the majority Byzantine texts.

I am aware, the “new” paradigm says, that numbers of manuscripts, don’t hold any weight, but I disagree.
--------------------------------------------------
I appreciate you listing the source of your information.

I conducted a cursory internet search of Maurice A. Robinson, but was unable to determine if he has any hidden agenda.

But I disagree with his findings.


Have a great day.

stilllearning
12-17-2008, 08:00 AM
Hi franklinmonroe

You asked........
“What was your source for this quote?”

As I have already mentioned in response #4, “Who is was, that made this statement”, is not important to me.
But it is “the words” of the statement, that I agree with.

But according to rsr(who clearly seems to know a lot about what Spurgeon said), this quotation comes from, “The Greatest Fight in the World”.
--------------------------------------------------
As for me; My electronic computer has a list of “Quotations”, and the other day I stumbled across this one.
--------------------------------------------------
Any accusation, that I somehow purposely manipulated Spurgeon’s words, to put words in his mouth, is not true.

I just read this statement(the one in my op), and agreed with it, and shared it.
I could care less, who said it. But I agree with it.


Once again, I apologize for bringing Spurgeon into all of this, by the name that I chose for this thread.

stilllearning
12-17-2008, 08:24 AM
Hello again franklinmonroe

You quoted me......
“Before the late 1800's, there was NEVER any talk among Christians, about the mistakes in the Bible.”

Then you said......
“This is just one example of stilllearning's many erroneous statements (as if they were fact).”


Well, the statement that I made, is a fact.
But the “Christians”, that I am talking about are Christians like me.

If I had been talking about “everyone that called themselves a Christian”, I would have used the term, “professing Christians”.

Today, the world if full of “professing Christians”, who don’t know Christ, and reject the Bible.

And undoubtedly, there has always been, some professing Christians like this.
--------------------------------------------------
Earlier, when I was talking about, how Christendom has changed, over the last few hundred years, I quoted........
2 Timothy 3:13
V.13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
But then I included.......
2 Timothy 3:14
V.14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned [them];

Yes, there are(and will be), professing Christians that will set out to try and destroy our faith, by getting us to reject the “old ways”.

But I avoid them.

Mexdeaf
12-17-2008, 09:07 AM
Yes, there are those that are '"Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." (2 Tim. 3:7)

But that's a two-way street.

stilllearning
12-17-2008, 09:35 AM
Hi franklinmonroe

I stand by my statement.......
“The term, "best Greek manuscripts”, is a misnomer."

As for my statement.......
“The ONLY criteria that they are using to declare these manuscripts as “the best”, is there age. (They are the oldest)”

This does need some tweaking.
--------------------------------------------------
I have read, how “textual critics”, do have a list of criteria they use, in there search for exactly what is and what isn’t God’s Word, and there is more to it, than simply “the age of the manuscript”.

But for me, the search is over.
(I have found a complete and accurate copy of God’s Word, in the KJV.)
--------------------------------------------------
As for paleography, I feel that this work, has already been done.
In my mind, there is no need for it any longer.

We already have God’s Word. What it the point of any further study in this area.
(Except, to cast doubt upon what we already have.)

Logos1560
12-17-2008, 11:31 AM
You quoted me......
“Before the late 1800's, there was NEVER any talk among Christians, about the mistakes in the Bible.”


Well, the statement that I made, is a fact.
But the “Christians”, that I am talking about are Christians like me.

.

If by "the Bible" you mean or include translations of the Bible, your statement is not a fact.

KJV translator John Reynolds in 1604 referred to "mistakes" in a translation [the 1568 Bishops' Bible or the 1539 Great Bible or both] in his appeal to King James for the making of a new translation.

In 1583, William Fulke, who held the same view of Bible translation as the KJV translators, wrote: "In plain words I did confess that there might be some errors even in the best and perfectest of our translations" (A Defence of the Sincere and True Translations of the Holy Scriptures into the English Tongue, p. 97). He pointed out: "It cannot be denied but some faults may escape the most faithful and diligent translator" (Ibid., p. 63).

S. H. Ford observed that Leonard Busher, a Baptist, in 1613/14 in his A Plea for Liberty of Conscience stated that there were "certain false translations" in the KJV, but he lacked the means and money to print and publish them (Origin of the Baptists, p. 20). Cramp noted that Busher's unpublished tract was entitled: "A Declaration of Certain False Translations in the New Testament" (Baptist History, p. 292). In a book that includes a reprint of Busher's Plea, Edward Underhill observed that Busher was zealous for "the truthful translation of the word of God" (Tracts, p. 6).

In his introduction to his new 1784 translation of Jeremiah, Benjamin Blayney (editor of the standard 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV) maintained that “our present Version in common use” [the KJV] “is still far from being so perfect as it might and should be” (p. xiv-xv). In this same introduction, Blayney recommended: “Let the work of purifying and reforming what is amiss in the present Edition of our Bible be fairly and honestly set about, and with that moderation and soberness of mind which the gravity of the subject requires” (pp. xviii-xix). Would you claim that the man who made decisions about the text of the KJV in 1769 was not a Christian?

C4K
12-17-2008, 12:42 PM
Yes, there are(and will be), professing Christians that will set out to try and destroy our faith, by getting us to reject the “old ways”.

But I avoid them.

Is that what the KJV translators did by trying to get people to turn away from the Geneva Bible?

I a logic is going to be applied we must apply it across the board.

Samuel Owen
12-17-2008, 01:26 PM
The original text of the KJV 1611, has never been modified, or corrected. There were correcting of misspelled words, and grammatical errors only! in 1629, 1638, and the last in 1769. The editors never found mistakes in the translation, than needed correction.

Modern scholarship loves the twisting of words, and wrangling of Bible text to suit their own opinion. There has never been a problem with the KJV, only the inability to understand the common language used in the text. In 1611 they lacked the criticism of modern Bible critics, and just translated the Bible as it was written. In the phrases, and wording of the time.

But higher education lacks the ability to understand anything below their level of expertise, and found the word of God in error. I think the error should be recognized where it truly lies, in modern textual criticism.

Baptist4life
12-17-2008, 02:39 PM
The original text of the KJV 1611, has never been modified, or corrected. There were correcting of misspelled words, and grammatical errors only! in 1629, 1638, and the last in 1769. The editors never found mistakes in the translation, than needed correction.

Modern scholarship loves the twisting of words, and wrangling of Bible text to suit their own opinion. There has never been a problem with the KJV, only the inability to understand the common language used in the text. In 1611 they lacked the criticism of modern Bible critics, and just translated the Bible as it was written. In the phrases, and wording of the time.

But higher education lacks the ability to understand anything below their level of expertise, and found the word of God in error. I think the error should be recognized where it truly lies, in modern textual criticism.
:applause: :applause: :applause: :thumbs:

Mexdeaf
12-17-2008, 02:56 PM
The original text of the KJV 1611, has never been modified, or corrected. There were correcting of misspelled words, and grammatical errors only! in 1629, 1638, and the last in 1769. The editors never found mistakes in the translation, than needed correction.

Modern scholarship loves the twisting of words, and wrangling of Bible text to suit their own opinion. There has never been a problem with the KJV, only the inability to understand the common language used in the text. In 1611 they lacked the criticism of modern Bible critics, and just translated the Bible as it was written. In the phrases, and wording of the time.

But higher education lacks the ability to understand anything below their level of expertise, and found the word of God in error. I think the error should be recognized where it truly lies, in modern textual criticism.

Please pray tell direct us to a copy of the original text of the KJV 1611. And don't forget to include the footnotes!

C4K
12-17-2008, 03:05 PM
The original text of the KJV 1611, has never been modified, or corrected. There were correcting of misspelled words, and grammatical errors only! in 1629, 1638, and the last in 1769. The editors never found mistakes in the translation, than needed correction.



Was the 1611 or 1769 rendering of 1 John 5v12 in error?

Samuel Owen
12-17-2008, 04:11 PM
I don't see any error in 1 John 5:12, if there is one, it is only in the failure of some to understand it. If that simple verse poses a problem, I would hate to see what modern scholars would do with the rest.

C4K
12-17-2008, 04:15 PM
I don't see any error in 1 John 5:12, if there is one, it is only in the failure of some to understand it. If that simple verse poses a problem, I would hate to see what modern scholars would do with the rest.

Did you look at the difference between 1611 and 1769? If so, which is correct and which is in error. If you like I can post the difference for you.

EdSutton
12-17-2008, 04:21 PM
Also, using old math, five out of 500 has never constituted a "vast majority." http://digital-forums.com/images/smilies/pro/emot15.gif http://bestsmileys.com/lol/4.gif

Ed

Samuel Owen
12-17-2008, 04:51 PM
I see no difference, except that which I said, the terrible spelling of 1611, which the 1769 corrected.

EdSutton
12-17-2008, 04:56 PM
For the lack of something better to do for the next 10 minutes, I decided to respond to this post of Samuel Owen. I will do so only with the use of different colored print, by using red to denote erroneous statements; blue for opinion only; statements that are partially, but not entirely accurate in orange; and green for when the post is entirely accurate and factual.The original text of the KJV 1611, has never been modified, or corrected. There were correcting of misspelled words, and grammatical errors only! in 1629, 1638, and the last in 1769. The editors never found mistakes in the translation, than (sic) needed correction.

Modern scholarship loves the twisting of words, and wrangling of Bible text to suit their own opinion. There has never been a problem with the KJV, only the inability to understand the common language used in the text. In 1611 they lacked the criticism of modern Bible critics, and just translated the Bible as it was written. In the phrases, and wording of the time.

But higher education lacks the ability to understand anything below their level of expertise, (Let me briefly "cut in" here to offer this, about this last sentence. :rolleyes: Now, continuing with the regularly scheduled 'rant.') and found the word of God in error. I think the error should be recognized where it truly lies, in modern textual criticism.Unfortunately, I do not find a single clause, in context, in this post that warrants any use of "green."

And I have used editions of the King James the great majority of my Christian life, including the exclusive use of one particular copy for more than 27 years, no less.

Ed

Mexdeaf
12-17-2008, 05:30 PM
For the lack of something better to do for the next 10 minutes, I decided to respond to this post of Samuel Owen. I will do so only with the use of different colored print, by using red to denote erroneous statements; blue for opinion only; statements that are partially, but not entirely accurate in orange; and green for when the post is entirely accurate and factual.Unfortunately, I do not find a single clause, in context, in this post that warrants any use of "green."

And I have used editions of the King James the great majority of my Christian life, including the exclusive use of one particular copy for more than 27 years, no less.

Ed

You might have been better off :praying: for him for 10 minutes.








(just kidding!):laugh:

EdSutton
12-17-2008, 05:45 PM
Quoted by Samuel Owen:
"The original text of the KJV 1611, has never been modified, or corrected. There were correcting of misspelled words, and grammatical errors only! in 1629, 1638, and the last in 1769. The editors never found mistakes in the translation, than needed correction."

Quoted by C4K:
"Was the 1611 or 1769 rendering of 1 John 5v12 in error?"

Quoted by Samuel Owen:
"I don't see any error in 1 John 5:12, if there is one, it is only in the failure of some to understand it. If that simple verse poses a problem, I would hate to see what modern scholars would do with the rest."

Quoted by C4K:
"Did you look at the difference between 1611 and 1769? If so, which is correct and which is in error. If you like I can post the difference for you."

Quoted by Samuel Owen:
"I see no difference, except that which I said, the terrible spelling of 1611, which the 1769 corrected."

Quoted by Language Cop:
"It is rather apparent to me that I should offer to provide lessons in reading comprehension of the English language!"

Quoted by EdSutton:
Right you are, L.C.! Either that, or still yet another individual is claiming to have read something, while he or she could not be bothered to actually take the time to read! :rolleyes:

Samuel Owen, have you ever actually read what you are claiming to have read, here? Is this a question of comprehension, or is the question one of honesty??

FTR, there is no "terrible spelling" in the 1611 for I Jn. 5:12! The spelling is correct, as these English words were spelled in 1611, and there are no 'typos' in the verse, either.
Hee that hath the Sonne, hath life; and hee that hath not the Sonne, hath not life. (I Jn. 5:12 - KJV, 1611 reproduction, as found at StudyLight.org)Calling C4K!!

You're on!

Ed

EdSutton
12-17-2008, 05:47 PM
You might have been better off :praying: for him for 10 minutes.

(just kidding!):laugh:Why are you kidding? It is probably true! :tear:

Ed

Samuel Owen
12-17-2008, 06:10 PM
Hee that hath the Sonne, hath life; and hee that hath not the Sonne, hath not life. 1611
He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. 1769

Ok the difference here is the omission of God in 12b. This does not constitute a retranslation, but a simple edit. Actually if you read the adjoining versus, you don’t need the word God here, it is more than assumed who is being talked about.
And who is to say it was not a type set error, discovered in 1769. Remember printing was in its infancy in 1611. This was easily a fault of the printer, more than the translators. I imagine you will find this, in the first edit of 1629.
Correction of printing errors does not constitute a retranslation, as the MV’s do. But some people pick their teeth, after drinking water too.

franklinmonroe
12-17-2008, 07:00 PM
... Actually if you read the adjoining versus,{sic} you don’t need the word God here, it is more than assumed who is being talked about...
You know, he's right! In fact, it seems that the whole book is about God. Why repeat it so often? Now with Samuel Owen's permission, we can just eliminate all those superfluous words (like "God") from the Bible.

Samuel Owen
12-17-2008, 07:22 PM
I am really glad you said that. Since all the MV's leave out the word God, and Holy Spirit, in many more versus than this one instance; in the original 1611 KJV.

So yes! you have my permission to read all the modern versions, you want. :laugh:

stilllearning
12-17-2008, 08:35 PM
Hello again franklinmonroe

You quoted me.....
“Now this logical holds water, when it comes “man’s writings”:
But when it comes to God’s writings, it doesn’t apply.
(Because God will protect His writings!)”

And then you said.......
“Copying a document is not the same as the original "writing" of inspired literature.”

Now this, is the main question isn’t it.
(1) God promise to preserve His word:
(2) But allowed the original autographs to wear out:
(3) Therefore, the accurate copies made of them, are inspired.

For hundreds of years, this is what all kinds of Bible believing Christians believed(except for the crack pots):
And then BB Warfield, took it upon himself to declare that this is no longer the case.
--------------------------------------------------
Next you said.....
“There are no verses that explicitly state God will preserve the written Scriptures in a book on Earth throughout all periods of history.”

Well read your Bible......
Isaiah 40:8
“The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.”

Matthew 5:18
“For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”

Matthew 24:35
“Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”

1 Peter 1:25
“But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.”

Psalms 12:6-7
V.6 The words of the LORD [are] pure words: [as] silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
V.7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Deuteronomy 17:18-19
V.18 And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of [that which is] before the priests the Levites:
V.19 And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them:

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.”

--------------------------------------------------
Then you quoted me.........
“Now some might ask; (If God protects His writings, how can even one “bad copy” of God’s Word even exist?)
-This is an interesting question.-“

Then you said.......
“You shouldn't allow yourself to delay answering this "interesting" question.”

Well, okey.......
1 Kings 22:21-23
V.21 And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him.
V.22 And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade [him], and prevail also: go forth, and do so.
V.23 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.

If you insist on believing a lie, than God will accommodate you.
--------------------------------------------------
Then you said.......
“There is not just one "bad copy" but rather every manuscript (of any considerable length) exhibits some defect.”


Well let me respond, with the first line, from the quotation, that you listed in your response #66........
“If this book be not infallible, where shall we find infallibility?



I praise the Lord, that I believe the Bible.

EdSutton
12-17-2008, 08:50 PM
I wonder if the Baptist Board has ever considered selling 'pap' as well as advertising space?

I suggest the BB could make a rather tidy income, in doing so, at least on this forum. :rolleyes:

Ed

rbell
12-17-2008, 09:13 PM
Hee that hath the Sonne, hath life; and hee that hath not the Sonne, hath not life. 1611
He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. 1769

Ok the difference here is the omission of God in 12b. This does not constitute a retranslation, but a simple edit. Actually if you read the adjoining versus, you don’t need the word God here, it is more than assumed who is being talked about.


Hmmm...I thought that things that were different were not the same...

But, keep in mind...if an MV did this, it would be accused of "taking God out of the Bible."

Word picture for you:

standard standard

:thumbs:

Samuel Owen
12-17-2008, 10:46 PM
clarifying a verse is not exactly changing it, at least it replaced what was probably a typeset error as I said above.

I really don't see, how it was really missed by the translators of 1611. I know some really corrupted versions were printed in the 1670's, due to typeset errors. I forget where this was done exactly, but that to was corrected.

As for the MV's, removing the name of God, that is one of the biggest complaints. Also the name of the Holy Spirit, and Jesus in numerous versus, throughout the text.

I own about 90% of all the translations that are available, and have pointed out this fault many times. But I also say if you can't understand it, read something you can, the differences can be worked out later. But it takes a pretty big illiterate, to not be able to read the KJV. It only takes about an eight grade education.

Oh!, I forgot surveys state, that 90% of the high-school graduates can only read to a 6th grade level. :(

stilllearning
12-17-2008, 11:10 PM
Hi Samuel Owen

You said.......
“In 1611 they lacked the criticism of modern Bible critics, and just translated the Bible as it was written. In the phrases, and wording of the time.”


I like the way you put that.

EdSutton
12-17-2008, 11:16 PM
Hee that hath the Sonne, hath life; and hee that hath not the Sonne, hath not life. 1611
He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. 1769

Ok the difference here is the omission of God in 12b.Oh! You mean you actually finally read the verse?? Amazing! :rolleyes:This does not constitute a retranslation, but a simple edit.I assume you were there to note this?? "A simple edit" is actually highly unlikely, here. What is the far more likely, is that this was actually imported directly from either the D-R, which reads "He that hath the Son hath life. He that hath not the Son hath not life.", or was perhaps even taken from the TR-1598 edition as edited by Dr. John Calvin's brilliant and able successor, Dr. Theodore Beza (pronounced as "Bāz") who was not above occasionally 'editing' the text, to 'improve' the 'meter' or even because something appeared to "make sense" and "sounded" better.?

By comparison, here are some earlier translations of the English Scriptures (plus the Vulgate and TR-1550) which did not seem to have any "edit" questions, here. (You might remember that the Geneva, Bishop's, et. al., were there 'side-by-side' with the KJV, 1611 for the so-called, self-styled 'scholars' to compare with, which incidentally, the very title page of the KJV says was done.)qui habet Filium habet vitam qui non habet Filium Dei vitam non habet (VUL - 425)

ο εχων τον υιον εχει την ζωην ο μη εχων τον υιον του θεου την ζωην ουκ εχει (TR1550)

He that hath the sone of God, hath also lijf; he that hath not the sone of God, hath not lijf. (WYC - Purvey edition - 1395) (Note: I placed the first occurrence of "of God" in bold red, to indicate my own displeasure where this version "adds" these two words in translating, which have no apparent textual support, from the Vulgate, from whence the WYC is translated, but is done apparently for the purpose of "improving the meter". However, the second occurrence, in bold black, is germane to the rest of the versions I cited for the verse.- Ed)

He that hath the sonne hath lyfe: and he that hath not the sonne of god hath not lyfe. (TYN - 1526)

He that hath the sonne of God, hath life: He that hath not the sonne of God, hath not life. (MCB - 1535)

He that hath the sonne, hath lyfe: and he that hath not the sonne of God, hath not lyfe. (BIS - 1568)

He that hath that Sonne, hath yt life: and he that hath not yt Sonne of God, hath not that life. (GEN - 1587)

He that hath the Son, hath life. He that hath not the Son, hath not life. (D/R - 1582 - Challoner rev. - 1764, modern spelling)

Hee that hath the Sonne, hath life; and hee that hath not the Sonne, hath not life. (KJV- 1611)

He that hath the Son, hath life; and he that hath not the Son, hath not life. (KJV -1611, modern spelling)

he that receives the son, is intitled to life; and he that does not receive the son of God, has no title to life. (MNT - 1729)

He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. (WES - 1755)

He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. (KJV- Blaney, 1769?)Most of the older versions plus the Mace and Wesley versions "got it right!"

Uh- did you happen to notice exactly which other English version, which predates the KJV, reads almost identically as the KJV-1611? Horrors!! Could it possibly be the official Bible of the Roman Catholic church, the D/R?? Could this possibly be because a couple of the KJV translators eihter had previously worked on the D/R, in some manner, even if only proof-reading, or were very close co-workers of those who actually did translate the D/R?? Naw! Surely not! :rolleyes: [Unfortunately, this 'smilie' is the best (or worst)I can do, here.]Actually if you read the adjoining versus, you don’t need the word God here, it is more than assumed who is being talked about.You actually claim to be able to decide what needs to be in the text of the Scripture?? Unbelievable!! And after this statement, then you actually have the unmitigated gall to speak disparagingly of the efforts of scholars, with whom you do not agree, simply because they do not "rubber stamp" your own preferred Bible version???? IMO, this is really :tear: And who is to say it was not a type set error, discovered in 1769. Remember printing was in its infancy in 1611. This was easily a fault of the printer, more than the translators. I imagine you will find this, in the first edit of 1629.This is "cut from whole cloth" which is the best I can offer to these sentences! No, this was not any accidental "type set error" that was found in 1629, at all, but rather a deliberate choice of wording. There were already several different printings (with accompanying proof-reading and corrections) made by then. The first 'major' lesser revision was done in 1629.

I believe, if you actually do the research (as opposed to blithely, merely taking another's word to be true), that you will find that this wording was kept in the KJV, until the revisions of the friendly competitors Drs. Thomas Paris of Cambridge [(1762) - How is it that you are not familiar with the Cambridge revision of Paris of 1762?] and Dr. Benjamin Blaney (Oxford - 1769) both of which were done under the auspices and at the direction of the Anglican Church and the English Crown, and both of whom, with an attack of conscience, insisted on restoring these words they both knew to properly be in the Greek texts. But yet you would posit that no one could see the difference when it was right in front of their face, for 150 years?? With all respect, this requires straining credulity beyond the 'breaking point,', here.Correction of printing errors does not constitute a retranslation,Agreed! And I have never said otherwise.as the MV’s do.This is only partly true, at best, at least for most of the 'standard' versions. The same thing can be said for the KJV, as well. The KJV is simultaneously a new translation and a revision of extant translations. (Read the intro to the KJV, and the story of the charge given to the KJV translators, by the authorizers during the Hampton Conference.) There is a very large influence from Tyndale, Coverdale, Rogers, et al., still present in such versions as the GEN, KJV, YLT, DARBY, ASV, RSV, MLB, NIV, NASB, NKJV, and HCSB to name several. The YLT is from precisely the same textual lineage as the KJV. The NKJV is from the same textual lineage, as well. There are multiple updated versions done recently which utilize the same Greek and Hebrew texts as does the KJV, as far as anyone can tell (The actual original texts, manuscripts and notes of the work of the KJV Conference were apparently lost in the Great London Fire of 1666.), including such as the KJII, KJ21, KJIII, LitV, and so on.But some people pick their teeth, after drinking water too.Which has absolutely zero to do with any question at hand!

Ed

Rippon
12-17-2008, 11:24 PM
I really don't see, how it was really missed by the translators of 1611. I know some really corrupted versions were printed in the 1670's, due to typeset errors. I forget where this was done exactly, but that to {sic}was corrected.


"Really corrupted versions"?!

Guys like Franklin,Logos and others could shed more light on the errors in this post of yours.But I'll give some brief comments.

Bible versions are not known as "corrupted";that term refers to certain parts of some manuscripts.

Yeah,there were typeset mistakes in some English Bibles of several hundred years ago.But that has nothing to do with "corrupted texts".


As for the MV's, removing the name of God, that is one of the biggest complaints. Also the name of the Holy Spirit, and Jesus in numerous versus,{sic} throughout the text.


Were there removals or were they corrections?Some scribes expanded some phrases to sound better,to harmonize with other passages or if they thought that the passage was too short and abrupt.

This was asked by others -- but how do you respond to the fact that modern versions have 'God', 'Christ Jesus', and 'Holy Spirit' when the KJV left them out in a number of places?


I own about 90% of all the translations that are available, and have pointed out this fault many times.


Perhaps you don't read your modern versions too well.


But it takes a pretty big illiterate, to not be able to read the KJV. It only takes about an eight {sic}grade education.


Maybe you'd like to rephrase."However,only over-sized illiterates are not able to read the KJV.":laugh:

I think it's generally acknowledged that a KJV reader would have to have a 12th grade education.

But it's one thing to be able to read the KJV and quite another to understand what is being read.That's why having some quality modern versions on-hand is suggested.



Oh!, I forgot surveys state, that 90% of the high-school graduates can only read to a 6th grade level. :(

Perhaps you'd like to reword that :"Oh,I forgot to say that 90% of high-school graduates are able to read at a 6th grade level."

gb93433
12-18-2008, 01:00 AM
Did you look at the difference between 1611 and 1769? If so, which is correct and which is in error. If you like I can post the difference for you.
Some say that the KJV corrects the Greek. So I wonder which one is correct in correcting the Greek?

EdSutton
12-18-2008, 02:19 AM
Hi Samuel Owen

You said.......“In 1611 they lacked the criticism of modern Bible critics, and just translated the Bible as it was written. In the phrases, and wording of the time.”
I like the way you put that.Are either of you two gents? or ladies? the least bit concerned that the statement here made by Samuel Owen is nothing more than 'pithy sounding', quasi "Theological B___ ____?"

The NT was not "written" in the TR1598 of Beza, which is apparently the primary underlying text of the NT for the KJ-1611;

The OT was not "written" in the First and Second "Rabbinic Bibles" of Bomberg of 1517 and 1525, which are apparently the underlying OT texts for the KJ-1611.

Any one, two, and/or all three of these of these may, in fact, represent a very accurate text, but that is not the issue, here!

The point is that "criticism"

("Please learn what that word actually means!" Signed, Language Cop)

was necessarily employed by those who compiled the texts, starting with the Hebrew and continuing with the Greek, into a usuable text. We shall ever be in the debt of Bomberg, Erasmus, Estienne, Beza, and so on, for the sweat they put in, to give us these 'critical' texts.

Unless one is actually a Bible scholar and/or translator, such as John of Japan, Nigel, or TCassidy, to name three BB members, I suggest they have not a clue as to what is involved.

I have just a hint from Bible College, 35+ years ago, and I only had to translate a couple of chapters of John! In other words, I didn't even begin to scratch the surface, and still sweated bullets, doing so.

All of the OT and NT documents were originally "written" as individual manuscripts, over a period of some 1500 years, and later 'collected' and assembled into some recognizable form. This 'writing' covered a period of about a millenium for the OT, and some 50-60 years for the NT. It still took hundreds of years for the canon to become mostly "fixed", even so, and still today, in 2008, there is not a universal acceptance of this among those who are considered as "Christian," as one can easily find out.

Is the Apocrypha found in your Bible?? It's in the D/R and also is found, if you have an authentic KJ-1611.

III Corinthians? It's in older Armenian Orthodox Bibles.

The Laodicean Epistle?? It is found in the Wycliffe.

Odes?? Found in the Greek Orthodox Bible.

II John and Revelation in your Bible? They are in mine. They're not in the Peshitta.

The Shepherd and I Clement were argued about for almost 400 years.

It has taken >1500 years for the church, as a whole, to "get it right" by being on the same 'wave-length' as the Holy Spirit. And that is just the NT! We are still working on the OT!

See what I mean??

We are not of the Mormon persuasion, where it is believed that the "holy tablets" just sort of "dropped from the heavens" in their entirety.

David and Solomon could read the Torah (BTW, they were required to make, by their own hand, their own personal copy of the Law - Deut. 17:18-20); they could not read Daniel, Isaiah, and Malachi! They were not yet written.

Peter could (and did) read the Epistles of Paul (II Pet. 3:15-16); Paul could not read Revelation or likely, the Gospel of John, again, because they had not yet been written.

I will add that not all of the KJ-1611 was translated "in the phrasing and wording of the time," either. There are multiple places where Vulgate phrasing and 'ecclesiastical terminology' words from an earlier time are to be found in the KJ-1611, and multiple instances where much clearer and more contemporary words are found in the GEN and BIS, but are not rendered into the KJ-1611, as well. Rippon and a couple of others have made multiple posts to this effect, which one could find by searching.

Folks, I am about as conservative as they come. I have used some form of the KJV for most all of my Christian life. My old one I used for over 27 years, with 27 years of notes, was stolen, and I thought enough of the KJV to go out and buy me a new one. I would happily pay virtually any amount I could afford just to have the one that was stolen back, in my hands, even after 10 years without it. I would give more for it, than I actually would to possess the personal copy of Charles Spurgeon, or a John Wesley or a D. L. Moody.

But I offer that we are not serving the cause of Christ very well, by making false claims and/or dumb and inaccurate statements about the Bible.

I urge everyone to think about what they are actually saying, before posting, and not just post something because it "sounds good!"

Now, since it is 3 hrs past bed-time, I'm going :sleeping_2:

Ed

Phillip
12-18-2008, 08:59 AM
My daughter is attending a country Independent Baptist Church that has a cross on the front of their bulletins with a KJV on one side and 1611 on the other side. We have visited several times, but I have a real problem with the preacher bringing up the "new age" bibles every time we attend.

Anyway, a funny thing happened. I took my 1611 replica copy to the church the last time we went. My wife is not up to speed on translations and she was going to show it to the preacher. During the service she picked it up---opened it and read a little. She said, "Oh, my goodness, I can't show this to the preacher; you are bad for bringing that to church." and she hid it in her purse.

So, my guess is the 1769 must correct the Greek. :laugh: :laugh:

robycop3
12-18-2008, 09:52 AM
I won't set foot in any church that proclaims "KJV Only" or otherwise indicates it's KJVO in its logo, bulletin board, etc. I know it has at least one false doctrine before I would ever hear its pastor preach.

stilllearning
12-18-2008, 10:08 AM
Hi EdSutton

I appreciate the time, that you put into your last post.

You said......
“Are either of you two gents? or ladies? the least bit concerned that the statement here made by Samuel Owen is nothing more than 'pithy sounding', quasi "Theological B___ ____?"

I personally have never even tried to sound pithy or theological.
(I just love God’s Word, and when He allows me, I take a stand in it’s defense.)

I take Romans 11:33 to heart........
Romans 11:33
“O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
how unsearchable [are] his judgments, and his ways past finding out!”

None of us have all the answers; So whether we like it or not, we “must” go to the Bible for answers.

The point that I am making(with this whole KJVO thing), is that those who even suggest that we don’t have “a Bible”, that we can be trusted, to be 100% accurate, are attempting to take away, our only source of truth.
--------------------------------------------------
Someone has recently said.....
“There is not just one "bad copy" but rather every manuscript (of any considerable length) exhibits some defect.”

This is truly a statement, intended to sound pithy and quasi Theological, but is attacking the foundation of our faith.

May I ask, if we can’t trust God’s Word, than where can we go for answers?
--------------------------------------------------
Now for “criticism”........
“3.a. The art, skill, or profession of making discriminating judgments and evaluations, especially of literary or other artistic works.
b. A review or article expressing such judgment and evaluation.
4. Detailed investigation of the origin and history of literary documents, such as the Bible.”

As I have stated earlier, I believe the time for investigating the origin of Biblical documents, is over. (We have the Bible)

And it is a Bible that has the power to turn the world upside down.
(As it did, in the 1700's)
--------------------------------------------------
You said.......
“It has taken >1500 years for the church, as a whole, to "get it right" by being on the same 'wave-length' as the Holy Spirit. And that is just the NT! We are still working on the OT!
See what I mean??”

Yes, I see what you mean. You have been convinced, that God’s Word is lost. And that we need, theological, scholars, linguistic experts etc. to find it for us.

I respectfully disagree.
--------------------------------------------------
You said.....
“But I offer that we are not serving the cause of Christ very well, by making false claims and/or dumb and inaccurate statements about the Bible.”

I have made many claims, about what Christians believed, in the 1600's, 1700's and early 1800's. And in response, several of you have supposedly corrected me, by quoting what someone said(how they believed), from these eras.
There were crackpots back then, just as there are today.

The reason we can know, what “the majority” of Christians Believed “back then”, is because of the state of the Church, “back then”.

Here is a line from franklinmonroe’s post(#66), where he quoted Spurgeon......
“Striplings fresh from reading the last new novel correct the notions of their fathers, who were men of weight and character. Doctrines which produced the godliest generation that ever lived on the face of the earth are scouted as sheer folly.”

Now here is what the Bible says, about how people will be in these last days......
2 Timothy 4:2-4
V.2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
V.3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
V.4 And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Today we are all seeing, a Church hates Doctrine.
And this passage tells us, the only way to fix today’s problems: “Preach the word”.

How can anybody “Preach the word”, when most preachers are being convinced, that “we don’t even have the word yet”.
--------------------------------------------------

I respect you as my elder(because you sound really old), and I love you as my brother in Christ.

But brother, there was a time that you said, that you “defended the KJV”, as God’s preserved Word. (What happened?)

C4K
12-18-2008, 10:14 AM
Simple question.

Why did the KJV translating committee and their boss, James I and VI, feel compelled to correct God's perfect word as preserved in th Geneva Bible?

franklinmonroe
12-18-2008, 10:58 AM
... Well read your Bible......
I have read these verses before and my statement still stands. I would suggest that you simply read and not read into Scripture things that are not actually there. Even taken together, these verses do not meet all of the criteria: written in a book (the form), on Earth (the location), through all periods of human history (the availability).

While Deuteronomy 17:18-19 mentions writing in a "book" it is limited to just the Torah ("write him a copy of this law in a book"), not even the entire Hebrew holy scriptures. "Book" is a bit of an anachronistic reading, since the kings of Israel would have actually written upon scrolls (the codex would not emerge until many hundreds of years later). I found no reason for Deuteronomy 4:2 ("Ye shall not add unto the word") to be included in this particular discussion (was it just part of a 'borrowed' response?).

The first mistake made by many folks is to precisely equate the phrase "word of the Lord" or "word of God" (etc.) to always representing our complete 'Bible' (or even a written portion of revelation at all). In most passages it is demonstrable that the "word of God" is probably not describing a written document, which eliminates Isaiah 40:8* (and 1 Peter 1:25, a quote of the same). Writing was the exception, not the rule: it was expensive, and few people were literate. They honored oral tradition. There is a multitude of difficulties with interpreting Psalm 12:7 as referring back to "words" (v.6), but for the purpose of this discussion it will suffice to say that "preserve them" certainly does not definitively describe a manuscript or its' location.

Matthew 24:35 uses the plural form ("my words shall not pass away") which may indicate just spoken words. Certainly Jesus spoke many words before His ministry, and additional words that are not recorded in the Gospels. All those words did "pass away". Jesus didn't lie. Therefore, if this is a prooftext for your position you must reconcile the reality of history with a literal interpretation.

It is pretty clear that Matthew 5:18 ("one jot or one tittle") is referring to writing (unless it is taken as an idiom). Again, this verse presents a problem for your position since clearly all manuscripts do exhibit scribal errors. Possibly, the verse could be interpreted as applying only to the prophecy Jesus was giving at that time; or, that those necessary things have already been "fulfilled". But if the verse is explained by one of those reasons, then it ceases to be a prooftext for the preservation of written revelation now.

Now, I'm not suggesting that truths can never be implicit or extrapolated from verses, but we must be very careful to not stretch the facts or overstate the case.

*You may want to notice that just prior in Isaiah 40 that the phrases "saith your God" (v.1), "for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken" (v.5), and "The voice said" (v.6) all are indicative of the verbal characteristic of this passage.

stilllearning
12-18-2008, 11:06 AM
Hi C4K

You asked........
“Why did the KJV translating committee and their boss, James I and VI, feel compelled to correct God's perfect word as preserved in th Geneva Bible?”

A great question.

I didn’t know for sure, so did some research.
Here is part of what I found out..........

“Like most English translations of the time, the Geneva Bible was translated from scholarly editions of the Greek New Testament and Hebrew scriptures that comprise the Christian Old Testament. The English rendering was substantially based on the earlier translations by William Tyndale and Myles Coverdale. (80-90% of the language in the Genevan New Testament is from Tyndale.) However, the Geneva Bible was the first English version in which all of the Old Testament was translated directly from the Hebrew (cf. Coverdale Bible, Matthew's Bible).

The annotations which are an important part of the Geneva Bible were Calvinistic and Puritan in character, and as such they were disliked by the ruling conservative Protestants of the Church of England, as well as King James I, who commissioned the "Authorized Version" or King James Bible to replace it. The Geneva Bible had also motivated the production of the Bishops' Bible under Elizabeth I, for the same reason, and later the Douay-Rheims edition by the recusant Catholic community. The Geneva Bible remained popular among Puritans and remained in widespread use until after the English Civil War. The Geneva notes were surprisingly included in a few editions of the King James version, even as late as 1715[2].

It has been stated by some that the Geneva Bible was the Bible present at the signing of the U. S. Declaration of Independence and the U. S. Constitution, because it was the Bible that the Puritans brought with them to America. However, the U. S. Library of Congress and the Independence National Historical Park both state that they do not know what version/translation of the Bible was present at these signings (Independence Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania being the location of both of the signings).

In 2006, the first completely new publication of the Geneva Bible available in modern times was published by Tolle Lege Press as part of the "1599 Geneva Bible Restoration Project." This edition uses the Tomson and Junius revisions described above. It also has a table of interpretations of proper names, which are chiefly found in the Old Testament, and a table of principal subjects contained in the Bible. Like many sixteenth- and seventeenth-century copies of the Bible, it is bound with the metrical Psalms by Thomas Sternhold, John Hopkins and others, and the prayers used by the English congregations every morning and evening.”

This Geneva Bible, sounds pretty good.

Who knows, tomorrow, I may be a GBO.

C4K
12-18-2008, 11:14 AM
Wikipedia is not really research.

The point is how does one decide which version is the one for their 'onlyism'?

Geneva Bible? Tyndale NT? Bishops Bible? KJV?

EdSutton
12-18-2008, 11:30 AM
Unfortunately, I do not have the time to cover the post, but will offer a couple of comments on some of the last few words. I will try to cover the complete post later in the day, if I can possibly find the time.

I respect you as my elder(because you sound really old),I don't know whether I should consider this as an honor or an insult, here. ;)But brother, there was a time that you said, that you “defended the KJV”, as God’s preserved Word. (What happened?)I never have said these words you have in quotes. In fact, I have never personally previously used the word "defended" before, in any post I have made on the BB, before this one. (I checked!)

I have 'responded' to some 10 posts, where the one to whom I was responding, used the word "defended", one or more of which included the book title THE KING JAMES VERSION DEFENDED by Dr. Edward Freer Hills.

I would offer that I absolutely do 'defend' the Bible, nevertheless. That defense simply does not start and stop with (only) the King James Version, for the Bible was God's written word before 1611, just as the Bible is God's written word after 1611.

And God's written word is not found only in the modern English language, by any stretch, whatsoever.

(Yes, the KJV and GEN, even though we see their language as a bit dated, are in "'Modern' English", just as are the NASB, NIV, NKJV, HCSB, and KJ21, to name five of many; the WYC is not in "Modern English" but is in "'Middle' English," by contrast.)

Gotta' run.

Ed

Samuel Owen
12-18-2008, 11:32 AM
Again I repeat, I am not a KJVO person. It is the version I was brought up on, and I feel its the best. Because of the text it is based on.

I don't feel the Alexandrian text of the newer versions is as accurate, and it was tampered with to the extreme.

People have tried to produce a version understandable by the masses, but the problem is not with the text, spelling, or language. It lies in the fact that the natural man, cannot understand the things of God, nor is he expected to.

I also think by this time, the Lord is probably very displeased with this debate. And I for one am excusing myself. Shalom

gb93433
12-18-2008, 09:09 PM
Anyone ever notice how various isms come and go and are constantly changing to fit the whims of its followers?

gb93433
12-18-2008, 09:19 PM
Again I repeat, I am not a KJVO person. It is the version I was brought up on, and I feel its the best. Because of the text it is based on.

I don't feel the Alexandrian text of the newer versions is as accurate, and it was tampered with to the extreme.

I am not a person to condemn another because of the translation they read. I just tell them to get busy winning people to Christ and make disciples. That always disarms the person who wants to argue about translations instead of doing the real job of making disciples which is commanded in scripture.