C. H. Spurgeon and the KJV

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

 

All Scripture Is From The TNIV

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.

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.

It's just another of your absurd notions.

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?'

 

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.

 

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.

A bit of 'pigeonholing' don't you think??

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??

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

 

How so??

And who says??

Ed

 

Let me here note that I had not gotten to this post of C4K, when I posted my last one.

Ed

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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?

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?!

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

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.

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

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.

 

:thumbs::thumbs::laugh: ¡Lo aprobará¡

 

Ed, it was posted in response to THIS statement by Rippon:

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.

 

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

Your logic is fallible.