C. H. Spurgeon and the KJV

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?'

 

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.

The flat earth society still exists today. Are they right or wrong?

To prove my point give us the accurate interpretation of Is. 45:7

About 98% of the early Christians during the time of the NT could not read.

A lack of fear for God and disobedience to Him.

 

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.

 

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!"​

 

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:

 

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.

 

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.

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?

 

There is much more to it than that. It is not so simplistic.

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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: