C. H. Spurgeon and the KJV

Some say that the KJV corrects the Greek. So I wonder which one is correct in correcting the Greek?

 

Let's strive for honesty!

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

 

Which one corrects Greek?

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:

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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?

 

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 don't know whether I should consider this as an honor or an insult, here.

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

 

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

 

Anyone ever notice how various isms come and go and are constantly changing to fit the whims of its followers?

 

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.