Dr. Gipp's "Wrong Answer Book"...

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by robycop3, May 30, 2008.

  1. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    A coupla acquaintances came to my home the other eve, bearing Dr. Sam Gipp's "Answer Book". I dub it the "WRONG Answer Book". Here are the CORRECT answers to some of the Qs in that book:



    * Shouldn't we value the original autographs above any mere translation?

    Yes, IF WE HAD THEM. Since we don't, we must TRUST GOD to have presented His word to us AS HE CHOSE.

    * Was King James a homosexual?

    Doubtful. He fathered SEVEN children. The story that he was gay was started some 25 years after KJ's death by one Thomas Weldon, who hated KJ for booting him outta the king's court. At least Gipp got THIS one right.

    * Aren't archaic words in the KJV in need of updating?

    No, the KJV should not be tinkered with at all, as its makers are long dead. When it was made, its language was as modern as any English on earth. That's why we have new translations God causes to be made, to update the language of His word.

    * Haven't there been several revisions of the KJV?

    Yes. Anyone thinking otherwise need only to sit down with an AV 1611 & 1769 Blayney's Edition, the most-commonly-used KJV edition of today, and compare them.

    * Aren't modern translations based on better manuscripts?

    Generally older, but not necessarily better. The most accurate translations are made from an eclectic assortment of manuscripts.

    * If we have a perfect Bible in English, don't we need one in every other language?

    That's up to GOD.

    * Should the italicized words in the KJV be removed?

    No. They're there to clarify the translation in English. Every English translation has words added for clarity.


    * Aren't there some great men who use other versions?

    Yes.

    * Where was the Bible before 1611?

    In the accurate translations of the day, such as Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Bishop's, Geneva, as well as in their sources that were translated.

    * Can someone get saved if you are using something other than the KJV?

    Of Course! JESUS does the saving, not any Bible version!

    * When someone is led to Christ by someone using a particular version, doesn't that mean that version is God's word?

    Of course it does. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing, by the word of God.

    * Aren't KJV believers just mean-spirited name-callers?

    In many cases, yes. But not all. Many are KJVO by personal preference, having nothing to do with the KJVO myth. It's the MYTH that is the source of trouble, and not the KJV itself.

    * Don't King James Bible believers worship the KJV?

    Unfortunately, YES, some do. However, they're a tiny minority, and are best simply ignored. An example is "Pastor" Steven Anderson of Tempe, AZ. He has a "church" in his home. He has stated he WORSHIPS THE KJV as it's the "word" of John 1:1! Here's his website:

    faithfulwordbaptist.org/index.html

    Read his essays to see he's a full-fledged NUT in the manner of "Pastor" Fred Phelps, only Anderson has a different drum to beat besides homosexuality.

    Didn't God destroy the originals because He didn't want these people to venerate them?

    I cannot answer for certain, but this is as good a reason as any. Another could be that He wants us to believe by FAITH, and if we had any object that specifically, beyond a doubt, was made by God, it wouldn't be by faith, but by empirical evidence.

    * Is it "heresy" to believe that the King James Bible is perfect?

    No, but it's incorrect.

    * Do Christians and preachers who use other bibles hate God?

    No. That's a KJVO lie.

    * Was the KJV inspired or preserved?

    Yes, same as any other valid version, no more, no less.

    * Can a translation be inspired?

    Yes, of course. But NOT in the same degree that the originals were.

    * Did the KJV translators claim divine inspiration?

    No.

    * A translation can't be as good as the originals, can it?

    No. The subtleties and nuances of one language cannot be completely translated into another language. Anyone disagreeing can take it up with GOD, as HE made all languages, and still oversees them.

    * Isn't the Holy Spirit incorrectly called "it" in Romans 8:26?

    No, not by 1611 usage.

    * Didn't the King James Bible when first printed contain the Apocrypha?

    Yes.
    * Is the NKJV an improvement of the KJV?

    No, it's a separate translation.

    * Haven't manuscripts been found since the KJV was translated in 1611?

    Yes, but none that add any new doctrines nor change any old ones.

    * Isn't the devil behind all the confusion and fighting over Bible versions?

    Yes. Very little "version fights" took place before the KJVO myth began. And remember, it was started by a CULT OFFICIAL, the 7th Day Adventist Dr. Ben Wilkinson.

    * What about the "nuggets" only found in "the Greek," like agape vs phileo love?

    They coulda been translated more perfectly in the KJV, but several other versions fail to differentiate also.

    * Didn't the Textus Receptus appear after 1611?

    No. It first appeared in 1517, was revised many times before 1611, and has been revised over 30 times altogether.

    * Should we make an issue of Bible translations?

    Only if one is using a clearly-bogus one such as "Good-As-New".

    * Shouldn't we emphasize love for Jesus Christ rather than squabbling over Bible translations?

    Yes...but remember, it was the KJVOs who started the squabbles. But Shame on us who know it's false if we sit by silently while the KJVOs continue to "hype the tripe" to the unsuspecting new Christians.

    * Wasn't Erasmus a bootlicking papist?

    He was a RC, but sometimes disagreed with some of their thingies.

    * What if there really are errors in the KJV?

    As is any other translation, it's the perfect word of God handled by imperfect men. And there ARE errors in the KJV, such as "Easter" in Acts 12:4. Remember, Dr. Gipp makes a very poor defense of this obvious goof..

    * Doesn't Ahazia's age in 2nd Kings 8:26 and 2nd Chronicles 22:2 prove that there is an error in the KJV?

    No. Same as the differences given for Jehoiachin's age at the beginning of his reign(eighteen in Kings, eight in Chronicles), it does suggest there was an error made in the Hebrew. The translators made no error in translating what was before them. Same with the Goliath thingie. In 2 Samuel 21:19, the KJV men added "the brother of" to this verse, even though it's NOT in the Hebrew, to make it coincide with 1 Chron. 20:5, which DOES say "Lahmi, the brother of". This makes sense, because David had whacked Goliath almost 40 years earlier. However, archaeology reveals that Goliath may have been a fairly common name at that time. Both Goliath and Lahmi, the name for G's brother in Chronicles, are HEBREW names.

    Conclusion: Dr. Gipp is a less-than-reliable "authority" on the Bible.
     
  2. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Some Select Revisions Of Robycop3's Work

     
  3. David Lamb

    David Lamb
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  4. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,634
    Likes Received:
    158
    Robycop ... would you list your objections point by point. Thanks.
     
  5. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
     
  6. David Lamb

    David Lamb
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  7. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    The answers in the OP are MINE, not Dr. Gipp's. The questions are samples from his "Wrong Answer Book". therefore i have no objections to my own answers in the OP.

    If I misunderstood your request, please elaborate, and, GOD WILLING, I shall tryta answer.
     
  8. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    What I meant is that the KJV itself shouldn't be altered from what its long-dead translators wrote. Far as I'm concerned, the KJV was frozen in time when its last maker died, same as Shakespeare's works were thus frozen at his death in 1616.

    However, the actual WORD OF GOD is alive & well, still under the auspices of its AUTHOR, and as that Author also controls all languages, he keeps His word updated in the languages AS HE CHOOSES. Of course there's nothing wrong with making new translations, but the older ones whose makers are long-gone should be left "as is".
     
  9. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    So you object to the Benjamin Blayney revision of the KJV made in 1769 for instance? That's the most common form of the KJV that readers have these days.

    And some of the original KJV revisors lived until the 1660's I think. They wanted to update the KJV.

    Is it also your opinion that all Bible translations should not be changed; not updated? The NIV should remain static in its 1984 form, the NASBU should not have been revised in 1995 etc. All translations "should be frozen in time"?

    If that's the case, then the 1611 version stands guilty of tampering. That's because it updated, or revised earlier translations.
     
  10. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Many of the KJV translators had died by 1620, but a few of them lived to the 1640's [John Bois, 1644; Laurence Chaderton, 1640; Daniel Featley, 1645; Samuel Ward, 1643]. Perhaps the last one to die was Andrew Bing in 1652.
     
  11. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    The questions about King James I seem to be based on more than rumor and more than just accusations made after his death by claimed enemies. Some of the questions seem to based on the writings or reports of one of the king's favorites [George Villers, duke of Buckingham].


    The reference work entitled Historic World Leaders noted that James referred to George Villiers, duke of Buckingham, as "his sweet child and wife" (Vol. 2, p. 673). Roger Lockyer pointed out that "Buckingham himself provides the evidence that at Farnham he at last gave in to the king's importunity" (Buckingham, p. 22). Lockyer cited that Buckingham later wrote to James about pondering the question "whether you loved me now . . . better than at the time which I shall never forget at Farnham, where the bed's head could not be found between the master and his dog" (Ibid.). Lockyer also cited where James wrote to Buckingham the following: "I desire only to live in this world for your sake, and that I had rather live banished in any part of the earth with you than live a sorrowful widow's life without you" (Ibid., p. 233). David Riggs also affirmed that Buckingham himself alluded to his questionable relationship to King James I in his letters (Ben Jonson, p. 270). Riggs claimed that "Sir Henry Yelverton had stunned the House of Lords by comparing him [Buckingham] to Hugh Spencer, the homosexual favorite of Edward II (p. 270).
     
  12. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    The KJV itself was an revision of earlier English Bibles. The KJV was an attempt to make better or improve on those earlier English Bibles. The KJV is both a revision and a translation [actually more of a revision than an original new translation of the original language texts].

    Likewise, the NKJV is both a revision of the KJV and a translation of the same original language texts on which the KJV was based. Like the KJV, the NKJV is an attempt to make better or improve on the earlier English Bible.

    A comparison of both the KJV and the NKJV to the same original language texts would show that the NKJV does improve on the renderings of the KJV in at least some places. Thus, it could be accurately said that the NKJV improves on the KJV in at least some places or verses.

    On the other hand, it would be harder to show whether the NKJV is better overall than the KJV or whether the KJV is better overall than the NKJV.
     
  13. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    What I am speaking of is simply re-wording a given translation & calling it the same name without adding "Revised 1769" or adding anything to its title saying "This is a revision of an earlier version". This should apply to all versions, old or new.
     
    #13 robycop3, Jun 1, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 1, 2008
  14. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    The KJV should be called the "1769 KJV With Some Further Minor Refinements Made Since".
     
  15. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    I'm not a very good wordsmith. What I'm trying to say is that the AV1611 should be left exactly as it was when it was originally published, and any subsequent revisions should be labeled as such, I. E. "AV1611, 1613 revision", etc. Same with any other version. Each edition or revision should be labeled as such. I'm not at all saying they shouldn't be made; I'm just saying that a new revision or edition should be clearly identified for what it is.
     
    #15 robycop3, Jun 10, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 10, 2008
  16. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Would you want this identification on the front cover? Or would notations of the years of various editions be good enough? For instance, my old NIV has the years 1973, 1978 and 1984 noted inside on the copyright page.Perhaps the 1973 edition was just the New Testament.The other two years signify some degree of revision, I would think.

    One of my TNIV's ( yes, I own several) has 2001 and 2005.Again, the first year probably represents only the year of the New Testament release.
     
  17. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    I would place it in small letters beliw the title, perhaps in parentheses.
     
  18. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    This info is relevant to another thread.
     
  19. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    How much of the Anglican Version did James VI/I translate? That he or his government or such "authorized" a revision/compilation/translation into a state-approved and state-mandated book means little.

    And certainly his personal antics, whether you believe any of the stories, is of even LESS import.

    Moving on.
     
  20. dwmoeller1

    dwmoeller1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's an extremely weak argument. I am surprised that KJVO opponents would ever resort to it. I understand the impulse to counter some of the KJVO's arguments against Westcott and Hort, but the much simpler, sound and stronger approach is simply to point out that the KJVO's attack on W and H is based on lies. This fact is easily demonstrated (unlike the sexuality of King James), and speaks directly to the KJVO's argument (unlike the point about King James sexuality).

    So, regardless of the truth of the matter regarding King James sexuality (and from what I can tell, the evidence is shaky at best), its just a poor argument to use against KJVO.
     

Share This Page

Loading...