Is this the correct position on Spanish Bibles?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Logos1560, Jan 11, 2007.

  1. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    In his book entitled THE BIBLE BELIEVER'S GUIDE TO ELEPHANT HUNTING, Jeff McArdle wrote: "There is only one correct position to start from when dealing with Spanish Bibles. The correct position is this: If the King James Bible is superior to even the Greek text in regards to omissions and additions (and by 'the Greek text' we mean any Greek NT extant), then certainly it is superior to any Spanish Bible" (p. 18).

    McArdle added: "as one brother once pointed out, 'If the King James can correct the Greek, it can certainly correct the Spanish'" (p. 18).

    McArdle asserted that "the KJV should be the standard also for Latin Americans" (p. 21).

    McArdle wrote: "the standard Bible not just for the English-speaking world, but also for the Spanish-speaking world, was, is, and always will be the King James Bible" (p. 76).

    McArdle maintained that "the King James Bible must be the standard Book by which any Spanish Bible is judged" (p. 78).
     
  2. Plain Old Bill

    Plain Old Bill
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    3,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    Was this guy just trying to be funny or what?Do you agree with him.
     
  3. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Greek enhances the KJB.

    The KJB nevers corrects the Greek though the KJB does put things within grasp for the English reader verses the confusion that ensues from those who are biased in thier use of the Greek.

    Why I say this is that everytime a Greek "scholar' argues against the interpretation found in the KJB, I have found that he is biased due to the facts that the interpretation that is given in the KJB is defined in the Greek word.

    One almost has to be dishonest to say the KJB translators didn't interpret the Greek right.:godisgood:
     
  4. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    After reading his book, Jeff McArdle seems to be serious in making his claims that I quoted. His view concerning Spanish Bibles seems to be his consistent application of his KJV-only view. I ordered the book from the web address below.

    http://valera1865.org/EnglishIntroduction.htm (Jeff McArdle’s website)

    I do not agree with his position on the Spanish Bible. My view would be that the preserved Scriptures in the original languages should be the standard and greater authority for the making and evaluating of all translations including the KJV and including Spanish Bibles.
     
  5. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    http://valera1865.org/EnglishIntroduction.htm

    While I do not agree with the KJV-only view advocated at the above web address, one good thing about that site is that there is available there facsimile reprints of the 1569 edition of the Spanish Bible and the 1602 Spanish Valera.
     
  6. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Anyone who believes this is absolutely out in left field. Since the KJV has errors, it should never be used as a yardstick to correct the original languages or any other languages. The KJV is NOT the measure by which every other version is to be measured. It never has been, and it never will be the ultimate authority in such matters. Those who believe the final authority to be the KJV believe in the wrong final authority. The final authority in all such matters shoiuld be the Holy Spirit. God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33) and has graciously provided His holy word for us in various English Bible versions. Those who think that all other versions should be judged by a mere translation of God's word are misled and confused. The Holy Spirit has led many to accept all legitimate English Bible versions equally as the word of God simply becaue they are the word of God. We accept on faith that although mere translations contain errors, God has chosen to preserve His word and to provide it in versions that are understandable to all generations.
     
    #6 Keith M, Jan 14, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 14, 2007
  7. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sadly enough, it doesn't appear he intends any humor at all.

    :tear: :( :eek: :rolleyes:
     
  8. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    How can one be biased when referring to the original languages to see what was really meant? The bias is on the part of those who assume the KJV to be correct even when it disagrees with the Greek.

    So these are your findings, huh? And what do experts have to say about your opinion, Salamander? The KJV has been shown repeatedly to be in error in some places, yet you reject proof as being biased. Truth can only be biased in favor of the truth. It is the position of onlyists that is biased and based on not one shred of truth or evidence.

    Not quite, Salamander. The honesty comes in realizing that although the KJV is a great and mostly accurate translation of God's word it has some errors. The dishonesty is in saying that in all cases the translators of the KJV interpreted the Greek correctly.

    One example of the error of the KJV translators is the use of the word Easter to translate the original pascha in Acts 12:4. The word Passover had been used for a long time by the time the KJV was translated. In fact, the KJV translators chose to use the more correct Passover in all occurrences of the original pascha except in Acts 12:4. If Passover was the correct word to use in all but one occurrence of the original pascha then it would also have been the correct word to use in this verse. I have heard others say that originally the word Passover was used in Acts 12:4 but that King James had it changed to read Easter. I am not saying this is the truth because I cannot cite any particular source for this information. My question is why would King James have the word changed in only one verse while leaving the better Passover in the other verses? But by the same token, why would tha translators use the more correct Passover in all but one verse?
     
  9. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    I am not aware of any one that says that King James I was the one that had this word changed, but there is evidence that a great prelate had it changed.

    Here is the evidence that indicates that the majority of the KJV translators may not have been responsible for the rendering “Easter” Acts 12:4. Instead they likely supported the Geneva Bible’s rendering “Passover.” Just as the KJV translators changed the Bishops’ Bible’s two other uses of “Easter” at John 11:55 to “Passover,” they may have also changed this third use at Acts 12:4. While Tyndale and Coverdale had used the rendering “Easter” several times for the Jewish Passover, the later English translators had increasingly changed this rendering to “Passover." In his 1671 book, E. Whiston indicated that a great prelate, the chief supervisor of the KJV, inserted “Easter” back into the text of the KJV at this verse as one of the 14 changes he was said to have made (Life and Death of Mr. Henry Jessey, p. 49). In his 1648 sermon entitled “Truth and Love,“ Thomas Hill, a member of the Westminster Assembly, also noted that Acts 12:4 “was another place that was altered (as you have heard) to keep up that holy time of Easter, as they would think it” (Six Sermons, p. 25). Was the goal of inserting the rendering “Easter” back into the text at this verse in order to present faithfully the meaning of the Greek word in English or was it intended to give the readers a different meaning? This evidence suggests this rendering was inserted for the purpose of keeping up the Church of England’s celebration of the holy time of Easter.
     
  10. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    So even though the translators may have had it right, the change appears to have been politically influenced. Which further foes to show the presupposition that the KJV cannot possibly be wrong is an incorrect presupposition.
     
  11. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    Back to the OP

    As one who preaches from a Spanish translation (RV1960) and lives in a Spanish-speaking country I can tell you that guys like this are considered 'kooks' by 99% of the Baptist preachers and missionaries in the Spanish-speaking countries.

    Typical Ruckmanism run amok.

    For a more balanced treatment of the issue look at this site-

    http://www.literaturabautista.com/english.htm

    Mexdeaf
     
  12. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    I read "The Danger of Ruckmanism as Applied to Foreign Language Bibles" from the web site you referenced, Mexdeaf. This article reinforced the fact that Ruckman is definitely a heretic among other things. The article mentioned that if any missionary came to another country preaching some Ruckmanite beliefs that the missionary would be run out of the country. Maybe we should run Ruckman out of the country here in the USA too. There is nothing wrong with anyone prefering the KJV and using it exclusively of all other translations. But to preach the "doctrines" of Ruckman is to spread error, error and more error.
     
  13. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Jeff McArdle claimed: "If the King James Bible is not the standard Bible for all men everywhere then why is there now such a controversy brewing over the Spanish Bible. One should not have anything to do with the other. But, the obvious truth is that there would be no controversy over the Spanish Bible if it weren't for the English Bible" (BIBLE BELIEVER'S GUIDE TO ELEPHANT HUNTING, p. 9).

    Would there be any controversy over the Spanish Bible if it wasn't for holders of a KJV-only view stirring up one?
     
  14. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    In a word, no.
     
  15. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    In the book entitled THE ELEPHANT IN THE LIVING ROOM : SEEING THE SHADOW OF THE RSV IN SPANISH that is edited by Mickey Carter, Allen Johnson wrote: "It should also be no surprise that the Spanish RV 1960 matches with the RSV, NWT, and other perversions--they all have modernist fingerprints from the Critical Text" (p. 122).

    In another chapter in this same book, Gail Riplinger wrote: "The changes in the Reina-Valera 1960 mirror those in the New World Translation and the corruptions which were introduced in English Bibles at the turn of the century" (p. 63).

    Jeff McArdle wrote: "The RV1909 and RV1960 both represent an attempt to destroy the original 1602 Valera and bring it in line with the work of the 1881 revision committee" (BIBLE BELIEVER'S GUIDE TO ELEPHANT HUNTING, p. 69).

    Does this application of KJV-only reasoning to the Spanish Bible by KJV-only advocates themselves indicate its logical consequences and implications?
     
  16. Plain Old Bill

    Plain Old Bill
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    3,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well now I've finally gotten my hands on a Spanish Bible and havce determined for my self that the only way to read it is right side up.:godisgood:
     
  17. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    At Leviticus 11:30, the 1569 and 1602 Spanish Bibles have "erizo" [hedgehog, porcupine] in agreement with Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, and Bishops’ Bibles that also rendered the Hebrew word anakah as "hedgehog," possibly through the influence of the Rabbinical writers or Luther‘s Bible or both. The 1534 Luther’s German Bible has “Igel” [hedgehog] as its rendering. The 1637 authorized Dutch Bible evidently agreed with Luther’s at this verse as can be seen in Haak’s rendering “hedgehog.”
     

Share This Page

Loading...