Some Who Approved Other Versions

How about Dr. Clearwaters?

 

Dr. John R. Rice was known to use the revised version from time to time. The revised version was also (pre-Smith) advertized in The Sword of The Lord.:godisgood:

 

One might also consider several of those involved in other translations. I'd say they, at least, agree, as well with sonme other versions.

Dr. Arthur Farstad easily comes to mind. He served as the Editor-in-chief for both the NKJV, and the HCSB, until his death.

Ed

 

From my reasings, it was the ASV 1901 that he enjoyed.

 

Alva J. Mc Clain, John Whitcomb and Herman Hoyt liked the ASV 1901.

 

Would you mind sharing the source of this ellipses filled quote?

 

I believe you can find it in his book, The Revision Revised somewhere from about page 100 to 125.

 

Here's another quote from Burgon.

"...in not a few particulars, the 'Textus receptus' does call for Revision, certainly;" (Revision Revised, p. 107)

 

All of these men were wrong about other things, too.

 

Good Day, Rippon

I am trying to track down some sources on this topic from these men, can you help and point me in them?... maybe links to web sources (primary if possible)

Esp:

Charles H. Spurgeon : ... I love God's Word better than I love King James pedantic wisdom and foolish kingcraft ...

In Him,

Bill

 

Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892) wrote: "I do not hesitate to say that there is no mistake whatever in the original Holy Scriptures from beginning to end. There may be, and there are, mistakes of translation; for translators are not inspired" (The Scriptures: Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, p. 257). In his preface to the 1859 book The English Bible by Mrs. H. C. Conant, Spurgeon noted: "And it is because I love the most Holy Word of God that I plead for faithful translation; and from my very love to the English version, because in the main it is so, I desire for it that its blemishes should be removed, and its faults corrected" (p. xi). In his same preface, Spurgeon wrote: "I ask, from very love of this best of translations, that its obsolete words, its manifest mistranslations, and glaring indecencies should be removed" (p. xii). In a sermon entitled "The Bible Tried and Proved," Spurgeon stated: "We have occasionally heard opponents carp at certain coarse expressions used in our translation of the Old Testament; but the coarseness of translators is not to be set to the account on the Holy Spirit, but to the fact that the force of the English language has changed, and modes of expression which were correct at one period become too gross for another" (Infallible Word, p. 20).


Yet again, Spurgeon noted: "Concerning the fact of difference between the Revised and Authorised Versions, I would say that no Baptist should ever fear any honest attempt to produce the correct text, and an accurate interpretation of the Old and New Testaments. . . . By the best and most honest scholarship that can be found we desire that the common version may be purged of every blunder of transcribers, or addition of human ignorance, or human knowledge, so that the Word of God may come to us as it came from his own hand" (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, XXVII, pp. 342-343). In a book of quotations from Spurgeon’s writings, Kerry James Allen cited where Spurgeon noted: “I do not say that either of our English versions is inspired, for there are mistakes in the translation” (Exploring the Mind, p. 43). In his commentary on Matthew, Spurgeon wrote concerning verse 23 of chapter 12: "Our Revised Version very properly leaves out the 'not' ... as it is not in the original, we must not allow the 'not'" (Gospel of the Kingdom, p. 89). Taking his text from 2 Corinthians 4:3-4, Spurgeon commented: “I think in this case the Revised New Testament gives a better translation than the Authorized Version, and I will therefore read it” (Williams, God’s Word, p. 63). Spurgeon declared: "Let us quote the words as they stand in the best possible translation, and it would be better still if we know the original, and can tell if our version fails to give the sense" (The Greatest Fight, p. 23).

 

Some of the writing of Philip Mauro was included in David Otis Fuller's book True or False?

In paperback Volume V of The Fundamentals, a chapter by Philip Mauro entitled "Life in the Word" is included. In this chapter written by Philip Mauro, at least two of the verses cited are noted to be from the RV [Revised Version].

Mauro wrote: "In Hebrews 4:12 we find the statement that 'The Word of God is LIVING and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword' (R.V.)" (The Fundamentals, V, p. 10).

Another verse cited as being from the R.V. was the following:
"(Rev. 1:13, R.V.)" (p. 12).

 

In the prefatory note to his Notes on the Book of Proverbs, H. A. Ironside wrote: "The 'Authorized' Version is used in the text, save where a uniform rendering of certain words seemed conducive to clearness, and where some other translation better expressed the thought of the original" (p. 5).

An example of a verse where H. A. Ironside used a text other than the KJV is Proverbs 19:18.

"18 Chasten thy son while there is hope,
But set not thy soul upon slaying him" (p. 250).

 

R. A. Torrey wrote: "No one, so far as I know, holds that the English translation of the Bible is absolutely infallible and inerrant" (Difficulties in the Bible, p. 17).

Torrey wrote: "There is not one important doctrine that hangs upon any doubtful reading of the text. But when our Authorized Version was made, some of the best manuscripts were not within reach of the translators, and the science of textual criticism was not so well understood as it is today, and so the translation was made from an imperfect text. Not a few of the apparent difficulties in the Bible arise from this source" (Difficulties in the Bible, p. 17).

In his book How to obtain Fullness of Power as printed by the Sword of the Lord, R. A. Torrey sometimes cited verses as being from the
R.V. [Revised Version].

For some examples, 2 Peter 1:4 is cited as from "R.V." (p. 9), John 7:17 is cited as being from "R.V." (p. 12), Romans 3:25 is cited as being from "R.V." (p. 19), 1 John 2:2 is cited as being from "R.V." (pp. 20-21), and "Epheisians 1:7 is cited as being from "R.V." (p. 21).

 

"If God's Word is worthy of all reverence, it is a crime of the highest magnitude to dilute it with error; and the sin is grievously increased, when the error is so apparent that the wayfaring man is aware of it. The cant and fudge which cries out against the least alteration of the old version of our forefathers, as if it were positive profanity, are nothing to me. I love God's Word better than I love King James' pendantic wisdom and foolish kingcraft." - from article David Otis Fuller and C. H. Spurgeon on the King James Version by Glenn Conjurske in the publication Olde Paths & Ancient Landmarks Vol. 1, No. 7 of July, 1992.

Back issues online at http://www.straitegate.com

(My apologies, Rippon, if I have stepped upon your toes)