Which Bible? by David Otis Fuller

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by franklinmonroe, Jul 30, 2009.

  1. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    I have just borrowed this book. I am already engaged in some other reading material but I couldn't help myself from looking at the first few pages. I think many of the regular posters & readers here will recognize why I am immediately compelled to comment on his statement --
    In the second arena, that of the Word of God written, Satan is more than ever active today. From the very outset, when he cast doubt upon God's Word in the garden with the question, "Yea, hath God said...?" he has sought to corrupt or destroy that which God has caused to be written.
    (Fuller's words from page 5, the section entitled "Why This Book?" [my underlines])
    Fuller explicitly indicates in these two sentences that the "Word of God" he is discussing is "written" (twice), yet as his example he uses a historical narrative in which "God's Word" was NOT then in written form!

    Our Scripture does NOT indicate that God wrote His commandments down and gave them to Adam. Those intructions from God would not be recorded by Moses under inspiration until centuries later. So, at the time that Satan asks his question in the garden these words have only been 'spoken' by God --
    And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
    But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
    (Genesis 2:16-17, KJV)
    Fuller makes the all too common mistake (or deception?) of equating the term "Word of God" (or even "God's Word") with God's written revelation even when the Scripture passage is very clear that the words of God have only been given 'orally' and received 'audibly' at that time in history.
     
    #1 franklinmonroe, Jul 30, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 30, 2009
  2. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    i wonder if he also commits the KJBOist deception of baiting n switching:first, he tantalises with the defense of the Scripture, and then he quietly swaps the Scripture with the KJB (only), and so he winds up defending the KJB-only.

    happens all the time!
     
  3. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Yea, hath God said...

    I have always had doubts about the validity of the 'Yea-Hath-God-Said Argument'. I don't think there is any question that the Serpent was attempting to get Eve (and Adam) to disobey. But,

    I think that Genesis 3:1-5 is a conversation between two entities that were not present at the original giving of the commandment: the Serpent is neither omnipresent nor omniscient, and Eve wasn't created yet when God spoke the command in Genesis 2:16-17 to Adam (Genesis 2:15 states that God placed "the man" in the garden, but no Eve). It seems that neither of them could quote the instructions exactly. Therefore, I'm not certain if the Serpent really knew what God's exact words were, and Eve probably got them secondhand from Adam (another reason why I feel that Adam is held responsible).

    In addition, it seems that after God created the female He gave some similar instructions --
    So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
    And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
    And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which [is] the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. (Genesis 1:26-28, KJV)
     
    #3 franklinmonroe, Jul 30, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 30, 2009
  4. Dale-c

    Dale-c
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, it sure does happen all the time.

    Many don't realize they do it because they equate the KJV alone with the Word of God.
    They can't see past (prior) to 1611.
     
  5. ktn4eg

    ktn4eg
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,517
    Likes Received:
    1
    Too bad for those people who died before 1611, I guess. They never had the Word of God to know how to be saved, right? :smilewinkgrin:
     
  6. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Fuller's book relied heavily upon Dr. Wilkinson's book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, to which I have provided a link in another thread. Fuller glossed over the fact that W was a 7TH DAY ADVENTIST official-not to mention that much of his meterial is INCORRECT.

    The "Yea, hath God said" argument is silly. Satan didn't question what God actually said; he questioned the VERACITY of it. Both satan & Eve knew full well what God had said
     
  7. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    A KJVOist argument usually falls apart when I mention that I'm currently reading the "Statenvertaling" Dutch Bible.
     
  8. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    I don't disagree with everything that Fuller says. For example on page 2 he states --
    The worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been subjected originated within a hundred years after it was composed.
    I would agree, but I would portray these "corruptions" as mostly scribal mistakes while Fuller casts them as being intentional sectarian changes.
     
  9. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    The next essay in this book (3rd edition) is entitled "The Learned Men" by Terence H. Brown. Basically he lists the six companies and their members with credintials (some with additional brief biographical info). Brown finishes with some thoughts which include --
    No reasonable person imagines that the translators were infallible or that their work was perfect, but no aquainted with the facts can deny that they were men of outstanding scholarship (page 23) ...​

    I also found this interesting --
    It is remarkable that the literary style of the individual members of the company of translators was generally inferior to that of the version which they jointly produced. The explanation of this is that they exercised their wisdom in leaving undisturbed the simple style and vocabulary of the earlier translators. If they had cast the translation in the mold of the more ornate style of their own period, it is doubtful whether their work would have triumphed for so long as it has. (page 23)
     
    #9 franklinmonroe, Jul 31, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 31, 2009
  10. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    I wonder if there were any Christians before English was a language.
     
  11. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    The fourth essay in the book is some bigraphical info on Robert Dick Wilson by Henry W. Coray. Wilson was some great linguist! The fifth essay is the really good material of Wilson's "Is The Higher Criticism Scholarly?" (36 pages worth). The problem here is that 'higher' criticism doesn't really fit the question of translations (it is titled "Which Bible?" not "What Bible?"). Is it any wonder folks get confused about 'textual criticism'?
     
    #11 franklinmonroe, Jul 31, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 31, 2009

Share This Page

Loading...