another report on Sword Scripture Conference

[menageriekeeper]

Thank you for the clarification Pastor Bob. It sounds as though things weren't nearly as bad as I feared. I expect folk who use the KJV to be well founded in their opinions. As long as they recognize that they are presenting their opinions and aren't commanding the use of the KJV, I see little problem.

However, not every modern version is based on the Critical Texts are they? How were these dealt with or were they?

Oh and guys, the NIV is the Nearly Inspired Version, haven't you heard? :laugh:

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Based on an actual attendee's word (Pastor Bob), I would say that love was there.

The OP, and a few other posts have been toward degrading anyone holding the KJV as truth ... from my POV of this thread, not toward this love you are speaking of.

Scripture speaks of building each other up in the faith (which the SOTL conference was about). Scripture does not say if you see a brother at fault run his reputation as a brother in Christ and all that he believes in in the dirt. If you feel Dr Belcher was wrong, or any other minister at that conference, you need to try to contact them by email or phone or even snail mail if necessary and try to reconcile the differences rather than make them look bad in front of thousands who may read this thread.

 

[Rippon]

Based on an actual attendee's word (Pastor Bob), I would say that love was there.

The OP, and a few other posts have been toward degrading anyone holding the KJV as truth ... from my POV of this thread, not toward this love you are speaking of.

Scripture speaks of building each other up in the faith (which the SOTL conference was about). Scripture does not say if you see a brother at fault run his reputation as a brother in Christ and all that he believes in in the dirt. If you feel Dr Belcher was wrong, or any other minister at that conference, you need to try to contact them by email or phone or even snail mail if necessary and try to reconcile the differences rather than make them look bad in front of thousands who may read this thread.

From whence cometh this sudden concern about besmirching someone or something SFiC ?

I'd like to know what kind of doctorate Belcher has . His statements lead me to believe he spoke offith the topith of his hoary head . ( Pardon me if he's bald .)

 

[standingfirminChrist]

There is the point, Rippon, you do not even know who Dr Belcher is and you are putting him down on the internet.

Very unbecoming.

 

[Rippon]

There is the point, Rippon, you do not even know who Dr Belcher is and you are putting him down on the internet.

Very unbecoming.

He just doesn't appear to be ( despite glowingly-worded reports ) that well-educated . What are his qualifications ? What is his background theologically ? Factual substance was in absentia .

 

[Bob Alkire]

I assure you, friend, that my comments are not in the least disingenuous. If I say it, you can be very sure that I believe it.

Pastor Bob, I know you aren't a mind reader, but do you think if John R. Rice walked in and gave his views of the Bible and the KJV as he had wrote over the years they would have allowed him to speak or not? Would they have allowed another person holding Dr. Rice's book, Our God Breathed Book, The Bible to read a few chapters of it, to the folks there or not?

Thanks brother.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

However, not every modern version is based on the Critical Texts are they? How were these dealt with or were they?

There are a select few modern English translations that are based upon basically the same texts as the KJV. The NJKV is perhaps the most popular. These were not dealt with in the sessions that I attended.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

He just doesn't appear to be ( despite glowingly-worded reports ) that well-educated .

This is the second time my integrity has been called into question. I am not in the habit of embellishing my reports. Is it possible for you to simply state your position without veiled personal attacks?

What are his qualifications ? What is his background theologically ? Factual substance was in absentia .

I'm not sure, but I believe he is a BJU graduate. I would guess that his doctorate is honorary. He has pastored I believe for 30 years. That gives him the necessary qualifications to stand before an assembly of pastors and challenge them to hold the Word of God in highest regard.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

...do you think if John R. Rice walked in and gave his views of the Bible and the KJV as he had wrote over the years they would have allowed him to speak or not?

I would like to think that he would be allowed to present his views. His books are still being sold by SOTL so, "he being dead yet speaketh."

Would they have allowed another person holding Dr. Rice's book, Our God Breathed Book, The Bible to read a few chapters of it, to the folks there or not?

Perhaps. It must be noted that the version issue in Dr. Rice's (also an honorary degree I believe) day was not nearly what it is today. There are new English versions appearing annually. My guess is that Dr. Rice would speak out publicly against this practice.

I cannot remember when he died, I believe it was in the early 80's. At that time, there were only a few major MVs on the market. Hardly the 200+ that we have today.

 

[Linda64]

I cannot remember when he died, I believe it was in the early 80's. At that time, there were only a few major MVs on the market. Hardly the 200+ that we have today.

Evangelist John R. Rice (1895 -1980)

I only remember the NKJV, NASB and the NIV during the late 70s and early 80s...not nearly as many MVs as are appearing at the present time. Seems like a new one comes out every year now.

BTW, I was not KJV when I got saved in 1974...I used the NASB and NKJV. The NIV never appealed to me at all. I've only been KJV since the late 90s.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

Rippon! What are your qualifications to judge this man?:tonofbricks:

 

[franklinmonroe]

... Nor did the human authors of the autographa at the time they were writing them...

That was Pastor Bob's response to this statement (by Logos1560)--

"The earlier English translators did not regarding their translating to be inspired."​

I would suggest that at times some of the apostles and prophets did know that they were writing under inspiration. There are numerous OT passages that contain "thus saith the Lord". But in the NT, there is John's apocalyptic record that begins, "The revelation of Jesus Christ". Paul seems to know that at times he was writing the commands of the Lord, while at other times he was expressing his own opinion (see 1 Corinthians 7). Additionally, Paul instructed (and expected) that his letters would be circulated among multiple congregations.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... the early 80's. At that time, there were only a few major MVs on the market. Hardly the 200+ that we have today.

First, I would suggest that there were at least 100 versions of the English Bible when Dr. Rice wrote his book, more than enough to make his point valid.

Second, while currently there has been published in excess of 200 English Bible versions, they certainly are not all considered "major" (most are quite obscure), nor are they all available on the market (many no longer in print today). The average christian bookstore carries about 15 popular (in sales) translations, and some online/mailorder outlets have approximately 30 versions (with actual unique texts). Proliferation of versions has been on the increase, but Pastor Bob had well overstated the situation.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

First, I would suggest that there were at least 100 versions of the English Bible when Dr. Rice wrote his book, more than enough to make his point valid.

I disagree. Excluding the pre-KJV translations, I would be very surprised to learn that there was more than 5 "modern" translations.
Webster's - 1833
English Revised Version - 1881
American Standard Version - 1901
New American Standard Version - 1971
New International Version - 1973

If there were more, then they were certainly obscure as you mention many are today. Dr. Rice's two choices were primarily the KJV and the ASV.

 

[Logos1560]

The English translations they had in their possession were all Received Text based translations. Their purpose was not to "improve" or "correct" these translations.

In their preface to the 1611, the KJV translators stated that their mark or goal was to make the good earlier English translations "better." Attempting to make them "better" would be the same thing as attempting to improve them.

In their preface, the KJV translators indicated that the pre-1611 English Bibles may have "some imperfections and blemishes" and the preface indicates that it was possible for their translation to have some too.

In the preface, the KJV translators stated: "if any thing be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected and the truth set in place."

In their preface, the KJV translators stated: "For to whom ever was it imputed for a fault (by such as were wise) to go over that which he had done, and to amend it where he saw cause?"

In the preface, they also stated: "No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the sun, where apostles or apostolike men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's Spirit, and priviledged with the priviledge of infallibility, had not their hand?"

Norris Belcher would seem to impute as a fault what the KJV translators regarded as a good thing to do. There is valid evidence to confirm the point that the KJV translators considered it acceptable to correct and to attempt to improve [or make better] earlier English Bibles.

A actual comparison of the pre-1611 English Bibles and the 1611 KJV would also demonstrate that the KJV translators corrected and improved a number of renderings in the pre-1611 English Bibles. At other times, one or more of the pre-1611 English Bibles may have a clearer, better, or more accurate rendering than the one that the KJV translators kept.

 

[Logos1560]

I disagree. Excluding the pre-KJV translations, I would be very surprised to learn that there was more than 5 "modern" translations.
Webster's - 1833
English Revised Version - 1881
American Standard Version - 1901
New American Standard Version - 1971
New International Version - 1973

I guess that you are in for a surprise.

1755 John Wesley's N. T. that was still in print
1808 Thomson's Bible by Charles Thomson, signer of Declaration of Independence
1833 Webster's
1842 revision of KJV by several Biblical scholars, sometimes called the Baptist Bible
1851 Murdock's English translation of Syriac Peshitta N. T.
1853 Leeser's English O. T. [first Jewish English translation in U.S.]
1862 Young's Literal Translation [was still in print]
1866 American Bible Union Version
1885 English translation by John Nelson Darby [was still in print]
1897 Rotherham's The Emphasized Bible [was still in print]
1901 American Standard Version
1912 Improved Edition published by American Baptist Publication Society
1917 Holy Scriptures According to Masoretic Text
1933 English translation of Peshitta by George Lamsa [still in print]
1952 Revised Standard Version
1961 Wuest's Expanded Translation
1965 The Amplified Bible
1966 English Jerusalem Bible
1967 New Scofield Reference Bible
1970 New American Bible
1971 King James II by Jay Green
1973 New American Standard Bible
1977 Christian Counselor's N. T. by Jay Adams
1978 NIV
1982 NKJV

 

[standingfirminChrist]

24 English Bibles prior to JR Rice's death is a far cry from 'at least 100'.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Logos1560 lists 15 New Versions 1901-1982

The ALMANAC OF THE CHRISTIAN WORLD,
1991-1992 Edition ( Tyndale House, 1990)
lists 6 in 1901 itself.
That Almanac lists versions 254-272
covering 1901-1082.
That would be a count of 83 Bibles or
partial Bibles (in 1968 only Paul's letters
were in COTTON PATCH BIBLE )

 

[Logos1560]

24 English Bibles prior to JR Rice's death is a far cry from 'at least 100'.

My list is not a complete list of all the ones in print before that time. My list mainly includes ones in which I have checked some verses. I have copies of all the ones on my list except three or so.

Another one I have that I didn't list earlier is
1916 English translation of Hebrw text by Alexander Harkavy

Some others I didn't list and don't have include:
1927 An American Translation
1937 English N. T. by Charles B. Williams
1955 Bible by R. A. Knox
1959 Berkeley Version
1961 Bible in Basic English
1962 Schonfield Authentic NT
1964 The Anchor Bible
1968 Good News for Modern Man
1970 The New English Bible
1973 Better Version by C. Estes
1976 Holy Bible in the Language of Today by W. F. Beck

 

[EdSutton]

It is common knowledge that 76.8% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

That is true 83.7% of the time.

Ed