C. H. Spurgeon and the KJV

People have personal preferences.Really?You say such controversial things.

You would indeed have a huge task in proving that the KJV is more accurate than some modern versions.

BTW,I was looking at an old thread where you trashed the NIV --saying something to the effect that it wouldn't be good enough to prop up a table with a broken leg.That's not an opinion -- that's trash talk.I would never demean the KJV in such a manner.

For being a non-KJVO you sure talk like onemost of the time.

 

Well, there's an opinion for you.

Most?
How do you define conservative?
What numbers indicate 'most'?
Even if you could somehow back up your assertion, since when does a majority opinion prove truth?

 

Again, in plain English, I did not defend nor show preference for any translation. I stated an historical fact through which I lived. We defended the KJV against the modernists of the day who were using the RSV. I know what I say to be true because I lived through it.

If you want to discuss translations, then we shift the course to another thread that is dealing with translations.

A lot of us pastors in those days were not even scholars per se..We were simple preachers of the gospel and pastors doing pastoral things and defending the faith against the modernist movement.

Please don't try to express my views on the various translations beause you can't do it.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Those are ALL my opinions...NEVER stated as FACT. And I NEVER said I could PROVE the KJV was more accurate. Why are you trying to put words in my mouth. Also quit accusing me of being KJVO please. I AM KJV preferred, but I also really like the NKJV and the HCSB. I couldn't prove for a FACT that one was better than another though. Don't get so angry [people.:godisgood:

 

You never said "we changed our minds or we decided to not worry about it" you said "better revisions came along, we started the move to more reliable versions". Why didn't you say "What we thought to be better revisions came along, we started the move to WHAT WE BELIEVED TO BE more reliable versions". That I wouldn't have any problem with. The problem I have is people posting things like "more reliable" "better version" "more accurate" when there is no proof to back it up...only preference. This could go on and on.............enough............if you can't see what I'm saying by now, you never will.

 

Would this be a good place to point out that Jim1999 did not say anything about what you claimed he posted to be a "fact", until "after-the-fact"?



Ed

 

Maybe.....if I understood what you just said!!! :laugh:

 

This is likely technically true, as to stating something to be a fact, although it oftentimes appears that you definitely believe the KJV to be more accurate, than, say, the NIV.
In fact, I note that you said, in your very first post on the BB, which happened to be in a thread about versions, these words -

Oh, nevermind!

Ed

 

Oh yes, there are LOTS of things that I said that I wish I had never said.

 

In the June, 1989, issue of Bible Believers' Bulletin, Peter Ruckman claimed Charles Spurgeon as a Ruckmanite. Ruckman placed Spurgeon in his list of "believers of the Word" (Bible Babel, p. 118). KJV-only advocate William Bradley maintained that Spurgeon "held our view" (Purified, p. 124). Without any documentation from any of the many sermons and books by Spurgeon, KJV-only advocate Bruce Cummons incorrectly claimed that Spurgeon "vowed that he would withdraw fellowship immediately from any preacher or group of preachers who made light of, or 'down-graded' the KJV" (Foundation and Authority of the Word of God, p. 45).

Of course, many quotations by Spurgeon where he defends completely the inspiration and inerrancy of God's Word can be accurately given. On the other hand, no statements or quotations made by Spurgeon have been provided where he claimed that a translation such as the KJV was inspired and inerrant.


Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892) loved the KJV, but he did not hold to the views of KJV-only advocates. Spurgeon said: "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).

 

I have been on the BB for a long time and I have seen some really bad posts but this is one of the worst arguments I think I have seen.

It looks as if this is the argument:

1. Show be Proof!
2. Any proof you show, I will not believe.
3. You then can't prove your point.

Or an example:

Person 1: Water is wet.

Person 2: No it is not! Show me proof!

Person 1 throws a glass of water on person 2

Person 1: See, now you are wet.

Person 2: No I am not! That is just an OPINION, you cannot prove to me that I am wet.


What kind of logic is that anyway?

 

The kind of reason that drives one bonkers!

Cheers,

Jim

 

Yes.Most.

Most biblical conservatives hold to Confessions of Faith which are well-known such as the Westminster Confession or the Baptist 1689.Those are considered to be biblically conserative documents.Take a look at the first chapter of both of the aforementioned for their view of the authority of Scripture.

I can't furnish you with a specific number.But 'most' would indicate the majority.

The Bible scholars who endorse the Received Text one could count on the digits of one hand.In other words they are in the decided minority.

It doesn't.But it is something that should give one pause.If the majority of conservative scholars say that the TR is based on inferior manuscripts.You need to consider their decision well.Read their findings.

 

Bible scholars quickly begin debate of new gender-neutral NIV revision

Posted on Jan 30, 2002 | by Art Toalston

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--The accuracy of the new "Today's New International Version" revision of the popular New International Version has quickly become a topic of debate among Bible scholars.

"Accuracy and clarity are prime with us," said Larry Lincoln, communications director for the International Bible Society, copyright holder of both the new TNIV and the 1984 NIV.

On the other side of the debate, Randy Stinson, executive director of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, said the TNIV contains "absolute mistranslations." The CBMW's Internet site, www.cbmw.org, already cites three key examples.

Lincoln told Baptist Press that the TNIV should be called a "gender-accurate" translation instead of the term used by some in the media, including Baptist Press, as "gender-neutral." The TNIV, he said, uses "generic language" for men and women "only when the text was meant to include both men and women." An overview of the TNIV is available on the Internet at www.tniv.info.

Lincoln noted that the TNIV makes no changes in Scripture's male-oriented references to God and Jesus.

Stinson of the CBMW noted that the three examples of mistranslation on the organization's website are "representative types of changes that they've made," referencing the International Bible Society and the Committee on Bible Translation (CBT), a 15-member group of scholars with authority over the NIV translation, such as the revision of the text into the TNIV's gender-neutral language.

Of the changes, Stinson said, "They're significant. They do change the meaning. These are absolute mistranslations."

IBS and CBT may cite a Greek dictionary lexicon to defend their revisions, Stinson said, but those revisions "are just not the case with the major reputable lexicons."

Steve Johnson, IBS vice president for communication and development, sent an e-mail to Baptist Press after its Jan. 28 news story on the TNIV, stating: "I wish to state for the record that the overriding concern of the CBT is ALWAYS accuracy and clarity. While there may be differences within the body on the specific rendering of Greek and Hebrew, the influence of social agenda into any translation is NEVER permitted. We regret that once again, the issue of providing God's Word to the next generation of English-speakers has become an issue of division in the Body of Christ."

Several Southern Baptist leaders were quoted in the story as seeing a thrust for political correctness in the IBS effort to release a gender-neutral revision of the NIV.

The three references cited by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood as mistranslations in the TNIV are:

-- Revelation 3:20: "I will come and eat with them, and they with me."

"The removal of 'him' and 'he' completely drains the passage of the individual nature of the relationship between a person and Christ," the CBMW states on its website, noting that the TNIV has "many instances where the singular generic 'he' is replaced with the plural 'they' or 'them.'"

-- John 11:25, in which Jesus is translated as saying: "Anyone who believes in me will live, even though they die."

The CBMW's concern: "Not only does this convolute the personal nature of the relationship between a person and Christ, but it betrays the fact that Jesus himself used the generic 'he' even though he was speaking to a woman (Martha)."

-- Acts 20:30: "From your own number some will arise."

The CBMW's concern: "This is problematic because the Greek word for 'aner' is translated 'some' when this is a specific word that can only mean men. Not only is this a mistranslation but it communicates the idea that the passage may also refer to women who would 'arise.' Since this passage refers to the elders, that would not be the case. Even if one affirms that there actually could have been women elders, it is still not appropriate to change the translation to reflect this belief."

"Evangelicals must be able to count on Bible translators to have accuracy as their primary objective and not cultural appeasement," Stinson writes on the CBMW website. "Unnecessarily changing the words of the biblical text in order to accommodate those who think certain phrases are offensive is dangerous and irresponsible. The question one must ask is 'What will be next?'

"As Evangelicals we affirm the verbal inspiration of scripture which means each word is inspired by God. The conscious and unnecessary mistranslation of these words by IBS has produced an unreliable edition of the Bible about which all Christians should be concerned," Stinson wrote.

The CBMW also complained that "IBS has broken its agreement it made in [a] 1997 press release, 'The International Bible Society (IBS) has abandoned all plans for gender-related changes in future editions of the New International Version (NIV).' Although they will certainly argue that this is not the NIV but the TNIV, the public should not appreciate this kind of double talk."

Lincoln of the IBS stated that less than 2 percent of the TNIV involves gender-related revisions of the NIV. Other changes account for 5 percent in an overall 7 percent revision of the NIV, he said.

"We're concerned about a generation of people who are turning their backs on the Bible because they don't see it as relevant, largely because they don't understand it," Lincoln asserted, noting that 100 million people in America are under the age of 30 and that language has changed since the NIV New Testament was initially published in the 1970s.

The TNIV was announced to the public in a Jan. 28 news release by the International Bible Society and Zondervan, the publisher of the NIV. The TNIV New Testament will be published this spring, the news release stated, with the complete Bible "expected in 2005."

Controversy over gender-neutral translation erupted in 1997 when World magazine, based in Asheville, N.C., reported that the IBS had decided to produce a gender-neutral NIV for the U.S. market by 2001 but had made no announcement of its plans. World's 1997 articles appeared in its March 29, April 19 and May 3 issues. A storm of theology-related objections was raised by a number of U.S. evangelicals over various revisions to the NIV.

The IBS, in a May 27, 1997, news release, announced a reversal, saying it would "forgo all plans" to revise the NIV translation. The Colorado-based IBS, in its May 27 statement, also committed to revising its New International Readers Version (NIrV) Bible "to reflect a treatment of gender consistent with the NIV." The NIrV was a gender-neutral translation already used in a Zondervan Publishing House children's Bible. And the IBS committed to negotiate an end to the publishing of a gender-neutral NIV text already completed by the Committee on Bible Translation and released in 1996 in England by Hodder and Stoughton.

Also on May 27, 1997, key parties in the controversy found common ground in a joint statement and a page of suggested translation guidelines now known as the "Colorado Springs Guidelines," or CSG. "Specifically, we agree that it is inappropriate to use gender-neutral language when it diminishes accuracy in the translation of the Bible," the statement, released June 4, noted, "and we therefore agree to the attached guidelines for translation of gender-related language in Scripture." The statement also noted: "We agree that Bible translations should not be influenced by illegitimate intrusions of secular culture or by political or ideological agendas."

However, in announcing its TNIV Jan. 28, the International Bible Society acknowledged in a separate letter to various evangelical leaders, dated Jan. 18, that it was "withdrawing its endorsement" of the guidelines.

Among the statement's 12 signers in 1997 were Bruce E. Ryskamp, Zondervan's president and CEO; Lars Dunberg, then-president of the IBS; Ronald Youngblood, now chairman of the IBS board of directors and a Committee on Bible Translation member; Wayne Grudem, then-president of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood; John Piper, a member of the council and senior pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis; and theologian R.C. Sproul, chairman of Ligonier Ministries.

The IBS now has difficulty with the part of the CSG involving "some very specific guidelines [about translation of gender-related terms] that those present generally agreed with, or at the time were willing to endorse," the Jan. 18 IBS letter states, referencing the 1997 Colorado Springs meeting convened by Focus on the Family founder James Dobson.

"However, upon further review and consideration, and in consultation with other evangelical scholars, IBS has determined that many of the technical guidelines are too restrictive to facilitate the most accurate possible text in contemporary English," the IBS letter states.

In its Jan. 18 letter, the IBS noted that its ongoing work has been conducted "in accordance with its own guidelines and the guidelines established by the International Forum of Bible Agencies," which encompasses "18 of the leading global translation ministries, including IBS, Wycliffe Bible Translators, United Bible Societies, Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL), New Tribes Mission and others ... responsible for more than 90 percent of the translation work done around the world [and seeking to do] uncompromisingly accurate translations in contemporary language."

The IBS letter did not list the other guidelines nor discuss whether those guidelines address gender-related translation issues.
--30--



Source:http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=12635

 

Making Mountains Out Of Molehills

BFL,so you think trotting out a nearly seven year old article is worth something?

Bottom line:For those who appreciate the ESV and HCSB relating to how they handled the 'gender matter' -- the TNIV agrees with them most of the time.We're speaking of less than one percent of the TNIV which differs from the ESV and HCSB.I,of course,find no problem with the way the TNIV handled the matter.The NLTse treats the issue about the same -- so does the NET Bible,for the most part.

Things were deliberately blown up out of proportion by advocates primarly of the ESV rival translation.There are a number of folks who have been on the other side of the subject before and now know that the TNIV is solid and conservative -- an excellent translation.

 

This is simply incorrect and poor reasoning. Spurgeon was praising the new versions. He was defending the word of God against a much more insidious opposition which attacks it veracity in any version.

 

"God the Bible"?!

How are newer translations casting doubt on God's Word?If those versions are faithful to the original and speak in the language of today's reader -- there is no problem.

Are you against new and improved versions in other languages too?

God's Word is not in one version.Old translations of course can be improved.No translation is set in stone.

I wonder how long your position has "always been" that.The KJV was primarily the only version English-speaking people used back then.But I don't think people back than were KJVO.

No.They probably would not have said a translation was perfect -- only the original autographs.How do I know that?I went back in my time machine and spoke to Average Joe and he told me so.

What have I told you about needing to read Church History?

Webster's Bible came out in 1833 because there was a need to update the KJV.He changed it only slightly.But the alterations he made were used by the RV revisers.

That's an absurd idea.So it's your contention that the modern Bible versions contribute to the worldliness of modern Christians?