Men From The Past Who Used Other Versions

In Jn. 1:1 they do and that is not correct. The Greek text in Jn. 1:1does not leave Jesus in the past.

 

Yet the only translation you claim is inaccurate is the KJV.

 

My point was that if it was inspired then it missed the point of Jesus transcending from eternity to eternity.

 

Question; in the whole of John's gospel, does he write anything that changes the Word of God from past tense to an eternal tense?

 

The inspired version left nothing out.

 

The inspired version?

 

So, tell us non-Greek readers how it should be properly translated into English.

 

That is a very good question. It is one I have not found in a "literal"word for word translation. To accomplish an accurate translation it must be accompanied with additional words. The real question is how would one translate a word that represents an action as going on in past time and the action is continuing? Generally the past form of the verb "to be" and a participle are sufficient.

 

What a silly thing to say, like you know for a fact what Spurgeon would have done. Incredible.

 

Spurgeon's words are in print. You can read them for yourself.

LECTURE 2
On Commenting

"Do not needlessly amend our authorized version. It is faulty in many places, but still it is a grand work taking it for all in all, and it is unwise to be making every old lady distrust the only Bible she can get at, or what is more likely, mistrust you for falling out with her cherished treasure. Correct where correction must be for truth's sake, but never for the vainglorious display of your critical ability."

 

Some folks on this board are obsessed with versions.

 

I would agree if you stopped right there sir. :smilewinkgrin:

 

I knew of these statements before by Spurgeon. I was just saying that Rippon cannot assume what Spurgeon would have done in the 1850's. A man's opinions sometimes change during the course of his life.

I could as easily argue that if Spurgeon had lived longer and became more aware of the criticisms against the newer versions he would have rejected them. After all, that is a possibility. But I am not saying that, just showing how the argument Rippon made is a form of false argument.

 

John 1:1

I believe John took care of leaving Christ in the past in John 1:1 by writing John 1:13, as all scripture is dependent on inspiration and order so should our understanding be.

 

Well, that is just what you say, your opinion. You cannot prove what Spurgeon would have done in the 1850s even if the RV existed then. People change over time, Spurgeon would have been much younger and may have held a different view of scripture at that time.

I am not saying you are wrong, perhaps Spurgeon would have preferred the RV if it had existed in the 1850s. What I am trying to show you is a fallacy in logic on your part. It is a false argument.

 

Perhaps you cannot understand that no one can approve of a version that doesn't exist. Perhaps 50 years from now someone will revise the RV, and perhaps a preacher living now will approve of it, but that cannot possibly be known until the revision comes out and is examined.

Or maybe you believe Spurgeon had foreknowledge? Amazing, because most Calvinists will not even admit that God has foreknowledge.

Once again, Spurgeon could not possibly approve a revision that didn't exist until it actually existed and could be examined. If you can't understand this, I can't help you, it is a false argument on your part.

 

I think Rippon is just in shock because someone actually had the nerve to question something he posted! :laugh: