Some Who Approved Other Versions

[Rippon]

Some well-known Fundametalists endorsed the REV , ASV and in some cases other versions such as the Weymouth .

James H.Brookes , B.H. Carroll , C.I. Scofield , James M.Gray , R.A. Torrey , William Erdman , A.T. Robertson ( who appreciated W&H ) , David Heagle ( a conytibutor to The Fundamentals ) , William Bell Riley ( also a fan of W&H ) , Noel Smith , J.R.Rice , F.H. A. Scrivener ( though a fan of the TR , he was on the ERV committee ) ,D.L.Moody , F.B. Myer , G. Cambell Morgan , W.E. Vine and H.A. Ironside .

Charles H. Spurgeon : ... I love God's Word better than I love King James pedantic wisdom and foolish kingcraft ...
C.H.S. ( regarding the KJV ) it is exceedinly good , but it has many glaring faults ...
Dean John W. Burgon : ...the TR needs correction ... it calls for skillful revision in every part ...

 

[robycop3]

How about Dr. Clearwaters?

 

[Rippon]

I overlooked Richard V. Clearwaters , sorry . He liked the ASV. " We know of no Fundamentalist ... that claim the KJV as the best translation ."

 

[Plain Old Bill]

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:

 

[Rippon]

POB , JRR liked the RSV . ( I'm sure into initials ! )

 

[EdSutton]

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

 

[Bob Alkire]

POB , JRR liked the RSV . ( I'm sure into initials ! )

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

 

[Bob Alkire]

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

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Dean John W. Burgon : ...the TR needs correction ... it calls for skillful revision in every part ...

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

 

[Bob Alkire]

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

 

[Rippon]

The Burgon quote was from "The Revision Revised" , page 21 , note 2 .

"One for all , we request it may be clearly understood that we do not , by any means , claim perfection for the Received Text . we entertain no extravagant notions on that subject . Again and again we shall have occasion to point out ... that the Textus Receptus needs correction."

So the TR is not absolutely reliable , it is merely a standard of reference -- not a standard of perfection .

On the JRR thing -- the Sword of the Lord had an ad in the Oct.17th , 1952 edition for the RSV . The ad went on to say of the RSV " inaccuracies and errors of older versions have been corrected in light of ancient manuscripts." Carl Mcintire started weighing in on the subject voicing his displeasure with the version . Rice asked his readers to forgive him for the ad . On Nov.14th Rice said he used the RSV for "reference and comparison " . But by June 4,1965 the SOTL ran articles "denouncing and showing the perversion of the RSV ."

 

[Rippon]

The Burgon quote was from "The Revision Revised" , page 21 , note 2 .

"One for all , we request it may be clearly understood that we do not , by any means , claim perfection for the Received Text . we entertain no extravagant notions on that subject . Again and again we shall have occasion to point out ... that the Textus Receptus needs correction."

So the TR is not absolutely reliable , it is merely a standard of reference -- not a standard of perfection .

On the JRR thing -- the Sword of the Lord had an ad in the Oct.17th , 1952 edition for the RSV . The ad went on to say of the RSV " inaccuracies and errors of older versions have been corrected in light of ancient manuscripts." Carl Mcintire started weighing in on the subject voicing his displeasure with the version . Rice asked his readers to forgive him for the ad . On Nov.14th Rice said he used the RSV for "reference and comparison " . But by June 4,1965 the SOTL ran articles "denouncing and showing the perversion of the RSV ."

The above is relevant to some issues being discussed on another thread called :"Another Report On Sword Scripture Conference" .

 

[readmore]

Here's another quote from Burgon.

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

 

[Rubato 1]

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

 

[bbas 64]

Some well-known Fundametalists endorsed the REV , ASV and in some cases other versions such as the Weymouth .

James H.Brookes , B.H. Carroll , C.I. Scofield , James M.Gray , R.A. Torrey , William Erdman , A.T. Robertson ( who appreciated W&H ) , David Heagle ( a conytibutor to The Fundamentals ) , William Bell Riley ( also a fan of W&H ) , Noel Smith , J.R.Rice , F.H. A. Scrivener ( though a fan of the TR , he was on the ERV committee ) ,D.L.Moody , F.B. Myer , G. Cambell Morgan , W.E. Vine and H.A. Ironside .

Charles H. Spurgeon : ... I love God's Word better than I love King James pedantic wisdom and foolish kingcraft ...
C.H.S. ( regarding the KJV ) it is exceedinly good , but it has many glaring faults ...
Dean John W. Burgon : ...the TR needs correction ... it calls for skillful revision in every part ...

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

 

[Logos1560]

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).

 

[Logos1560]

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).

 

[Logos1560]

I am trying to track down some sources on this topic from these men,
[H. A. Ironside]

Bill

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).

 

[Logos1560]

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).

 

[franklinmonroe]

Esp:

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

"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)