Featured Charles H. Spurgeon And The Revised Version

The Revised Version of 1881-1885 distorted one of the strongest texts in the Holy Bible on the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Apostle Paul wrote "Θεός ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί" (1 Timothy 3:16), which was corrupted to read, "ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί" "God was manifested in the flesh", to "Who was manifested in the flesh". Regardless of the textual evidence of the Greek manuscripts, the early Church fathers of the Greek Church, had "Θεός ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί", in their copies on the New Testament, as early as Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35–108), who wrote, "There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh ... God Himself being manifested in human form for the renewal of eternal life" (Letter to the Ephesians, 7.19)

 

Yes, as it is in the Codex Alexandrinus, which I managed to examine at the British Museum some 25 years ago. I think that the Patristic witness is far more weighty and important for this verse, especially of the Greek speaking Church.

 

No, he certainly did not. He initially welcomed the RV, but afterwards spoke against it. He never at any time preached from it.
Did you not read the quotes I posted on the other thread?

 

Exactly right! The Revised Version and its wretched brood have been of great comfort and support to Unitarians and JWs over the years.
Did you know that Dr G. Vance Smith, Minister of St. Saviour Gate Unitarian Church was on the revising committee responsible for the Revised Version?

 

According to the following source, Spurgeon did preach from the Revised Version in at least one sermon.

2 Corinthians 4:3-4
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).

 

Yes, as was Joseph Henry Thayer of the famous Greek Lexicon, who was also a Unitarian, and part of the committee in the USA! How can any translating committee that is meant to be "Evangelical" include those who oppose Bible Truth? This should not surprise us though, as in modern times we have the likes of Bruce M Metzger, who denied that Moses wrote the Torah, even though Jesus Himself said so! He also denied that the flood was "world-wide", has the Book of Deuteronomy dating from about 700 years before Jesus' Birth. Denied the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles, and that Peter wrote 2 Peter! Kurt Aland denied the verbal inspiration of the Holy Bible, etc, etc.

 

Yes, that is true. But there are many who were and still are in the CoE who are very much Evangelical, like J C Ryle, John Stott, Dick Lucas, etc, etc. Both John and Charles Wesley remained in the CoE, even though they opposed much of what it stood for. I don't think there is any Bible translation that is completely "Evangelical". The RV was headed by the brilliant scholar, Dr Charles Ellicott, and had others like J B Lightfoot, whose commentaries are in a class of their own, on that committee, even though some of their "judgements" on the text might be questioned. Both I would say were "Evangelical" Others were, Edward Henry Bickersteth, Richard Chenevix Trench, Charles Wordsworth, Joseph Angus, David Brown, William Milligan, William F. Moulton, Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener, Henry Alford, John Eadie, Samuel Prideaux Tregelles. I would say that all of these were "Evangelical" and "born-again", unless I have missed things on them?

 

Here are the Spurgeon quotes that I gave in the earlier thread:

"In the margin of our Testaments-- I mean of the Authorised Version, which will never be parted with for the so-called Revised Version-- in the margin of the Authorised Version, we read, 'Let us hold fast grace.'" (MTP vol. 28 'Acceptable Service').

"For that Revised Version I have but little care as a general rule, holding it to be by no means an improvement upon our common Authorised Version. It is a useful thing to have it for private reference, but I trust it will never be regarded as the standard English Translation" (MTP vol.32 Our own dear Shepherd).

[Referring to the R.V. Old Testament] "I am half afraid that it [the RV Old Testament] may carry the Revised New Testament upon its shoulders into general use. I sincerely hope that this may not be the case, for the result would be a decided loss" (ibid).

In addition to those we have Spurgeon's comments on 1 Timothy 3:16. "'God was manifest in the flesh.' I believe that our version [KJV] is correct..........if the text does not say 'God was manifest in the flesh,' who does it say was manifested?"

You have proved that you are right that Spurgeon upheld the C.T. versions on more than one occasion. I apologize for getting that wrong. But when you consider the many hundreds of sermons Spurgeon gave, his criticisms of the KJV are a tiny proportion.