another report on Sword Scripture Conference

[EdSutton]

I did hear a few derisive terms used to refer to the MVs, but it was based upon a strong belief that those versions are indeed based on corrupt texts and are thereby corrupt themselves.

The reference to the NIV and the "HIV" was an attempt to "humorously" point out that this version is "infected" with error and corruption. It was not alluding to AIDS or linking it to homosexuality in any form or fashion.

This has nothing to do with Pastor_Bob, who is here merely reporting.

Frankly, I don't consider this (as reported) slur as 'humorous' in any fashion!

There may well be a question of "corrupt texts" (actually a misnomer, for the reference is invariably only to the NT 'texts'), that is debatable.

However -

The above 'slurs' ain't it!

And that's in any league!

Ed

 

[rbell]

This has nothing to do with Pastor_Bob, who is here merely reporting.

Frankly, I don't consider this (as reported) slur as 'humorous' in any fashion!

There may well be a question of "corrupt texts" (actually a misnomer, for the reference is invariably only to the NT 'texts'), that is debatable.

However -

The above 'slurs' ain't it!

And that's in any league!

Ed

Amen.

And I don't know..but I have a great amount of trouble believing this statement:

The reference to the NIV and the "HIV" was an attempt to "humorously" point out that this version is "infected" with error and corruption. It was not alluding to AIDS or linking it to homosexuality in any form or fashion.

I couldn't disagree more. Of course it was! You know that the Molenkott (sp?) issue was underneath that dig. Not to mention...I'm not sure it's possible to have monumentally worse taste than whoever utters those kind of invectives. I would make this akin to someone who walks around uttering racial slurs to "get people's attention."

I wouldn't personally use the term, but do understand the feeble attempt at making a point.

Thank God for that...but I'm sorry: I don't understand the feeble....no, stupid attempt at "humor." There are some things followers of God shouldn't joke about. Denigrating a translation that has been used of God to transform countless lives is stupid, juvenile, and has no place at a Christian gathering.

And yes, I would make the same rebuke if anyone made stupid, insensitive remarks denigrating the AV as well. (In fact, a couple of years ago at a youth conference, I did just that--gave a rebuke--to one of the program personalities).

 

[EdSutton]

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

FTR, I have a book that lists over 100 English versions from 1900 thru around 1970, but I cannot lay my hands on it at this exact moment. However, I have read the information about them all - some good, some bad, and some basically terrible paraphrases, IMO. But all were English versions of some or all of the Bible in English, as several were just the NT, or part of it, in a couple of cases. A couple were OT only.

I'd guess that number has easily doubled, today, but do not know this for a fact.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

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

How about Moffat; MLB; Phillips; the Living Bible; NWT; a new 'Catholic' Bible that I forget the exact title of 'off of the top of my head'; not to mention some 'variations' and editions of some of the others? That is another half dozen, before 'second editions. Do any or all of them also count, here?

Ed

 

[Bob Alkire]

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."


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.

Pastor Bob, Thanks for your answer.
I know and have read and heard John R. Rice say he wasn't against new translations of the Bible. He wasn't against translation into modern speech, if they were done correctly to the original manuscripts.
He didn't think any Bible would replace the KJV in his day, but he would recommend the New Scofield Reference Bible or he said so in one of his books.
If I recall correctly he thought the NASB was good to use along with the KJV. You are correct he liked the ASV1901 and used the KJV as his main Bible.
Again, thanks for your answer brother.

 

[Logos1560]

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. .

Several of the Bible translations or paraphrases that have renderings to which many strongly object were already available in his day [the Revised Standard Version, Good News for Modern Man, and the Living Bible (paraphrase)]. John R. Rice likely objected to some of those same renderings, but that did not make him into a KJV-only advocate.

There were also books already in print in John R. Rice's day that promoted a KJV-only view [1955 God Wrote Only One Bible by J. J. Ray, 1956 The King James Version Defended by Edward F. Hills, 1964 The Bible Babel by Peter Ruckman, 1970 Which Bible by David Otis Fuller, 1970 The Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence by Peter Ruckman, 1973 True or False by David Otis Fuller, 1975 Bible Version Manual by Donald T. Clarke are a few examples]. John R. Rice was attacked in his day for rejecting the KJV-only view. There may not have been near as many advocates of a KJV-only view in his day, but that view had already started.

 

[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.

Did they accept any non-TR based Bibles?

Did subsequent editions correct translational or factual error or mere printer's or scribal error?

One definition of improve is "to make better," which is the exact mark or aim that the KJV translators said that they had in their preface. In addition, it could be noted that one of the main arguments that John Reynolds had given to King James I in asking for the making of a new translation was that an earlier English translation had some mistranslations. He even gave three examples of what he claimed was mistranslations that were found in the Great Bible. The request that mistranslations be corrected is part of the history of the KJV. Those three claimed mistranslations had already been corrected in the 1560 Geneva Bible so that some think that Reynolds was hinting or may have been seeking acceptance of the Geneva Bible.

The KJV translators accepted some translations that had readings that were not in the Textus Receptus. One of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision was the Great Bible. The Great Bible had a number of readings from the Latin Vulgate that are not found in the Textus Receptus. The KJV translators made use of the 1582 Rheims N. T. that was not TR-based, and also consulted the Latin Vulgate that was not TR-based.

 

[Ivon Denosovich]

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

24 is a fary cry from 1.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

I guess that you are in for a surprise.

1755 John Wesley's N. T. that was still in print ...1982 NKJV

I'm sure that the inclusion on the NKJV was accidental as Dr. Rice went to heaven in 1980.

Why did you conveniently leave out my disclaimer?

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.

How many of the translations you listed were widely used during Dr. Rice's ministry? I would say 3 or 4 at the most.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Y'know, we could sit here all day and discuss what Dr. Rice would or wouldn't think about the current state of Bible translations today, but one thing I am sure he would not do-

He would not miss an opportunity to get God's Word out to lost folks- regardless of the translation.

Although the bulk of his writing and quotations were based on the KJV, He also printed at least one sermon based on the Catholic Bible. He quoted favorably from the RSV and the NASB (at least, he may have quoted others- all of my books are in storage at this moment so I cannot check.)

Perhaps we would all be well-served to start using our swords instead of sitting around arguing about whose is prettiest, oldest, most reliable, or closest to the original.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

The entire quote by John Burgon on page 21 of 'The Revision Revised':

Once 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 the subject. Again and again we shall have occasion to point out (e.g. at page 107) that the Textus Receptus needs correction. We do but insist, (1) That it is an incomparably better text than that which either Lachmann, or Tischendorf, or Tregelles has produced: infinitely preferable to the 'New Greek Text' of the Revisionists. And, (2) That to be improved, the Textus Receptus will have to be revised on entirely different 'principles' from those which are just now in fashion. Men must begin by unlearning the German prejudices of the last fifty years; and address themselves, instead, to the stern logic of facts.

John apparently saw need of correction, but as he pointed out, he was not trying to perfect the Received Text.

 

[Trotter]

John apparently saw need of correction, but as he pointed out, he was not trying to perfect the Received Text.

I would have to agree with the old boy on this one. We cannot have perfection, but we can work to find and correct any deficiencies found in the text. That's not saying it IS deficient, but that it could be closer to perfection.

Perhaps we would all be well-served to start using our swords instead of sitting around arguing about whose is prettiest, oldest, most reliable, or closest to the original.

you been reading my mail? But you are entirely right, my brother. There is a lost and dying world out there, and it is up to us to share the wonderful salvation available through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ... no matter what translation you use. Even the "meanest" of them holds the truth of salvation.

 

[Bob Alkire]

Y'know, we could sit here all day and discuss what Dr. Rice would or wouldn't think about the current state of Bible translations today, but one thing I am sure he would not do-
He would not miss an opportunity to get God's Word out to lost folks- regardless of the translation.

You are correct, but he wrote more against the KJO movement of his day than anyone I can recall. He was given a hard time by the KJO of his day. He was anything but KJO. He was used greatly by God to show the lost the Gospel.

Although the bulk of his writing and quotations were based on the KJV, He also printed at least one sermon based on the Catholic Bible. He quoted favorably from the RSV and the NASB (at least, he may have quoted others- all of my books are in storage at this moment so I cannot check.)

I know he liked the ASV 1901 and someone on here said back in the 50's he said he liked the RSV but soon changed that, I didn't know of him being in favor of the RSV. You are correct he did preach a sermon out of the Catholic Bible and proved one could get the truth out of it.

Perhaps we would all be well-served to start using our swords instead of sitting around arguing about whose is prettiest, oldest, most reliable, or closest to the original.

I think what we all want is the one that is near to the orginal, out of God's mouth, for truth. I can't speak for others but I know I use mine everyday and even though Pastor Bob and I aren't in accord on the KJO deal, I would think he uses his every day too.

From my study and for reading folks like John R. Rice, Bob Jones, Sr., J. Vernon McGee and many others and much prayer, I don't agree with the KJO teaching.

 

[Askjo]

I have many books by Dr John Rice. Some years later I realized that he is not a TR man.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... 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.

These are Pastor Bob's exact words, and he claims to believe what he says. I could only assume that he wasn't aware that there are not "200+" prominent or principal versions available today.

I assumed "a few" probably meant more than two but less than a dozen. I did know that he had understated the situation dramatically. I don't think its a good use of our time to debate how many of the 100 or so English versions published before 1980 were actually "major MVs". Presumably, anything since 1611 could beconsidered a 'modern' version.

 

[franklinmonroe]

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

I did not pick the number "100" out of thin air, and I did not exaggerate. I hope you have read enough evidence from others that it will not become necessary to actually post all of them for your sole edification.

 

[Rippon]

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?


I am not making any attacks veiled or otherwise on you PB . And by your words :"the second time" -- was that a reference to me or someone else -- the first time ?

I am sure you believe that your reports were objective . I think they were reported in a very positive way -- they positively glowed with praise .

 

[franklinmonroe]

I'm sure that the inclusion on the NKJV was accidental as Dr. Rice went to heaven in 1980...

The NKJV New Testament was available in 1979. The entire NKJV Bible containing both Testaments came out in 1982.

 

[Rippon]

John apparently saw need of correction, but as he pointed out, he was not trying to perfect the Received Text.

You misunderstand the use of the term "to perfect" . It means to improve , to make better . Dean Burgon was indeed in favor of perfecting the TR . But he knew it could never be perfect .

 

[Ed Edwards]

Perfect, Perfected

The King James Versions (KJVs), with their built-in Dictionary
explain things very well:

2 Timothy 3:17 (KJV1611 Edition):
That the man of God may be perfect,
|| throughly furnished vnto all good workes.

Margin Note:
|| Or, perfected.

The note means that the translation from the
Greek to the English could also read (but the
translators had to select one over the other):

2 Timothy 3:17 (KJV1611 Edition):
That the man of God may be perfect,
perfected vnto all good workes.

But most people who think the KJV is the end-all
of God's work in the English language appear
to miss the whole message.

BTW, If one doesn't get the message of God's Written Word;
one wastes God's Written Words.

I am perfect;
I am being perfected.
You are also - if ye be 'in Christ'.