C. H. Spurgeon and the KJV

[stilllearning]

Hi EdSutton

I said.......

“If God is God, than He was able to “PERFECTLY PRESERVE HIS WORD” in the copies that were made of the originals.”

And you responded with.......

“I fully agree, here. The question is did He do exactly that, however?? Read Luke 4:15-21 and then tell me exactly which OT version or translation Jesus actually read from?? I suggest it was neither the LXX or any known Hebrew text, by the actual words Jesus read, and then pronounced to be Scripture.”

Although this is making a different point:
(I was talking about God’s ability to perfectly preserve the book of Luke.)
-And your questioning the content of Luke.-

But I will respond anyway.
--------------------------------------------------
I believe that passage that you are looking for is, Isaiah 61:1-3

And although I agree, that there are some differences between Isaiah 61:1-3 & Luke 4:18,19, I take into consideration who it is, that it making the changes.

When our Lord Jesus Christ quotes an old testament passage, and states it a little differently, I mark it down, as “the Lord giving us more light”.

This is something to praise the Lord for, and not an excuse to cast doubt on God’s Word.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Hi C4K

You asked.........


What I mean, is that several hundred years has passed, and God’s warning is still true......

--------------------------------------------------
It may appear, that we are getting smarter and smarter, but the Bible disagrees.

I didn't realise that 'evil men and seducers' there referred to believers. So the men in 1611 were wxing worse and worse than those of fifty years earlier. We must go back to the first English translation to avoid the 'evil men and seducers?'

 

[gb93433]

By removing words and verses, or even worse, leaving them in, then having a footnote at the bottom of the page, that says........
“This verse isn’t found in the best Greek manuscripts”

Now, what is a person to do. This is simply casting doubt.

Better to cause doubt than lie. While some may want to instill confidence by avoiding the truth or lying, there are others who tell the truth.

For hundreds of years, Christians believed the TR to be exact copies of their Greek originals.
Those so-called “best Greek manuscripts”, were around back then, but everybody agreed that they were inferior copies.

The flat earth society still exists today. Are they right or wrong?

You are right. I have not “always” been KJVO.
I have come to that conclusion(for one reason), because everyone that I know, that isn’t KJVO, doesn’t seem to have a reverence for God’s Word.

To prove my point give us the accurate interpretation of Is. 45:7

Believe it or not, there was a time when most(99%), of professing Christians, believed that their English Bible was 100% correct.

About 98% of the early Christians during the time of the NT could not read.

By the way, what do you attribute “the worldliness of modern Christians” to?

A lack of fear for God and disobedience to Him.

 

[stilllearning]

Good morning gb93433

Glad to respond.

Please forgive me: (I have so much to do today, with so little time
-So right now, I will only have time to respond to your first point!-
--------------------------------------------------
I had said.......

“The way new Bible versions cast doubt on God’s word, is by removing words and verses, or even worse, leaving them in, then having a footnote at the bottom of the page, that says........
“This verse isn’t found in the best Greek manuscripts”
Now, what is a person to do. This is simply casting doubt.”

Then you said.......

“Better to cause doubt than lie. While some may want to instill confidence by avoiding the truth or lying, there are others who tell the truth.”

Someone else made this same statement, but I never got a chance to get back to them.

My response is “what truth”?

The statement: “the best Greek manuscripts”, is a misnomer.

The ONLY criteria that they are using to declare these manuscripts as “the best”, is there age. (They are the oldest)

As if to say, it wouldn’t matter what they said or didn’t say; If they are older, they must be “the best”.
--------------------------------------------------
Now don’t get me wrong, I am a big fan of “old things”: (Old commentaries), (Old Dictionaries) etc.
-And the reason that older commentaries & Dictionaries are generally better, is because all the newer ones are generally more “liberal”.

Here is just one example:
Look up the “Red sea”, in an old Bible dictionary, and it will say e.g. “The sea known to us as the Red Sea was by the Israelites called "the sea", and goes on to tell us where it was located and how the Jews miraculously crossed it on dry ground”

But when you look up the “Red sea”, in a newer Bible dictionary, is might say:
“The Red sea(actually the reed sea), was a short stretch of shallow water, by which the Israelites escaped the approaching Egyptian army. Where some of the Egyptians were injured when they got stuck in the mud.”

Note: Don’t try to find either one of these definitions in any dictionary: I was just quoting them from memory.

But as you can see, when it comes to “man’s writings”, older is indeed better; Because invariably, as time goes by, men(including professing Christians), seem to get farther and farther away from the truth’s of God’s Word.

But this same rule, DOES NOT APPLY TO GREEK MANUSCRIPTS.
--------------------------------------------------
Logically, you would think; (Well the older manuscript is better, because that means that it hasn’t been “recopied” as much, therefore it has fewer chances of having been “influenced”, by the copyist.)

Now this logical holds water, when it comes “man’s writings”:
But when it comes to God’s writings, it doesn’t apply. (Because God will protect His writings!)

Now some might ask; (If God protects His writings, how can even one “bad copy” of God’s Word even exist?)
-This is an interesting question.-

Why does God allow false teachers to exist?
(This is a perfect topic for another thread.)

But the fact remains, these “Oldest manuscripts”, are not necessarily the “better ones”!
--------------------------------------------------
When these handful of older manuscripts(that don’t even agree with each other), differ from the vast majority of what the newer manuscripts(that all agree with each other), than each of us have a decision to make.

Are we gong to continue to believe God’s preserved Word, that the Church has loved and accepted for hundreds of years?

Or are we going to allow some world-wise eggheads, convince us that our dear old Bible is wrong, and start removing or changing verses.
--------------------------------------------------
Boy I have got to go; But let me say one more thing.

I have learned, how to give preachers a quick test.
When ever I find some new preacher(new to me), on the internet, that allows me to download MP3's of this messages, I quickly search for one of his messages out of 1John 5:, and listen to what he says, when he comes to V.7.

The last time I used this test, the preacher mutilated the verse, then went on to explain that “the oldest manuscripts”, do not say, “and these three are one”.

We are allowing this one criteria, to rob God’s Word of some of it’s power.



I have got to go.
I will finish later!

 

[jonathan.borland]

When these handful of older manuscripts(that don’t even agree with each other), differ from the vast majority of what the newer manuscripts(that all agree with each other), than each of us have a decision to make.

The vast majority of the newer manuscripts have 1 John 5:7? What are your sources? Last time I checked, out of the 500 or so Greek manuscripts that contain 1 John, only five or so have 1 John 5:7. Also, using old math, five out of 500 has never constituted a "vast majority." To look at another place, this time in John's Gospel (7:53-8:11), it is certain that hundreds of Byzantine Greek manuscripts (out of 1600 or so) omit the pericope, and that the ones that contain it represent at least ten, and perhaps as many as 20, various independent streams of the passage. In other words, they are not identical but disagree with each other in many places over the span of but 12 verses of text. For more information on this, see Maurice A. Robinson, "Preliminary Observations regarding the Pericope Adulterae Based upon Fresh Collations of Nearly All Continuous-Text Manuscripts and All Lectionary Manuscripts containing the Passage," Filologia Neotestamentaria 13 (2000) 35–59.

 

[franklinmonroe]

This quote come from, “Extracts on Science” by C. H. Spurgeon
--------------------------------------------------
I normally don’t submit the words of others, but these words are so in line with my opinion, that I would do it this one time.

stilllearning, what was your source for this quote? I could not find any connection between Spurgeon and the title "Extracts on Science"; nor did I find "On Textual Critics and the Authorized Version" to be original with Spurgeon.

First, you should give complete and accurate source information. And as rsr has previously posted, your 'quote' is very heavily edited (I have included the full original text below). Second, if using a partial quote all the missing portions should be properly indicated (punctuated). But I easily did find extremely similar edits of these words of Spurgeon on two different pro-KJVO websites; so it seems it is being repeated without regard to accuracy. Thirdly, care should be taken when using quotes (especially partial ones) that the author's meaning is preserved outside the original context. Even with the entire Spurgeon quote his statements be misunderstood.

From the "Our Armoury" section of The Greatest Fight in the World (I have underline the words omitted from the OP [source: spurgeon.org])--

If this book be not infallible, where shall we find infallibility? We have given up the Pope, for he has blundered often and terribly; but we shall not set up instead of him a horde of little popelings fresh from college. Are these correctors of Scripture infallible? Is it certain that our Bibles are not right, but that the critics must be so? The old silver is to be depreciated; but the German silver, which is put in its place, is to be taken at the value of gold. Striplings fresh from reading the last new novel correct the notions of their fathers, who were men of weight and character. Doctrines which produced the godliest generation that ever lived on the face of the earth are scouted as sheer folly. Nothing is so obnoxious to these creatures as that which has the smell of Puritanism upon it. Every little man's nose goes up celestially at the very sound of the word "Puritan"; though if the Puritans were here again, they would not dare to treat them thus cavalierly; for if Puritans did fight, they were soon known as Ironsides, and their leader could hardly be called a fool, even by those who stigmatized him as a "tyrant." Cromwell, and they that were with him, were not all weak-minded persons—surely? Strange that these are lauded to the skies by the very men who deride their true successors, believers in the same faith. But where shall infallibility be found? "The depth saith, it is not in me"; yet those who have no depth at all would have us imagine that it is in them; or else by perpetual change they hope to hit upon it. Are we now to believe that infallibility is with learned men? Now, Farmer Smith, when you have read your Bible, and have enjoyed its precious promises, you will have, to-morrow morning, to go down the street to ask the scholarly man at the parsonage whether this portion of the Scripture belongs to the inspired part of the Word, or whether it is of dubious authority. It will be well for you to know whether it was written by the Isaiah, or whether it was by the second of the "two Obadiahs." All possibility of certainty is transferred from the spiritual man to a class of persons whose scholarship is pretentious, but who do not even pretend to spirituality. We shall gradually be so bedoubted and becriticized, that only a few of the most profound will know what is Bible, and what is not, and they will dictate to all the rest of us. I have no more faith in their mercy than in their accuracy: they will rob us of all that we hold most dear, and glory in the cruel deed. This same reign of terror we shall not endure, for we still believe that God revealeth himself rather to babes than to the wise and prudent, and we are fully assured that our own old English version of the Scriptures is sufficient for plain men for all purposes of life, salvation, and godliness. We do not despise learning, but we will never say of culture or criticism. "These be thy gods, O Israel!"​

 

[franklinmonroe]

... Before the late 1800's, there was NEVER any talk among Christians, about the mistakes in the Bible...

This is just one example of stilllearning's many erroneous statements (as if they were fact). I guess he is unaware of Sir Isaac Newton's An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture (published 1754 posthumously). Coincidently, one of the notable corruptions that Newton discusses is 1 John 5:7.

For your convenience -- http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=cIoPAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA1

 

[Baptist4life]

This is just one example of stilllearning's many erroneous statements (as if they were fact). I guess he is unaware of Sir Isaac Newton's An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture (published 1754 posthumously). Coincidently, one of the notable corruptions that Newton discusses is 1 John 5:7.

For your convenience -- http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=cIoPAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA1

In all fairness I believe he was just talking "in general" there weren't all these discussions between the average "guy next door" Christians. I think he's just saying that BEFORE all the versions we have now, .............and YES, there are a LOT more than their used to be,....................... the average Christian didn't DEBATE his particular version like we do now. There seem to be THOUSANDS of debates on the internet about Bible versions! There are a LOT of bitter words and un-Christlike things said to one another about it. If nothing else Satan has to be enjoying that.:tear:

 

[franklinmonroe]

... The statement: “the best Greek manuscripts”, is a misnomer.

The ONLY criteria that they are using to declare these manuscripts as “the best”, is there age. (They are the oldest)

As if to say, it wouldn’t matter what they said or didn’t say; If they are older, they must be “the best”....

This is another error; "the best" does not only refer to the age of a manuscript. For examples: the quality of the physical specimen (damage or deterioration) could be being described; the evidence or absence of later editing (additions or erasures) could be being described; or the inclination of the scribe (sloppy or attentive) to make errors in his text could be being described.

It seems that some folks do not discern the difference between textual criticism and forensic paleography. The textual critic seeks to explain how each variant may have entered the text, either accidently or intentionally, as scribes transmitted the original text when copying it. A paleographer studies the characteristics of ancient writing for the purpose of deciphering and reading manuscripts. Diplomatics (a branch of study) seeks clues from the materials, handwriting, grammar, historic references, etc. to establish the date and authenticity of ancient manuscripts. These are different disciplines.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... Now this logical holds water, when it comes “man’s writings”:
But when it comes to God’s writings, it doesn’t apply. (Because God will protect His writings!)...

Copying a document is not the same as the original "writing" of inspired literature. There are no verses that explicitly state God will preserve the written Scriptures in a book on Earth throughout all periods of history. This is a demonstrated fact recorded in Scripture itself.

... Now some might ask; (If God protects His writings, how can even one “bad copy” of God’s Word even exist?)
-This is an interesting question.-

You shouldn't allow yourself to delay answering this "interesting" question. There is not just one "bad copy" but rather every manuscript (of any considerable length) exhibits some defect. You must have an answer that will reconcile these corrupt witnesses with your assertion that "God will protect His writings". And what about all the sacred scrolls and codices that have perished over the centuries?

 

[gb93433]

The ONLY criteria that they are using to declare these manuscripts as “the best”, is there age. (They are the oldest)

There is much more to it than that. It is not so simplistic.

Here is just one example:
Look up the “Red sea”, in an old Bible dictionary, and it will say e.g. “The sea known to us as the Red Sea was by the Israelites called "the sea", and goes on to tell us where it was located and how the Jews miraculously crossed it on dry ground”

But when you look up the “Red sea”, in a newer Bible dictionary, is might say:
“The Red sea(actually the reed sea), was a short stretch of shallow water, by which the Israelites escaped the approaching Egyptian army. Where some of the Egyptians were injured when they got stuck in the mud.”

Do you trust the Hebrew Masoretic Text or the Greek Septuagint more? They are very different.

One is the text and the other is an interpretation of the text.

While you point out something rather interesting. A historical study is in order to correctly interpret the text you gave about the Red Sea. In light of the theology of a number of calvinists I find it quite interesting to see how a number of them try to explain their theology instead of interpreting the texts of Amos 3:6, Is. 45:7 and Lam 3:38.

 

[stilllearning]

Good morning jonathan.borland

Nice to hear from you.

You said......

“The vast majority of the newer manuscripts have 1 John 5:7?”

How new, are you talking about? (?1881-ff?)

I have already stated my distrust of modern scholarship.
So this could be where we disagree.
--------------------------------------------------
You also asked.........

“What are your sources?”

This is an interesting question.
My source is “the traditional view” of the majority Byzantine texts.

I am aware, the “new” paradigm says, that numbers of manuscripts, don’t hold any weight, but I disagree.
--------------------------------------------------
I appreciate you listing the source of your information.

I conducted a cursory internet search of Maurice A. Robinson, but was unable to determine if he has any hidden agenda.

But I disagree with his findings.


Have a great day.

 

[stilllearning]

Hi franklinmonroe

You asked........

“What was your source for this quote?”

As I have already mentioned in response #4, “Who is was, that made this statement”, is not important to me.
But it is “the words” of the statement, that I agree with.

But according to rsr(who clearly seems to know a lot about what Spurgeon said), this quotation comes from, “The Greatest Fight in the World”.
--------------------------------------------------
As for me; My electronic computer has a list of “Quotations”, and the other day I stumbled across this one.
--------------------------------------------------
Any accusation, that I somehow purposely manipulated Spurgeon’s words, to put words in his mouth, is not true.

I just read this statement(the one in my op), and agreed with it, and shared it.
I could care less, who said it. But I agree with it.


Once again, I apologize for bringing Spurgeon into all of this, by the name that I chose for this thread.

 

[stilllearning]

Hello again franklinmonroe

You quoted me......

“Before the late 1800's, there was NEVER any talk among Christians, about the mistakes in the Bible.”

Then you said......

“This is just one example of stilllearning's many erroneous statements (as if they were fact).”

Well, the statement that I made, is a fact.
But the “Christians”, that I am talking about are Christians like me.

If I had been talking about “everyone that called themselves a Christian”, I would have used the term, “professing Christians”.

Today, the world if full of “professing Christians”, who don’t know Christ, and reject the Bible.

And undoubtedly, there has always been, some professing Christians like this.
--------------------------------------------------
Earlier, when I was talking about, how Christendom has changed, over the last few hundred years, I quoted........

2 Timothy 3:13
V.13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

But then I included.......

2 Timothy 3:14
V.14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned [them];

Yes, there are(and will be), professing Christians that will set out to try and destroy our faith, by getting us to reject the “old ways”.

But I avoid them.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Yes, there are those that are '"Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." (2 Tim. 3:7)

But that's a two-way street.

 

[stilllearning]

Hi franklinmonroe

I stand by my statement.......

“The term, "best Greek manuscripts”, is a misnomer."

As for my statement.......

“The ONLY criteria that they are using to declare these manuscripts as “the best”, is there age. (They are the oldest)”

This does need some tweaking.
--------------------------------------------------
I have read, how “textual critics”, do have a list of criteria they use, in there search for exactly what is and what isn’t God’s Word, and there is more to it, than simply “the age of the manuscript”.

But for me, the search is over.
(I have found a complete and accurate copy of God’s Word, in the KJV.)
--------------------------------------------------
As for paleography, I feel that this work, has already been done.
In my mind, there is no need for it any longer.

We already have God’s Word. What it the point of any further study in this area.
(Except, to cast doubt upon what we already have.)

 

[Logos1560]

You quoted me......
“Before the late 1800's, there was NEVER any talk among Christians, about the mistakes in the Bible.”


Well, the statement that I made, is a fact.
But the “Christians”, that I am talking about are Christians like me.

.

If by "the Bible" you mean or include translations of the Bible, your statement is not a fact.

KJV translator John Reynolds in 1604 referred to "mistakes" in a translation [the 1568 Bishops' Bible or the 1539 Great Bible or both] in his appeal to King James for the making of a new translation.

In 1583, William Fulke, who held the same view of Bible translation as the KJV translators, wrote: "In plain words I did confess that there might be some errors even in the best and perfectest of our translations" (A Defence of the Sincere and True Translations of the Holy Scriptures into the English Tongue, p. 97). He pointed out: "It cannot be denied but some faults may escape the most faithful and diligent translator" (Ibid., p. 63).

S. H. Ford observed that Leonard Busher, a Baptist, in 1613/14 in his A Plea for Liberty of Conscience stated that there were "certain false translations" in the KJV, but he lacked the means and money to print and publish them (Origin of the Baptists, p. 20). Cramp noted that Busher's unpublished tract was entitled: "A Declaration of Certain False Translations in the New Testament" (Baptist History, p. 292). In a book that includes a reprint of Busher's Plea, Edward Underhill observed that Busher was zealous for "the truthful translation of the word of God" (Tracts, p. 6).

In his introduction to his new 1784 translation of Jeremiah, Benjamin Blayney (editor of the standard 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV) maintained that “our present Version in common use” [the KJV] “is still far from being so perfect as it might and should be” (p. xiv-xv). In this same introduction, Blayney recommended: “Let the work of purifying and reforming what is amiss in the present Edition of our Bible be fairly and honestly set about, and with that moderation and soberness of mind which the gravity of the subject requires” (pp. xviii-xix). Would you claim that the man who made decisions about the text of the KJV in 1769 was not a Christian?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Yes, there are(and will be), professing Christians that will set out to try and destroy our faith, by getting us to reject the “old ways”.

But I avoid them.

Is that what the KJV translators did by trying to get people to turn away from the Geneva Bible?

I a logic is going to be applied we must apply it across the board.

 

[Samuel Owen]

The original text of the KJV 1611, has never been modified, or corrected. There were correcting of misspelled words, and grammatical errors only! in 1629, 1638, and the last in 1769. The editors never found mistakes in the translation, than needed correction.

Modern scholarship loves the twisting of words, and wrangling of Bible text to suit their own opinion. There has never been a problem with the KJV, only the inability to understand the common language used in the text. In 1611 they lacked the criticism of modern Bible critics, and just translated the Bible as it was written. In the phrases, and wording of the time.

But higher education lacks the ability to understand anything below their level of expertise, and found the word of God in error. I think the error should be recognized where it truly lies, in modern textual criticism.

 

[Baptist4life]

The original text of the KJV 1611, has never been modified, or corrected. There were correcting of misspelled words, and grammatical errors only! in 1629, 1638, and the last in 1769. The editors never found mistakes in the translation, than needed correction.

Modern scholarship loves the twisting of words, and wrangling of Bible text to suit their own opinion. There has never been a problem with the KJV, only the inability to understand the common language used in the text. In 1611 they lacked the criticism of modern Bible critics, and just translated the Bible as it was written. In the phrases, and wording of the time.

But higher education lacks the ability to understand anything below their level of expertise, and found the word of God in error. I think the error should be recognized where it truly lies, in modern textual criticism.

:applause: :applause: :applause: :thumbs: