C. H. Spurgeon and the KJV

[stilllearning]

On Textual Critics and the Authorized Version
If the 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 popelings fresh from college.
Are these correctors of Scriptures infallible? Is it certain that our Bibles are not right, but that the critics must be so?
Now, Farmer Smith, when you have read your Bible, and have enjoyed its precious promises, you will have tomorrow 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...
We shall gradually be so be-doubted and be-criticized that only a few of the most profound will know what is Bible and what is not, and they will dictate to the rest of us.
I have no more faith in their mercy than in their accuracy...and we are fully assured that our old English version of the Scriptures is sufficient for plain men for all purposes of life, salvation, and goodness.
We do not despise learning, but we will never say of culture or criticism, "These be thy gods, O Israel."

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.

 

[Samuel Owen]

I find a lot of wisdom in Spurgeon's words, which I will agree with 100%. :thumbs:

 

[rsr]

The quotes (heavily elided as they are) are from The Greatest Fight in the World, which was, in part, a defense of the inspiration and sufficiency of Scripture.

Spurgeon is taking to task not textual critics per se but the higher criticism of the German school:

"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." (This quote immediately follows "but that the critics must be so?" in the original.)

And:

"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.” (Which followed "whether it be of dubious authority.")

As an example of Spurgeon's true sentiments, I would suggest looking at his sermon Heart Disease Curable, based on Isaiah 61:1:

I intended to have preached from these words in Luke 4:18, but when I looked at the Revised Version and found that the words were not there at all I was somewhat startled. I began to ask whether the emission was a correct one or not and, without making pretense to scholarship, I feel convinced that the revisers are acting honestly in leaving it out.

It was not in the original manuscript of Luke, but probably some pious person added it with the intention of making the quotation more complete. Whatever the intention may have been and however natural the added words may appear, it is a pity that the unknown Brother ventured to improve that which was perfect from the beginning.

Preaching on Deuteronomy 33:24-25 (Shoes of Iron, and Strength Sufficient: A New Year's Promise) Spurgeon vouches for the Authorized Version's rendering but says:

I find that the passage has several translations; and, though I think that which we have now before us is by far the best, yet I cannot help mentioning the others, for I think they are instructive. These interpretations may serve me as divisions in opening up the meaning. I take it as a rule that the Lord's promises are true in every sense which they will fairly bear. A generous man will allow the widest interpretation of his words, and so will the infinitely gracious God. ...

The Revised Version has it, "Thy bars shall be iron and brass;" and certainly the original text bears that meaning. "Thy bars shall be iron and brass:" there shall be protection around him. The city gates shall be kept fast against the enemy, so as to preserve the citizens.

Or you can check "And We Are" – A Jewel From the Revised Version" in which he preached on I John 3:1:

Dear friends, the most of my text will be found in our Old Version, but for once I shall ask you to look elsewhere for a part of it. A genuine fragment of Inspired Scripture has been dropped by our older translators and it is too precious to be lost. Did not our Lord say, “Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost”? The half lost portion of our text is restored to us in the Revised Version. Never did a translation of the New Testament fail more completely than this Revised Version has done as a book for general reading, but as an assistant to the student, it deserves honorable mention, despite its faults! It exhibits, here and there, special beauties and has, no doubt, in certain places, brought into notice words of sacred Scripture which had fallen out. We have a notable instance in my present text. Turn to the First Epistle
of John, the third chapter, at the first verse—

“Behold, what manner of love the Father has bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God.”

So far we keep to our Authorized Version. Now read the Revised Version, and note the words added—

“Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed upon us, that we should be called children of God: and such we are.”

The word “such” is not in the original. We therefore leave it out and then we get the words—AND WE ARE. There are only two words in the Greek—“and we are.” That the addition is correct I have not the slightest doubt. Those authorities upon which we depend—those manuscripts which are best worthy of notice—have these words and they are to be found in the Vulgate, the Alexandrian and several other versions. They ought never to have dropped out. In the judgment of the most learned and those best to be relied on, these are veritable words of Inspiration. So far as doctrine is concerned, it does not matter, much, whether they are or are not in the original text because we get the same words farther on. “Beloved, now are we children of God, and it is not yet made manifest what we shall be. We know that if He shall be manifested, we shall be like He; for we shall see Him even as He is.”

The point that struck me as being most worthy of notice was that when the Apostle had said, “We shall be called children of God,” he then adds—We are not only to be called so, but we are so. The glory of it is that we now have this thing. We have it in possession—“and we are.” This little interjected assertion, “and we are,” brings most forcibly before my own mind the truth of our present sonship towards God—“That we should be called children of God: and we are.”

 

[stilllearning]

Hi rsr

Nice to hear from you, but you missed the point of this post.
(But it is my fault, because of it’s title....“C. H. Spurgeon and the KJV”.)

I should have entitled it, “A statement, that I agree with”
--------------------------------------------------
You will notice, the statement that I made in this post.......

“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.”

The point being made, is my agreement with this statement;
The fact that C. H. Spurgeon made this statement, is of secondary importance.

In other words, Spurgeon was just a man, like you or I, and he made mistakes like everyone does. But this statement, that he made about the KJV, was right on, so therefore I posted it.

I was aware that he sometimes used other translations, but this particular statement of his, is the point that I was making.


Sorry for the misunderstanding

 

[Jim1999]

In the early days right up to the mid fifties, we all defended the KJV. It was part of being a "fundamentalist" and not liberal. We were often aware of the mistakes in the KJV. Some we labelled "seeming contradictions".

In later years, as better revisions came along, we started the move to more reliable versions, and even backed off some on the RSV.

I think we must understand Spurgeon's remarks in light of the great controversy in the British Baptist Union and why he was expelled from that Union along with his church. Spurgeon actually favoured the more common version of his day. At least, that is what you will find in most of his books.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Baptist4life]

In later years, as better revisions came along, we started the move to more reliable versions, and even backed off some on the RSV.



Cheers,

Jim

That's simply YOUR opinion. Please don't post it as if it's a fact. :thumbs:

 

[Jim1999]

My friend, it is fact from where I come from. I was not born yesterday.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[rsr]

But this statement, that he made about the KJV, was right on, so therefore I posted it.

Then you are the one who has missed the point. Spurgeon was not talking about the KJV as opposed to modern versions; he was talking about higher criticism and the inspiration and sufficiency of Scripture.

I know that Spurgeon's works have been looted to make it appear he thought the Authorized Version infallible, but such quotes — as in this case — are taken out of context and at odds with what he really believed.

You have, in fact, presented Spurgeon as saying something he didn't say if you imply or state that he was talking about the KJV, or even textual criticism, in the OP. That was the point.

 

[Baptist4life]

My friend, it is fact from where I come from. I was not born yesterday.

Cheers,

Jim

How can you make a statement like that? Show me absolute PROOF that there are BETTER, MORE RELIABLE translations than the KJV? ANY "proofs" you supply will only be "opinions". No one knows WHICH is the BEST translation really, because there are arguments over which manuscripts are better, and more close to the original text. So, your statement continues to be your OPINION, not fact. Hence, all these KJV vs. MV threads! :laugh:

 

[4His_glory]

How can you make a statement like that? Show me absolute PROOF that there are BETTER, MORE RELIABLE translations than the KJV? :

Well, my Spanish version (RVR 1960) is better and more reliable because the grammar structure of spanish is closer to greek than that of english to greek. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Baptist4life]

Well, my Spanish version (RVR 1960) is better and more reliable because the grammar structure of spanish is closer to greek than that of english to greek. :smilewinkgrin:

Again, that would depend on which manuscripts you used in your translation, wouldn't it? And right now, and possibly forever, that is a matter of OPINION as to which is better. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[4His_glory]

Again, that would depend on which manuscripts you used in your translation, wouldn't it? And right now, and possibly forever, that is a matter of OPINION as to which is better. :smilewinkgrin:

Manuscripts aside, the fact still remains true regarding the grammar. Which means that at least in one sense, a spanish translation will follow the original grammar structure closer than english if a sound translation principle is used.

 

[Jim1999]

If one reads what I wrote, you will uderstand I was giving an historical step of actions taken by "fundamentalists" in the face of modernism, which came to a head, in Canada, in 1927. The battle continued on into the mid 50's and even was arond in the 60's.

I never said a word about the validity of translations by actual study or scientific evidence. WE just accepted the KJV in the pulpit in general. We made corrections, as did Mr. Spurgeon, as we went along.

This is why so many heated arguments get going. Too many do not read what is said.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[gb93433]

I think we must understand Spurgeon's remarks in light of the great controversy in the British Baptist Union and why he was expelled from that Union along with his church. Spurgeon actually favoured the more common version of his day. At least, that is what you will find in most of his books.

That is what I have read among Spurgeon's writings as well. He preferred the authorized version rather than a more archaic translation and commented even though it was not perfect it was still the best they had at the time.

 

[gb93433]

That's simply YOUR opinion. Please don't post it as if it's a fact. :thumbs:

al you gacve us was your opinion. So show us the facts to the contrary. Show us that what you commented on is nothing more than opinion by the facts you provide.

It never ceases to amaze me how many have no facts with their attacks.

Attacks with no facts are nothing more than lies.

 

[Baptist4life]

al you gacve us was your opinion. So show us the facts to the contrary. Show us that what you commented on is nothing more than opinion by the facts you provide.

It never ceases to amaze me how many have no facts with their attacks.

Attacks with no facts are nothing more than lies.

Just my point! I don't post things as FACT, since NO one can PROVE one version better than another, it's all personal preference.



Perhaps you should have addressed this to Jim1999 since HE is the one who posted something as FACT?

 

[Rippon]

That is what I have read among Spurgeon's writings as well. He preferred the authorized version rather than a more archaic translation and commented even though it was not perfect it was still the best they had at the time.

"He preferred the authorized version rather than a more archaic translation"?Are you saying that Spurgeon preferred the KJV more than the Geneva,Bishop's Bible etc.?I don't understand your point.

 

[EdSutton]

In later years, as better revisions came along, we started the move to more reliable versions, and even backed off some on the RSV.

That's simply YOUR opinion. Please don't post it as if it's a fact. :thumbs:

Is the opinion of Jim1999 necessarily any worse (or any better) than that of your own, which would appear to be that the KJV is a more reliable version than are the so-called "MVs"? Or are either of your opinions necessarily any better or any worse than my own opinion, which is not even in view, here?

And I do seem to recall a couple of times where Baptist4life has posted an opinion about a version, as though it were fact, I believe.

Personally, I fail to see any qualitative difference between the opinion(s) of Jim1999 and/or that of Baptist4life, and/or that of EdSutton, frankly.

Ed

 

[Rippon]

BFL,most modern versions are more reliable than the KJV.And most conservative scholars believe that the TR is inferior .

 

[Baptist4life]

BFL,most modern versions are more reliable than the KJV.And most conservative scholars believe that the TR is inferior .

Of course they do, but they can not prove that as FACT. Neither can I prove the KJV is the more accurate. It's all personal preference, that's ALL I'm saying. NEVER did you see a post where I state "the KJV is MORE accurate, and that's a FACT".