C. H. Spurgeon and the KJV

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

How can any man, “improve upon” God’s Word.

Did not the translators in 1611 attempt to do just that?

 

[Rippon]

All Scripture Is From The TNIV

I would like to ask, what Bible are all the “modernists” of today using?

There is no single translation they are using.Among Evangelicals the NIV and NLTse are rather popular.But the NASBU,NKJ,ESV and HCSB among others are appreciated.

This is very interesting: You have “pastors” and then you have “scholars”.
Who does the Bible instruct, to defend the faith?

All Christians are "to contend for the faith that the Lord has once and for all entrusted to us,his people."(Jude 3) It says in verse 1 :"To those who have been called,who are loved in God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ." It's not some special class of Christians -- all Christians.

I don’t have any “proof” of this(maybe some of you can help me), but I believe that most “scholars”, refuse to sit under a “pastor”.

It's just another of your absurd notions.

Who did God give to the Church........

God gave His Son to the Church."Christ loved ther church and gave himself up for her."(Eph.5:25)

I know what you mean though.The Lord gave pastors/teachers to the Church.

It is possible, that “scholars”, are the worst thing that ever happened to the Church.

Not by a long stretch! There are indeed liberal scholars.But in the 2,000 plus year History of the Church Bible scholars,for the most part,have been dear friends of the Church.Many have been exceptionally godly as well as incredibly diligent in the service of the Lord and His people.

 

[Jim1999]

Hi Stilllearning,

When I say I was not a scholar, please don't misunderstand me. Anyone who knows me appreciates that I am an academic and well educated. Still, I am a simple preacher. I wasn't much different when I lectured at the university.

At my city church, where I also taught at the university, I had other professors, students and learned people in the assembly. Still, I preached simply. We don't have to use 50 dollar words to have everyone understand. I was preaching Jesus Christ and His word, not Jim 1999.

When I say we weren't scholars i the early days was not to meant we didn't study hard, but we realized the needs of the people accordingly.

We mostly used the KJV, but we didn't have many options in those days. The most common Bible everywhere was the KJV. It would be foolish to bring out a Greek New Testament and preach from it. That wold be like preaching a sermon in French in an English congregation.

We were also defending against modernism and it would serve no purpose to be knocking the one Bible everyone used. We preferred to preach sound doctrines and build up the defences of the people, the common people; the ditch diggers, the farmers, the truckies, the store clerks, the homemakers. Some with only lower school education. We taught or preached as it were against the attacks against the bible from liberal churches. We stood up for the word of God.

I still have my 1945 KJV and I still preach from it. It has many, many corrections written in the side spaces and when I read from it, I read the corrections without comment. They have become a part of my KJV.

Does this make it a little clearer?

Cheers,

Jim, BA, BTh.,ThM., ThD, certificate in architecture, and I taught the philosophy of the Christian religion for 25 years until age 65 in a local university.

 

[stilllearning]

Hi Rippon

You asked........

“How are newer translations casting doubt on God's Word?”

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.
--------------------------------------------------
You also said......

“If those versions are faithful to the original and speak in the language of today's reader -- there is no problem.”

You are right: But that is a big “if”.

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.
(What changed?)
--------------------------------------------------
You asked.....

“Are you against new and improved versions in other languages too?”

I know absolutely nothing about Bible’s being used by Christians of other lands.
--------------------------------------------------
Then you said.......

“God's Word is not in one version. Old translations of course can be improved. No translation is set in stone.”

You know you are right. The KJV, could be “improved”, by making it’s language more up-to-date.
But there is not a single scholar on the planet, that I would trust to update it.

So I will just have to muddle along.
--------------------------------------------------
Then you said........

“I wonder how long your position has "always been" that. The KJV was primarily the only version English-speaking people used back then. But I don't think people back than were KJVO.”

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.
--------------------------------------------------
Next you said.....

“No. They probably would not have said a translation was perfect -- only the original autographs.”

Here is that “pat” answer(“only the original autographs”), that gets under my skin.

To say, that only the original autographs are God’s inspired Word, is a cop out.
(Because as we all know, they no longer exist.)

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

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

All this talk of “an imperfect Bible”, is a lie, to rob us of faith.
--------------------------------------------------
Next you said.......

“What have I told you about needing to read Church History?”

Who’s version of Church History, are we talking about?
--------------------------------------------------
Next you responded to my statement.......

“The more “improvements” we make to the Bible the more ungodly and worldly the Church becomes.”

And you said........
That's an absurd idea. So it's your contention that the modern Bible versions contribute to the worldliness of modern Christians?

Well this is my opinion.

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

 

[stilllearning]

Hi C4K

I said.......

“How can any man, “improve upon” God’s Word.”

Then you asked........

“Did not the translators in 1611 attempt to do just that?”

You might be right.

But these Christians were different back then.

 

[gb93433]

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?

He did post a historical fact. That fact is just as valid as God created in Genesis.

You cannot prove that God created in Genesis any more than you can disprove what Jim stated as a historical fact.

 

[stilllearning]

Hello Jim1999

Thank you very much, for the explanation.

And yes, I do understand your position.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Hi C4K

I said.......


Then you asked........



You might be right.

But these Christians were different back then.

I have no problem with your preference for the KJV, but you claimed that man cannot improve on God's word. There were good, solid English versions in 1610 - were they not godly men who did that work as well?

Do you think that Christians in 1611 did not deal with sin and the flesh? Do you think they were somehow more godly than believers in 2008? What do you mean that 'these Christians were different back thne?'

 

[gb93433]

Do you think they were somehow more godly than believers in 2008? What do you mean that 'these Christians were different back then?'

Of course they were different. Peter cut off a man's ear. Moses killed a man. Paul killed a few men and later planted churches.

 

[EdSutton]

Then you (Rippon) said.......

You know you are right. The KJV, could be “improved”, by making it’s language more up-to-date.
But there is not a single scholar on the planet, that I would trust to update it.

So I will just have to muddle along.

Personally, I find this 'bolded' statement to be outlandish, considering the number of folks who apparently hold Dr. Benjamin Blaney, to a far different standard, than any so-called 'scholar' of today.

Then you said........

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.

A bit of 'pigeonholing' don't you think??

Here is that “pat” answer(“only the original autographs”), that gets under my skin.

To say, that only the original autographs are God’s inspired Word, is a cop out.
(Because as we all know, they no longer exist.)

I believe this to be an inaccurate statement, as well. It is an accurate statement to say that , to our knowledge, we do not have any of the 'originals', however.

Incidentally, were one actually permitted to hold an original in their hand, how would they know that? Are there any known copies of the 'handwriting' of any of the Biblical authors, with which to compare this??

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

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.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Hi C4K

I said.......

Quote:
“How can any man, “improve upon” God’s Word.”

Then you asked........

Quote:
“Did not the translators in 1611 attempt to do just that?”


You might be right.

But these Christians were different back then.

How so??

And who says??

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

I have no problem with your preference for the KJV, but you claimed that man cannot improve on God's word. There were good, solid English versions in 1610 - were they not godly men who did that work as well?

Do you think that Christians in 1611 did not deal with sin and the flesh? Do you think they were somehow more godly than believers in 2008? What do you mean that 'these Christians were different back thne?' (sic)

Let me here note that I had not gotten to this post of C4K, when I posted my last one.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Bible scholars quickly begin debate of new gender-neutral NIV revision

Posted on Jan 30, 2002 | by Art Toalston

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--The accuracy of the new "Today's New International Version" revision of the popular New International Version has quickly become a topic of debate among Bible scholars.

"Accuracy and clarity are prime with us," said Larry Lincoln, communications director for the International Bible Society, copyright holder of both the new TNIV and the 1984 NIV.

On the other side of the debate, Randy Stinson, executive director of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, said the TNIV contains "absolute mistranslations." The CBMW's Internet site, www.cbmw.org, already cites three key examples.

Lincoln told Baptist Press that the TNIV should be called a "gender-accurate" translation instead of the term used by some in the media, including Baptist Press, as "gender-neutral." The TNIV, he said, uses "generic language" for men and women "only when the text was meant to include both men and women." An overview of the TNIV is available on the Internet at www.tniv.info.

Lincoln noted that the TNIV makes no changes in Scripture's male-oriented references to God and Jesus.

Stinson of the CBMW noted that the three examples of mistranslation on the organization's website are "representative types of changes that they've made," referencing the International Bible Society and the Committee on Bible Translation (CBT), a 15-member group of scholars with authority over the NIV translation, such as the revision of the text into the TNIV's gender-neutral language.

Of the changes, Stinson said, "They're significant. They do change the meaning. These are absolute mistranslations."

IBS and CBT may cite a Greek dictionary lexicon to defend their revisions, Stinson said, but those revisions "are just not the case with the major reputable lexicons."

Steve Johnson, IBS vice president for communication and development, sent an e-mail to Baptist Press after its Jan. 28 news story on the TNIV, stating: "I wish to state for the record that the overriding concern of the CBT is ALWAYS accuracy and clarity. While there may be differences within the body on the specific rendering of Greek and Hebrew, the influence of social agenda into any translation is NEVER permitted. We regret that once again, the issue of providing God's Word to the next generation of English-speakers has become an issue of division in the Body of Christ."

Several Southern Baptist leaders were quoted in the story as seeing a thrust for political correctness in the IBS effort to release a gender-neutral revision of the NIV.

The three references cited by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood as mistranslations in the TNIV are:

-- Revelation 3:20: "I will come and eat with them, and they with me."

"The removal of 'him' and 'he' completely drains the passage of the individual nature of the relationship between a person and Christ," the CBMW states on its website, noting that the TNIV has "many instances where the singular generic 'he' is replaced with the plural 'they' or 'them.'"

-- John 11:25, in which Jesus is translated as saying: "Anyone who believes in me will live, even though they die."

The CBMW's concern: "Not only does this convolute the personal nature of the relationship between a person and Christ, but it betrays the fact that Jesus himself used the generic 'he' even though he was speaking to a woman (Martha)."

-- Acts 20:30: "From your own number some will arise."

The CBMW's concern: "This is problematic because the Greek word for 'aner' is translated 'some' when this is a specific word that can only mean men. Not only is this a mistranslation but it communicates the idea that the passage may also refer to women who would 'arise.' Since this passage refers to the elders, that would not be the case. Even if one affirms that there actually could have been women elders, it is still not appropriate to change the translation to reflect this belief."

"Evangelicals must be able to count on Bible translators to have accuracy as their primary objective and not cultural appeasement," Stinson writes on the CBMW website. "Unnecessarily changing the words of the biblical text in order to accommodate those who think certain phrases are offensive is dangerous and irresponsible. The question one must ask is 'What will be next?'

"As Evangelicals we affirm the verbal inspiration of scripture which means each word is inspired by God. The conscious and unnecessary mistranslation of these words by IBS has produced an unreliable edition of the Bible about which all Christians should be concerned," Stinson wrote.

The CBMW also complained that "IBS has broken its agreement it made in [a] 1997 press release, 'The International Bible Society (IBS) has abandoned all plans for gender-related changes in future editions of the New International Version (NIV).' Although they will certainly argue that this is not the NIV but the TNIV, the public should not appreciate this kind of double talk."

Lincoln of the IBS stated that less than 2 percent of the TNIV involves gender-related revisions of the NIV. Other changes account for 5 percent in an overall 7 percent revision of the NIV, he said.

"We're concerned about a generation of people who are turning their backs on the Bible because they don't see it as relevant, largely because they don't understand it," Lincoln asserted, noting that 100 million people in America are under the age of 30 and that language has changed since the NIV New Testament was initially published in the 1970s.

The TNIV was announced to the public in a Jan. 28 news release by the International Bible Society and Zondervan, the publisher of the NIV. The TNIV New Testament will be published this spring, the news release stated, with the complete Bible "expected in 2005."

Controversy over gender-neutral translation erupted in 1997 when World magazine, based in Asheville, N.C., reported that the IBS had decided to produce a gender-neutral NIV for the U.S. market by 2001 but had made no announcement of its plans. World's 1997 articles appeared in its March 29, April 19 and May 3 issues. A storm of theology-related objections was raised by a number of U.S. evangelicals over various revisions to the NIV.

The IBS, in a May 27, 1997, news release, announced a reversal, saying it would "forgo all plans" to revise the NIV translation. The Colorado-based IBS, in its May 27 statement, also committed to revising its New International Readers Version (NIrV) Bible "to reflect a treatment of gender consistent with the NIV." The NIrV was a gender-neutral translation already used in a Zondervan Publishing House children's Bible. And the IBS committed to negotiate an end to the publishing of a gender-neutral NIV text already completed by the Committee on Bible Translation and released in 1996 in England by Hodder and Stoughton.

Also on May 27, 1997, key parties in the controversy found common ground in a joint statement and a page of suggested translation guidelines now known as the "Colorado Springs Guidelines," or CSG. "Specifically, we agree that it is inappropriate to use gender-neutral language when it diminishes accuracy in the translation of the Bible," the statement, released June 4, noted, "and we therefore agree to the attached guidelines for translation of gender-related language in Scripture." The statement also noted: "We agree that Bible translations should not be influenced by illegitimate intrusions of secular culture or by political or ideological agendas."

However, in announcing its TNIV Jan. 28, the International Bible Society acknowledged in a separate letter to various evangelical leaders, dated Jan. 18, that it was "withdrawing its endorsement" of the guidelines.

Among the statement's 12 signers in 1997 were Bruce E. Ryskamp, Zondervan's president and CEO; Lars Dunberg, then-president of the IBS; Ronald Youngblood, now chairman of the IBS board of directors and a Committee on Bible Translation member; Wayne Grudem, then-president of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood; John Piper, a member of the council and senior pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis; and theologian R.C. Sproul, chairman of Ligonier Ministries.

The IBS now has difficulty with the part of the CSG involving "some very specific guidelines [about translation of gender-related terms] that those present generally agreed with, or at the time were willing to endorse," the Jan. 18 IBS letter states, referencing the 1997 Colorado Springs meeting convened by Focus on the Family founder James Dobson.

"However, upon further review and consideration, and in consultation with other evangelical scholars, IBS has determined that many of the technical guidelines are too restrictive to facilitate the most accurate possible text in contemporary English," the IBS letter states.

In its Jan. 18 letter, the IBS noted that its ongoing work has been conducted "in accordance with its own guidelines and the guidelines established by the International Forum of Bible Agencies," which encompasses "18 of the leading global translation ministries, including IBS, Wycliffe Bible Translators, United Bible Societies, Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL), New Tribes Mission and others ... responsible for more than 90 percent of the translation work done around the world [and seeking to do] uncompromisingly accurate translations in contemporary language."

The IBS letter did not list the other guidelines nor discuss whether those guidelines address gender-related translation issues.
--30--



Source:http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=12635

This may have been (and still be) a valid post and argument, but it is completely off-topic for this thread, and the Mods should consider removing it, IMO.

Start a new thread on this, is my suggestion.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

BFL,so you think trotting out a nearly seven year old article is worth something?

Bottom line:For those who appreciate the ESV and HCSB relating to how they handled the 'gender matter' -- the TNIV agrees with them most of the time.We're speaking of less than one percent of the TNIV which differs from the ESV and HCSB.I,of course,find no problem with the way the TNIV handled the matter.The NLTse treats the issue about the same -- so does the NET Bible,for the most part.

Things were deliberately blown up out of proportion by advocates primarly of the ESV rival translation.There are a number of folks who have been on the other side of the subject before and now know that the TNIV is solid and conservative -- an excellent translation.

Ditto to my last post!

As this is not germane to either C. H. Spurgeon or the KJV,

as the children's song goes, when the one stuck their head in a little 'skunk'-hole -

"... and the little skunk said, 'Take it out! Take it out! Take it out! Remove it!' "

Ed

 

[gb93433]

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

I had been in business and worked in busiensses long enough to notice people from all areas of life who lied cheated and stole. In one church I pastored there were some KJVO folks who always complained about the world going to hell because they didn't read the KJV. While I was pastoring that church the complainers never won one single person to Christ or ever discipeld anyone. Duringthat same time I saw people who preferred the KJV and others who liked theirown Bibkle win people to Christ and make disciples.

The real answer to your question is the fact that people are sinners and choose to do their own thing. Their life revolves around self and not Christ.

The vast majority of early Christians (about 98%) could not read and still lived for Christ.

 

[Rippon]

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.

If a verse isn't found in the best Greek manuscripts should the translators hide that information from the reader?Don't you value honesty?

Those so-called “best Greek manuscripts”, were around back then, but everybody agreed that they were inferior copies.
(What changed?)

Most manuscripts weren't discovered until way past the 17th century.Since folks didn't know of their existence how could they agree that the manuscripts were inferior?!

But there is not a single scholar on the planet, that I would trust to update it.

You set the bar rather high.I'm surprised that Mr.Paris and Mr.Blayney met with your approval.

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.

Funny,KJVO's seem to have a knack for knocking modern versions with most despicable language.That doesn't evidence reverence for God's Word.

To say, that only the original autographs are God’s inspired Word, is a cop out.
(Because as we all know, they no longer exist.)

We don't know that for sure.It is a possibility that they may no longer exist;it's not conclusive one way or the other.

All this talk of “an imperfect Bible”, is a lie, to rob us of faith.

All translations are of course imperfect -- none are directly inspired.Since when does truth-telling rob someone of their faith?

Who’s version of Church History, are we talking about?

Just factual historical data is what I'm specifically talking about.You apparently know nothing of Mr.Mill (1700)and Mr.Bengal (1730's).You don't seem to be aware of Mr.Lachman (1831).You have no idea about Mr.Tregelles (his work was between 1852-1872).They all labored to bring the biblical knowlege of their time into a better Greek text of the New Testament.There were others as well.

 

[Mexdeaf]

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:

:thumbs::thumbs::laugh: ¡Lo aprobará¡

 

[Baptist4life]

This may have been (and still be) a valid post and argument, but it is completely off-topic for this thread, and the Mods should consider removing it, IMO.

Start a new thread on this, is my suggestion.

Ed

Ed, it was posted in response to THIS statement by Rippon:

BFL,most modern versions are more reliable than the KJV.

So I feel it IS "on topic" for this thread. But it really doesn't matter if someone wants to start a new thread. I'm trying to not be argumentative. If I'm coming across that way, I apologize.

 

[stilllearning]

Hi C4K

You asked.........

“What do you mean that 'these Christians were different back thne?”

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

2 Timothy 3:13-14
V.13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
V.14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned [them];

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

 

[Mexdeaf]

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.

And they weren't "smarter" in 1611 than they were in 1557 or 1381?

Your logic is fallible.