KJV Opinion in 1955

[Rippon]

I've been paging through a book published in 1955 . It's called "Exploring The New Testament" by Earle , Blaney and Hanson . The publisher was Beacon Hill, Press Of Kansas City .

It is an Arminian-style theology .

I thought you might be interested in some remarlks made in it about the KJV .

While the King James Version still reigns supreme for devotional reading of the Bible , conservative teachers in colleges and Bible schools have long used the American Revised Version as the textbook in their classes . It is universally recognized as a more literal , accurate translation of the original languages . ( From the preface )

[ regarding the American Standard Version of 1901 ] However , because it is a more accurate translation of a better Greek text than is the King James Version , it has been widely used for study purposes . Most scholars agree that it is the best study Bible in the English language . ( page 60 )

 

[Pastor_Bob]

This is but one opinion of the KJV. I can produce dozens from the same era in support of the KJV and in opposition to the ASV. No one is denying that the ASV is an accurate translation; it is simply an accurate translation of an inferior text.

 

[TCGreek]

In all my studies of these types, whether TR or CT, the one thing I've discovered, which the late premier Textual critic Bruce Metzger has documented, is that no essential doctrine of Christianity has been undermined.

What does that tell us?

 

[Rippon]

This is but one opinion of the KJV. I can produce dozens from the same era in support of the KJV and in opposition to the ASV. No one is denying that the ASV is an accurate translation; it is simply an accurate translation of an inferior text.

Sure it is one opinion among many regarding the KJV in 1955 . But I do not think that you would find too many holding to your opinion about the matter back then .

Most scholars ( many of whom are conservative ) believe that the TR is an inferior text .

 

[Pastor_Bob]

An opinion from 1956

"Not only modernists but many conservatives are now saying that the King James Version ought to be abandoned because it is not contemporary. The Apostles, they insist, used contemporary language in their preaching and writing, and we too must have a Bible in the language of today. But more and more it is being recognized that the language of the New Testament was biblical rather than contemporary. It was the Greek of the Septuagint, which in its turn was modeled after the Old Testament Hebrew. Any biblical translator, therefore, who is truly trying to follow in the footsteps of the Apostles and to produce a version which God will bless, must take care to use language which is above the language of daily speech, language which is not only intelligible but also biblical and venerable. Hence in language as well as text the King James Version is still by far superior to any other English translation of the Bible." The King James Bible Defended - Edward F. Hills - The Christian Research Press 1956 - pg. 213

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Most scholars ( many of whom are conservative ) believe that the TR is an inferior text .

So majority opinion makes something correct? Is that how we determine if something is right or wrong?

Do you have stats to show that "most" scholars believe the TR is inferior, and the reasons why they hold to that opinion?


All this proves is that there were opinions in 1955 just as there are opinions today.

 

[Rippon]

So majority opinion makes something correct? Is that how we determine if something is right or wrong?

Rippon : No , majority opinion doesn't make something correct . But on this issue , when the majority of conservative Bible scholars state that the TR is defective -- we should listen well .

Do you have stats to show that "most" scholars believe the TR is inferior, and the reasons why they hold to that opinion?

Rippon :At present I do not . That would take some digging .


All this proves is that there were opinions in 1955 just as there are opinions today.

Rippon :What I am expressing is that KJV - Onlyism was practically non-existant in the 50's .

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Rippon :What I am expressing is that KJV - Onlyism was practically non-existant in the 50's .

No problem with that. I am not old enough to remember the 50s (born the year in the title of this thread), but know or knew many man who do and several have told me of the popularity of the ASV from the 30s-50s. It was still quite popular in "fundamental" circles when I got saved in the early 70s.

I would like to see evidence that "most scholars" (as well as how you define "scholar") consider the TR (or however you want to define the traditional textual body) as inferior to the Critical Texts.

I think "most" is going to be hard to verify and even if you can prove it, it is still just opinion, as any view on this issue is.

 

[Rippon]

Conservative scholars who believe in the inferiority of the RT would include the translators of the ARV , NASB , MLB , ESV , NIV/TNIV , HCSB , NET Bible , NLTse etc. Of course there is a considerable overlap here because a number of them worked on several of the above . Still , that represents several hundred conservative scholars . Some may have appreciated the RT , but none belived in it as the exclusive textual basis of the Bible .

Dr. Daniel Wallace is one stellar individual who believes that the RT is deficient copared with a "reasonale eclecticism" .

Opinions are just that with those of us who are non-scholars . But the settled convictions of real scholars adds more weight to their opinions .

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Nothing here implies their belief that the TR is inferior. The fact that they worked on CT based translation does not mean that they see the TR as an inferior text body.

Dr Wallace would not leave the TR body out of his "eclectic" translation.

We are not arguing whether the TR is an exclusive text, your claim is that it is considered inferior. The may well think it is incomplete instead of inferior.

Until we find the original mss everything involving inferior texts is guesswork.

 

[TCGreek]

Nothing here implies their belief that the TR is inferior. The fact that they worked on CT based translation does not mean that they see the TR as an inferior text body.

Dr Wallace would not leave the TR body out of his "eclectic" translation.

We are not arguing whether the TR is an exclusive text, your claim is that it is considered inferior. The may well think it is incomplete instead of inferior.

Until we find the original mss everything involving inferior texts is guesswork.

I do like Dr. Wallace's Reasoned Eclecticism and the use of the TR.

"Until we find the original mss everything involving inferior texts is guesswork" to some extent.

 

[EdSutton]

I do like Dr. Wallace's Reasoned Eclecticism and the use of the TR.

"Until we find the original mss everything involving inferior texts is guesswork" to some extent.

How would we know we were actually holding the original mss, if we were to find them??

Ed

 

[TCGreek]

How would we know we were actually holding the original mss, if we were to find them??

Ed

You ask some of the best questions on BB?

Now we can really put things into proper perspective. :thumbs:

 

[Rippon]

James Stewart : "Heaven's Throne Gift" . Published in 1956 . He cited Weymouth , Knox , ARV , and Moffat approvingly .

I like one of his lines found on page 180 . It goes like this " " How many a fundamental pastor will fight for the blessed truth of the Gospel against great opposition from without , and yet will adjust his message to the church to suit his own flock !"

 

[Rippon]

This is from 1948 . Alfred S. Loizeaux wrote : "Think On These Things" . He quoted the RV approvingly about 15 times for scores of passages .

 

[Rippon]

Cornelius Van Till wrote a book which first came out in 1955 . It was updated in 1963 and 1967 . I don't know if his multiple citings of the ASV were in the original or not . It's called : "The Defense Of The Faith" .

 

[Rippon]

Ironside wrote on "Timothy , Titus and Philemon" back in 1947 . He quotes the RV approvingly . He also mentions the "1911 Version" . Perhaps he meant the 1901 . He has commets like :"The RV is to be favored here."

 

[Rippon]

C.I. Scofield wrote the classic called "Rightly Dividing The Truth" . In the pamphlet he cites the RV at least 20 times . Each time it is positive .

 

[Rippon]

"My Utmost For His Highest"

In this famous book Oswald Chambers cites Moffatt 5 times . He cites the RV 5 times also . For the reading of December 30th he quotes the P.B.V. whatever that is . All of the foregoing were positive .

 

[Rippon]

"Amillennialism Today"

This was by William E. Cox , the famous scholar . It was published in 1966 . That is beyond the scope of my 50's theme but ... "All Scripture quotations unless otherwise noted are taken from the ASV ( 1901) ."