KJV Opinion in 1955

[Rippon]

"The Famous New York Fundamentalist -- Modernist Debates -- The Orthodox Side " by John Roach Straton . He was the epitome of a Fundamentalist . This was back in 1924 and 1925 .

He quoted the RV approvingly on page 202 : In the correct translation of Titus 2:13 , the translation given in the English revision , our Lord Jesus is spoken of as "our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ."

 

[EdSutton]

"The Famous New York Fundamentalist -- Modernist Debates -- The Orthodox Side " by John Roach Straton . He was the epitome of a Fundamentalist . This was back in 1924 and 1925 .

He quoted the RV approvingly on page 202 : In the correct translation of Titus 2:13 , the translation given in the English revision , our Lord Jesus is spoken of as "our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ."

As C4K asked earlier, basically, what does any of this actually prove?

I have cited virtually every English version of the more than 20, that can be found on Bible Gateway, at one time or another, plus versions that are not found on Bible Gateway, plus occasionally giving my own rendering of some NT passages.

Were any faultless? Nope. Was one better than another? Yep, in every instance I cited, IMO. FTR, I've never technically cited the RV, never having access to it, but always the double-first cousin, sibling of the ASV. The ASV was my regular Bible for some years, that I carried.

As the cloistered monk limited to ten words may have said:

"Translation good;

eyes weak;

print bad;

binding poor;

I switch!"

Ed

P.S. The individual you earlier referred to is the late Dr. Cornelius Van Til, one of the outstanding Christian Apologists of all time, IMO. I never had the privilege of meeting him, but one of my closest friends lived very near him, and did have the privilege of interacting with Dr. Van Til several times.

 

[Jerome]

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 .

P.B.V. = Prayer Book Version (Book of Common Prayer)

 

[Rippon]

"Abstract Of Systematic Theology" 1887

This was by James P. Boyce ( not James M. Boice who died in Jume of 2000 ) .

He called the RV The Canterbury Version . He cited it several times . On page 202 he said :"But the more correct translations of the Canterbury Revisors and their American Committee are still stronger." ( Still stronger renderings of Hebrews 2:16 ) .

 

[Rippon]

"The Great World Crisis" 1950

This book was authored by Douglas Ober a good friend of Wilber M. Smith ,who wrote the foreward .

He quoted the RV on 13 pages . On page 41 he cited the ARV .

 

[Rippon]

"The Silence Of God" 1907

This work was by Sir Robert Anderson . He cited the RV 6 times according to my count . All were positive . But on other pages he faulted certain RV wordings .

 

[Rippon]

"The Numerical Structure Of Scripture"

This was authored by F.W. Grant . He first wrote it in 1887 . It went through several revisions in his life and some after death . I counted 5 positive citations of the RV . He said things such as "The RV rightly reads .." or "...as the RV rightly puts it now."

 

[Rippon]

As C4K asked earlier, basically, what does any of this actually prove?

The purpose of this thread is to demonstrate that plenty of conservative Evangelicals or Fundamentalists of the past commended other Bible translations . It shows that they were not engaged in any KJV Onlyism .

 

[Rippon]

P.S. The individual you earlier referred to is the late Dr. Cornelius Van Til, one of the outstanding Christian Apologists of all time, IMO. I never had the privilege of meeting him, but one of my closest friends lived very near him, and did have the privilege of interacting with Dr. Van Til several times.

Pardon me for adding an extra "l" to his last name . I am actually more impressed with his adversary : Gordon H. Clark . But I was moved to learn that Van Til was not an Ivory Tower Theologian . He witnessed as a street preacher on Wall Street at times .

 

[Ehud]

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?

He lied...or at least was not honest
Ehud
" Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things."2 Timothy 2:7

 

[EdSutton]

Pardon me for adding an extra "l" to his last name . I am actually more impressed with his adversary : Gordon H. Clark . But I was moved to learn that Van Til was not an Ivory Tower Theologian . He witnessed as a street preacher on Wall Street at times .

I actually referred to Dr. Van Til by name, as you had named about 8 individuals in your posts, so my referring without the name would have been meaningless. (Unlike a few others, you do not normally grab the attention of Language Cop, and did not here.)

I believe three or four of my schoolmates at Bible College who located in the Philadelphia area, later took classes at Westminster Seminary and actually had Dr. "Kees" Van Til in some classes. You are right that he was a practical individual, and not merely some 'Academic', though, from what I do know. I don't know any particulars about the late Dr. Gordon Clark, although I am aware of him.

Ed

 

[Rippon]

"The Book Of Revelation" By William R.Newell

This book was published in 1935 .The following words are printed before the first chapter .

Author's Note

THE TEXT used is in general that of the Revised Version , which is much more accurate than that of the Old Version . At times it is necessary to render literally ; and , in several instances to paraphrase , to make clearer the meaning .

 

[Rippon]

"The Wells Of Salvation ...

Meditations on Isaiah" by Charles and Norma Ellis . It was published by Banner of Truth in 1985 . Now that is a conservative organization by anyone's estimate .
The following is taken from part of the preface .

In 1976 , just after we had each read the preliminary NIV paperback translation of Isaiah , the idea for this book was conceived . We each felt that in this translation we had been given a glimpse fuller than before of the beauty of God and his truth . Although we were devoted to the Authorized Version , we felt that in the NIV God was speaking to the average reader in our day , even as he had been speaking to the average person in Isaiah's day .

 

[Rippon]

I mentioned Ironside in post #17 . However , in looking through his "Notes On The book Of Proverbs" he has something interesting to say in his Prefatory Note .

The "Authorized" Version is used in the text , save where a uniform rendering of certain words seemed conducive to clearness , and where some other translation better expressed the thought of the original .

 

[Rippon]

He lied...or at least was not honest
Ehud
" Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things."2 Timothy 2:7

Ehud , you don't want to be charged with dishonesty . Be specific and give us proof that Dr. Metzger lied when he stated that no essential doctrine of Christianity has been undermined .

 

[Rippon]

G. Campbell Morgan: The Teaching Of Christ 1913

He quoted favorably from Rotherham's Tranmslation and also commended Weymouth's .

 

[Rippon]

Christ In The Psalms by William Pettingill 1937

He quoted primarily from the Revised Version , but also cited the American Revised Version .

Interestingly , the book was put out by 'Fundamental Truth Publishers' !

 

[rbell]

He lied...or at least was not honest
Ehud

(sigh)

Gotta love these incindiery charges, with no documentation whatsoever.

Don't worry....I won't hold my breath waiting for the documentation that isn't coming.

 

[Salamander]

Ehud , you don't want to be charged with dishonesty . Be specific and give us proof that Dr. Metzger lied when he stated that no essential doctrine of Christianity has been undermined .

Psalm 78:36 as found in the NASV:But they deceived Him with their mouth And lied to Him with their tongue.

Can your God be deceived?

Any God that could be doesn't qualify as God, just any god that has to be carried out from a burning building so it survive is not God.

Isn't it "essential" that God cannot be deceived?

Why, YES! Of course!

(I corrected my typo. thanks ASKJO)

 

[Salamander]

I mentioned Ironside in post #17 . However , in looking through his "Notes On The book Of Proverbs" he has something interesting to say in his Prefatory Note .

The "Authorized" Version is used in the text , save where a uniform rendering of certain words seemed conducive to clearness , and where some other translation better expressed the thought of the original .

And Ironside had the Original Autographs to substanciate that claim.:laugh: