Luther's German Bible & KJV

[Logos1560]

Mickey Carter, a KJV-only author, indicated that Luther's German Bible "is the King James Version in a different language" (THINGS THAT ARE DIFFERENT ARE NOT THE SAME, pp. 83-84).

J. J. Ray, Peter Ruckman, Bruce Cummons, Mickey Carter and other KJV-only advocates place Luther's German Bible on their line, stream, or tree of good Bibles. Phil Stringer claimed that Luther translated the same "Greek text used in the translation of the King James Bible" (FAITHFUL BAPTIST WITNESS, p. 118). William Bradley stated that Luther's Bible "was produced from the same reliable text as the King James Bible" (PURIFIED SEVEN TIMES, p. 36).

Do KJV-only posters consider Luther's German Bible to be a translation of the Scriptures in the same way or in the same sense that the KJV is?
Should German-speaking believers consider Luther's German Bible to be "perfect" or "inspired?"

 

[natters]

"It is the doctrine of preservation, then, that guarantees that the God would watch over the inspired Scriptures to preserve them for future generations (Ps. 12:6-7; 100:5; Matt. 5:18, etc.). This is the process whereby God preserved the Hebrew and Greek texts and watched over translations such as the German Luther and the English King James Bible." (David Cloud)

 

[Dr. Bob]

See the leap in logic from what God SAID (He would preserve His Words, even jots and tittles, all part of Hebrew/Greek) to what onlyist WANT God to say - that it is the KJVO or Luther that God really preserved.

Lie. Not distortion or wrong belief. Intentional lie.

Verse please.

 

[Logos1560]

natters, in what book by Cloud and on what page number was this quotation from David Cloud?

Peter Ruckman wrote: "I recommend Tyndale's version, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, Valera's Spanish version, Martin Luther's German version, and a number of others" (SCHOLARSHIP
ONLY CONTROVERSY, p. 1). Ruckman also commented:
"There is nothing wrong with a missionary in Germany using Luther's version instead of the Authorized Version" (BIBLE BABEL, p. 2).

Would KJV-only advocates "recommend" a translation that was not perfect or infallible?

Martin Luther translated from the second edition of the Greek text edited by Erasmus.
All the editions of Luther's German Bible published during Luther's lifetime did not include
1 John 5:7, Mark 11:26, and Luke 17:36. These three verses were not in the second edition of the
Greek text by Erasmus. Tyndale's, 1535 Coverdale's, and 1537 Matthew's Bible also did not have Mark 11:26 and Luke 17:36.

When compared to the KJV, Luther's German Bible
as well as some of the early pre-1611 English Bibles did not include phrases at John 19:38, James 4:6, 1 John 2:23, Revelation 18:23, and Revelation 21:26.

Are KJV-only advocates accepting in Luther's German Bible things that they inconsistently refuse to accept in another English translation?

 

[natters]

Logos1560, that quote from Cloud is from his booklet "What About Ruckman?" in which Cloud explains where he disagrees about Ruckman on various issues. I don't know what page number that quote is on, but the entire article is online at:

http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/ruckman.htm

Another quote from Ruckman, which you probably have already, is:

"The King James Bible and Martin Luther's Bible are the English and German Authorized Bibles from the Byzantine Syrian text of the Antiochian Christians." (Ruckman, The History of the New Testament Church Vol 1., page 390)

 

[Logos1560]

natters, thanks. I have a copy of Cloud's booklet
WHAT ABOUT RUCKMAN, and will look for the quote.

It is interesting that Peter Ruckman and other
KJV-only advocates recommend and accept Luther's German Bible that has the rendering "morgen stern" [morning star] at Isaiah 14:12. Perhaps Luther's German Bible gives the standard meaning of the Latin-based word "lucifer" in that day.

 

[Logos1560]

Originally posted by natters:


Another quote from Ruckman, which you probably have already, is:

"The King James Bible and Martin Luther's Bible are the English and German Authorized Bibles from the Byzantine Syrian text of the Antiochian Christians." (Ruckman, The History of the New Testament Church Vol 1., page 390)

I have around 12 books and pamphlets written by Peter Ruckman, but I do not have the book you quoted from above.

It is interesting that Ruckman would in effect describe Luther's Bible as the "German Authorized Bible." KJV-only statements concerning Luther's German Bible are a problem for their own KJV-only view. Many KJV-only advocates would probably be shocked to know that Ruckman "recommends" a Bible that had the rendering "morning star" at Isaiah 14:12.

 

[robycop3]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've heard that there are several English translations of the Luther Bible out there.

 

[Logos1560]

Originally posted by robycop3:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've heard that there are several English translations of the Luther Bible out there.

I don't know of any actual English translations of the Luther's German Bible. I would be interested in knowing about any such translations if one exists.

It has sometimes been claimed or implied that Tyndale's Bible was an English translation of Luther's German Bible, but that was usually an
effort to condemn Tyndale by associating him with Lutheranism. John Eadie noted that "Sir Thomas
More, King Henry, Lee, and Cochlaeus regarded Tyndale as a promoter of Lutheranism, and his Testament was loosely spoken of as a translation of Luther's German version" (ENGLISH BIBLE, p. 122). Eberhardt also claimed that "Tyndale would edit the Lutheran version of the English Bible" (SUMMARY OF CATHOLIC HISTORY, Vol. II, p. 182).
John Eadie concluded that "it is against all evidence to call Tyndale Lutherean" (p. 122).

Tyndale did translate some introductions to some books of the Bible from Luther's German Bible
and may have been influenced by Luther's in a few places, but he did not directly translate from Luther's German Bible.