-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Some Who Approved Other Versions
- Thread starter Rippon
- Start date
- Status
John R. Rice's view, from Dr. Rice, Here Is my Question (1962), p. 59:
"I constantly use the King James Version. Practically all of my memory work is done in it. Because of its beautiful, stately language and because it is loved by common people everywhere, I find it best to preach and quote from this version, unless some passage is more clear in another version.
"The American Standard Version, translated in 1901, is perhaps the most accurate of all versions. It does not take the place of the King James Version, but in many places it has genuine help. Of course there are some mistakes, but many of the scholars who prepared it were devout Christians and believers. It takes advantage of the three great manuscripts—the Sinaiticus, the Vatican, and the Alexandrian manuscripts—which were not available when the King James Version was translated. However, they do not make many great changes.
"I prefer the more literal and exact translations. All expanded and amplified translations tend to be somewhat an interpretation. And that is more true generally of the modern translations which take liberties with the text, for example, doing away with a Hebrew or Greek idiom, to fit modern speech. For example, Phillips Translation is a sorry paraphrase, inaccurate, irreverent. Phillips is openly an unbeliever in the authority and infallible inspiration of the Bible. He feels perfectly free to put in words or even whole sentences to make the meaning appear as he wants it to appear."
Caveat from JoJ: Dr. Rice never studied out the issues of textual criticism, and I have to say that he didn't quite understand the subject, as can be seen in his otherwise excellent book, Our God-Breathed Book, the Bible. But then the truth is, textual criticism was simply not an issue in John R. Rice's time. It was a subject for just a very few scholars. He died in 1980 at age 86, so in 1970 when Which Bible? came out and kicked off the whole thing, he was already an old (though very busy) man of 76.
"I constantly use the King James Version. Practically all of my memory work is done in it. Because of its beautiful, stately language and because it is loved by common people everywhere, I find it best to preach and quote from this version, unless some passage is more clear in another version.
"The American Standard Version, translated in 1901, is perhaps the most accurate of all versions. It does not take the place of the King James Version, but in many places it has genuine help. Of course there are some mistakes, but many of the scholars who prepared it were devout Christians and believers. It takes advantage of the three great manuscripts—the Sinaiticus, the Vatican, and the Alexandrian manuscripts—which were not available when the King James Version was translated. However, they do not make many great changes.
"I prefer the more literal and exact translations. All expanded and amplified translations tend to be somewhat an interpretation. And that is more true generally of the modern translations which take liberties with the text, for example, doing away with a Hebrew or Greek idiom, to fit modern speech. For example, Phillips Translation is a sorry paraphrase, inaccurate, irreverent. Phillips is openly an unbeliever in the authority and infallible inspiration of the Bible. He feels perfectly free to put in words or even whole sentences to make the meaning appear as he wants it to appear."
Caveat from JoJ: Dr. Rice never studied out the issues of textual criticism, and I have to say that he didn't quite understand the subject, as can be seen in his otherwise excellent book, Our God-Breathed Book, the Bible. But then the truth is, textual criticism was simply not an issue in John R. Rice's time. It was a subject for just a very few scholars. He died in 1980 at age 86, so in 1970 when Which Bible? came out and kicked off the whole thing, he was already an old (though very busy) man of 76.
Last edited by a moderator:
Just a reminder to some KJVO folks that the KJVO movement didn't exist before the 1950's. Fundamentalists didn't consider using the KJV alone to be a mark of fundamentalism. Leaders quoted approvingly from other versions.
My parents both went to Tennessee Temple in the early 70s.
I noticed when I was at their house Saturday that they had a publication that I believe was from crown college or at least in fellowship with it.
They had Dr Faulkner on the front cover (I believe it was him, it was the one who passed away this summer from TTU) They also had stuff in it about Dr Lee Roberson as well.
I did find it ironic that TTU was certainly not KJVO at the time that my parents were there yet I looked up the church at Crown College and they certainly were KJVO.
I would hope that they would be honest enough to realize that this is a new belief that was not around in previous generations.
I noticed when I was at their house Saturday that they had a publication that I believe was from crown college or at least in fellowship with it.
They had Dr Faulkner on the front cover (I believe it was him, it was the one who passed away this summer from TTU) They also had stuff in it about Dr Lee Roberson as well.
I did find it ironic that TTU was certainly not KJVO at the time that my parents were there yet I looked up the church at Crown College and they certainly were KJVO.
I would hope that they would be honest enough to realize that this is a new belief that was not around in previous generations.
I also attended TTU but probably after your parents did as I did not arrive until 1976. John of Japan probably was contemporary with your parents. I am afraid that Clarence Sexton and many others who followed after the "first generation" of IFB leaders (who by and large were not KJVO)have swallowed the KJVO kool-aid.
Harold Garvey
New Member
Aren't all there examples showing niothing more than the palate of men?
I recently received in an email the testimony of someone who attended a college in the 1970's that would later be considered KJV-only. It would seem to relate to this thread.
_____________________________________
This person wrote:
"Perhaps I should mention that I attended Midwestern Baptist College, in Pontiac, Michigan from 1970 to '73. Two of the many instructors teaching there at that time were my pastor, Oliver Allbright, and Dr. Herbert Noe.
Dr. Noe pastored the church (Galilean Baptist Church, of Livonia, Michigan) where, according to the writings of Peter Ruckman, a Bible Conference was held (in 1982?) in which the "KJV Only" movement got started.
Though "Old" and, by then, even the "New" Scofield KJVs were almost exclusively used by those instructing and attending Midwestern Baptist College in the early 1970s, there were plenty of folks who wanted to understand the scripture "in more depth" too. So, "the Greek" and other Bible references (like the Amplified Bible, Phillips, Weust and NASB) were quoted quite freely too, without condemnation, by those doing study or preaching "back in the day."
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
This person wrote:
"Perhaps I should mention that I attended Midwestern Baptist College, in Pontiac, Michigan from 1970 to '73. Two of the many instructors teaching there at that time were my pastor, Oliver Allbright, and Dr. Herbert Noe.
Dr. Noe pastored the church (Galilean Baptist Church, of Livonia, Michigan) where, according to the writings of Peter Ruckman, a Bible Conference was held (in 1982?) in which the "KJV Only" movement got started.
Though "Old" and, by then, even the "New" Scofield KJVs were almost exclusively used by those instructing and attending Midwestern Baptist College in the early 1970s, there were plenty of folks who wanted to understand the scripture "in more depth" too. So, "the Greek" and other Bible references (like the Amplified Bible, Phillips, Weust and NASB) were quoted quite freely too, without condemnation, by those doing study or preaching "back in the day."
_____________________________________
I would love to know the source for that statement and more about that event. I attended TTU and HPBC from 1976-1983. Tom Malone (pastor of the church that sponsored Midwestern) preached there frequently and I do not recall him- or anyone else, for that matter- espousing the KJVO viewpoint. If the above statement is true, then it would mark an important point in KJVO 'history'.
I do not recall reading about that conference in the books that I have written by Peter Ruckman. I will email the person and see if he will let me know the specific writings to which he refers.
Harold Garvey
New Member
JofJ quoted John R. Rice:
What makes these "the great manuscripts"?
they were all writtne before 1611. How is it the claim can be used to prove anything when the availability cannot be proven except that they were not used?
What makes these "the great manuscripts"?
they were all writtne before 1611. How is it the claim can be used to prove anything when the availability cannot be proven except that they were not used?
Harold Garvey
New Member
You try to force others into your box with the words "KJVO" written on it but many you calim are in this box never have held to anything written by a 7th day adventist.
Give your rants a rest.
The person does not remember the specific writing in which he read it. He remembered it because he knew the pastor and church there in Michigan. He said that the read it in Ruckman's publication Bible Believer's Bulletin.
He thinks that it was in issues April-November, 2007. I don't know if those back issues that were on the web could be searched for the name of that pastor or not.
Thanks. I have a Ruckmanite friend (I use that term loosely- LOL) who might be able to get that info for me.
I've been gone for a few weeks and when I check back, I see the slander of the KJV continues. You may not call it that, and I'm sure I'll get labeled KJVO for this post, but slander it is. I'm always amazed that the moderators turn a blind eye to it.
Be back in a few more weeks.
Be back in a few more weeks.
Personally, I see no reason for the "slander" of any version.
Or did I somehow miss the memo where that is OK for some versions?? :tear: :tear:
Ed
Maybe you should look up the definition of "slander" rather than just tossing around the term, selectively.
FTR, I just checked. Nine days is not considered to be a few weeks' absence, at least here in Central KY. But drop in again soon, anyway.
Ed
Last edited by a moderator:
Then why is it allowed for the KJV? :wavey:
You all slander the KJV in the guise of attacking KJVO. Pretty obvious.:tear:
- Status