What's My Line?

[biscuit1953]

Can you distinguish these quotes from what Mitex espouses? 

“I don’t believe the KJV corrects ‘the original Greek’ or ‘I don’t believe the KJV corrects the ‘Majority Text’ or the ‘Textus Receptus.’ … There existed a true original Greek (i.e. Majority Text, Textus Receptus). It is not in print and never will be, because it is unnecessary. No one on the planet speaks first century Koine Greek, so God is finished with it. (Riplinger, Gail. In Awe of Thy Word. Ararat, VA: AV Publications, 2003, p. 956)

"Any translation on the mission field can be safely judged by a King James Authorized Version, and where it refuses to stick to the text the text can be altered safely to match the King James’ reading." (Ruckman, Peter. The Monarch of the Books, 1973, p. 29)

"Do you see how often the infallible English can straighten out the Greek lexicon?" (Ruckman, Peter. The Book of Hebrews. 1986, p. 1)

"It is impossible to be true to the originals because the originals have long been lost. ...  Thus, since we have the text of the "originals" preserved in the King James Bible we have no need of the originals,even if they were available."  (Gipp, Sam.  The Answer Book)

FACT: The so-called "revisions" of the King James Bible prior to 1800 were to correct typographical errors, add notes, and omit the Apocrypha from between the Testaments. There were no changes in the actual TEXT of the King James Bible. The REAL changes (over 36,000 of them) didn't start until the modern revisionists came on the scene.

FACT: No one has ever proven that there are errors and contradictions in the KJV. Many "Christian" colleges and preachers have a nasty habit of pointing out APPARENT contradictions to their people, but these arguments have been disproven so many times that it is nothing less than disgusting to hear them still being used.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/kjb_only.htm

The bottom line is only childish followers of Peter Ruckman who worship tradition will exalt a 400 year old Anglican translation and then bow down to worship it like some pagan idol.

 

[logos1560]

Can you distinguish these quotes from what Mitex espouses? 

Not easily. 

Herb Evans, a KJV-only advocate, has maintained that he was the first to claim that the word Scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16 included translations and that Peter Ruckman then adopted his interpretation.  Before that point, Ruckman had suggested in a letter to John R. Rice that Scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16 applied to the Scriptures in the original languages.

KJV defender D. A. Waite commented: “The people who say that God has breathed out the King James Bible are in serious error” (Fundamentalist Deception, p. 94). 

D. A. Waite wrote:  “There is no scriptural proof that any translation of God’s Words is inspired of God” (A Warning, p. 32).   

In the preface of the book Cleaning-Up Hazardous Materials by Kirk DiVietro, H. D. Williams wrote:  “The false application of ’is given,’ to translations throughout the centuries must stop.  Inspiration of translations is a false doctrine concocted by men to justify a position when they were caught proclaiming a doctrine that cannot be substantiated by the Scripture; by the grammar of passages in question, or by history” (p. v).

H. D. Williams wrote:  “Inspiration refers solely to the original and Preserved God-breathed Words ‘once delivered,‘ which were recorded by the prophets and apostles” (Miracle of Biblical Inspiration, p. 115). 

H. D. Williams wrote:  “The Words of God were given by inspiration only ‘once’ in the original tongues to the penman of the Scriptures at various times over the centuries (Jude 1:3)“ (Word-for-Word, p. 78). 

H. D. Williams wrote:  “Every person holding the view that the King James Bible is inspired, derivatively inspired, derivatively pure, or derivatively perfect is not only linguistically and historically incorrect, he is theologically incorrect” (The Pure Words of God, p. 21).  Williams wrote:  “If we attribute purity and inspiration to the translated Words of God in any language, we are in reality claiming double inspiration, double purity, and double Apostolic and prophet-like men who chose them and who wrote them” (p. 63).   

 

[christundivided]

Can you distinguish these quotes from what Mitex espouses? 

Not easily. 

Herb Evans, a KJV-only advocate, has maintained that he was the first to claim that the word Scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16 included translations and that Peter Ruckman then adopted his interpretation.  Before that point, Ruckman had suggested in a letter to John R. Rice that Scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16 applied to the Scriptures in the original languages.

KJV defender D. A. Waite commented: “The people who say that God has breathed out the King James Bible are in serious error” (Fundamentalist Deception, p. 94). 

D. A. Waite wrote:  “There is no scriptural proof that any translation of God’s Words is inspired of God” (A Warning, p. 32).   

In the preface of the book Cleaning-Up Hazardous Materials by Kirk DiVietro, H. D. Williams wrote:  “The false application of ’is given,’ to translations throughout the centuries must stop.  Inspiration of translations is a false doctrine concocted by men to justify a position when they were caught proclaiming a doctrine that cannot be substantiated by the Scripture; by the grammar of passages in question, or by history” (p. v).

H. D. Williams wrote:  “Inspiration refers solely to the original and Preserved God-breathed Words ‘once delivered,‘ which were recorded by the prophets and apostles” (Miracle of Biblical Inspiration, p. 115). 

H. D. Williams wrote:  “The Words of God were given by inspiration only ‘once’ in the original tongues to the penman of the Scriptures at various times over the centuries (Jude 1:3)“ (Word-for-Word, p. 78). 

H. D. Williams wrote:  “Every person holding the view that the King James Bible is inspired, derivatively inspired, derivatively pure, or derivatively perfect is not only linguistically and historically incorrect, he is theologically incorrect” (The Pure Words of God, p. 21).  Williams wrote:  “If we attribute purity and inspiration to the translated Words of God in any language, we are in reality claiming double inspiration, double purity, and double Apostolic and prophet-like men who chose them and who wrote them” (p. 63). 

I am curious....... when it comes to "derivative" inspiration...... When a translation accurately represents the very "article" of that which is "inspired"........ why would anyone deny some form of derivative inspiration of said translation?

Now I am not talking about any complete and exhaustive work of translation. Lets take for example, the simple phrase "God so loved the world". Now this phrase has its very origin in the very breath of God. The original words are no more powerful or authoritative than the translation referenced. I have no problem saying that the phrase "God so loved the world" is inspired. Why should I be concerned with making such a claim?

 

[SAWBONES]

I am curious....... when it comes to "derivative" inspiration...... When a translation accurately represents the very "article" of that which is "inspired"........ why would anyone deny some form of derivative inspiration of said translation?

I don't know any who do so.

Obviously, no translation, including the KJV, can be considered to be directly inspired, yet to the extent that a translation thoroughly and correctly conveys the thoughts and meanings of what was written via inspiration in the original languages...to that extent (no more, no less), a translation is "derivatively inspired".

Now I am not talking about any complete and exhaustive work of translation. Lets take for example, the simple phrase "God so loved the world". Now this phrase has its very origin in the very breath of God. The original words are no more powerful or authoritative than the translation referenced. I have no problem saying that the phrase "God so loved the world" is inspired. Why should I be concerned with making such a claim?

Interesting choice.
Your preferred rendition of the verse, is, in fact, incorrect, or less than altogether correct, and almost NO English Bible translations have had the courage to translate the verse correctly, simply because of tradition!

A more correct translation would be along the lines of "God loved the world after this fashion (or 'in this manner'), that He gave His only begotten Son...".

The translation as you quote it gives the impression that the meaning is "God loved the world so much...", which fails to convey the true meaning.

 

[christundivided]

I don't know any who do so.

Some of the quotes referenced by logos... would give that impression.

Interesting choice.
Your preferred rendition of the verse, is, in fact, incorrect, or less than altogether correct, and almost NO English Bible translations have had the courage to translate the verse correctly, simply because of tradition!

A more correct translation would be along the lines of "God loved the world after this fashion (or 'in this manner'), that He gave His only begotten Son...".

The translation as you quote it gives the impression that the meaning is "God loved the world so much...", which fails to convey the true meaning.

I agree completely with the NetBible's commentary on the verse. I see the statement as being both revealing the manner and degree in which "God loved the world."

Though the term more frequently refers to the manner in which something is done (see BDAG 741-42 s.v. οὕτω/οὕτως), the following clause involving ὥστε (Jwste) plus the indicative (which stresses actual, but [usually] unexpected result) emphasizes the greatness of the gift God has given. With this in mind, then, it is likely (3) that John is emphasizing both the degree to which God loved the world as well as the manner in which He chose to express that love. This is in keeping with John’s style of using double entendre or double meaning. Thus, the focus of the Greek construction here is on the nature of God's love, addressing its mode, intensity, and extent.

 

[Mitex]

...
The bottom line is only childish followers of Peter Ruckman who worship tradition will exalt a 400 year old Anglican translation and then bow down to worship it like some pagan idol.

I've attempted to find one "Ruckmanite" that bows down "to worship their KJV like some pagan idol", but couldn't find any until perhaps today. Is the person you were referring to, Charles Spurgeon?

"Oh, book of books! And wast thou written by my God? Then will I bow before thee. Thou book of vast authority! thou art a proclamation from the Emperor of Heaven; far be it from me to exercise my reason in contradicting thee. Reason, thy place is to stand and find out what this volume means, not to tell what this book ought to say. Come thou, my reason, my intellect, sit thou down and listen, for these words are the words of God. I do not know how to enlarge on this thought. Oh! if you could ever remember that this Bible was actually and really written by God. Oh! if ye had been let into the secret chambers of heaven, if ye had beheld God grasping his pen and writing down these letters—then surely ye would respect them; but they are just as much God's handwriting as if you had seen God write them. This Bible is a book of authority; it is an authorized book, for God has written it. Oh! tremble, lest any of you despise it; mark its authority, for it is the Word of God." The Bible, Delivered on Sabbath Evening, March 18, 1855, by the REV. C. H. Spurgeon at Exeter Hall, Strand.

 

[biscuit1953]

...
The bottom line is only childish followers of Peter Ruckman who worship tradition will exalt a 400 year old Anglican translation and then bow down to worship it like some pagan idol.

I've attempted to find one "Ruckmanite" that bows down "to worship their KJV like some pagan idol", but couldn't find any until today. Is the person you were referencing, Charles Spurgeon?

"Oh, book of books! And wast thou written by my God? Then will I bow before thee. Thou book of vast authority! thou art a proclamation from the Emperor of Heaven; far be it from me to exercise my reason in contradicting thee. Reason, thy place is to stand and find out what this volume means, not to tell what this book ought to say. Come thou, my reason, my intellect, sit thou down and listen, for these words are the words of God. I do not know how to enlarge on this thought. Oh! if you could ever remember that this Bible was actually and really written by God. Oh! if ye had been let into the secret chambers of heaven, if ye had beheld God grasping his pen and writing down these letters—then surely ye would respect them; but they are just as much God's handwriting as if you had seen God write them. This Bible is a book of authority; it is an authorized book, for God has written it. Oh! tremble, lest any of you despise it; mark its authority, for it is the Word of God." The Bible, Delivered on Sabbath Evening, March 18, 1855, by the REV. C. H. Spurgeon at Exeter Hall, Strand.

No.  Charles Spurgeon did not bow down like a childish follower of Peter Ruckman and worship a 400 year old Anglican translation like you do.

"Do not needlessly amend our authorized version. It is faulty in many places, but still it is a grand work taking it for all in all, and it is unwise to be making every old lady distrust the only Bible she can get at, or what is more likely, mistrust you for falling out with her cherished treasure. Correct where correction must be for truth's sake, but never for the vainglorious display of your critical ability." [Commenting and Commentaries, p. 31.]

In message 1604, "Heart Disease Curable," Spurgeon says,

    "Concerning the fact of difference between the Revised and Authorised Versions, I would say that no Baptist should ever fear any honest attempt to produce the correct text, and an accurate interpretation of the Old and New Testaments. For many years Baptists have insisted upon it that we ought to have the Word of God translated in the best possible manner . . .. By the best and most honest scholarship that can be found we desire that the common version [KJV] may be purged of every blunder of transcribers, or addition of human ignorance, or human knowledge, so that the Word of God may come to us as it came from His own hand."

And in his autobiography, recounting the laying of the foundation-stone of the Metropolitan Tabernacle, Spurgeon explains why they chose a Grecian design for the building: "Greek is the sacred tongue, and Greek is the Baptist's tongue; we may be beaten in our own version [the KJV], sometimes; but in Greek, never" (Autobiography, vol. 2, p. 327).

"Let us quote the words as they stand in the best possible translation, and it would be better still if we know the original, and can tell if our version fails to give the sense" (The Greatest Fight, p. 23).

 

[christundivided]

...
The bottom line is only childish followers of Peter Ruckman who worship tradition will exalt a 400 year old Anglican translation and then bow down to worship it like some pagan idol.

I've attempted to find one "Ruckmanite" that bows down "to worship their KJV like some pagan idol", but couldn't find any until today. Is the person you were referencing, Charles Spurgeon?

"Oh, book of books! And wast thou written by my God? Then will I bow before thee. Thou book of vast authority! thou art a proclamation from the Emperor of Heaven; far be it from me to exercise my reason in contradicting thee. Reason, thy place is to stand and find out what this volume means, not to tell what this book ought to say. Come thou, my reason, my intellect, sit thou down and listen, for these words are the words of God. I do not know how to enlarge on this thought. Oh! if you could ever remember that this Bible was actually and really written by God. Oh! if ye had been let into the secret chambers of heaven, if ye had beheld God grasping his pen and writing down these letters—then surely ye would respect them; but they are just as much God's handwriting as if you had seen God write them. This Bible is a book of authority; it is an authorized book, for God has written it. Oh! tremble, lest any of you despise it; mark its authority, for it is the Word of God." The Bible, Delivered on Sabbath Evening, March 18, 1855, by the REV. C. H. Spurgeon at Exeter Hall, Strand.

No.  Charles Spurgeon did not bow down like a childish follower of Peter Ruckman and worship a 400 year old Anglican translation like you do.

"Do not needlessly amend our authorized version. It is faulty in many places, but still it is a grand work taking it for all in all, and it is unwise to be making every old lady distrust the only Bible she can get at, or what is more likely, mistrust you for falling out with her cherished treasure. Correct where correction must be for truth's sake, but never for the vainglorious display of your critical ability." [Commenting and Commentaries, p. 31.]

In message 1604, "Heart Disease Curable," Spurgeon says,

    "Concerning the fact of difference between the Revised and Authorised Versions, I would say that no Baptist should ever fear any honest attempt to produce the correct text, and an accurate interpretation of the Old and New Testaments. For many years Baptists have insisted upon it that we ought to have the Word of God translated in the best possible manner . . .. By the best and most honest scholarship that can be found we desire that the common version [KJV] may be purged of every blunder of transcribers, or addition of human ignorance, or human knowledge, so that the Word of God may come to us as it came from His own hand."

And in his autobiography, recounting the laying of the foundation-stone of the Metropolitan Tabernacle, Spurgeon explains why they chose a Grecian design for the building: "Greek is the sacred tongue, and Greek is the Baptist's tongue; we may be beaten in our own version [the KJV], sometimes; but in Greek, never" (Autobiography, vol. 2, p. 327).

"Let us quote the words as they stand in the best possible translation, and it would be better still if we know the original, and can tell if our version fails to give the sense" (The Greatest Fight, p. 23).

Augustine made many of the same arguments to Jerome when he embraced some of the "Hebrew" manuscripts over their Greek counterparts. Its amazing and amusing how things tend to be cyclical.

 

[logos1560]

Is the person you were referring to, Charles Spurgeon?

    Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892) loved the KJV, but he did not hold to the views of KJV-only advocates as some of them try to imply.

Spurgeon said:  "I do not hesitate to say that there is no mistake whatever in the original Holy Scriptures from beginning to end.  There may be, and there are, mistakes of translation; for translators are not inspired" (The Scriptures:  Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, p. 257).  In a sermon entitled "The Bible Tried and Proved," Spurgeon stated:  "We have occasionally heard opponents carp at certain coarse expressions used in our translation of the Old Testament; but the coarseness of translators is not to be set to the account on the Holy Spirit, but to the fact that the force of the English language has changed, and modes of expression which were correct at one period become too gross for another" (Infallible Word, p. 20).  Spurgeon declared:  "Let us quote the words as they stand in the best possible translation, and it would be better still if we know the original, and can tell if our version fails to give the sense" (The Greatest Fight, p. 23).  Spurgeon stated:  “Our fullest revelation of God’s will is in that tongue [Greek], and so are our noblest names for Jesus.  The standard of our faith is Greek. . . . Greek is the sacred tongue, and Greek is the Baptist’s tongue; we may be beaten in our own version, sometimes; but in the Greek, never” (Autobiography of Charles Spurgeon, Vol. II, p. 327)  In his publication The Sword and the Trowel, Spurgeon commented:  “The more reading of the Scriptures the better, and it is best of all when that reading occupies itself with the original.  Every member of our churches, who has a fair English education, should aim to acquire sufficient Greek to read the New Testament” (August, 1885, p. 431).

    In his preface to the 1859 book The English Bible:  History of the Translation of the Holy Scriptures into the English Tongue by Mrs. H. C. Conant, Charles Spurgeon noted:  "And it is because I love the most Holy Word of God that I plead for faithful translation; and from my very love to the English version, because in the main it is so, I desire for it that its blemishes should be removed, and its faults corrected" (p. xi).  Spurgeon continued:  “It is of course an arduous labour to persuade men of this, although in the light of common sense the matter is plain enough.  But there is a kind of Popery in our midst which makes us cling fast to our errors, and hinders the growth of thorough reformation; otherwise, the Church would just ask the question, ‘Is this King James’ Bible the nearest approach to the original?‘  The answer would be, ‘No; it is exceedingly good, but it has many glaring faults’” (p. xi). 

In his same preface, Spurgeon wrote:  "I ask, from very love of this best of translations, that its obsolete words, its manifest mistranslations, and glaring indecencies should be removed" (p. xii).  Again in this preface, Spurgeon asserted:  “It was a holy thing to translate the Scriptures into the mother tongue; he that shall effect a thorough revision of the present translation will deserve as high a meed of honour as the first translators.  Despite the outcry of reverend doctors against any attempt at revision, it ought to be done, and must be done. The present version is not to be despised, but no candid person can be blind to its faults“ (pp. vii-viii).  Spurgeon maintained:  “Multitudes of eminent divines and critics have borne their testimony to the faulty character of King James’s version: there must therefore be some need for a little correction” (pp. viii-ix).  Spurgeon then gave several example quotations from several authors as evidence that supported his statement.  In one example, Spurgeon favorably quoted Anthony Blackwall as saying concerning King James’s version:  “Innumerable instances might be given of faulty translation of the divine original” (p. ix).  Spurgeon also favorably quoted Richard Fuller as writing in 1850:  “That our present English version has some defects is admitted on all hands, and by every denomination.  That the Word of God ought to be purged of all defects in the translation which the people read,--this is also admitted” (p. x).