"Pilgrimettes"  From  THE  PILGRIM  

 QUOTES  ON  BIBLE  TRANSLATIONS

   Compiled  by  RICK  NORRIS  &  GLENN  CONJURSKE

[43 SOURCES — LISTED  ALPHABETICALLY]

 SAMUEL  AARON  &  DAVID  BERNARD

The vast majority of those who read the English Bible are entirely ignorant of the Greek; of the non-translation of baptizo — and its signification. [The Faithful Translation (1842), pg. 30]

As to our being "left without a standard," through the multiplicity and variety of translations, we have only to say that there can, in the nature of things, be no perfect standard but the Hebrew and Greek originals; these, being written by inspired men, are infallible, while all translations by men uninspired must be more or less imperfect. The number of translations cannot affect the original. [ibid pg. 34]

JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS

Question:  What is the Correct Principle on which Translations of the Holy Scriptures should be made? To this I reply, that they should be conformed, as nearly as possible, to the inspired originals. Let it be remembered, that the Bible which we possess is a translation. The words of our English version are invested with Divine authority, only so far as they express just what the original expresses. I present this thought because there is, in the minds of many, a superstitious reverence for the words and phrases of our English version (KJV). This being a translation, partakes more or less of the imperfections of the translators; and, in every instance where the original is not clearly and fully translated, it is the word of man, and not the Word of God. The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, and the New Testament in Greek. In translating, therefore, into English, or Burmese, or French, or German, or Benagli, or any other language, it is evident to any one, that the Hebrew and the Greek should be the standard to which these translations should be conformed. [Baptists: The Only Thorough Reformers (1876), pg. 128-129, used as a textbook in Spurgeon's Pastors' College — note: this is not the Adams who was the 6th U.S. President.]

HENRY  ALFORD

Hebrews 10:23 (KJV)  "Let us hold fast the profession of our faith, without wavering..." We have here an extraordinary example of the persistence of a blunder, through centuries. The word FAITH, given here by the A.V., instead of HOPE — breaking up the beautiful triad of versus 22, 23, 24 ~ faith, hope, love — was a mere mistake, "hope" being accordingly the rendering of all the English versions previously to 1611. And yet this is the version which some would have us regard as infallible, and receive as the written word of God! [The New Testament for English Readers vol. 4, pg. 1546 (written ca. 1860)]

PETER  ALLIX

[His statement concerning Ambrose of Milan who died in 397 A.D.]  Would you know, according to what standard he believed the versions of the Scripture ought to be examined? He will answer you, that it must be by the original. [The Ecclesiastical History of the Ancient Churches of Piedmont (1690) pg. 15]

GLEASON  ARCHER

It is wrong to affirm that the existence of a perfect original is a matter of no importance if that original is no longer available for examination. [Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties pg. 28]

THOMAS  ARMITAGE

The Baptists cannot, consistently with their religious principles, in any case where they are permitted to choose, consent to use or circulate any version in which any important portion of divine truth is concealed or obscured, either by non-translation or by ambiguity of expression. [A History of the Baptists (1890), pg. 895]

The more accurately a version is brought to the true standard, the more accurately will it express the mind and will of God. And this is the real foundation of the sacredness of the Bible. Any regard for it founded upon the defects or faults of translation is superstition... For although we insist upon the observance of a uniform principle in the full and faithful translation of God's Word, so as to express in plain English, without ambiguity or vagueness, the exact meaning of baptizo, as well as of all other words relating to the Christian ordinances, yet this is but one of numerous errors, which, in our estimation, demand correction. [ibid pgs. 907-908]

Like his brethren, he believed that the word 'baptize' in the Bible meant to immerse and that it was his duty to God so to preach it; but unlike them, he believed that if it was his duty so to preach it, it was as clearly his duty so to print it. [ibid pg. 906]

DAVID  BLIVIN  &  ROY  BLIZZARD

Every communication of God is important, and we are not willing that any, no matter how seemingly insignificant, should go misunderstood if we have at our disposal the tools to understand. [Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus pg. 117]

JOHN  WILLIAM  BURGON

Once for all, we request it may be clearly understood that we do not, by any means, claim perfection for the Received Text. We entertain no extravagant notions on this subject. Again and again we shall have occasion to point out that the Textus Receptus needs correction. [The Revision Revised (1883), pg. 21, as quoted in Theodore Letis' The Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text pg. 44]

Why Dean Burgon would NOT JOIN " THE DEAN BURGON SOCIETY "

(by Gary Hudson)

BENJAMIN  H.  CARROLL

Versions, or translations, are not inspired. If they were, all of them would be just alike. But the original manuscript was inspired. [as quoted in James M. Gray's A Coffer of Jewels About Our Infallible, Eternal Word of God pg. 272]

But in our present translations, we don't go back, say, to the King James Version and revise that and put that in modern English, but each time we make a translation we get just as close back to the original standard as possible, and in this way the translations become a great means for determining the true text. ...God's leaving this kind of labor to be performed by man has had a tremendous effect in bringing about a study of the Bible that would never have been undertaken if to every nation there had been handed down, in God's own handwriting, a text of the Bible in their language. [The Inspiration of the Bible (1930), pgs. 109-110]

Let me say further that only the original text of the books of the Bible is inspired, not the copy or the translation. [as quoted in James Draper's Authority: The Critical Issue for Southern Baptists pg. 64]

WILLIAM  CATHCART

The Baptists of America had withdrawn from the American Bible Society because it refused aid to the Bengalee and Burmese translations, made by Baptist missionaries, in which the Greek term baptizo and its cognates had been rendered by words signifying "immerse," "immersion," etc. The English translation had been made the standard to which all other translations should conform and not the inspired originals, and the founders of the (American Bible) Union felt compelled by consistency to demand that on the principle of fidelity, translations in all languages should be conformed to the Hebrew and Greek texts. [The Baptist Encyclopedia (1881), pg. 98]

JOHN  DAGG

Although the Scriptures were originally penned under the unerring guidance of the Holy Spirit, it does not follow, that a continued miracle has been wrought to preserve them from all error in transcribing. On the contrary, we know that manuscripts differ from each other; and were readings are various, but one of them can be correct. A miracle was needed in the original production of the Scriptures; and accordingly, a miracle was wrought; but the preservation of the inspired word, in as much perfection as was necessary to answer the purpose for which it was given, did not require a miracle, and accordingly it was committed to the providence of God. [Manual of Theology (1857), pg. 24]

DAVID  DANIELL

Tyndale was writing for ordinary men and women reading the Greek New Testament in English to themselves and to each other, round the table, in the parlour, under the hedges, in the fields; not for those obediently sitting in rows in stone churches being done good to by the squire at the lectern — it was the Authorised Version that was "Appointed to be read in churches." [Introduction to TYNDALE'S New Testament pg. xxvii]

When James I gave his Bible revisers the huge Bishops' Bible as their foundation, which meant that the Vulgate-based Rheims version would be attractive to them, he ensured that a wash of Latinity would be spread over Tyndale's English. The result, and we must assume, the intention, was to create a safer distance between the Scriptures and the people. Though in the general working vocabulary there were more Latinate terms in use by 1611. Latin words and constructions have, as they had then, the ring of Establishment authority, which is not the same as the koine Greek that Tyndale was translating for the first time. [Introduction to the modern-spelling edition of TYNDALE'S New Testament (1534 edition) pg. xxiv]

ANDREW  FULLER

Allowing all due honour to the English translation of the Bible, it must be granted to be a human performance, and, as such, subject to imperfection. Where any passage appears to be mistranslated, it is doubtless proper for those who are well acquainted with the original languages to point it out, and to offer, according to the best of their judgment, the true meaning of the Holy Spirit. [Andrew Fuller's WORKS pg. 990]

JOHN  GILL

This is to be understood of the Scriptures, as in the original languages in which they were written, and not of translations: unless it could be thought, that the translators of the Bible into the several languages of the nations into which it has been translated, were under the divine inspiration also in translating, and were directed of God to the use of words they have rendered the original by; but this is not reasonable to suppose... To the Bible in its original languages is every translation to be brought, and by it to be examined, tried, and judged, and to be corrected and amended: and if this was not the case, we should have no certain and infallible rule to go by; for it must be either all the translations together, or some one of them; not all of them, because they agree not in all things: not one; for then the contest would be between one nation and another which it should be, whether English, Dutch, French, etc. and could one be agree upon, it could not be read and understood by all. [A Body of Divinity pg. 13]

JOHN  GIRARDEAU

Are translations inspired? The position is here taken that so far as a translation faithfully represents the original Scriptures, it is characterized by the same inspiration with them. If it exactly coincides with the original as to matter, it is substantially the same with it. So far as it deviates from the original, it ceases to be inspired... The translation was effected by fallible men, and therefore contains some errors... The translators were uninspired men, and consequently liable to mistakes; the translation is inspired, so far it exactly gives the original — so far, no more. [Discussions of Theological Questions (1905), pgs. 368-370]

JAMES  ROBINSON  GRAVES

There may be errors in the transcription of the ancient manuscripts; there may be errors in translation, and errors many in interpretation, but that the original Scriptures are the words of the living God, He most explicitly declares them to be. [Seven Dispensations pg. 24]

JAMES  M.  GRAY

There is no translation absolutely without error, nor could there be, considering the infirmities of human copyists, unless God were pleased to perform a perpetual miracle to secure it. [A Coffer of Jewels About Our Infallible Eternal Word of God pg. 158, and The Fundamentals for Today pg. 127]

EDWARD  HILLS

There are a few places in which the Textus Receptus differs from the Traditional text found in the majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts. The most important of these differences are due to the fact that Erasmus, influenced by the usage of the Latin-speaking Church in which he was reared, sometimes followed the Latin Vulgate rather than the Traditional Greek text. [The King James Version Defended pg. 200]

The King James Version, however, is mainly a revision of the Bishop's Bible, which in turn was a slightly revised edition of Tyndale's Bible. [ibid pg. 215]

As the marginal notes indicate, the King James translators did not regard their work as perfect or inspired, but they did consider it to be a trustworthy reproduction of God's holy Word. [ibid pg. 216]

At John 8:6 the King James translators followed the Bishop's Bible in adding the clause, "as though He heard them not..." After 1769, it was placed in italics in the King James Version. [ibid pg. 221]

ARCHIBALD  A.  HODGE

(& B. B. WARFIELD)  We do not assert that the common text, but only the original autographic text, was inspired. [Inspiration (1881), pg. 42]

BENJAMIN  KEACH

The Word of God... is contained exactly and most purely in the Originals, and in all translations, so far as they agree therewith. Now though some translations may exceed others in Propriety, and significant rendering of the Originals: yet they generally, (even the most imperfect that we know of) express and hold forth so much of the Mind, Will, and Counsel of God, as is sufficient, by the Blessing of God upon a conscientious Reading thereof, to acquaint a man with the mysteries of salvation, to work in him true faith, and bring him to live godly, righteously, and soberly in this world, and to salvation in the next. [The Baptist Catechism (17th century), pg. 21]

HOMER  KENT

All subsequent copies or translations are "inspired" only to the extent that they accurately represent the autographs. [Spire (Fall, 1983), pg. 3]

The  KING  JAMES  VERSION  TRANSLATORS

We affirm and avow, that the very meanest [poorest or least esteemed] translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession... contains the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God. Though it be not interpreted by every Translator with like grace, the King's speech is still the King's speech; no cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be currant [used], notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth [translating] of it. Variety of translations is profitable for finding out of the sense of the scriptures. [Translators to the Readers Preface of the King James Version 1611]

JOHN  KOHLENBERGER

NOTE:  John R. Kohlenberger III is a graduate of Multnomah School of the Bible with an M.A. in Old Testament studies from Western Conservative Baptist Seminary (Portland, Oregon), and has been a part-time faculty member at Multnomah. He is a leading expert and editor on the application of computers to Bible-related reference projects and has produced the NIV Triglot, the NIV Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament, and co-authored both The NIV Complete Concordance and The NIV Exhaustive Concordance. In the summer of '97, he hosted a workshop called "Understanding the Bible Controversy" which discussed many issues, primarily the use of "inclusive language" in Bible translations. The workshop was videotaped by C-Span and aired in August '97. To order the video, call (800) C-Span-98, — also, an audio cassette is available for $ 8 from the Christian Booksellers Association at (800) 252-1950. A short summary of his views follows, compiled by Lynn Waalkes & published in the September '97 CBA Marketplace —

According to Kohlenberger, there's no such thing as a completely literal translation: both word-for-word (formal equivalence) and phrase-for-phrase (dynamic equivalence) translation styles have been used since the 14th century. Neither translation style determines translation accuracy, he pointed out. Gender-inclusive language has been used in the Greek-Septuagint, the Greek New Testament, and historic English versions — including the King James Version. In fact, the KJV preface stated, "We have not tied ourselves to a uniformity of phrasing, or to an identify or words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done."

FEMINIST HOTBED ? Kohlenberger discussed the use of inclusive language in the Septuagint by Jewish rabbis — "hardly a hotbed of feminism" — and by the Apostle Paul when he quoted 2 Samuel 7:14. Modern inclusive translations — with the exception of the Oxford Inclusive Version (New Testament & Psalms, 1995) — aren't driven by a feminist agenda, Kohlenberger added. He emphasized that translators aren't changing the text, just the expression, so that the message will be understood the same way today as when it was written. "We may not like changes in our language," Kohlenberger concluded: "but we have to recognize them and respond to them, or we will miscommunicate or fail to communicate. If we are misunderstood, we have miscommunicated, and we have misrepresented the Word of God."

GEORGE  ELDON  LADD

The Holy Spirit chose as the language of the New Testament revelation the colloquial language of everyday people, not an ancient classical idea. The modern insistence upon the supremacy of the King James Version of 1611 represents a reversal of the action of the Holy Spirit by insisting that for us the best idiom for the word of God is not the modern colloquial idiom, but the ancient classical language of Shakespeare. [The New Testament and Criticism pg. 88]

JACK  LEWIS

Those who objected to [the Revised Standard Version's] being copyrighted should know that all English Bibles, including the KJV and ASV, were copyrighted when first issued. The King James still enjoys copyright protection in Britain. It is only right that the purity of the text be protected and that the investment made by the publisher be safeguarded. [The English Bible: From KJV to NIV pg. 107]

NEIL  LIGHTFOOT

More than 400 errors in the first edition of the King James Bible were corrected in a subsequent edition two years later. [How We Got the Bible pg. 59]

BASIL  MANLY,  JR.

Why so strenuous of exact inspiration of the words, when you admit there may be errors of transcription? What do you gain? We answer, we gain all the difference there is between an inspired and an uninspired original; all the difference between a document truly divine and authoritative to begin with — though the copies or translations may have in minute particulars varied from it — and a document faulty and unreliable at the outset, and never really divine... There is even now, with some ignorant persons, an assumption of the infallibility and equality with the original of some particular translation, as the Vulgate, or King James, or Luthers. [The Bible Doctrine of Inspiration (1888) pg. 84]

It is not true the plenary inspiration of the original would be useless, unless the copies were secured by a perpetual miracle against the effects of time and of careless and corrupt transmission. A truly divine original, even if copied with no more than ordinary human care and fidelity, is vastly superior to an original, however accurately preserved, that never had divine authority. And obviously the fact that it was recognized and accepted as from God would serve greatly to insure its being preserved with more than ordinary care... Neither can it be justly said that there is no probability that God would supernaturally inspire the writings, unless he also miraculously preserved them from erroneous transcription. He might do the one, which He alone could do, and leave the other, as in so many other matters, to the faithfulness of his servants intrusted with that responsibility. [ibid pgs. 226-227]

ROBERT  MARTIN

If the history of the Textus Receptus itself is a history of revision, why is it beyond revision today? [Accuracy of Translation and the NIV pg. 76]

WILBUR  NORMAN  PICKERING

The nature of language does not permit a 'perfect' translation — the semantic area of words differs between languages so that there is seldom complete overlap. A 'perfect' translation of John 3:16 from Greek into English is impossible, for we have no perfect equivalent for "agapao" [translated "loved" in John 3:16]. [The Identity of the New Testament Text (1977, 1980)]

JOHN  WILLIAM  PORTER

It is nothing less than a mockery and a sin that the word for baptism [baptizo] should be transliterated instead of being translated. [The World's Debt to the Baptists (1914) pg. 139]

Probably the most accurate translation of the Scriptures is the American Bible Union Version, which is solely a Baptist production. [ibid pg. 137]

The  PRESBYTERIAN  GUARDIAN

For any preacher or theologian who loves God's Word to allow that Word to go on being misunderstood because of the veneration of an archaic, not-understood version of four centuries ago is inexcusable, and almost unconscionable. [as quoted in D. A. Carson's The King James Version Debate pg. 102]

D.  B.  RAY

Acts 20:28 — The word overseers in this passage is "episcopous" in the Greek — the word which is usually translated bishops: but to have rendered it bishops in this place, would have shown that elder and bishop is the same office, which would have condemned the church [Anglican] of the translators. [Baptist Succession pg. 292]

JOHN  R.  RICE

A perfect translation of the Bible is humanly impossible. The words in one language do not have exactly the same color and meaning as opposite words in another language, and human frailty and imperfection enter in. So, let us say, there are no perfect translations. [Our God-Breathed Book — The Bible pg. 376]

WILLIAM  BELL  RILEY

To claim, therefore, inerrancy for the King James Version, or even for the Revised Version, is to claim inerrancy for men who never professed it for themselves; is to clothe with the claim of verbal inspiration a company of men who would almost quit their graves to repudiate such equality with Prophet and Apostle. [his message, The Meaning of Modernism]

PETER  S.  RUCKMAN  [KJV-Only]

I've NEVER said that the King James Bible was inspired, although I've broadly intimated it sometimes. [his booklet, Why I Believe the King James Version Is the Word of God pg. 6]

Not one time did God guarantee that ONE of the translations was inspired. [his Bible Believer's Bulletin Nov. 91, pg. 10]

Now, at no time have I stated flatly that the A. V. 1611 was the "verbally inspired Word of God." Verbal inspiration has to do with 2 Timothy 3:16 and deals with the Original Autographs, as we all know. [his Letter to Robert Sumner 1971]

That was Charles Haddon Spurgeon waving a King James Bible at his congregation and telling them that he saw God's Book and they could read it...Why, you bunch of conceited asses, Spurgeon was the most radical "Ruckmanite" that ever lived on the face of this earth if you accept the statements of his regenerated nature. [Bible Believer's Bulletin June 1989, pg. 12]

To make sure you miss the truth of the passage entirely, the Kenneth Taylor paraphrase (The "Living"—go play with yourself Buster, —Bible) mistranslates the last verse... [his Bible Believer's Commentary on JOB pg. 614]

It is now 1989. Personally, I think the Lord is coming in the late spring. If I were to hazard a guess now (after receiving an orthodox Jewish calendar from a Jew), I would guess somewhere between the 14th of May and the 20th of June... As the last few months of the Church age close out (a few months at the most), the Laodicean, lukewarm Christians (Rev. 3) have picked for their target the King James 1611 Authorized Version. [Bible Believer's Bulletin January 1989, pg. 5, and May 1989, pg. 2]

This is one reason why I have never allowed myself an occasional "slip" when dealing with the Authorized Holy Bible. They won't get that alibi from me. They will have to get it from someone else. [Bible Believer's Bulletin March 1990, pg. 2]

JOHN  CHARLES  RYLE

I do not say that those who wrote copies of the original Hebrew and Greek Scriptures were incapable of making mistakes, and never left out or added a word. I lay no claim to the inspiration of every word in the various versions and translations of God's Word. So far as these translations and versions are faithfully and correctly done so far they are practically, of equal authority with the original Hebrew and Greek. [The Inspiration of the Scriptures]

[In contending for verbal and plenary inspiration of the Bible, he says...]  In making this statement I ask the reader not to misunderstand my meaning. I do not forget that the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek. The inspiration of every word, for which I contend, is the inspiration of every original Hebrew and Greek word, as the Bible writers first wrote it down. I stand up for nothing more and nothing less than this. I lay no claim to the inspiration of every word in the various versions and translations of God's Word. So far as those translations and versions are faithfully and correctly done, so far they are of equal authority with the original Hebrew and Greek. We have no reason to thank God that many of the translations are, in the main, faithful and accurate. At any rate our own English Bible, if not perfect is so far correct, that in reading it we have a right to believe that we are reading in our own tongue not the word of man, but of God. [Old Paths (1877) pgs. 20-21]

[Ryle also explicitly denies the infallible preservation of the text, saying...]  No doubt we may have lost a few of the original words. We have no right to expect infallibility in transcribers and copyists, before the invention of printing. But there is not a single doctrine in Scripture which would be affected or altered if all the various readings were allowed, and all the disputed or doubtful words were omitted. [ibid pgs. 28-29]

[Glenn Conjurske comments... "Observe, Ryle contends for the general accuracy and consequent adequacy of the common English version, in the same paragraph in which he explicitly denies the inspiration or infallibility of its every word. This was the position of all Protestants. In our own day, alas, a great host of men have risen up, none of them worthy to bear Ryles's shoes, who deny both the accuracy and the adequacy of the old version, and hence we have a rash of new ones designed to replace it — and hence, as a reaction against that, the exaltation of the old version (A.V.) to the place of infallibility. But this doctrine is as new as the new versions, or a little newer. Let those who believe this new doctrine, and who suppose it to be an old doctrine, let them now prove it old, by producing a single statement from old times which explicitly attributes inerrancy to the King James translation."]

F.  H.  A.  SCRIVENER

Most readers will be aware that numberless and not inconsiderable departures from the original or standard edition of the Authorized Translation as published in 1611, are to be found in the modern [KJV] Bibles which issue from the press by thousands every year. Some of these differences must be imputed to oversight and negligence, from which no work of man can be entirely free; but much the greater part of them are deliberate changes, introduced silently and without authority by men whose very names are often unknown. [The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611) pg. 3]

For many years which followed the publication of the edition of 1769, even after its glaring imperfections had become in some measure known, the King's Printer and the two English Universities continued to reproduce what was in substance Dr. Blayney's work, when the public attention was claimed in 1831 by Mr. Curtis of Islington, who complained that all modern reprints of Holy Scripture departed widely from the original edition of 1611, to the great deterioration of our Vernacular Translation. [ibid pg. 35]

CHARLES  HADDON  SPURGEON

I do not hesitate to say that I believe 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 — but even the historical facts are correct... there is not an error in the whole compass of them. These words come from him who can make no mistake, and who can have no wish to deceive his creatures. [from sermon The Bible Tried and Proved MTP Vol 35, Year 1889, pg. 257, Psalms 12:6]

Believers in verbal inspiration should be studiously careful to be verbally correct. The gentlemen who see errors in Scripture may think themselves competent to amend the language of the Lord of hosts; but we who believe God, and accept the very words He uses, may not make so presumptuous an attempt. Let us quote the words as they stand in the best possible translation, and it will be better still if we know the original, and can tell if our version fails to give the sense. [Greatest Fight in the World  book  pg. 23]

When quoting from the prophecy of Isaiah, our blessed Lord not only used a translation, but he gave the sense freely; thus rebuking the mere word-chopping of the Rabbis. They could count the letters of a sacred book, and yet utterly miss its meaning. [Matthew — The Gospel of the Kingdom pg. 121]

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 from  Lectures To My Students  pg. 31]

That was a grand action of old Jerome, when he laid all his pressing engagements aside to achieve a purpose to which he felt a call from heaven... Away he went with his manuscripts, and prayed and labored, and produced a work — the Latin Vulgate — which will last as long as the world stands; on the whole a most wonderful translation of Holy Scripture. [ Lectures To My Students  Series I, pg. 51]

I feel vexed with the fellow who chopped the Bible up into chapters; I forget his name just now, and I am sure it is not worth recollecting [actually it was Sir Robert Stephens in 1551]. I have heard that he did the most of his carving of the New Testament, between London and Paris, and rough work he made of it. Surely he was chaptering the Gospel of Matthew while he was crossing the Channel, for he has divided it in such queer [unusual] places. [from Harvest Men Wanted MTP Vol 19, Year 1873, pg. 466, Matt. 9:37-38, 10:1]

When the English Revised Version New Testament appeared in 1881, Spurgeon did not heap scorn upon it as some did then and as some do today. In fact, from 1881 on, Spurgeon not infrequently expressly referred to the Revised English translation, commending it either in text or translation or both. In 1881, the very year the revision appeared, Spurgeon preached a sermon in which he expressly refers to the new Revised Version, noting its difference in text from the KJV and acknowledging the RV as here correct; he then lays down some principles regarding the questions of the text and translation of Scripture to which all Baptist ought to give hearty assent. His sermon text is part of Isaiah 61:1, "He hath sent me to bind up the broken-hearted..." —

I intended to have preached from these words in Luke 4:18, but when I looked at the Revised Version and found that the words were not there at all I was somewhat startled. I began to ask whether the omission was a correct one or not — and without making pretence to scholarship — I feel convinced that the revisers are acting honestly in leaving it out. It was not in the original manuscript of Luke, but probably some pious person added it with the intention of making the quotation more complete. Whatever the intention may have been, and however natural the added words may appear, it is a pity that the unknown brother ventured to improve that which was perfect from the beginning...

 ...Concerning the fact of difference between the Revised and Authorized Versions, I would say that no Baptist should ever fear any honest attempt to produce the correct text, & an accurate interpretation of the Old/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, whether it would comfirm certain religious opinions and practices, or work against them. All we want is the exact mind of the Spirit, as far as we can get it. Beyond all other Christians we are concerned in this, seeing we have not other sacred book; we have no prayer book or binding creek, or authoritative minutes of conference — we have nothing but the Bible — and we would have that as pure as ever we can get it. By the best and most honest scholarship that can be found we desire that the common version may be purged of every blunder of transcribers, or addition of human ignorance, or human knowledge, that so the Word of God may come to us as it came from his own hand. [from Heart-Disease Curable MTP Vol 27, Year 1881, pgs. 341, 342-3, Isaiah 61:1]

AUGUSTUS  H.  STRONG

We have no right to expect that the inspiration of the original writer will be followed by a miracle in the case of every copyist. Why believe in infallible copyists, more than in infallible printers? God educates us to care for his word, and for its correct transmission. Reverence has kept the Scriptures more free from various readings than are other ancient manuscripts. None of the existing variations endanger any important article of faith. Yet some mistakes in transcription there probably are. [Systematic Theology pg. 226]

REUBEN  A.  TORREY

No one, as far as I know, holds that the English translation of the Bible is absolutely infallible and inerrant. The doctrine held by many is that the Scriptures as originally given were absolutely infallible and inerrant, and that our English translation (KJV) is a substantially accurate rendering of the Scriptures as originally given. [Difficulties in the Bible pg. 17]

BENJAMIN  B.  WARFIELD

Are we really to believe that the happy possessors of the so-called "wicked Bible" held "thou shalt commit adultery" to be as divinely inerrant as the genuine text of the seventh commandment, on the ground that the inerrance of the original autographs of the Holy Scriptures must not be asserted as distinguished from the Holy Scriptures which we now possess? [Selected Shorter Writings of B. B. Warfield pg. 585]

NOAH  WEBSTER

Whenever words are understood in a sense different from that which they had when introduced, and different from that of the original languages, they do not present to the reader the Word of God... The Bible is the chief moral cause of all that is good, and the best corrector of all that is evil, in human society; the best book for regulating the temporal concerns of men, and the only book that can serve as an infallible guide to future felicity. With this estimate of its value, I have attempted to render the English version more useful, by correcting a few obvious errors, and removing some obscurities, with objectionable words and phrases; and my earnest prayer is, that my labors may not be wholly unsuccessful. [The Holy Bible in the Common Version with Amendments of the Language (1883), preface, pg. 5]

Every obstacle to a right understanding of the scriptures, however small, should be removed, when it can be done in consistency with truth. [The Webster Bible (1883), introduction, pg. 16]

WILLIAM  H.  WYCKOFF

Consecration of error, can never be approved by the God of truth. To retain it, because it is consecrated, must displease Him. The meaning of a word is the idea which it conveys. The English word BAPTIZE does not convey to the majority of those who hear and read it the idea of IMMERSION. But the idea of the Greek word BAPTIZO is IMMERSION. As BAPTIZE does not convey this idea, it is not a true and faithful translation. [Baptize and Immerse tract published by the American Bible Union in the 1800's, pg. 2]

 TOP  OF  PAGE