Thursday, August 21, 2008

Update on Bible translators losing their voices

I've been working on collecting some links on the Bible versions controversy and ran across this on David Cloud's site. This is on his page where he criticizes Gail Riplinger's book, New Age Bible Versions. The implication seems to be that it was Mrs. Riplinger who started the whole idea that the translators of the new versions had lost their voices, but whether she did or not, apparently her accusation that Westcott lost his voice is false:

6. On page 448 Mrs. Riplinger says:

“Westcott's biographer cites that in 1858 ‘he was quite inaudible’ and by 1870 ‘his voice reached few and was understood by still fewer.’”

Riplinger uses this quote to support her claim that Westcott lost his voice and sees that as a judgment of God for tampering with the Bible.

The fact is that Westcott did NOT lose his voice. Riplinger cites volume one of The Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, but the quotes are misused. The first quote is from a statement about how that Westcott, as a young student, disliked public speaking. “He [Westcott] took his turn of preaching in Chapel, but he dreaded and disliked the duty, and he was quite inaudible to many of the boys” (The Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, vol. 1, p. 198).

There is nothing here about Westcott losing his voice. The second of Riplinger’s quotes is taken from a letter from a Dr. Butler, who said that Westcott, when he was 35 years old and teaching at Harrow, still had a weak public speaking voice.

“His voice was not yet a force in the chapel. It reached but few, and it was understood by still fewer” (The Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, vol. 1, pp. 272-273).

Again, there is not a hint that Westcott lost his voice. It is a figment of Mrs. Riplinger’s fertile imagination.

To my mind this also casts some doubt on the KJVO version of the incident on the 1995 John Ankerberg Show where Texe Marrs and other KJVOs claim the NASB translator Dr. Wilkins temporarily lost his voice. However, from the video exchange at You Tube that I posted earlier,

I still can't see that the segment posted by James White could possibly have been what the KJVO people were remembering. Unfortunately I suppose we'll never know.

The readiness of the extreme KJVO advocates to read God's judgment into such incidents, and also to personally pronounce God's judgment against their opponents, on almost any aspect of this discussion, does not speak in their favor.


The Puritan said...

Regarding your conclusion, who cares? Either the Alexandrian manuscripts and the versions based on them are corrupt or they are not. Focusing on anything but the substance of the matter is vain activity. And the Critical Text man-worshipers *need* to focus on anything but the substance of the matter, because they can't defend their devil-corrupted manuscripts and versions based on them.

Faith said...

Thank you for dropping by, Puritan. I don't think I get what you mean. Are you calling David Cloud a "Critical Text man-worshiper?"

Otherwise perhaps you are agreeing with me, since in my other post on this subject I labeled it a topic to be avoided, along with many others that detract from the substance of the matter? (But sometimes they have to be addressed to correct error).

It unfortunately seems to me that fleshly attitudes, such as impatience and imperiousness and condemnatory revilings, are most frequently to be found on the side against the corrupted versions. I wonder why that is?

Faith said...

I should add that I did look in on one of your blogs and see you are a strong Gail Riplinger supporter.

The Puritan said...

I'm a supporter of brothers and sisters in Christ who defend the God-preserved Word of God, unafraid, boldly, and with no fear of man. Riplinger fits that description.

And her virtues far, far out-weight anything the Critical Text master scholars love to mock and giggle at. Don't play into their hands by siding with them to any degree. This is black and white. There is no gray here. Gray only gives the devil the victory.

Faith said...

That is just plain bad advice, Puritan, not to "side" with them to any degree no matter what. If truth happens to be on their side, and it's even on the devil's side at times, it's just plain ungodly foolishness to pretend it isn't. And David Cloud is by far one of the most solid defenders of the KJV out there. Gail Riplinger's attack on him was indefensible. There is no virtue in boldness and fearlessness in defense of hidebound self-righteousness.

The Puritan said...

David Cloud is NOT a Critical Text scholar. Why do you keep mentioning Cloud? And Cloud's attack on Riplinger, for the record, was motivated by envy, pure and simple. His own readers called him on it. Riplinger and Cloud both know the devil's gruel when Critical Text scholars try to feed it to them.

Faith said...

Puritan, I keep mentioning Cloud because my post was about something I got from Cloud's site, which you haven't referred to, so I've had no idea why you keep talking about Critical Text scholars instead. Some people have accused Cloud of being anti-KJV, and for all I could tell you could have been one of them.

I think that's a very low tactic to accuse him of envy when he's done nothing but fair and needed criticism that I can see and then had to defend himself against an outrageously unfair attack by Riplinger.

And again, No, it is NOT right to defend those on your side just because they are on your side when they behave as Riplinger did. terrible ungodly mistake, and it only feeds the success of the false Bible versions. This has been a theme of my last few posts, how the KJV side undermines its own position by extreme and dishonest behavior.

Apparently you disagree. Let us consider this discussion ended.


Faith said...

Perhaps I shouldn't say "dishonest" although when you advise ignoring anything your opponents say even though they are sometimes right and you wrong, it looks like dishonesty to me. At least it is not Christian behavior, it is not fair, it is not charitable, it does not do honor to our Lord and it defeats the very purpose you think you are defending.

The Puritan said...

The Word of God is the most foundational subject of the faith once delivered, and the most attacked by the devil. It quickens God's own. The Roman Beast church burned Bibles and kept the Word of God from people at pain of torture and death, but it called all to baptism all day and all night. Anti-Christ *knows* what regenerates God's own. It is the Word of God. It is pure spiritual warfare to defend the pure and whole Word of God. When the reformers were writing and debating doctrine amongst themselves and other sincere Christians they engaged in the type of behaviour you are looking for. Yet: whenever they went up against a follower of the Beast church or the devil himself they took a different approach *of necessity.* For instance read Calvin's letter to Cardinal Sadoleto. The reformers like Calvin knew you can't give the devil *anything* including pretending they are operating on the same territory as you are. Critical Text scholars have been disabused over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again - by scholars better than them - and they still hold to the devil's manuscripts and the versions based on them. They have the spirit of disobedience. Don't touch their very garments lest you get spotted by them. They are reprobates.

Faith said...

Once again, Puritan, I'm not addressing Critical Text scholars. I have no notion whatever that their minds can be changed. But I know many ordinary Christians whose minds might be changed by an honest assessment of the history of the false Bible versions. The only "type of behavior" I am "looking for" is simple honesty.

Acknowledging that someone on the KJVO side falsely accused someone on the other side is NOT giving the devil anything -- he's happy when we DON'T acknowledge our errors and unfairness to others.

Riplinger wrongly said Westcott lost his voice -- the quote given by David Cloud clearly shows that was not the case. She should acknowledge that error. Instead of acknowledging her errors, she came back and wrongly accused David Cloud of being anti-KJV, and you and others are accusing him of the motive of envy in his effort to correct her errors. Can't you see that it is this kind of attitude plays into the hand of the devil?

I'm going to try to get back to my own efforts to show the falseness of the W&H Bible versions, and their destructiveness to the church. I'd rather not have to keep pointing out the errors of the KJVOs at the same time but unfortunately that seems to be necessary.

Maestroh said...

Let me just say that I commend you for siding with honesty on this issue.