Thursday, September 04, 2008

John Nelson Darby Version: Based on Corrupt Texts

http://www.libertytothecaptives.net/darby_version_corrupt.html

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

That Darby was anything BUT a "liberal" or "modernist" is well known. If you are a true "Truth Seeker", then you will quit referencing highly questionable "conspiracy" sites and read the Scripture instead. Darby never translated into English anyway. He translated into French & German, and his followers later translated those versions into English. The site you link to is obviously anti-dispensational. That's fine, but what's the point of slandering godly men? Support your point from Scripture.

As far as the Textus Receptus, I praise the Lord for it. It is what I read and use. But there is much to gain from comparing other translations, and Darby's desire was to produce as literal a translation as possible. Doesn't sound like someone out to "alter" the Scriptures.

Timothy said...

This is funny. I knew someone like you would response. Here's my response. Darby may not be liberal theologically 100%, but he wasn't perfect. The site I've linked outlined his error. What do you mean "conspiracy sites." Conspiracies exist throughout human history. I will not be intimidated by you people denying conspiracies happening in the world. From the Federal Reserve, the assassination of Lincoln, and other events are evidences of conspriacies.

Not everything in the world are made up of conspiracies. That's true, but some conspiracies do exist. You need to realize that. I cite what I want in my blog as part of the First Amendment. You know what. Citing a wide variety of places increasing wisdom and it allows people to disregard lies more readily to accept fact. The site isn't anti-dispensational. It just rejects the pre trib rapture. Slandering? It isn't slandering anyone, but showing the facts about the errors in their Darby Biblical texts. Also, this links does support their views in the scripture.

Textus Receptus is great. Yet, all translations aren't equivalent. I reject all faulty translations. One example is the JW's translation of the Bible. If Darby wanted a literal translation for real, I have a house to sell you.

By Timothy

Timothy said...

http://www.libertytothecaptives.net/darby_version_corrupt_methodically.html


has more documentation.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darby_Bible


is proof that Darby translated into English.

Anonymous said...

You are correct that Darby wasn't perfect - I didn't suggest he was. Just a cursory look at the site you link DOES wreak of slandering those that the site authors have decided to attack. You don't agree with Darby? Fine. Many people don't. I don't agree with Calvin or Wesley, but I respect them both.

You say all translations are not equivalent. This is obvious, and I didn't suggest they were. But I do find literal equivalent translations like Darby's or the NASB helpful when compared with certain archaic words or phrases in the KJV. I understand the differing sources of the translations.

Try to remember that "contending for the faith" is not the same as being "contentious" - something a truly "meek" person would try to avoid.

Timothy said...

You are correct that Darby wasn't perfect - I didn't suggest he was. Just a cursory look at the site you link DOES wreak of slandering those that the site authors have decided to attack. You don't agree with Darby? Fine. Many people don't. I don't agree with Calvin or Wesley, but I respect them both.

Response: Darby wasn't perfect as we all realize. The link in my opinion doesn't intentionally slander any. It's fine for me to disagree with him and that's fine with me as well.

You say all translations are not equivalent. This is obvious, and I didn't suggest they were. But I do find literal equivalent translations like Darby's or the NASB helpful when compared with certain archaic words or phrases in the KJV. I understand the differing sources of the
translations.

Response: I would better use the Textus Receptus concordance and other sources to understand the meanings of Scriptural phrases. Also, most of the words of the KJV aren't archaic. A 5th grade child can comprehend the KJV. Differing sources of translations are common.

Try to remember that "contending for the faith" is not the same as being "contentious" - something a truly "meek" person would try to avoid.

Response:You final response is common in this generation. Some folks in this generation believes that strongly expressing views is equated with agitation or contentious. I don't show a contentious attitude in my response. I show my views. Also, many apostles were more direct with people in a legitimate and they were meek. Being meek doesn't mean being weak. It means using commonsense to contend for the faith and treating others as yourself. I am meek, but I have every right to make legitimate critiques on issues very forerightly. See, being meek doesn't mean being a "compromiser" or whitewashing history.

By Timothy

Timothy said...

Being meek means showing your views, being cordial, and being strong too.