Elena 
Some more thoughts on Chapter 4 of the Samuel Gipp book from yesterday:
Question: When would the two Testaments be combined into one perfect Book?
The correct historical answer – the one that is an actual “fact” (which the author promised to produce in the introduction and first chapter) is 397 A.D. at the council of Carthage. That was the first time the two testaments were combined into one “perfect book.”
Now of course Dr. Gipp and I image Mrs. Brauer have different definitions of perfect. Nonetheless, the “fact” of the matter ( as opposed to the opinion) is 397.
Answer: As soon as God chose a language to become common to the entire world. Germany, Spain, France and most of Europe were soon to be overly influenced by Rome. No language there. There have been great Latin and Syrian translations, but these languages never became common to the entire world.
The argument that “English” is the common world language is just wrong. Mandarin Chinese holds the #1 spot. English falls into #2 or 3 depending on where you look. Then there are a whole slew of languages that fall beneath that. The combined total of all of those languages plus Mandarin Chinese certainly do not make English the most commonly known, spoken or understood language on the planet.
God needed an island of purity, a nation not shackled by Romanism, and a language so descriptive and simple that it could best deliver His message.
This reminds me of an old I Love Lucy episode where Cuban-born Ricky struggles with some of the nuances of English. I think it was the oo sound as in good, book, vs. words like fool and stool. Same spellings- very different sounds.
Please also note this very interesting comment from one of my visitors yesterday:
” English is taught to Russian pilots, because it is
universal. It is learned by Oriental businessmen, because it is universal. It
was the first language spoken on the moon!”The US military has a
language school where they train future translators. Languages there are ranked
by difficulty and time it takes to learn by a non-native speaker, important for
them since most enlisted contracts are 4 years, and every month spent learning a
lauguare is one less that can be spent in the field. I know because my husband
learned Arabic there, a level 4 (along with Mandarin Chinese, 18 months), and my
former brother-in-law learned Spanish (Level 1, 6 months). Arabic and Mandarin
are the hardest languages they teach.Except one, English for non-native speakers, the only Level 5 language.
If God wanted his “Authorized version” to be easily understandable to the common man, learned and unlearned, why did he have it written in the hardest language to learn?
Going on with Dr. Gipp:
These needs were satisfied in England. Here was a people who threw off the bondage of Rome .
Yea, let’s review. An adulterous king, declares himself the head of the church, so that he can marry his mistress. That is a fact Dr. Gipp apparently missed.
The English of the King James Bible has been known to be the finest form of the language ever used. McClure praises the Authorized Version in this manner:
I’d like to point out that this is not a fact. This is an opinion. Dr. Gipp and Mrs. Brauer both said that they were going to persuade us with “facts.” Alexander McClure- who Gipp quotes from several times, was not a linguist. Now this part interested me:
Many claim today that since the Authorized Version was printed in the common English of that day, that the Bible should be retranslated into the common English of today, but this is not a valid claim. It must be remembered that the English used in the Authorized Version was not only the common language, but it was also the English language in its purest form. The English language has degenerated from what it was in 1611 to what it is today. Those claiming to put the Bible in “modern English” are actually, though possibly not intentionally, trying to force the pure words of God into the degenerated vocabulary of today! What a disgrace to God’s Word! What a shame to those who propose such a thing!
The Archaic Con Job
A charge often brought against the Authorized Version is that it is full of “archaic” words. But are we to make the Bible pay the penalty of our own irresponsibility in not keeping our language pure and descriptive?
Then I suggest that Dr. Gipp and Mrs. Brauer start writing in old English. If they don’t aren’t they just as guilty of not keeping the language pure and descriptive?
Also this part:
Upon receiving a lengthy letter from home, does a lonely soldier proceed to the third page to begin his reading? After page 3 does he “speed read” page 4, skip page 5, and read half of page 6? Does he attempt to understand the last page and then proceed to the first? Ridiculous isn’t it? Yet it describes the Bible reading habits of many of God’s people. Obviously, our soldier, so far away from the home he loves and the writer of his letter, is going to devour every word of this letter and upon finishing it, he will read it again — every word.
When a soldier receives a letter from home, it usually is written by one author, in the soldier’s own language and time, in one style. The comparison is ridiculous. I also object to the reference to KJV as the authorized version. “Authorized” by whom?
I had only two quibbles I want to address with Candy Brauer’s take on the chapter this week. First:
The question still stands for some – “What about those people who couldn’t read, didn’t have a Bible, and had no one to teach them scriptures to memorize, or how to read? Didn’t they need “The Church” to lead them?The Bible tells us NO. Once a person really, truly becomes a saved, born again Christian, they receive this promise – that the law/Word of God will be written in their hearts. See Romans 2:15, etc.
It’s simply not a logical argument. If you can’t read the bible, if you don’t have a bible, it can’t be written on your heart. You can not come to know and follow somthing if you are haven’t heard of it. Candy makes the jump that “once a person truly becomes saved” this will happen. I’m assuming then she has a lot more faith in osmosis. I don’t see how else it can happen.She also quibbles with the actual fact that the Catholic church compiled the bible. Yet that too is an historical fact. That canon stood for centuries until the Reformation.
Please browse my eBay items!
Visit my new Amazon Store!
