George Ladd on Dispensationalists

[LamorakDesGalis]

George E. Ladd was certainly not a dispensationalist. In fact, he fervently opposed dispensationalism and wrote against it during his lifetime.

At the same time, George Ladd recognized that "some of the most godly ministers and Bible teachers America has ever known" are dispensationalists. He wrote:

"It is doubtful if there has been any other circle of men who have done more by their influence in preaching, teaching and writing to promote a love for Bible study, a hunger for the deeper Christian life, a passion for evangelism and zeal for missions in the history of American Christianity."

Pretty interesting statements from someone who was a firm opponent of dispensationalism.

LDG

 

[Biblewriter]

The title of this post says it all.

Some in this forum wish to paint dispensationalism in general and the doctrine of the pre-trib rapture in particular as doctrines of the Devil.

But outstanding personal godliness and an unusual level of energy for the Lord has typified dispensational and pre-trib teachers from day one. The most significant early leaders of this movement were J. N. Darby and William Kelly.

J. N. Darby personally wrote more than sixty volumes of commentaties on scripture, and translated the New Testament into numerous languages. The movement he spearheaded grew within his lifetime to include hundreds of assemblies on every inhabited continent.

William Kelly wrote commentaries on almost all of scripture.

The writings of these two men included much about dispensationalism, but that was actually a relatively small part of their ministry. They both wrote about all scripture, approaching if from a simple belief that the entire Bible was directly inspired by God, and was "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness."

 

[BereanTodd]

There's a long line of godly men. DL Moody would not be completely a dispensationalist, but he was very friendly to the movement, and his legacy - his school and those who follow him - are absolutely dispensational. You have men like Lewis Sperry Chafer, John Walvoord, Charles Ryrie, William J. Erdman, Donald Barnhouse, Dwight Pentecost, Harry Ironside, just to name a very short few of some of the greats of the dispensational school.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

J. N. Darby personally wrote more than sixty volumes of commentaties on scripture, and translated the New Testament into numerous languages. The movement he spearheaded grew within his lifetime to include hundreds of assemblies on every inhabited continent.

Hi. What greek texts did he use?
For example, some translation use "world" and some "age" in 2 corin 4:4. The correct word is "age".

http://www.scripture4all.org/

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm

Darby) 2 Corinthians 4:4 in whom the god of this world has blinded........

NKJV) 2 Corinthians 4:4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded........

[Tex-Rec] 2 Corinthians 4:4 en {IN} oiV {WHOM} o {THE} qeoV {GOD} tou {OF THE} aiwnoV {AGE} toutou {THE-THIS} etuflwsen {BLINDED}

 

[holdon]

Hi. What greek texts did he use?
For example, some translation use "world" and some "age" in 2 corin 4:4. The correct word is "age".

http://www.scripture4all.org/

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm

Darby) 2 Corinthians 4:4 in whom the god of this world has blinded........

NKJV) 2 Corinthians 4:4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded........

[Tex-Rec] 2 Corinthians 4:4 en {IN} oiV {WHOM} o {THE} qeoV {GOD} tou {OF THE} aiwnoV {AGE} toutou {THE-THIS} etuflwsen {BLINDED}

Age is correct. However, world is not bad either. See Eph. 2:2 and 1 Cor 1:20, 21....

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

[Tex-Rec] 2 Corinthians 4:4 en {IN} oiV {WHOM} o {THE} qeoV {GOD} tou {OF THE} aiwnoV {AGE} toutou {THE-THIS} etuflwsen {BLINDED}

Age is correct. However, world is not bad either. See Eph. 2:2 and 1 Cor 1:20, 21....

Perhaps.
The word for "world" is used in John 14:30 and not "age".

John 14:30 Not still much I shall be talking with ye, for is coming/ercetai <2064> (5736) the, of the world/kosmou <2889> , Chief/arcwn <758>, and in Me not he is having anything;

John 18:3 The then Judas getting the detachment and out of the chief-priests/arc-ierewn <749> and out of the Pharisees, officers, is coming/ercetai <2064> (5736) there thither with torches and lamps, and weapons;

 

[Biblewriter]

Hi. What greek texts did he use?
For example, some translation use "world" and some "age" in 2 corin 4:4. The correct word is "age".

http://www.scripture4all.org/

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm

Darby) 2 Corinthians 4:4 in whom the god of this world has blinded........

NKJV) 2 Corinthians 4:4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded........

[Tex-Rec] 2 Corinthians 4:4 en {IN} oiV {WHOM} o {THE} qeoV {GOD} tou {OF THE} aiwnoV {AGE} toutou {THE-THIS} etuflwsen {BLINDED}

While I love the memory of J. N. Darby, (I personally own more than sixty volumes of his writings) I deeply regret his choice of textural authority. He stated that he accepted changes from the received text only when they were agreed upon by all four of the leading textural critics of the day. Unfortunately all four of these critics relied heavily upon the Sianiaticus and Vatacinus manuscripts.

The world of textural criticism revers these manuscripts because they are thought to be hundreds of years older than any others. But by his own admission each of these manuscripts showed signs of willful tampering. That is, of intentionally made changes.

When the question is, what was the true original text, I, for the life of me, can not understand why anyone would give any credence whatsoever to anything in a manuscript that they thought had been willfully altered anywhere.

It is a commonly known fact that each of these manuscripts omitted numerous references to the Deity of Christ.

 

[holdon]

While I love the memory of J. N. Darby, (I personally own more than sixty volumes of his writings) I deeply regret his choice of textural authority. He stated that he accepted changes from the received text only when they were agreed upon by all four of the leading textural critics of the day. Unfortunately all four of these critics relied heavily upon the Sianiaticus and Vatacinus manuscripts.

The world of textural criticism revers these manuscripts because they are thought to be hundreds of years older than any others. But by his own admission each of these manuscripts showed signs of willful tampering. That is, of intentionally made changes.

When the question is, what was the true original text, I, for the life of me, can not understand why anyone would give any credence whatsoever to anything in a manuscript that they thought had been willfully altered anywhere.

It is a commonly known fact that each of these manuscripts omitted numerous references to the Deity of Christ.

I don't think that the translation choices "world" or "age" in 2 Cor 4:4 were influenced by any manuscript variations.
Darby himself said that his version was limited in the sense that he (and the audience) being so used to the KJV, he chose to not deviate if not absolutely necessary. Excerpt from his introduction:
"In the next place the reader has not a revision of the Authorised Version, but a translation from the best Greek text I could attain to any certain knowledge of. I do not doubt a moment that numbers of phrases of the Authorised Version will be found in the translation. Filled as the mind is with it from constant use, it suggested itself naturally to the mind. I had no wish to reject it. But a revision of the Authorised Version, if desirable for ecclesiastical use, is not (I think) in itself a wise attempt. I rather doubt the justness of the taste which attempts to revise the Authorised Version. The new bit does not suit the old, and is the more distasteful from its juxtaposition. Imitation is seldom good taste, seldom undetected; it wants nature, and in these things nature is good taste, and attracts.

http://www.awmach.org/webo/BDB/introduction.htm

He was well aware of course of the differences between "kosmos" and "age" in the Greek: witness his French translation which does make the difference in all instances.

I think if one bears in mind Darby's approach as evidenced in his introduction and abundant footnotes, that there is hardly a better version of the bible out there. But it is a bit old English by now of course.

 

[Biblewriter]

I don't think that the translation choices "world" or "age" in 2 Cor 4:4 were influenced by any manuscript variations.
Darby himself said that his version was limited in the sense that he (and the audience) being so used to the KJV, he chose to not deviate if not absolutely necessary. Excerpt from his introduction:
"In the next place the reader has not a revision of the Authorised Version, but a translation from the best Greek text I could attain to any certain knowledge of. I do not doubt a moment that numbers of phrases of the Authorised Version will be found in the translation. Filled as the mind is with it from constant use, it suggested itself naturally to the mind. I had no wish to reject it. But a revision of the Authorised Version, if desirable for ecclesiastical use, is not (I think) in itself a wise attempt. I rather doubt the justness of the taste which attempts to revise the Authorised Version. The new bit does not suit the old, and is the more distasteful from its juxtaposition. Imitation is seldom good taste, seldom undetected; it wants nature, and in these things nature is good taste, and attracts.

http://www.awmach.org/webo/BDB/introduction.htm

He was well aware of course of the differences between "kosmos" and "age" in the Greek: witness his French translation which does make the difference in all instances.

I think if one bears in mind Darby's approach as evidenced in his introduction and abundant footnotes, that there is hardly a better version of the bible out there. But it is a bit old English by now of course.

If you follow the link you provided to the 1871 version, you will find the comments I referred to.