The Sword of The Lord on The 2011 NIV Update
The Sword of The Lord on The 2011 NIV Update
The October 2, 2009 edition of The Sword of The Lord has an article entitled “NIV Revision Coming in 2011”. In this article written by the editor (Dr. Shelton Smith) one finds the typical resistance to any English translation of the Bible other than the King James Version. A few things in particular bothered me about the article, and they are as follows:
-
“…it is a bad ‘Bible’. Perhaps it would be more precise to say that it is a bad version. I honestly hate to use the word Bible in connection with a product that does not deserve the title.”
What can one say about such a statement? It is so obviously incorrect that it is shameful. One would think that the NIV had changed the text of God’s Word to such an extent that there would be nothing holy found in it. After all, so long as it is God’s Word, it is God’s Word; is it not? For it to not be classified “Bible” it would have to have been so changed as to no longer contain the truth concerning God, salvation, and holiness. While many of us may prefer to use a translation other than the NIV, we cannot find support for such a baseless charge as the Bible no longer being classified as the Bible.
-
“Am I so naive as to assume all the updates will be language? Look at their track record!”
What is the track record of the NIV translators? Smith does not say. My experience leads me to believe that this is an argument that goes back to those handy-dandy little Bible comparison charts. Said argument is fundamentally flawed.
-
“Keith Danby said, ‘And we’ll make sure we get it right this time.’ Is that an admission that the thirty-one-year-old NIV has been right any of the time that they’ve hawked it and sold it like hotcakes?”
Honestly, I have not seen such a quote from Danby and Dr. Smith does not cite his reference. At the same time, it is indeed possible that he made that statement. If he did, allow me to give an imaginative context. Danby was involved in the TNIV. That was a flop. It was divisive and seemed to do little good for most evangelicals. In my imagination I see Danby making such a statement regarding the TNIV. Why? Because of the following:
“’In 1997, IBS announced that it was forgoing all plans to publish an updated NIV following criticism of the NIV inclusive language edition (NIVi) published in the United Kingdom. Quite frankly, some of the criticism was justified and we need to be brutally honest about the mistakes that were made,’ Danby said. ‘We fell short of the trust that was placed in us. We failed to make the case for revisions and we made some important errors in the way we brought the translation to publication. We also underestimated the scale of the public affection for the NIV and failed to communicate the rationale for change in a manner that reflected that affection.’
Danby said it was also a mistake to stop revisions on the NIV. ‘We shackled the NIV to the language and scholarship of a quarter century ago, thus limiting its value as a tool for ongoing outreach throughout the world,’ he said.
‘Whatever its strengths were, the TNIV divided the evangelical Christian community,” said Zondervan president Moe Girkins. “So as we launch this new NIV, we will discontinue putting out new products with the TNIV.’
Girkins expects the TNIV and the existing edition of the NIV to phase out over two years or so as products are replaced. ‘It will be several years before you won’t be able to buy the TNIV off a bookshelf,’ she said.
‘We are correcting the mistakes in the past,’ Girkins said. ‘Being as transparent as possible is part of that. This decision was made by the board in the last 10 days.’ She said the transparency is part of an effort to overhaul the NIV ‘in a way that unifies Christian evangelicalism.’
‘The first mistake was the NIVi,’ Danby said. ‘The second was freezing the NIV. The third was the process of handling the TNIV.’” (Christianity Today)
Let us not forget that the NIV of 1978 is different from the NIVi and TNIV. If we do not recall the difference we may find ourselves making a mistake similar to that of Dr. Smith’s and lose credibility in so doing.
It is sad that we have to contend with Christian brothers over an issue such as this. Though I honestly have found nothing that endears the NIV to me above other modern translations, I cannot deny its being God’s Word, the Bible. It is truly a lack of careful thinking that leads one to so lightly dismiss God’s Word when the KJV translators stated, “we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God. ” (See Jesus Is Lord) (See also PastoralMusings’ “The KJVO Translators’ Preface to The Reader”) The worst translation, the KJVO translators declared, still contains and is the Word of God. We must not forget that truth.
It is also sad that one who is a Christian newspaper editor would seemingly take a quote of context and apply it to something other than that of which the person quoted was speaking. Even if it were an honest mistake, we would expect Dr. Smith to have done better than he did.
While I am not KJVO, I am KJV preferred. I use it exclusively in preaching and primarily in studying. I cannot, however, sit idly by when others abuse and twist the truth. If one wishes to be KJVO, in charity we allow them that privilege. We shall not seek to impose our views upon their consciences, but shall only present the truth concerning the issue. We expect the same honest discourse from them. Denying the presence of the Word of God in the NIV and quoting someone out of context will do nothing to further the cause of Christ.
While the Scriptures do not demand our using a certain English translation, they do demand that we be honest and charitable. Let us seek to do so, especially since we have a common enemy: sin. God is glorified when we disagree amiably. May the glory of God be our goal.
First posted on Fundamentally Changed.
Tags: Bible, Bible Versions, Christianity, debate, King James, King James Only, King James Version, KJV, KJV Only, KJV-onlyism, KJVO
Well, since the KJV is the absolute inspired Word of God, then surely it is most pure in it’s 1611 form. Therefore I hereby condemn all use of any of these modern KJV’s and call the church back to the Original Absolute Inspired W.O.G. which can be found here: http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?textID=kjbible&PagePosition=1
If the KJV1611 was good enough for Paul and Silas it’s good enough for me!
Brad,
I do hope that is a satirical response to my post.
I certainly cannot believe that any right-minded individual truly can believe that Paul and Silas preached from the KJV. It is logically and chronologically impossible.
Why Jason, didn’t you know the ‘tablets’ Moses received from the hand of God Himself were actually the first printing plates for the KJV? I’m shocked at such ignorance, shocked I say.
The reason Sheldon Smith and other Bible believers share a “typical resistance to any English translation of the Bible other than the King James Version” is because ALL new versions are from Vaticanus.
Are you on the Pope’s payroll or do you promote his bible (and the translations from it) as a “ministry”?
Greg,
Thanks for stopping by and commenting.
“ALL new versions are from Vaticanus.”
Would you please provide your source of information on that?
Secondly, we are neithert promoting the Pope nor the Jerusalem Bible. You do know, don’t you, that the Jerusalem Bible and the DR are the Catholic Bibles? The NIV was produced in the US by a predominately protestant group.
Finally, you will notice this statement: “While I am not KJVO, I am KJV preferred. I use it exclusively in preaching and primarily in studying. I cannot, however, sit idly by when others abuse and twist the truth. If one wishes to be KJVO, in charity we allow them that privilege. We shall not seek to impose our views upon their consciences, but shall only present the truth concerning the issue. We expect the same honest discourse from them. Denying the presence of the Word of God in the NIV and quoting someone out of context will do nothing to further the cause of Christ.”
That answers your question concerning my “promotion” of the NIV. It also leaves me with a question: Did you READ this article, or did you simply write a comment?
Please remember to bring facts and charity to the table when you comment here. False accusations and dishonesty do not honor the cause of Christ.
Jason
If you visit my web site, you will see the documentation from nearly a dozen sources documenting this fact.
It is a fact. And to think of the mindless “evangelicals” running around hero-worshipping “scholars” instead of looking at the reality. Nearly every NIV-using believer has checked his or her brains in at the door of the cult of personality.
It is a fact that Westcott and Hort used Vaticanus almost exclusively and only filled in the massive blanks (Genesis, Psalms, Hebrews, etc.) using the sister-manuscripts (Siniaticus, Alexandrinus, etc.).
There is a reason the the Jerusalem Bible is nearly IDENTICAL to the NIV. There is a reason the Pope endorses the use of the NIV. There is a reason Vatican II and every Pope since has encouraged joint translation work with “separated brethren”. There is a reason for the Emergent Church movement gaining such a hold on new version readers.
Because ALL new translations–Jerusalem, NIV, NASB, etc., ALL come from the Pope’s Library via his Vatican manuscript.
I have confronted NUMEROUS “scholars” with this fact and they run like scared little children from the discussion.
Watch my videos, research my sources and stop being used by the Pope. You will answer to God for what you are doing.
I should have mentioned that the title of the video is, “Why King James Only?”
I used to use the NIV until I found out the truth.
New versions are nothing but Vaticanus with edits and everyone pushing them, using them, promoting them and defending them are what the Pope calls “useful idiots” being used to push his bible onto Christendom and the world.
Your comment: ‘”ne would think that the NIV had changed the text of God’s Word to such an extent that there would be nothing holy found in it.”
This is RIDICULOUS. By that standard, the New World Translation and Readers Digest Bible should be accepted. To claim that you cannot find the truth about God, salvation and holiness in the New World Translation is a LIE. It’s been done, documented and posted.
By what insane logic do you ascribe “Bible” to a book that comes from Satan’s seat in Rome?
It’s a sad, sick “church” you represent. It’s called Laodicea.
Greg,
I started to reply to you and deal with your alleged facts.
I then realized that you care nothing about facts. Your mind is fixed, set, and very muddled. If it were not you would have considered my statements and not made baseless and slanderous accusations against me.
I shall leave you with a prayer that the Lord will heal you of your bitterness and help you to see how divisive your stance is.
In Christ,
Jason
Jason,
You have proven you are another mindless idiot. You are one of those prophesied in the last days. You didn’t answer because you have no answer (just like the other apostates going around bearing false witness against God’s word).
So, play your little games and PRETEND that your lack of response has something to do with your emotional inability to deal with confrontation (or, a lack of a spine, as one might say…), but you don’t have any response.
My documentation if FACT and irrefutable and you and I will look each other face to face at the Judgment Seat of Christ (if that is where you are going) and you will be ashamed of yourself.
May God have mercy on you.
Greg M.
I’m curious as to the basis of the assertions concerning Rome.
1 – When did Rome become Satan’s seat? Where did he live before Rome was settled in 750 BC?
2 – Is everything Roman of Satan? If so, shouldn’t we expunge Latin words from our language?
3 – For centuries, the Roman see condemned the use of Greek New Testaments. Wouldn’t they have supported the use of Vaticanus?
4 – Vaticanus deviates rather heavily from the Latin Vulgate, which was in use in the Roman churches for centuries. Did Satan have it Vaticanus in a safety deposit box waiting for Westcott & Hort?
Just some honest questions…ok, so they were A LITTLE sarcastic.
Greg,
What’s wrong with the Vaticanus? Is the fact that it was located in a Catholic library for hundreds of years, enough to taint it as an unacceptable manuscript?
By that standard, the texts that support the KJV, were predominantly copied out by Eastern Orthodox monks. Does that fact make them bad and unacceptable?
The Vulgate clearly is a Catholic Bible, but it is the only or primary source for several prominent verses included in the KJV. 1 John 5:7 and Acts 9:6 are some of those passages. Does that bother you? Only Latin manuscripts of a Catholic taint, support the KJV reading of 1 Jn. 5:7, except for four late Greek manuscripts, and four others which have it in the margin.
Erik, Rome became Satan’s seat when the Bishop of Rome began fornicating with pagan Rome and joined hands with Constantine. Constantine was Pontifex Maximus and shortly after his death, Damasus took the title for the Popes where it remains.
This “High Priest” (of pagan origin) then became “Holy Father”, a title of divinity reserved for God the Father. He became “Vicar of Christ” which is Anti-Christ (although modern demoniacs fight tooth and nail to avoid this obvious fact).
The Roman Church IS the seat of Satan and all non-Conformist Christians have understood this until these last days when Christians became so dumbed-down that they can’t see right side up.
For example, Church History is the story of two churches (Rome–and her offspring Vs. anti-Rome) and throughout that history, Rome has sought to destroy the Antioch Bible (also called Byzantine MSS) used by non-Roman Christians and replace it with the Vaticanus (Vulgate up to the 17th century).
All sarcasm aside, it is clear that most professing Christians are swallowing the propaganda and adopting Rome.
fundyreformed, your information is bogus.
There are only around 500 MSS with 1 John 5. Of those, “It is contained in 629 (fourteenth century), 61 (sixteenth century), 918 (sixteenth century), 2473 (seventeenth century), and 2318 (eighteenth century). It is also in the margins of 221 (tenth century), 635 (eleventh century), 88 (twelveth century), 429 (fourteenth century), and 636 (fifteenth century).”
In addition, the Old Latin pre-dates Jerome’s Vulgate by two centuries and the vast number of extant MSS of these contain it.
Cyprian, Priscillian, Tertullian, the anonymous “Varimadum” of 380 AD, Cassian, Cassiodurs, etc., quote it. The construction the text demands that it be retained and the discussion could go on…
The bottom line is that you oversimplify and horribly misstate the reality of the evidence.
See http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_1jo5_7.html
See also, “Forever Settled,” by Jack Moorman.
Greg,
We’ll deal with that passage in the future. I agree I may be understating the case for 1 John 5:7 slightly. By the same standard, you are manifestly overstating the case for it immensely. The fact that it is only in 1% of the Greek manuscripts we have that contain 1 John should matter to us. It should be surprising. There should be some good explanation for that.
Also, for all the manuscripts that don’t have it, do we conclude now that they are faulty manuscripts that are unworthy? Or do we turn around and use those same manuscripts to argue for the translation of our choice?
Is there a Scriptural basis for this statement that Rome is Satan’s seat?
You are aware that Constantine did not rule from Rome? His capital was nominally Ravenna, but like Diocletian before him, his court actually moved around the empire quite extensively before settling in Nova Roma (Constantinople). Constantine probably did not spend more than a couple of months in the city of Rome in his entire reign.
And if anything Constantine was hostile to the bishop of Rome. He blatantly ignored Rome’s envoys during the Council of Nicaea and really could not have cared less about them. He elevated the patriarchate of Nova Roma, which was confirmed to Rome’s dismay, at the Council of Chalcedon in 451.
The argument that Rome is the “seat of Satan” dates from the Reformation, and it had more to do with the Borgia and Medici popes than it does with Constantine.
I’m not saying that the Roman Church is right or even good, but a little more research into your history beyond those who derive all their “facts” from Alexander Hisslop might be helpful.
fundyreformed, how could I have overstated the case when I didn’t give half of the evidence? I am curious as to whether you read the article at the link I gave. Or if you have read Jack Moorman’s book, “Forever Settled.” Or if you will read this article one:
http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/a1joh5_7.htm
Erik, a key to understanding the location of “satan’s seat” is not Alexander Hislop. It’s more a matter of hermeneutics and whether you are a Bible believer. If so, then you are dispensational and you understand that the seven churches represent periods of church history.
If you are not a Bible believer, then I can’t help you. But you’ll be blind as a bat all your life until you get a grip on this basic concept.
And I’ve read Schaff, Kuyper, Broadbent, Kennedy, Ruckman and various other histories. I’ve found that the typical church history is a load. Evangelicals start with the typical Roman Catholic view of church history and simply veer left of center at the Reformation, totally ignoring the histories of the Valdois, the early translations that pre-date Rome’s political dominance and WHITEWASH the millions of Bible Christians murdered by Rome’s Popes.
If YOU do a little more research, you might find out that Hislop was soft on Rome.
Rome is the most Satanic fraud ever hatched by Satan in the name of “Christianity” and is sending more people to Hell with it’s works-based Gospel than all the other cults combined.
Greg,
It’s very difficult interacting with you, when you have such a combative, abrasive manner. If you think you have the truth, remember to speak it in love. Screaming at each other is not going to be very productive, and if that is all we do, we can just exit the discussion right now.
I scanned through the link you gave, I’ve read other articles by Holland before. I do respect him. I’ve read Forever Settled cover to cover. I also read the section on 1 John 5:7 in Moorman’s “Where the KJV Departs from the So-Called Majority Text”. I’ve also read more mainstream scholarly articles and sections on 1 John. This article, for instance, points out how Cyprian’s quote of 1 John 5:7 is only of the “these three are one” line, which is also in 1 John 5:8. The article points out how Cyprian is very careful to spell out what is Scripture and what are his comments, so it is clear from Cyprian’s work that he is using the passage as it stands in without the disputed words, and is allegorizing in his interpretation and coming up with the Trinity. It is exactly this kind of thing which likely originated the wrong reading.
Now you KJV guys are quick to jump the gun and assume conspiracies where most scholars don’t see any. So why is there not an outrage over 1 John 5:7′s absence in the majority of Greek texts? KJV Onlyists are very quick to condemn modern versions without 1 John 5:7, but they don’t condemn the vast majority of Greek texts that don’t contain it. They don’t condemn that majority, because it is the very same majority that gave birth to the KJV and to which KJV Onlyists appeal for massive textual support.
If a conspiracy exists, then it would be the Byzantine texts which have 1 Jn. 5:7 ripped out of them, and thus prove to be tampered texts that aren’t worth looking to for support of any reading. Once the text ignores 1 John 5:7, how could you appeal to it as a true witness for any other text? And yet this is what KJV Onlyists do.
The case of 1 Jn. 5:7 is a testimony to the complexity of the KJV Only debate. It’s so much more of a story than what the conspiracy theorists would have us believe.
QUOTE: It’s more a matter of hermeneutics and whether you are a Bible believer. If so, then you are dispensational and you understand that the seven churches represent periods of church history.
If you are a Bible believer, you MUST be dispensational AND believe the seven churches represent periods of church history? Can you show me a single ancient Christian who embraced this interpretation of the seven churches?
Erik, your “ancient christians” break down into two categories:
1. The heretics whose writings survive under Papal protection and,
2. The Bible Believers whose writings were destroyed under Papal persecution.
If you are impressed by Clement’s dillusions of the Phoenix, or Justin’s demoniac rage against the Jews (throw in Chrysostom for good measure) or any of the other church infants, then you will be hard pressed to hold an intelligent opinion on any matter relating to Scripture.
If the Bible Believers’ writings were all destroyed, how do you know they existed? It sounds like an argument from silence.
You have no evidence that this is the ONLY way Bible-Believers interpreted the seven churches, and you certainly can’t get it out of just reading the passages unless you come to it with the idea already in your head.
We know the writings existed because there are plenty of historic accounts of the writings being destroyed (usually burned with the non-Roman Christian).
What I think is SICK is how the “silence” caused by the murderous, bloodthirsty Popes is REWARDED by modern day scribes. Instead of making a point to teach about this dark and evil cult and holding them accountable, today’s limp-wristed effeminates yawn at the millions of tortured and murdered born again Christians who were annihilated by Rome.
And it takes only a basic knowledge of church history to see the obvious relationship with the seven churches and the way church history has unfolded and brought us to the time of the Laodicean Church of the Health, Wealth, Educated and Lukewarm.
Greg,
I had no intention of dignifying your diatribes with further reply, but you must be called on this:
“What I think is SICK is how the “silence” caused by the murderous, bloodthirsty Popes is REWARDED by modern day scribes. Instead of making a point to teach about this dark and evil cult and holding them accountable, today’s limp-wristed effeminates yawn at the millions of tortured and murdered born again Christians who were annihilated by Rome.”
You don’t know me personally. You don’t know my preaching. You don’t know my life. I dare say that I stand just as strongly against Romanism as you or any IFB extremist that comes along. I stand against sin and preach hard against it. I also have been blessed to know Jesus and His forgiving grace. In that grace I have learned that one should be careful about making judgments where he has no knowledge.
Solomon stated that a man who speaks about an issue before he has information about it acts foolishly and brings shame to himself. (Prov 18:13). You are shamefully guilty of this.
When you get this beam out of your eye, act with Christian charity, and apologize to us, we may actually begin to give a little respect to you and what you have to say.
Rest assured that it won’t happen before then, though. You are not walking according to your calling in Christ.
I recommend to you to repent, calm down, read your KJV and live it. Then come back here, read, pay attention to what we’re saying, and we’ll talk with you and discuss this as Christian gentlemen should.
Jason
A basic knowledge of church history? Ok, then when did the Laodicean period begin?
Better yet, when did the Philadelphia era begin or end? Are the eras only tied to European/American church? Since Latin America did not experience some of the changes that the European/American church did (like the Great Awakening) are they still in the Laodicean period?
What about the churches in China which are stronger than ever but were virtually nonexistent 200 years ago?
All you have is a very, very basic understanding of church history and a eurocentric one at that. I feel bad for you.
The church ages overlap. You know… like the Gospels begin under Law and carry us into the age of Grace while Acts is a transition and carries us into the age of Grace (Acts 15)… and then Revelation begins with an overview of churches (with application to local churches in 90 AD, to all churches spiritually and to churches ages prophetically), picks up the church in 4:1 (as John represents) and there is no reference to the church until Revelation 20-22.
I avoid dates as this is a general overview of church history, but the Philadelphia period begins the missionary movement and appears to live on as a remnant until the Rapture. Laodicea is in the making and finds it’s full blossom in the seven year Tribulation period.
Your whitewash of the churches in Latin America and China shows an incredible naivete. Millions of souls are being won, but the churches are in shambles. China is ruled by the Three Self apostasy and Latin America is being gutted by WordFaith and Emergent church heresies. Praise God for the souls, but don’t call that mess “revival”.
YOU have a very basic understanding of church history, as well as the reality of the contemporary situation around the world. I doubt you’ve read any of the works I’ve referenced, for starters and I can see that you where rose-colored glasses with lenses too weak for your eyes.
You can remind spiritually short-sighted if you wish… or you can open your eyes, take off the bad spectacles you are looking through and come to terms with reality.
Those using Vaticanus are Laodicean.
Greg, consider yourself banned. We don’t need this over here. Go plague other boards or blogs. Read the commenting policy.
Good call, Bob.
we should thank brother Miller for giving us an excellent example of the extreme KJVO mentality.
It looks like Greg has been reading Bill Grady too much. Grady wrote a book several years ago called “What Hath God Wrought?” which basically blames all problems in the world from famines to world wars on the Catholic church, new versions and rock n’ roll music….oh ya, and don’t forget Billy Graham.
I would think 1881 is a good year to note as a line of demarcation of overlap and underlap of the Church of the Laodiceans and the Church in Philadelphia because after all, that is when the Laodiceans started to accept the old/new Bible which after 7 years were rewarded for their deeds by being visited by Jack the Ripper (by their fruits ye shall know them). The Philadelphian Church Age will continue as long as the Rapture because there are going to be those who stand for the faith once delivered to the saints until that time. Revelation 3 says (well at least it does in my Bible) …
Re 3:10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.
11 Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.
12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.
Joe,
What does this comment have to do with the subject at hand?
It proves nothing. It is subjective opinion and has no basis in fact.
Joe, you’re not seriously saying that Jack the Ripper’s presence was a consequence of the 1881 revision, are you? Not to be offensive, but that is patently absurd. There’s no reason to make that correlation.
Have you ever considered the possibility that the churches of Revelation were all in existence at the same time when John wrote them and that maybe they continue to be in existence – that the Church has always had elements of the seven churches in them and that they do not necessarily represent actual historical ages (an idea that only came into fashion in the last century)?
Seriously, the only way you can get Church history to fit into the scheme of the Seven Churches being historical ages is if you basically ignore actual history and create a revisionist history that supports your view. I’ve spent a lot of time studying Church history, particularly at the supposed crisis points of this chronological view and it falls far short of actual history.
Wow.
Unbelievable.
The stuff these guys will come up with. This really makes the dispensational view look aweful.
First of all, there’s no indication in the text of Revelation that the seven churches are church ages. They’re seven kinds of churches that have always existed and always will until Jesus comes. I dare you to tell the believers in Saudi Arabia and Sudan that they are Laodiceans!
Wow. + 1
Wow. +2.
What was our punishment for the ESV (English Standard Version)? The Clinton administration?
Don’t go there, Doug. The ESV came out in 2001, so of course 911 was our punishment!!!
Amusing that Bob and I came up with the same answer to this. (Doug is part of our church and I had sent the link to the comment to him earlier).
That was way too funny!
I turned this comment into a main post today, due to the interest.
http://kjvodebate.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/jack-the-ripper-and-the-king-james-bible/
[...] at the KJVO Debate Blog, this comment was posted: I would think 1881 is a good year to note as a line of demarcation of overlap and underlap of the [...]
[...] the comment we received right here yesterday which alleges this very thing, that Jack the Ripper is judgment for abandoning [...]
[...] the comment we received at the KJV Only? debate blog yesterday which alleges this very thing, that Jack the Ripper was [...]