# Riddle responds to Ward's review of "Why I preach from the Received Text"



## kodos (Aug 16, 2022)

Riddle does a good job on responding to Ward's review on the book. After reading the book, and then reading Ward's review, I felt he completely missed (and did not engage with) the arguments concerning Providential Preservation in the book and only seemed to see the three letters "KJV" throughout.

I am glad to see Riddle do a capable job of responding to Ward's review.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Logan (Aug 16, 2022)

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding here.

Riddle says "after supposedly reading through our book...Mark Ward thinks that the main issue with the book is what it has to say about the intelligibility of the King James Version."

But that's not what Ward said. He said "And then I’ll examine what they said about the main issue at stake _in the debate over the KJV_: the current intelligibility of Elizabethan English."

Ward is fascinated by linguistics and has written extensively on his blog about the KJV. He has a youtube channel where he has a myriad of videos explaining what he calls "false friends", which are words or phrases that one thinks they know, but in which the meaning has actually shifted since it was translated. He "fixates" on that aspect because that is what is important to him in the "debate over the KJV". Not because he thinks that is the thrust of the book. Ward doesn't engage with the primary premise at all but focused on the secondary, tangential one which is [the subject] he usually engages with.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## kodos (Aug 16, 2022)

Logan said:


> Ward doesn't engage with the primary premise at all but focused on the secondary, tangential one which is what he usually engages with.



I think that says it all.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## B.L. (Aug 16, 2022)

I read the transcript of the WM 247 rejoinder and listened to part of the audio and I don't believe Pastor Riddle responded well at all. From referring to Ward as an "anti-KJV activist" to questioning whether Ward actually even read the book, to making the rather lame comparison that the book has had 11 reviews on Amazon and Ward gave it two stars while every other reviewer gave it five stars....I found it hard to listen to. Pastor Riddle came across rather prideful and condescending in my opinion.


----------



## Taylor (Aug 16, 2022)

B.L. said:


> I read the transcript of the WM 247 rejoinder and listened to part of the audio and I don't believe Pastor Riddle responded well at all. From referring to Ward as an "anti-KJV activist" to questioning whether Ward actually even read the book, to making the rather lame comparison that the book has had 11 reviews on Amazon and Ward gave it two stars while every other reviewer gave it five stars....I found it hard to listen to. Pastor Riddle came across rather prideful and condescending in my opinion.


Remember, though, that by reading a transcript you cannot pick up on verbal cues such as tone. I listened to the actual podcast, and he didn’t come off as prideful at all. I thought he was rather measured.

And while Mark Ward is not _technically_ anti-KJV, given his consistent demeanor toward the translation—i.e., scarcely making even a positive comment about it—his constant defense of himself that he “loves” the KJV does ring somewhat hollow.

I say all this as someone who has benefitted from Mark’s work. I enjoy his YouTube channel. I think he is helpful in discussing translations as translations, but I’m wondering if he is in a little over his head now that he is entering the text-critical ring. Not sure.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Logan (Aug 16, 2022)

That bothered me as well. The three opening remarks (setting the stage) were:

- Ward is a well-known anti-KJV activist (I'd not characterize him as that at all, no more than I am)
- Ward posted a "caustic review" (I didn't find it caustic or toxic, in tone or content)
- Ward gives the book 2 stars while every other review gives it 5

That's biasing the audience before you even get to the content.

Toward the end, Riddle completely mis-read Ward. He quotes Ward saying:
“I see in this book an effort to marginalize some TR defenders who cannot speak with any of the intelligence and grace (most of) these authors used.”

To which Riddle responds
"I see here a mark of inconsistency. In the previous paragraph he said our views are “almost always accompanied by a spirit of arrogance and strife,” but he now says the authors in this anthology generally speak with 'intelligence and grace.' Which is it?"

Riddle is referring to the remarks he had just quoted, where Ward said:
“The editors picked some of the most capable and gracious men of their sect, but at the lay and pastoral levels their views are almost always accompanied by a spirit of arrogance and strife."

There is no inconsistency: Ward clearly states that (most of) the authors in the collection of essays speak with intelligence and grace and _contrasts_ that to the "lay and pastoral levels" which are almost always "accompanied by a spirit of arrogance and strife".

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## kodos (Aug 16, 2022)

Ward wrote a review that did not deal with the fundamental thesis of the book but dealt with the KJV. If that is what passes for a good or even honest review — I really don't know what to say. I'm simply astonished.

Ward does his fair share of poisoning the well. He says Myers is in sin for his view (take it to his Presbytery if so) and also says most KJV defenders are arrogant and full of strife.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## iainduguid (Aug 16, 2022)

kodos said:


> Ward wrote a review that did not deal with the fundamental thesis of the book but dealt with the KJV. If that is what passes for a good or even honest review — I really don't know what to say. I'm simply astonished.
> 
> Ward does his fair share of poisoning the well. He says Myers is in sin for his view *(take it to his Presbytery if so)* and also says most KJV defenders are arrogant and full of strife.


Seriously Rom? Every time we think someone in an entirely different denomination is in sin, we have to take it up with their presbytery? Have you ever tried taking up a matter of sin in a brother in your own presbytery, let alone another denomination? I have done it within my own presbytery when I thought it was necessary, and it was one of the most difficult experiences of my life. I can't imagine pursuing a case against someone in a different denomination, even if he thinks the Bible to whose translation I contributed (the CSB) is "based on Satan's Bible" (which seems to me a clear calumny of God's Word). If he is in sin for saying that, well, he has a master to whom he is accountable and that isn't me. I have enough to deal with, seeking to repent of my own sins, without feeling obligated to police everyone else's outside my sphere of responsibility. And if every time I sin, people feel the need to inform my presbytery, we'd have no time to get anything done.

Reactions: Like 7 | Informative 1


----------



## kodos (Aug 16, 2022)

iainduguid said:


> Seriously Rom? Every time we think someone in an entirely different denomination is in sin, we have to take it up with their presbytery? Have you ever tried taking up a matter of sin in a brother in your own presbytery, let alone another denomination? I have done it within my own presbytery when I thought it was necessary, and it was one of the most difficult experiences of my life. I can't imagine pursuing a case against someone in a different denomination, even if he thinks the Bible to whose translation I contributed (the CSB) is "based on Satan's Bible" (which seems to me a clear calumny of God's Word). If he is in sin for saying that, well, he has a master to whom he is accountable and that isn't me. I have enough to deal with, seeking to repent of my own sins, without feeling obligated to police everyone else's outside my sphere of responsibility. And if every time I sin, people feel the need to inform my presbytery, we'd have no time to get anything done.


I am sorry this is a touchy subject. Ward made a very public accusation of a minister being in sin. You can discount my offhand parenthetical comment if you wish - my greater point still stands without it. I still believe that Ward's review misses the point of the book. I'll leave it at that.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Logan (Aug 16, 2022)

kodos said:


> I still believe that Ward's review misses the point of the book. I'll leave it at that.



I'd agree with that. And perhaps it is in poor taste to leave a low public review of a book based primarily upon its coverage of a topic that is only tangential to the main topic.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## kodos (Aug 17, 2022)

I reached out to @iainduguid about his response to my comment. He was very helpful in understanding where he was coming from. When I spoke about "take it up with his presbytery" - it was not intended to shut down criticism or critique hiding behind Matthew 18. I can see how my statement came across now. I was certainly careless in writing it. It was just jarring to see a review that directly charged a minister with sin - so I was taken aback by that. Mr. Ward can certainly criticize Mr. Myer's article. So, please forgive me, that I gave you the impression I was trying to use church discipline as a means to shield folks from public criticism. That was not my intention at all.

Reactions: Like 8 | Love 2 | Edifying 7


----------



## Jake (Aug 17, 2022)

I'm admittedly wandering into this thread without having read the book or being familiar with Mark Ward at all before this thread, but I'm not sure why it's problematic to review a book from one angle of which someone is most familiar. Based on his review and even the table of contents of the book reviewed it seems that use of the KJV is a predominant theme in the book as well so I think it's worth looking there too. I'm not surprised as many TR advocates are also advocates of using the KJV, and we wandered into the same topic when discussing TR on this board before. The book is an anthology of essays not a unified work with a developed thesis.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Aug 17, 2022)

Jake said:


> I'm admittedly wandering into this thread without having read the book or being familiar with Mark Ward at all before this thread, but I'm not sure why it's problematic to review a book from one angle of which someone is most familiar. Based on his review and even the table of contents of the book reviewed it seems that use of the KJV is a predominant theme in the book as well so I think it's worth looking there too. I'm not surprised as many TR advocates are also advocates of using the KJV, and we wandered into the same topic when discussing TR on this board before. The book is an anthology of essays not a unified work with a developed thesis.


This is true from my reading of the book so far. I have only come across a couple of essays that are truly advocating for the TR and not also the KJV. It really does seem that in many cases the received text is only the KJV.

Reactions: Like 2 | Wow 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Aug 17, 2022)

Just piping in to remind that the KJV is the RT translation that became our common English Bible. It brought great unity to the church for many years and is still, in some denominations, doing so. That's why RT folks cling to the KJV, until the Lord sends such winds of the Spirit of unity and the time comes (if ever) to revise.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Aug 17, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Just piping in to remind that the KJV is the RT translation that became our common English Bible. It brought great unity to the church for many years and is still, in some denominations, doing so. That's why RT folks cling to the KJV, until the Lord sends such winds of the Spirit of unity and the time comes (if ever) to revise.


Well, it has been revised, just not recently. In Romans, there is still a part that calls the Holy Spirit an "it". I would say the NKJV is the revision as it fixes many of the translation/printing errors in the KJV.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Aug 17, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> Well, it has been revised, just not recently. In Romans, there is still a part that calls the Holy Spirit an "it". I would say the NKJV is the revision as it fixes many of the translation/printing errors in the KJV.


I understand that it varies pretty substantially in some things from the KJV. But in any case my view is that a revision of our Bible should be an ecclesiastical undertaking, in times of reformation of the church.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Aug 17, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I understand that it varies pretty substantially in some things from the KJV. But in any case my view is that a revision of our Bible should be an ecclesiastical undertaking, in times of reformation of the church.


I would say it varies in good ways, as in it corrects the issues and it uses the beloved Scrivener TR.

As to the other comment about an ecclesiastical undertaking, who gets to decide that? Like would this be reformed churches? Reformed plus Anglican? Reformed plus Anglican plus Lutheran? Shouldn't reformation be an ongoing thing in the reformed church. Also, were the revisions of the KJV and the TR ecclesiastical undertakings or were they undertakings of specific men like Beza and Erasmus (honest question)?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Aug 17, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> I would say it varies in good ways, as in it corrects the issues and it uses the beloved Scrivener TR.
> 
> As to the other comment about an ecclesiastical undertaking, who gets to decide that? Like would this be reformed churches? Reformed plus Anglican? Reformed plus Anglican plus Lutheran? Shouldn't reformation be an ongoing thing in the reformed church. Also, were the revisions of the KJV and the TR ecclesiastical undertakings or were they undertakings of specific men like Beza and Erasmus (honest question)?


God must bring these things about.
I would say that Beza and Erasmus did textual work that was good, no problems with scholars doing such. But they didn't publish new translations of the Bible for the use of the church.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Aug 17, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> God must bring these things about.
> I would say that Beza and Erasmus did textual work that was good, no problems with scholars doing such. But they didn't publish new translations of the Bible for the use of the church.


This seems like a standard that cannot really be defined. Also, since God is sovereign over all things, wouldn't he ultimately be the one that allowed all of the numerous other translations to come out as well? I could argue that God brought about the NKJV to correct all of the errors in the KJV. Another could argue that God brought about the CT manuscripts to correct the TR issues. It doesn't seem like this is a sound way to go about deciding what is allowed and not allowed. Also, where in scripture do we see standards for translation work? Keep in mind, we are talking about just the TR at this point.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## danekristjan (Aug 18, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> God must bring these things about.
> I would say that Beza and Erasmus did textual work that was good, no problems with scholars doing such. But they didn't publish new translations of the Bible for the use of the church.


Just an aside, Both Beza and Erasmus published translations for use in the church that were fairly widely used, and it can even be argued that their primary impetus for dealing with the Greek text at all was for the purpose of supporting their translations (especially in Erasmus' case).

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Logan (Aug 18, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I understand that it varies pretty substantially in some things from the KJV. But in any case my view is that a revision of our Bible should be an ecclesiastical undertaking, in times of reformation of the church.



The Tyndale and Coverdale Bibles weren't an ecclesiastical undertaking. They was primarily the work of individuals publishing "new translations of the Bible for the use of the church."
The Geneva Bible was a handful of refugees not particularly representing any ecclesiastical body or bodies.
The KJV wasn't a particularly ecclesiastical undertaking either.

It's also arguable that these translations, particularly the first three, were _a cause _of reformation, rather than it being done _in times_ of reformation.

I guess it's fine to have that view, or even see that as the ideal, but I also want to point out that that view would not have produced the most impactful translations we've had in history. I'd rather judge the translation primarily upon its own merits than judge it primarily by the circumstances under which it was produced.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 18, 2022)

Logan said:


> The KJV wasn't a particularly ecclesiastical undertaking either.


I guess you need to define for me ecclesiastical. It was the one thing all agreed on at the famous puritan, prelate conference with King James and it was undertaken by a team of English ecclesiastics, so by the church. That sounds ecclesiastical.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Aug 18, 2022)

I’m thinking in terms of those reformation things which have come to us from times of reformation and of church establishment; a key element, historically, of thorough reformation (I know this is not the view of many on the PB). This was the milieu, with all its imperfections, in which the KJV was commissioned and translated, and though maybe the authorized version didn’t take hold immediately with many reformers it did eventually, and in God’s providence served to unite and bless the reformed English speaking churches. 

I don’t hold that the KJV, as a translation, cannot be improved or that even a whole new translation using the received reformation family of texts should never be undertaken, but believe that it should and should have come about in a future time of reformation and unity, when God was/will be pleased once again to bestow that upon his church. Publishing and promoting and selling the first alternative to the received texts of our “common English Bible” (happened to be the RSV) was injurious and divisive. Kind of like introducing organs and man-made hymns into Protestant churches; all that coming about in times of the decline of the purity of the church. 

Just making these broad statements knowing there’s a lot of disagreement about these issues on the PB. It is in the end a doctrinal issue at root, so understandable.


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 18, 2022)

kodos said:


> I am sorry this is a touchy subject. Ward made a very public accusation of a minister being in sin. You can discount my offhand parenthetical comment if you wish - my greater point still stands without it. I still believe that Ward's review misses the point of the book. I'll leave it at that.


While I am glad that you and Iain worked things out, I would merely like to point out that Myers accused most of the Reformed world (given that the TR and the KJV is a minority position in the Reformed world) of being in sin by using Bibles based on Satan's Bible. The rest of us are in collusion with Satan, according to Myers. That is a very plain implication of his claim. That statement doesn't bother you, Rom, but Ward calling out Myers for his uncharitable statement is a problem? From where I stand, Ward used a rifle, and Myers a tactical nuclear weapon. Why didn't Myers take it up with all the presbyteries in the entire world instead of accusing them through this statement?

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 3


----------



## Logan (Aug 18, 2022)

NaphtaliPress said:


> I guess you need to define for me ecclesiastical. It was the one thing all agreed on at the famous puritan, prelate conference with King James and it was undertaken by a team of English ecclesiastics, so by the church. That sounds ecclesiastical.



I say it wasn't a _particularly_ ecclesiastical undertaking because it was driven by a king who was clearly politically motivated to bring others into conformity with the church he claimed to be head of. The committee was made up exclusively of members of the Anglican church, while those of other Reformed traditions (e.g., the Scottish Reformed), were intentionally excluded. That's why I wouldn't call it a particularly ecclesiastical endeavor despite being primarily performed by members of one ecclesiastical body (Anglican). Especially since many (most?) English-speaking Protestants would much rather have continued to use the Geneva.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Romans922 (Aug 18, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> I would merely like to point out that Myers accused most of the Reformed world (given that the TR and the KJV is a minority position in the Reformed world) of being in sin by using Bibles based on Satan's Bible. The rest of us are in collusion with Satan, according to Myers.



I think again you are seemingly taking things too emotionally, or you are too easily offended. Consider the arguments presented and respond to them. Myers calls the men who followed the CT position after Westcott and Hort "men of God" (Warfield, Hodge, etc.) even though they held a view contrary to his [Myers'] own. He's not calling anyone who doesn't hold his view satan's children or anything like that. Can a minister conclude that a great multitude of the Church is in sin? The question that should be asked is whether Myers' statements that lead to his conclusion are correct or not. 

What you are asserting is based on an argument _ad populum_. Is it not possible that the majority of 2020's Reformed world is in great error, in sin? Has a majority of the church at times throughout Scripture and history been in great error? And if so, how would you characterize that great error? I'm sure one possible description is "satanic". Influenced of course by Satan, the great deceiver. In sin. Are there other issues in the Church that one could characterize as Satanic or in sin? How about a good multitude of the Church believing abortion is fine? Or holding to Arminianism or dispensationalism? Wicked doctrines, deceiving many? Satanic? Sinful? Yes, hopefully, all on the PB would agree. Does that mean they are in collusion with Satan? No, we would all hopefully say they are deceived. So if we are talking about the bedrock of all doctrine -- the Scriptures. Is it possible, that the vast majority of the Church is deceived? Yes, it is possible. So instead of responding emotionally or being offended too easily, perhaps the response is looking at the arguments, examining your heart/faith, and then responding. Never consider the reformed world as being above reproach or as having all the answers.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 18, 2022)

Logan said:


> I say it wasn't a _particularly_ ecclesiastical undertaking because it was driven by a king who was clearly politically motivated to bring others into conformity with the church he claimed to be head of. The committee was made up exclusively of members of the Anglican church, while those of other Reformed traditions (e.g., the Scottish Reformed), were intentionally excluded. That's why I wouldn't call it a particularly ecclesiastical endeavor despite being primarily performed by members of one ecclesiastical body (Anglican). Especially since many (most?) English-speaking Protestants would much rather have continued to use the Geneva.


Okay; I understand it wasn't perfect and the King had an agenda, but it actually was something the puritans wanted at Hampton Court in 1604 and eventually saw as superior to the Geneva. So I think ecclesiastical is more apt than not particularly. By Gillespie's time writing in the mid 1630s he called it "our English" translation even with its imperfections. So one Scotsman two decades later saw it as not just England's bible.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Charles Johnson (Aug 18, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> God must bring these things about.
> I would say that Beza and Erasmus did textual work that was good, no problems with scholars doing such. But they didn't publish new translations of the Bible for the use of the church.


Beza did publish a translation.


----------



## Logan (Aug 18, 2022)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Okay; I understand it wasn't perfect and the King had an agenda, but it actually was something the puritans wanted at Hampton Court in 1604 and eventually saw as superior to the Geneva. So I think ecclesiastical is more apt than not particularly. By Gillespie's time writing in the mid 1630s he called it "our English" translation even with its imperfections. So one Scotsman two decades later saw it as not just England's bible.



Agreed with the eventual acceptance, but _at the time_ I don't think it would have fit Jeri's criteria.
Didn't the Puritans agree to a new translation as an alternative to the Bishop's Bible being forced on them? Not because they thought they needed a new one? Everything I've read indicates they would have kept the Geneva if that was an option.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Aug 18, 2022)

Logan said:


> Agreed with the eventual acceptance, but _at the time_ I don't think it would have fit Jeri's criteria.
> Didn't the Puritans agree to a new translation as an alternative to the Bishop's Bible being forced on them? Not because they thought they needed a new one?


I meant that God intended it, no matter the motives of the king or expectations of others. Edited to add that these are the kinds of things that come out of reformation and an established church. Similar to councils being called by kings with perhaps mixed or even wrong motives but God intending good for the church out of it.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Jake (Aug 18, 2022)

Jeri,

Most translations even ones used to great ends in the Reformation were done by individuals or small groups of men (as mentioned, earlier English translations before the KJV like Tyndale and Geneva; the Luther Bible; the Reina Valera; etc.), not ecclesiastically sanctioned. If this is necessary, should we no longer support missionary-focused parachurch organizations which translate the Bible to other languages like Trinitarian Bible Society and Wycliffe Bible Translators? 

To me the more natural conclusion is that God blesses the growth of the church when his Word is available. The TR was even made by an ungodly man (Erasmus) but in God' providence it was very important for the Reformation. The church is able to grow and flourish when the Bible is available in the vulgar languages.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jake (Aug 18, 2022)

I think this statement from the RPCNA Testimony on WCF 1:8 is excellent and speaks to what the church's role is in translations.

"Bible translations must combine faithfulness to the original text with the idiom of the native language, and thus will always be imperfect. The Church
is responsible to examine the documents available to determine as far as possible what was originally written, and to study the translations as to their accuracy in conveying the meaning of the original, and to advise the public concerning them. Paraphrases, which interpret rather than translate, must be used with great caution."


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Aug 18, 2022)

Jake said:


> Jeri,
> 
> Most translations even ones used to great ends in the Reformation were done by individuals or small groups of men (as mentioned, earlier English translations before the KJV like Tyndale and Geneva; the Luther Bible; the Reina Valera; etc.), not ecclesiastically sanctioned. If this is necessary, should we no longer support missionary-focused parachurch organizations which translate the Bible to other languages like Trinitarian Bible Society and Wycliffe Bible Translators?
> 
> To me the more natural conclusion is that God blesses the growth of the church when his Word is available. The TR was even made by an ungodly man (Erasmus) but in God' providence it was very important for the Reformation. The church is able to grow and flourish when the Bible is available in the vulgar languages.


I'm getting above my head in replying to things like this but my point is that the KJV was the result of all that textual work done in times past using the texts/manuscripts God provided, and it came out of a time of reformation and church establishment. It's not the KJV in itself but the texts used. TBS uses those texts to translate into other languages, I believe. Not sure about the others.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 18, 2022)

Logan said:


> Agreed with the eventual acceptance, but _at the time_ I don't think it would have fit Jeri's criteria.
> Didn't the Puritans agree to a new translation as an alternative to the Bishop's Bible being forced on them? Not because they thought they needed a new one? Everything I've read indicates they would have kept the Geneva if that was an option.


That's not my recall; just from the Hampton Court meeting I recall it being noted that the puritans there pressed for it. But I'll defer to more information on Bishops' being a factor.


----------



## Jake (Aug 18, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I'm getting above my head in replying to things like this but my point is that the KJV was the result of all that textual work done in times past using the texts/manuscripts God provided, and it came out of a time of reformation and church establishment. It's not the KJV in itself but the texts used. TBS uses those texts to translate into other languages, I believe. Not sure about the others.


I should have quoted -- I was trying to wrap my mind around your statement, "But in any case my view is that a revision of our Bible should be an ecclesiastical undertaking, in times of reformation of the church."

I'll use TBS as an example since I know there's great respect for it in your church. The Reina-Valera was a Reformation era translation which has been used by God to greatly bless the Spanish-speaking world. TBS is finishing a revision of the 1909 RV translation to update it to modern Spanish. I think this is very good, despite being done by a parachurch organization in a time when the Spanish-speaking church is fragmented and not strong, because having access to the Bible in the modern tongue is very important. I strongly believe in WCF 1:8 when it says "therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope." -- Bible translation is a very important work and God will often use his word to strengthen his church. That logically follows that the Word being available in faithfully translated into the vulgar tongue helps to make the church stronger.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Aug 18, 2022)

Jake said:


> I should have quoted -- I was trying to wrap my mind around your statement, "But in any case my view is that a revision of our Bible should be an ecclesiastical undertaking, in times of reformation of the church."
> 
> I'll use TBS as an example since I know there's great respect for it in your church. The Reina-Valera was a Reformation era translation which has been used by God to greatly bless the Spanish-speaking world. TBS is finishing a revision of the 1909 RV translation to update it to modern Spanish. I think this is very good, despite being done by a parachurch organization in a time when the Spanish-speaking church is fragmented and not strong, because having access to the Bible in the modern is very important. I strongly believe in WCF 1:8 when it says "therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope." -- Bible translation is a very important work and God will often use his word to strengthen his church. That logically follows that the Word being available in faithfully translated into the vulgar tongue helps to make the church stronger.


I see what you're saying. I can't speak to the necessity of this revision; if there are truly issues where the populace there is no longer able to make use of the current translation (which I do not believe to be the case here with the KJV, a matter of argument obviously!); then an update by an organization like TBS would be a good and even necessary thing, though not able to be done in ideal circumstances. I assume TBS is using the underlying RT to correct as always?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 18, 2022)

Romans922 said:


> I think again you are seemingly taking things too emotionally, or you are too easily offended. Consider the arguments presented and respond to them. Myers calls the men who followed the CT position after Westcott and Hort "men of God" (Warfield, Hodge, etc.) even though they held a view contrary to his [Myers'] own. He's not calling anyone who doesn't hold his view satan's children or anything like that. Can a minister conclude that a great multitude of the Church is in sin? The question that should be asked is whether Myers' statements that lead to his conclusion are correct or not.
> 
> What you are asserting is based on an argument _ad populum_. Is it not possible that the majority of 2020's Reformed world is in great error, in sin? Has a majority of the church at times throughout Scripture and history been in great error? And if so, how would you characterize that great error? I'm sure one possible description is "satanic". Influenced of course by Satan, the great deceiver. In sin. Are there other issues in the Church that one could characterize as Satanic or in sin? How about a good multitude of the Church believing abortion is fine? Or holding to Arminianism or dispensationalism? Wicked doctrines, deceiving many? Satanic? Sinful? Yes, hopefully, all on the PB would agree. Does that mean they are in collusion with Satan? No, we would all hopefully say they are deceived. So if we are talking about the bedrock of all doctrine -- the Scriptures. Is it possible, that the vast majority of the Church is deceived? Yes, it is possible. So instead of responding emotionally or being offended too easily, perhaps the response is looking at the arguments, examining your heart/faith, and then responding. Never consider the reformed world as being above reproach or as having all the answers.


Nothing about your post is anything close to an accurate reading of my post. First of all, I was not taking the argument emotionally, nor was I posting as someone personally offended by Myers's remarks. What I was asserting was a _reductio ad absurdam_ of Rom's statement. I was not claiming that the majority of the Reformed world was correct simply because it was the majority. Therefore I was not committing any sort of _ad populam_ fallacy. I was claiming that Rom's statement about Ward had a fairly significant blind eye towards the problem with Myers's statement, and that Ward was asserting sin of one person, whereas Myers was asserting sin of the majority of the Reformed world. He didn't seem to have any problem whatsoever with Myers's statement, and you don't either, but any criticism of Myers's statement is apparently off-limits. To me, this looks like "speck in your brother's eye, blind to the log in your own" type of thing, which was what I was trying to point out. Neither you nor Rom are apparently willing to extend the least bit of charity to Ward, while requiring the utmost in charity towards Myers. This does not appear to me to be a level playing field. That is what I am pointing out. And I am doing so in the calmest of calm spirits, I assure you.

Reactions: Like 5 | Love 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Logan (Sep 7, 2022)

NaphtaliPress said:


> That's not my recall; just from the Hampton Court meeting I recall it being noted that the puritans there pressed for it. But I'll defer to more information on Bishops' being a factor.



Chris, I did a little digging. One of the common sources for the Hampton Court conference is William Barlow's account. The specific instance is pg 46

He notes that Dr Rainolds "moved his Majesty, that there might be a new Translation of the Bible, because, those which were allowed in the reign of King Henry VIII, and Edward VI, were corrupt, and not answerable to the truth of the Original."

To which James said that he'd never yet seen a Bible well translated in English, but the worst was the Geneva, and that any new translation should have no marginal notes because he had found in the Geneva some notes "very partial, untrue, seditious, and favoring too much of dangerous, and traitorous conceits."

Several things I think help put this all in context though:
1. There were only two translations then authorized to be read in the church: the Great Bible of 1539 (in which much of the Old Testament was translated from Latin rather than Hebrew) and the Bishop's Bible of 1568 (revised in 1572). Households used the Geneva Bible, but the Bishop's Bible was prescribed to be read in the Church of England. Rainolds is specifically enumerating some errors in the Bishop's Bible.

2. The purpose of Rainolds et al was to reform the Church of England. They specifically talk about the Book of Common Prayer and the Articles of Faith and faults they find with them. Rainolds specifically brings up the faults of the Bishop's Bible in the same vein as these prior discussions.

3. Dr Rainolds does not appear to represent the Puritans at large. He was a spokesman for them in some fashion but many considered him and the others far more moderate and we find no mention of a desire for a new translation in the Millenary Petition which was put together by the Puritans and which Rainolds was presumably supposed to represent. It does appear that he suggested a new translation on his own. There are multiple possibilities here:
3.a. Keeping in mind that these accounts are written from memory months after the events, it is possible that Rainolds did not suggest a new translation, but rather a uniform translation that was better than the Bishop's. At least one account phrases it "only one translation of the Bible [be] declared authentical and read in the church." To which the King responded that a new translation was fine but he would not go with the Geneva and clearly the Bishop's was unacceptable.
3.b. Perhaps Rainolds did not care for the Geneva himself. He later worked on the translation of the Prophets at Oxford.
3.c. Perhaps accepting the Geneva as the standard authorized translation was considered as out of the question because it hadn't been authorized to begin with.
3.d. Perhaps Rainolds knew that the Geneva was unacceptable to King James. His distaste for the Geneva may have been well-known and thus it would have been pointless to suggest this be the official translation.

It's hard to know exactly the motivations or details. Regardless, it does seem to me that Rainold's request was specifically in the context of the current authorized Bible (Bishop's Bible) being in need of revision, and that he doesn't seem to have represented the larger Puritan base on this point, who would gladly have continued using the Geneva Bible. I've never read of anyone of the day considering the Geneva deficient as a translation, but perhaps it was unacceptable because it was not an official translation. And if the official translation was unacceptable, then the only agreeable solution was a new translation which could answer the critiques of the Bishop's, while also falling under the authority of the crown.

I think KJV as the solution appears to have been the best outcome for everyone, I just don't think the Puritans (other than Rainolds, seemingly) were actually pressing for it. They had no issues with the Geneva and no need for a new translation, other than potentially to satisfy the desire for uniformity.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 3


----------



## alexandermsmith (Sep 7, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> Well, it has been revised, just not recently. In Romans, there is still a part that calls the Holy Spirit an "it". I would say the NKJV is the revision as it fixes many of the translation/printing errors in the KJV.



It is my understanding that the underlying Greek which is translated "itself" is in the neuter gender and therefore "itself" is grammatically correct, even though it is referring to a person. In John 4:22 Christ says, referring to the Father (as He explains in the next verse): "Ye worship ye know not what: we know *what* we worship..." Here Christ had no qualms (nor fear of 20th century scholarship) referring to the Father, a person, as "what". And this is also the case in the NIV and the ESV. It seems the KJV is criticised at times for not translating the Greek correctly and at other times for doing just that.



retroGRAD3 said:


> As to the other comment about an ecclesiastical undertaking, who gets to decide that? Like would this be reformed churches? Reformed plus Anglican? Reformed plus Anglican plus Lutheran? Shouldn't reformation be an ongoing thing in the reformed church. Also, were the revisions of the KJV and the TR ecclesiastical undertakings or were they undertakings of specific men like Beza and Erasmus (honest question)?





retroGRAD3 said:


> This seems like a standard that cannot really be defined. Also, since God is sovereign over all things, wouldn't he ultimately be the one that allowed all of the numerous other translations to come out as well? I could argue that God brought about the NKJV to correct all of the errors in the KJV. Another could argue that God brought about the CT manuscripts to correct the TR issues. It doesn't seem like this is a sound way to go about deciding what is allowed and not allowed. Also, where in scripture do we see standards for translation work? Keep in mind, we are talking about just the TR at this point.



This is exactly the process which produced the Canons of Dordt and the Westminster Standards. An assembly of godly ministers, recognised by the church at large, producing documents which are then adopted by the assemblies of particular denominations. There is nothing stopping a publisher from producing a new translation of the RT. The question is, is there a demand for such a translation and would it be accepted by the churches which currently use the KJV? There was a new translation of the RT produced- the NKJV- and it did _not_ receive widespread acceptance.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Polanus1561 (Sep 7, 2022)

All I can say is I know of denominations who are open to a modernized TR, and yes, the NKJV is not seen as ideal (partly because of the marginal notes referencing the CT).


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Sep 7, 2022)

John Yap said:


> (partly because of the marginal notes referencing the CT).


This seems to be the main reason. The reality is though that the KJV also had marginal notes before they were removed in more recent times.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Sep 7, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> This is exactly the process which produced the Canons of Dordt and the Westminster Standards. An assembly of godly ministers, recognised by the church at large, producing documents which are then adopted by the assemblies of particular denominations.


I think this is a novel idea personally. I think the definition around this whole process changes from person to person. Any denomination could be considered "the church". We are not Papists and we should stop trying to be like them. If the OPC decided to do their own translation, that should be a legitimate effort and should be recognized as something "the church" is doing.


alexandermsmith said:


> There is nothing stopping a publisher from producing a new translation of the RT. The question is, is there a demand for such a translation and would it be accepted by the churches which currently use the KJV? There was a new translation of the RT produced- the NKJV- and it did _not_ receive widespread acceptance.


As far as I can tell, many who hold to the KJV do so out of tradition. There is nothing that will change that, even if it is the most faithful TR translation ever. Also, I do think the NKJV is accepted in many places. Just not in the "confessional text" group. I don't think this is out of it not being a faithful translation either, but because of the marginal notes (which is a bad reason for rejecting it).


----------



## Logan (Sep 7, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> This seems to be the main reason. The reality is though that the KJV also had marginal notes before they were removed in more recent times.


I thought the marginal notes were helpful and honest, sort of like the italicized words in the KJV/NKJV. And there are NKJV editions published without the marginal notes, here is an example.
https://www.thomasnelsonbibles.com/product/NKJV-deluxe-readers-bible/
So that solves the objection, right? I doubt it. There will always be some other "problem" which makes it unacceptable. E.g., it doesn't use plural/singular personal pronouns. It translates a word here and there differently than the KJV, therefore it's not truly an update. Not all the scholars contributing thought the TR was the best text (as though their personal opinion matters even though it doesn't affect the product in the slightest). It was not done by "the Church". Or it was not done by "the Magistrate". It was not done during a time of Reformation, etc., etc. And nobody seems to agree with each other on these qualifiers, but they do agree that the KJV fulfills them, whatever they are.

So yes, hypothetically possible. Practically? All the qualifiers put the possibility of a new TR translation to death by papercuts.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 2


----------



## alexandermsmith (Sep 8, 2022)

Logan said:


> I thought the marginal notes were helpful and honest, sort of like the italicized words in the KJV/NKJV. And there are NKJV editions published without the marginal notes, here is an example.
> https://www.thomasnelsonbibles.com/product/NKJV-deluxe-readers-bible/
> So that solves the objection, right? I doubt it. There will always be some other "problem" which makes it unacceptable. E.g., it doesn't use plural/singular personal pronouns. It translates a word here and there differently than the KJV, therefore it's not truly an update. Not all the scholars contributing thought the TR was the best text (as though their personal opinion matters even though it doesn't affect the product in the slightest). It was not done by "the Church". Or it was not done by "the Magistrate". It was not done during a time of Reformation, etc., etc. And nobody seems to agree with each other on these qualifiers, but they do agree that the KJV fulfills them, whatever they are.
> 
> So yes, hypothetically possible. Practically? All the qualifiers put the possibility of a new TR translation to death by papercuts.



Why should we accept a new translation? Those of us who use the KJV (that I know) don't believe there is a need for a new version. And we certainly haven't been convinced by the many, _many_ English translations which are now available. Some people seem to get itchy for a new translation every few years. I'm not one of those people.

It is also obtuse to argue that "nobody seems to agree with each other on these qualifiers, but they do agree that the KJV fulfills them, whatever they are." Every qualifier you mention actually happened in regards to the KJV. It is historical fact that the King commissioned a new English translation, which was carried out by the best and godliest scholars of the day and that the translation came to be accepted throughout the English speaking world as _the _standard version of the Bible in English. And do you deny that the period from the Reformation to the Westminster Assembly wasn't a particularly blessed period in the history of the church? That it was just like the state we are in today?

And specifically on the NKJV: what is so good about it that we should abandon the KJV? You mention the change in second person pronouns. This is a very important issue for those of us who use the KJV. We believe it is wrong to refer to God as "you", especially when we have (albeit now archaic) English second person singular pronouns. It's not an issue for _thee_, but that doesn't mean it's not an issue. And if we are talking about convincing those who use the KJV to adopt a modern translation of the TR then their concerns have to be taken into account. Someone who uses the ESV isn't the target audience for a new translation of the TR. And we do not believe the KJV is an inspired or perfect translation. There are words we would have preferred translated differently; some passages which are hard to understand; some places where the translators had to make a decision between various renderings about what was best in that context. But the question is do these minor concerns warrant a whole new translation which would certainly lose so much more than the small amount it might gain?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Logan (Sep 8, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> It is also obtuse to argue that "nobody seems to agree with each other on these qualifiers, but they do agree that the KJV fulfills them, whatever they are." Every qualifier you mention actually happened in regards to the KJV.



I know. That's why I mentioned them. But they are _post hoc_ qualifiers. Qualifiers that are not required in scripture and are not universal (i.e., apply to no Bible other than the KJV). Qualifiers that are designed (whether consciously or not) to make the KJV the only acceptable English translation.

The context of my post was specifically regarding those who say they would accept a modern TR translation (but don't); it was not about convincing those who want to stick to the KJV to switch.

Saying "the KJV is great and look at all the features and the history and the circumstances in which it arose, isn't that wonderful!" is one thing. Saying "no other translation is acceptable because it doesn't duplicate the features, history, and circumstances of the KJV" is quite another thing. That's making a requirement out of something that isn't actually a requirement.

Reactions: Like 8


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Sep 8, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> We believe it is wrong to refer to God as "you", especially when we have (albeit now archaic) English second person singular pronouns.


What in scripture leads you to believe this? Something is only "wrong" or "sin" if God tells you it is. We don't get to make up what is right or wrong.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 8, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> Why should we accept a new translation? Those of us who use the KJV (that I know) don't believe there is a need for a new version.



I listen to the KJV every day, but these problems are huge.

Acts 5:30. Did they kill Jesus and then hang him on a tree? Or did they, as the modern translations note, kill him by hanging him on a tree (225)?

1 Chronicles 5:26. The KJV at best is misleading. It makes it seem like Pul is co-ruler with Tiglath Peleser. At worst it is simply wrong. As the NASB notes, Pul is Tiglath.

Acts 9:7/22:9. On the KJV’s reading, the others heard the voice and didn’t hear the voice, a clear contradiction. The modern translations have a better reading.

The Changing English Language

“Fetched a compass” (Joshua 15:3, 2 Kgs 3:9) actually means travel or turn around. Quoting Edwin Palmer White notes,

what is the meaning of “chambering” (Rom. 13:13), 
“champaign” (Deut. 11:30), 
“charger” (Matt. 14:8— it is not a horse), 
“churl” (Isa. 32:7), 
“cielcd” (Hag. 1:4), 
“clouted upon their feet” (Josh. 9:5), “cockatrice” 
(Isa. 11:8), “collops” 
(Job 15:27), 
“confection” (Exod. 30:35— it has nothing to do with sugar),
“cotes” (2 Chron. 32:28), 
“ “hoiscd” (Acts 27:40), “wimples” (Isa. 3:22), “stomacher” (Isa. 3:24), “w?ot” (Rom. 11:2), “wist” (Acts 12:9), “withs” (Judg. 16:7), “wont” (Dan. 3:19), “surctiship” (Prov. 11:15), “saekbut” (Dan. 3:5), “the scall" (Lev. 13:30), “scrabbled” (1 Sam. 21:13), “roller” (Lzck. 30:21— i.e., a splint), “muffler” (Isa. 3:19), “froward” (1 Peter 2:18), “brigadinc” (Jer. 46:4), “amercc” (Deut. 22:19), “blains” (Lxod 9:9), “crookbackt” (Lev. 21:20), (White 236).

Some more:

And Mt. Sinai was altogether on a smoke (Exod. 1^:18).
Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing I Ps. 5:6).

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Sep 8, 2022)

Logan said:


> I know. That's why I mentioned them. But they are _post hoc_ qualifiers. Qualifiers that are not required in scripture and are not universal (i.e., apply to no Bible other than the KJV). Qualifiers that are designed (whether consciously or not) to make the KJV the only acceptable English translation.
> 
> The context of my post was specifically regarding those who say they would accept a modern TR translation (but don't); it was not about convincing those who want to stick to the KJV to switch.
> 
> Saying "the KJV is great and look at all the features and the history and the circumstances in which it arose, isn't that wonderful!" is one thing. Saying "no other translation is acceptable because it doesn't duplicate the features, history, and circumstances of the KJV" is quite another thing. That's making a requirement out of something that isn't actually a requirement.



It's merely recognising historical circumstances which can also be applied to the creeds of the church. There were many creeds and confessions written at and just after the Reformation but only a few are considered constitutionally authoritative in the Reformed churches: those which were composed by or on the request of extraordinary assemblies and then adopted by individual denominations. And this is also true of the ecumenical creeds. Maybe the unique circumstances of the production of the KJV is a reason to preserve it.

As to those who say they would accept a modern TR translation but don't: what are the modern TR translations they're not accepting? It's basically the NKJV and it clearly hasn't won them over. It's not incumbent upon those who hypothetically may change to a modern TR translation to produce such a translation.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## alexandermsmith (Sep 8, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> I listen to the KJV every day, but these problems are huge.
> 
> Acts 5:30. Did they kill Jesus and then hang him on a tree? Or did they, as the modern translations note, kill him by hanging him on a tree (225)?



"And" does not denote passage of time but rather two actions happening together. To read "and" as meaning "then" is to read meaning into the language which isn't there. It may have that connotation today and therefore the KJV _may _cause confusion to modern readers on this point but that is not the fault of the KJV for using English correctly. 



RamistThomist said:


> 1 Chronicles 5:26. The KJV at best is misleading. It makes it seem like Pul is co-ruler with Tiglath Peleser. At worst it is simply wrong. As the NASB notes, Pul is Tiglath.



These were two separate kings: Pul was the king of Assyria during Menahem's reign over Israel (2 Kings 15:17-19) and Tilgathpilneser was the king of Assyria during Pekah's reign over Israel (2 Kings 15:27-29). There is nothing in the text to suggest this is the same king but with a different name. And the ESV translates the verse the same way as the KJV does.



RamistThomist said:


> Acts 9:7/22:9. On the KJV’s reading, the others heard the voice and didn’t hear the voice, a clear contradiction. The modern translations have a better reading.



This can be reconciled one of two ways: either 1) 9:7 is referring to the voice of Saul, which the men heard, but not the voice of Christ which is specifically referred to in 22:9 ("they heard not the voice of him *that spake to me*"); or, 2) 9:7 is telling us they heard the sound of the voice of Christ but not articulately, as in a parallel case in John 12:29 ("The people therefore, that stood by, and *heard it*, said that *it thundered*...") and so in 22:9 it is as if they did not hear the voice. Option 2 seems a better explanation to me. Either way it is not hard to reconcile these verses. They certainly don't contradict each other. And even if one were to concede that the KJV does not have the best translation in this instance, is that a reason to dump the whole translation for ones which have many (greater) problems of their own?



RamistThomist said:


> The Changing English Language
> 
> “Fetched a compass” (Joshua 15:3, 2 Kgs 3:9) actually means travel or turn around. Quoting Edwin Palmer White notes,
> 
> ...



These are trifling complaints. It might look a problem when all these words are placed together but they are taken from all over the Bible and are irrelevant when compared with the full body of the text. When compared with what we gain from the KJV text, not least its majesty and beauty, then I'm afraid you're not going to convince anyone these are reasons to abandon it.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Sep 8, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> What in scripture leads you to believe this? Something is only "wrong" or "sin" if God tells you it is. We don't get to make up what is right or wrong.



God is singular; "you" is ambiguous at best. If we have a word which correctly identifies God as singular we should use it. Whether God is one or many is actually a very important point. Of course the rebuttal is always: no-one who uses "you" thinks God is plural so it doesn't matter. Well as we are seeing today pronouns _do_ matter. Correctly addressing the person one is speaking to _is _important. What does it matter if one is asked to refer to one person as "they" or "zhi" or "xyrs"? It matters because truth matters. And we know that these ridiculous pronouns will start appearing in translations of the Bible and will be used (as I'm sure they already are) in the church. But hey, it doesn't matter because we know of Whom they are speaking. It matters a lot. But the "English changes" brigade have already ceded the territory on this by saying ambiguous pronouns when addressing or referring to God don't matter.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 8, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> What in scripture leads you to believe this? Something is only "wrong" or "sin" if God tells you it is. We don't get to make up what is right or wrong.


Wrong to call God “you”? That is troubling.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 8, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> These are trifling complaints. It might look a problem when all these words are placed together but they are taken from all over the Bible and are irrelevant when compared with the full body of the text. When compared with what we gain from the KJV text, not least its majesty and beauty, then I'm afraid you're not going to convince anyone these are reasons to abandon it.



And I notice you didn't interact with it. These aren't trifling complaints. I read 16th and 17th century literature on a regular basis and I can barely gloss those words.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 8, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> God is singular; "you" is ambiguous at best. If we have a word which correctly identifies God as singular we should use it. Whether God is one or many is actually a very important point. Of course the rebuttal is always: no-one who uses "you" thinks God is plural so it doesn't matter. Well as we are seeing today pronouns _do_ matter. Correctly addressing the person one is speaking to _is _important. What does it matter if one is asked to refer to one person as "they" or "zhi" or "xyrs"? It matters because truth matters. And we know that these ridiculous pronouns will start appearing in translations of the Bible and will be used (as I'm sure they already are) in the church. But hey, it doesn't matter because we know of Whom they are speaking. It matters a lot. But the "English changes" brigade have already ceded the territory on this by saying ambiguous pronouns when addressing or referring to God don't matter.



If I tell God "I love you," did I sin?

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## De Jager (Sep 8, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> And I notice you didn't interact with it. These aren't trifling complaints. I read 16th and 17th century literature on a regular basis and I can barely gloss those words.


In my Reformation Heritage Study Bible, all of these old words are explained in the notes. Besides that, all it really takes is a quick google search and the problem is solved. I don't really think this is a big deal. If someone wants to come up with a new translation which translates these words into current usage, they can go ahead, but it appears that at the same time they invariably jettison other strengths of the KJV, like the distinguishing between the singular and plural 'you' and the italicizing of words that are not in the original but were added for readability. No translation is perfect. When I use my ESV and see the word "you", I have to pull out a KJV to figure out if it is plural or singular, unless it is evident from the context.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 8, 2022)

In the original Greek, there is no unique second person pronoun that is used when referring to God in the second person.

That said, there is value in knowing that a particular text is using the singular or plural "you". That's at least a good reason to preserve "ye" but the same can be achieved by using "y'all".

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## aaronsk (Sep 8, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> If I tell God "I love you," did I sin?


Unclear - does "you" refer to the triune God (singular) or a plurality of gods? (Keeping with the hypothetical here, not saying you would ever profess love to a plurality of gods).  Honestly though, I can't speak for @alexandermsmith but I don't think this in the context of his point. You know what you mean when you pray to God "I love you" (see how much I used "you"  ). This is a translational issue dealing with the clairity of scripture in the readers or hearers native language and thus impacting a translation's usefullness in the teaching & edification of the saints. 

@Logan - I don't think the TR folks who prefer the KJV bible do so because of a cleverly designed criteria that only the KJV could ever fit but rather none of the newer verions have checked all their criteria boxes as well as the KJV does. The first way kind goes at folks with the assumption there is some KJV-O lurking within them (and maybe I am nieve) but I don't think that is really the case. I think we have to look at from the other direction. That the criteria is set and the KJV is best fit for that criteria. Now I get some of the pickiness with wording can make it seem that way and I am not saying we should maintain the usage of all terms if a modern one exists that is just as accurate. I've know people who love the ESV because of wording choice on key passages etc. It is not an unrealistic standard espeically when talking about an "update" to a translations and not a totally new one. If a "new" translation were to be made, would it not be best that it remain similar to the current version of the targeted saints so that it not be a disruption?

disclaimer - I didnt grow up with the KJV, I think its a great bible and do use it now (as well as the NKJV -gasp I even have some CSB and ESV but I read the subnoted verses as authentic, sometimes the "you" distinction is in the subnotes but sometimes not). As I have said in previous threads I think an update would be benificial and the plural/singular pronoun distinction should be kept. Perhaps marking it like "you(s)", "you(p)" would be fine to me - though less useful when read aloud so it is likely not the best solution.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## De Jager (Sep 8, 2022)

Semper Fidelis said:


> In the original Greek, there is no unique second person pronoun that is used when referring to God in the second person.
> 
> That said, there is value in knowing that a particular text is using the singular or plural "you". That's at least a good reason to preserve "ye" *but the same can be achieved by using "y'all".*


Introducing the new DSESV (Deep South English Standard Version).

Reactions: Funny 6


----------



## Taylor (Sep 8, 2022)

This is an honest question. How is this…


De Jager said:


> …all it really takes is a quick google search and the problem is solved.


…any different than this…


De Jager said:


> When I use my ESV and see the word "you", I have to pull out a KJV to figure out if it is plural or singular, unless it is evident from the context.


…?

Nevertheless, the problem with the KJV for me isn’t the vocabulary but rather the syntax. Of course anyone can look up words, but in many cases this doesn’t help one understand the text because communication of meaning is not merely at the word level but rather at the clause level. Although I can’t think of any examples off the top of my head at the moment, there have been many times I have stumbled across a passage in the KJV where I know the meaning of all the individual words, and yet the way they are arranged makes the meaning lost to me.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 8, 2022)

De Jager said:


> Introducing the new DSESV (Deep South English Standard Version).


Yins - PESV (Pennsylvania ESV)
Yous Guys - NJESV (New Jersey ESV)

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 8, 2022)

LOL... Someone noted above about the translation being in the vulgar language. You all haven't heard a Vulgar English translation fit for the neighborhoods I can travel in or the ones Frank Smith ministers in if he is still working in Georgia. The normal vulgar language these people speak is illiteracy built by generational sin. smh. John 3:16 still needs exposition no matter what translation it comes from. The KJV has been the best so far the past how many years even with its upgrades? It is just as easily understood word for word. Sometimes what is termed as a Vulgar Language still needs to be set on a level that is beneficial for all. That is the NIV was written with a 7th grade reading level. Had to dumb it down for us Mericans. That includes from Kings to the lowest. You don't want to hear the things I hear and have said in the Vulgar sense. Look, I know vulgar doesn't mean the same thing it meant a long time ago. It meant common language. Language has been used by God to lift people out of illiteracy. Look at Luther's and Erasmus' work. God has done that.

While you guys are discussing some minutia points the bigger issue of manuscript historicity, geographical locality, historical theology and manuscript families have been largely ignored in my estimation. Just saying. Maybe the Critical Text is based upon a preferred group or family of manuscripts over others. Why? Popular opinion (or dare I say Scholarship) doesn't mean anything as noted above. The criteria seems to be all over the place. Also, we have established many times over on this board that the oldest manuscripts aren't always the most reliable. The very numbers of these manuscripts can be slim to none and incomplete

I haven't looked at the video. I know that is a taboo. I have grown complacent in this type of discussion. It has brought a def tone noise to me. It just seems to generate more heat than good scholarship.

I have read a few discussions lately on the topic and there is a lot more heat generated than light in my estimation. Sure, we get a glimpse of good historical reference but it is painstaking to read on a Forum. It always seems to come with the suspicion of sin. Yes, I have read the Puritans. LOL.

I asked a question in another thread that went unanswered. 
@Dr. Duguid or anyone who does manuscript work, has anyone interacted with J. W. Burgon's work? I knew J. P. Green Sr. the later years of his life. Through the years on this board, I am not sure I have seen anything that has. NO, Green was not KJVO guy obviously. He did his own translating also. A lot of us have his translations in our Bible Programs. White accused him of it in his book on the KJVO movement. The name of the book escapes me. White is not the best source. And unfortunately that seems to be the level of scholarship that the day is producing. When Gerstner was here in Bloomington he gave Jay a respectful nod.


----------



## aaronsk (Sep 8, 2022)

De Jager said:


> In my Reformation Heritage Study Bible, all of these old words are explained in the notes. Besides that, all it really takes is a quick google search and the problem is solved. I don't really think this is a big deal. If someone wants to come up with a new translation which translates these words into current usage, they can go ahead, but it appears that at the same time they invariably jettison other strengths of the KJV, like the distinguishing between the singular and plural 'you' and the italicizing of words that are not in the original but were added for readability. No translation is perfect. When I use my ESV and see the word "you", I have to pull out a KJV to figure out if it is plural or singular, unless it is evident from the context.


My KJV is a Thomas Nelson Sovereign Edition - it also has the unfamiliar terms defined on page. I've never really had an issue with it as they did a pretty thorough job at that. 

Also perhaps I'm just dumb but the first time I came across the word “colonnades” in an ESV, I had no idea what that meant and grabbed a dictionary. Could use an ESV footnote "_c. John 5:2 Or Porches"_ .

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 8, 2022)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Yins - PESV (Pennsylvania ESV)


It's Yuins. LOL
Epistemology gives me more of a headache than theology. I think it is supposed to.


----------



## JH (Sep 8, 2022)

De Jager said:


> I have to pull out a KJV to figure out if it is plural or singular, unless it is evident from the context.


Even then we may end up overlooking what may seem evident by context, yet isn't. (as I'm sure you know)

"And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you [plural, the disciples], that he may sift you [plural, the disciples] as wheat: But I have prayed for thee [singular, Peter], that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.” (Luk 22:31-32, KJV)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Polanus1561 (Sep 8, 2022)

I wish I can have both plural pronouns and also modern language. But for the sake of the children and to babes in the faith, I will always take the latter.
E.g It is important for believers to understand what is "Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying." as
"Let us walk properly as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and sensuality, not in quarreling and jealousy."
on initial glance.
I am not a fan of the 'let the minister explain the words for the congregation' view. Independent bible study is a vital means of grace that the clearest translation serves.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Sep 8, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> God is singular; "you" is ambiguous at best. If we have a word which correctly identifies God as singular we should use it. Whether God is one or many is actually a very important point. Of course the rebuttal is always: no-one who uses "you" thinks God is plural so it doesn't matter. Well as we are seeing today pronouns _do_ matter. Correctly addressing the person one is speaking to _is _important. What does it matter if one is asked to refer to one person as "they" or "zhi" or "xyrs"? It matters because truth matters. And we know that these ridiculous pronouns will start appearing in translations of the Bible and will be used (as I'm sure they already are) in the church. But hey, it doesn't matter because we know of Whom they are speaking. It matters a lot. But the "English changes" brigade have already ceded the territory on this by saying ambiguous pronouns when addressing or referring to God don't matter.


This seems like a red herring response. It is either wrong or it is not. The answer you gave started another conversation. Be careful that legalism doesn't start to cloud your judgment. If you have a preference that is one thing, but to say something is WRONG and not back it up with a command in scripture is dangerous.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 8, 2022)

aaronsk said:


> Unclear - does "you" refer to the triune God (singular) or a plurality of gods? (Keeping with the hypothetical here, not saying you would ever profess love to a plurality of gods).



If we are going to go that route, Alexander's original position breaks down with Psalm 82. I'm going to try to transliterate from the Hebrew

Elohim (singular or plural or Triune) stands in the Council of El and in the midst of the elohim (singular or plural or triune or humans or angels) holds judgment.

In any case, did I sin when I told God "I love you"? Even if we specify it to mean Thou, the singular, does the Thou refer to the Trinity (making the Trinity one person) or to the Father? Saying "thou" doesn't solve the problem.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan (Sep 8, 2022)

aaronsk said:


> I don't think the TR folks who prefer the KJV bible do so because of a cleverly designed criteria that only the KJV could ever fit but rather none of the newer verions have checked all their criteria boxes as well as the KJV does.



Where do those criteria boxes come from? My point is that the criteria are typically _post hoc, _whether intentionally or not. And again, I stated this in the context of why people are theoretically open to a updated TR translation, but in actuality find some criteria why the NKJV is unacceptable, but this is almost always _after_ they have first looked up to make sure the KJV fits that criteria. People don't state what the criteria is until they look up the history of the KJV.

I've even seen it happen multiple times where someone came up with a criteria as to why the NKJV isn't acceptable, only to have it pointed out that the KJV didn't fit that criteria either. At which point that criteria suddenly became unimportant, but some _other_ criteria is now the new reason why the NKJV isn't acceptable. They might not even consciously be doing this but that's very much _post hoc_.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## aaronsk (Sep 8, 2022)

aaronsk said:


> Unclear - does "you" refer to the triune God (singular) or a plurality of gods? (Keeping with the hypothetical here, not saying you would ever profess love to a plurality of gods).


I will re-quote myself with the winky face - indicating the comment was meant to be a bit tongue in cheek, perhaps I didn't convey that the best.



RamistThomist said:


> If we are going to go that route, Alexander's original position breaks down with Psalm 82. I'm going to try to transliterate from the Hebrew
> 
> Elohim (singular or plural or Triune) stands in the Council of El and in the midst of the elohim (singular or plural or triune or humans or angels) holds judgment.


I'm not going to be able jump into that... I think Alexander needs to dive in here with you further. I was just trying to point out that it didn't seem fair to pin him on comparing prayer versus a bible translation as the context, audience, etc is really quite different. 



RamistThomist said:


> In any case, did I sin when I told God "I love you"? Even if we specify it to mean Thou, the singular, does the Thou refer to the Trinity (making the Trinity one person) or to the Father? Saying "thou" doesn't solve the problem.


Ill include second part of my post. I wasn't trying to speak for Alexander but just pointing out considerations for how we communicate in prayer and bible translations probably shouldn't be the same. I don't really have any affinity to thee & thou myself (though I find noting the distinction in some fashion where possible quite useful). My answer would be no to the sin question.


aaronsk said:


> Honestly though, I can't speak for @alexandermsmith but I don't think this in the context of his point. You know what you mean when you pray to God "I love you" (see how much I used "you"  ). This is a translational issue dealing with the clairity of scripture in the readers or hearers native language and thus impacting a translation's usefullness in the teaching & edification of the saints.





Logan said:


> Where do those criteria boxes come from? My point is that the criteria are typically _post hoc, _whether intentionally or not. And again, I stated this in the context of why people are theoretically open to a updated TR translation, but in actuality find some criteria why the NKJV is unacceptable, but this is almost always _after_ they have first looked up to make sure the KJV fits that criteria. People don't state what the criteria is until they look up the history of the KJV.
> 
> I've even seen it happen multiple times where someone came up with a criteria as to why the NKJV isn't acceptable, only to have it pointed out that the KJV didn't fit that criteria either. At which point that criteria suddenly became unimportant, but some _other_ criteria is now the new reason why the NKJV isn't acceptable. They might not even consciously be doing this but that's very much _post hoc_.


Fair enough - if this is what you have encountered and are speaking about etc., then I fully agree.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jake (Sep 8, 2022)

Are there are any other features of the Greek language not in vernacular English that we should translate? Or can the others be handled with preaching or occasional footnotes?


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Sep 8, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> I listen to the KJV every day, but these problems are huge.
> 
> Acts 5:30. Did they kill Jesus and then hang him on a tree? Or did they, as the modern translations note, kill him by hanging him on a tree (225)?
> 
> ...


Umm…this is a little bit overreaching. 1 Chronicles 5:26 is literal to the Hebrew, Acts 9:6/22:9 is literal to the Greek (same word for “heard”), and Acts 5:30 does _not_ say “and then”, and given the gospels, I’m not sure who would actually read it that way. As to the individual problem words above, sure, many of the ones pointed out are obsolete (some may have been even in 1611), but I’ve seen “charger, “suretiship”, and maybe even “froward” used outside of a biblical context in the 21st century with the same meanings as the KJV. And “crookbackt” and “hoised” are pretty self explanatory, even though funny looking.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## JH (Sep 8, 2022)

The KJV gets a lot of flack for some words that require a dictionary – but that very same "problem" exists in modern translations. Shakespeare is required reading for English classes in public high school, but somehow at the same time there are reports about how the KJV is hard to read.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Charles Johnson (Sep 8, 2022)

Eyedoc84 said:


> Umm…this is a little bit overreaching. 1 Chronicles 5:26 is literal to the Hebrew, Acts 9:6/22:9 is literal to the Greek (same word for “heard”), and Acts 5:30 does _not_ say “and then”, and given the gospels, I’m not sure who would actually read it that way. As to the individual problem words above, sure, many of the ones pointed out are obsolete (some may have been even in 1611), but I’ve seen “charger, “suretiship”, and maybe even “froward” used outside of a biblical context in the 21st century with the same meanings as the KJV. And “crookbackt” and “hoised” are pretty self explanatory, even though funny looking.


To add another, my mother calls a certain type of scarf a muffler. But perhaps that use is limited to the midwest where it is cold enough to wear such things. To Jacob I say, if thou willst visit the north, I shall clad thee with mine muffler.


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 8, 2022)

Jerrod Hess said:


> The KJV gets a lot of flack for some words that require a dictionary – but that very same "problem" exists in modern translations. Shakespeare is required reading for English classes in public high school, but somehow at the same time there are reports about how the KJV is hard to read.


Would you take Shakespeare to inner city kids and have their entire future depend upon them being able to understand it?


----------



## B.L. (Sep 9, 2022)

Here's an interesting article written by Jeffrey Stivason that was posted yesterday on Gentle Reformation.

Edward Hills & a Strange Providence

Enjoy!


----------



## alexandermsmith (Sep 9, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> This seems like a red herring response. It is either wrong or it is not. The answer you gave started another conversation. Be careful that legalism doesn't start to cloud your judgment. If you have a preference that is one thing, but to say something is WRONG and not back it up with a command in scripture is dangerous.



It is grammatically and theologically wrong to refer to God as plural because He is one. If there is a word in the language with which one can make that distinction one should use it. I didn't say anything about sin, that is people like you pushing the conversation to the extreme to give you cover from addressing the point at hand. I am well aware most Christians refer to God as "you" and that is just the way it is. But this sort of reaction: refusing to engage with the issue, dismissing the concerns and forcing people to extreme positions is why you will never convince KJV users of your position. You show absolutely no understanding, nor interest in trying to understand, our position and our concerns. And yet we are the bad guys who say you're using "Satan's bible" (an expression I have never heard used except by CT advocates).

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 9, 2022)

When the visible church is in a state of sad declension and has become largely unfaithful, God sends a famine upon her. "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord" (Amos 8:11). The Book of the Law had been hidden away until times of reformation came again, and Hilkiah discovered it stored away in the temple and brought it to Josiah. Revival followed.

These are not the times for revisions and new translations than what we received from our most recent time of reformation. What if the language difficulty of the KJV is part of the consequences of our sin... God sending a difficult way in these times of declension and unfaithfulness to our Head? In the 2 OT examples God withheld his word, and God restored his word, and shows us a principle. He does these things with his own word- not man with his own ideas. Perhaps had the church remained faithful, we would have certain revisions accepted in whole by the Reformed church.

We need to consider these things. In handling the word of God we should have such fear. Look at church history, all the way back to the OT. Consider these things biblically, not critically. If the Bible that came from texts the church has used for several hundred years is now considered difficult; if recently discovered manuscripts have caused such a furor and division in the visible church; doesn't it warrant stepping back with caution and fear, and looking to the God of heaven for wisdom and help, rather than speaking so knowledgeably of this and that family of texts, using the wisdom of man rather than God. We should be asking him, Lord, what is this? Is this part of the judgment and chastisement upon a church that wasn't hearing his word anyway (I think of Babel, of the division of tongues being a sign of judgment).

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 2


----------



## alexandermsmith (Sep 9, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> And I notice you didn't interact with it. These aren't trifling complaints. I read 16th and 17th century literature on a regular basis and I can barely gloss those words.



I'm not going to go through the whole list and give you a definition. My interaction was that on the rare occasion one encounters such a word it is easy enough to find a definition and it would be ridiculous to discard a translation for this very minor issue.



RamistThomist said:


> If we are going to go that route, Alexander's original position breaks down with Psalm 82. I'm going to try to transliterate from the Hebrew
> 
> Elohim (singular or plural or Triune) stands in the Council of El and in the midst of the elohim (singular or plural or triune or humans or angels) holds judgment.



What is the problem here? The KJV translates the verse: "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods." The ESV translates it: "God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment."

Neither translation had a problem distinguishing between God, Jehovah, and the gods, magistrates (as the term is commonly understood) and yet both translations use the word "gods".



Logan said:


> Where do those criteria boxes come from? My point is that the criteria are typically _post hoc, _whether intentionally or not. And again, I stated this in the context of why people are theoretically open to a updated TR translation, but in actuality find some criteria why the NKJV is unacceptable, but this is almost always _after_ they have first looked up to make sure the KJV fits that criteria. People don't state what the criteria is until they look up the history of the KJV.
> 
> I've even seen it happen multiple times where someone came up with a criteria as to why the NKJV isn't acceptable, only to have it pointed out that the KJV didn't fit that criteria either. At which point that criteria suddenly became unimportant, but some _other_ criteria is now the new reason why the NKJV isn't acceptable. They might not even consciously be doing this but that's very much _post hoc_.



The point is that the KJV came about in the Lord's providence at a time of Reformation in the church. It's not about stipulating certain conditions which must be ticked off but recognising the unique historical context which produced the KJV. Just as the Reformation itself was a unique moment in history which couldn't be replicated merely by arranging circumstances so that they would be similar to 16th century Europe.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Sep 9, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> It is grammatically and theologically wrong to refer to God as plural because He is one. If there is a word in the language with which one can make that distinction one should use it. I didn't say anything about sin, that is people like you pushing the conversation to the extreme to give you cover from addressing the point at hand. I am well aware most Christians refer to God as "you" and that is just the way it is. But this sort of reaction: refusing to engage with the issue, dismissing the concerns and forcing people to extreme positions is why you will never convince KJV users of your position. You show absolutely no understanding, nor interest in trying to understand, our position and our concerns. And yet we are the bad guys who say you're using "Satan's bible" (an expression I have never heard used except by CT advocates).


I am not a CT person. I look at all 3 streams and can see value in all. Also, "Satan's Bible" was used by your side. It is in the book that Riddle and McShaffrey edited. It's in print, I have read it, there is no denying it. Your side should be denouncing it and calling the man who wrote it to repent. He is in sin. This is how denominations are broken and split, by that kind of talk. Also, you are the one who is continuing to talk passed the actual issue. You have been responded to by 3 different people now and you continue to play motte and bailey. There is no issue to engage with because no orthodox Christian believes they are talking to multiple or plural Gods when they pray to him. This is a red herring and a straw man. You trying to bind men's souls and say it is wrong to say "you" to God IS THE ISSUE. It has no warrant in scripture and I believe the only reason you keep pushing it is because of tradition. Not ANYTHING in scripture that commands it.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Sep 9, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> These are not the times for revisions and new translations than what we received from our most recent time of reformation. What if the language difficulty of the KJV is part of the consequences of our sin... God sending a difficult way in these times of declension and unfaithfulness to our Head? In the 2 OT examples God withheld his word, and God restored his word, and shows us a principle. He does these things with his own word- not man with his own ideas. Perhaps had the church remained faithful, we would have certain revisions accepted in whole by the Reformed church.


With all do respect, this is your opinion. Also, the standard you put out has moving goal posts. If the OPC has accepted the ESV as their translation, then "the church" has accepted a new translation.


Jeri Tanner said:


> We need to consider these things. In handling the word of God we should have such fear. Look at church history, all the way back to the OT. Consider these things biblically, not critically. If the Bible that came from texts the church has used for several hundred years is now considered difficult; if recently discovered manuscripts have caused such a furor and division in the visible church; doesn't it warrant stepping back with caution and fear, and looking to the God of heaven for wisdom and help, rather than speaking so knowledgeably of this and that family of texts, using the wisdom of man rather than God. We should be asking him, Lord, what is this? Is this part of the judgment and chastisement upon a church that wasn't hearing his word anyway (I think of Babel, of the division of tongues being a sign of judgment).


Many Godly men are/were involved with the translations done using the critical text just as there were with the TR. Both sides also likely had goats among them too. We live in a fallen world. There are no perfect translations, because humans are not perfect, yet we have the word of God. Thank God for his providence and care of his text which comes to us in the TR, the CT, and the MT (variants and all, which exist in all 3).

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 9, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> What if the language difficulty of the KJV is part of the consequences of our sin



That's not how language works. Words shift in meaning over centuries. Take 1 Thess. 4. In the KJV Paul says that those who are live will in no way *prevent* those who have died. The natural meaning of the word prevent today means to keep from happening, which is absurd in the context of the verse. Prevent back then meant, as modern translations note today, precede. That makes perfect sense.

Simply because the word changed in meaning doesn't mean God is punishing us.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## alexandermsmith (Sep 9, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> I am not a CT person. I look at all 3 streams and can see value in all. Also, "Satan's Bible" was used by your side. It is in the book that Riddle and McShaffrey edited. It's in print, I have read it, there is no denying it. Your side should be denouncing it and calling the man who wrote it to repent. He is in sin. This is how denominations are broken and split, by that kind of talk. Also, you are the one who is continuing to talk passed the actual issue. You have been responded to by 3 different people now and you continue to play motte and bailey. There is no issue to engage with because no orthodox Christian believes they are talking to multiple or plural Gods when they pray to him. This is a red herring and a straw man. You trying to bind men's souls and say it is wrong to say "you" to God IS THE ISSUE. It has no warrant in scripture and I believe the only reason you keep pushing it is because of tradition. Not ANYTHING in scripture that commands it.



I've made my point and if you don't like it that's your problem.

I fail to see why people like you and @Logan et. al. care so much about this. You (supposedly) have the modern, CT Bible you want (and you'll have another one soon enough I imagine). And yet again and again we have attacks made on the KJV, new threads springing up. Why does it bother you so much that people like me prefer the KJV? If I had to hazard a guess I'd say it's because, despite having a plethora of translations to choose from, you're not satisfied with what you have but we _are _satisfied with what we have. Well that's what happens when you force new, defective translations on the church. This desire to force your translations on us speaks to the weakness of your position not ours.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Sep 9, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> I've made my point and if you don't like it that's your problem.
> 
> I fail to see why people like you and @Logan et. al. care so much about this. You (supposedly) have the modern, CT Bible you want (and you'll have another one soon enough I imagine). And yet again and again we have attacks made on the KJV, new threads springing up. Why does it bother you so much that people like me prefer the KJV? If I had to hazard a guess I'd say it's because, despite having a plethora of translations to choose from, you're not satisfied with what you have but we _are _satisfied with what we have. Well that's what happens when you force new, defective translations on the church.


Your playing games now. No one has attacked the KJV here. I attacked the comment made about the use of "you". If you prefer the KJV, go for it, but don't get on here and tell us it's wrong to say "you" to God unless you can back it up with a clear command from scripture.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## alexandermsmith (Sep 9, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> Your playing games now. No one has attacked the KJV here. I attacked the comment made about the use of "you". If you prefer the KJV, go for it, but don't get on here and tell us it's wrong to say "you" to God unless you can back it up with a clear command from scripture.



There have been numerous threads recently attacking the KJV.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 9, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> If the OPC has accepted the ESV as their translation, then "the church" has accepted a new translation.


A denomination has accepted a new translation. This isn't the same as how the Bible defines the visible church. We have in our nation a church divided. We ought to be united under the apostles' teaching, being of the same mind on these important matters.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Sep 9, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> There have been numerous threads recently attacking the KJV.


First, I have been responding exclusively to the conversation you and I are having. 

Second, I have not seen any attacks on the KJV translation itself. Also, critique is not the same as an attack. There are legitimate critiques of the CT as well.
With the KJV, most (no matter which side they fall on) would agree it is a fine and faithful translation, but with the caveat that the language is outdated and there are some glaring translation issues (as there are with most translation, so this is not exclusive to the KJV). The attacks I see are on the irrationality and bad argumentation of a KJV only (or close to) position.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Sep 9, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> A denomination has accepted a new translation. This isn't the same as how the Bible defines the visible church. We have in our nation a church divided. We ought to be united under the apostles' teaching, being of the same mind on these important matters.


Can you please point to the passages that you believe defines what the "visible church" is so I can better understand your position?

edit: I guess my other response would be though that I believe the OPC (and any other faithful denomination) is the visible church. If they have made a decision to accept a translation then that clearly was a joint decision. It is legitimate in my eyes. If your denomination has accepted the KJV, then that works too. I am glad we have options and the ability to pick which is best for our specific congregations. Hopefully we can get along still and not say to each other that "you are using Satan's bible".

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 9, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> Can you please point to the passages that you believe defines what the "visible church" is so I can better understand your position?


Jason, I think OT Israel is a good example of the visible church, as was the church in the days of the apostles. You would have found uniformity in confession and in practice, including worship. They would have had uniform copies of the apostles' letters.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 9, 2022)

@retroGRAD3 Ryan McGraw has a book "Is the Church Necessary" which has a good section on defining the historical distinctions between the visible and invisible church.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Sep 9, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> @retroGRAD3 Ryan McGraw has a book "Is the Church Necessary" which has a good section on defining the historical distinctions between the visible and invisible church.


I do understand the distinction. I think the point is I don't agree with how you are defining the visible church and basically how it works out only to support your side of the argument (the use of the KJV exclusively).


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 9, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> I do understand the distinction. I think the point is I don't agree with how you are defining the visible church and basically how it works out only to support your side of the argument (the use of the KJV exclusively).


Reformation comes about via the Spirit working in the visible church. I hold to the establishment principle so believe that reformation goes hand in hand with magistrates who become nursing fathers and mothers to the church, as we see in church history. Providing the peace and space for that now established church to come together for church councils. It is how we have received our confessions of faith and the working out of doctrinal issues over the centuries. God instituted church councils in this way for the peace and good of the church. Westminster was the last such church council.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Sep 9, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> people like you





alexandermsmith said:


> give you cover





alexandermsmith said:


> you will never convince





alexandermsmith said:


> You show absolutely no understanding





alexandermsmith said:


> give you a definition





alexandermsmith said:


> that's your problem





alexandermsmith said:


> people like you





alexandermsmith said:


> You (supposedly) have





alexandermsmith said:


> you'll have another one





alexandermsmith said:


> Why does it bother you


Why do you keep referring to Jacob and Jason with plural pronouns? They are each one person.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1 | Funny 5 | Wow 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Sep 9, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Reformation comes about via the Spirit working in the visible church. I hold to the establishment principle so believe that reformation goes hand in hand with magistrates who become nursing fathers and mothers to the church, as we see in church history. Providing the peace and space for that now established church to come together for church councils. It is how we have received our confessions of faith and the working out of doctrinal issues over the centuries. God instituted church councils in this way for the peace and good of the church. Westminster was the last such church council.


Fair enough. It seems we are at an impasse on this point.


----------



## Logan (Sep 9, 2022)

Brother Alexander, I am not against the KJV at all nor have I attacked it. I think it is a masterpiece of a translation. If you think the recent topics were specifically to attack the KJV then you are mistaken. What I am particularly opposed to are bad arguments.

I have no issue with the following argument, as an example:
"I think the KJV is majestic, accurate, it has many benefits such as personal vs plural pronouns, and though there are some shortcomings, most can be overcome with a little bit of study so as to not make that too big of a hurdle. It is accepted as the official translation of my denomination. It is the closest thing we have to a universal standard, and has been in constant use for 400 years and largely influenced our language, therefore I think we should stick to it."

That's something we can discuss, agree with or disagree with, but it's clearly in the context of an opinion with reasonable points. What I find repugnant is when reasons are proposed to make it an absolute and to attack other translations. E.g.,

"No other translation will ever be acceptable unless it is
a. done during a time of Reformation
b. Authorized by the magistrate of the English-speaking world
c. Done exclusively by a team of church members
d. Is done with the TR that was derived from the KJV
e. Is accepted by the established church
f. Is accepted by all Reformed churches,
etc., etc."

There is no disagreement allowed with "reasons" such as these. They are stated as absolutes with which no disagreement is even entertained.

And none of them are scriptural requirements, or requirements that seemingly would apply to _any translation in any other language!_ They are especially designed to make the KJV the only appropriate translation and to bind it on everyone. I would hold that this is, as I have said, _post hoc_ reasoning, that looks at what happened with the KJV (in isolation to everything else) and then reasons that this must be the standard, simply because it happened. I would have the same issue if someone tried to argue that the ESV or the NKJV were the only acceptable translation based on a similar kind of reasoning.

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 3


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Sep 9, 2022)

Logan said:


> Brother Alexander, I am not against the KJV at all nor have I attacked it. I think it is a masterpiece of a translation. If you think the recent topics were specifically to attack the KJV then you are mistaken. What I am particularly opposed to are bad arguments.
> 
> I have no issue with the following argument, as an example:
> "I think the KJV is majestic, accurate, it has many benefits such as personal vs plural pronouns, and though there are some shortcomings, most can be overcome with a little bit of study so as to not make that too big of a hurdle. It is accepted as the official translation of my denomination. It is the closest thing we have to a universal standard, and has been in constant use for 400 years and largely influenced our language, therefore I think we should stick to it."
> ...


Great summary. Agree with this 100%.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 9, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Reformation comes about via the Spirit working in the visible church. I hold to the establishment principle so believe that reformation goes hand in hand with magistrates who become nursing fathers and mothers to the church, as we see in church history. Providing the peace and space for that now established church to come together for church councils. It is how we have received our confessions of faith and the working out of doctrinal issues over the centuries. God instituted church councils in this way for the peace and good of the church. Westminster was the last such church council.



The Westminster Assembly did not enshrine the exclusive use of the KJV as a dogma. Meanwhile, certain very small denominations have decided that it is a dogma in the absence of a church council declaring that it is. I am afraid that this argument just strikes me as yet another example of special pleading that is inconsistently applied in order to prove what it has already decided is the case.

Reactions: Like 6 | Amen 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 9, 2022)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> The Westminster Assembly did not enshrine the exclusive use of the KJV as a dogma. Meanwhile, certain very small denominations have decided that it is a dogma in the absence of a church council declaring that it is. I am afraid that this argument just strikes me as yet another example of special pleading that is inconsistently applied in order to prove what it has already decided is the case.



Also, piggybacking on this point, does not our confession (WCF XXXI.3) state that synods - not merely international church councils - have the authority to determine such things? If so, then the idea that only a multi-national church council has the power to do so must be an unconfessional one.

Reactions: Like 6 | Informative 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 9, 2022)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> The Westminster Assembly did not enshrine the exclusive use of the KJV as a dogma. Meanwhile, certain very small denominations have decided that it is a dogma in the absence of a church council declaring that it is. I am afraid that this argument just strikes me as yet another example of special pleading that is inconsistently applied in order to prove what it has already decided is the case.


The assembly didn't speak to the issue of any future translations/changes of the Bible, so no, they certainly didn't enshrine the KJV as the only acceptable translation of the texts used. (Who on the PB has claimed they did?) They (or their spiritual fathers at least) had been happy with the Geneva and likely would have continued to be so (don't know enough to say so for sure). Since your first sentence is an inference based on something I don't claim to be true, it's hard to speak to the rest of your reply as it's based on that. I will say that the same small denominations, at least the one I'm most familiar with, have been the remaining part of the church still holding to our Confession of faith as whole denominations, with no exceptions permitted in their ministers. This is a comfort to me that there is still a remnant of the visible church that is keeping to the old paths.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 9, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> The assembly didn't speak to the issue of any future translations/changes of the Bible, so no, they certainly didn't enshrine the KJV as the only acceptable translation of the texts used. (Who on the PB has claimed they did?) They (or their spiritual fathers at least) had been happy with the Geneva and likely would have continued to be so (don't know enough to say so for sure). Since your first sentence is an inference based on something I don't claim to be true, it's hard to speak to the rest of your reply as it's based on that. I will say that the same small denominations, at least the one I'm most familiar with, have been the remaining part of the church still holding to our Confession of faith as whole denominations, with no exceptions permitted in their ministers. This is a comfort to me that there is still a remnant of the visible church that is keeping to the old paths.



Okay, so you admit that your position is extra-confessional?

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 9, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> A denomination has accepted a new translation. This isn't the same as how the Bible defines the visible church. We have in our nation a church divided. We ought to be united under the apostles' teaching, being of the same mind on these important matters.



You are sneaking a lot of issues in here. Strictly speaking, one aspect of the visible church *has* spoken on this issue. As to being united under the apostles' teaching, that begs the very question. My view is the Apostles' view, of course.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 9, 2022)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Okay, so you admit that your position is extra-confessional?


No, I believe holding to the TR is a confessional position; I believe the wording of the Confession on the matter: ..."by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them..." is alluding to the inspiration and preservation of all his words, and that the divines held that the texts received and translated from were those preserved by him. Just as the canon of Scripture had been preserved by his singular care and providence.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 9, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> You are sneaking a lot of issues in here. Strictly speaking, one aspect of the visible church *has* spoken on this issue. As to being united under the apostles' teaching, that begs the very question. My view is the Apostles' view, of course.


I am saying things, but how you see it as 'sneaking' I can't say. I am not clear on what you mean by your second two sentences.


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 9, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> I've made my point and if you don't like it that's your problem.
> 
> I fail to see why people like you and @Logan et. al. care so much about this. You (supposedly) have the modern, CT Bible you want (and you'll have another one soon enough I imagine). And yet again and again we have attacks made on the KJV, new threads springing up. Why does it bother you so much that people like me prefer the KJV? If I had to hazard a guess I'd say it's because, despite having a plethora of translations to choose from, you're not satisfied with what you have but we _are _satisfied with what we have. Well that's what happens when you force new, defective translations on the church. This desire to force your translations on us speaks to the weakness of your position not ours.


You are projecting onto the other side. The reason the KJV is brought up so often is that the other side of the aisle is so often on the attack, denouncing everything else as less than God’s word. To defend against such ridiculous and damaging rhetoric, many people feel the need to set the record straight. 

Your attitude in this post reveals much.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Sep 9, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> No, I believe holding to the TR is a confessional position; I believe the wording of the Confession on the matter: ..."by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them..." is alluding to the inspiration and preservation of all his words, and that the divines held that the texts received and translated from were those preserved by him. Just as the canon of Scripture had been preserved by his singular care and providence.


All sides of this debate that hold to the WCF can appeal to that statement and be telling the truth on their convictions. I believe though that only quoting half of the section does not provide the full context of what the assembly actually believed. The second half is just as important as the first:

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them. But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 9, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> No, I believe holding to the TR is a confessional position; I believe the wording of the Confession on the matter: ..."by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them..." is alluding to the inspiration and preservation of all his words, and that the divines held that the texts received and translated from were those preserved by him. Just as the canon of Scripture had been preserved by his singular care and providence.



You told me that the Westminster divines did not enshrine the notion that the KJV is the only acceptable translation, which is a position that you espouse for various reasons. In other words, you espouse something extra-confessional. There is nothing wrong with that per se, as virtually all of us will have some private opinions beyond what is set down in the Westminster Standards. All that I ask is that we acknowledge that these things are our private opinions and not confessional dogmas.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 9, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I am saying things, but how you see it as 'sneaking' I can't say. I am not clear on what you mean by your second two sentences.



I am not sure how the Apostles' teaching, whatever that is, relates to the discussion at hand? Could you clarify for us what you mean by the Apostles' teaching relative to this thread?


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 9, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> All sides of this debate that hold to the WCF can appeal to that statement and be telling the truth on their convictions. I believe though that only quoting half of the section does not provide the full context of what the assembly actually believed. The second half is just as important as the first:
> 
> The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them. But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.


Jason, if you're alluding to the command to translate the Scriptures into the vulgar language of every nation, and by it mean to say that the KJV no longer accomplishes this, then read my post #76 for some thoughts on that. (I believe the KJV does still accomplish that.)


Reformed Covenanter said:


> You told me that the Westminster divines did not enshrine the notion that the KJV is the only acceptable translation, which is a position that you espouse for various reasons. In other words, you espouse something extra-confessional. There is nothing wrong with that per se, as virtually all of us will have some private opinions beyond what is set down in the Westminster Standards. All that I ask is that we acknowledge that these things are our private opinions and not confessional dogmas.


Where have I espoused that the KJV is the only acceptable translation? I have not. I think it's the best translation we have, and I think a lot was lost by the acceptance of the CT movement.


RamistThomist said:


> I am not sure how the Apostles' teaching, whatever that is, relates to the discussion at hand? Could you clarify for us what you mean by the Apostles' teaching relative to this thread?


My statement you reference was "We have in our nation a church divided. We ought to be united under the apostles' teaching, being of the same mind on these important matters." I believe God's will is that the various congregations be of the same mind on doctrine and practice that was commanded by the apostles (it being the mind of God). That would include that all the elements of worship would be uniform. This would necessitate that their copy of the Scriptures be uniform.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Sep 9, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> My statement you reference was "We have in our nation a church divided. We ought to be united under the apostles' teaching, being of the same mind on these important matters." I believe God's will is that the various congregations be of the same mind on doctrine and practice that was commanded by the apostles (it being the mind of God). That would include that all the elements of worship would be uniform. *This would necessitate that their copy of the Scriptures be uniform.*


This is just an observation, but it seems most of the visible church actually is pretty uniform on which translation to use. They appear to be the ESV (smaller churches) and NIV (almost all mega and non-denominational churches). The KJV is a minority position across the board as far as I have observed. If we are going off shear numbers then the bold part would be working against you and it would seem you are in rebellion to what the visible church has actually decided. However, I don't think that type of argument is good and this would apply to when either side uses it.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 9, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> This is just an observation, but it seems most of the visible church actually is pretty uniform on which translation to use. They appear to be the ESV (smaller churches) and NIV (almost all mega and non-denominational churches). The KJV is a minority position across the board as far as I have observed. If we are going off shear numbers then the bold part would be working against you and it would seem you are in rebellion to what the visible church has actually decided. However, I don't think that type of argument is good and this would apply to when either side uses it.


Majority rule/popularity is not how God has instituted that the church decides something! But I repeat myself.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 9, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> I am not sure how the Apostles' teaching, whatever that is, relates to the discussion at hand? Could you clarify for us what you mean by the Apostles' teaching relative to this thread?


Maybe I am mistaken but the subject of trying to define the Church Universal or maybe the visible and Invisible distinctions so as to define a legitimate authority in putting a seal and approval on translations and manuscripts in today's setting? 

Me and my run on sentences. LOL


----------



## Polanus1561 (Sep 9, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Jason, if you're alluding to the command to translate the Scriptures into the vulgar language of every nation, and by it mean to say that the KJV no longer accomplishes this, then read my post #76 for some thoughts on that. (I believe the KJV does still accomplish that.)
> 
> Where have I espoused that the KJV is the only acceptable translation? I have not. I think it's the best translation we have, and I think a lot was lost by the acceptance of the CT movement.
> 
> My statement you reference was "We have in our nation a church divided. We ought to be united under the apostles' teaching, being of the same mind on these important matters." I believe God's will is that the various congregations be of the same mind on doctrine and practice that was commanded by the apostles (it being the mind of God). That would include that all the elements of worship would be uniform. This would necessitate that their copy of the Scriptures be uniform.


Back to something I posted somewhere here: why then did the Apostles seemingly not 'unite' / 'correct' the divergent OT textual traditions during their time, but not only that, they quoted both LXX and the (proto)Masoretic Hebrew text?

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 9, 2022)

John Yap said:


> Back to something I posted somewhere here: why then did the Apostles seemingly not 'unite' / 'correct' the divergent OT textual traditions during their time, but not only that, they quoted both LXX and the (proto)Masoretic Hebrew text?


i remember that Rev. Winzer here on the board spoke to the LXX here on the board. You can still search those old threads using MW for his name.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 9, 2022)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Maybe I am mistaken but the subject of trying to define the Church Universal or maybe the visible and Invisible distinctions so as to define a legitimate authority in putting a seal and approval on translations and manuscripts in today's setting?
> 
> Me and my run on sentences. LOL



It could be that, but it isn't clear.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 9, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> My statement you reference was "We have in our nation a church divided. We ought to be united under the apostles' teaching, being of the same mind on these important matters." I believe God's will is that the various congregations be of the same mind on doctrine and practice that was commanded by the apostles (it being the mind of God). That would include that all the elements of worship would be uniform. This would necessitate that their copy of the Scriptures be uniform.



Even if that is true, and Daniel's reference of the WCF suggests it isn't, it is not clear why that would necessitate the TR or the KJV.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 9, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Majority rule/popularity is not how God has instituted that the church decides something! But I repeat myself.



It kind of is to a degree on the visible church. If the visible church is united, and they appear to be at least on this issue, then we can expect to see a majority position. Otherwise, it would be the invisible church.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Taylor (Sep 9, 2022)

I have never found this whole discussion of church councils, authorization, reformation, etc., to be convincing or even profitable. The goalposts not only seem arbitrary and detached from any biblical warrant, but they also frequently move. It seems to me the best approach is to evaluate each translation or textual tradition on its merits or lack thereof.

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 3


----------



## Polanus1561 (Sep 9, 2022)

Won't councils/synods etc. not be a part of the Baptist/TR argument (Riddle/Truelove)?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 9, 2022)

Taylor said:


> I have never found this whole discussion of church councils, authorization, reformation, etc., to be convincing or even profitable. The goalposts not only seem arbitrary and detached from any biblical warrant, but they also frequently move. It seems to me the best approach is to evaluate each translation or textual tradition on its merits or lack thereof.



Seeing an American use an illustration from "soccer" to make a point warms my heart.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 9, 2022)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Seeing an American use an illustration from "soccer" to make a point warms my heart.


Hockey goalposts, my lad.

Reactions: Funny 4


----------



## Smeagol (Sep 10, 2022)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> The Westminster Assembly did not enshrine the exclusive use of the KJV as a dogma. Meanwhile, certain very small denominations have decided that it is a dogma in the absence of a church council declaring that it is. I am afraid that this argument just strikes me as yet another example of special pleading that is inconsistently applied in order to prove what it has already decided is the case.


Agreed and it also “guts” much of the non-European/English visible church (Asia and the like) from being included in the visible church. And does so for no other reason but to enshrine a single vulgar English.


RamistThomist said:


> It kind of is to a degree on the visible church. If the visible church is united, and they appear to be at least on this issue, then we can expect to see a majority position. Otherwise, it would be the invisible church.


Exactly, at times the standard standard seems to be:
Large Scale Uniformity and support of a Christian magistrate in order for a new translation to get a blessing.

But then from @Jeri Tanner : “Majority rule/popularity is not how God has instituted that the church decides something! But I repeat myself.”

This raised to discount large denominations’ ordained officers from deciding another English translation as being more beneficial for their sheep. I think this is a prime example that @Logan has been speaking about.

Personal Context: I love the KJV and so I am not attacking it. But the arguments to say that the KJV is the only one the church should use can be frustrating. We use the NKJV.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Northern Crofter (Sep 12, 2022)

After catching up with this thread, I come away with the sense that much of the disconnect (to put it lightly) by the end of the thread is perhaps largely due to most participants in the US being part of fellowships (PCA, OPC, RPCNA et al) that have abandoned the establishment principle, while most in UK/Commonwealth fellowships (and their more recently established American cousins - the FCoS(C), the PRC, etc.) retain it. As someone with 2 passports and toes in two continents, I suggest that the latter see "ecclesiastical authority" in the visible Church as different than those in a denomination. When the Westminster Standards refer to "churches" (for example in WCF 25.5), they were, in the original context, I believe, referring to established national churches. I think they would largely view American denominations as schisms and sects (though perhaps without the charge of being schismatic and/or sectarian).

With the emphasis throughout Scripture on God's dealing with nations, the onus seems to be on those proposing the idea that a denomination has the authority to produce or promote a translation to show the Biblical warrant for (first) denominations and (then) that they have such authority. "Is Christ divided?" / "For there must be heresies even among you, that they which are approved among you, might be known." / "...no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation." These texts (and others) communicate the desired oneness of the visible Church and necessarily preclude intranational divisions of churches. God is not divided, and He is not the author of confusion. The establishment principle in the WCF allows (if not instructs) the civil magistrate to call upon the Church to make a judgment on a matter such as the text and translation of Scripture (31.2 - see also the end of 31.5), but precludes magistrates from making such a judgment themselves (31.3) - it is unto the visible Church that "Christ hath given the ministry, *oracles*, and ordinances of God" (WCF 25.3). It is not optional for the visible Church to assemble in synods (national) and councils (international) - "For the better government and further edification of the Church, there *ought *to be such assemblies as are commonly called synods or councils." (WCF 31.1) Denominations can call their gatherings "synods" and "councils," but the members of the Westminster Assembly would not view them as such. The Westminster Assembly itself was not even a regular ecclesiastical assembly, but rather an advisory commission called by the civil magistrate in keeping with what the Assembly would go on to write in WCF 31 where it states the 4 justifications for a meeting of a synod or council:

if a magistrate called upon them to consult and advise with them about matters of religion (31.2);
if the magistrate is an open enemy to the Church, the ministers can call for a synod on their own by virtue of their office or send delegates to an ecumenical council to consult about matters of religion (31.2);
if the magistrate accepts their petition to "intermeddle with civil affairs" in extraordinary cases (31.5);
if the magistrate requires them to give advice on civil affairs (31.5).
If you believe that the original Westminster Standards are agreeable with Scripture, then the idea that a Church (a national church in the view of the Assembly) or Council of Churches, and only a Church/Council can authorize a translation or approve of a translation should not seem odd. These bodies do not have to, but no other body can. This action would, I believe, fall under their synodical/conciliar authority to "determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church" (WCF 31.3). Since their "decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission, not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God, appointed thereunto in his Word," (Ibid.), it would make sense (and perhaps be wise) that they decide which text of the original languages and/or vulgar translation they are using to make such decrees and determinations (the former being more important than the latter). As I posted in a different discussion, an example of this occurred in Scotland. The "Bassandyne Bible," a reprint of the first folio Geneva Bible, was the first Bible authorised to be printed in Scotland (Edinburgh, 1579) and was ordered to be in each parish kirk by King James' Privy Council after a petition to that effect from the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland (see _History of the Bassandyne Bible, the first printed in Scotland; with notices of the early printers of Edinburgh_ by William Dobson, 1887, Chapter 4). (This would have been King James VI of Scotland before he became King James I and decided he didn't like the Geneva translation after all - though when he expressed his disfavor, it was directed at the commentary in the notes and not necessarily the translation). This appears to be an example of what the Westminster Assembly later approved of - the Church petitioning the civil magistrate to "take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire" (WCF 23.3). To clarify some of the misconceptions in the above posts, unlike the Geneva Bible in Scotland, there is no official record showing James I(VI) authorised the final product of what became known as the KJV/KJV - rather he authorised the process that led to it (see Logan's reference to Barlow and the 1603 Hampton Court in #38 above).


Logan said:


> What I find repugnant is when reasons are proposed to make it an absolute and to attack other translations. E.g.,
> 
> "No other translation will ever be acceptable unless it is
> a. done during a time of Reformation
> ...


Logan, I hope what I posted above and believe are principles drawn from the WCF are different from what you find repugnant - I agree that there is no merit for a. through f. (though to be consistent in what I believe is a confessional view, I believe e. is valid if stated "Is accepted by *an *established church").


Logan said:


> I'd rather judge the translation primarily upon its own merits than judge it primarily by the circumstances under which it was produced.


But is it in your authority as an individual to make this judgment? (I hope you don't think I'm picking on you by only quoting you!)


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 12, 2022)

Interesting Andrew, I also realized a couple of days ago that in these discussions, the differences in mindset and perspective between adherence to the original WCF and the American version (forgive the long run-on wordiness) must surely be coming into play. It seems that Presbyterian denominations that hold to the original WCF also still hold to the texts (and in line with that, the use of the KJV) that prevailed in that time of reformation and church councils. I haven’t thoroughly researched this; does anyone know of a Presbyterian denomination that holds to the original WCF who doesn’t also hold to the TR view? (Via the close reasoning and consequences of it that fall in line with holding that “high view” of church establishment/reformation etc)


----------



## Polanus1561 (Sep 12, 2022)

Here is a recent article https://gentlereformation.com/2022/09/08/edward-hills-a-strange-providence/ by a RPTS professor that some may find interesting


----------



## Logan (Sep 12, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Interesting Andrew, I also realized a couple of days ago that in these discussions, the differences in mindset and perspective between adherence to the original WCF and the American version (forgive the long run-on wordiness) must surely be coming into play. It seems that Presbyterian denominations that hold to the original WCF also still hold to the texts (and in line with that, the use of the KJV) that prevailed in that time of reformation and church councils. I haven’t thoroughly researched this; does anyone know of a Presbyterian denomination that holds to the original WCF who doesn’t also hold to the TR view? (Via the close reasoning and consequences of it that fall in line with holding that “high view” of church establishment/reformation etc)



I don't think that's correct.
I'm original WCF. I hold to the establishment principle. So do several others on this board, who also don't hold to the "TR view" (which is ill-defined).
Many of the TR advocates are NOT part of denominations which hold to the establishment principle. I don't see the correlation.

And I would strongly warn that to find a correlation is to create an artificial wedge between the "truly Reformed" and "the rest".

I've never heard anyone espouse Andrew's view before. He isn't a "TR advocate". He has said "Were there a CT version produced and authorized in the same way, I would have to accept that it also had merit."

Reactions: Like 6 | Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 12, 2022)

Northern Crofter said:


> But is it in your authority as an individual to make this judgment? (I hope you don't think I'm picking on you by only quoting you!)



Sure it is. God has given us rational faculties and a conscience. Is my judgment authoritative on others? Probably not. But for me to mentally accede to points of translation which are demonstrably faulty is to go against conscience.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 12, 2022)

Logan said:


> I'm original WCF. I hold to the establishment principle.


Logan, just to clarify, do you disagree with the RPCNA's constitution where in 23:3 it rejects everything after the semi-colon (including that the magistrate has the power (indeed the duty) to call synods and to be present at them)?


----------



## Logan (Sep 12, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Logan, just to clarify, do you disagree with the RPCNA's constitution where in 23:3 it rejects everything after the semi-colon (including that the magistrate has the power (indeed the duty) to call synods and to be present at them)?


I don't think it should matter to this discussion, but yes.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 12, 2022)

Logan said:


> I don't think it should matter to this discussion, but yes.


Thanks for the reply. I think it matters, in that the original WCF includes this, and it's a pretty important element in the broader discussion. You may disagree and obviously do; with that, I will have to bow out of this aspect of the discussion as I lack the time, energy, and talent to pursue it any further. I am still interested to know of any denomination that holds to the original WCF in its entirety, that does not also hold to the TR, if anyone knows of such a one.


----------



## iainduguid (Sep 12, 2022)

Northern Crofter said:


> After catching up with this thread, I come away with the sense that much of the disconnect (to put it lightly) by the end of the thread is perhaps largely due to most participants in the US being part of fellowships (PCA, OPC, RPCNA et al) that have abandoned the establishment principle, while most in UK/Commonwealth fellowships (and their more recently established American cousins - the FCoS(C), the PRC, etc.) retain it. As someone with 2 passports and toes in two continents, I suggest that the latter see "ecclesiastical authority" in the visible Church as different than those in a denomination. When the Westminster Standards refer to "churches" (for example in WCF 25.5), they were, in the original context, I believe, referring to established national churches. I think they would largely view American denominations as schisms and sects (though perhaps without the charge of being schismatic and/or sectarian).
> 
> With the emphasis throughout Scripture on God's dealing with nations, the onus seems to be on those proposing the idea that a denomination has the authority to produce or promote a translation to show the Biblical warrant for (first) denominations and (then) that they have such authority. "Is Christ divided?" / "For there must be heresies even among you, that they which are approved among you, might be known." / "...no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation." These texts (and others) communicate the desired oneness of the visible Church and necessarily preclude intranational divisions of churches. God is not divided, and He is not the author of confusion. The establishment principle in the WCF allows (if not instructs) the civil magistrate to call upon the Church to make a judgment on a matter such as the text and translation of Scripture (31.2 - see also the end of 31.5), but precludes magistrates from making such a judgment themselves (31.3) - it is unto the visible Church that "Christ hath given the ministry, *oracles*, and ordinances of God" (WCF 25.3). It is not optional for the visible Church to assemble in synods (national) and councils (international) - "For the better government and further edification of the Church, there *ought *to be such assemblies as are commonly called synods or councils." (WCF 31.1) Denominations can call their gatherings "synods" and "councils," but the members of the Westminster Assembly would not view them as such. The Westminster Assembly itself was not even a regular ecclesiastical assembly, but rather an advisory commission called by the civil magistrate in keeping with what the Assembly would go on to write in WCF 31 where it states the 4 justifications for a meeting of a synod or council:
> 
> ...


Hi Andrew,
From my perspective, I think this is exactly the kind of approach that Logan is critiquing.
1) for all its appeal to church councils, it is idiosyncratic. None of the Reformers or Westminster divines actually made this kind of argument in favor of the KJV, nor is it this the argument made by modern day denominations. Compare for example the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland's explanation of its use of the KJV here: https://www.fpchurch.org.uk/about-us/what-we-contend-for/the-authorised-version/; its rationale is quite different. Your argument sets a standard whereby the KJV cannot be challenged in any foreseeable world.
2) It leaves large parts of the church worldwide with no way to have a "proper" Bible. You say that it is enough that it is accepted by "*an* established church" but it is unclear why a church with which my denomination potentially has no relationship (not even the same language!) has the power to determine what Bible our churches use, but our churches themselves do not. This is fundamentally unPresbyterian. Moreover, the conditions you have laid down whereby other churches might get a "proper" Bible are unfulfillable in the modern world. Perhaps they might become plausible again in some Presbyterian millennium (though it is worth noting how few countries have fulfilled the conditions and for how short a time down through history - in England, it was less than one generation), but in the meantime, people need a Bible. What should those churches do? Why does the wisdom of 17th century English bishops and Scottish presbyters trump the legitimate pastoral oversight of the shepherds of their local flock gathered together as a Presbyery?

Reactions: Like 10 | Amen 1


----------



## Taylor (Sep 12, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I am still interested to know of any denomination that holds to the original WCF in its entirety, that does not also hold to the TR, if anyone knows of such a one.


Although it is no longer around, having just recently collapsed, the RPCUS, as far as I know, was not TR, although I’m pretty sure they adopted the original WCF jot and tittle.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 12, 2022)

Taylor said:


> Although it is no longer around, having just recently collapsed, the RPCUS, as far as I know, was not TR, although I’m pretty sure they adopted the original WCF jot and tittle.


Did they really hold to the WCF since evidently they misconstrued its teaching to imply theonomy? But this line of inquiry could go into the rabbit hole, I see.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Taylor (Sep 12, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Did they really hold to the WCF since evidently they misconstrued its teaching to imply theonomy? But this line of inquiry could go into the rabbit hole, I see.


You asked for a denomination that 1) adopted the original WCF and 2) was not TR. Whether or not one disagrees with their interpretation of the original WCF is logically irrelevant to whether or not they in fact adopted it.

Reactions: Like 4 | Informative 1


----------



## JP Wallace (Sep 12, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Thanks for the reply. I think it matters, in that the original WCF includes this, and it's a pretty important element in the broader discussion. You may disagree and obviously do; with that, I will have to bow out of this aspect of the discussion as I lack the time, energy, and talent to pursue it any further. I am still interested to know of any denomination that holds to the original WCF in its entirety, that does not also hold to the TR, if anyone knows of such a one.


Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland
Reformed Presbyterian Church of Scotland
Evangelical Presbyterian Church of England and Wales
Free Church of Scotland

I don't think any of these make any subtractions to the the Confession of Faith.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## JP Wallace (Sep 12, 2022)

Of course holding to the TR is I assume permitted in all of those denominations.


----------



## Jake (Sep 12, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Interesting Andrew, I also realized a couple of days ago that in these discussions, the differences in mindset and perspective between adherence to the original WCF and the American version (forgive the long run-on wordiness) must surely be coming into play. It seems that Presbyterian denominations that hold to the original WCF also still hold to the texts (and in line with that, the use of the KJV) that prevailed in that time of reformation and church councils. I haven’t thoroughly researched this; does anyone know of a Presbyterian denomination that holds to the original WCF who doesn’t also hold to the TR view? (Via the close reasoning and consequences of it that fall in line with holding that “high view” of church establishment/reformation etc)


When I first starting attending an FCoS(C) congregation the NKJV was the pulpit Bible. I believe there was a recommendation made at presbytery to switch to the KJV for conformity, but I'm not sure if all FCoS(C) congregations across the denomination are now using the KJV. For a while NKJV was used in some congregations.

I've seen that some congregations of the Associated Presbyterian Church of Scotland use the ESV. I can't find a current example, but you can search their website and find quotations from the ESV in many articles on their website and "APC News" publication. The FPCoS is of course KJV only.

I don't know about all of the descendants of the RPCUS, but the RPCUS claimed to use the original WCF. I know the NASB was used alongside the NKJV in the RPCUS congregation I attended. I don't see anything on the RPCGA distinctives about Bible versions.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## JH (Sep 12, 2022)

Jake said:


> The FPCoS is of course KJV only.


I'm curious how we're defining KJV only

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 12, 2022)

Thanks everyone. Faithful adherence to the WCF with no exceptions/subtractions is what I had in mind, but I now see there can be the formality of adherence without the faithfulness. Jake, since the NKJV is arguably based on the TR, that makes sense. This isn't a KJV-only line of inquiry but it is a TR-only line.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## JP Wallace (Sep 12, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Thanks everyone. Faithful adherence to the WCF with no exceptions/subtractions is what I had in mind, but I now see there can be the formality of adherence without the faithfulness.


And all of those four denominations are faithful in their adherence in general terms...and in more specific terms.....other than perhaps in maintain the exclusive psalmody etc. from which EPECEW has not held to and that the FCofS has abandoned.

Are you now determining faithful adherence to the WCF as being equivalent to TR holding?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jake (Sep 12, 2022)

Jerrod Hess said:


> I'm curious how we're defining KJV only


To use their words, "The Authorised (King James) Version of the Bible is used exclusively throughout the English-speaking congregations of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland."






The Authorised Version – Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland







www.fpchurch.org.uk





I should probably be careful because of the loaded use of the term by many heretics, but the FPCoS more exclusively uses the KJV than any other Presbyterian denomination I'm aware of.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan (Sep 12, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Thanks everyone. Faithful adherence to the WCF with no exceptions/subtractions is what I had in mind, but I now see there can be the formality of adherence without the faithfulness.



Ah! No _true_ Scotsman

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## JH (Sep 12, 2022)

Jake said:


> I should probably be careful because of the loaded use of the term by many heretics, but the FPCoS more exclusively uses the KJV than any other Presbyterian denomination I'm aware of.


I exclusively use the KJV, as do many. When I hear "King James Onlyism" from others, typically it's used as a catch-all net for those who prefer the KJV over other available English Translations – whereas when I hear "King James Onlyism", my mind immediately jumps to men like Peter Ruckman. Personally I'm at a point where (by exhaustion) I'm just going to start embracing the term.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 12, 2022)

JP Wallace said:


> And all of those four denominations are faithful in their adherence in general terms...and in more specific terms.....other than perhaps in maintain the exclusive psalmody etc. from which EPECEW has not held to and that the FCofS has abandoned.


Thanks. Are ministers in these denominations permitted to take exceptions to the WCF?


----------



## JP Wallace (Sep 12, 2022)

Jeri,

You asked for information about denominations who hold to the original WCF and who do not require TR only. I have provided that information.

I will be saying nothing more on this forum.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Sep 12, 2022)

It would appear that Andrew's hypothesis has been shown false. The use of the TR and full subscription to the original WCF are not necessarily related.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 12, 2022)

JP Wallace said:


> Jeri,
> 
> You asked for information about denominations who hold to the original WCF and who do not require TR only. I have provided that information.
> 
> I will be saying nothing more on this forum.


I hope people won't misunderstand. I'm not trying for any kind of 'gotcha.' I am genuinely trying to work through a question of particulars concerning those Presbyterian denominations who hold to the exclusive use of the TR (including the NKJV) (at least in preaching) and those who don't. So far it seems to be the case that there is a link between those who are strictest on confessional subscription, including from their officers, and that use; but it makes sense that would be the case.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Taylor (Sep 12, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> So far it seems to be the case that there is a link between those who are strictest on confessional subscription, including from their officers, and that use; but it makes sense that would be the case.


We should not confuse _strict subscription_ with _strict subscription to the original confession_. Subscription speaks to a particular church’s confessional standards, not to a preferred historical confession of faith. Of course, I would prefer that the OPC at her founding went back to the original WCF. Be that as it may, when my brothers and fathers ask me, Lord willing, in a couple months regarding my understanding of confessional subscription, I will say “strict” with an absolutely clear conscience, because the question has to do with the OPC’s doctrinal standards, not any others. Whether or not we agree with it, the American revision of the WCF, which is essentially what the OPC adopted, are just as much a product of the church as the original WCF was.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Sep 12, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I hope people won't misunderstand. I'm not trying for any kind of 'gotcha.' I am genuinely trying to work through a question of particulars concerning those Presbyterian denominations who hold to the exclusive use of the TR (including the NKJV) (at least in preaching) and those who don't. *So far it seems to be the case that there is a link *between those who are strictest on confessional subscription, including from their officers, and that use; but it makes sense that would be the case.


I think the responses that have come in have shown this *not to be the case*. The "strictest sense" is not something that can be tested without bias or context so it must be thrown out as a data point. All that can be tested in reality are those that subscribe without exception and those that subscribe with exception. It has been demonstrated that there are several denominations that subscribe without exception and do not hold to TR only. If people are not able to be logical and reasonable when it comes to these types of observations then we will get nowhere. There does come a point when we have to be willing to admit we are wrong (on either side) when the evidence just isn't there to support our conclusions. Otherwise, we might as well all start subscribing to post modernism and throw out all standards.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 12, 2022)

Taylor said:


> We should not confuse _strict subscription_ with _strict subscription to the original confession_. Subscription speaks to a particular church’s confessional standards, not to a preferred historical confession of faith. Of course, I would prefer that the OPC at her founding went back to the original WCF. Be that as it may, when my brothers and fathers ask me, Lord willing, in a couple months regarding my understanding of confessional subscription, I will say “strict” with an absolutely clear conscience, because the question has to do with the OPC’s doctrinal standards, not any others. Whether or not we agree with it, the American revision of the WCF, which is essentially what the OPC adopted, are just as much a product of the church as the original WCF was.


I understand that, but of course you realize that some disagree with the various denominations' acts in changing standards that were handed down to us from a time of great light, reformation, and national church establishment. And that brings us back around to the never-ending full circle! I will let it go, all. Not sure I've been any kind of good representative of a view I believe, but am not qualified to argue. Thanks for putting up with me.


----------



## Taylor (Sep 12, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I understand that, but of course you realize that some disagree with the various denominations' acts in changing standards that were handed down to us from a time of great light, reformation, and national church establishment.


I can absolutely grant that. And, again, I personally prefer the original WCF. I was just trying to make the point that _strict subscription_ has reference to a given church’s doctrinal standards as put forth by that particular church.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Northern Crofter (Sep 12, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> It would appear that Andrew's hypothesis has been shown false. The use of the TR and full subscription to the original WCF are not necessarily related.


I don't recognize my hypothesis in your summary. As others have noted, I am not TR exclusive.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Sep 12, 2022)

Northern Crofter said:


> I don't recognize my hypothesis in your summary. As others have noted, I am not TR exclusive.


Perhaps it was Jeri's hypothesis then as a derivative from your statement


----------



## Northern Crofter (Sep 12, 2022)

iainduguid said:


> You say that it is enough that it is accepted by "*an* established church" but it is unclear why a church with which my denomination potentially has no relationship (not even the same language!) has the power to determine what Bible our churches use, but our churches themselves do not. This is fundamentally unPresbyterian.* I agree and that was not my meaning - I did not state anything other than my belief that the WCF holds that an established church has authority to accept a text for the part of the Body under its government*.





iainduguid said:


> Moreover, the conditions you have laid down whereby other churches might get a "proper" Bible are unfulfillable in the modern world. Perhaps they might become plausible again in some Presbyterian millennium (though it is worth noting how few countries have fulfilled the conditions and for how short a time down through history - in England, it was less than one generation), but in the meantime, people need a Bible. What should those churches do? *They can use whatever they like. I don't believe I used the word "proper" - my point was that I believe only a Church court can adopt a text/version/translation. The WCF seems to allow synod and councils such authority. *





iainduguid said:


> Why does the wisdom of 17th century English bishops and Scottish presbyters trump the legitimate pastoral oversight of the shepherds of their local flock gathered together as a Presbyery? *I have never argued that a lawful Church court cannot change/update their decision. My main point was to state that individuals and denominations have no authority receive a text. I would concede that a Presbytery should be able to do so, but the WCF specifically mentions only synods and councils. I believe much of Rutherford's argumentation in Due Right would support the former, especially if applied to the modern situation of a lack of established churches. *


----------



## Northern Crofter (Sep 12, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> Perhaps it was Jeri's hypothesis then as a derivative from your statement


Perhaps - I appreciate much of what Jeri is trying to state, but I do not support it all. I see no connection between the WCF and KJV exclusivity.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Northern Crofter (Sep 12, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> But for me to mentally accede to points of translation which are demonstrably faulty is to go against conscience.


Shouldn't this compel you to approach your church court with such information for them to consider and, if in agreement, notify their flock?


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 12, 2022)

Northern Crofter said:


> Shouldn't this compel you to approach your church court with such information for them to consider and, if in agreement, notify their flock?


Perhaps, but I’m in agreement with my church

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 12, 2022)

Northern Crofter said:


> Perhaps - I appreciate much of what Jeri is trying to state, but I do not support it all. I see no connection between the WCF and KJV exclusivity.


Ok to be sure it’s understood- I am not KJV-only and do not support KJV onlyism. I do support the KJV as the currently preferable TR edition for use in the English-speaking churches.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Jake (Sep 12, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Interesting Andrew, I also realized a couple of days ago that in these discussions, the differences in mindset and perspective between adherence to the original WCF and the American version (forgive the long run-on wordiness) must surely be coming into play. It seems that Presbyterian denominations that hold to the original WCF also still hold to the texts (and in line with that, the use of the KJV) that prevailed in that time of reformation and church councils. I haven’t thoroughly researched this; does anyone know of a Presbyterian denomination that holds to the original WCF who doesn’t also hold to the TR view? (Via the close reasoning and consequences of it that fall in line with holding that “high view” of church establishment/reformation etc)


Out of the 4 strict subscription WCF Scottish denominations, my understanding is two do not hold to a strict TR position (APC and RPCoS) and two do in some form (FCC and FPCoS). 

Interestingly, I spent some time trying to understand how the FCC ended up at the position it did or how official it did several years ago. It was not the dominant view in the original, immediately post-disruption Free Church of Scotland, and I'm not positive the FCC has an official position on the TR. You can see the list of translators of the Revised Version (1881), the first major authorized translation based on the Critical Text. https://www.bible-researcher.com/ervhistory.html The translation committee included 5 faculty members of the Free Church Colleges, including Patrick Fairbairn and David Brown who joined the Free Church at the Disruption of 1843.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## iainduguid (Sep 12, 2022)

Jake said:


> Out of the 4 strict subscription WCF Scottish denominations, my understanding is two do not hold to a strict TR position (APC and RPCoS) and two do in some form (FCC and FPCoS).
> 
> Interestingly, I spent some time trying to understand how the FCC ended up at the position it did or how official it did several years ago. It was not the dominant view in the original, immediately post-disruption Free Church of Scotland, and I'm not positive the FCC has an official position on the TR. You can see the list of translators of the Revised Version (1881), the first major authorized translation based on the Critical Text. https://www.bible-researcher.com/ervhistory.html The translation committee included 5 faculty members of the Free Church Colleges, including Patrick Fairbairn and David Brown who joined the Free Church at the Disruption of 1843.


Jake,
Just a word of caution. The Free Church Colleges had a pretty steep decline in Biblical orthodoxy in the 50 years after the disruption in 1843, so while we might assume that someone teaching at the Free Church College was a conservative, that isn't the case. Looking at the list you reference, I see W. Robertson Smith and A.B. Davidson, neither of whom inspire a great deal of confidence. In the late 1870's Robertson Smith was tried for his views on the Bible and eventually removed from his position at the Free Church College in Aberdeen. A.B. Davidson was much less outspoken, but not particularly conservative.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## Jake (Sep 12, 2022)

iainduguid said:


> Jake,
> Just a word of caution. The Free Church Colleges had a pretty steep decline in Biblical orthodoxy in the 50 years after the disruption in 1843, so while we might assume that someone teaching at the Free Church College was a conservative, that isn't the case. Looking at the list you reference, I see W. Robertson Smith and A.B. Davidson, neither of whom inspire a great deal of confidence. In the late 1870's Robertson Smith was tried for his views on the Bible and eventually removed from his position at the Free Church College in Aberdeen. A.B. Davidson was much less outspoken, but not particularly conservative.


Yes, I understand there was a quick period of decline in the Free Church leading to the 1900 split, but that's why I also included there were men from the Disruption involved. Fairbairn was certainly a bonafide conservative, though I'm not sure what he overall thought of the RV effort (and his focus was in OT). Thank you for the caution though. I've found myself shocked at how quickly decline can slip into a church, as there were some strange views that emerged by the end of the 19th century in the Free Church (just as there were in the CoS long before 1843).

My best guess is that the TR position became the _de facto_ view after the split of the Continuing group in 2000, but I never actually put all the pieces together.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## iainduguid (Sep 12, 2022)

Sending your brightest and best students off to do further study in Germany had mixed results. On the one hand it sharpened the skills and focus of men like Vos and Machen, while on the other it led to shipwreck in a number of cases. I was sobered by reading John Rogerson's _The Bible and Criticism in Victorian Britain _before I went to Cambridge to do my own PhD. We should pray for those whose vocation is academic scholarship: the present generation has its own shipwrecks to lament.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Northern Crofter (Sep 12, 2022)

Logan said:


> I've never heard anyone espouse Andrew's view before


I don't view my view as particularly novel. The WCF recognizes the Biblical teaching that the Church courts alone hold the final authority to determine matters of doctrine, purity, and controversy for the Church (individual matters of conscience withstanding). Determining what, if any, text, textual family, or translation should be received by a particular church seems to be a fundamental decision since all other decisions are founded upon the Word. I am perpetually surprised that more do not work through the issues and arrive at a determination. Even a split view ("we accept/adopt/receive these translations for use in public worship etc") would seem to be preferable to none from my perspective.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Sep 13, 2022)

JP Wallace said:


> Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland
> Reformed Presbyterian Church of Scotland
> Evangelical Presbyterian Church of England and Wales
> Free Church of Scotland
> ...



Do they actually conform their doctrine, practice and piety to the Confession though?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 13, 2022)

Are English-speaking Dutch Reformed ministers bound to use the KJV based on the fact that the KJV was established by the English branch of the Reformation? Are they bound to accept the TR?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Northern Crofter (Sep 14, 2022)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Are English-speaking Dutch Reformed ministers bound to use the KJV based on the fact that the KJV was established by the English branch of the Reformation? Are they bound to accept the TR?


They should not be bound to use anything unless the Church court whose authority they are under adopts a particular text. If their particular church has made not such decision, they can use whatever they choose.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Deleted member 12865 (Sep 14, 2022)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Are English-speaking Dutch Reformed ministers bound to use the KJV based on the fact that the KJV was established by the English branch of the Reformation? Are they bound to accept the TR?


I agree with Northern Crofter‘s response: however what is the premise of your second question? Surely not the TR being peculiar to the reformation in Britain. The Statenvertaling (1637), the state Bible of the Dutch Republic via the Synod of Dort, was a TR translation. As was the Luther Bible (NT 1522) and many of the various other Bibles of the continental Reformation. If anything the TR has more imprimatur in the Continental Reformation than in Britain.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 2


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 14, 2022)

ntk said:


> I agree with Northern Crofter‘s response: however what is the premise of your second question? Surely not the TR being peculiar to the reformation in Britain. The Statenvertaling (1637), the state Bible of the Dutch Republic via the Synod of Dort, was a TR translation. As was the Luther Bible (NT 1522) and many of the various other Bibles of the continental Reformation. If anything the TR has more imprimatur in the Continental Reformation than in Britain.


The TR as compiled by Scrivener was based upon textual critical decisions made by the translators of the KJV. Did the Dutch translators err in their interpretations where they made differing textual critical decisions based on the manuscripts available? We keep hearing "Establishment" arguments used as the basis for the acceptance of a translation. This then gets merged with the arguments (by some TR proponents) that we must have 100% confidence in the underlying Greek (zero variants) but the problem is that one standard competes with the others. One could argue that a Dutch scholar could have compiled his own version of Scrivener's TR. Would this have the same standing as the TR?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Northern Crofter (Sep 14, 2022)

Semper Fidelis said:


> The TR as compiled by Scrivener was based upon textual critical decisions made by the translators of the KJV. Did the Dutch translators err in their interpretations where they made differing textual critical decisions based on the manuscripts available? We keep hearing "Establishment" arguments used as the basis for the acceptance of a translation. This then gets merged with the arguments (by some TR proponents) that we must have 100% confidence in the underlying Greek (zero variants) but the problem is that one standard competes with the others. One could argue that a Dutch scholar could have compiled his own version of Scrivener's TR. Would this have the same standing as the TR?


You also seem to be merging the arguments - the adoption of a text by a Church court does not mean they must have 100% confidence in the underlying Greek. Whether the Dutch Church adopts a text by a Dutch scholar, 100 Dutch scholars, 1000 Romanian scholars, or an international group of scholars is irrelevant - it won't have any more or less standing than the TR or CT. It would simply have the same standing in the Dutch Church as the Geneva did in the Scottish Kirk when the latter adopted it for its particular church. I realize this invites an eschatalogical presupposition, but shouldn't we be working towards establishing unified faithful churches and synods in every nation and then bringing them together in ecumenical councils? My hope would be that each particular church would one day bring forth what it believes to be the most faithful text and decide the issue in such a council. But the first step is to establish particular churches to establish their texts. This is the work of the Church, not scholars, however Godly they may be, with the caveat that this does not preclude scholars from continuing their work - rather the work of such (especially those who are Godly) should be encouraged to provide the churches with texts for them to consider.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Sep 14, 2022)

Northern Crofter said:


> This is the work of the Church, not scholars, however Godly they may be, with the caveat that this does not preclude scholars from continuing their work - rather the work of such (especially those who are Godly) should be encouraged to provide the churches with texts for them to consider.


Something to think about. Scholars could be the church (the invisible). We aren't papists. We want the invisible church doing the translation work. The people that are part of the invisible church (truly saved) will be part of a visible church. Many visible/established church bodies are apostate. I don't think many of us would accept translations from several bodies that call themselves the church today, including the Anglican church who originally did the KJV (much of which openly accepts homosexuality and other perversions today).


----------



## Jake (Sep 14, 2022)

Semper Fidelis said:


> The TR as compiled by Scrivener was based upon textual critical decisions made by the translators of the KJV. Did the Dutch translators err in their interpretations where they made differing textual critical decisions based on the manuscripts available? We keep hearing "Establishment" arguments used as the basis for the acceptance of a translation. This then gets merged with the arguments (by some TR proponents) that we must have 100% confidence in the underlying Greek (zero variants) but the problem is that one standard competes with the others. One could argue that a Dutch scholar could have compiled his own version of Scrivener's TR. Would this have the same standing as the TR?



It's fine for those who are comfortable with saying anything within the Textus Receptus tradition is appropriate to use today and to respect the variants within it. Of course, that means not having the Johannine Comma may be an acceptable positoin since TR Bibles like the Luther Bible (NT 1522) and some early Dutch TR-based Bibles don't include it. I think a lot of folks are okay with using various versions of the TR and allowing variation within versions of the TR, at least between Erasmus' 3rd edition and Scriviner's 1881. I'm not sure if Erasmus's 2nd edition is acceptable since it lacks the Comma.


----------

