# Can one be "truly" reformed and not use ESV?



## thistle93

Hi! I am kind of kidding here but seems that the recent trend in reformed circles is that if you are "truly" reformed you use the ESV. In fact I have seen where anti-reformed church ask if candidate uses ESV to tell if a pastor is reformed, so they don't get hired. There is nothing particularly reformed about the ESV translation is there? Do you think reason is because majority of ESV translators reformed? Don't get me wrong. I think ESV is a great translation with a good mixture of literalness and dynamic. I actually use ESV for preaching and primarily for study but I have found I like to use NIV 2011 (oh no) for devotional purposes. 

Thoughts? 



For His Glory-
Matthew


----------



## Edward

I like the NKJV. There are other acceptable choices out there besides it and the ESV.

Burn the new NIV.


----------



## SolaScriptura

thistle93 said:


> In fact I have seen where anti-reformed church ask if candidate uses ESV to tell if a pastor is reformed, so they don't get hired.



Right now I only want to comment on this. Any church that would ask me this question with the intent of not calling me if I give the "wrong answer" is the kind of church I wouldn't want to touch with a 10-foot pole.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Considering that the reformation began over 500 years ago and that the ESV has been around for only 12 years or so, is this a serious question?


----------



## Zach

Guys, don't you know the King James Version is the only real Bible? It's the original.


----------



## Edward

Zach said:


> It's the original.



No, real reformed folks use the Breeches Bible. Not that modern KJV.


----------



## irresistible_grace

I know what you mean because I have heard the expression before (and I myself use the ESV at home) but in my camp you are ONLY* truly reformed *if you use the KJV & specifically refer to it as the AV or the* Authorized Version!!!*


----------



## Jack K

In my Baptist church there's probably a correlation between ESV usage and leaning more strongly Reformed. I and my ESV are part of it. And I can't, offhand, think of any ESV users among the handful of openly Arminian or passionately dispensational people in the church.

I suspect the litmus test approach—"Is he one of those Reformed guys?"—in Baptist circles is due in part to the ESV's endorsement by several prominent Baptist preachers known for being Calvinists (think Piper, Mohler, Dever) and the subsequent move to the ESV by people who follow those guys. The test actually works a lot of the time. But the business of trying to guess where a Baptist pastor stands on election would be unneccesary if more Baptists simply subscribed to a full confession. The confessional test really beats the "what Bible does he use" test.


----------



## JoannaV

irresistible_grace said:


> I know what you mean because I have heard the expression before (and I myself use the ESV at home) but in my camp you are ONLY* truly reformed *if you use the KJV & specifically refer to it as the AV or the* Authorized Version!!!*



Noooo it's the Authorized Bible, not Version!!


----------



## KaphLamedh

Wasn't Geneva Bible the Bible of the true reformed church? Does any church (or anyone here) today use the 1599 Geneva Bible which was published by Tolle Lege?


----------



## Marcus417

I love the ESV, but also use the NRSV and NASB from time to time in my study.


----------



## KaphLamedh

Marcus417 said:


> I love the ESV, but also use the NRSV and NASB from time to time in my study.



Me too. ESV is great translation. I use nowadays AV and ESV ("only").


----------



## JohnGill

thistle93 said:


> Hi! I am kind of kidding here but seems that the recent trend in reformed circles is that if you are "truly" reformed you use the ESV. In fact I have seen where anti-reformed church ask if candidate uses ESV to tell if a pastor is reformed, so they don't get hired. There is nothing particularly reformed about the ESV translation is there? Do you think reason is because majority of ESV translators reformed? Don't get me wrong. I think ESV is a great translation with a good mixture of literalness and dynamic. I actually use ESV for preaching and primarily for study but I have found I like to use NIV 2011 (oh no) for devotional purposes.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> For His Glory-
> Matthew



Thought 1, burn the NIV 2011. It shouldn't be used for much of anything save kindling, let alone devotions. 
Thought 2, to those who think the ESV represents being Reformed: Silly reasoning. One could also argue that using the ESV means one is liberal as the ESV is the RSV with changes. Therefore I argue that in order for one to be truly Reformed one must use the Tyndale Bible. 
Thought 3, buy marshmallows prior to burning the NIV 2011



KaphLamedh said:


> Wasn't Geneva Bible the Bible of the true reformed church? Does any church (or anyone here) today use the 1599 Geneva Bible which was published by Tolle Lege?



I have a copy of it. I compare it to the AV and occasionally use it for the notes. However for daily usage and Bible memorization I only use the AV.


----------



## Curt

I use several, including ESV (which I like for the notes - Reformation Study Bible). But, shouldn't the committees rather be asking about the candidate's grasp of the original languages?


----------



## JohnGill

Curt said:


> I use several, including ESV (which I like for the notes - Reformation Study Bible). But, shouldn't the committees rather be asking about the candidate's grasp of the original languages?



If the comment about anti-reformed churches test for ESV usage at all represents IFB churches, then knowing the original languages could be just as bad.


----------



## Curt

JohnGill said:


> If the comment about anti-reformed churches test for ESV usage at all represents IFB churches, then knowing the original languages could be just as bad.



The question becomes, "just what is the original language. Is it KJV English?"


----------



## JohnGill

Curt said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the comment about anti-reformed churches test for ESV usage at all represents IFB churches, then knowing the original languages could be just as bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question becomes, "just what is the original language. Is it KJV English?"
Click to expand...


No KJVO camp holds to the idea that KJV English is in any way original and it's disingenuous to even imply it. Not even the Ruckmanites hold to this. Such is a straw man fallacy.

In some IFB churches, they are suspicious of those who are familiar with the original languages because of the modern trend for people familiar with Greek and Hebrew to offer their own private interpretations, many of which are liberal, of the Greek & Hebrew as valid translation. I trust the understanding of Greek & Hebrew of the translators of the AV more than the understanding of those languages of anyone alive today or within the last 150 years. And so I sympathize with their concerns though I disagree with their suspicions that those who are familiar with the original languages seek to insert liberal theology through their own private interpretations. It could simply be well intentioned misguidedness on the part of those familiar with Greek & Hebrew and not some plot. Besides, the easiest way to deal with such is to not be familiar with the languages, but instead master them. Then the refutation of liberal plotters or, as it most likely is, the well intentioned is much easier. Though the liberals will never accept scripture in any language.


----------



## Curt

JohnGill said:


> No KJVO camp holds to the idea that KJV English is in any way original and it's disingenuous to even imply it. Not even the Ruckmanites hold to this. Such is a straw man fallacy.



It was a joke!


----------



## Fogetaboutit

thistle93 said:


> Do you think reason is because majority of ESV translators reformed?



I would say the main reasons are probably because many "famous" calvinistic preachers use and advocate this bible (Piper, Grudem, Sproul etc.). Also the ESV Reformation Study Bible probably has something to do with it. The trend seem to be to use the ESV in most reformed circles therefore most people just go with the flow.

I also believe it's because many "reformed" seminaries teach and advocate modern textual criticism therefore most students will not even contemplate to question it's validity, it's so sad.


----------



## Bengibor

The Reformed pastors I know mostly use either NASB95 or NKJV. The reason why Piper and some others recommend ESV is simply because they used liberal RSV before and ESV is simply a mild revision of RSV. Piper is conservative and him being an RSV fan before doesn't make him liberal or apostate. The same with ESV, I know several Arminian pastors that use ESV and they see no problem with the Reformed translation committee. 

Anyway, I think that ESV is a good translation but totally unnecessary though. It hasn't achieved any breakthrough or surpassed either NASB or NKJV by any means and there are still traces of RSV's liberalism in ESV. It would have been much better had someone diverted the money from ESV project to help Christians in Asia or Africa that still lack Bible translation in their own language


----------



## Romans922

A TR uses God's Word.


----------



## Constantlyreforming

KaphLamedh said:


> Wasn't Geneva Bible the Bible of the true reformed church? Does any church (or anyone here) today use the 1599 Geneva Bible which was published by Tolle Lege?




I use the Geneva Bible. original. oh yeah!


----------



## sevenzedek

Most of the bible versions I know of are reformed. But the NIV is lame. The new NIV is lamer-ific. The NLT is not a translation. And the Message is a paraphrase.


----------



## JohnGill

Curt said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> No KJVO camp holds to the idea that KJV English is in any way original and it's disingenuous to even imply it. Not even the Ruckmanites hold to this. Such is a straw man fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was a joke!
Click to expand...


Sigh. Sorry Curt. I should know better than posting in the middle of the night.


----------



## Romans922

Why do so many who are Reformed use the KJV (and all the baggage there is with that with King James) and not Geneva?


----------



## JohnGill

Romans922 said:


> Why do so many who are Reformed use the KJV (and all the baggage there is with that with King James) and not Geneva?



What baggage is there with King James?

I suspect they use it for its accuracy and because it is based upon the TR & Bomberg MT both of which served as the foundation for the formulation Reformed Theology, its confessions, and catechisms.


----------



## Curt

JohnGill said:


> I should know better than posting in the middle of the night.



It wasn't the middle of the night here.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

I think the KJV is a better translation than the Geneva Bible for a myriad of reasons, including readability.


----------



## charispistis

Romans922 said:


> Why do so many who are Reformed use the KJV (and all the baggage there is with that with King James) and not Geneva?


----------



## JohnGill

Curt said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> I should know better than posting in the middle of the night.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't the middle of the night here.
Click to expand...


It was here. Even the racoons were sleeping.


----------



## Romans922

JohnGill said:


> What baggage is there with King James?



The fact that he guided how they translated, or what the end product needed to be like.


----------



## The Apologetic Thomas

I consider myself to be Reformed and I rarely use the ESV anymore. I like that Biblegateway has the Geneva Version now. I also like the KJV and the NASB, but sometimes I go with my HCSB. I know it's a SBC translation, but it's pretty accurate. At times it is more accurate than my other translations.


----------



## JohnGill

Romans922 said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> What baggage is there with King James?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that he guided how they translated, or what the end product needed to be like.
Click to expand...


Then I assume you'll apply that same standard to all versions and eschew them all. All translations have guidance on how they will translate and all translation have an idea of what the end product should be like. Would that those in charge of modern translations were as wise as King James I in setting for themselves the stipulations he set for the translation teams he commissioned. What you seem to think of as a deficiency, I see as something beneficial. Imagine a translation begun with no guidance on how it shall be translated or what the end product would be like. What a monstrosity it would be.

Fifteen general rules were advanced for the guidance of the translators: (Bancroft's rules, but King James i guided what they should be.)

1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit.

2. The names of the Prophets, and the Holy Writers, with the other Names of the Text, to be retained, as nigh as may be, accordingly as they were vulgarly used. 

3. The Old Ecclesiastical Words to be kept, viz. the Word Church not to be translated Congregation &c. 

4. When a Word hath divers Significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most of the Ancient Fathers, being agreeable to the Propriety of the Place, and the Analogy of the Faith. 

5. The Division of the Chapters to be altered, either not at all, or as little as may be, if Necessity so require. 

6. No Marginal Notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek Words, which cannot without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the Text. 

7. Such Quotations of Places to be marginally set down as shall serve for the fit Reference of one Scripture to another. 

8. Every particular Man of each Company, to take the same Chapter or Chapters, and having translated or amended them severally by himself, where he thinketh good, all to meet together, confer what they have done, and agree for their Parts what shall stand. 

9. As any one Company hath dispatched any one Book in this Manner they shall send it to the rest, to be considered of seriously and judiciously, for His Majesty is very careful in this Point. 

10. If any Company, upon the Review of the Book so sent, doubt or differ upon any Place, to send them Word thereof; note the Place, and withal send the Reasons, to which if they consent not, the Difference to be compounded at the general Meeting, which is to be of the chief Persons of each Company, at the end of the Work. 

11. When any Place of special Obscurity is doubted of, Letters to be directed by Authority, to send to any Learned Man in the Land, for his judgment of such a Place. 

12. Letters to be sent from every Bishop to the rest of his Clergy, admonishing them of this Translation in hand; and to move and charge as many skilful in the Tongues; and having taken pains in that kind, to send his particular Observations to the Company, either at Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford. 

13. The Directors in each Company, to be the Deans of Westminster, and Chester for that Place; and the King's Professors in the Hebrew or Greek in either University. 

14. These translations to be used when they agree better with the Text than the Bishops Bible: Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's, Geneva. 

15. Besides the said Directors before mentioned, three or four of the most Ancient and Grave Divines, in either of the Universities, not employed in Translating, to be assigned by the vice-Chancellor, upon Conference with the rest of the Heads, to be Overseers of the Translations as well Hebrew as Greek, for the better observation of the 4th Rule above specified.


----------



## sevenzedek

Romans922 said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> What baggage is there with King James?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that he guided how they translated, or what the end product needed to be like.
Click to expand...


Exuberant claims demand proof. And I doubt the godly men involved in the translation of the KJV would spend four hours praying and listening to God daily only to turn around and petition and listen to what king James thought about how the bible should be translated. And if the KJV has so much baggage, why did John Owen like it so much? Furthermore, four hundred years of ecclesiastical trust bears witness to its faithfulness. I am no a scholar, but I trust the learning of godly men greater than I.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian




----------



## JohnGill

sevenzedek said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> What baggage is there with King James?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that he guided how they translated, or what the end product needed to be like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exuberant claims demand proof. And I doubt the godly men involved in the translation of the KJV would spend four hours praying and listening to God daily only to turn around and petition and listen to what king James thought about how the bible should be translated. And if the KJV has so much baggage, why did John Owen like it so much? Furthermore, four hundred years of ecclesiastical trust bears witness to its faithfulness. I am no a scholar, but I trust the learning of godly men greater than I.
Click to expand...


I suspect, and hope, that he was referring to the 15 rules above. And if so, then those rules should cause James to be commended and not condemned. Especially since Rule 14 has the effect of superseding Rule 1.


----------



## Romans922

Apparently the thinking here is that you are not TR (Christian?) unless you use the KJV.  Are you guys KJV only? I'm all for the Byzantine text, but am I a heretic if I take up the NKJV? haha... just playing around guys. Thanks for giving the 15 rules.


----------



## sevenzedek

Romans922 said:


> Apparently the thinking here is that you are not TR (Christian?) unless you use the KJV.  Are you guys KJV only? I'm all for the Byzantine text, but am I a heretic if I take up the NKJV? haha... just playing around guys. Thanks for giving the 15 rules.



I believe a person can be a Christian and not a heretic and still use the NIV, NLT, NASB, RSV, ASV, NET, etc.


----------



## sevenzedek

And I am not KJV only. I just have a high regard for the KJV and mostly prefer the KJV. I bounce back between NKJV and KJV.


----------



## Romans922

sevenzedek said:


> I believe a person can be a Christian and not a heretic and still use the NIV, NLT, NASB, RSV, ASV, NET, etc.



REALLY? The NIV and NLT?


AND THAT LADIES AND GENTLEMEN IS HOW YOU GET TO 4,000 posts!


----------



## sevenzedek

Romans922 said:


> sevenzedek said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe a person can be a Christian and not a heretic and still use the NIV, NLT, NASB, RSV, ASV, NET, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> REALLY? The NIV and NLT?
> 
> 
> AND THAT LADIES AND GENTLEMEN IS HOW YOU GET TO 4,000 posts!
Click to expand...


I hope nobody thinks I am going for 4,000 posts.

I can't stand the two versions you mentioned. I do not like the NIV because it is a gender neutral translation that takes too much dynamic equivalent liberty. I base this opinion on the research and quotes of those more studied than I.

And I do not like the NLT because it is obviously more dynamically equivalent than the NIV and more similar to a paraphrase than a translation. I base my opinion of the NLT on my own findings and wits.

No translation is without problems in my opinion. But I think the NIV is the worst because if its popularity. It stands ready to give the postmodern liberal movement a pseudo-biblical ground to stand upon and I would rather it be burned than read. But I do believe a person can be hold to reformed doctrine and still while reading the NIV. For instance, look at Richard Pratt. I don't know where on the scale of "reformed" he falls, but I have seen him quoting the NIV. I would be surprised if he endorsed the 2011 NIV.


----------



## Curt

Romans922 said:


> AND THAT LADIES AND GENTLEMEN IS HOW YOU GET TO 4,000 posts!



Nicely done.


----------



## reformedminister

The Trinitarian Bible Society put out a great little pamphlet _Plain Reasons for keeping to the Authorized Version_:

1). Based on a better text (Hebrew: Masoretic text; Greek: Textus Receptus).
2). A more accurate translation.
3). In more appropriate English.
4). Bears a stronger testimony.
5). Has served as a standard English translation.

(To understand everything behind those statements you can request several copies of that particular pamphlet at no charge.)

What more can you ask in a translation? I guess you could just go with the flow and change Bibles every ten years or so like everybody else, including reformed folks! The church sometimes reflects the world, getting the latest edition of the most desired gadget. The Bible is the Word of God.


----------



## DMcFadden

Romans922 said:


> sevenzedek said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe a person can be a Christian and not a heretic and still use the NIV, NLT, NASB, RSV, ASV, NET, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> REALLY? The NIV and NLT?
> 
> 
> AND THAT LADIES AND GENTLEMEN IS HOW YOU GET TO 4,000 posts!
Click to expand...





Interesting chart (not mine). I do not entirely agree with the relative placements. Still, it shows that some experts put the ESV on the strongly literal end of the spectrum.

Before the ESV came out, a huge number of inerrancy-affirming pastors only preached from the NIV. Even today, there are those who still use it.
I *loathe *the NIV but, other than a way to get to a milestone mega-post, would never suggest that the orthodoxy of the user was in question for using the NIV. In fact, prior to the ESV, practically nobody who was not conservative used the NIV. Piper used the RSV because his alma mater in Pasadena (and mine) pushed it back in the day. NIV use was a mark of those on the MORE conservative end of the theological continuum.

Leaving out the ESV . . .
NIV - mostly conservatives
RSV -generally liberals (with some exceptions)
NASB - very conservative and some fundamentalists
KJV - mostly fundamentalists (some Reformed exceptions)
NKJV - mostly those wanting a Byzantine text with the rich literary style and cadences of the KJV
NLT - what we would now call "seeker sensitive" (includes revivalists, mega church non-denominationalists, some fairly lib types, egalitarians)


----------



## jandrusk

We geeks have a saying, "Use the source, Luke!" and I think it applies here. Real reformed folks read the scriptures in the original languages of Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

sevenzedek said:


> For instance, look at Richard Pratt. I don't know where on the scale of "reformed" he falls, but I have seen him quoting the NIV. I would be surprised if he endorsed the 2011 NIV.


Well, given his hand in the SOTR, one should not be surprised.

The 2007 NLT update was an improvement and moved it further from the paraphrase label. Still reads like a poor man's commentary than Holy Writ for me:

So the trouble is not with the law, for it is spiritual and good. The trouble is with me, for I am all too human, a slave to sin. I don’t really understand myself, for I want to do what is right, but I don’t do it. Instead, I do what I hate. But if I know that what I am doing is wrong, this shows that I agree that the law is good. So I am not the one doing wrong; it is sin living in me that does it.

And I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. I want to do what is right, but I can’t. I want to do what is good, but I don’t. I don’t want to do what is wrong, but I do it anyway. But if I do what I don’t want to do, I am not really the one doing wrong; it is sin living in me that does it.

I have discovered this principle of life—that when I want to do what is right, I inevitably do what is wrong. I love God’s law with all my heart. But there is another power within me that is at war with my mind. This power makes me a slave to the sin that is still within me. Oh, what a miserable person I am! Who will free me from this life that is dominated by sin and death?​
The conversational style of the translation at times, if used in an actual conversation or on a discussion site would likely go unnoticed as a direct quote from a published translation.

Personally, I like to feel a wee bit of awe when reading Scripture. But the above from Romans 7:14-25 just does not meet the test...and it is confusing given the casual vernacular being used...which easily leads to error if one is not careful.


----------



## Edward

DMcFadden said:


> Before the ESV came out, a huge number of inerrancy-affirming pastors only preached from the NIV. Even today, there are those who still use it.
> I loathe the NIV but, other than a way to get to a milestone mega-post, would never suggest that the orthodoxy of the user was in question for using the NIV. In fact, prior to the ESV, practically nobody who was not conservative used the NIV.



Any discussion of the NIV needs to distinguish between the original NIV - which was widely used by conservatives of that era - and the later NIV versions such as TNIV and NIV 2011 (which was the subject of the original post). Use of the TNIV or NIV 2011 should give rise to questions.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

reformedminister said:


> The Trinitarian Bible Society put out a great little pamphlet _Plain Reasons for keeping to the Authorized Version_:


Here you go:

View attachment 10-1.pdf


----------



## Jackie Kaulitz

Constantlyreforming said:


> KaphLamedh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't Geneva Bible the Bible of the true reformed church? Does any church (or anyone here) today use the 1599 Geneva Bible which was published by Tolle Lege?
> 
> 
> 
> I use the Geneva Bible. original. oh yeah!
Click to expand...




> Elder Andrew Barnes (PCA): Why do so many who are Reformed use the KJV (and all the baggage there is with that with King James) and not Geneva?



I concur with Elder Barnes' sentiments over choosing Geneva over KJV. The Geneva Bible is my heart's choice because of the men who fought and had their blood spilled in the history that lead to its making  My choice is mostly due to sentiment and not to actual technical analysis of the two Bibles. When I've compared the two, sometimes verses seem to read better in one and other times they appear to read better in the other.

For those more experienced than me, do you believe the Church of England with Calvinists and King James (who hated the Geneva Bible and Reformers) produced a better Bible than the Reformers themselves? Do you feel the translation itself is superior? The verses are superior? Is it really easier to read? I thought they were about the same in reading level. Or is your preference also based on sentiment mostly?

---

I must ask Matthew, why the 2011 NIV? Why not the NIV 1984?

For those who say NIV is lame, I get that ESV is considered more accurate. However, if you're in layville, many people I talk to can't even understand the NIV. They need NLT even.  I do use the NIV because I use the "Spirit of Reformation Bible" and it only comes in NIV. It has extensive notes from a Reformed perspective. But this is the 1984 NIV Bible and not the newer more liberal NIV 2011 (which is a mix between the rejected gender-neutral TNIV and the 1984NIV).


----------



## sevenzedek

DMcFadden said:


> …I …would never suggest that the orthodoxy of the user was in question for using the NIV…



Use if the NIV 2011 would not make me automatically jump to conclusions, but it would make me very concerned for the reader's orthodoxy. My impression of the NIV 2011 (and others) is that this I the TNIV repackaged.


----------



## JohnGill

Jackie Kaulitz said:


> Constantlyreforming said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KaphLamedh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't Geneva Bible the Bible of the true reformed church? Does any church (or anyone here) today use the 1599 Geneva Bible which was published by Tolle Lege?
> 
> 
> 
> I use the Geneva Bible. original. oh yeah!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Elder Andrew Barnes (PCA): Why do so many who are Reformed use the KJV (and all the baggage there is with that with King James) and not Geneva?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I concur with Elder Barnes' sentiments over choosing Geneva over KJV. The Geneva Bible is my heart's choice because of the men who fought and had their blood spilled in the history that lead to its making  My choice is mostly due to sentiment and not to actual technical analysis of the two Bibles. When I've compared the two, sometimes verses seem to read better in one and other times they appear to read better in the other.
> 
> *1) *For those more experienced than me, do you believe the Church of England with Calvinists and King James (who hated the Geneva Bible and Reformers) produced a better Bible than the Reformers themselves? *2) *Do you feel the translation itself is superior? The verses are superior? Is it really easier to read? I thought they were about the same in reading level. *3) *Or is your preference also based on sentiment mostly?
> 
> ---
> 
> I must ask Matthew, why the 2011 NIV? Why not the NIV 1984?
> 
> *4) *For those who say NIV is lame, I get that ESV is considered more accurate. However, if you're in layville, many people I talk to can't even understand the NIV. *5) *They need NLT even.  I do use the NIV because I use the "Spirit of Reformation Bible" and it only comes in NIV. It has extensive notes from a Reformed perspective. *6)*But this is the 1984 NIV Bible and not the newer more liberal NIV 2011 (which is a mix between the rejected gender-neutral TNIV and the 1984NIV).
Click to expand...


1) King James I did not hate the Geneva Bible nor did he hate the Reformers. He despised some of the notes in the Geneva Bible. And he was right for having a Bible produced that had no study notes. For some at that time, the notes had the same standing as Scripture itself. It is always the same with any Bible with study notes. Those notes begin to mix with scripture in the mind of the reader. If I had my druthers I'd eradicate all so-called study Bibles and let God's Word speak for itself. He also sought to unite the Reformers and the Church of England knowing that further division between the two would weaken England. The way he found to do this was through the Reformers' suggestion of having a new translation, free from private interpretations (the study notes). The Anglicans protested and the Reformers were delighted. And let us not forget that King James I was tutored by the Reformers; though he did not agree with them on all points he was thankful for their tutelage.

2) Yes the Authorized Version is a superior translation. It is in fact the pinnacle of all English Translations. Nothing else even comes close. If you wish to know why, then there are many threads on the PB that demonstrate the superiority of its underlying texts, the superiority of its translators and their methodology, and the superiority of its language. Even among the secularists it is the AV that is raised as the standard for most accurately representing the originals, clarity of reading, and for superiority of style. There are also many secular books demonstrating the translational and linguistic superiority of the AV.

3) My preference is based on the above and other considerations. Sentiment, if considered at all, would be last.

4) Neither the NIV 1984 nor the NIV 2011 should be considered for usage amongst Christians. It is a woefully bad translation. Many scholars have come out against it showing the deficiencies which make it unusable. Here are a few places for you:
The NIV - Simply a Bad Translation
Jakob Van Bruggen The Future of the Bible (someone here may have the link still)
Trinitarian Bible Society (English Versions)

5) No, they do not need the NLT or anything like it such as the Message. This idea that we must dumb down the word of God to that of the "common person" is misguided and unbiblical. Scripture itself tells us that some of Paul's writings are hard to be understood. And we know that the lost have great difficulty understanding scripture because of their lost nature. We should not dumb down scripture and thereby lose its meaning. We should instead be like Philip with the Ethiopian eunuch and expound the scriptures unto them. It takes very little effort to explain to the "common man" what the meaning of a passage is in the AV. I've had no problems explaining it to 1st, 2nd, 4th, & 5th graders. There is no reason adults cannot understand.

6) The NIV 1984 is just as liberal.


----------



## jandrusk

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> reformedminister said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Trinitarian Bible Society put out a great little pamphlet _Plain Reasons for keeping to the Authorized Version_:
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go:
> 
> View attachment 3326
Click to expand...


The PDF attachment failed to load. With a little Google-fu I found it here => http://www.tbsbibles.org/pdf_information/10-1.pdf


----------



## JohnGill

sevenzedek said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> …I …would never suggest that the orthodoxy of the user was in question for using the NIV…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Use if the NIV 2011 would not make me automatically jump to conclusions, but it would make me very concerned for the reader's orthodoxy. My impression of the NIV 2011 (and others) is that this I the TNIV repackaged.
Click to expand...


There's very little difference between the two. You can compare them online.


----------



## Rich Koster

KaphLamedh said:


> Wasn't Geneva Bible the Bible of the true reformed church? Does any church (or anyone here) today use the 1599 Geneva Bible which was published by Tolle Lege?



It is in my collection. I find it interesting that they included the apocrypha on the disc that accompanied the hardcopy.


----------



## Jack K

sevenzedek said:


> Use if the NIV 2011 would not make me automatically jump to conclusions, but it would make me very concerned for the reader's orthodoxy.



Nah, I would just guess they like the way it reads or, even more likely, they grew up in a conservative church that used the NIV and, wanting to remain conservative, they just go with whatever says NIV on it.

The vast majority of believers are nowhere near as geeky as we are here and don't keep up with things like the changes made to the NIV in the 2011 edition. The Bible they use doesn't reflect their theological convictions. It's a reflection of their preferred style or their reading level, or it stems from word-of-mouth impressions they picked up, perhaps decades ago.


----------



## sevenzedek

Jack K said:


> sevenzedek said:
> 
> 
> 
> Use if the NIV 2011 would not make me automatically jump to conclusions, but it would make me very concerned for the reader's orthodoxy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, I would just guess they like the way it reads or, even more likely, they grew up in a conservative church that used the NIV and, wanting to remain conservative, they just go with whatever says NIV on it.
> 
> The vast majority of believers are nowhere near as geeky as we are here and don't keep up with things like the changes made to the NIV in the 2011 edition. The Bible they use doesn't reflect their theological convictions. It's a reflection of their preferred style or their reading level, or it stems from word-of-mouth impressions they picked up, perhaps decades ago.
Click to expand...


I'm not saying that a person is a heretic just because they use the 2011 NIV. The reason why I would be concerned about their orthodoxy is because I believe the 2011 NIV is a flawed translation. Maybe I should have said that I would be concerned about a person remaining orthodox if they are using the 2011 NIV as their standard. Do you think the 2011 NIV is a flawed translation?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

JohnGill said:


> Jackie Kaulitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Constantlyreforming said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KaphLamedh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't Geneva Bible the Bible of the true reformed church? Does any church (or anyone here) today use the 1599 Geneva Bible which was published by Tolle Lege?
> 
> 
> 
> I use the Geneva Bible. original. oh yeah!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Elder Andrew Barnes (PCA): Why do so many who are Reformed use the KJV (and all the baggage there is with that with King James) and not Geneva?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I concur with Elder Barnes' sentiments over choosing Geneva over KJV. The Geneva Bible is my heart's choice because of the men who fought and had their blood spilled in the history that lead to its making  My choice is mostly due to sentiment and not to actual technical analysis of the two Bibles. When I've compared the two, sometimes verses seem to read better in one and other times they appear to read better in the other.
> 
> *1) *For those more experienced than me, do you believe the Church of England with Calvinists and King James (who hated the Geneva Bible and Reformers) produced a better Bible than the Reformers themselves? *2) *Do you feel the translation itself is superior? The verses are superior? Is it really easier to read? I thought they were about the same in reading level. *3) *Or is your preference also based on sentiment mostly?
> 
> ---
> 
> I must ask Matthew, why the 2011 NIV? Why not the NIV 1984?
> 
> *4) *For those who say NIV is lame, I get that ESV is considered more accurate. However, if you're in layville, many people I talk to can't even understand the NIV. *5) *They need NLT even.  I do use the NIV because I use the "Spirit of Reformation Bible" and it only comes in NIV. It has extensive notes from a Reformed perspective. *6)*But this is the 1984 NIV Bible and not the newer more liberal NIV 2011 (which is a mix between the rejected gender-neutral TNIV and the 1984NIV).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) King James I did not hate the Geneva Bible nor did he hate the Reformers. He despised some of the notes in the Geneva Bible. And he was right for having a Bible produced that had no study notes. For some at that time, the notes had the same standing as Scripture itself. It is always the same with any Bible with study notes. Those notes begin to mix with scripture in the mind of the reader. If I had my druthers I'd eradicate all so-called study Bibles and let God's Word speak for itself. He also sought to unite the Reformers and the Church of England knowing that further division between the two would weaken England. The way he found to do this was through the Reformers' suggestion of having a new translation, free from private interpretations (the study notes). The Anglicans protested and the Reformers were delighted. And let us not forget that King James I was tutored by the Reformers; though he did not agree with them on all points he was thankful for their tutelage.
> 
> 2) Yes the Authorized Version is a superior translation. It is in fact the pinnacle of all English Translations. Nothing else even comes close. If you wish to know why, then there are many threads on the PB that demonstrate the superiority of its underlying texts, the superiority of its translators and their methodology, and the superiority of its language. Even among the secularists it is the AV that is raised as the standard for most accurately representing the originals, clarity of reading, and for superiority of style. There are also many secular books demonstrating the translational and linguistic superiority of the AV.
> 
> 3) My preference is based on the above and other considerations. Sentiment, if considered at all, would be last.
> 
> 4) Neither the NIV 1984 nor the NIV 2011 should be considered for usage amongst Christians. It is a woefully bad translation. Many scholars have come out against it showing the deficiencies which make it unusable. Here are a few places for you:
> The NIV - Simply a Bad Translation
> Jakob Van Bruggen The Future of the Bible (someone here may have the link still)
> Trinitarian Bible Society (English Versions)
> 
> 5) No, they do not need the NLT or anything like it such as the Message. This idea that we must dumb down the word of God to that of the "common person" is misguided and unbiblical. Scripture itself tells us that some of Paul's writings are hard to be understood. And we know that the lost have great difficulty understanding scripture because of their lost nature. We should not dumb down scripture and thereby lose its meaning. We should instead be like Philip with the Ethiopian eunuch and expound the scriptures unto them. It takes very little effort to explain to the "common man" what the meaning of a passage is in the AV. I've had no problems explaining it to 1st, 2nd, 4th, & 5th graders. There is no reason adults cannot understand.
> 
> 6) The NIV 1984 is just as liberal.
Click to expand...


----------



## Jack K

sevenzedek said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sevenzedek said:
> 
> 
> 
> Use if the NIV 2011 would not make me automatically jump to conclusions, but it would make me very concerned for the reader's orthodoxy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, I would just guess they like the way it reads or, even more likely, they grew up in a conservative church that used the NIV and, wanting to remain conservative, they just go with whatever says NIV on it.
> 
> The vast majority of believers are nowhere near as geeky as we are here and don't keep up with things like the changes made to the NIV in the 2011 edition. The Bible they use doesn't reflect their theological convictions. It's a reflection of their preferred style or their reading level, or it stems from word-of-mouth impressions they picked up, perhaps decades ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not saying that a person is a heretic just because they use the 2011 NIV. The reason why I would be concerned about their orthodoxy is because I believe the 2011 NIV is a flawed translation. Maybe I should have said that I would be concerned about a person remaining orthodox if they are using the 2011 NIV as their standard. Do you think the 2011 NIV is a flawed translation?
Click to expand...


I think all translations are flawed. I like my ESV significantly better than the 2011 NIV in good part because I suspect it's less flawed. But most believers I meet away from the Puritan Board are not even aware that the NIV went through major changes in 2011. So I wouldn't assume they picked that Bible because their theological bent favors those changes. They don't even know there _were_ changes. As for remaining orthodox, in my experience that has much more to do with their church and the teaching/preaching they get than with the Bible translation they use.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Here are a couple of podcasts on this topic:

Pt 1

Pt 2


----------



## joejohnston3

Zach said:


> Guys, don't you know the King James Version is the only real Bible? It's the original.





Hey, it was good enough for the Apostle Paul...right!?


----------



## AThornquist

I have no desire to try and prove myself to be "truly reformed", whatever that is. However, as far as translation preferences go, nowadays I almost exclusively use the HCSB and sometimes the ESV.


----------



## reaganmarsh

KaphLamedh said:


> Wasn't Geneva Bible the Bible of the true reformed church? Does any church (or anyone here) today use the 1599 Geneva Bible which was published by Tolle Lege?



I preach from the ESV but love to study from my 1599 Geneva. Fun stuff, a Geneva Bible!

Although I must admit that I grew up on the KJV & NKJV and love them as well...


----------



## SolaSaint

Matthew,

I have to ask, what is considered a "anti-reformed church"? I know there are Christians who don't agree with reformed doctrines but is there really a denomination or church body out there that claims to be specifically anti-reformed?


----------



## DMcFadden

sevenzedek said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> …I …would never suggest that the orthodoxy of the user was in question for using the NIV…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Use if the NIV 2011 would not make me automatically jump to conclusions, but it would make me very concerned for the reader's orthodoxy. My impression of the NIV 2011 (and others) is that this I the TNIV repackaged.
Click to expand...


Honestly, I was speaking of the NIV pre 2011 which was the object of derision and scorn on the PB prior to the changes that came in the 2011 edition. My point was that there are plenty of folks who have not seen the light and moved to the ESV. They may be, however, fully orthodox. Don't get me wrong: I got rid of my NIVs years ago and do not even load the NIV on any of my Bible software programs. My own preferences are for the ESV, NKJV, and KJV (for different reasons).


----------



## yeutter

I use the ASV for study and the KJV liturgically [except for those passage where the Book of Common Prayer uses an even earlier translation.] My wife likes and uses the ESV. English is not her first language and she finds it more comprehensible.


----------



## yeutter

SolaSaint said:


> Matthew,
> 
> I have to ask, what is considered a "anti-reformed church"? I know there are Christians who don't agree with reformed doctrines but is there really a denomination or church body out there that claims to be specifically anti-reformed?


Sadly, some Baptists are proud of standing over against the distinctive Reformed understanding of the doctrines of grace..


----------



## KaphLamedh

Constantlyreforming said:


> KaphLamedh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't Geneva Bible the Bible of the true reformed church? Does any church (or anyone here) today use the 1599 Geneva Bible which was published by Tolle Lege?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I use the Geneva Bible. original. oh yeah!
Click to expand...

 

I have seen the facsimile of Geneva Bible 1560. Language was quite hard to read, but not impossible.


----------



## reaganmarsh

yeutter said:


> SolaSaint said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew,
> 
> I have to ask, what is considered a "anti-reformed church"? I know there are Christians who don't agree with reformed doctrines but is there really a denomination or church body out there that claims to be specifically anti-reformed?
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, some Baptists are proud of standing over against the distinctive Reformed understanding of the doctrines of grace..
Click to expand...


There are some winds of change in our communion (the SBC) but there are definite pockets of outright rejection of the doctrines of Grace. The church I pastored in NC, for example, was part of an Association which was vehemently anti-reformed, and its effect was not lost upon our congregation. 

To clarify, the Free Will Baptist movement had its roots (in NC, at least) in that neck of the woods. People influenced by that theology would look at a text of Scripture, for example Rom 9, and respond, "I don't know what that means, but it cannot mean what it appears to mean."


----------



## Cymro

I trust the KJV, and does not the ESV leave out Reprobation, as did Banner excise it from Pink's work?


----------



## Jackie Kaulitz

JohnGill said:


> 2) Yes the Authorized Version is a superior translation. It is in fact the pinnacle of all English Translations. Nothing else even comes close. If you wish to know why, then there are many threads on the PB that demonstrate the superiority of its underlying texts, the superiority of its translators and their methodology, and the superiority of its language. Even among the secularists it is the AV that is raised as the standard for most accurately representing the originals, clarity of reading, and for superiority of style. There are also many secular books demonstrating the translational and linguistic superiority of the AV.
> 
> 4) Neither the NIV 1984 nor the NIV 2011 should be considered for usage amongst Christians. It is a woefully bad translation. Many scholars have come out against it showing the deficiencies which make it unusable. Here are a few places for you:
> The NIV - Simply a Bad Translation
> Jakob Van Bruggen The Future of the Bible (someone here may have the link still)
> Trinitarian Bible Society (English Versions)
> 
> 5) No, they do not need the NLT or anything like it such as the Message. This idea that we must dumb down the word of God to that of the "common person" is misguided and unbiblical. Scripture itself tells us that some of Paul's writings are hard to be understood. And we know that the lost have great difficulty understanding scripture because of their lost nature. We should not dumb down scripture and thereby lose its meaning. We should instead be like Philip with the Ethiopian eunuch and expound the scriptures unto them. It takes very little effort to explain to the "common man" what the meaning of a passage is in the AV. I've had no problems explaining it to 1st, 2nd, 4th, & 5th graders. There is no reason adults cannot understand.
> 
> 6) The NIV 1984 is just as liberal.



Thanks for your detailed and educated response. I'm taking it to heart. Going to go check out the NIV links and read about the KJV translation. Where the NIV is a poorer translation, I do cross out its words and replace them. 
So yes, I believe we can be Truly Reformed and read the 1984 NIV Spirit of Reformation Study Bible (that Richard Pratt Jr and RC Sproul worked on). I use this as my main bible, with the Geneva as my backup. I use the NIV Spirit of Reformation Bible over the ESV Reformation Study Bible because of superior notes. See Amazon reviews: the majority seem to prefer the Spirit of Reformation Bible (formerly called the New Geneva Study Bible) over the ESV Ref Study Bible for this reason.

As far as getting everyone into the KJV/Geneva Bible (or even ESV), this is ideal but it's nearly impossible in my neck of the woods (and with most baby Christians I encounter). These people have zero ability to understand passages on their own (always reading them out of context). To add reading level difficulty to this seems to compound the problem. The people I help will give up and not read the Bible if it is too difficult. For this reason, they also can't understand ANY of the HCatechism's questions! I have one lady I gave a brand new Reformation Study Bible ESV to and she went back to her old Life Application NIV Study Bible because it was too difficult for her and made her not even want to read her bible. And even now she can barely read the NIV. For a time (when they are baby Christians), I think it's beneficial for them to have an NIV or NLT translation when reading on their own. At least they're reading the Bible! And when it comes to a section where the NLT or NIV translate bad, we can explain that. But at least they can read the Bible in their own time. I wish everyone were able to understand the KJV/Geneva/ESV but sadly many Americans aren't able to comprehend these and these Bibles sit and gather dust.

As far as study Bibles, although I would throw out the Life Application and Scofield Study Bibles (and many others), I think it is VERY beneficial for them to have the Reformation Study Bible, Spirit of Reformation Study Bible or Geneva Bible's study notes because nearly all the people I help are Arminians to the core, many Pentecostal, and ALL of them pluck verses out of context and read nearly every disputable verse wrong. They need this guidance at home. How many times have we heard "You are not to judge!" In fact, they get practically all of the Sermon on the Mount wrong. They need the study notes to tell them this is not true!


----------



## JohnGill

Jackie Kaulitz said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2) Yes the Authorized Version is a superior translation. It is in fact the pinnacle of all English Translations. Nothing else even comes close. If you wish to know why, then there are many threads on the PB that demonstrate the superiority of its underlying texts, the superiority of its translators and their methodology, and the superiority of its language. Even among the secularists it is the AV that is raised as the standard for most accurately representing the originals, clarity of reading, and for superiority of style. There are also many secular books demonstrating the translational and linguistic superiority of the AV.
> 
> 4) Neither the NIV 1984 nor the NIV 2011 should be considered for usage amongst Christians. It is a woefully bad translation. Many scholars have come out against it showing the deficiencies which make it unusable. Here are a few places for you:
> The NIV - Simply a Bad Translation
> Jakob Van Bruggen The Future of the Bible (someone here may have the link still)
> Trinitarian Bible Society (English Versions)
> 
> 5) No, they do not need the NLT or anything like it such as the Message. This idea that we must dumb down the word of God to that of the "common person" is misguided and unbiblical. Scripture itself tells us that some of Paul's writings are hard to be understood. And we know that the lost have great difficulty understanding scripture because of their lost nature. We should not dumb down scripture and thereby lose its meaning. We should instead be like Philip with the Ethiopian eunuch and expound the scriptures unto them. It takes very little effort to explain to the "common man" what the meaning of a passage is in the AV. I've had no problems explaining it to 1st, 2nd, 4th, & 5th graders. There is no reason adults cannot understand.
> 
> 6) The NIV 1984 is just as liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for your detailed and educated response. I'm taking it to heart. Going to go check out the NIV links and read about the KJV translation. *A) *Where the NIV is a poorer translation, I do cross out its words and replace them.
> *1) *So yes, I believe we can be Truly Reformed and read the 1984 NIV Spirit of Reformation Study Bible (that Richard Pratt Jr and RC Sproul worked on). I use this as my main bible, with the Geneva as my backup. I use the NIV Spirit of Reformation Bible over the ESV Reformation Study Bible because of superior notes. See Amazon reviews: the majority seem to prefer the Spirit of Reformation Bible (formerly called the New Geneva Study Bible) over the ESV Ref Study Bible for this reason.
> 
> *2) *As far as getting everyone into the KJV/Geneva Bible (or even ESV), this is ideal but it's nearly impossible in my neck of the woods (and with most baby Christians I encounter). These people have zero ability to understand passages on their own (always reading them out of context). To add reading level difficulty to this seems to compound the problem. The people I help will give up and not read the Bible if it is too difficult. For this reason, they also can't understand ANY of the HCatechism's questions! I have one lady I gave a brand new Reformation Study Bible ESV to and she went back to her old Life Application NIV Study Bible because it was too difficult for her and made her not even want to read her bible. And even now she can barely read the NIV. For a time (when they are baby Christians), I think it's beneficial for them to have an NIV or NLT translation when reading on their own. At least they're reading the Bible! And when it comes to a section where the NLT or NIV translate bad, we can explain that. But at least they can read the Bible in their own time. I wish everyone were able to understand the KJV/Geneva/ESV but sadly many Americans aren't able to comprehend these and these Bibles sit and gather dust.
> 
> *3) *As far as study Bibles, although I would throw out the Life Application and Scofield Study Bibles (and many others), I think it is VERY beneficial for them to have the Reformation Study Bible, Spirit of Reformation Study Bible or Geneva Bible's study notes because nearly all the people I help are Arminians to the core, many Pentecostal, and ALL of them pluck verses out of context and read nearly every disputable verse wrong. They need this guidance at home. How many times have we heard "You are not to judge!" In fact, they get practically all of the Sermon on the Mount wrong. They need the study notes to tell them this is not true!
Click to expand...


A) The NIV is always a poorer translation when compared to the AV or the Geneva and even when compared to the ESV. You'd be better served by abandoning it completely for a true Bible.

1) It should be noted that the Reformers chose not to use the texts which underlies the modern versions such as the NIV & ESV. One could then argue that to be truly Reformed one must use a translation that is based upon the Greek & Hebrew texts which the Reformers themselves considered authentic. And out of the Geneva and the Authorized Version, the Authorized Version is the superior translation.

2) It is not nearly impossible. It is nowhere near impossible. Ignorance of language is not a justifiable reason to dumb down scripture as the NIV/NLT/The Message etc. do. Nor is it a justifiable reason to abandon a better translation in favor of a poor one. And I doubt that the average person has "zero ability to understand passages on their own" if they use a superior English translation. When I can teach 1st, 2nd, 4th, & 5th graders from the Authorized Version and from the Orthodox Catechism and they understand the language to the point of surprising their parents with their understanding, then the average adult has no legitimate excuse save for personal laziness. Perhaps that seems harsh, but it is also quite true. It should also be understood that the reading level of the Authorized Version is lower than that of the NIV in many tests. But even if the AV were harder to read, where do we stop with making the Bible easier to read? If a version's reading level is 12th grade, do we abandon it for one that is at an 11th grade level? Should we not then abandon the 11th grade version for a 10th grade version? Continuing this process we would end up with a Bible that has a reading level of 1st grade or lower. Such an idea is not only absurd, but is misguided and as I stated earlier it is unbiblical. We have no right to produce translations that weaken the text of scripture by lowering their reading level. New Christians should be educated and not given translations not worthy of the name. I find it difficult to classify the NIV/NLT as the Bible. Does it contain portions of scripture, yes. But such "bibles" are more personal interpretations than actual translations. Though I consider the Critical Text to be a spurious invented text that cannot be traced prior to the 15th century and all its translations invalid, I'd rather people read the ESV than the NIV or NLT.

3) They need the study notes to help them understand scripture? No they do not. They need a faithful translation, AV/Geneva/Tyndale, and the Holy Ghost. These two coupled together with fellowship with other believers is all they need. As I stated earlier, study notes blend into the mind of the believer with scripture and unduly influence the reader's mind as to the interpretation of scripture. How do you know the Scofield Notes are not more accurate than the Reformation Study Bible notes? You cannot appeal to the notes else you end in skepticism. You can only determine which notes are correct by a direct appeal to scripture. And not the watered down variety found in the NIV/NLT, but in sound translations. 

People don't need study notes, they need to learn how *to reason Biblically*. And they cannot do that effectively with a perverse translation.


----------



## mercyminister

For what it's worth, in my circle of Reformed acquaintances (mostly PCA), the NKJV and the ESV are the most used versions, while the KJV is also popular, mostly for personal study and devotions. While the NIV had been popular through the 90s and early 2000s, many have now put it on the shelf where it is gathering dust. Personally, I use the NKJV and NASB (95) for serious study with some ESV and KJV. For personal reading and devotions, I use mostly the KJV. For hospital visitations and evangelizing, I almost always use the ESV.

Sounds confusing, but it's not...

James


----------



## Marcus417

All these arguments over Bible translation are in some respects pointless. I use to work the bible section at a Christian bookstore, and I would generally get reamed once or twice a day by customers who were so upset that we carried anything other than the KJV or that we were carrying the translation of Satan himself, the 2011 NIV. I came to realize that there are sincere God loving Christians, a few of them are probably reformed , who read the 2011 NIV, KJV, NASB, ESV, NRSV, NLT, HCSB, Geneva, etc.

As I stated before I love the ESV for its readability and a sincere desire to remain literal, I love the literalness if not at times wordiness of the NASB, and I like the NRSV because that is the Bible that is used most commonly during my religious studies classes. I do not care much for the NIV or KJV. The NIV because its too dynamic of a translation for my tastes, and the KJV because I do not like its slant to the divine right of kings or the fact that due to poor 21st century education it is difficult to teach a lay-person with the KJV. Also, from my experience "KJV Only" people are without a doubt some of the meanest human-beings on the planet

by the way I really love all of the different smiley options this site has.


----------



## Rangerus

Effective in July 2013 the Gideons, who know a thing or two about Bibles, will begin using the ESV as their Modern English Version Bible. "It is easy to read and more recent translation that will speak more clearly to the generations we need to reach now and in the future."


----------



## Zach

Rangerus said:


> Effective in July 2013 the Gideons, who know a thing or two about Bibles, will begin using the ESV as their Modern English Version Bible. "It is easy to read and more recent translation that will speak more clearly to the generations we need to reach now and in the future."



That's awesome. I think they are making the right call. I don't know a whole lot about the debates between majority text and critical text, but I know a few people who are MT and love the ESV because they recognize that it is the best hope for a common English Bible going forward into the future. At the risk of ruffling some feathers, the KJV is not that Bible. Nobody can make a serious claim that it is written in the language of the people that the church is called to reach with the light of the gospel. Praise God for the KJV and how it was used to call many out of darkness and into light, but it is time that we move forward with a translation that is faithful and common to the people who need the gospel.


----------



## Dearly Bought

Zach said:


> At the risk of ruffling some feathers, the KJV is not that Bible. *Nobody can make a serious claim that it is written in the language of the people that the church is called to reach with the light of the gospel*. Praise God for the KJV and how it was used to call many out of darkness and into light, but it is time that we move forward with a translation that is faithful and common to the people who need the gospel.



I've never seen someone claim that the church is not called to reach English-speaking peoples... interesting.


----------



## Zach

Dearly Bought said:


> Zach said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the risk of ruffling some feathers, the KJV is not that Bible. *Nobody can make a serious claim that it is written in the language of the people that the church is called to reach with the light of the gospel*. Praise God for the KJV and how it was used to call many out of darkness and into light, but it is time that we move forward with a translation that is faithful and common to the people who need the gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never seen someone claim that the church is not called to reach English-speaking peoples... interesting.
Click to expand...


Do you really think the English of the KJV uses language commonly spoken and written today? Whither doth anyone useth the words hither and thither? Hath they spake like this? Verily, I hath heard it not.


----------



## sevenzedek

Dearly Bought said:


> Zach said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the risk of ruffling some feathers, the KJV is not that Bible. *Nobody can make a serious claim that it is written in the language of the people that the church is called to reach with the light of the gospel*. Praise God for the KJV and how it was used to call many out of darkness and into light, but it is time that we move forward with a translation that is faithful and common to the people who need the gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never seen someone claim that the church is not called to reach English-speaking peoples... interesting.
Click to expand...


That's not how I interpreted Zach's thought. I thought he was saying that the KJV is not _…written in the language of the people that the church is called to reach…_

Were you getting at something else?


----------



## Zach

sevenzedek said:


> Dearly Bought said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zach said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the risk of ruffling some feathers, the KJV is not that Bible. *Nobody can make a serious claim that it is written in the language of the people that the church is called to reach with the light of the gospel*. Praise God for the KJV and how it was used to call many out of darkness and into light, but it is time that we move forward with a translation that is faithful and common to the people who need the gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never seen someone claim that the church is not called to reach English-speaking peoples... interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not how I interpreted Zach's thought. I thought he was saying that the KJV is not _…written in the language of the people that the church is called to reach…_
> 
> Were you getting at something else?
Click to expand...


I think, Jon, that Bryan was poking fun at me because the KJV is an English translation. My point is that nobody speaks, writes, or communicates in that manner anymore. I'm with Luther, the Scriptures should be like a mother speaking to her child and my Mom never "spake" to me in King James English.


----------



## Danny

I'm sure many Reformed believers use the ESV because the ESV Study Bible has Reformed leaning notes, many popular Reformed or Calvinistic preachers use it, and because Crossway has done a lot to endear itself to the Calvinist community. I know that Crossway publishes many Calvinistic or Reformed leaning books, and I know with newer, younger Reformed guys like me it has made something about the ESV click with us.


----------



## Dearly Bought

Zach said:


> Do you really think the English of the KJV uses language commonly spoken and written today? Whither doth anyone useth the words hither and thither? Hath they spake like this? Verily, I hath heard it not.





Zach said:


> I think, Jon, that Bryan was poking fun at me because the KJV is an English translation. My point is that nobody speaks, writes, or communicates in that manner anymore. I'm with Luther, the Scriptures should be like a mother speaking to her child and my Mom never "spake" to me in King James English.



Yes, my previous post was definitely tongue in cheek. You write that "nobody speaks, writes, or communicates in that manner *anymore*. Are you aware that no one has *ever* spoken, written, or communicated in the precise manner of the Authorised Version? The use of the second-person singular pronoun was already becoming antiquated in 1611. The translators used singular/plural distinctions for accuracy, not grammatical relevancy. The word order of the Authorised Version tends to reflect more of the underlying Greek or Hebrew texts than it does some supposed archaic phrasing. In other words, much of the purported "archaic" feel of the AV is actually a result of greater fidelity in translation.

As for the readability issues, I need more than anecdotal evidence to convince me that this is truly a significant issue. Despite your earlier statement, I think that many serious claims have been made as to the relative readability of the Authorised Version as compared to other translations. Rev. J.P. Thackway has done an excellent job of advancing some formidable arguments on this front (see here and here). In the words of D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, "The trouble with modern men is not that they do not understand the terminology of the Authorized Version of the Bible, it is that they are spiritually dead."


----------



## CJW

I consider myself "Truly Reformed" and use the AV. When asked why I'd chose such an archaic, old-fashioned translation, I reply:

1. Because it is a good and faithful translation of the Hebrew and Greek.
2. Because both Hebrew and Greek differentiate between 2nd person singular, and 2nd person plural, I prefer to be able to see those differences in English.
3. Because I'm not a great fan of the critical text.

Probably my biggest reason for prefering the AV is #2 though, as I have personally seen people make interpretive errors (albeit minor!) because their choice of translation no longered showed any difference between you (singular) and you (plural). I have had to look up words in the AV, and when I began to use it regularly over the NKJV, I had to print out a chart that showed the declension of ye and thee, but neither of those hurt me much


----------



## JohnGill

Zach said:


> Rangerus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Effective in July 2013 the Gideons, who know a thing or two about Bibles, will begin using the ESV as their Modern English Version Bible. "It is easy to read and more recent translation that will speak more clearly to the generations we need to reach now and in the future."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's awesome. I think they are making the right call. I don't know a whole lot about the debates between majority text and critical text, but I know a few people who are MT and love the ESV because they recognize that it is the best hope for a common English Bible going forward into the future. At the risk of ruffling some feathers, the KJV is not that Bible. Nobody can make a serious claim that it is written in the language of the people that the church is called to reach with the light of the gospel. Praise God for the KJV and how it was used to call many out of darkness and into light, but it is time that we move forward with a translation that is faithful and common to the people who need the gospel.
Click to expand...


Moving from a superior translation to an inferior, corrupted translation is not a move to be praised. The ESV will fade like the NASV, NSRV, NIV, its spring of corruption the RSV, the ASV, RV, and many others.



Zach said:


> Dearly Bought said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zach said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the risk of ruffling some feathers, the KJV is not that Bible. *Nobody can make a serious claim that it is written in the language of the people that the church is called to reach with the light of the gospel*. Praise God for the KJV and how it was used to call many out of darkness and into light, but *1) *it is time that we move forward with a translation that is faithful and *2) *common to the people who need the gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never seen someone claim that the church is not called to reach English-speaking peoples... interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *3) *Do you really think the English of the KJV uses language commonly spoken and written today? Whither doth anyone useth the words hither and thither? Hath they spake like this? Verily, I hath heard it not.
Click to expand...


A couple of points:

1) Moving forward would be abandoning the Roman text that scholars are so in love with at the moment for the texts of the Reformation. As of this day, no *valid* argument has ever been forwarded for replacing those Greek texts commonly called the Textus Receptus. The foundation for its removal, the Westcott-Hort theory, has been destroyed.

2) Your "common people" comment is self-refuting. Should we further weaken the meaning of scripture to "make it more accessible to the common people" as the NIV/NLT/The Message do? If you say no, then why not? After all, the "common people" become more illiterate as our education system focuses less on education and more on indoctrination. What if the "common people" can't understand the word propitiation? Shouldn't we then abandon propitiation and other such words for the less accurate but more readable words of the NIV et al such as "atoning sacrifice"? To answer no here is to refute your readability "argument" by showing its purely subjective nature. To answer yes is just bad theology.

3) Faulty argumentation. The language of the AV was never the language of the common people. Thee/thou/thine/thy had already passed from use in the English language by the time the AV was translated. It has always been an artificial language and it is the only language in English that provides the tools for a proper translation of scriptures into our language. Or to put it another way, any translation into English without this artificial language is inherently flawed. Even secular scholars admit this when comparing Authorized Version with whatever new fancy of modern translation has the day.

To claim that the AV is not readable by the "common people" is without merit. Yes, it may take a bit more effort to understand. But that is not the fault of the AV; it is the fault of the education the "common people" have received. We do not then dumb down our translations; we educate the "common people" to it. Just as they did in the original Sunday schools. If the claim about the readability of the AV had any merit, it would be nigh impossible for children to understand it let alone adults. The opposite is true. There are adults & children all across the English speaking world who have no issues with understanding the AV. Laziness is the root factor behind the difficulty in understanding the AV when even the illiterate of earlier centuries could be made to understand the AV within the Sunday Schools. All one has to do is spend about 10 minutes educating himself on the language within it and perhaps sit down to read it with a dictionary. It may take work; but then it has always taken work to understand the scriptures.

The manifold problems of the ESV and why Christendom should abandon it.

What Every Christian Needs to Know About the ESV (TBS)
The so called English Standard Version Dr. Theodore P. Letis
John Thackway on the ESV on the Trinitarian Bible Society 
Comments of Rev. Winzer and others against the ESV
Three Modern Versions: A Critical Assessment of the NIV, ESV, and NKJV by Alan Macgregor


I conclude with words from Alan J. Macgregor:



_Despite all the hype and glowing statements about the ESV, it fails to deliver on its promises. It is in reality nothing more than a very mild revision of a very liberal Bible version. While there are some pleasing improvements over the RSV, not all the changes are for the better. By using the RSV, as their reference point, the translators have started in the wrong place. The leaven of liberalism is still there. The conclusion of the matter must be that it is “weighed in the balances and found wanting” (Three Modern Versions, p. 59)._


----------



## JohnGill

Dearly Bought said:


> Zach said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really think the English of the KJV uses language commonly spoken and written today? Whither doth anyone useth the words hither and thither? Hath they spake like this? Verily, I hath heard it not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zach said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think, Jon, that Bryan was poking fun at me because the KJV is an English translation. My point is that nobody speaks, writes, or communicates in that manner anymore. I'm with Luther, the Scriptures should be like a mother speaking to her child and my Mom never "spake" to me in King James English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, my previous post was definitely tongue in cheek. You write that "nobody speaks, writes, or communicates in that manner *anymore*. Are you aware that no one has *ever* spoken, written, or communicated in the precise manner of the Authorised Version? The use of the second-person singular pronoun was already becoming antiquated in 1611. The translators used singular/plural distinctions for accuracy, not grammatical relevancy. The word order of the Authorised Version tends to reflect more of the underlying Greek or Hebrew texts than it does some supposed archaic phrasing. In other words, much of the purported "archaic" feel of the AV is actually a result of greater fidelity in translation.
> 
> As for the readability issues, I need more than anecdotal evidence to convince me that this is truly a significant issue. Despite your earlier statement, I think that many serious claims have been made as to the relative readability of the Authorised Version as compared to other translations. Rev. J.P. Thackway has done an excellent job of advancing some formidable arguments on this front (see here and here). In the words of D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, "The trouble with modern men is not that they do not understand the terminology of the Authorized Version of the Bible, it is that they are spiritually dead."
Click to expand...


----------



## sevenzedek

This has turned into another KJV debate. So I don't mind adding my two cents here.

People have proven over and over that they will not be convinced to read the KJV. One of the most important issues regarding the KJV issue has to do with faithfulness to the underlying text. If people are going to reach for a modern version, then why not put more acceptable modern version in their paths? By _acceptable_ I mean a modern version that is more faithful to the Received and Masoretic Texts than the NKJV. The battle is much more likely to be won there.


----------



## Dearly Bought

sevenzedek said:


> People have proven over and over that they will not be convinced to read the KJV.


Again, I'm not about to change my advocacy for the Authorised Version on the basis of mere anecdotal evidence. I would offer myself as a contradictory example. I grew up on the NIV, with some NRSV thrown in there later on. In college, I switched to the ESV, mainly due to the endorsements of Young, Restless, & Reformed leaders. There was a fundamentalist Baptist in our dorm one year that I debated a bit regarding his KJV-only views. I was _not_ a KJV user or proponent. To me, the KJV was an outdated relic of history.

What changed? I came into contact with the work of the Trinitarian Bible Society through their publication of the Scottish Psalter (SMV). As I listened to lectures and read many essays, I learned that I had been completely clueless about so many helpful features of the Authorised Version. I learned that "thee" and "thou" distinguishes singular pronouns. I learned that italics denote supplied words not directly present in the original language. I learned that word order tended to reflect the original language rather than some ancient Middle English grammar. I learned that the Authorised Version was an ecclesiastical translation requested by Puritans, conducted by Reformed scholars, and adopted by Reformed churches.

At the same time, I began to hear about the underlying texts themselves. TBS and a copy of Dr. E.F. Hill's _The King James Version Defended_ opened my eyes to the realization that there can be no "neutral" textual criticism! Why had I been uncritically accepting the text criticism of the same breed of scholars I had been voraciously combating in my religion classes?

I changed. I will stick to advocating for the most faithful English translation of the Bible which I know.


----------



## sevenzedek

Dearly Bought said:


> sevenzedek said:
> 
> 
> 
> People have proven over and over that they will not be convinced to read the KJV.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I'm not about to change my advocacy for the Authorised Version on the basis of mere anecdotal evidence. I would offer myself as a contradictory example. I grew up on the NIV, with some NRSV thrown in there later on. In college, I switched to the ESV, mainly due to the endorsements of Young, Restless, & Reformed leaders. There was a fundamentalist Baptist in our dorm one year that I debated a bit regarding his KJV-only views. I was _not_ a KJV user or proponent. To me, the KJV was an outdated relic of history.
> 
> What changed? I came into contact with the work of the Trinitarian Bible Society through their publication of the Scottish Psalter (SMV). As I listened to lectures and read many essays, I learned that I had been completely clueless about so many helpful features of the Authorised Version. I learned that "thee" and "thou" distinguishes singular pronouns. I learned that italics denote supplied words not directly present in the original language. I learned that word order tended to reflect the original language rather than some ancient Middle English grammar. I learned that the Authorised Version was an ecclesiastical translation requested by Puritans, conducted by Reformed scholars, and adopted by Reformed churches.
> 
> At the same time, I began to hear about the underlying texts themselves. TBS and a copy of Dr. E.F. Hill's _The King James Version Defended_ opened my eyes to the realization that there can be no "neutral" textual criticism! Why had I been uncritically accepting the text criticism of the same breed of scholars I had been voraciously combating in my religion classes?
> 
> I changed. I will stick to advocating for the most faithful English translation of the Bible which I know.
Click to expand...


I say you should go ahead and maintain your advocacy of the KJV. That's okay. But I wonder if you are still trying convince others.


----------



## Zach

JohnGill said:


> Zach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rangerus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Effective in July 2013 the Gideons, who know a thing or two about Bibles, will begin using the ESV as their Modern English Version Bible. "It is easy to read and more recent translation that will speak more clearly to the generations we need to reach now and in the future."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's awesome. I think they are making the right call. I don't know a whole lot about the debates between majority text and critical text, but I know a few people who are MT and love the ESV because they recognize that it is the best hope for a common English Bible going forward into the future. At the risk of ruffling some feathers, the KJV is not that Bible. Nobody can make a serious claim that it is written in the language of the people that the church is called to reach with the light of the gospel. Praise God for the KJV and how it was used to call many out of darkness and into light, but it is time that we move forward with a translation that is faithful and common to the people who need the gospel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Moving from a superior translation to an inferior, corrupted translation is not a move to be praised. The ESV will fade like the NASV, NSRV, NIV, its spring of corruption the RSV, the ASV, RV, and many others.
> 
> 
> 
> Zach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dearly Bought said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zach said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the risk of ruffling some feathers, the KJV is not that Bible. *Nobody can make a serious claim that it is written in the language of the people that the church is called to reach with the light of the gospel*. Praise God for the KJV and how it was used to call many out of darkness and into light, but *1) *it is time that we move forward with a translation that is faithful and *2) *common to the people who need the gospel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never seen someone claim that the church is not called to reach English-speaking peoples... interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *3) *Do you really think the English of the KJV uses language commonly spoken and written today? Whither doth anyone useth the words hither and thither? Hath they spake like this? Verily, I hath heard it not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A couple of points:
> 
> 1) Moving forward would be abandoning the Roman text that scholars are so in love with at the moment for the texts of the Reformation. As of this day, no *valid* argument has ever been forwarded for replacing those Greek texts commonly called the Textus Receptus. The foundation for its removal, the Westcott-Hort theory, has been destroyed.
> 
> 2) Your "common people" comment is self-refuting. Should we further weaken the meaning of scripture to "make it more accessible to the common people" as the NIV/NLT/The Message do? If you say no, then why not? After all, the "common people" become more illiterate as our education system focuses less on education and more on indoctrination. What if the "common people" can't understand the word propitiation? Shouldn't we then abandon propitiation and other such words for the less accurate but more readable words of the NIV et al such as "atoning sacrifice"? To answer no here is to refute your readability "argument" by showing its purely subjective nature. To answer yes is just bad theology.
> 
> 3) Faulty argumentation. The language of the AV was never the language of the common people. Thee/thou/thine/thy had already passed from use in the English language by the time the AV was translated. It has always been an artificial language and it is the only language in English that provides the tools for a proper translation of scriptures into our language. Or to put it another way, any translation into English without this artificial language is inherently flawed. Even secular scholars admit this when comparing Authorized Version with whatever new fancy of modern translation has the day.
> 
> To claim that the AV is not readable by the "common people" is without merit. Yes, it may take a bit more effort to understand. But that is not the fault of the AV; it is the fault of the education the "common people" have received. We do not then dumb down our translations; we educate the "common people" to it. Just as they did in the original Sunday schools. If the claim about the readability of the AV had any merit, it would be nigh impossible for children to understand it let alone adults. The opposite is true. There are adults & children all across the English speaking world who have no issues with understanding the AV. Laziness is the root factor behind the difficulty in understanding the AV when even the illiterate of earlier centuries could be made to understand the AV within the Sunday Schools. All one has to do is spend about 10 minutes educating himself on the language within it and perhaps sit down to read it with a dictionary. It may take work; but then it has always taken work to understand the scriptures.
> 
> The manifold problems of the ESV and why Christendom should abandon it.
> 
> What Every Christian Needs to Know About the ESV (TBS)
> The so called English Standard Version Dr. Theodore P. Letis
> John Thackway on the ESV on the Trinitarian Bible Society
> Comments of Rev. Winzer and others against the ESV
> Three Modern Versions: A Critical Assessment of the NIV, ESV, and NKJV by Alan Macgregor
> 
> 
> I conclude with words from Alan J. Macgregor:
> 
> 
> 
> _Despite all the hype and glowing statements about the ESV, it fails to deliver on its promises. It is in reality nothing more than a very mild revision of a very liberal Bible version. While there are some pleasing improvements over the RSV, not all the changes are for the better. By using the RSV, as their reference point, the translators have started in the wrong place. The leaven of liberalism is still there. The conclusion of the matter must be that it is “weighed in the balances and found wanting” (Three Modern Versions, p. 59)._
Click to expand...


I'm glad you all love the KJV so much. If you want to read it, go ahead. I'm not interested in debating over it. There are too many people who spend too much time debating this. I fear that this thread has shown that one can be truly Reformed without using the ESV, but that you guys think one cannot be truly reformed and use the ESV. You guys can enjoy the many benefits (and I know there are many benefits!) that the KJV affords. But don't pretend like we who choose to use another faithful translation of the Scriptures are a bunch of inerrancy denying theological liberals. I don't want to put any stumbling block in front of people who think they have to be able to understand "thee, thou, thither, hither, and wither" before they can read the Scriptures. I'd rather the church takes time to teach them doctrine rather than to read old English.


----------



## JohnGill

Zach said:


> I'm glad you all love the KJV so much. If you want to read it, go ahead. *1) *I'm not interested in debating over it. There are too many people who spend too much time debating this. I fear that this thread has shown that one can be truly Reformed without using the ESV, *2) *but that you guys think one cannot be truly reformed and use the ESV. You guys can enjoy the many benefits (and I know there are many benefits!) that the KJV affords. But don't pretend like we who choose to use another faithful translation of the Scriptures are a bunch of inerrancy denying theological liberals. *3) *I don't want to put any stumbling block in front of people who think they have to be able to understand "thee, thou, thither, hither, and wither" before they can read the Scriptures. *4)*I'd rather the church takes time to teach them doctrine rather than to read old English.



1) The debate over the true apographs and their most faithful translation should be every Christian's concern. Scripture is the foundation of our faith. And without it we know nothing of Christ.

2) You tread dangerously close to bearing false witness against those of us who believe the apographs used by the Reformers should be the foundation of the English translation. I have not read anyone in this thread who stated one cannot be truly Reformed while using the ESV or other modern versions. Nor I have read anyone who has stated that those who do not use a translation like the AV "are a bunch of inerrancy denying theological liberals". You go too far. Others on the AV side have said it is not a sign of heterodoxy to use the ESV or even the NIV. I made a comment about the absurdity of arbitrarily defining "Truly Reformed" by showing how one could posit that in only holding to the Reformers apographs and their translations can you be "truly reformed". An argument by the way, which this forum condemned over a year ago. (See forum discussions on WCF/LBCF 1.8) I am also reminded of the misguided attempt by R. Scott Clark in defining Reformed as necessitating paedobaptism. To which some Baptists, in order to show the arbitrary nature of Clark's definition, commented, I define Reformed as holding to credobaptism. Arguments about what constitutes truly reformed will always end in arbitrariness. At best one can say that holding to Calvinism, the 5 solas, a Reformed confession, Reformed doctrine, and covenant theology are what make one "truly" Reformed. Whatever one means by the word "truly".

3) It is merely your opinion that the use of the AV would put a stumbling block before people. And considering the usage of the word stumblingblock in scripture, you should be more circumspect in attributing that monicker to the AV. Furthermore, the AV is not "old English" as has been stated on this forum more times than I can count. Rev. J. P. Thackway has written an excellent treatise destroying the silly contention that the AV is hard to read even when compared to the ESV. It can be found here: http://www.bibleleaguetrust.org/articles/IS_THE_AV_DIFFICULT_TO_READ.pdf Let's put this flawed argument back in its coffin, nail it shut, and bury it.

4) Your comment presupposes that one can divorce doctrine from the reading of scripture. One cannot. And to assert that in teaching people how to understand the AV one is not also teaching doctrine shows your lack of familiarity in teaching any Christians with the AV. As I have stated many times, it was easy to teach the Orthodox Catechism to children in the 1st/2nd/4th/5th grades and show them from the AV the foundation for the questions and answers. They understood the AV quite easily. I have also taught a course on logic to adults using the AV. We began by covering the basics of Biblical English Grammar. This took no more than 15 minutes. If children and adults can be made to understand the AV in as little as 15 to 30 minutes, then there is no reason not to use the AV. And then we have the scores of English speaking churches which use and teach from the AV with no problems in understanding its language. The argument that the AV is so difficult to read that we need a translation like the ESV has been demonstrated time and again on this forum and in other works to be a fallacious argument that holds no truth.

I conclude again with the words of Alan Macgregor:

The AV is often dismissed as archaic and out of date, but if it were allowed to go out of print and
out of use, I believe many of the gains of the Reformation would be lost. We have already seen the
evidence of this among many who have embraced modern Bible versions – how they have become
more tolerant of Rome and more prone to Ecumenism. We have witnessed their delight in
discarding reverent forms of worship, replacing them with that which gratifies the carnal senses.
And this is so even among some who claim to be Evangelical ... I believe we must make a stand for
the historic Reformation Texts of the Bible, and our English Authorised Version based on them.​
An excellent refutation to the nonsense that the AV is archaic and hard to understand for the modern reader: Archaic or Accurate.


----------



## Scottish Lass

JohnGill said:


> I have not read anyone in this thread who stated one cannot be truly Reformed while using the ESV or other modern versions. Nor I have read anyone who has stated that those who do not use a translation like the AV "are a bunch of inerrancy denying theological liberals". You go too far.


I think this quote comes pretty close, unfortunately: 


JohnGill said:


> Moving from a superior translation to an inferior, corrupted translation is not a move to be praised. The ESV will fade like the NASV, NSRV, NIV, its spring of corruption the RSV, the ASV, RV, and many others.


----------



## JohnGill

Scottish Lass said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not read anyone in this thread who stated one cannot be truly Reformed while using the ESV or other modern versions. Nor I have read anyone who has stated that those who do not use a translation like the AV "are a bunch of inerrancy denying theological liberals". You go too far.
> 
> 
> 
> I think this quote comes pretty close, unfortunately:
> 
> 
> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moving from a superior translation to an inferior, corrupted translation is not a move to be praised. The ESV will fade like the NASV, NSRV, NIV, its spring of corruption the RSV, the ASV, RV, and many others.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


In order for my quote to fall within that category one would have to read their own biases into it. Moving from a superior to inferior translation does not automatically confer liberalism and describe the person as not "truly" reformed. I think you may be reading more into it than is there.


----------



## BuckeyeGirl

SolaSaint said:


> I have to ask, what is considered a "anti-reformed church"? I know there are Christians who don't agree with reformed doctrines but is there really a denomination or church body out there that claims to be specifically anti-reformed?



The church associated with Pensacola Christian College is blatantly "anti-reformed"/free will. I was home schooled, and received a lot of mailings from PCC because they target home schoolers. At least several times that I can recall they broadcast articles that specifically denigrated the doctrines of grace. It may be that they don't exactly market themselves as anti-reformed, but in practice they are anti-reformed.

In regards to the thread topic, I use the good old King James. I grew up using it, and so I suppose it has sentimental value for me. Its language also leads itself to easy memorization, at least for me. I think that someone who is reformed could use just about any translation; however, I would seriously question someone's discernment if he/she was using The Message or another translation of that ilk.


----------



## Scottish Lass

JohnGill said:


> Scottish Lass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not read anyone in this thread who stated one cannot be truly Reformed while using the ESV or other modern versions. Nor I have read anyone who has stated that those who do not use a translation like the AV "are a bunch of inerrancy denying theological liberals". You go too far.
> 
> 
> 
> I think this quote comes pretty close, unfortunately:
> 
> 
> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moving from a superior translation to an inferior, corrupted translation is not a move to be praised. The ESV will fade like the NASV, NSRV, NIV, its spring of corruption the RSV, the ASV, RV, and many others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In order for my quote to fall within that category one would have to read their own biases into it. Moving from a superior to inferior translation does not automatically confer liberalism and describe the person as not "truly" reformed. I think you may be reading more into it than is there.
Click to expand...


But if I am willingly reading an inferior, corrupted translation, can I also genuinely say I'm reading God's Word, that I hold to inerrancy, etc.?


----------



## JohnGill

Scottish Lass said:


> But if I am willingly reading an inferior, corrupted translation, can I also genuinely say I'm reading God's Word, that I hold to inerrancy, etc.?



You seem to have equivocated between willingly reading an inferior translation and believing that you are reading an inferior translation. One may willingly read an inferior, corrupted translation without believing such translation is inferior and corrupted. Benjamin B. Warfield held to a rationalist view of preservation and yet he is still considered a sound theologian in other areas by those in the TR/VPI/VPP camp. Reading an inferior, corrupted translation does not automatically equate to a denial of any doctrine. Besides, most in the Reformed camp do not get their doctrine from their modern Bibles, but from the older systematic theologies, confessions, and catechisms of the Reformed writers. And these were based upon the sound apographs.


----------



## Scottish Lass

JohnGill said:


> You seem to have equivocated between willingly reading an inferior translation and believing that you are reading an inferior translation. One may willingly read an inferior, corrupted translation without believing such translation is inferior and corrupted.



So it's okay to read a corrupted version as long as I _believe _it's not? That certainly isn't true if the matter in question is a glass of poisoned water. No matter how I regard it, it will kill me. I ask this in all seriousness because folks are led astray by truly corrupted versions, and to lump everything save the KJV in with them doesn't seem charitable.


----------



## Zach

JohnGill said:


> Scottish Lass said:
> 
> 
> 
> But if I am willingly reading an inferior, corrupted translation, can I also genuinely say I'm reading God's Word, that I hold to inerrancy, etc.?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have equivocated between willingly reading an inferior translation and believing that you are reading an inferior translation. One may willingly read an inferior, corrupted translation without believing such translation is inferior and corrupted. Benjamin B. Warfield held to a rationalist view of preservation and yet he is still considered a sound theologian in other areas by those in the TR/VPI/VPP camp. Reading an inferior, corrupted translation does not automatically equate to a denial of any doctrine. *Besides, most in the Reformed camp do not get their doctrine from their modern Bibles, but from the older systematic theologies, confessions, and catechisms of the Reformed writers. And these were based upon the sound apographs. *
Click to expand...


If that statement is true, then we are in trouble! I get my doctrine because I believe it is Biblical. The older systematic theologies, confessions, and catechisms, are only worth studying for doctrine if Scripture teaches that doctrine. I'm willing to double check them using my ESV too!

The fact that you seem to be referring only to the KJV/NKJV as sound is very troubling to me.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Zach said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scottish Lass said:
> 
> 
> 
> But if I am willingly reading an inferior, corrupted translation, can I also genuinely say I'm reading God's Word, that I hold to inerrancy, etc.?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have equivocated between willingly reading an inferior translation and believing that you are reading an inferior translation. One may willingly read an inferior, corrupted translation without believing such translation is inferior and corrupted. Benjamin B. Warfield held to a rationalist view of preservation and yet he is still considered a sound theologian in other areas by those in the TR/VPI/VPP camp. Reading an inferior, corrupted translation does not automatically equate to a denial of any doctrine. *Besides, most in the Reformed camp do not get their doctrine from their modern Bibles, but from the older systematic theologies, confessions, and catechisms of the Reformed writers. And these were based upon the sound apographs. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that statement is true, then we are in trouble! I get my doctrine because I believe it is Biblical. The older systematic theologies, confessions, and catechisms, are only worth studying for doctrine if Scripture teaches that doctrine. I'm willing to double check them using my ESV too!
> 
> The fact that you seem to be referring only to the KJV/NKJV as sound is very troubling to me.
Click to expand...


If you look back at the links posted, you will see that the NKJV is rejected as well. I believe that the Byzantine texts are superior, but when people reject even the NKJV, that is where I get off the bus. I understand that the KJV's use of pronouns is a superior method, but frankly it doesn't make that big of a difference because no one understands this anymore. I have been to some of these sites that denounce the NKJV and all they can come up with is that logo is satanic or that it has reduced our mansions in heaven to mere dwelling places. The logo claim is ridiculous and the word mansions today means a large and luxurious house, whereas 400 years ago it meant a dwelling place that is why the word was changed. I love the KJV as much as anyone, but it isn't perfect and when yu object to any attempt to correct it, you are by default saying that it s without error, and that makes you a KJV onlyist, regardless of how strenuously you may object to the title


----------



## housta

I like the NASB, used that years ago, the main reason I use the ESV is I love the ESV study bible, it's the best study bible out there In my humble opinion.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

It needs to be repeated that the "no one understands the pronouns" idea was true in 1611. It takes about 30 seconds of teaching to clarify that and If my 4 year-old can get it, then anyone can if they want to.


----------



## JohnGill

Zach said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scottish Lass said:
> 
> 
> 
> But if I am willingly reading an inferior, corrupted translation, can I also genuinely say I'm reading God's Word, that I hold to inerrancy, etc.?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have equivocated between willingly reading an inferior translation and believing that you are reading an inferior translation. One may willingly read an inferior, corrupted translation without believing such translation is inferior and corrupted. Benjamin B. Warfield held to a rationalist view of preservation and yet he is still considered a sound theologian in other areas by those in the TR/VPI/VPP camp. Reading an inferior, corrupted translation does not automatically equate to a denial of any doctrine. *Besides, most in the Reformed camp do not get their doctrine from their modern Bibles, but from the older systematic theologies, confessions, and catechisms of the Reformed writers. And these were based upon the sound apographs. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that statement is true, then we are in trouble! I get my doctrine because I believe it is Biblical. The older systematic theologies, confessions, and catechisms, are only worth studying for doctrine if Scripture teaches that doctrine. I'm willing to double check them using my ESV too!
> 
> The fact that you seem to be referring only to the KJV/NKJV as sound is very troubling to me.
Click to expand...


Why would this be troubling since Reformed doctrine is based upon scripture? As I already stated, the Reformers based their doctrine upon sound apographs; namely the TR text type and the Bomberg OT text.

You seem to have missed my earlier posts where I mentioned the Geneva as well and my comment about accurate TR translations. Out of these, the AV is the best.



Scottish Lass said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have equivocated between willingly reading an inferior translation and believing that you are reading an inferior translation. One may willingly read an inferior, corrupted translation without believing such translation is inferior and corrupted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it's okay to read a corrupted version as long as I _believe _it's not? That certainly isn't true if the matter in question is a glass of poisoned water. No matter how I regard it, it will kill me. I ask this in all seriousness because folks are led astray by truly corrupted versions, and to lump everything save the KJV in with them doesn't seem charitable.
Click to expand...


If one does not acknowledge that a certain translation is inferior because one doubts the evidence presented for whatever reason, then how can this be held against him? 

You also seem to have missed my comments regarding the Geneva and other faithful translations based on the Greek & Hebrew texts of the Reformers. 

As to charitableness, it is charitable to sound the trumpet of concern against modern versions based on corrupted apographs like the CT.



Bill The Baptist said:


> Zach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scottish Lass said:
> 
> 
> 
> But if I am willingly reading an inferior, corrupted translation, can I also genuinely say I'm reading God's Word, that I hold to inerrancy, etc.?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have equivocated between willingly reading an inferior translation and believing that you are reading an inferior translation. One may willingly read an inferior, corrupted translation without believing such translation is inferior and corrupted. Benjamin B. Warfield held to a rationalist view of preservation and yet he is still considered a sound theologian in other areas by those in the TR/VPI/VPP camp. Reading an inferior, corrupted translation does not automatically equate to a denial of any doctrine. *Besides, most in the Reformed camp do not get their doctrine from their modern Bibles, but from the older systematic theologies, confessions, and catechisms of the Reformed writers. And these were based upon the sound apographs. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that statement is true, then we are in trouble! I get my doctrine because I believe it is Biblical. The older systematic theologies, confessions, and catechisms, are only worth studying for doctrine if Scripture teaches that doctrine. I'm willing to double check them using my ESV too!
> 
> The fact that you seem to be referring only to the KJV/NKJV as sound is very troubling to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you look back at the links posted, you will see that the NKJV is rejected as well. I believe that the Byzantine texts are superior, but when people reject even the NKJV, that is where I get off the bus. I understand that the KJV's use of pronouns is a superior method, but frankly *it doesn't make that big of a difference because no one understands this anymore.* I have been to some of these sites that denounce the NKJV and all they can come up with is that logo is satanic or that it has reduced our mansions in heaven to mere dwelling places. The logo claim is ridiculous and the word mansions today means a large and luxurious house, whereas 400 years ago it meant a dwelling place that is why the word was changed. I love the KJV as much as anyone, but it isn't perfect and when yu object to any attempt to correct it, you are by default saying that it s without error, and that makes you a KJV onlyist, regardless of how strenuously you may object to the title
Click to expand...


I understand them. My friends who use the AV understand them. The children I taught understand them. The English speaking churches who use the AV understand them. 

What I and many others object to is the attempt to correct the AV by men of lesser skill than the original translators. Even the TBS admits that certain words should either be updated or clarified by marginal notes. When the AV was translated clarification of certain terms was provided by marginal notes. D.A. Waite has even produced an edition in which the marginal notes are used to clarify certain words. The concern that only men of equal learning to that of the AV translators should be the only people to update the AV does not make one a KJV Onlyist, whatever that may mean. It makes one circumspect regarding scripture. And that is a VERY good thing.


----------



## JohnGill

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> It needs to be repeated that the "no one understands the pronouns" idea was true in 1611. It takes about 30 seconds of teaching to clarify that and If my 4 year-old can get it, *then anyone can if they want to.*



And that gets to the true root of the issue. "If they want to."


----------



## Scottish Lass

JohnGill said:


> If one does not acknowledge that a certain translation is inferior because one doubts the evidence presented for whatever reason, then how can this be held against him?


Based on this idea, why should any of us who currently don't use the KJV switch? If we doubt the evidence, if we think our translation is faithful (even if it isn't), it can't be held against us? If that's so, the claim of KJV superiority seems to matter little in the end.


----------



## Zach

JohnGill said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> It needs to be repeated that the "no one understands the pronouns" idea was true in 1611. It takes about 30 seconds of teaching to clarify that and If my 4 year-old can get it, *then anyone can if they want to.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that gets to the true root of the issue. "If they want to."
Click to expand...


And I think what you're not accepting is that for some people, the answer is, "Yes, I don't want to." 

I don't want to because I think the ESV is presently the best hope we have for a common English translation going forward. I don't want to because I think the archaic pronouns (and other words!) are unnecessary and though helpful a footnote in the ESV can suffice. I don't want to because my Church uses the ESV in our worship. I don't want to because I like the ESV. I don't want to because I don't think Scripture binds me to use the KJV.


----------



## JohnGill

Zach said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> It needs to be repeated that the "no one understands the pronouns" idea was true in 1611. It takes about 30 seconds of teaching to clarify that and If my 4 year-old can get it, *then anyone can if they want to.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that gets to the true root of the issue. "If they want to."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I think what you're not accepting is that for some people, the answer is, "Yes, I don't want to."
> 
> I don't want to because I think the ESV is presently the best hope we have for a common English translation going forward. I don't want to because I think the archaic pronouns (and other words!) are unnecessary and though helpful a footnote in the ESV can suffice. I don't want to because my Church uses the ESV in our worship. I don't want to because I like the ESV. I don't want to because I don't think Scripture binds me to use the KJV.
Click to expand...


Then I truly do feel sorry for you brother.


----------



## JohnGill

Scottish Lass said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one does not acknowledge that a certain translation is inferior because one doubts the evidence presented for whatever reason, then how can this be held against him?
> 
> 
> 
> Based on this idea, why should any of us who currently don't use the KJV switch? If we doubt the evidence, if we think our translation is faithful (even if it isn't), it can't be held against us? If that's so, the claim of KJV superiority seems to matter little in the end.
Click to expand...


Just because they doubt the evidence does not mean they should not be reminded of the evidence. As a baptist I believe paedobaptism is wrong and that paedobaptists should be reminded of the evidence showing the errors of paedobaptism. Just because they hold to paedobaptism does not mean I consider them less a brother in Christ. And the same argument could be made by paedobaptists against baptists. 

And as I state earlier, the Reformed community at large does not draw its doctrine from scripture. Instead, save for the doctrines of VPP/VPI, in general the Reformed community's doctrine is drawn from the older systematic theologies, catechisms, & confessions. They bring their Reformed "biases" to their modern versions and interpret the text according to their Reformed "bias". And as long as the Reformed community does not derive its doctrine from any of the modern versions, all things being equal, it will be secure from heterodoxy. And yes, this means I believe if we were to start deriving our doctrine from the modern versions that we would inevitably end in heterodoxy. And that is why any who don't use the AV/Geneva and other such translations should switch. Modern versions are a faulty compass to doctrinal truth. Translations from the Ecclesiastical Texts into Biblical English are a compass which always point true north. 

I repeat the above quote of Alan Macgregor:*The AV is often dismissed as archaic and out of date, but if it were allowed to go out of print and
out of use, I believe many of the gains of the Reformation would be lost. We have already seen the
evidence of this among many who have embraced modern Bible versions – how they have become
more tolerant of Rome and more prone to Ecumenism. We have witnessed their delight in
discarding reverent forms of worship, replacing them with that which gratifies the carnal senses.*
And this is so even among some who claim to be Evangelical ... I believe we must make a stand for
the historic Reformation Texts of the Bible, and our English Authorised Version based on them.​


----------



## Scottish Lass

JohnGill said:


> And as I state earlier, the Reformed community at large does not draw its doctrine from scripture.



Can you support this claim, since it factors heavily into your explanation?


----------



## JohnGill

Scottish Lass said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> And as I state earlier, the Reformed community at large does not draw its doctrine from scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you support this claim, since it factors heavily into your explanation?
Click to expand...


I saw no reason to provide support for my above claim as it is a well established fact.

It would be better for you to have quoted my earlier comment.



> Besides, most in the Reformed camp do not get their doctrine from their modern Bibles, *but from the older systematic theologies, confessions, and catechisms of the Reformed writers. And these were based upon the sound apographs.*



The Reformed community in general gets its doctrine not directly from scripture but through secondary sources based upon scripture.

But where did you learn your doctrines? Did you learn them by going through the scriptures following out the logical implications of each verse or did you get your doctrine from a confession/catechism or some other secondary source? Where do seminarians get their doctrine? Through exhaustive searches in scripture pulling out all the logical implications in scripture or by the study of systematic theologies and other secondary works? How do you know of the Doctrine of Graces? Did you learn them from exhaustive research of scripture following out all the logical implications or did you learn it from a book or perhaps a sermon? How do you know about the doctrine of the Trinity? You learned it from a secondary source. To claim you didn't, you must claim that you exhaustively studied all of scripture, found those verses that deal with God's person-ness only, (what were your determining presuppositions for such) and then followed out the logical implications of each of those scriptures. Is this then your claim? That you have done this for each and every doctrine that you believe? I could substitute the doctrine of the Trinity with any doctrine and the results would be the same. You got your doctrine, as did I and the majority, if not all, within the Reformed Community and Christendom at large, not from direct research of the scriptures, but instead from secondary sources. To demonstrate its contrary you must prove that the majority, if not all, Reformed seminaries teach solely from scripture and do not use secondary sources as the basis of their doctrinal understanding; and that the majority, if not all, within the Reformed community personally engage in an exhaustive study of all the scriptures and their logical implications. Such is simply not the case. The doctrine you learned from secondary sources colors your view of the verses you're reading. 

This simple fact of where we get our doctrine is also the reason why novelty of a new understanding in scripture is to be treated with skepticism. And it provides us with the tools to discern old heresies masquerading in new clothes. (Arianism/Jehovah's Witnesses)


----------



## Marcus417

Scottish Lass said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> And as I state earlier, the Reformed community at large does not draw its doctrine from scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you support this claim, since it factors heavily into your explanation?
Click to expand...


I think what he is trying to say is that most of the reformed community trust scriptural validity of the confessions and the works of the early reformers over working out a systematic theology for themselves. The common lay-person is more concerned with life application of scripture than doing theology so they look to those they trust who have already put the leg work in.


----------



## Marcus417

JohnGill said:


> Scottish Lass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> And as I state earlier, the Reformed community at large does not draw its doctrine from scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you support this claim, since it factors heavily into your explanation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I saw no reason to provide support for my above claim as it is a well established fact.
> 
> It would be better for you to have quoted my earlier comment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Besides, most in the Reformed camp do not get their doctrine from their modern Bibles, *but from the older systematic theologies, confessions, and catechisms of the Reformed writers. And these were based upon the sound apographs.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Reformed community in general gets its doctrine not directly from scripture but through secondary sources based upon scripture.
> 
> But where did you learn your doctrines? Did you learn them by going through the scriptures following out the logical implications of each verse or did you get your doctrine from a confession/catechism or some other secondary source? Where do seminarians get their doctrine? Through exhaustive searches in scripture pulling out all the logical implications in scripture or by the study of systematic theologies and other secondary works? How do you know of the Doctrine of Graces? Did you learn them from exhaustive research of scripture following out all the logical implications or did you learn it from a book or perhaps a sermon? How do you know about the doctrine of the Trinity? You learned it from a secondary source. To claim you didn't, you must claim that you exhaustively studied all of scripture, found those verses that deal with God's person-ness only, (what were your determining presuppositions for such) and then followed out the logical implications of each of those scriptures. Is this then your claim? That you have done this for each and every doctrine that you believe? I could substitute the doctrine of the Trinity with any doctrine and the results would be the same. You got your doctrine, as did I and the majority, if not all, within the Reformed Community and Christendom at large, not from direct research of the scriptures, but instead from secondary sources. To demonstrate its contrary you must prove that the majority, if not all, Reformed seminaries teach solely from scripture and do not use secondary sources as the basis of their doctrinal understanding; and that the majority, if not all, within the Reformed community personally engage in an exhaustive study of all the scriptures and their logical implications. Such is simply not the case. The doctrine you learned from secondary sources colors your view of the verses you're reading.
> 
> This simple fact of where we get our doctrine is also the reason why novelty of a new understanding in scripture is to be treated with skepticism. And it provides us with the tools to discern old heresies masquerading in new clothes. (Arianism/Jehovah's Witnesses)
Click to expand...


Dear Brother,

First I would like to commend you for being the most thoughtful and gracious defender of the KJV I have ever had the pleasure of interacting with. I appreciate that while you believe the KJV to be the most reliable translation, you do not seem to think that those of us who disagree with you are going to burn for our belief. You state your disagreements with other posters with grace and humility. I used to work at a Christian bookstore, and I was primarily in charge of the Bible section. Every KJVO advocate that came in "was as mean as a Diamondback Rattler." On several occasion I had people come in and ask me for a KJV because they believed that was the Bible that Jesus used. I had people threaten to do me physical harm because we sold other Bibles than the KJV so I will readily admit that the KJVO crowd puts me a bit on edge.

I would like to ask you a few questions about your position. 

1) You seem to argue for the reliability of the KJV because it is the Bible most used by the reformers who helped recover and preach the doctrines of true Biblical Christianity for which everyone who holds to these doctrines is thankful. three questions do arise from this position:

a.) First what reformed doctrines are understood more clearly in the KJV as opposed to say the ESV or NASB? I can think of doctrines that are understood more clearly by knowing the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic such as the doctrine of _ex nihlo_ (the difference between Bara and Asah and the fact that Bara is used in Genesis 1).

b.) Since the publishing of the KJV archaeology has discovered more biblical manuscripts and through textual criticism we are able to have a Bible that is closer to the original text, and those changes were obviously not incorporated into the KJV. If the reformers had been privy to the extra textual evidence, isn't reasonable to say they would have incorporated them into their biblical exegesis? I have already read your arguments for the transmission of the manuscripts used by the KJV translators so there is no need to repost them (I will state up front that I disagree with that assessment, and near the end of my reply I will post a link to an article that states the reasons for rejecting that belief more eloquently than I ever could). 

c.) I was always under the impression the reformers read the Bible in its original languages or latin not in the KJV. Am I wrong in this assumption?

2) You make the point about the liberalizing of the Bible by the RSV and other modern translations. This leads me to another couple of questions:

a.) Am I mistaken or is your definition of a "liberal translation" of a verse anything that changes what is in the KJV? 

b.) I am finishing up a degree in religious studies at a secular university, and one of my New Testament teachers, who got his PhD under Ehrman at UNC, always tended to opt for the more liberal translation whenever a textual controversy was present. This always drove me insane because I believe that a translator, whether conservative or liberal, should aim to present what the text says not what the translator thinks the text says or wants it to say. I believe theological bias needs to be pushed to the side when translating scripture so that the most accurate translation can be produced. That is why I respect the NET Bible translators so much because I feel they did the best job of bracketing their theological concerns. The accuracy of the NET Bible even caused the other New Testament professor at Missouri State, who received her PhD at Notre Dame, to state that the NET Bible was a better translation than the NRSV, which is heresy in secular New Testament studies. My question is this would you agree with my premise that a translator should bracket his/her theological concerns when translating? 

3.) Have you ever read James White or Daniel Wallace's critiques of the KJVO controversy.

a.) Daniel Wallace critique is online for free in his article entitle "Why I Do Not Think the KJV is Best Translation" (the article I referenced earlier)

b.) James White's book is entitled "The King James Only Controversy: can You Trust Modern Translations?"

My intention is not to convert you from your stance on the KJV, but to engage you in friendly Christian dialogue so I can learn your position better since like I said before you are the most learned KJV supporter I have ever had the pleasure of interacting with.

In Christ Alone,
Marcus Krueger


----------



## Zach

JohnGill said:


> Zach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> It needs to be repeated that the "no one understands the pronouns" idea was true in 1611. It takes about 30 seconds of teaching to clarify that and If my 4 year-old can get it, *then anyone can if they want to.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that gets to the true root of the issue. "If they want to."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I think what you're not accepting is that for some people, the answer is, "Yes, I don't want to."
> 
> I don't want to because I think the ESV is presently the best hope we have for a common English translation going forward. I don't want to because I think the archaic pronouns (and other words!) are unnecessary and though helpful a footnote in the ESV can suffice. I don't want to because my Church uses the ESV in our worship. I don't want to because I like the ESV. I don't want to because I don't think Scripture binds me to use the KJV.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then I truly do feel sorry for you brother.
Click to expand...


This is just the kind of silliness that these KJV debates descend to from the essentially KJV only side. "I am sorry you are reading the wrong Bible!"


----------



## Curt

JohnGill said:


> The Reformed community in general gets its doctrine not directly from scripture but through secondary sources based upon scripture.



Although I graduated from a seminary not generally held in high regard on the PB (nor by myself, these days) I must state that we students (in those days only males were in the M.Div program) were taught from Scripture while learning also from the Reformed Confessions. We were required to have and use the Biblical languages. One of my profs was Robert Reymond. In his _A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith_, he uses the Westminster standards as an outline, but his arguments are made from Scripture.

Secondly, I don't know what goes on in your congregation, but when I was a pastor, I taught doctrine as I preached exigetically through books of the Bible. I also taught doctrine in Sunday evening services and Wednesday night studies and at special events, like men's retreats.

So, while I agree that we have a whole generation (or more) of Bible illiterates in the churches of today, I don't think it's because they're reading the _wrong_ Bible. I'm sure it's because they aren't reading any Bible and their pastors are failing them. But, I'm also sure the music is good.


----------



## Scottish Lass

JohnGill said:


> But where did you learn your doctrines? Did you learn them by going through the scriptures following out the logical implications of each verse or did you get your doctrine from a confession/catechism or some other secondary source? Where do seminarians get their doctrine? Through exhaustive searches in scripture pulling out all the logical implications in scripture or by the study of systematic theologies and other secondary works? How do you know of the Doctrine of Graces? Did you learn them from exhaustive research of scripture following out all the logical implications or did you learn it from a book or perhaps a sermon? How do you know about the doctrine of the Trinity?


Do you really want the answers to these or are they rhetorical? I didn't grow up Reformed, so my answer isn't cookie-cutter.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Zach said:


> This is just the kind of silliness that these KJV debates descend to from the essentially KJV only side. "I am sorry you are reading the wrong Bible!"



The fact that people who advocate for Byzantine priority would also reject the NKJV proves that they are in fact KJV only. The NKJV is a fine translation produced by godly men using a much better collection of Byzantine manuscripts than those that were used to produce the TR. It is a known fact that parts of the KJV were translated directly from the Vulgate because there was no Greek text available. In every case where the NKJV changes the language of the KJV, it is either because the meaning of the word has changed or because there is sufficient textual evidence to show that a correction was needed. We all agree that the KJV is a great translation whose beauty will never be surpassed and I pray that it will be around for another 400 years, but the assertion that any version that dares change anything in the KJV is a false version is ridiculous and demonstrates that you believe the KJV to be the only inspired translation, which of course is the hallmark of all KJV onlyists.


----------



## reaganmarsh

JohnGill, you mentioned that "D.A. Waite has even produced an edition in which the marginal notes are used to clarify certain words." 

Would you mind providing a link to that edition? I for one am quite curious to see it! 

Thank you!


----------



## mercyminister

I an earlier post, I commented that I use the KJV and several other versions for particular purposes - the NKJV, the NASB, and the ESV. I do love the KJV and it is dear to my heart. But, I am not a KJV-only believer. For those who believe that the KJV is the best available, instead of feeling sorry for those who do not, instead of downplaying (for whatever reason) those who do not feel it is the best, I would humbly suggest that you discuss the pleasure that you receive from using the KJV, for the blessings you have received from using it, and for the comfort that goes with your fidelity to it. In other words, share the positives and avoid the negatives. I think you may find that you will win over some non-KJV users to your camp by doing so.

But, whatever we do, let's show the love to each other that the Lord Jesus would have us show. Since Scripture does not speak directly to this issue (KJV-only), we have to trust the Lord to lead us and know that He will lead us as He would.

James


----------



## Fogetaboutit

Zach said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> It needs to be repeated that the "no one understands the pronouns" idea was true in 1611. It takes about 30 seconds of teaching to clarify that and If my 4 year-old can get it, *then anyone can if they want to.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that gets to the true root of the issue. "If they want to."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I think what you're not accepting is that for some people, the answer is, "Yes, I don't want to."
> 
> I don't want to because I think the ESV is presently the best hope we have for a common English translation going forward. I don't want to because I *think* the archaic pronouns (and other words!) are unnecessary and though helpful a footnote in the ESV can suffice.* I don't want to because my Church uses the ESV in our worship*. I don't want to because I like the ESV. I don't want to because I don't think Scripture binds me to use the KJV.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then I truly do feel sorry for you brother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is just the kind of silliness that these KJV debates descend to from the essentially KJV only side. "I am sorry you are reading the wrong Bible!"
Click to expand...


In all fairness Chris has given logical explanations for his position and you have rejected them in favor your preferences which are based mostly on emotional attachments. I believe he replied in this manner because you didn't address his arguments. Having a conviction where you are convinced that your position is based on the truth is not the same as having a preference. Rejecting certain bible version because of their underlying text or their translation philosophy or both is not being unloving or bigoted, it's being uncompromising. Calling all who hold to our position "silly" is unjustified in this instance. You can say that we are wrong, but until you successfully refute our claims you would have no ground to say such things. If we applied this logic to the Calvinism vs Arminianism debate how would you respond to an Arminian who use the following arguments:

- I don't "think" that calvinistic soteriology is biblical
- I don't want to accept calvinistic soteriology because my church teaches arminianism
- This is just the kind of silliness the these Calvinistic debates descend to from the essentially calvinist side only. "I am sorry your understanding of Soteriology is wrong!"


----------



## JohnGill

reaganmarsh said:


> JohnGill, you mentioned that "D.A. Waite has even produced an edition in which the marginal notes are used to clarify certain words."
> 
> Would you mind providing a link to that edition? I for one am quite curious to see it!
> 
> Thank you!



Here's the link for it: The Defined King James Bible.


----------



## JohnGill

Zach said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> It needs to be repeated that the "no one understands the pronouns" idea was true in 1611. It takes about 30 seconds of teaching to clarify that and If my 4 year-old can get it, *then anyone can if they want to.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that gets to the true root of the issue. "If they want to."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I think what you're not accepting is that for some people, the answer is, "Yes, I don't want to."
> 
> I don't want to because I think the ESV is presently the best hope we have for a common English translation going forward. I don't want to because I think the archaic pronouns (and other words!) are unnecessary and though helpful a footnote in the ESV can suffice. I don't want to because my Church uses the ESV in our worship. I don't want to because I like the ESV. I don't want to because I don't think Scripture binds me to use the KJV.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then I truly do feel sorry for you brother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is just the kind of silliness that these KJV debates descend to from the essentially KJV only side. "I am sorry you are reading the wrong Bible!"
Click to expand...


To call my truly feeling sorry for you silly because of your unwillingness to examine these things and instead make your decisions based upon subjective emotions, is unfair. I sincerely do feel sorry for you because of your unwillingness to examine this issue and your continued desire to make your decision based upon emotion. Emotion is never a sure foundation for any decision.


----------



## JohnGill

Scottish Lass said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> But where did you learn your doctrines? Did you learn them by going through the scriptures following out the logical implications of each verse or did you get your doctrine from a confession/catechism or some other secondary source? Where do seminarians get their doctrine? Through exhaustive searches in scripture pulling out all the logical implications in scripture or by the study of systematic theologies and other secondary works? How do you know of the Doctrine of Graces? Did you learn them from exhaustive research of scripture following out all the logical implications or did you learn it from a book or perhaps a sermon? How do you know about the doctrine of the Trinity?
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really want the answers to these or are they rhetorical? I didn't grow up Reformed, so my answer isn't cookie-cutter.
Click to expand...


They're rhetorical and were provided to demonstrate how we get our doctrine. But feel free to answer them. I didn't grow up Reformed either.


----------



## JohnGill

Bill The Baptist said:


> Zach said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is just the kind of silliness that these KJV debates descend to from the essentially KJV only side. "I am sorry you are reading the wrong Bible!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that people who advocate for Byzantine priority would also reject the NKJV proves that they are in fact KJV only. The NKJV is a fine translation produced by godly men using a much better collection of Byzantine manuscripts than those that were used to produce the TR. It is a known fact that parts of the KJV were translated directly from the Vulgate because there was no Greek text available. In every case where the NKJV changes the language of the KJV, it is either because the meaning of the word has changed or because there is sufficient textual evidence to show that a correction was needed. We all agree that the KJV is a great translation whose beauty will never be surpassed and I pray that it will be around for another 400 years, but the assertion that any version that dares change anything in the KJV is a false version is ridiculous and demonstrates that you believe the KJV to be the only inspired translation, which of course is the hallmark of all KJV onlyists.
Click to expand...


This has been answered before so let me repeat: rejecting the NKJV because it incorporates CT readings does not make one a KJV Onlyists. However one defines such a term. And as I stated before, the Geneva, Tyndale's, or other translations from the Ecclesiastical text into Biblical English are sound translations. The best of these in English is the AV.


----------



## JoannaV

The various editions of the NKJV vary greatly. Some are nearer to the KJV with certain updated language. Others include a lot more revisions from the CT. Some editions have a lot of footnotes which give the impression that really the CT should have been used.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

I have been reflecting on this debate as I am one who moved from a Received Text Defender to the Critical Text and now mainly use the ESV.

My grandfather (on my mother side) was a leading KJV man (a New Zealand leader in the movement here). The Plymouth brethren church I grew up in was almost KJV only so I had a real background here. When I moved to another region in NZ as a teenager I encountered modern versions (quite a shock). I obtained a stack of KJV only material and devoured it. It is tragic that teenagers could have access to this stuff - some of it was extreme.

Eventually I started using the NKJV because it was based on the Received text. I was greatly influenced by JJ Ray's book "God wrote only one bible"
- he argues that the Received Text was preserved by the Waldenses in its old Latin form and thus the received text goes back to the earlies mss
(the error actually came from a 7 Day Adventist man). I used the NKJV for about 15 years. Actually at one stage the Trinitarian Bible
Society approved me to be their South Island agent though nothing actually came of it (i did not confess to them I used the NKJV!!). When I came to
Reformed convictions I actually used Dr Hills KJV only books as he was Reformed, I thought he was a safe man to use for my Received Text views.

There were 2 things that helped me. Firstly Reformed theology rejects shallow thinking and KJV and Received text views are rather shallow! This may seem a little harsh but consider the KJV only defender, David Cloud. His rants against Reformed theology are well known as is his defense of Dave Hunt! The fact that no *serious* Reformed scholar supports the RT is telling.
Secondly i discovered that my KJV at Luke 17:36 had a footnote saying that most mss do not have this verse (James White is great at showing that this
is very damaging to a KJV only position). Later Price's book (King James Onlyism - a new sect) helped me to see that Burgon's defense of the Byzantine text was flawed.

Some Key points:
1. All early manuscripts support the CT. The CT is clearly the *Majority* text in the early church. Further, all key manuscript discoveries since the 1930’s strengthen this. The problem with the traditional text argument is that there is no clear witness to it in the early church.
2. Related to this James White (in his revised 2009 edition of his book) points out his regular debates with Muslim scholars. White can consistently defend the integrity of the text against Muslim scholars in a way that RT defenders cannot. Why? Muslim scholars can rightly say that the RT text is not verified in the earliest manuscripts and therefore the true reading (RT reading) was initially lost to the church. The RT supporters have no answer to this therefore cannot consistently defend the integrity of the text. The CT defenders can defend it by showing the true readings were in the earliest of manuscripts and the integrity of the text is defended against Muslims.
3. If you call the ESV etc a perversion, then by the same standard you have to call the KJV a perversion. The KJV questions verses such as Luke 10:22, Luke 17:36, Acts 25:6. Also James White points out that in Rev 16:5 the RT (and the KJV) follows Beza’s conjectural emendation where there is simply no manuscript support for this reading. Yes the RT is corrupt as it does not follow any manuscript support, only Beza’s change!! Also the KJV deletes the words in the CT “and so we are” 1 John 3:1 thus denying a clear testimony to the doctrine of assurance. In other words, the perversion argument cuts both ways.
4. KJV only people argue that the CT is corrupt. But when James White debates KJV only people and says “prove it” the KJV only people are very ambiguous in their response!! This is something I noticed when I considered the issue. There are textual issues in ALL text types. Scholars using “reasoned eclecticism” based on the earliest majority of manuscripts have improved the textual debate beyond Westcott and Hort. Scholars do not follow Westcott and Hort. They use broader text type considerations.
5. many link the CT with Rome but Erasmus was more Romanistr. He also was rank Arminian! To be consistent with your anti Roman argument you should reject the Received Text because Romanist Erasmus put it together!

Again I would say the link between Reformed theology and rejection of the Received text is a very strong link!

Yes, I do believe there should to love and tolerance to people in each position, but I do believe the arguments for the CT are strong.
i have not yet seen James Whites (2009 ed) and James Price's books refuted yet.


----------



## JohnGill

Marcus417 said:


> Dear Brother,
> 
> First I would like to commend you for being the most thoughtful and gracious defender of the KJV I have ever had the pleasure of interacting with. I appreciate that while you believe the KJV to be the most reliable translation, you do not seem to think that those of us who disagree with you are going to burn for our belief. You state your disagreements with other posters with grace and humility. I used to work at a Christian bookstore, and I was primarily in charge of the Bible section. Every KJVO advocate that came in "was as mean as a Diamondback Rattler." On several occasion I had people come in and ask me for a KJV because they believed that was the Bible that Jesus used. I had people threaten to do me physical harm because we sold other Bibles than the KJV so I will readily admit that the KJVO crowd puts me a bit on edge.
> 
> I would like to ask you a few questions about your position.
> 
> 1) You seem to argue for the reliability of the KJV because it is the Bible most used by the reformers who helped recover and preach the doctrines of true Biblical Christianity for which everyone who holds to these doctrines is thankful. three questions do arise from this position:
> 
> a.) First what reformed doctrines are understood more clearly in the KJV as opposed to say the ESV or NASB? I can think of doctrines that are understood more clearly by knowing the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic such as the doctrine of _ex nihlo_ (the difference between Bara and Asah and the fact that Bara is used in Genesis 1).
> 
> b.) Since the publishing of the KJV archaeology has discovered more biblical manuscripts and through textual criticism we are able to have a Bible that is closer to the original text, and those changes were obviously not incorporated into the KJV. If the reformers had been privy to the extra textual evidence, isn't reasonable to say they would have incorporated them into their biblical exegesis? I have already read your arguments for the transmission of the manuscripts used by the KJV translators so there is no need to repost them (I will state up front that I disagree with that assessment, and near the end of my reply I will post a link to an article that states the reasons for rejecting that belief more eloquently than I ever could).
> 
> c.) I was always under the impression the reformers read the Bible in its original languages or latin not in the KJV. Am I wrong in this assumption?
> 
> 2) You make the point about the liberalizing of the Bible by the RSV and other modern translations. This leads me to another couple of questions:
> 
> a.) Am I mistaken or is your definition of a "liberal translation" of a verse anything that changes what is in the KJV?
> 
> b.) I am finishing up a degree in religious studies at a secular university, and one of my New Testament teachers, who got his PhD under Ehrman at UNC, always tended to opt for the more liberal translation whenever a textual controversy was present. This always drove me insane because I believe that a translator, whether conservative or liberal, should aim to present what the text says not what the translator thinks the text says or wants it to say. I believe theological bias needs to be pushed to the side when translating scripture so that the most accurate translation can be produced. That is why I respect the NET Bible translators so much because I feel they did the best job of bracketing their theological concerns. The accuracy of the NET Bible even caused the other New Testament professor at Missouri State, who received her PhD at Notre Dame, to state that the NET Bible was a better translation than the NRSV, which is heresy in secular New Testament studies. My question is this would you agree with my premise that a translator should bracket his/her theological concerns when translating?
> 
> 3.) Have you ever read James White or Daniel Wallace's critiques of the KJVO controversy.
> 
> a.) Daniel Wallace critique is online for free in his article entitle "Why I Do Not Think the KJV is Best Translation" (the article I referenced earlier)
> 
> b.) James White's book is entitled "The King James Only Controversy: can You Trust Modern Translations?"
> 
> My intention is not to convert you from your stance on the KJV, but to engage you in friendly Christian dialogue so I can learn your position better since like I said before you are the most learned KJV supporter I have ever had the pleasure of interacting with.
> 
> In Christ Alone,
> Marcus Krueger



Marcus,

Thank you for the kind words. I have run into those "advocates" for the AV. They generally come from one type of church, an IFB (Independent Fundamental Baptist) church. I always find it humorous to ask them about the Geneva Bible, Tyndale's translation (80% of his NT is in the AV) or even the faithful translations of the Ecclesiastical Texts in other languages such as Luther's translation. I have even seen a church that solely used the AV and affirmed it as the superior English translation split by Ruckmanites and their ilk. BTW, did you know the NKJV shouldn't be used because it has the witches unholy trinity symbol in it?!? (Tongue firmly planted in cheeck.) At one time I believed something similar. I do think the NKJV shouldn't be used simply because it less accurate than the AV, Geneva, and the Tyndale. And for the reasons mentioned by the TBS in their articles.

1) No, my argument for the AV is that its underlying apographs were those used by the Reformers. They rejected the readings found within the CT where the CT and TRs disagree. The AV is the pinnacle of English language translations and stands above other English translations of the Ecclesiastical Texts.a) The Doctrine of the Trinity (1Jn5:7;1Tim3:16) is one that comes to mind as does Christology (Prov 8:22;Micah 5:2;Lk2:22). 
b) It is untrue that the Reformers did not have access to many of the readings found in the critical text. They did, and they rejected them a spurious. 
c) Original languages, their own, the Tyndale's->Geneva-> and then the AV. I only know of the reading the Latin text (do you mean the Vulgate here?) in order to show its deficiencies. ​2) a. You would be mistaken. The Geneva has different renderings as the does the Tyndale. Neither are liberal renderings. I do not think the NKJV puts forth liberal renderings, but it is inferior to the AV/Geneva/Tyndale translations for reasons mentioned earlier. A liberal translation would be one in which liberal tendencies (Gender Neutral; denial of Virgin Birth, etc.) are included in the text. Some of these are based on the CT while others are based on personal interpretations such as the gender neutral nonsense. The underlying apographs of the ESV and the modern translations contain liberal tendencies. (See The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture Dr. Ehrman & The Text of the New Testament Drs. Metzger & Ehrman)b. You would need to clarify the term "theological concerns" or "theological bias" before I can begin to answer your question. However, I do agree with your statement "This always drove me insane because *I believe that a translator*, whether conservative or liberal, *should aim to present what the text says not what the translator thinks the text says or wants it to say.*"​3) Yes, I've read the both. I believe my version of White's book is the older version. I agree with Dr. Letis' assessment of White's book. I also agree with Joel McDurmon's assessment of White's debate (2nd I believe) with Dr. Ehrman. Wallace's critique is filled with fallacious reasoning and has been dealt with by Kent Brandenburg. Metzger rejected the story and the Erasmus' historian de Jonge has disproven the "popular" account of how Erasmus came by 1Jn5:7. It is available online. Let me know if you cannot find it. I think I may still have the link and if not I will attach the PDF here. My signature contains a quote by Wallace that utterly discredits him on the subject of textual criticism. As the late Dr. Bahnsen said, Neutrality is impossible. 

If my post seems overly terse, I apologize for that. I'm rushed for time right now and could only offer a quick response. If you wish I can provide you with a list of books (many free) that cover both sides of the textual issue. I'm currently editing Hoskier's work for epub as I am dissatisfied with the readability in my e-Reader. My hope is to have all of the free books I've found on both sides of this issue available on my blog in PDF, epub, and mobi format by the end of June this year.


----------



## reaganmarsh

JohnGill said:


> reaganmarsh said:
> 
> 
> 
> JohnGill, you mentioned that "D.A. Waite has even produced an edition in which the marginal notes are used to clarify certain words."
> 
> Would you mind providing a link to that edition? I for one am quite curious to see it!
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the link for it: The Defined King James Bible.
Click to expand...



Thank you!


----------



## CJW

I hope my question is perceived as a true desire for more knowledge on the subject, and not as debating or critical. I rejoice when any of my brothers and sisters "read, mark, and inwardly digest" the Word of God in whatever translation they chose.



Stephen L Smith said:


> Secondly i discovered that my KJV at Luke 17:36 had a footnote saying that most mss do not have this verse



The critical apparatus in my bible shows Luke 17:36 as being present in Manuscripts D (Bezae) and U (Nanianus). Why is the witness of two manuscripts not sufficient here to establish the verses authenticity, when the witness of two manuscripts (Aleph and B) is sufficient to call in question the authenticity of the long ending of Mark?


----------



## Stephen L Smith

CJW said:


> The critical apparatus in my bible shows Luke 17:36 as being present in Manuscripts D (Bezae) and U (Nanianus)



Hello from across the Tasman. my point was that the KJV itself "questions" certain verses.


----------



## JohnGill

Stephen L Smith said:


> *1) *Eventually I started using the NKJV because it was based on the Received text. I was greatly influenced by JJ Ray's book "God wrote only one bible"
> - he argues that the Received Text was preserved by the Waldenses in its old Latin form and thus the received text goes back to the earlies mss
> (the error actually came from a 7 Day Adventist man). I used the NKJV for about 15 years. Actually at one stage the Trinitarian Bible
> Society approved me to be their South Island agent though nothing actually came of it (i did not confess to them I used the NKJV!!).
> 
> *2) *When I came to Reformed convictions I actually used Dr Hills KJV only books as he was Reformed, I thought he was a safe man to use for my Received Text views.
> 
> *3) *There were 2 things that helped me. Firstly Reformed theology rejects shallow thinking and KJV and Received text views are rather shallow! *4)*This may seem a little harsh but consider the KJV only defender, David Cloud. His rants against Reformed theology are well known as is his defense of Dave Hunt! *5)*The fact that no *serious* Reformed scholar supports the RT is telling.
> *6) *Secondly i discovered that my KJV at Luke 17:36 had a footnote saying that most mss do not have this verse *7)*(James White is great at showing that this is very damaging to a KJV only position). *8) *Later Price's book (King James Onlyism - a new sect) helped me to see that Burgon's defense of the Byzantine text was flawed.



As I'm still short on time I'll deal with this portion now.

1) Ok, but it has nothing to do with the vast majority of defenders of the Ecclesiastical Text. Therefore it is immaterial.
2) You have implicitly stated that Hills is not safe. Care to justify this? You will need more than mere opinion and thinly veiled ad hominems.
3) Ok, prove they're shallow. Let's not forget that the Reformers used and based their doctrines on the Ecclesiastical Texts and rejected those texts which underlie the CT. 
4) Ad hominem. Meaningless as an argument against the ETs position.
5) I'll assume this is true. Consensus does not determine truth, otherwise Athanasius was wrong. But in making your statement you have besmirched men such as the Reformed Textual critic E.F. Hills, Dr. Theodore P. Letis, and Dr. Ferguson on this board to name but a few. 
6) And so what of it? How is this damaging to the position of those who hold to the Ecclesiastical Texts that the Reformers held to? Put quite simply, it isn't. 
7) The late Dr. Letis destroyed White's book.
8) Dr. D.A. Waite has refuted Price's book and Price's denial of preservation as put forth by the Reformers.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

JohnGill said:


> As I'm still short on time I'll deal with this portion now.
> 
> 1) Ok, but it has nothing to do with the vast majority of defenders of the Ecclesiastical Text. Therefore it is immaterial.
> 2) You have implicitly stated that Hills is not safe. Care to justify this? You will need more than mere opinion and thinly veiled ad hominems.
> 3) Ok, prove they're shallow. Let's not forget that the Reformers used and based their doctrines on the Ecclesiastical Texts and rejected those texts which underlie the CT.
> 4) Ad hominem. Meaningless as an argument against the ETs position.
> 5) I'll assume this is true. Consensus does not determine truth, otherwise Athanasius was wrong. But in making your statement you have besmirched men such as the Reformed Textual critic E.F. Hills, Dr. Theodore P. Letis, and Dr. Ferguson on this board to name but a few.
> 6) And so what of it? How is this damaging to the position of those who hold to the Ecclesiastical Texts that the Reformers held to? Put quite simply, it isn't.
> 7) The late Dr. Letis destroyed White's book.
> 8) Dr. D.A. Waite has refuted Price's book and Price's denial of preservation as put forth by the Reformers.



You have dealt with the more subjective side of my response so there is nothing really to respond to. The Ecclesiastical Text argument is weak as there is no evidence the Reformers *officially* endorsed a particular text. Price deals with this. 

As for D A Waite, it was a debate a few years ago between Waite and James White that weakened my commitment to the RT. I felt then that White thoroughly refuted Waite. So Waite is not a good example to use. Waite most definitely did not refute Price. he skirted the key issues.


----------



## JohnGill

Stephen L Smith said:


> Some Key points:
> 1. All early manuscripts support the CT. The CT is clearly the *Majority* text in the early church. Further, all key manuscript discoveries since the 1930’s strengthen this. The problem with the traditional text argument is that there is no clear witness to it in the early church.
> 2. Related to this James White (in his revised 2009 edition of his book) points out his regular debates with Muslim scholars. White can consistently defend the integrity of the text against Muslim scholars in a way that RT defenders cannot. Why? Muslim scholars can rightly say that the RT text is not verified in the earliest manuscripts and therefore the true reading (RT reading) was initially lost to the church. The RT supporters have no answer to this therefore cannot consistently defend the integrity of the text. The CT defenders can defend it by showing the true readings were in the earliest of manuscripts and the integrity of the text is defended against Muslims.
> 3. If you call the ESV etc a perversion, then by the same standard you have to call the KJV a perversion. The KJV questions verses such as Luke 10:22, Luke 17:36, Acts 25:6. Also James White points out that in Rev 16:5 the RT (and the KJV) follows Beza’s conjectural emendation where there is simply no manuscript support for this reading. Yes the RT is corrupt as it does not follow any manuscript support, only Beza’s change!! Also the KJV deletes the words in the CT “and so we are” 1 John 3:1 thus denying a clear testimony to the doctrine of assurance. In other words, the perversion argument cuts both ways.
> 4. KJV only people argue that the CT is corrupt. But when James White debates KJV only people and says “prove it” the KJV only people are very ambiguous in their response!! This is something I noticed when I considered the issue. There are textual issues in ALL text types. Scholars using “reasoned eclecticism” based on the earliest majority of manuscripts have improved the textual debate beyond Westcott and Hort. Scholars do not follow Westcott and Hort. They use broader text type considerations.
> 5. many link the CT with Rome but Erasmus was more Romanistr. He also was rank Arminian! To be consistent with your anti Roman argument you should reject the Received Text because Romanist Erasmus put it together!
> 
> _6_. Again I would say the link between Reformed theology and rejection of the Received text is a very strong link!
> 
> Yes, I do believe there should to love and tolerance to people in each position, but I do believe the arguments for the CT are strong.
> i have not yet seen James Whites (2009 ed) and James Price's books refuted yet.



1) False. Even secular textual critics admit the TR readings are as ancient as the CT readings.
2) See point 1.
3) Fallacy. False Equivalency. The reason the ESV can be called a perversion (in the sense that some of its readings are perverse) is due to it being based upon the CT which is corrupt. The Beza issue has been dealt with elsewhere on this forum. Both here and here. The KJV didn't remove the CT reading as the CT did not exist until the last 125 yrs or so. You seem to forget that the vast majority of the readings that were found in the foundational texts of the CT were known to the Reformers and were rejected by them as spurious. So no, the perversion argument does not cut both ways.
4) Your argument runs as follows: KJV people argue the CT is corrupt. Those who have debated James White provided, in your opinion, ambiguous answers. Therefore all KJV people only have ambiguous answers regarding the corrupt nature of the CT. That is not sound argumentation. You would be well served by doing some reading on the subject. You could start with Herman C. Hoskier's Codex B & Its Allies Vol 1. And then I'd recommend The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture by Dr. Bart Ehrman. "Reasoned eclecticism" is autonomous reasoning and therefore has no place in a Christian's thinking. 
5) Another bad argument. The Romanist Erasmus rejected Romanist readings, therefore one should reject the Romanist Erasmus' text. But to further reduce your argument via absurdity, since the Reformer's based their doctrine on Erasmus' text we should reject the doctrine of those Romanist Reformers! You seem to have forgotten the other men who worked on the text who were not Romanists.
_6)_ Reformed theology is based upon the Ecclesiastical Texts. Those were the apographs the Reformers used. They rejected as spurious the underlying texts of the CT.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

JohnGill said:


> 7) The late Dr. Letis destroyed White's book.



Could you elaborate on this? I find this claim highly suspect and I would like to know more.


----------



## JohnGill

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 7) The late Dr. Letis destroyed White's book.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you elaborate on this? I find this claim highly suspect and I would like to know more.
Click to expand...


Reviews of James R. White's _The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Versions?_ (1994) and Gail Riplinger's _New Age Versions_ (1993)


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

JohnGill said:


> SeanPatrickCornell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 7) The late Dr. Letis destroyed White's book.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you elaborate on this? I find this claim highly suspect and I would like to know more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reviews of James R. White's _The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Versions?_ (1994) and Gail Riplinger's _New Age Versions_ (1993)
Click to expand...


That material does not seem to back up the claim you've made, plus, this Dr. Letis seems like a really nasty person!


----------



## JohnGill

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SeanPatrickCornell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 7) The late Dr. Letis destroyed White's book.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you elaborate on this? I find this claim highly suspect and I would like to know more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reviews of James R. White's _The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Versions?_ (1994) and Gail Riplinger's _New Age Versions_ (1993)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That material does not seem to back up the claim you've made, plus, this Dr. Letis seems like a really nasty person!
Click to expand...


To you it doesn't, but to me it does. There are other lengthier interactions with White's book detailing its deficiencies, but Letis' assessment is succinct. As to Letis seeming like a nasty person, I think we should keep the ad hominems out of this.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Well, it's a legitimate comment. He really DOES seem to be a nasty person. His entire "review" of Dr. White's book is one ad hominem after another.


----------



## JohnGill

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Well, it's a legitimate comment. He really DOES seem to be a nasty person. *His entire "review" of Dr. White's book is one ad hominem after another*.



Please provide the proof for the bolded comment.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Here you go.

http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/images/white01b.gif
http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/images/white02b.gif
http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/images/white03b.gif
http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/images/white04b.gif
http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/images/white05b.gif
http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/images/white06b.gif
http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/images/white07b.gif

There's at least one ad hominem attack on Dr. White on each one of those pages. In fact, the very thing starts out with an ad hominem attack.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Seems we are wandering a wee bit off the topic, no?

Must every question of translation degenerate into an AV vs. other translations discussion? We already have plenty of threads on this aspect, no?


----------



## JohnGill

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Seems we are wandering a wee bit off the topic, no?
> 
> Must every question of translation degenerate into an AV vs. other translations discussion? We already have plenty of threads on this aspect, no?



Thank you for the reminder brother.

In answer to the OP:

1. Define "truly" Reformed
2. Determine if those doctrines that define "truly" Reformed are taught in the ESV. Exegesis over eisegesis.
3. If they are, then yes, else no.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

JohnGill said:


> 1. Define "truly" Reformed


Good luck with that one, brother.  I have yet to find a consensus on the "TR" designation.


----------



## Kaalvenist

I've never used the ESV.

I was raised using the NIV. I switched to the AV (KJV) when I was about 15.


----------



## JohnGill

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Define "truly" Reformed
> 
> 
> 
> Good luck with that one, brother.  I have yet to find a consensus on the "TR" designation.
Click to expand...


Me either. Swing a cat and you'll hit a different definition every time. FYI, I am against cat swinging. Mainly because the cats are against it.

There's a thread idea. What does it mean to be "truly" Reformed?


----------



## SolaScriptura

See, and I' above the fray because on my website I give you - the dear reader - the choice of which version of the Bible will be displayed.

Ain't I saintly?


----------



## JohnGill

SolaScriptura said:


> See, and I' above the fray because on my website I give you - the dear reader - the choice of which version of the Bible will be displayed.
> 
> Ain't I saintly?



I have some choice words for you Mr. Saintly Ben.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

JohnGill said:


> What does it mean to be "truly" Reformed?


It has been done here, trust me. For example:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f24/tr-truly-reformed-totally-reformed-definition-analysis-9307/


----------



## py3ak

_Basta, basta, per pieta._


----------

