# The Bereans and Manuscript Translations



## satz (Aug 23, 2006)

Let me just preface this by saying I have no agenda to push with this question, but it is something i am seeking an honest answer for.

Acts 17:10-11 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

If Acts 17 tells us that noble men search the scriptures daily to see if the things that they are told are true, and this applies even when the Apostle Paul himself is the one doing the teaching, how does this relate to normal christians who have to trust manuscript translators for their bibles and have no recourse to check with anything if these things are true? Or how about as often happens in sermons or articles when a teacher makes reference to the original langugues to make a point that absolutely cannot be derived from the english langugue of the bible. How are lay-christians supposed to check if what they are hearing is true?

Any thoughts?


----------



## MW (Aug 23, 2006)

It used to be a part of reformed apologetics against Romanism and Rationalism to include a section on the sufficiency of a good English translation to convey the truth of God. That was when it was believed "that divine truth in English is as truly the word of God as the same scriptures delivered in the original Hebrew of Greek; yet with this difference, that the same is perfectly, immediately, and most absolutely in the original Hebrew and Greek: in other translations, as the vessels wherein it is presented to us, and as far forth as they do agree with the original." William Lyford, The Instructed Christian, p. 70. Subsequently there was a confidence which reformed divines could impart to the reader of the English Bible that it conveys the truth of God. Regrettably that has been lost today.

I concur with John Duncan's analysis: "Oh, it is a pitiable thing, for a poor silly puppy of a sciolist to stand up in the pulpit vexing the people by shaking their confidence in our good English translation." By which he meant the time-honoured and well-proven Protestant translation called the Authorised Version. For what it's worth, I don't believe there is any truth of God which you won't find by a careful reading of the AV. One might need to revert to originals to establish the truth against gainsayers. But for the instruction of a believing people, the AV conveys the truth of God. Where modern versions deviate from it in sense, I cannot speak with the like confidence.


----------



## satz (Aug 24, 2006)

Rev. Winzer,

Thanks for you reply. I do agree, and in fact feel rather strongly that it is very regrettable that God's people today cannot trust the bibles they hold in their hands as God's words which they can rely on fully and absolutely. Whenever i read or hear someone refer to the 'originals' or 'a better translation would be...' it always serves to confuse rather than enlighten me.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Aug 25, 2006)

It is also important to note the early church did not simply hand out bibles to everyone and say, "œHere have a go at it."

The scriptures were read and interpreted in groups or dare I say "“ communities (seems like a loaded buzzword in today´s e-church).

If someone did not know the language of the scriptures, they could rely on the presence of people who did. Scripture was handled carefully and was opened by teachers who were appointed to the task. This officer/layman, guidance/submission dichotomy in the church is vital to unity and protection against heresy. But, as is the case with every utopian balance, there are extremes that result if this dichotomy is not handled with care. The extreme in one direction is seen through the RCC and their view of the Pope and the church which results in Eunuchs blindly trusting their guides and lazy Bereans who do not think and investigate for themselves. The extreme in the other direction is the each man for himself, mainline Protestant mentality often expressed as, "œLet the spirit guide you" which as we can see results in (God forbid) either many spirits or a confused spirit.

Lay-christians need to search the scriptures daily with an understanding that they cannot understand without someone (lawfully appointed) to guide them (cf: Acts 8:30-31). It is a balance between _Sola Ecclesia_ along with _ex cathedra_ and _Sol*o* Scriptura_ which are both extremely dangerous. _Sol*a* Scriptura_ "“ properly understood is intended to be the proper balance. 

Directory for Family-Worship makes a very helpful statement regarding the searching of the scriptures in section III:



> As the charge and office of interpreting the holy scriptures is a part of the ministerial calling, *which none (however otherwise qualified) should take upon him in any place, but he that is duly called thereunto by God and his kirk*; so in every family where there is any that can read, the holy scriptures should be read ordinarily to the family; and it is commendable, that thereafter they confer, and by way of conference make some good use of what hath been read and heard.



my


----------



## satz (Aug 26, 2006)

Chris, 

Thanks for the reply.

I understand what you are saying, though I am referring to something slightly different. When a pastor or teacher helps a laychrisitan to understand something from the scriptures, that laychristian can then go back and check the scriptures to see how the teacher arrived at the conclusions and understanding that he did. 

However, when a teacher starts to refer back to the original langugues or to errors in the translation, there is no way for his hearers to check on what he is saying. They have to either believe not not believe him based on blind faith.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Aug 26, 2006)

Try this essay for a slightly different take on the proliferation of Bible translations.

rsc


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 26, 2006)

Hello Mark,

What you say is why, nowadays, it is important to study and become at least somewhat familiar with the issues involved, especially in the area of supposed "errors in the translation". Regarding only referring back to the original languages, there are some excellent language tools -- concordances w/Hebrew & Greek dictionaries, word-studies in the Hebrew and Greek, etc. These can serve to simply enrich ones appreciation of ones translation. I also use other versions than the King James when I read so as to help me get a broad spectrum of translation possibilities.

As for "errors" that arise from those using what is called the Critical Text underlying almost all modern versions, this is the area one must learn a little about, if one is to maintain ones faith in ones Bible.

It is a tough situation for younger Christians to find themselves in. Speaking for myself, I lament that I cannot trust the scholarship of the most advanced textual critics. Their knowledge is vast, their erudition can often be intimidating, they can run intellectual circles around many of those who disagree with them, but I do not trust them. The fruit of their learning is to me against the faith I have derived from a sound apprehension of Scripture.

Many of the scholars who pioneered textual criticism were not believers, and established the modus operandi of the discipline, which was to proceed by purely naturalistic methodologies; those evangelicals who joined in these studies followed in their train. A great Reformed theologian, B.B. Warfield, insofar as textual criticism is concerned, accepted this paradigm, and influenced many.

Strangely, it is the despised Fundamentalist Baptists who carried the banner in refusing to submit to the unbelief of the learned. Some Reformed, such as Dr. E.F. Hills, and Dr. Ted Letis, also were part of this refusal to deny what they saw as an article of faith.

I include below two writings from one of these Baptists, David Cloud. He gives good background information in these two writings. He is not Reformed (by which I mean, Biblical) in much of his theology, especially as regards salvation and God's sovereignty, but as regards defending the Bible, I think he is very good. Some folks don't like his no-nonsense, sometimes tough manner, but I don't mind tough guys. I think he is godly in his conduct and speech. 

I'm afraid it will cost you some effort to educate yourself in this vital area of the Christian life which has been overrun with misinformation and confusion. What can one do but pray, ask the Lord to steer us right, and use our best judgment?

_Unholy Hands on God's Holy Book: A Report on the United Bible Societies_: http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/unholyhands1.htm

_Textual Criticism Is Drawn From The Wells Of Infidelity_: http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/textualcriticism.htm

May God guide you!

Steve


----------

