# Is one bible version more "confessional" than others?



## Pergamum (Jan 31, 2011)

Which is most confessional to use, ESV, NASB, KJV, Geneva? Can it be said that one bible version is more confessional than others?

Do manuscript family differences count (Masoretic versus eclectic, Majority versus Nestle-Aland or UBS)? Does translation style count (more literal versus dynamic equivalence?

I am not talking just about the most biblical or faithful translation, but I am talking about what the confessions demand.


----------



## MW (Feb 1, 2011)

The AV -- translated from the purest fountains, translators abode by the soundest confession, the translation achieves a literal reproduction of God's word for the sake of the unlearned, and has received universal recognition from the reformed tradition.

Edward Leigh (A System or Body of Divinity):



> All the Versions of the sacred Scripture have so farre Divine Authority as they agree with the original Tongue; and to say that any Translation is pure and uncorrupt, and that the very fountains are muddy, is both a foolish and impious blasphemy. The tongue and dialect is but an accident, and as it were an argument of the Divine truth, which remains one and the same in all Idioms; therefore the faith of the unlearned depends on God, not on men; although the Translations, by benefit of which they are brought to believe, be perfected by the labour of men. Gods providence and care of the Church is such that he would never let it be long destitute of a fit Translation, which being publisht by learned men, and approved of by the Church, however it failed in some things, yet following the truth constantly in the more principal and necessary things, might be sufficient to all for wholesome instruction.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 1, 2011)

Rev. Winzer:

Was this issue ever discussed when the Westminster Assembly met, or did the divines have a consensus? 

Can we prove this from the version used in the proof-texts to the WCF?


----------



## MW (Feb 1, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> Was this issue ever discussed when the Westminster Assembly met, or did the divines have a consensus?
> 
> Can we prove this from the version used in the proof-texts to the WCF?


 
On the first question, the AV had replaced the Geneva Version by the time of the Assembly. In writings it is called the late translation. It is a myth to claim that the Puritans never accepted it. I'm working from memory but I believe there was an updated printing of the AV (including minor corrections) either during the Assembly or just after it. The general approval of the AV is testified to in the preface to Matthew Poole's commentary. As far as I know the Assembly did not debate translation in and of itself (there would have been general consensus on that point given its detailed treatment in earlier debates), although there are some discussions on specific renderings in English.

On the second question, we can certainly prove what the divines regarded as the text of Scripture by appeal to the proofs, that is, what was the immediately inspired and preserved word of God in the Hebrew and Greek. I doubt if we could establish the specific AV translation of that text since there is nothing to contrast it with. There are, however, some places of the Confession and Catechism which quote the AV and where modern translations have provided a different rendering; e.g. WCF 8.6 quoting Rev. 13:8.


----------



## KMK (Feb 1, 2011)

Westminster Shorter Catechism 



> Q. 107. What doth the conclusion of the Lord’s Prayer teach us?
> A. The conclusion of the Lord’s Prayer, which is, For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen, teacheth us to take our encouragement in prayer from God only, and in our prayers to praise him, ascribing kingdom, power, and glory to him; and, in testimony of our desire, and assurance to be heard, we say, Amen.



The Reformers universally taught that there was a conclusion to the Lord's Prayer. The Critical Text tradition teaches there is no conclusion to the Lord's Prayer.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Feb 1, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> The AV -- translated from the purest fountains, translators abode by the soundest confession, the translation achieves a literal reproduction of God's word for the sake of the unlearned, and has received universal recognition from the reformed tradition.
> 
> Edward Leigh (A System or Body of Divinity):
> 
> ...



Rev. Winzer,
Saying that the AV is the "more confessional" version is completely of your opinion. 

Pergamum,
I would say that it would have been the desire of the puritans to have an accurate translation for the more "unlearned" people. One that would also be easy to read without sacrificing the content. I would say that there are two translations that would be more confessional in this context. Either the NASB (which i must admit, I'm partial to the NASB) or the ESV (which is used by many in the reformed churches). 

All in all, i think one would be pretty hard pressed to have an actual confessional standard for a bible translation.

---------- Post added at 10:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:43 PM ----------




KMK said:


> Westminster Shorter Catechism
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Pastor Ken,

The ending to the Lord's prayer isn't in earlier manuscripts. However, the critical texts that we have today didn't come into play until a couple hundred years after the puritan era. In this case, then, the issue would be less about if the translation is "confessional" and more to the point: Do the confessions hold a standard to which we must have the most accurate translation? If so, which one is the most accurate(keeping in mind the recent discoveries and the audience for language purposes)?


----------



## KMK (Feb 1, 2011)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Saying that the AV is the "more confessional" version is completely of your opinion.



It is not his opinion. The AV was the version the Reformers used in drafting the confessions. (Hence the inclusion of SC Q. 107, for example)


----------



## KMK (Feb 1, 2011)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Pastor Ken,
> 
> The ending to the Lord's prayer isn't in earlier manuscripts. However, the critical texts that we have today didn't come into play until a couple hundred years after the puritan era.



If you believe the framers were in error by including q. 107, fine. This doesn't change the fact that the AV is more confessional.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Feb 1, 2011)

KMK said:


> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> > Saying that the AV is the "more confessional" version is completely of your opinion.
> ...


 
Pastor Ken,

The Reformers used the Great bible or earlier translations. The AV didn't come around until the 1600's. The puritans might have used the AV. The translation isn't what the bottom line issue is for textual critics. It's the manuscripts being used. 

I still don't see how quoting Q 107 makes the AV more confessional then the ESV. Are you implying then that those who do not use the AV are not confessional "enough"?

Also, I never said the framers were in error for putting Q107 in the Catechism. That was the text they had at the time and that's what they thought to be necessary for confessional standards.


----------



## KMK (Feb 1, 2011)

Andrew P.C. said:


> I still don't see how quoting Q 107 makes the AV more confessional then the ESV. Are you implying then that those who do not use the AV are not confessional "enough"?



Q.107 quotes from the KJV. 



> The conclusion of the Lord’s Prayer, which is, *For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen*,



These words are in the confession, but they do not appear in the CT.


----------



## KMK (Feb 1, 2011)

Andrew P.C. said:


> However, the critical texts that we have today didn't come into play until a couple hundred years after the puritan era



Are you sure about this? Evidence has been presented to the contrary here on PB. It would be difficult to prove that none of the framers knew about the CT.


----------



## MW (Feb 1, 2011)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Saying that the AV is the "more confessional" version is completely of your opinion.


 
It is good to be reassured that what one says is not contrary to one's own opinion.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 1, 2011)

So when we bump up against differences in bible versions such that the newer version (whether it be ESV, NASB, etc) gives a different reading from the proof-texts found in the WCF, are we bound by the confession then to revert back to the WCF proof-text's reading over the newer version? 

eg, are we bound to say the ending of the Lord's prayer as found in the confession or take the WCF's reading of Rev 13:8 over newer readings in order to be confessional? 

How would this impact confessional reformed churches' use of other bible versions? Has any reformed denomination made this a matter of policy?


----------



## JP Wallace (Feb 1, 2011)

The Standards set forth their theology of transaltion in chapter 1:8


".....therefore they [The Scriptures] are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope."

Therefore no single translation can be said to be more confessional than another so long as it is a translation, faithful to the original.

I'd say however that verbal and plenary inspiration dictates a more formal than dynamic equivalency.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 1, 2011)

Paul, 

If the WCF quotes the ending of the Lord's Prayer when newer versions do not and if Rev 13:8 is contested and if the proof-texts favor one reading over another, what do we do then? 

Can we disagree with the Confession's proof-texts and still be confessional?


----------



## JP Wallace (Feb 1, 2011)

Of course we can - it wasn't possible that they could quote from anything else? Geneva perhaps? But I can see no correlation between their quotation of the AV and that this is the most confessional version, what about French WCF followers are unconfessional, German speakers?

BTW the way the vast majority of Reformed Christians in the UK are probably not KJV/AV users.


----------



## TimV (Feb 1, 2011)

At least in the OPC minor changes have been made to the proof texts which cause some differences with the KJV, and no one seems to care.



> The King James Version has been used, *without prejudice to other translations*, since this is the English text that was in use at the time of the Westminster Assembly, the language of which is at times reflected in the Confession and Catechisms. The Committee on Christian Education has endeavored to publish the texts and proof texts of the Confession and Catechisms as accurately as possible, that is, in accordance with the intention of the general assemblies which adopted them. In ascertaining the approved texts and proof texts, it has been assumed that the general assemblies desired errors, either in the manuscripts with which they were presented, or in the documents as printed, to be corrected. Spelling and capitalization has been regularized and modernized, but the original punctuation and verb forms have been retained. Chapters and sections of the Confession are now enumerated with Arabic numerals, not Roman numerals.


Orthodox Presbyterian Church

WCF 1.8 is speaking about the original texts, not the KJV or even the Textus Receptus. As has been time and time again shown here the Reformers and Puritans from Calvin to Beza to Turretin to just about everyone with the possible exception of a few like Owen at times preferred readings contrary to the KJV and even the variant TR readings of Stephanus. Every single person at the assembly knew that, so no one would have cared if a fragment of a verse from Revelation ended up being changed 200 years in the future. They would have simply altered the proof text.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 1, 2011)

TIMV: Can you give any citations or sources for your claim?


----------



## TimV (Feb 1, 2011)

The claim that major Reformed and Purtitan thinkers disagreed with certain KJV/TR readings?


----------



## KMK (Feb 1, 2011)

JP Wallace said:


> Of course we can - it wasn't possible that they could quote from anything else? Geneva perhaps?



Again, and I ask out of sincerity, can we know for sure that the framers were not aware of parts of the CT?

Also, in regards to SC Q. 107, it isn't simply that the standards present words in a different fashion than the CT, but words that are not there at all. Wouldn't a CT advocate have to take exception to Q. 107? And if so, doesn't that make the AV even slightly more confessional?


----------



## FenderPriest (Feb 1, 2011)

For those interested in the Post-Reformation Reformed understanding of the Textus Receptus and all the debates that stem from that issue, Richard Muller's Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Vol 2, 2nd ed.: Holy Scripture: The Cognitive Foundation of Theology has a very helpful section discussion their view. It's around the middle. I found a selection from it here.


----------



## TimV (Feb 1, 2011)

KMK said:


> Again, and I ask out of sincerity, can we know for sure that the framers were not aware of parts of the CT?



There was no such thing as the CV then, any more than there was such a thing as the TR before 1515 or so. They were and are both creations of men who put together different manuscripts; men who never claimed they had "arrived" at the exact wording of the autographs. We do know the framers were familiar with traditions other than the TR and it's variants. And we know for a fact that at times they preferred those reading over and above the readings of the TR and it's variants.

Which is why you almost never hear anyone claiming WCF 1.8 means using the KJV exclusively except on Internet discussion forums.


----------



## JP Wallace (Feb 1, 2011)

An equally valid, but probably equally unanswerable question is this; "What would the WCF compilers of the 17th century do today faced with the manuscripts discovered since the 17th century?"

I have a feeling that they would weigh up the evidence and amend accordingly which is what they did in the first place- no point of doctrine either stands or falls on one text, nevermind any disputed textual variant. In fact I would be fairly sure that the compliers took textual variants fully into consideration - though they did not have the documents, we now have and so on the basis of what they had, they made decisions - like we all do. 

In fact I'd say they were aware that there are textual variants in Matthew 6:13 as the phrase is missing from Tyndale's 1526 NT, the phrase is present in Latin and Greek in Erasmus 1522 but it is in a smaller print size in the Latin side suggesting some discussion needed. Stephens has it in 1550. I'd be surprised if someone in the Chamber did not know some of the textual history.

Would they change the question and answer? I don't know, indeed I don't know what I would wish even now!! I don't like changing historic and important documents!

But all that said I don't see how their use of the resources they had ties us to use only the resources they had - in principle that is.


----------



## SolaGratia (Feb 1, 2011)

The framers of the Westminster Standards were very aware of textual variants, especially since the put out of the Douay-Rheims Bible by the Papist against Protestants.


----------



## KMK (Feb 1, 2011)

TimV said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > Again, and I ask out of sincerity, can we know for sure that the framers were not aware of parts of the CT?
> ...


 
I get it. We're discussing this on an Internet discussion forum. However, 1.8 has only been trotted out here as support for the 'all versions are equally confessional' side.

My point is not that the AV is better than the CT. My point is that the AV is more confessional because the Standards quote words that are present in the AV but absent in the CT. That's all. If that does not meet the standard of 'more confessional' then what does?


----------



## TimV (Feb 1, 2011)

KMK said:


> However, 1.8 has only been trotted out here as support for the 'all versions are equally confessional' side.
> 
> My point is not that the AV is better than the CT. My point is that the AV is more confessional because the Standards quote words that are present in the AV but absent in the CT. That's all. If that does not meet the standard of 'more confessional' then what does?



Actually there was the notorious thread started by Paul which ended up with James White doing a whole program mentioning the PB.

Yes, I see your point, but it would be more like saying the font style is more confessional, since they used whatever type of font to draw up the Standards. But only to that level


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 1, 2011)

SolaGratia said:


> The framers of the Westminster Standards were very aware of textual variants, especially because of the Douay-Rheims Bible put out by the Papist against Protestants.



What textual variants are reflected in the Douay-Rheims as compared to the KJV? I thought it was largely based on the Vulgate, which I'm thinking would make it closer to the TR than it would be to the modern critical texts. Is there any document available that would show the differences? I suppose the _ad fontes_ attitude that led to translations from the Greek would have also resulted in some text critical changes from the Vulgate. 

I haven't studied the issue in-depth, but I've seen it argued that Erasmus and later translators were familiar with Vaticanus but rejected it.

---------- Post added at 02:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:10 PM ----------




KMK said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> > KMK said:
> ...



The fact that the wording of the Standards sometimes reflects the AV is the reason why the recent OPC version of the Standards used the AV in the proof texts even though a relatively small percentage of OPC pastors and churches use the AV.


----------



## he beholds (Feb 1, 2011)

If we are going to say that the KJV is the confessional choice, then to quote and prefer any other version would get us in trouble on the PB, since we are not allowed to be anti-confessional here. So I hope the mods don't read this thread and come down on the side of some of you!

Ok, that's sort of a joke, but seriously, I would ask, instead, is one Bible more _biblical_ than others, not more confessional. Perhaps the Divines were KJV-onlyers. I'm not making an anti-confession argument here, but I am going to say that they did not have some of the translations that we have. And they also spoke in that dialect, or at least a lot closer to it than we do. Being that they weren't able to travel to the future and did not know what the vernacular would end up being (nor do we), they had to use something that fit their time and place to quote from. Being also that they were English speakers. Would KJV-ers argue against other-languaged Bibles? Is the KJV superior to a German Bible? 

And if we find a new tribe and need to write a new translation, do KJV-onlyers insist on determining what the poetic, antiquated version of that language is, in order to make it closest to the KJV? Or do they ask that the new translation be in the clearest possible language for that tribe? Because that's what I see ESV's and what not doing for the tribes of America-today.


----------



## Prufrock (Feb 1, 2011)

TimV said:


> Actually there was the notorious thread started by Paul which ended up with James White doing a whole program mentioning the PB.



Since this thread has mentioned, I will quickly interject the following just to prevent any side discussions from coming up (but I will not be drawn into a discussion on this topic).

Yes, I started a thread three years ago, and I very much regret doing so. I spoke exceedingly foolishly; through my lack of circumspection and sensitivity, the manner in which I sought to ask a question about the historical, authorial intent of the Confessions, implicitly suggested (or downright accused) ministers who advocate a textual position akin to the CT mission to be in violation of their vows as office bearers. I never intended to do so, but such is precisely what my words did, and I was and am ashamed at the damage caused by my lack of thinking through my words and my bull-headedness in standing by the way in which I asked the question. I know that, since that thread, I have apologized and that I have said this countless times, but since it has been suggested numerous times since then that I accused office-bearers of violating their vows, I certainly do not and will never do such a thing and want to distance myself strongly from any suggestion to the contrary. Ministers subscribe their confession as it is received by their church. Period.


----------



## MW (Feb 1, 2011)

SolaGratia said:


> The framers of the Westminster Standards were very aware of textual variants, especially because of the Douay-Rheims Bible put out by the Papist against Protestants.


 
Yes; the Puritan tradition through Cartwright and Fulke had already spoken out critically of the Rhemist translation, including what might be called proto-Vaticanus readings. Codex Alexandrinus had been brought to England and some had already begun questioning the received text on the point of the Deity of Christ, especially the Socinians. Again, the Reformed continue to maintain the Reformation text.


----------



## MW (Feb 1, 2011)

JP Wallace said:


> Therefore no single translation can be said to be more confessional than another so long as it is a translation, faithful to the original.


 
If one version is more faithful to the original than another version then it is more confessional to choose that translation which nearest accords to the original, "that the Word of God" might dwell "plentifully in all."


----------



## MW (Feb 1, 2011)

How did the divines look upon the integrity of the Originals? Thomas Ford (Logos Autopistos), one of the members of the Westminster Assembly, states uneqivocally that the providence of God has entirely preserved that which was committed unto writing (emphasised text reflects wording which is contained in the Confession of Faith):



> As for the Originals, *we are assured that they are entire*, and not defective, as any can be sure of any thing that is of so long standing. And therefore we are bold to think, that they who question us, as they do in this kind, might rather have questioned God himself, for representing his mind and will in writing, when he could not but foresee that such manner of questions might be put in after-ages, as are made now-a-days. None dare say, that God never ordered his will to be written. And seeing it is so ordered by him, *why should we question the wise and gracious hand of his providence*, *in contriving the preservation of these ancient Records unto all posterity*, for whom he intended them? Methinks it were a more direct course for our Adversaries to take, if they would say downright, that God never *committed his mind and will to writing*, than now to say (as they do) that no man can be sure that these writings are the same which were at first. For this seems to cast an aspersion upon God, for taking such a way of representing his mind unto the sons of men, as must leave those of these latter ages of the world, under invincible doubtings about his will, that respects their greatest and only concernments.


----------



## MW (Feb 1, 2011)

In relation to the translation, Thomas Ford (ibid.) provides a solid answer to any one who doubts the integrity of the English translation of the Bible:



> Our English Bible (saith our learned White) contains in it two things, viz. The Doctrine, and the Translation. The Doctrine was inspired by God, and written by men infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost. The Translation was done by the ministry of the Church, and industry of certain men, who though they have no supernatural inspiration, *yet we know infallibly*, *they have not erred in the matter*, by the same means whereby we know other Truths, and discern other Articles of Christian Faith; viz. The light of the Doctrine Translated, the testimony of the Spirit, the ministry of the Word, the rules of Art, the knowledge of the Tongues, &c.


----------



## raekwon (Feb 1, 2011)

This question seems entirely backwards.


----------



## MW (Feb 1, 2011)

raekwon said:


> This question seems entirely backwards.


 
The translator to the reader:



> we affirm and avow — that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.



Whether a version is confessional (that is, "of our profession") is a matter of great importance because it will answer the question as to whether it should be received as the Word of God. One would have to suppose that ANY translation is worthy to be called the Word of God in order to think that the confessional nature of the translation is not important.


----------



## he beholds (Feb 1, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> In relation to the translation, Thomas Ford (ibid.) provides a solid answer to any one who doubts the integrity of the English translation of the Bible:
> 
> 
> 
> > Our English Bible (saith our learned White) contains in it two things, viz. The Doctrine, and the Translation. The Doctrine was inspired by God, and written by men infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost. _The Translation was done by the ministry of the Church, and industry of certain men, who though they have no supernatural inspiration, *yet we know infallibly*, *they have not erred in the matter*, by the same means whereby we know other Truths, and discern other Articles of Christian Faith; viz. The light of the Doctrine Translated, the testimony of the Spirit, the ministry of the Word, the rules of Art, the knowledge of the Tongues, &c._



Can that same thing not be said of other versions?


----------



## KMK (Feb 1, 2011)

TimV said:


> Yes, I see your point, but it would be more like saying the font style is more confessional, since they used whatever type of font to draw up the Standards. But only to that level



I see it as slightly more important than font style but, for the sake of unity, I'll take it.


----------



## TimV (Feb 1, 2011)

Sorry, the devil made me do it 

Now we can sit back and think about the "profession" of the various translators. It would probably be best to ignore the professions of Erasmus and W&H  So now it comes down to some High church Englishman and Sproul


----------



## KMK (Feb 1, 2011)

And Tim Vaughan, of course!


----------



## TimV (Feb 1, 2011)

Well, I'm sure King James appointed several Baptists to the translation committee too


----------



## MW (Feb 1, 2011)

he beholds said:


> Can that same thing not be said of other versions?


 
Which ones? The New World Translation? I've mentioned the worst of them to show that there is at least the possibility of an "in principle" rejection of some translations on the basis of their infidelity or lack of fidelity to the original. Once that principle is accepted it becomes a matter of degree when investigating Christian versions. The reformed tradition has demonstrated a history of criticism in this regard. The Revised Version was criticised by many in conservative churches. The Revised Standard Version had less critics but still some shining lights like Oswald Allis to oppose it. The New International Version came under the scrutiny of the Banner of Truth Trust. There are sound reasons for regarding some translations as inferior in quality to others. Churches and Christians should not allow anything which claims to be the Word of God to be regarded as such. Confessional standards apply here as much as anywhere.


----------



## he beholds (Feb 1, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> he beholds said:
> 
> 
> > Can that same thing not be said of other versions?
> ...



No. Like the ESV. Or the Geneva Bible. 
Can I call the KJV inferior in quality to a more modern version since it speaks of unicorns and the language is outdated? I'm not being facetious, but perhaps Australian English is more 1600's English than American English. For us, the KJV, although very pretty sounding, is by no means the perfect translation, nevermind in 300 years. In 300 years, or a 1000 years, will it still be the only acceptable Bible to some? Even if it really does look like Old English by that time? And I don't see a real response to the question of non-English speakers.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 1, 2011)

TimV said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > However, 1.8 has only been trotted out here as support for the 'all versions are equally confessional' side.
> ...


 
Ha, TimV, you beat me to my next question.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Feb 1, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> he beholds said:
> 
> 
> > Can that same thing not be said of other versions?
> ...


 
Rev. Winzer,

Since you have stated that "the Reformed continue to maintain the Reformation text" and clearly you view this text to be the AV, the question still remains:

If the AV is the "more confessional" version, then are those who teach from or prefer, e.g. the ESV "less confessional"? I've asked that question and I've received no response.


----------



## MW (Feb 1, 2011)

he beholds said:


> No. Like the ESV. Or the Geneva Bible.



The ESV is not that much better than its step-mother. The AV specifically replaced the Geneva Bible and is universally recognised as having far better accuracy.



he beholds said:


> Can I call the KJV inferior in quality to a more modern version since it speaks of unicorns and the language is outdated?



You can but you shouldn't. The language was outdated the day it was printed. It never aimed to accommodate itself to spoken English. It sought to accurately convey the original in English dress. English dress has become skimpier but for those who prefer modest clothing the fulness of the AV will be appreciated.


----------



## MW (Feb 1, 2011)

Andrew P.C. said:


> If the AV is the "more confessional" version, then are those who teach from or prefer, e.g. the ESV "less confessional"? I've asked that question and I've received no response.


 
I don't stand as a judge over any man's ordination vows. That is for a Presbytery to decide. As far as the individual Christian is concerned, try to read the literature on the subject with confessional lenses. R. L. Dabney's essays will prove a good place to begin. Understanding the confessional principles outlined in his essays will give the necessary tools for analysing modern versions and pinpointing their shortcomings.


----------



## TimV (Feb 1, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> English dress has become skimpier but for those who prefer modest clothing the fulness of the AV will be appreciated.



So, the ESV is sexier  Cool!


----------



## MW (Feb 1, 2011)

TimV said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > English dress has become skimpier but for those who prefer modest clothing the fulness of the AV will be appreciated.
> ...


 
"Save yourselves from this untoward generation."


----------



## he beholds (Feb 1, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> he beholds said:
> 
> 
> > No. Like the ESV. Or the Geneva Bible.
> ...


 
OK, so it was written purposefully to be more...? Old Fashioned? Have more history in the words? More tradition? Is that what you mean? So were the translators doing this because they thought that the original would have been written in the same type of style? 

Did Moses write in a more "full" manner and so the KJV people wanted to do the same? 

I don't get your analogy, I guess! And I prefer modesty and appreciate the KJV. I just cannot accept that it is this singular acceptable and perfect Bible version. 
Can you, please, give any specific critiques of the ESV? I'm not going to stop reading it just because someone says that it is not that much better than another Bible. And if it is bad for me, I'm sure you'd want to win me over (and I would want to be won over!). So if you have any evidence of this lacking, that'd be awesome!

---------- Post added at 09:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:46 PM ----------

SO...
Tomorrow there is a debate on KJV-onlyism


> James White of Alpha & Omega Ministries and author of The King James Only Controversy will be debating Dr. Jack Moorman, author of Forever Settled and other books defending the King James Bible. The debate will be live on British cable TV and online at www.revelation.tv. It is to be held at 9pm local UK time *Feb. 2nd, which translates to 4pm Eastern time here in the US*.
> 
> You can watch for free online. Click here for more details. I’ve been asked to encourage those interested to send in their email comments or text messages during the debate as a measure of knowing which side is the winner. If you watch the debate, consider chiming in here in the comments and let us know who you thought had the most convincing position and why.


Alpha and Omega Ministries, The Christian Apologetics Ministry of James R. White
KJV Only Debate Blog | Was 1611 the last word for the English Bible?


----------



## MW (Feb 1, 2011)

he beholds said:


> OK, so it was written purposefully to be more...? Old Fashioned? Have more history in the words? More tradition? Is that what you mean? So were the translators doing this because they thought that the original would have been written in the same type of style?



One example -- thou and you distinguish singular and plural. The words in their technical meaning had already passed out of common speech but they are included in the AV for accuracy of translation. Being able to distinguish between suingular and plural is of the utmost importance. Consider a verse like "Building up yourselves in your most holy faith." I've heard this verse used repeatedly to defend an indivdualistic "me and my Bible" type of approach to the Christian life. It does in fact teach the very opposite, and it is clearly understood as such when "yourselves" is recognised as the plural form. There are literally thousands of examples of this nature which are commonly misunderstood by modern Bible readers because their Bibles inaccurately convey the meaning of the original.



he beholds said:


> Can you, please, give any specific critiques of the ESV? I'm not going to stop reading it just because someone says that it is not that much better than another Bible. And if it is bad for me, I'm sure you'd want to win me over (and I would want to be won over!). So if you have any evidence of this lacking, that'd be awesome!



OK. Let's begin with some basic doctrinal problems. Is Jesus the only begotten Son or the only Son? Please consult a concordance of the AV under "begotten" and compare the verses in the ESV. Hebrews 2:16, did Jesus come to help Abraham's seed, or did He take on their nature so as to actually save them. 1 Pet. 3:20, did Jesus preach to spirits who were formerly disobedient, or did He preach to those who were sometime disobedient? Phil. 2:7, did Jesus, being in the form of God, make Himself nothing, or did He merely make Himself of no reputation?


----------



## SolaGratia (Feb 1, 2011)

How Dr. Hills Became a KJV Believer.

By Dr. E. F. Hills

Edward Freer Hills was a distinguished Latin scholar and Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Yale University. He also earned the B.D. degree from Westminster Theological Seminary and the Th.M. degree from Columbia Theological Seminary. After doing doctoral work at the University of Chicago in New Testament text criticism, he completed his program at Harvard, earning the Th.D. in this field.

NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL CRITICISM AT WESTMINISTER 1935-38 
I have been interested in the problem of New Testament textual criticism since my high school days in the 1920's. At that time I began to read the commentaries of Charles Hodge, books that were a part of my Presbyterian heritage. I noticed that Hodge would sometimes mention variant readings, most however, just to show that he was knowledgeable, for he rarely departed from "the common text" (textus receptus) and "our English version" (King James). Even so my curiosity was roused, so that in 1931, when I was a sophomore at Yale University I took down C. R. Gregory's Canon and Text of the N. T. from a library shelf and began to read. I was dismayed at the large number of verses that, according to Gregory and his teachers Westcott and Hort, must be rejected from the Word of God. Nor was I much comforted by Gregory's assurance that the necessary damage had been done and the rest of the text had been placed on an unassailable basis. How could I be sure of this? It seemed to me that the only way to gain assurance on this point was to go to Westminster Seminary and study the question under the tutelage of Dr. Machen, who preached in New Haven rather frequently in those days, talking to Yale students at least twice....
*[Moderator note; see the rest of this copyrighted article at the link]*

Faith Presbyterian Church Reformed


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 1, 2011)

Folks,
A reminder to observe forum rules regarding copyright material.
http://www.puritanboard.com/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_forumrulesfaq


No copyrighted material may be posted without the consent of the original author/site. Some sites are more liberal in what they allow to be quoted. Check the rules of the site quoted before assuming you have the author's or site's permission.


----------



## SolaGratia (Feb 1, 2011)

The Issue of the Greek Text of the New Testament 

It is impossible, however, to do justice to the subject of the English Bible without treating the issue of the authentic Greek text of the New Testament. (As concerns the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, there is no controversy; there is one Hebrew text - the "Masoretic Text.") The controversy concerns the Greek text of the New Testament; and the issue makes a significant difference in the New Testament that is put into the hands of the people of God in an English translation. 

The facts in the case are these. The KJ translators used Greek MSS that represent the type of Greek text supported by an overwhelming majority of extant Greek MSS of the New Testament. There are, according to Wilbur N. Pickering, more than 5,000 Greek MSS of the New Testament.9 Eighty to ninety percent of these MSS are in basic agreement among themselves. The Greek text contained in this majority of MSS is known as the Majority Text, the Byzantine Text, or the Traditional Text (TT). The text of the KJV, which belongs to this majority of MSS, but is not perfectly identical with the TT, is known as the Textus Receptus(TR) - the "Received Text." This text was accepted as the authentic text of the New Testament by the Protestant Church from the Reformation to the nineteenth century and by the Greek Church for more than a thousand years before the Reformation. In the nineteenth century, Westcott and Hort asserted the superiority of a type of text represented by a small minority of Greek MSS, particularly Codex Vaticanus (B) and Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph), which had recently been discovered. They made this text, which they called "Neutral" and which is now called "Alexandrian," the basis of the RV of 1881-1885. Their rejection of the TR and of the TT won the day, not without strong protest, most notably by John W. Burgon, an outstanding scholar in the field of textual criticism in the nineteenth century. All the modern versions, including the NIV, adopt the position of W-H and are based, in the New Testament, upon the text which they proposed. Basically, this is the text found in B and Aleph, especially B. 

In his review of Burgon's works, B.B. Warfield remarks that there was some truth in the reproach of Hort, "that he looked upon B as an infallible voice proceeding from the Vatican and upon the combination B Aleph as a manifest deliverance from heaven itself."10 

Many Reformed and Presbyterian preachers have accepted the theory of W-H. 

Probably, they use a Nestle-Aland, United Bible Societies edition of the New Testament. And they are accustomed, now and again, to tell the congregation that a reading in B or Aleph is "better" than the reading of the TT. 

At the same time, some stoutly maintain and vigorously defend the KJV. 

This is an indefensible position. First, an integral part of the W-H theory is its sharp attack on the KJV. The "preface" of the RSV is typical: 

...the KJV has grave defects ... these defects are so many and so serious as to call for revision of the English translation ... The KJV of the N.T. was based upon a Greek text that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying ... We now possess many more ancient manuscripts of the N.T., and are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text. 
D. A. Carson makes the same charge: "the textual basis of the TR is a small number of haphazardly collected and relatively late minuscule manuscripts..."11 To adopt the W-H theory is to accept this criticism of the KJV. 

Second, mere tradition ("We have learned to love the KJV,, etc.) cannot, in the end, hold out against other, vehement attacks being made upon the KJV from conservative and Reformed quarters. Carson writes: 

The plain truth of the matter is that the version that is so cherished among senior (sic!) saints who have more or less come to terms with Elizabethan English, is obscure, confusing, and sometimes even incomprehensible to many younger or poorly educated Christians.12 
He quotes Edwin H. Palmer, spokesman for the NIV, attacking the KJV almost fiercely: 

Do not give them a loaf of bread, covered with an inedible, impenetrable crust, fossilized by three and a half centuries. Give them the word of God as fresh and warm and clear as the Holy Spirit gave it to the authors of the Bible ... For any preacher or theologian who loves God's Word to allow that Word to go on being misunderstood because of the veneration of an archaic, not-understood version of four centuries ago is inexcusable, and almost unconscionable.13 
Third, preachers weaken the people's trust in the reliability of the Bible which they use when they so often and so casually say, "The reading of the KJV is wrong; the better reading is..." I find evidence of mistrust when, in a debate in a Bible study class, a member will say, "Maybe the Greek is different," or, somewhat cynically, "Probably, the original has something else." 

At the very least, we ought to subject the W-H theory to a critical examination. Our love for the KJV and the obvious, serious weaknesses of the modern versions should motivate us to do this. It is to be feared that Reformed men, including the influential Warfield, accepted the views of W-H uncritically, without seeing the weaknesses and implications of their theory. 

Perhaps Wilbur N. Pickering is too strong when, having examined the W-H critical theory, he concludes: "It is evidently erroneous at every point."14 But his careful examination clearly shows that it certainly would not be too strong to conclude that the W-H theory is unproven at every point. One cannot but ask, "Why was their theory so readily and widely accepted as gospel truth in the realm of textual criticism?" 

The W-H theory chooses the few older MSS rather than the many later MSS. But it is not proved that the oldest are the best; it is not proved that the oldest MSS contain the authentic text. There is reason to suspect the oldest MSS. All are from one region - Egypt, where the climate allows for the preservation of MSS. The oldest MSS differ greatly from each other; "B and Aleph... disagree over 3,000 times in the space of the four Gospels. "15 The very fact that these MSS exist at all may be evidence that the church did not use them. 

The W-H theory rejects the testimony of the majority of Greek MSS because they are alleged to be a later text. It is now freely admitted by some defenders of the W-H text that the TT is an ancient text, going back at least to the time of B and Aleph. It is demonstrated that Byzantine, or Traditional, readings appear in the MSS and in the church fathers long before Nicea (A.D. 325). 

The W-H theory discounts the majority because they are said to be one, related family. All of the Majority MSS are said to derive from one, common, parent MS. Therefore, the testimony of the many MSS carries little weight. But this dogma of W-H concerning genealogy is not proved. Indeed, there is solid evidence that, although there is essential agreement among the majority of MSS (which are not limited to one region, but are scattered through all parts of Christendom), the Majority MSS are not related genealogically. 

The W-H theory attempts to account for the TT and for its dominance by positing a recension of the Greek text by one Lucian of Antioch (d. A.D. 311). A"recension" is a deliberate, editorial revision of the text of Scripture, by which a new text is composed from existing, earlier texts. This revised text, then, becomes the "official" text used by the church. Bruce M. Metzger notes that the assertion of W-H, that "the Byzantine text is an essentially revised text - following sometimes one, sometimes another of the earlier texts," is the crux of the W-H theory.16 For at one fell swoop, the TT is judged a later, unreliable, and unauthentic text of Scripture, while at the same time its popularity in the church is accounted for. But this assertion of a recension of the Greek text of the New Testament by Lucian is sheer speculation, devoid of proof. 

Similarly ungrounded is the assertion that the dominance of the TT in the Greek Church from the fourth or fifth century on was due to the extraordinary influence of Chrysostom. As the former confidence in a supposed "Lucianic recension" fades, those who reject the TT must look elsewhere for an explanation of the use of the TT by the church. Some look to Chrysostom. This is how Gordon D. Fee attempts to explain the dominance of the TT: 

One can scarcely underestimate the influence of Chrysostom in the history of the Greek Church... It is almost inevitable that the text form Chrysostom used first at Antioch and then later carried to Constantinople should become the predominant text of the Greek Church.17 
The W-H theory judges the TT inferior because it exhibits "conflation," i.e., a certain text is supposed to have combined the different readings of two or more MSS. "Conflation is the term used to denote... editorial change in which two variant readings of a text are combined forming a new reading not precisely identical with either of the two source readings.18 The TT was alleged by Hort to be characterized by a combining of the readings of the "Neutral" and of the "Western" texts. As a result, the TT (called "Syrian" by Hort) is a more complete text than the others. This, too, is mere speculation and is rightly challenged, and exploded, today.19 

The W-H theory charged that the scribes responsible for the form of the TT deliberately added material to the text and simplified hard readings. Hence, two sacred canons (cows?) of textual criticism are that the shorter reading is to be preferred and that the harder reading is to be preferred. On this basis, W-H criticized the TT for "lucidity and completeness," "apparent simplicity," and being "conspicuously a full text." The natural reaction is: Why should not the authentic text, faithfully transmitting the autographa, be lucid, complete, simple, and full? These characteristics are not unworthy of inspired Scripture! 

It is this aspect of the W-H theory that may be the most dangerous of all. Called "the internal evidence" of the readings, it really consists of the scholar's judgment as to what the original reading of a given passage probably was. The scholar judges that scribes added material; the scholar decides that scribes simplified passages. There is reason to fear that this subjectivity is manifest today in the "eclectic" method of establishing the Greek text - a select body of scholars pick and choose readings as suits them. The NIV acknowledges that "the Greek text used in the work of translation was an eclectic one" ("Preface"). Should the church be so at the mercy of the scholars in such a matter as determining the Greek text of the New Testament? Still more, some who develop the W-H theory of textual criticism have come to have doubts about the very possibility of the church's possession of the authentic text of the New Testament. In his "Introduction" to Burgon's The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark, Edward F. Hills quotes F.C. Conybeare: 

The ultimate (N.T.) text, if there ever was one that deserves to be so called, is for ever irrecoverable.20 
Hills quotes Kirsopp Lake to the same effect: 

In spite of the claims of W-H and of vonSoden, we do not know the original form of the Gospels, and it is quite likely that we never shall.21 
Now this may be the personal doubt of scholars who lack the faith that God preserves His Word, seeing to it that not one word falls to the ground; but it may also be the final working out of the very principles of W-H. 

It is not correct to minimize the significance of this issue of the Greek text, as though the differences in any case are minor. According to Pickering, there are over 5,000 differences between the TT and the text of W-H. Although many are minor, adoption of the text of W-H means that we lose a sizable portion of the New Testament, including Mark 16:9-20; John 7:53-8:11; and John 5:3b, 4. One can check these passages in TEV or NIV, to see that the modern versions set these passages aside as uninspired. In his convincing work, The Woman Taken in Adultery and God Was Manifested in the Flesh, Burgon shows, among other arguments, that the omission of John 7:53-8:11 destroys the coherence of the passage: John 8:12 does not relate to John 7:52. 22 It is significant that the translators of the NIV, feeling the incoherence, were forced to translate 8:12 in a manner wholly unwarranted by any Greek reading: "When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said," etc. The Greek text does not have "when," nor does it have "the people." 

Another serious aspect of the issue is the weakening of the doctrine of the Deity of Jesus in the text of W-H. An outstanding instance is I Timothy 3:16, unaccountably omitted from the chart reproduced by D.A. Carson in which he tries to disprove the charge that the modern versions weaken the testimony to the Godhead of Jesus.23 Where the KJV has "God was manifest in the flesh," the text of W-H and the modern versions, including the NIV, have, "He," or "Who" , thus nullifying at a crucial point the testimony to the Deity of Jesus Christ. Textually, the reading, "God," is well-supported; indeed, the support is overwhelming. Aleph stands virtually alone in rejecting the reading, "God." The passage itself demands the reading, "God," just as Isaiah 7:14 requires the translation, "virgin." No more than it is a sign that a young woman has a child is it the great mystery of godliness that "he" is manifest in the flesh. For myself, I will accept no Bible that does not read "God "in I Timothy 3:16. Yet another example is the omission of "the Son of God" in Mark 1:1 by the text of W-H. Where the KJV reads, "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God," the W-H text reads, "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ." Although the NIV and the New American Standard Bible do translate, "the Son of God," in Mark 1:1, both have weakening footnotes, that some MSS omit these words. Other instances of a weakening of the doctrine of the Deity of Jesus by the W-H text include John 6:69; Acts 8:37; Acts 20:28; and I Corinthians 15:47. 

In its fine pamphlet, "The Bible A Sure Foundation," the Trinitarian Bible Society points out that by its omission of the words, "...and carried up into heaven. And they worshipped him..., " in Luke 24:51, 52, in connection with its omission of the last twelve verses of the Gospel of Mark, the W-H text not only removes a powerful testimony to Jesus' Deity, but also the entire account of the historical event of Jesus' Ascension in the Gospels. 

In opposition to the theory of W-H, we should at least consider, with utmost carefulness, the claim of the Greek text in the majority of MSS to be the authentic text of the New Testament Scriptures. This is essentially the text of our KJV. VanBruggen 24, Pickering, the TBS, and Burgon 25 before them have convincingly defended the TT on textual grounds. The TT is the text of nineteen-twentieths of the manuscript evidence; it is an ancient text; it is the text found everywhere in Christendom. 

And this is the Greek text that the church, in the Providence of God, accepted and used for some 1500 years.

Modern Bible Versions <link rev="made" href="mailto[email protected]">

Pamphlets and Articles


----------



## MW (Feb 1, 2011)

he beholds said:


> Can you, please, give any specific critiques of the ESV?


 
For specific critiques please consult Oswald Allis' "Revision or New Translation," which was written with the RSV in view but is still relevant because the ESV maintains many of the RSV's characteristics. Allis states regarding the use of paraphrase (which has now become an accepted feature of modern translation theory), "This [paraphrase] means that the RSV rendering is a 'free translation' and is not entitled to claim the accuracy of AV and RV" (Revision, 17). Allis calls this "a matter of great importance for both translator and reader." The same free style is carried over into the ESV.


----------



## MW (Feb 1, 2011)

One other consideration on the ESV in relation to the Confession. If this is taken seriously I believe it will very clearly show the kind of discord which exists between the Confession and modern translations. The Westminster Confession 7.4 states, "This covenant of grace *is frequently set forth in Scripture by the name of a Testament*, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ the Testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed." That truth finds absolutely no support in a Bible which has omitted the word "testament."


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Feb 1, 2011)

For more on the RSV

Revised Standard Version (1946)


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 1, 2011)

Has any denomination demanded conformity in usage of any single bible translation by its members?


----------



## SolaGratia (Feb 1, 2011)

For ESV:

http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/a120.pdf





“Fool and knave, leave the old reading, don’t change it!” - a marginal note written in the Codex Vaticanus


----------



## au5t1n (Feb 1, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> Has any denomination demanded conformity in usage of any single bible translation by its members?


 
I can't speak for membership, but I have run across the websites of at least a few Reformed denominations which use the AV as their standard translation across pulpits in that denomination. Before you knock the idea, consider that it actually makes sense to be able to transfer churches upon moving and hear the same Bible at your next church. Scripture memory is a mess if you hear five different translations over the course of your life.


----------



## TimV (Feb 1, 2011)

> we should at least consider, with utmost carefulness, the claim of the Greek text in the majority of MSS to be the authentic text of the New Testament Scriptures.



That wouldn't make the Reformed school of KJVOnlies happy, nor would it the Fundy Baptist types. And it wouldn't make the CT types happy. And it wouldn't make people like me who honestly don't claim to know where God's Word is perfectly preserved.

The only person that the above view would make happy is Randy.


----------



## TexanRose (Feb 1, 2011)

austinww said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Has any denomination demanded conformity in usage of any single bible translation by its members?
> ...


 
Agreed. At the last church I attended, one pastor used one version, the intern used another version, and the pew Bibles were a third version. I found this quite distracting! In the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, the KJV is the only version used in public worship. It is "recommended" for private and family worship as well. 
The Importance of An Approved Translation Of The Bible


----------



## KMK (Feb 1, 2011)

Why is it that any argument brought forth in support of the KJV's superiority in even the most minute aspect is labeled "King James Onlyism"? By that definition, everyone who prefers the ESV over the Good News Bible is an "ESV Onlyist". 

(BTW, there is nothing wrong with making Randy happy every once in a while)


----------



## TimV (Feb 2, 2011)

Randy need attention too. And there aren't any real numbers of people who think the ESV is either perfect or especially divinely guided to the point that it should be used exclusively.


----------



## BibleCyst (Feb 2, 2011)

Dear Rev. Matthew,

I've been following your posts in defense of the KJV for quite a while. You put forth the most respectable, reasonable defense of the KJV I have read so far. However, some of your comments in this particular thread have raised some questions in my mind.

(So you know where I'm coming from - I use the ESV as my primary Bible, and the KJV and NASB as my secondary Bibles.)



armourbearer said:


> OK. Let's begin with some basic doctrinal problems. Is Jesus the only begotten Son or the only Son? Please consult a concordance of the AV under "begotten" and compare the verses in the ESV. Hebrews 2:16, did Jesus come to help Abraham's seed, or did He take on their nature so as to actually save them. 1 Pet. 3:20, did Jesus preach to spirits who were formerly disobedient, or did He preach to those who were sometime disobedient? Phil. 2:7, did Jesus, being in the form of God, make Himself nothing, or did He merely make Himself of no reputation?



By no means am I a scholar, and I know no greek whatsoever. However, there is something in this comment that I believe needs clarification. I'm sure you are not implying this on purpose, but saying that a translation has "doctrinal problems" makes me a little uncomfortable. I mean, I recognize that translations can (and do) have a bias, but if a greek word can be translated more accurately into an English word that is not necessarily orthodox (as in, compatible with traditionally held beliefs), I believe it should be translated accurately. In other words, a translator should translate based on the most accurate Greek-to-English wording, as opposed to letting long-held tradition and theology sway their judgment. Are we in agreement?

How do you define "begotten?" I cannot really find a clear definition, so I'm just curious.

All of the references you site are less orthodox in Critical Text translations, and more orthodox in Textus Receptus translations (KJV/NKJV). Do you have proof that these references were not altered to "help" the cause of orthodoxy, as according to James White, has happened in some cases?

Thank you, brother.


----------



## MW (Feb 2, 2011)

BibleCyst said:


> In other words, a translator should translate based on the most accurate Greek-to-English wording, as opposed to letting long-held tradition and theology sway their judgment. Are we in agreement?



The translator should not import what is not there but neither should he obscure what is there. There is a reason the translator believes what he does, and it is to be hoped that the Scriptures have shaped his beliefs. He is obliged to provide the translation which he believes is correct. If he seeks to be neutral on a controversy which is plainly decided by the text and terms of Scripture itself, his failure to translate the dogmatic content of the original is a perversion of truth. The idea of "translator neutrality" is yet another reason to be suspicious of modern versions. What is meant by "neutrality" is usually nothing more than indifference to the plain truth.



BibleCyst said:


> How do you define "begotten?" I cannot really find a clear definition, so I'm just curious.



I define it in terms of its historical importance, as in the creed, "begotten, not made." Theologically there is a great deal of content that can be poured into the term, but with regard to this issue it is important to observe the biblical basis of the doctrine rather than the doctrine itself.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Feb 3, 2011)

"Begotten" is a translational issue, not a theological one. People who think "monoyenis" should be translated "only" or "unique" don't think so because they deny that Christ was "begotten not made," but that "unique" is a better translation of the Greek word than "only begotten". I'm not sure where I stand, but keep in mind the ESV and NIV translators would likely be as strong believers that Christ is "begotten from eternity" and "begotten not made" as the KJV translators.


----------



## MW (Feb 3, 2011)

PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> I'm not sure where I stand, but keep in mind the ESV and NIV translators would likely be as strong believers that Christ is "begotten from eternity" and "begotten not made" as the KJV translators.


 
You might find the following article to be of some use in coming to a conclusion on this subject. At the least I think it will show that one cannot simply assume the orthodoxy of modern evangelicals on this point.

The Only Begotten Son (ο μονογενης υιος)


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 3, 2011)

Dr. O.T. Allis' book on the RSV has long been out of print. (If I'm not mistaken, he may have actually published two books against the RSV--one when the NT was published in the 40's and another when the OT was completed in the 1950's.) When I was researching Bible versions years ago I checked it out of a Baptist college library. You can probably still get it via inter-library loan or from some of the various used book sites. Dr. Allis was one of the original faculty members of Westminster Theological Seminary and was a highly respected OT scholar. 

The most glaring theological problems with the RSV (which was translated by liberals) seem have been fixed in the ESV, which is a light revision of the RSV that contains about 90% of the RSV text, the rights to which they had to purchase from the National Council of Churches of which the PCUSA, the UCC, ECUSA and other liberal denominations are members. 

I agree with Rev. Winzer that many of Dr. Allis' objections apply equally to the ESV. This will be apparent to anyone who gets his hands on Dr. Allis' book. He compared the RSV unfavorably to the ASV and the KJV and said it wasn't a mere revision of the ASV of 1901 but that it was so far removed from the ASV that it should be considered a new translation. 

The main criticism of his that comes to mind is the abandonment of the literal principles of translation exemplified in the KJV and ASV. He criticized the abandonment of the practice of italicizing words that the translators inserted for clarity. He may have made a point about abandoning the use of pronouns like "ye" as well, but I can't recall. I don't recall him taking a hard stand one way or another on the textual issue, but I don't think I read the book cover to cover either. From what I recall he seemed to hold the ASV in high regard. 

It could be argued that the fact that ESV was hailed as a return to literalism upon its release shows just how far evangelicalism has fallen on the Bible translation issue. It must be said that it's a move in the right direction from the NIV. But the ESV's popularity seems to have just about killed the NASB, which is a more literal translation (and at times is actually also more readable than the ESV) so overall it may be a wash. 

Also, check out 1 Sam 13:1 in the ESV. What's that kind of rendering (or lack thereof) doing in a translation done by men who are committed to the inerrancy of scripture? It's simply brought forward from the RSV as are several other curious OT renderings that you won't find in any other conservative translation.

I know this post from an amateur who knows little about the original languages probably doesn't help answer the question in the OP, but I hope it might cause some who seem to have uncritically accepted the ESV to take another look. All things considered, I think it's one of the better versions out there (at least as far as translations of the critical text are concerned) but as with most any new version, in my opinion it has been overhyped and is not without its shortcomings. 

The more I read the KJV, the more I realize that the need for revision is overstated.


----------



## ThomasCartwright (Feb 10, 2011)

TimV said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > Again, and I ask out of sincerity, can we know for sure that the framers were not aware of parts of the CT?
> ...



This is an assumption devoid of historical evidence. Indeed, it runs contrary to all Reformed history as they rejected the text of Rome not some minor textual deviations from the TR. I don't want to paste a list of quotes, but anyone wanting the evidence that the Reformers and the Divines were cognisant of the CT deviations and rejected them in favour of the authentical text of the TR should read my paper from another thread:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/historic-reformed-position-preservation-48332/

The Westminster Standards do deviate from the CT position in many areas such as the longer ending of the Lord's Prayer. How that can be dismissed as a an argument over "fonts" is an incredulous way to deal with confessional documents. Some of the later Presbyterian Confessions amended the proof texts for instance on 1 John 5:7 to accommodate their deviation from the TR. That at least was honest and implies such a deviation was recognised as significant and not a mere change of "fonts."


----------

