# VIDEO - 1647 Westminster Confession of Faith



## C. Matthew McMahon (Sep 29, 2011)

[video=vimeo;29815066]http://www.vimeo.com/29815066[/video]

Tell your friends at church, your pastors, your seminary teachers, your seminary bookstores, your neighbors, yes - tell everyone.


----------



## Andres (Sep 29, 2011)

Sweet hat.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (Sep 30, 2011)

Andres said:


> Sweet hat.



I totally need the book, and must have the HAT, in camo. I could start a riot at a field trial or hunt test with a hat that awesome in camo!


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Sep 30, 2011)

Cool!


----------



## Pilgrim Standard (Sep 30, 2011)

I want it!
Where is the per-order link?
Any more descriptions?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Sep 30, 2011)

Andres said:


> Sweet hat.



Thanks. It's comfy.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Sep 30, 2011)

GulfCoast Presbyterian said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> > Sweet hat.
> ...



In camo? I wonder if that can be arranged. I know a person. I'll check.


----------



## LawrenceU (Sep 30, 2011)

X2 on the camo hat!

I already have one in tweed:

View attachment 2352


----------



## JM (Sep 30, 2011)

Good vid and nice avatar.


----------



## Weston Stoler (Sep 30, 2011)

How much for the hat? I will pay in cash.


----------



## N. Eshelman (Sep 30, 2011)

I having a hard time envisioning what this will look like. Can you post a scan of one of the pages? Is it basically the Free Presbyterian Edition of the Standards with notes from the Geneva at the bottom where they place the full Scripture text? Help out a brother here...


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 1, 2011)

No, it has absolutely nothing to do with the other Free Pres version (which I own).

And keep in mind, it is also in a very nice eBook version in both ePub and .mobi. formatted for electronic use.

More info will be posted with a preview of the book once we get a little closer to the launch date.


----------



## RobertPGH1981 (Oct 1, 2011)

I'll have to check that out. 

Why is it when you think of somebody that is reformed, you picture a guy sitting in a study smoking a pipe, reading a book and listening to classical music. Watching this video reminded me of that because of the music.


----------



## N. Eshelman (Oct 1, 2011)

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> No, it has absolutely nothing to do with the other Free Pres version (which I own).
> 
> And keep in mind, it is also in a very nice eBook version in both ePub and .mobi. formatted for electronic use.
> 
> More info will be posted with a preview of the book once we get a little closer to the launch date.



Does anyone understand what this book will be?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 1, 2011)

N. Eshelman said:


> C. Matthew McMahon said:
> 
> 
> > No, it has absolutely nothing to do with the other Free Pres version (which I own).
> ...



The Free Pres version of the WCF is hard to come by (in and out of production) in small print, not an eBook, and the internet versions of the Confession are either filled with typos and changes or a modernized version.

This book is the 1647 Confession with proofs and texts from the Geneva Bible, with all subordinate documents included.

It is not a book ABOUT the confession. IT IS THE CONFESSION as it was in 1647.

It will come in hardback form, and it will come in eBook form.

For now, does that help explain?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 1, 2011)

Pilgrim Standard said:


> I want it!
> Where is the per-order link?
> Any more descriptions?



No pre-orders.

The eBook version will be a deal and a half. It will be better than a pre-order.

And don't worry, unlike the Free Pres version with the KJV, this one is not going to be out of stock. We won't run out.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 1, 2011)

JM said:


> Good vid and nice avatar.



Thanks - wait till you see the vids with the wig. There are a few of them for later...


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 1, 2011)

> C. Matthew McMahon said:
> 
> 
> > Pilgrim Standard said:
> ...



What about thier version is incorrect?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 1, 2011)

Joshua,

Yes, its a typo. 

It will be corrected in the new version I have.

In the 1789 and 1792 editions the word "lawful" was changed to "unlawful" and then carried through.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 1, 2011)

Click the picture for a look at the title page.
View attachment 2355


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 1, 2011)

> Excellent!



Also note - that's been alredy updated on APM as well.


----------



## LawrenceU (Oct 1, 2011)

> Can we get Gillespie, Henderson, & Rutherford to sign? Calamy?



Too funny. I am really looking forward to this book (and the camouflage version of the hat).


----------



## N. Eshelman (Oct 1, 2011)

Makes sense now. Thanks. 

Why did you choose the Geneva Bible as the footnotes and proofs? Was that strictly a marketing idea (which is fine) or is there a theological/historical purpose?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 1, 2011)

The Geneva Bible was the Bible of the Puritans. Like we have the ESV Bible today, the Puritans had a Geneva Bible in every house.

Even the KJV was 80% copied from the Geneva Bible.

It was the Puritan's Bible. In most of the sermon's and books I'm dealing with right now they are quoting most from the Geneva.


----------



## Andres (Oct 2, 2011)

N. Eshelman said:


> C. Matthew McMahon said:
> 
> 
> > No, it has absolutely nothing to do with the other Free Pres version (which I own).
> ...



Stop asking so many questions! Dr. McMahon is wearing a funny hat and a gown. Just buy the book!


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 2, 2011)

Matthew, I'm not sure what editions of the larger catechism (or standards) these dates refer to; do you mean FPP editions of 1989 and 1992?.
My note shows the error was first intro'd in the Blair and Bruce edition of 1831 and this was not corrected until the Mair text. In the FPP edition of the full standards the WLC is still I believe simply a reprint of the 1855 Johnstone and Hunter editions which retained the error. The FPP printing of just the LC has the correct text (forget the date).


C. Matthew McMahon said:


> In the 1789 and 1792 editions the word "lawful" was changed to "unlawful" and then carried through.


----------



## MW (Oct 2, 2011)

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> The Geneva Bible was the Bible of the Puritans.


 
Altering the translation in the Scripture proofs of the Confession will certainly leave that false impression with the reader.

The faithful translation of the Bible was the Bible of the Puritans. As the preface to Matthew Poole's commentary indicates, the Puritans regarded the version under King James as an improvement upon the Geneva Bible.


----------



## Phil D. (Oct 2, 2011)

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> The Geneva Bible was the Bible of the Puritans.



Up to a point this might be said, yes. However, the Westminster divines ultimately chose to use the KJV in their direct quotations of scripture (see here).


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 3, 2011)

Maybe at a later time we'll take the original WCF, LC and SC and create a version with the NEW KJV or the ESV?

That may help the modern reader as well.

Chris,

I was referring to Warfield's work, The Printing of the Westminster Confession. He notes on page 76 that unlawful/lawful was in the 1789 amnd 1792 American editions incorrect. It was corrected by one edition after that, then, it seems, the FP edition copied a MSS that had the error.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 3, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> C. Matthew McMahon said:
> 
> 
> > The Geneva Bible was the Bible of the Puritans.
> ...



Yes I understand that the faithful translation was the translation they would have _preferred_, just like we do today when we exegete a passage or passages for a book or sermon, etc., we want our translation to be as accurate and faithful as possible. However, I have on my desk an ESV version and a NKJ version. I also have the Geneva Bible simply because I like the way it reads in a number of places better than other versions.

On the Puritan's desk, or coffee table of the day, the everyday household of the Puritan Family, they had the Geneva Bible. 

(Plus, I always disliked the idea that the KJV took out the notes of the Geneva Bible, and keep in mind that after the King James Version was published in 1611, the Geneva Bible was banned in England. OUCH! At least King James _tried _to make that happen.)


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 3, 2011)

That rings a bell now, but my formal notes are not up to the American texts at Q. 105 yet. I had checked the reading in the Aitken 1797 and it was correct; didn't have my 1789 to hand. Looking at Warfield I see he notes all this as you say. He is incorrect though on the origins. The American text relied on Scottish editions which did not have this error far as I can tell and its introduction in 1789 is the earliest and independent of the same error in the Scottish text.* As I say, the Scottish stream did not make the same error until the Blair & Bruce edition of 1831. And also, if I recall rightly, these are not plate set but all were set by hand; and the error is not found in the earlier of the seven similar Blair/Bruce (1803, 1810, 1815, 1827, 1831, 1836, 1841). So these seem to be independent careless mistakes on the compositors' part in each case.
*I have not checked the 1745 Ben Franklin edition but all my research heretofore indicates it did not figure in the texts of any later editions.


C. Matthew McMahon said:


> Chris,
> 
> I was referring to Warfield's work, The Printing of the Westminster Confession. He notes on page 76 that unlawful/lawful was in the 1789 amnd 1792 American editions incorrect. It was corrected by one edition after that, then, it seems, the FP edition copied a MSS that had the error.


----------



## MW (Oct 3, 2011)

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> On the Puritan's desk, or coffee table of the day, the everyday household of the Puritan Family, they had the Geneva Bible.



Is the alteration of the translation for nostalgic reasons? If it is intended to be historically helpful one would like to see historical reasons for the alteration. As far as I am able to see, altering the translation will be a step in the wrong direction. There are places where the Geneva version will obscure rather than reveal the connection between propositions in the standards and their scriptural support. The same would apply to the ESV or NKJV.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 3, 2011)

NaphtaliPress said:


> That rings a bell now, but my formal notes are not up to the American texts at Q. 105 yet. I had checked the reading in the Aitken 1797 and it was correct; didn't have my 1789 to hand. Looking at Warfield I see he notes all this as you say. He is incorrect though on the origins. The American text relied on Scottish editions which did not have this error far as I can tell and its introduction in 1789 is the earliest and independent of the same error in the Scottish text.* As I say, the Scottish stream did not make the same error until the Blair & Bruce edition of 1831. And also, if I recall rightly, these are not plate set but all were set by hand; and the error is not found in the earlier of the seven similar Blair/Bruce (1803, 1810, 1815, 1827, 1831, 1836, 1841). So these seem to be independent careless mistakes on the compositors' part in each case.
> *I have not checked the 1745 Ben Franklin edition but all my research heretofore indicates it did not figure in the texts of any later editions.
> 
> 
> ...



Good to know. Thanks Chris.


----------



## Afterthought (Oct 3, 2011)

NaphtaliPress said:


> In the FPP edition of the full standards the WLC is still I believe simply a reprint of the 1855 Johnstone and Hunter editions which retained the error. The FPP printing of just the LC has the correct text (forget the date).


Interesting. The LC on the FP website uses _lawful_ instead of _unlawful_.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 3, 2011)

RobertPGH1981 said:


> I'll have to check that out.
> 
> Why is it when you think of somebody that is reformed, you picture a guy sitting in a study smoking a pipe, reading a book and listening to classical music. Watching this video reminded me of that because of the music.



When I hear the music, I keep seeing the hat in my head. Reformed guys have good hats! (and possibly wigs...)


----------

