# Modern English Translation and the WCF



## BG (Dec 16, 2008)

Does the WCF 1.8 require a modern translation of the TR to be used?



> But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them therefore they are to be translated into the *vulgar language *of every nation unto which they come


----------



## sastark (Dec 16, 2008)

WDG said:


> Does the WCF 1.8 require a modern translation of the TR to be used?



Yes.


----------



## Prufrock (Dec 16, 2008)

(I'm assuming your question is about the Modern part, not the TR part: see this thread for the consensus as to whether or not 1.8 requires the TR or not)

Up to a certain point, I think. But I think any of our common older translations (Geneva, KJ, etc) are quite enough in the vulgar tongue. There may be older expressions in them, but they're certainly still in the vernacular.

(Ironic that there are now two WCF 1.8 threads happening)


----------



## larryjf (Dec 17, 2008)

It all boils down to how we define "vulgar language."

If we define it as Modern English then the KJV is fine the way it is as it is written in Modern English.

If we define it as colloquial then we would need not only a more updated but also a more informal translation.

If we define it as Contemporary Modern English in distinction to Early Modern English then a translation with updated language with the same formal translation would be required.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 17, 2008)

Prufrock said:


> (I'm assuming your question is about the Modern part, not the TR part: see this thread for the consensus as to whether or not 1.8 requires the TR or not)
> 
> Up to a certain point, I think. But I think any of our common older translations (Geneva, KJ, etc) are quite enough in the vulgar tongue. There may be older expressions in them, but they're certainly still in the vernacular.
> 
> (Ironic that there are now two WCF 1.8 threads happening)



Here are some other past and current relevant threads:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/westminster-bible-versions-8441/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/question-confessional-kjver-28191/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/nigels-attempt-translate-tr-into-u-s-english-40363/


----------



## he beholds (Dec 17, 2008)

larryjf said:


> It all boils down to how we define "vulgar language."
> 
> If we define it as Modern English then the KJV is fine the way it is as it is written in Modern English.
> 
> ...



I hope we aren't required to define it as colloquial! We would need to update the language almost yearly, and also it would vary amongst English users, even between regions in one country. 



Prufrock said:


> (I'm assuming your question is about the Modern part, not the TR part: see this thread for the consensus as to whether or not 1.8 requires the TR or not)
> 
> Up to a certain point, I think. But I think any of our common older translations (Geneva, KJ, etc) are quite enough in the vulgar tongue. There may be older expressions in them, but they're certainly still in the vernacular.
> 
> (Ironic that there are now two WCF 1.8 threads happening)



Even if we find that they are not enough in the common vulgar tongue, I think that rather than constantly re-translating the Bible we should have higher standards for ourselves and our children where we use more self-discipline when learning reading comprehension. 

That is just my opinion, and I can't say exactly what the WCF _requires_ on this subject.


----------



## larryjf (Dec 17, 2008)

he beholds said:


> I hope we aren't required to define it as colloquial! We would need to update the language almost yearly, and also it would vary amongst English users, even between regions in one country.



How true!
But Bible publishers might love that to happen.
I think most on this board would agree that colloquial is a bad idea...but we still must define what we mean by vulgar...or rather what the confession means by it.


----------



## MW (Dec 17, 2008)

WDG said:


> Does the WCF 1.8 require a modern translation of the TR to be used?
> 
> 
> 
> > But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them therefore they are to be translated into the *vulgar language *of every nation unto which they come



In this context "vulgar" does not mean something characteristic of the common people, but the vernacular language, especially in opposition to the exclusive use of the Latin tongue.


----------



## TimV (Dec 17, 2008)

> Does the WCF 1.8 require a modern translation of the TR to be used?



No, WCF doesn't say anything about the TR being exactly equivalent to God's preserved Word. It's just a modern theory held by a tiny minority of Reformed folk. No major Reformed denomination reads 1.8 in that manner.


----------



## larryjf (Dec 19, 2008)

TimV said:


> > Does the WCF 1.8 require a modern translation of the TR to be used?
> 
> 
> 
> No, WCF doesn't say anything about the TR being exactly equivalent to God's preserved Word. It's just a modern theory held by a tiny minority of Reformed folk. No major Reformed denomination reads 1.8 in that manner.



First, I'm glad that you edited your post from its original content.

It's the fact that they speak of God's Word as being preserved that is the real issue...they don't have to specifically have a chapter on the TR.
They certainly believed that God's Word was purely preserved throughout the ages. 

I don't see modern textual critics as coming to the text with this presumption. Rather, they come to the text with the presumption that the original text was lost and must be found. Modern text critics use the term "original text" to describe the non-existent autographs, while during the WCOF time they used the term to describe the existent apographs.

Clearly, the treatment of 1 Sam 13:1 speaks volumes to modern Bibles and their idea of preservation of the text...

NASB adds to the text because they believe it has not been preserved: _Saul was [thirty] years old when he began to reign, and he reigned [forty] two years over Israel._ 

ESV shows directly that they believe the text has not been preserved: Saul was … years old when he began to reign, and he reigned … and two years over Israel.


----------

