# Bible Version & Church Polity



## larryjf (Sep 3, 2007)

If one believed that the KJV/NKJV was the best available version but the church they went to officially held that the ESV was the best available translation, would it be better to submit to the church's stance for church polity sake?


----------



## JM (Sep 3, 2007)

One believer put it this way "...for to act against our conscience is neither safe for us, nor open to us."


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 3, 2007)

Do you mean submit as in acting like you didn't believe what you believe? Or simply for harmony not to go out of your way to make trouble?


----------



## larryjf (Sep 3, 2007)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Do you mean submit as in acting like you didn't believe what you believe? Or simply for harmony not to go out of your way to make trouble?



Excellent question.
I mean by being in harmony and not trying to cause division. As i am an officer of the church i also mean only using the ESV during church-related functions...including worship service. So that if i prepared a sermon i would use the ESV.

The question is both real and hypothetical as my church does hold to the ESV, but i haven't come to a concrete decision yet as to which version i prefer....i have been back and forth on the issue for a while.


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 3, 2007)

I believe (strongly) that you should submit. The damage that would be done to the sheep by seeing a shepherd break unity and fellowship over such a point would be far greater than any damage done by using a translation you would not choose.

I was in this same position before our church changed its policy - and as the pastor I submitted and preached from the NASB, even though it made it (in my opinion) significantly more difficult to preach from because of its wooden quality. Unless there were issues of deception and sin (in my opinion - the TNIV is guilty of both here), I would simply use the translation of the church.

And I have done that: preaching at times from the NKJV, from the KJV when in a church where that was the pulpit Bible, the ESV and NASB. I also think that there is a value to not "distracting" people in the pews with a different translation. So I always try and use what the people have in their hands.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 3, 2007)

larryjf said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> > Do you mean submit as in acting like you didn't believe what you believe? Or simply for harmony not to go out of your way to make trouble?
> ...


And they would insist on this? If you were to preach you will need to reserve the right to question the reading for a better one; otherwise if they insist to the point of not questioning the ESV at all, it is either go along or "go".


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 3, 2007)

NaphtaliPress said:


> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> > NaphtaliPress said:
> ...



Just a quick addition: I believe that the preacher must retain the right (using wisdom related to the true purpose of preaching, which is not to show people you are a Greek/Hebrew scholar, but to feed their souls) to comment on the translation's choice of words. I did this in fact just this past Lord's Day with 1 Peter 1:13. The ESV translation of "prepare" is insufficient to make the pastoral points afforded by the metaphor "gird up" (e.g. action, cross reference to John 13, etc). So I pointed that out. If you want to hear how I did that, you can do so when the sermon is up on our webpage (http://www.cckpca.org/sermons/1peter-sermons-series/)


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 3, 2007)

Larry,

I think I would go along with the counsel of Fred and Chris here. I think it is clear which Bible I hold to (AV), though if the Lord gets my wife and me back to NYC we will likely attend Redeemer PCA in Manhattan, or one of its plants, Astoria Community Church (PCA) in Queens. Last I knew (I have been away five years) Redeemer used the NIV, but seemed to be moving toward the ESV, and I'm not sure of ACC.

I have great respect for the godliness of the pastors of both these churches. It is unlikely I would be preaching in either of them, for my eldership pertains only to this mission-church plant I care for now.

While at Redeemer, hearing Tim Keller refer to a verse omitted by the CT as likely rightly omitted, during his Q&A after the sermon I challenged him on that and he sincerely and graciously listened and asked me to provide him with textual evidence on the matter, which I put together and later gave to him.

While there I was leading one of the Fellowship Groups (in those days there were some 150+ FGs, likely many more now) -- considered "the first line of pastoral care" -- and I used my KJV, though I often modernized the language. I did not _push_ my view, but did not make an issue of it, unless a variant / omission was significant, and then gave a brief summary of the textual considerations. I was in the minority, using the AV.

Here in Cyprus, as the only acceptable version (to those funding the planting endeavor) besides the ESV, I strongly insisted on the NKJV instead. So the NKJV is the pew Bible, and the pulpit Bible as well, though I sometimes read from the KJV, as I did while reading (for the other elder) Romans 5:12-21, as the AV is far clearer than the NKJV, especially in verse 15. I almost always preach from the AV, as that's my Bible.

If I were an elder in a strictly ESV church, and were to preach, I would read from the ESV, and preach from it, although, as Fred said, I would want to be free to comment on the translation's choice of words, or on preferable variants in the underlying Greek. I know Tim Keller often does this (I listen to his sermons here), and he uses his best judgment (I gather he carefully considers the original languages). He will occasionally indicate he prefers an AV reading.

If I were not _allowed_ to discuss translation issues, or variant readings of great significance -- that is, not allowed to render a godly and well-informed judgment on the explication of a text -- perhaps it were better for me to decline appointment to the eldership. I would want to have the issue of my liberty in such matters clearly understood and agreed upon before installation. I would not want to disrupt the unity of the eldership, nor give the flock any appearance of rebellion.

I should say also, there are godly and powerful preachers -- and who have done me great good in Christ -- who use versions other than the AV, NKJV, or MKJV, i.e., the CT versions. So, although I hold to the superiority of my Bible, I may acknowledge them as better men than I. I am not of a mind to push an agenda as concerns Bibles; my agenda is to see Christ formed in the hearts of His people, and they rooted and grounded in His love.

Here at PB, where open discussion concerning "translations and manuscripts" is invited, it is another matter entirely. With this proviso: that we seek to edify in love and respect, as in the presence of Christ, for so we are.

Now I must go to prepare to answer Alan Kurschner of aomin.


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 3, 2007)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> If I were not _allowed_ to discuss translation issues, or variant readings of great significance -- that is, not allowed to render a godly and well-informed judgment on the explication of a text -- perhaps it were better for me to decline appointment to the eldership. I would want to have the issue of my liberty in such matters clearly understood and agreed upon before installation. I would not want to disrupt the unity of the eldership, nor give the flock any appearance of rebellion.



I think Steve's answer here is a good one. I would also add that if one were _forbidden _from discussing translation issues (as opposed to simply being dissuaded from harping on them constantly to the detriment of application and explication), then one would rightly refuse to listen. That would be a matter of liberty of preaching, not a translation per se. In other words, a preacher must have the ability to expound the Word of God, and that includes commenting on translation, since the Greek and Hebrew are the court of final appeal on any doctrine. I would insist on that liberty, _even if I were using the translation of my conscience's choice_.


----------



## larryjf (Sep 3, 2007)

NaphtaliPress said:


> And they would insist on this? If you were to preach you will need to reserve the right to question the reading for a better one; otherwise if they insist to the point of not questioning the ESV at all, it is either go along or "go".



They may insist on the version to use as the basis for the sermon,they would not insist that i not talk about variants or better readings. They would probably frown on trying to tear down the underlying text as a whole, but generally would not mind bringing up better readings on a case by case basis.


----------



## KMK (Sep 3, 2007)

What's interesting is that if a certain church demanded that every one use KJV and did not allow anyone to cause division by questioning its underlying Hebrew or Greek, it would be labeled a cult.


----------



## larryjf (Sep 3, 2007)

KMK said:


> What's interesting is that if a certain church demanded that every one use KJV and did not allow anyone to cause division by questioning its underlying Hebrew or Greek, it would be labeled a cult.



That's a good point, but our church doesn't dictate what folks in the congregation use. This is more of an issue in being a church officer and exhibiting a united front to a degree.


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 3, 2007)

KMK said:


> What's interesting is that if a certain church demanded that every one use KJV and did not allow anyone to cause division by questioning its underlying Hebrew or Greek, it would be labeled a cult.



Yes. But there is a difference between saying "this is our official version for church functions, so that people can follow along in pew Bibles and so that we show visible unity," and "you may only use this version in public or private, because all other versions are anathama."


----------



## KMK (Sep 3, 2007)

larryjf said:


> They may insist on the version to use as the basis for the sermon,they would not insist that i not talk about variants or better readings.* They would probably frown on trying to tear down the underlying text as a whole*, but generally would not mind bringing up better readings on a case by case basis.



I was referring to this idea. 

I have no problem with a church having a unified front... but if a KJV church refused to allow anyone in the pulpit who would question the reliability of the TR that church would probably be villified. I could be wrong.


----------



## KMK (Sep 3, 2007)

larryjf said:


> If one believed that the KJV/NKJV was the best available version but the church they went to *officially held that the ESV was the best available translation*, would it be better to submit to the church's stance for church polity sake?



Do you, Larry, believe this to be true? Are you an elder? 

I would say that if an elder did not agree that the ESV was 'the best' then it cannot truly be the 'official position of the church'. It could be a compromise for the sake of unity, but it couldn't be an 'official position'. 

Unless there is something about Presbyterian polity that I do not understand. (Which is likely)


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 3, 2007)

KMK said:


> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> > If one believed that the KJV/NKJV was the best available version but the church they went to *officially held that the ESV was the best available translation*, would it be better to submit to the church's stance for church polity sake?
> ...



Presbyterian polity does not require unanimity (neither does congregationalism). When the majority of a church court decides, the court speaks.


----------



## larryjf (Sep 3, 2007)

KMK said:


> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> > If one believed that the KJV/NKJV was the best available version but the church they went to *officially held that the ESV was the best available translation*, would it be better to submit to the church's stance for church polity sake?
> ...


The office that i currently hold is Deacon, but i occasionally preach (exhort).
The ESV is official for our church in that it was set forth by our worship committee and upheld by the Session.


----------



## MW (Sep 3, 2007)

KMK said:


> What's interesting is that if a certain church demanded that every one use KJV and did not allow anyone to cause division by questioning its underlying Hebrew or Greek, it would be labeled a cult.



I suppose those who prefer a single modern version have the advantage that they don't feel they need to provide rationale for their preference, and so there is no conviction associated with their behaviour. I think they label preference for the AV as cultish because the preference is based on a genuine conviction that reliability is more important than readability.


----------



## KMK (Sep 4, 2007)

Excellent point, Rev Winzer.

Larry, 



larryjf said:


> The ESV is official for our church in that it was set forth by our worship committee and upheld by the Session.



Did they set it forth because they believed it was 'the best translation available' or just because they had to pick one and this is the one they settled upon?

I think the answer to that question might solve your dillema.


----------



## larryjf (Sep 4, 2007)

KMK said:


> Excellent point, Rev Winzer.
> 
> Larry,
> 
> ...



We were moving from the NIV, and the choice was between the NASB and the ESV. The decision was that it was the best all around Bible for church use, not necessarily that it was the best translation.

The thing is, when i approached the Session regarding me starting to believe the TR was a better Greek text and the KJV was a better translation, they asked me questions regarding if i would submit to the church's decision and use the ESV in my preaching, etc. and not cause division in the church regarding this issue.


----------



## BobVigneault (Sep 4, 2007)

I preach in several different denominations and so I keep a list of which translation each church keeps in it's pew and I plan my references from that translation. If I really don't think a particular translation is carrying the meaning then I will refer to alternate meanings from the greek but I rarely mention greek from the pulpit.

Discussing translations is great among pastors and elders and on forums such as this. However, we must take caution in criticizing translations from the pulpit and here's why. Many of the listeners have already heard that "there are so many version's of the Bible that nobody can ever really know what it's supposed to say".

If we claim superiority of one translation over the other to a general audience we run the risk of strengthening this myth. I proclaim whatever translation I'm working from as The Word of God and expect reverence toward it. The average hearer hasn't a clue about textual criticism or the politics involved in editorial committees. In private I will certainly make translation recommendations.

In answer to the OP I would submit to the polity of the church for public reading and worship.


----------



## KMK (Sep 4, 2007)

larryjf said:


> The thing is, when i approached the Session regarding me starting to believe the TR was a better Greek text and the KJV was a better translation, they asked me questions regarding if i would submit to the church's decision and use the ESV in my preaching, etc. and not cause division in the church regarding this issue.



Then it sounds like you already agreed, perhaps tacitly, to preach from the ESV.


----------



## larryjf (Sep 4, 2007)

KMK said:


> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> > The thing is, when i approached the Session regarding me starting to believe the TR was a better Greek text and the KJV was a better translation, they asked me questions regarding if i would submit to the church's decision and use the ESV in my preaching, etc. and not cause division in the church regarding this issue.
> ...



I did agree to preach from the ESV, but i did ask for the freedom to bring up better renderings or textual issues if they were pertinent to the sermon.

I guess i just wanted to know if i made the right decision. I am pretty sure that i did, but there is great wisdom in a multitude of counselors.


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 4, 2007)

larryjf said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > Excellent point, Rev Winzer.
> ...



That's because, like it or lump it, I don't think I've ever heard of a group breaking up a church, or leaving in a huff, or denouncing the pastor because he would not use the NKJV, ESV or NASB. Stories of such by KJVO advocates (nuts like Riplinger, not sound pastoral men with an informed preference) are plethora.



BobVigneault said:


> I preach in several different denominations and so I keep a list of which translation each church keeps in it's pew and I plan my references from that translation. If I really don't think a particular translation is carrying the meaning then I will refer to alternate meanings from the greek but I rarely mention greek from the pulpit.
> 
> Discussing translations is great among pastors and elders and on forums such as this. However, we must take caution in criticizing translations from the pulpit and here's why. Many of the listeners have already heard that "there are so many version's of the Bible that nobody can ever really know what it's supposed to say".
> 
> ...



I think this is an excellent point. In our age, we need greater knowledge of the Bible (even as a precursor to greater understanding) and greater trust for the Bible much more than we need laymen who are semi-informed about textual issues.


----------



## KMK (Sep 4, 2007)

larryjf said:


> I did agree to preach from the ESV, but i did ask for the freedom to bring up better renderings or textual issues if they were pertinent to the sermon.



What do the 'regular' preachers do? Do they ever bring up alternate readings or variants?


----------



## larryjf (Sep 4, 2007)

KMK said:


> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> > I did agree to preach from the ESV, but i did ask for the freedom to bring up better renderings or textual issues if they were pertinent to the sermon.
> ...



They will bring up alternate/better translations of certain words, but rarely textual variants.


----------



## JohnV (Sep 4, 2007)

BobVigneault said:


> I preach in several different denominations and so I keep a list of which translation each church keeps in it's pew and I plan my references from that translation. If I really don't think a particular translation is carrying the meaning then I will refer to alternate meanings from the greek but I rarely mention greek from the pulpit.
> 
> Discussing translations is great among pastors and elders and on forums such as this. However, we must take caution in criticizing translations from the pulpit and here's why. Many of the listeners have already heard that "there are so many version's of the Bible that nobody can ever really know what it's supposed to say".
> 
> ...



Whole-hearted agreement here.


----------



## CDM (Sep 5, 2007)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Now I must go to prepare to answer Alan Kurschner of aomin.



Brother, I may have missed it: when or where did Mr. Kurschner respond to you?

Thanks,


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 5, 2007)

Chris,

I don't think he's responding _directly_ to me, but possibly has me in mind in this:

http://aomin.org/index.php?itemid=2242

The former discussion, he probably lost interest in. That's fine with me; I'm working on a response to this, amid much busyness in my life. I suppose I was born for this.

Steve


----------



## larryjf (Sep 16, 2007)

These are excellent replies. Can this be applied past the local congregation to the entire denomination? The OPC and the PCA have basically designated the ESV as their "default" Bible version.

From OPC Q&A...



> New Horizons (the Orthodox Presbyterian Church's denominational magazine) has made the English Standard Version its "default" translation





> Great Commission Publications, the publishing house jointly operated by the OPC and the PCA ..., has chosen to quote the ESV in its Sunday School materials.



Would it be beneficial to the polity of these denominations to officially declare the ESV to be the official version of the denomination?

If not, why the difference in polity between the congregational level and the denominational level?


----------



## bookslover (Sep 16, 2007)

At our church, the pastor personally favors the NKJV, but preaches from the NASB since that's what most people in the congregation apparently use. I usually bring my ESV and read along from that.


----------



## Pilgrim (Sep 17, 2007)

larryjf said:


> These are excellent replies. Can this be applied past the local congregation to the entire denomination? The OPC and the PCA have basically designated the ESV as their "default" Bible version.
> 
> From OPC Q&A...
> 
> ...



It is not a difference in polity. They have merely adopted the ESV as the default version for those publications, and I think it was previously the NIV that was used. It is the same with the OPC's _New Horizons_ and maybe _Ordained Servant_ as well. However, quite often authors will use a different version.


----------



## larryjf (Sep 17, 2007)

> It is not a difference in polity.


If there is no difference between congregational polity and denominational polity, then shouldn't the denomination have an official Bible version as a congregation does?

It has been discussed that it is beneficial for a congregation to have unity when it comes to the Bible version that they use, wouldn't be just as beneficial denomination-wide?


----------



## Robert Truelove (Sep 17, 2007)

At Christ Reformed Church we have standardized on the ESV. All public reading, preaching and teaching is done in the ESV. Anyone preaching or teaching here would be expected to use the ESV.

I would rather keep the issue of textual variants out of the pulpit in regards to preaching. I rarely in my own preaching use the Greek to 'correct' or 'enhance' my translation on principle that there is not a single example of this in the scriptures. We do not see in the New Testament scriptures, a single place where the author 'corrected' or 'enhanced' upon the Greek Septuagint. There are some rather glaring places in the New Testament where the Septuagint is quoted where it seems to scream out for correction from the Hebrew but the author simply quotes it as is without modification or clarification.

If I ever use Greek or Hebrew in my preaching, the congregation just has to take my word for it as they don't know either language nor are proficient with lexical tools to check what I am saying.

This is not to say that I don't use the Greek and Hebrew in my sermons...for instance, if I were preaching on John 19:30 where Christ said "it is finished"...rather then pointing out that the Greek verb here is in the perfect tense and that therefore Christ means it is finished once and for all time, I would simply say that "what Christ is saying here by 'it is finished', is that it is finished now once and for all time", stressing that point without making any reference to the Greek (I don't need to point out an unknown language to my congregation for them to understand that what I am saying is indeed the case). I do this sort of thing a lot in my preaching. I want my people to have confidence in the Bible they hold in in their hands, and not in a language that is alien to them.

I know some Christians who sit under the type of Pastor that constantly 'corrects' the translation so that in the end, the believers have so little confidence in the english translation (whichever they use) as to find it almost worthless.

When it comes to textual variants, if I were in a church that used the KJV, I would preach from the KJV and if there were a passage that I felt had little support from the manuscripts, I would not point that out in my message; rather I would simply not place any weight upon it in my message (preach around it without calling the passage otherwise into doubt).

Bottom line...I don not see the pulpit ministry as the place to do translational studies or textual criticism. 

These things I do in principle...if you ever listen to my preaching long enough you will eventually hear exceptions...but they are exceptions.


----------



## 2 Tim 4:2 (Sep 17, 2007)

I only use the KJV. However I do not take some of the positions of the KJV onlyers. I will not be told which translation to use. And the church has no biblcial standard to make such a demand on the Pastor unless they can prove grave error in the translation. The church should be taking their leadership form the Pastor not the other way around. But if the church was going to be rebelious and it was going to be a constant source of contention. I would most likely see if God would have me resign.


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 17, 2007)

2 Tim 4:2 said:


> I only use the KJV. However I do not take some of the positions of the KJV onlyers. I will not be told which translation to use. And the church has no biblcial standard to make such a demand on the Pastor unless they can prove grave error in the translation. The church should be taking their leadership form the Pastor not the other way around. But if the church was going to be rebelious and it was going to be a constant source of contention. I would most likely see if God would have me resign.



Not in a Presbyterian church. The church takes its leadership from the Session (of which the pastor is a part) not one man. The Session is free to make a determination on publicly-used translation or not.


----------



## larryjf (Sep 17, 2007)

fredtgreco said:


> Not in a Presbyterian church. The church takes its leadership from the Session (of which the pastor is a part) not one man. The Session is free to make a determination on publicly-used translation or not.



So Fred, the real question is...since it benefits Church polity to have an official version on a congregational level, wouldn't it benefit Church polity to have an official version on a denominational level. In other words, would it be beneficial for the General Assembly to make an official Bible version for the PCA?

If yes, why haven't they done it?
If no, why the difference between the denominational level and the congregational level?


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 17, 2007)

larryjf said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> > Not in a Presbyterian church. The church takes its leadership from the Session (of which the pastor is a part) not one man. The Session is free to make a determination on publicly-used translation or not.
> ...



Simple:

1. It is more difficult to get consensus from 4-5 elders than 1500.
2. This, like other decisions in worship, are more affected by local situations. E.g. do most of your congregation use a particular version? Is it a small congregation that already has a certain pew Bible (and could not afford $500-1000 in the budget to buy new ones)?


----------



## larryjf (Sep 17, 2007)

fredtgreco said:


> Simple:
> 
> 1. It is more difficult to get consensus from 4-5 elders than 1500.
> 2. This, like other decisions in worship, are more affected by local situations. E.g. do most of your congregation use a particular version? Is it a small congregation that already has a certain pew Bible (and could not afford $500-1000 in the budget to buy new ones)?



Yes, in some instances there are local considerations. But certainly if the GA decided on an official version they could still allow churches to choose their own. Much like on the congregational level we have an official version, but we allow individual members to choose their own.

Our congregation in particular had NIV pew Bibles, and most of the congregation read from the NIV. Our pastor actually did sermons from the NASB. After the ESV came out we looked into it and decided to make that our official translation. We replaced all of our NIV's with ESV's.


----------



## JohnV (Sep 17, 2007)

Larry:

Maybe I'm dating myself, but years ago the main point of having a common version in use was for copywright purposes. Because people didn't identify with the KJV anymore, and were reading the easier versions in their daily devotions the church periodicals and even the church pulpits began to use the versions mostly used by the people. But the only one that could be used for free was the KJV, with all others requiring permission for use in publication. I know that in one denomination the entire denomination paid for the right to use one version for all printed material used denomination-wide, including individual churches. As I recall, that was the biggest reason at that time. 

But another reason that was given was that of unity. Just like the denomination recommended the use of a common book of praise, so also it also recommended a common version of the Bible. A person could be anywhere in North America and still be at home in the local church of that denomination, wherever he may be. 

As far as I can remember the denomination steered very clear of making any decision on version preference, or recommending one version overtop of another. They were all practical reasons, and not reasons of elevating one version overtop of another. Maybe that's changed in our day, I don't know. My church uses the NIV without being noticeably tripped up on the dynamic equivalence issue.


----------



## larryjf (Sep 17, 2007)

I have to wonder if the lack of interest in denominations declaring a preferred or official version has anything to do with the Church giving over the responsibility of Bibles to committees instead of keeping the responsibility in the Church.
Thoughts?


----------



## JohnV (Sep 17, 2007)

Is it the church's responsibility? Wouldn't they commission their own version, then?


----------



## MW (Sep 17, 2007)

fredtgreco said:


> Not in a Presbyterian church. The church takes its leadership from the Session (of which the pastor is a part) not one man. The Session is free to make a determination on publicly-used translation or not.



According to traditional Presbyterianism, the minister of the Word and sacraments has his seat in the Presbytery, and is answerable for the conduct of his ministry only to the Presbytery.


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 17, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> > Not in a Presbyterian church. The church takes its leadership from the Session (of which the pastor is a part) not one man. The Session is free to make a determination on publicly-used translation or not.
> ...



And the Session is charged with oversight of the worship of the local congregation.


----------



## MW (Sep 17, 2007)

fredtgreco said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > fredtgreco said:
> ...



The traditional rule is: "The Minister is specially responsible to the Presbytery for the mode in which all the parts of public worship are conducted." It certainly falls to the Session to determine the time of worship, but the parts of worship are the minister's responsibility.


----------

