# Westminster and Bible Versions



## larryjf (Aug 25, 2005)

The Westminster confession states that the scriptures in their original languages are to be translated into the vulgar (common) language of individual nations (Chapter 1, paragraph 8).

The Westminster directory of public worship states that the bible shall be read in the vulgar (common) tongue, out of the best allowed translation, distinctly, that all may hear and understand.

Would a church that uses the KJV actually be disregarding the confession of faith on this point?


----------



## Peter (Aug 25, 2005)

No. Infact, in my opinion, they would be one of the few upholding it. The confession says that God will preserve his word pure through every age of the church, most modern english NT translations are translated from manuscripts discovered in the 19th century. The KJV is a faithful translation of a NT Greek version compiled from manuscripts which have been with the church as long as we've known.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 25, 2005)

For some people, especially in modern America, the Bible might as well BE in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, if we're going to force the KJV on everyone. God's Word is meant to be understood and clearly read; that does not happen with the KJV in 21st Century America, except for those who read Shakespeare 24/7.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 26, 2005)

I like the text the KJV comes from the best. I started studying it from the beginning. I did okay by it. I read the NKJV and ESV also. We ought to be able to look at other translations and the KJV critiqually.

I don't believe a church using a KJV is violating or disreguarding the Confession since it is still written in English and is still understood in our day. It's level of vocabulary is different than the New Living Translation or NIV but sometimes one needs to dig for gold. What do you want....McDonalds or a good steak dinner?

With a 9th grade education I started reading the KJV at age 18. I basically flunked 9th grade and quit my sophamore year. I was at College level in reading skills when tested at age 20 in the Navy. I attribute that to picking up the KJV Bible and reading it to understand it.


----------



## larryjf (Aug 27, 2005)

Peter,

Do you think they would uphold the KJV or the NKJV?
Since the stance on preservation is really at the Greek manuscript level, and the NKJV uses the TR, wouldn't the NKJV meet both requirements - vulgar (common) language, and preserved textual basis?


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> For some people, especially in modern America, the Bible might as well BE in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, if we're going to force the KJV on everyone. God's Word is meant to be understood and clearly read; that does not happen with the KJV in 21st Century America, except for those who read Shakespeare 24/7.



As one who both loves the KJV and is a Majority Text guy, I have to agree with Gabe here. It is hard enough to instill Biblical literacy in your people without having the hardship of a foreign-ish language

I think using the NKJV handles this concern, and 98% of the other concerns about the NA text (when using the ESV or NASB) can be answered fromm the pulpit - i.e., the footnote you see about John 8 is wrong!


----------



## Peter (Aug 27, 2005)

The KJV is not in a foreign language, it,s modern english (early) and can be understood by everyone with a little effort. See Randy's post. As Fred noted the NKJV undermines the pure word with its notes. That being said, I believe TBS is working on another translation from the MT.


----------



## Poimen (Aug 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...



 to Gabe and

 to Fred,

We use the KJV in our church but ithe language is no longer (was it ever?) the common tongue of the people. In fact my main concern is for people from outside the church (Gentiles?) who may stumble at our 'esoteric' Bible language. The NKJV makes it plain enough without destroying the original meaning of the words.


----------



## Peter (Aug 27, 2005)

Another version I'm partial to is Webster's Revision. He Americanizes the spellings and corrects a few blatant errors in the translation (such as Herod celebrating Easter)


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Aug 27, 2005)

You all seem to forget that many, especially the early Puritans, opposed the KJV and prefered the Geneva Bible. They felt the KJV to be a corrupt version influenced by the immoral King James.


----------



## Poimen (Aug 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> You all seem to forget that many, especially the early Puritans, opposed the KJV and prefered the Geneva Bible. They felt the KJV to be a corrupt version influenced by the immoral King James.



Really?! I would love to hear about the evidence for that. Is there a webpage or book you could recommend for me to share with KJV-only fans?


----------



## larryjf (Aug 27, 2005)

> As Fred noted the NKJV undermines the pure word with its notes.


That doesn't seem to be Fred's point. I think he was saying that the NKJV taken together with its footnotes is an excellent bible to read.



> You all seem to forget that many, especially the early Puritans, opposed the KJV and prefered the Geneva Bible. They felt the KJV to be a corrupt version influenced by the immoral King James.


I actually noticed an interesting difference between the KJV and the Geneva today - where modern versions lean more towards the Geneva translation, not the KJV...

Ps 109:6

*Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand. * (KJV)

*Set thou the wicked ouer him, and let the aduersarie stand at his right hand. * (Geneva)

*Appoint a wicked man against him; let an accuser stand at his right hand. * (ESV, and other modern versions)

[Edited on 8-28-2005 by larryjf]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 28, 2005)

I'd prefer the Geneva over the KJV any day of the week.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Sep 10, 2005)

It's worth noting that a 1672 edition of the King James Version with 1599 Geneva Bible notes (a combination, some might say, of the best Reformation translation with the best Reformation annotations) was published and is available today through SWRB.


----------



## Peter (Sep 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I'd prefer the Geneva over the KJV any day of the week.



1. The best thing about the Geneva is the notes. Apparently there is KJV w/the Geneva notes (thanks Andrew)

2. I'm not aware of any significant translation differences or methods, but the spelling of the Geneva has not been modernized. 

3. The KJV has been the tradition of enlgish speaking Protestantism for 400 years. The Geneva was held on to for a while by some pugnacious puritans (for the notes I believe) but the KJV eventually superseded it in their hearts. The KJV was adopted by the church of Scotland and was the bible of the 2nd reformation and presbyterianism up until the last century.


----------



## rgrove (Sep 12, 2005)

I have to say that the KJV was a big black mark for Protestantism when I was Catholic. I couldn't believe anyone would actually read it because it was so hard to read. I still struggle with the vocabulary and all and there's just no reason for that. I don't care about what confessions have to say, I know that the Apostles wrote in the language of the day so that they could communicate clearly with their audiences. They didn't write it in older forms of literary Greek people may struggle with, but they liked it because of the older Greek's "majesty" and the like. in my opinion the KJV no longer communicates as effectively as it once did. To that end I prefer ESV and NKJV for reading and NASB for periodic reference. As for most other translations, they'd make for a nice bonfire. There are too many and it's just confusing for the regular person. The one nice thing about the KJV is that it once was THE translation. I think there's great merit to having only one or two significant translations.


----------



## bond-servant (Sep 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by rgrove_
> The one nice thing about the KJV is that it once was THE translation. I think there's great merit to having only one or two significant translations.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 12, 2005)

*Westminster: Geneva or KJV?*

Chris Rhoades said this on the Jus Divinum thread:
[quoteFor this book, I'll post scripture out of the Geneva Translation unless people think it would be better to use the King Jimmy. Did not the divines reference the Geneva?[/quote]
I've read that the Geneva was not published after 1644; there was an edition printed in Amsterdam that year. When the Westminster Divines discussed printing bibles, various places in their minutes, what edition did they envision printing? Are there editions of the Geneva printed in London in the 1640s; of the King James? I've never read any objections from any Westminster Divine to the fact that from 1656 onward the full text of the scripture references has traditionally been from the KJV. Has anyone compared citations from Westminster sources to see usage of Geneva vs. KJV in their deliberations?


----------

