KJV vs. NKJV

Status
Not open for further replies.
He may be thinking the BB is a 2nd Commandment violation.

Internet digging turned up the witch's book that he referenced. He's talking about the Triquetra - a Celto-Germanic symbol for the Trinity. It's also apparently used by the Reds in Scotland. Scottish Republican Socialist Movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Thanks for this information Edward. I've always wondered why so much of contemporary Scottish independence activism was so hard leftist. Without much research I've passively supported SI based on my own decentralist/libertarian perspectives but couldn't stand the politics of some of the main figures. Now I know why.
 
First, for what does one want to use the version? If it is simply a matter of studying the Bible and making use of available tools then any person is free to consult any resource that is available. As far as I know there is no law proscribing the use of any book. Further, there is no reformed church of which I am aware which proscribes the examining of a version of the Bible under pain of discipline. The subject must be kept in this perspective. Anything that is said in favour of one version over another is a matter of recommendation based on the merits of the translation. There are no penal consequences, civil or ecclesiastical, which accompany the recommendation.

Secondly, the church must use a translation in some way, shape, or form. She recommends the Bible to others for their edification and salvation looking to Christ as the Great Prophet to teach His people by His word and Spirit. The reformed minister authoritatively reads from a specific translation from the pulpit and prefaces his reading, implicitly or explicitly, with, Hear the word of the Lord. He also preaches the Word using a specific translation. Usually the church provides pew Bibles for congregants. Evangelistic work often involves supplying Bibles to people who do not have them. All of this entails a wise and discriminating choice of one translation over another on the part of the church and ministry. By the very act of choosing one version over another "superiority" and "preference" are being vested in the translation so far as the authoritative ministry of the church is concerned. It may be that some churches have not consciously thought about it in these terms, but they are nonetheless the inevitable factors involved when an individual's choice must be shut up to the use of one thing over many.

Thirdly, given the fact that a choice must be made, it is in the interests of a confessional church to make her choice based on confessional considerations. Any translation which counteracts the objective of giving "the word of God" to the people in their own written language is not agreeable to the underlying commitment of reformed churches. Further, "the word of God" is more than mere words. It contains the rule of faith and life. The reformed church and ministry has searched the Scriptures and come to the conclusion that what the church confesses is nothing other than what is taught in holy Scripture. If Scripture taught anything to the contrary the church would be bound to repent of her error, repudiate her confession, and issue a new confession to the world; and that new confession would then be adopted on the ground that it is the very truth taught in holy Scripture. This is inevitably the case because the church is built on the truth which Scripture reveals. The true confession of Jesus Christ is the church's only foundation and the true confession of Jesus Christ is infallibly revealed only in the Scripture of truth. Any translation which undermines or overturns the fundamental commitment of the reformed church to the confession of faith only serves to weaken the distinctive nature and function of that church as the pillar and ground of the truth. Likewise, the reformed church recognises the place of ministerial authority and the necessity of using the appointed means in order to come to a proper knowledge of the truths of holy Scripture. Any translation which seeks to take the place of the divinely appointed ministry and means of grace only serves to harm the ministerial authority of the church and to hinder her ability to teach the nations to observe all things whatsoever Christ has commanded.

Let there be an honest and humble examination of the merits of the different translations. Let the word of God be prized and received in its integrity and authority, let the Westminster Confession be adopted as the confession of the church's faith, let the church and ministry conscientiously undertakes to serve the Lord Christ and to see men embracing the reformed faith, and let the translation be chosen on the basis that it is fully consonant to these great principles. On this basis I believe the Authorised Version is to be preferred over the other translations which are presently available to the English-speaking church. And it is on this basis that it should be recommended to others as the word of God that liveth and abideth for ever.

There are useful articles issued by the Trinitarian Bible Society which show the superior merits of the AV over the NKJV. To summarise, (1) the NKJV falsely claims to be a revision of the KJV. This is blatantly false. It is a new translation based on a different text and incorporating contrary translation principles. It is true that the NKJV departs from the AV less than the modern versions; but it still departs from the AV and gives a contrary meaning in many places. And as it turns out, these departures have proven to be nothing more than the novel speculations of scholars, oftentimes being overturned by more mature consideration. (2) The NKJV fails to distinguish between singular and plural second person pronouns and thus obscures the meaning of the text in literally thousands of places. Knowing the person addressed is basic to understanding the intention of a speaker. This is not a small variation. (3) The NKJV sometimes follows the modern versions in going against the AV to provide doctrinally unsound translations. Undoubtedly a good sense might be put on these deviations where a person is already instructed in the truth, but it is reckless to unnecessarily expose the unlearned to errors. One could multiply examples, but one very significant doctrinal deviation is found in the choice to transliterate rather than translate Sheol and Hades, which leaves the unsuspecting reader with the notion that there are more than two places to which souls go after death. Again, the mischievous theory of doctrinally-neutral translation has made its way into numerous places of the NKJV and resulted in a weakening of the biblical testimony for the doctrines of grace. (4) The additions contained in the headers and footers often lead in a modernist direction. The most notorious example is found in the Song of Solomon, where the reader is directed to interpret the Scripture contrary to the traditional view that this is intended to be an allegory depicting the intimacy of covenant relations between the church and her Shepherd-King.
 
One annoying thing about the NKJV (though not a reason to avoid it) is that there are various different editions with varying readings, and these different editions are not readily apparent unlike, for example, the 1984 and 2011 NIV. You may think you are reading the same version as your friend but then discover there are differences. I can't seem to find any information on this, I just know it to be true from experience. :confused: For example, my mother has used the NKJV forever (so an 80s printing I guess) and it differs from the NKJV text on the esword software.
 
Hello everyone. Yes I was referring to the use of the Triquetra, not a burning bush! Isnt the use of it using a symbol/image to describe or depict the Godhead unbiblical?
As I understand, the use of symbols, pictures, images or any such thing to depict or represent God, Jesus or the Holy Spirit is wrong full stop!
Exodus 20 v 4.
Deuteronomy 5 v 8.
Isaiah 40 v 18 ... To whom then will ye liken God? Or what likeness will ye compare unto Him? According to the publishers of the NKJV a Triquetra!
Acts 17 v 29 ... Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the GODHEAD is like unto gold, silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
The Bible is clear as a bell on the subject!
The fact that it is used should ring alarm bells in any reformed Christians mind.
Hi Robert from Sydney. Sorry I missed your post and doubled up on Acts 17. A Bible with an image or representation in it cannot be a good thing.
The modern day acceptance of images, symbols and representations has invaded so many churches today that it is a worry.
 
Last edited:
...the fact is that many people today simply do not understand the language of the KJV, and thus it is useless to them.
I continue to be rather flummoxed by this sort of assertion every time I see it. If you mean to say that your average man on the street will not necessarily follow every sentence in the Authorised Version upon first glance, then that is one thing. However, the language above suggests much more. I would suggest that the vast majority of the Authorised Version is readily accessible to the average reader without additional aid. I would also suggest that the addition of the normal footnotes/glosses which one finds in many TBS editions of the Authorised Version resolves most of the remaining barriers to understanding.

I understand the argument about plural pronouns, but again this is simply lost on most people
I find that the vast majority of people find the distinction between singular and plural pronouns easy to understand if a very, very brief and simple explanation is provided. If it starts with "th," there is only one person. If it starts with "y," it refers to multiple persons.

Even Jesus understood that language moves on as evidenced by his frequent quotation of the Septuagint.
Actually, this would be quotation of a translation in another language. This has nothing to do with the historical development of a language, but instead relates to the need for translation.
Really ? Hang out with English majors do you ? It never ceases to amaze me that threads on the AV and/or translations in general, always deteriorate into a defense of the AV-TR by people who are offended if you suggest they are KJVO. CT texts need not apply.

So "And you hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins, wherein time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past" is comprehensible to the average guy on the street ?

Not on the street where I live. If a person really wants to learn to understand it they can, but it is much more difficult than picking up an NKJV, NASB or ESV, among others. In my humble opinion.
LOL. :ditto: BAM end of argument...
 
LOL. :ditto: BAM end of argument...
Respectfully, I do not find the citation of Ephesians 2:1-3 compelling. I think this extended series of clauses from a Pauline epistle can be rather difficult to understand at first glance in most English translations:

AV
"And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: among whom also we all had our conversation in times past"

ESV
"And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived"

NKJV
"And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves"

NASB
"And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived"

I see two potential vocabulary issues in the Authorised Version: quickened and conversation. Both are glossed in the sidebar of my Westminster Reference Bible from TBS. Beyond that, I've already made my view clear that I think the average English speaker knows what "ye" and "hath" mean.
 
I've been thinking about this quite a bit as I traveled on the plane today and wanted to ask a question, I am not looking to debate, I'm just honestly wondering. I see lots of people saying the KJV is especially important because it makes a distinction between singular and plural pronouns.

It seems important theoretically, but in practice how important or useful is this really?

For example, I was reading large portions of Ezekiel today in the KJV and prophesies are directed against ye, thee, thou, you, etc. and I sat there and asked myself whether I would understand the meaning if "you" were used and I think in every case I did.

I also don't find anybody complaining today about a lack of singular and plural pronouns. No technical or theological writings seem to suffer, and novels don't seem to suffer. I've never heard anyone say they were confused by whether the author they were reading meant a single person or multiple persons.

Is this important to someone studying Greek? I can't claim to be an adept Bible scholar but I've dug in quite a bit off and on and don't ever recall this being important. Am I really missing something or is this something only certain people find helpful?
 
I've been thinking about this quite a bit as I traveled on the plane today and wanted to ask a question, I am not looking to debate, I'm just honestly wondering. I see lots of people saying the KJV is especially important because it makes a distinction between singular and plural pronouns.

It seems important theoretically, but in practice how important or useful is this really?

For example, I was reading large portions of Ezekiel today in the KJV and prophesies are directed against ye, thee, thou, you, etc. and I sat there and asked myself whether I would understand the meaning if "you" were used and I think in every case I did.

I also don't find anybody complaining today about a lack of singular and plural pronouns. No technical or theological writings seem to suffer, and novels don't seem to suffer. I've never heard anyone say they were confused by whether the author they were reading meant a single person or multiple persons.

Is this important to someone studying Greek? I can't claim to be an adept Bible scholar but I've dug in quite a bit off and on and don't ever recall this being important. Am I really missing something or is this something only certain people find helpful?

Take a look at the following passages in the Authorised Version and see if the distinction seems more necessary: Exodus 4:15, Exodus 29:42, 2 Samuel 7:23, Matthew 26:64, Luke 22:31-32, John 3:7, 1 Corinthians 8:9-12, 2 Timothy 4:22, Titus 3:15, Philemon 21-25. For a more in-depth look at these examples and the pronoun issue, check out Archaic or Accurate? published by the Bible League Trust.
 
Thank you for your reply, and sorry to seem thick but I looked at those passages, and then I looked at them in the ESV. I understand the KJV makes a distinction, what I want to know is why some think it is important.

When I read the passages in the ESV I don't think "Man! I wish I knew whether that was a plural or singular you". Does any doctrine rest on this or is it just an interesting point? It doesn't change anything for me. Once again, perhaps I'm being thick.

And when I read the KJV (normally) I don't pay attention to whether it's singular or plural pronouns being used. Am I unique in this? Blissfully ignorant?
 
I've been thinking about it too. Here is part 3 of Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, the Greek scholar, professor of NT studies, History of The English Bible. https://bible.org/seriespage/part-iii-KJV-rv-elegance-accuracy

At present I'm convinced that his argument is valid and correct. So I continue to appreciate the KJV for beauty, elegance and a measure of accuracy, but to consider it more accurate than some of the later translations just doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

I am not knowledgeable enough to refute the professor's claims but I know there are some on here who are and I would be grateful if they would prove to me that Dr Wallace is in error and there are no "problems" with the TR underlying the AV, and with the translation of the AV as it was done by the translators in 1611.
 
Thank you for your reply, and sorry to seem thick but I looked at those passages, and then I looked at them in the ESV. I understand the KJV makes a distinction, what I want to know is why some think it is important.

When I read the passages in the ESV I don't think "Man! I wish I knew whether that was a plural or singular you". Does any doctrine rest on this or is it just an interesting point? It doesn't change anything for me. Once again, perhaps I'm being thick.

And when I read the KJV (normally) I don't pay attention to whether it's singular or plural pronouns being used. Am I unique in this? Blissfully ignorant?
Take just Exodus 4:15 as an example:

AV
And thou shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth: and I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do.

ESV
You shall speak to him and put the words in his mouth, and I will be with your mouth and with his mouth and will teach you both what to do.

NKJV
Now you shall speak to him and put the words in his mouth. And I will be with your mouth and with his mouth, and I will teach you what you shall do.

Who is taught by God? In the NKJV, the lack of any singular/plural distinction makes it appear that God will teach Moses alone. The ESV at least recognizes the plural by translating "you both," although this leaves out any sense of God teaching the nation as a whole which might be implied in the plural. I'm not necessarily arguing that some foundational doctrine such as the Trinity rests upon a singular/plural pronoun distinction. However, I do think that such a distinction is crucial for a right understanding of many passages of Scripture.
 
I've been thinking about it too. Here is part 3 of Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, the Greek scholar, professor of NT studies, History of The English Bible. https://bible.org/seriespage/part-iii-KJV-rv-elegance-accuracy

At present I'm convinced that his argument is valid and correct. So I continue to appreciate the KJV for beauty, elegance and a measure of accuracy, but to consider it more accurate than some of the later translations just doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

I am not knowledgeable enough to refute the professor's claims but I know there are some on here who are and I would be grateful if they would prove to me that Dr Wallace is in error and there are no "problems" with the TR underlying the AV, and with the translation of the AV as it was done by the translators in 1611.

Bringing Dr. Wallace's voluminous writings into this is a whole 'nother can of worms, but I would just caution you to understand his starting point:
A theological a priori has no place in textual criticism.
(Inspiration, Preservation, and Textual Criticism)

He adamantly opposes a view of the text of Scripture which begins with the notion of providential preservation as the Westminster Confession teaches.
 
Who is taught by God? In the NKJV, the lack of any singular/plural distinction makes it appear that God will teach Moses alone.

I understand that in the KJV one can tell the difference between singular and plural (It's not clear to me in the Hebrew interlinear that this is the case). But it's less clear to me that one needs to.

I'm glad the ESV made a distinction but even there don't find it "crucial" for a "right understanding". I just fail to see where the Bible reader of today is at a disadvantage.

And let me just say in general that I'm not attacking the KJV, and I don't think anyone on this board is. I enjoy it thoroughly, but I also enjoy other translations. What bothers me is when I'm essentially told I shouldn't enjoy any other translation because (insert reason here). I haven't found any reasons compelling enough, personally. I'm glad others enjoy the KJV enough to use it exclusively and I'm not going to tell them they should use something else.
 
Bringing Dr. Wallace's voluminous writings into this is a whole 'nother can of worms, but I would just caution you to understand his starting point:
A theological a priori has no place in textual criticism.
(Inspiration, Preservation, and Textual Criticism)

He adamantly opposes a view of the text of Scripture which begins with the notion of providential preservation as the Westminster Confession teaches.

But do you not assume that the providential preservation of which the WCF teaches necessitates your view of the TR and its priority? That is, you deny the possibility that one can believe in providential preservation and yet not TR priority, if I understand you correctly.
 
I've been thinking about it too. Here is part 3 of Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, the Greek scholar, professor of NT studies, History of The English Bible. https://bible.org/seriespage/part-iii-KJV-rv-elegance-accuracy

At present I'm convinced that his argument is valid and correct. So I continue to appreciate the KJV for beauty, elegance and a measure of accuracy, but to consider it more accurate than some of the later translations just doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

I am not knowledgeable enough to refute the professor's claims but I know there are some on here who are and I would be grateful if they would prove to me that Dr Wallace is in error and there are no "problems" with the TR underlying the AV, and with the translation of the AV as it was done by the translators in 1611.

Bringing Dr. Wallace's voluminous writings into this is a whole 'nother can of worms, but I would just caution you to understand his starting point:
A theological a priori has no place in textual criticism.
(Inspiration, Preservation, and Textual Criticism)

He adamantly opposes a view of the text of Scripture which begins with the notion of providential preservation as the Westminster Confession teaches.

Thanks, I did read his 'starting point' and found his argument very convincing.
 
But do you not assume that the providential preservation of which the WCF teaches necessitates your view of the TR and its priority? That is, you deny the possibility that one can believe in providential preservation and yet not TR priority, if I understand you correctly.

My point above is that Dr. Wallace attacks the notion of providential preservation as a guiding principle altogether. He is not willing to approach textual criticism with guiding theological presuppositions, TR-oriented or not.

I will admit that I believe that the WCF's doctrine of providential preservation is inextricably linked to the Received Text of the New Testament. I don't see this as just an assumption, though. From a simple historical examination of the views of the Westminster Divines, I think the burden of proof would be on a Critical Text advocate to show compatibility with the WCF's teaching on this subject.
 
Who is taught by God? In the NKJV, the lack of any singular/plural distinction makes it appear that God will teach Moses alone.

I understand that in the KJV one can tell the difference between singular and plural (It's not clear to me in the Hebrew interlinear that this is the case). But it's less clear to me that one needs to.

I'm glad the ESV made a distinction but even there don't find it "crucial" for a "right understanding". I just fail to see where the Bible reader of today is at a disadvantage.

And let me just say in general that I'm not attacking the KJV, and I don't think anyone on this board is. I enjoy it thoroughly, but I also enjoy other translations. What bothers me is when I'm essentially told I shouldn't enjoy any other translation because (insert reason here). I haven't found any reasons compelling enough, personally. I'm glad others enjoy the KJV enough to use it exclusively and I'm not going to tell them they should use something else.

I believe in verbal plenary inspiration, so I'm not content with knowing the gist of a verse. If there is a "you," I want to know who. If my English translation leads me to mix up the subjects of a Bible verse, it still is problematic to me even if there is no significant doctrine which seems to be affected.
 
My point above is that Dr. Wallace attacks the notion of providential preservation as a guiding principle altogether. He is not willing to approach textual criticism with guiding theological presuppositions, TR-oriented or not.

As you said above, I don't know that we need to parse out his whole articles here (maybe another thread). But it seemed to me (granted, I would need to read it all a bit more closely later) that he was suggesting that the TR-priority preservation doctrine could not be assumed a priori. Would he reject that we can believe that God has preserved his word in the collective witness of the existing manuscripts?

I will admit that I believe that the WCF's doctrine of providential preservation is inextricably linked to the Received Text of the New Testament. I don't see this as just an assumption, though. From a simple historical examination of the views of the Westminster Divines, I think the burden of proof would be on a Critical Text advocate to show compatibility with the WCF's teaching on this subject.

Perhaps another thread would be interesting on this subject. Though to some extent, surely there would be some anachronism there. My concern is that if you understand the words of the WCF in that way you seem to be doing, you would have a hard time even applying them to the TR. I.e., "kept pure in all ages" would render the TR itself void given some of the errors in it (e.g., lack of any manuscript evidence for a few readings).
 
On the singular/plural distinction, the Gospel of John would be the best place to demonstrate its necessity. Nicodemus was told, YE must be born again. The modern born-again Christian phenomenon is built on the misunderstanding that the individual was the referent. The woman of Samaria said to Jesus, YE say... In modern versions it reads, YOU say, and a reader assumes the referent is Jesus, which would be an error. When Jesus speaks to the disciples he repeatedly addresses one but makes reference to all. This also appears significantly in the other Gospels. The Epistles also include numerous places where the plural is essential to the proper understanding of the letter. In cases where the Epistle is addressed to one person, as in Philemon and 2 and 3 John, a reader who is unaware of a distinction of the pronoun is left entirely in the dark as to the corporate relevance of these letters.

Concerning the views of Daniel Wallace, the rejection of a presuppositional approach to the Scriptures leaves one without any basis for believing the Scriptures are the word of God, that the canon of Scripture is correct, that the revelation of Scripture is infallible, or that one word of the Scriptures has been preserved. The evidential approach requires men to leave off faith in the word of God until it is first proven to be the word of God, but the reality is that it cannot be proven to be the word of God without faith, Hebrews 11:1, 3. Such an approach robs Christians of all certainty and comfort.
 
Luke 22:31,32

KJV

And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

NKJV

And the Lord said, “Simon, Simon! Indeed, Satan has asked for you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren.
 
Concerning the views of Daniel Wallace, the rejection of a presuppositional approach to the Scriptures leaves one without any basis for believing the Scriptures are the word of God, that the canon of Scripture is correct, that the revelation of Scripture is infallible, or that one word of the Scriptures has been preserved. The evidential approach requires men to leave off faith in the word of God until it is first proven to be the word of God, but the reality is that it cannot be proven to be the word of God without faith, Hebrews 11:1, 3. Such an approach robs Christians of all certainty and comfort.

So you are saying that you must simply presuppose that the TR is therefore the Word of God (in all its readings) and operate on the basis of that presupposition? I'm not trying to be combative, I'm just wanting to understand precisely what you are saying here.
 
...the fact is that many people today simply do not understand the language of the KJV, and thus it is useless to them.
I continue to be rather flummoxed by this sort of assertion every time I see it. If you mean to say that your average man on the street will not necessarily follow every sentence in the Authorised Version upon first glance, then that is one thing. However, the language above suggests much more. I would suggest that the vast majority of the Authorised Version is readily accessible to the average reader without additional aid. I would also suggest that the addition of the normal footnotes/glosses which one finds in many TBS editions of the Authorised Version resolves most of the remaining barriers to understanding.

I understand the argument about plural pronouns, but again this is simply lost on most people
I find that the vast majority of people find the distinction between singular and plural pronouns easy to understand if a very, very brief and simple explanation is provided. If it starts with "th," there is only one person. If it starts with "y," it refers to multiple persons.

Even Jesus understood that language moves on as evidenced by his frequent quotation of the Septuagint.
Actually, this would be quotation of a translation in another language. This has nothing to do with the historical development of a language, but instead relates to the need for translation.
Really ? Hang out with English majors do you ? It never ceases to amaze me that threads on the AV and/or translations in general, always deteriorate into a defense of the AV-TR by people who are offended if you suggest they are KJVO. CT texts need not apply.

So "And you hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins, wherein time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past" is comprehensible to the average guy on the street ?

Not on the street where I live. If a person really wants to learn to understand it they can, but it is much more difficult than picking up an NKJV, NASB or ESV, among others. In my humble opinion.

The reading age of the AV is about the same as the NIV. It just needs a little effort to start with and surely the Bible is worth a little effort. My mother in law left school at 13 and coped with the AV. I think the look of the text scares people.
Ken
A AV nut and proud of it!
 
Having perused my copy of "The Westminster Confession of Faith For Study Classes", section 1.8, on the authority of the Scriptures. I agree that the original autographs are inerrant, but they are no longer known to exist. It is instructive that the author of this celebrated tome, G.I. Williamson chose the NKJV for Scripture proofs throughout the book. I have the greatest respect and admiration for Reverend Winzer and read his posts to my profit. I don't pretend to come near to his education nor his vast knowledge of the Confessions or the Holy Scriptures, but I have to respectfully disagree that relying on modern translations somehow denies the infallibility of Scripture. Nor, as I read it, do I perceive that I am in disagreement with the Confessions in holding this view. Had the Westminster Divines had access to the manuscripts available today, and knew of the origin and genesis of it, would they have chosen the TR ?

This from the OPC website Q and A (OPC and Bible Translations)
 
So you are saying that you must simply presuppose that the TR is therefore the Word of God (in all its readings) and operate on the basis of that presupposition? I'm not trying to be combative, I'm just wanting to understand precisely what you are saying here.

Where did I mention the TR? This thread has been concerned with translation. If the presuppositional approach resulted in a text other than the TR, the confessional principles of translation would still be the same. Were a text like that of Westcott and Hort the true text, it would likely lead to the adoption of a translation like the Revised Version, which seeks to convey the original as accurately as possible; although that translation came to be criticised as being too wooden and unfeeling. The two issues of text and translation are separate, and must be treated as such.

Diverting to the question of the text, there is one main difference between the presuppositional and evidential approaches, and this difference has a strong influence on the outcome. A presuppositional approach begins with the conviction that the word of God is in possession while the evidential approach begins with the conviction that the word of God must yet be found. The presuppositional approach, then, will naturally incline towards a text which is already established and accepted as self-attesting, whereas the evidential approach will naturally incline towards a text which requires the accumulation of evidence and a process of reasoning to prove it. The "approach" is fundamental to the "findings," and already inclines one way or another before any variant reading comes to be handled.
 
I believe in verbal plenary inspiration, so I'm not content with knowing the gist of a verse. If there is a "you," I want to know who. If my English translation leads me to mix up the subjects of a Bible verse, it still is problematic to me even if there is no significant doctrine which seems to be affected.

As do I, but no translation can perfectly convey all the nuances of the original language. For example, I don't yet see any complaints against the KJV for not distinguishing between all the shades of "love" or reproducing all the tenses. So the criticism against modern translations for not distinguishing between singular and plural pronouns seems selective. If one is really concerned about it, would they consider using a Hebrew/Greek interlinear? Yet no one (that I know of) advocates that. And why must archaic language be the vehicle? One could come up with a convention where an underlined "you" was plural, if it really is that important.

I'm just concerned that the KJV becomes the reed by which everything is measured. Whatever the supposed reason, the impression I get from its advocates is that all other versions fail principally because they are, by definition, not the KJV.

I agree with Rev. Winzer that we should be seeking the best translation, but "best" will be necessarily subjective. If your conscience leads you to believe that the KJV is the best, by all means use it. I have not found that to be the case myself, and I grew up with the KJV. I find that when I read a chapter in the KJV and then read it again in the ESV, I glean more than if I do it the other way. Personally, I do not find the KJV to be the best. I have studied this carefully and my conscience is clear. I'm glad I have it and read from it regularly, and I'm glad others find it excellent. But I will not make my preference the standard for everyone, regardless of my conviction.

I'd like to share a few quotes I read today.
"The translation of the seventy dissenteth from the original in many places, neither doth it come near it for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it, (as it is apparent, and as Saint Hierome and most learned men to confess) which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy the appellation and name of the Word of God."

The translation was not the best, yet it was still the very word of God.

And again:
Another thing we think good to admonish thee of, gentle reader, that we have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe that some learned men somewhere have been as exact as they could that way. Truly, that we might not vary from the sense of that which we had translated before, if the word signified the same thing in both places (for there be some words that be not of the same sense everywhere) we were especially careful, and made a conscience, according to our duty. But that we should express the same notion in the same particular word; as, for example, if we translate the Hebrew or Greek word once by purpose never to call it intent; if one where journeying, never travelling; if one, where thinking, never suppose; if one where pain, never ache; if one where joy, never gladness, etc.; thus to mince the matter, we thought to savour more of curiousity than wisdom, and that rather it would breed scorn in the atheist than bring profit to the godly reader. For is the kingdom of God become words or syllables? Why should we be in bondage to them, if we may be free? use on precisely when we may use another no less fit as commodiously?

It seems to me that the exact word would be important, even if it seems that meaning is similar. I appreciate when the ESV and NASB try to reproduce the same word in every instance so the reader knows it is the same underlying Greek or Hebrew word. In this case I find the KJV less helpful, that doesn't mean I dismiss it as a translation though.

Also on the other side we have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their Azimes, Tunike, Rational, Holocausts, Propuce, Pashe, and a number of such like, whereof their late translation is full, and that of purpose to darken the sense, that since they must needs translate the Bible, yet by the language thereof it may be kept from being understood. But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar.

Though clearly the Papists were trying to obfuscate the Scriptures, this makes it very clear that they wanted even the very least to be able to understand it and be clear to all. If it isn't obvious, the above quotations are from the Translator's preface in the KJV.
 
I will admit that I believe that the WCF's doctrine of providential preservation is inextricably linked to the Received Text of the New Testament. I don't see this as just an assumption, though. From a simple historical examination of the views of the Westminster Divines, I think the burden of proof would be on a Critical Text advocate to show compatibility with the WCF's teaching on this subject.

I was doing a bit of reading today and I want to question this. Perhaps Chris Coldwell can comment since he's looked through notes from the Westminster Divines but my impression from reading the Reformers and Puritans is that they had a high view of the autographs, but this idea of "providential preservation" of the specific text of the Textus Receptus was foreign to them. I consider myself confessional and I believe in the providential preservation of the Scripture, but not in the mechanical way you seem to advocate. Actually, I think the evidence leans against that.

Instance Calvin, when talking of 1 John 5:7 he says "But as even the Greek copies do not agree, I dare not assert anything on the subject." and again in the first part of John 8 "It is plain enough that this passage was unknown anciently to the Greek Churches." And yet agrees that there is no problem retaining it. Nowhere does he refer to providential preservation of a specific line of texts in order to make a case for it.

Fast forward to Matthew Henry, coming after the Puritans, who defends the inclusion of 1 John 5:7 passage on various grounds (though he understands there is question about it) but none of the reasons include God's preserving his word miraculously through Erasmus or the English Bible.

They were aware of textual variants and discussed them. Never that I know of did they dismiss them simply because God had preserved his word in the texts underlying the King James Bible.

See, when Calvin and Henry, and I believe the Puritans read "jot or tittle" not passing away, they understood it as saying it was all important and all would be fulfilled. Calvin says "I answer, the expression shall not pass away, must be viewed as referring, not to the life of men, but to the perfect truth of the doctrine. "There is nothing in the law that is unimportant, nothing that was put there at random; and so it is impossible that a single letter shall perish."

So when the confession says "The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical" and cites Matthew 5:18, I find no problems. The framers were aware of textual issues, I believe some of them even owned manuscripts which were NOT Textus Receptus. Beza engaged in textual criticism with texts that were not of the Byzantine family and readings from these were included in the KJV. The Greek underlying the KJV is unique to English-speaking nations, albeit it only differs from earlier versions in a few hundred places.

But all that to say, I think the framers knew that God had preserved his word (I believe this too) but as far as I know, they didn't tie it to one specific line of texts, nor believed it was word-by-word preservation (thus they claim that only the autographs were inspired). It is pure in that no error has been introduced into our Bibles, but the exact wording I don't see any dogmatism over.

And at the very least, I would be careful about thinking of someone as non-confessional just because they don't hold to the KJV or Textus Receptus.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top