Authorized (Mark Ward)

[Northern Crofter]

With regard to Scripture, this is simply not true. The Spirit of God especially, but not exclusively, makes the preaching of the Word an effectual means of convincing and converting sinners (WSC 89). He also makes the reading such.

"Under the gospel, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper;" (WCF 7.6, see also LCQ 35) How is this not true? I never said the Spirit of God cannot make the reading of the Word an effectual means of enlightening sinners (which is why I used words such as "primary" and "ordinary"). But the reading of the Word is not an ordinance in which the covenant of grace is currently dispensed (though, like prayer, it is an ordinance Christ makes use of to communicates to His elect). I think it can be argued that the reading of the Word was an ordinance in which the covenant of grace was dispensed in the previous dispensation.

 

[Taylor]

"Under the gospel, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper;" (WCF 7.6, see also LCQ 35) How is this not true? I never said the Spirit of God cannot make the reading of the Word an effectual means of enlightening sinners (which is why I used words such as "primary" and "ordinary"). But the reading of the Word is not an ordinance in which the covenant of grace is currently dispensed (though, like prayer, it is an ordinance Christ makes use of to communicates to His elect). I think it can be argued that the reading of the Word was an ordinance in which the covenant of grace was dispensed in the previous dispensation.

Your post appeared to me to imply that the reading of the Word cannot be an effectual means of salvation, which WSC 89 directly contradicts. Forgive me if that was not your intent.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Your post appeared to me to imply that the reading of the Word cannot be an effectual means of salvation, which WSC 89 directly contradicts. Forgive me if that was not your intent.

No offense taken. It was not my intention to imply anything like that. To be clear, I believe God could make the reading of an Urdu translation of The Living Bible an effectual means of salvation for one of His elect.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Jeri or someone make sense for me the argument we have to wait for some wider reformed state of the church to do any bible revision. The Authorized Version itself was created in a pretty corrupt church, by some talented prelates. Presbyterianism had been nigh eradicated and run underground by the same prelates (one is a famous antagonist in Presbyterian literature of the century), and puritanism was a down trodden minority. What is more important to determine a good time to do a new bible translation or revision of the KJV, a national established though a corrupt church persecuting reformers (but with the talent), or a confessionally reformed denomination with the talent but not a national church? And is there some scriptural rule to determine this?

I wouldn’t say it’s wrong to be doing work on revising or translating. But production of a revision or new translation of the TR “for the church” would really be “for a tiny handful of churches.” And I don’t know that the most capable and godly men of those denominations would dare to do it (indeed there’s nobody stepping up or even talking about doing so, that I know of). It would be interesting to hear from some of them on why this is the case.

I think just the history of what happens in times of reformation and church unity- church councils called, doctrinal matters ironed out and formally codified-
is behind the thought that such a coming time will be more fit for the revising of the RT. Things aren’t perfect during reformation times, far from it, yet God has used those times in extraordinary ways. Even a corrupt king and prelates were used to produce a Bible that really is remarkable and has contributed so much in so many ways.

 

[Polanus1561]

I have heard of one denomination that sought to get the NKJV rights to make a TR translation (without some NKJV perceived problems like the text critical footnotes). I do not think they were successful.

Anyway, like I said, I can realistically only see such a thing if TBS initiates something.

 

[Polanus1561]

I wouldn’t say it’s wrong to be doing work on revising or translating. But production of a revision or new translation of the TR “for the church” would really be “for a tiny handful of churches.” And I don’t know that the most capable and godly men of those denominations would dare to do it (indeed there’s nobody stepping up or even talking about doing so, that I know of). It would be interesting to hear from some of them on why this is the case.

I think just the history of what happens in times of reformation and church unity- church councils called, doctrinal matters ironed out and formally codified-
is behind the thought that such a coming time will be more fit for the revising of the RT. Things aren’t perfect during reformation times, far from it, yet God has used those times in extraordinary ways. Even a corrupt king and prelates were used to produce a Bible that really is remarkable and has contributed so much in so many ways.

Interesting. Does that mean that for you, a reformation you desire includes other churches embracing the TR?

 

[Jeri Tanner]

I have heard of one denomination that sought to get the NKJV rights to make a TR translation (without some NKJV perceived problems like the text critical footnotes). I do not think they were successful.

Anyway, like I said, I can realistically only see such a thing if TBS initiates something.

It would be interesting to know why TBS doesn’t. Have you ever heard whether it’s been discussed?

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Interesting. Does that mean that for you, a reformation you desire includes other churches embracing the TR?

I can truthfully say I desire only the reformation the Lord brings! I hope I would gladly cast off anything I’m wrong about. But it would be my current understanding that full reformation would include a return to the TR.

 

[Polanus1561]

It would be interesting to know why TBS doesn’t. Have you ever heard whether it’s been discussed?

I do not know.

My take:
the TBS Westminster bible is around 10+ years old? That was TBS's contribution to assist KJV readers with the words. So I do not think they would want to start another effort for understanding the KJV/TR so soon (I consider 10 years to be short for these kind of work).

 

[arapahoepark]

Haven't been on all day. "Oh, Jacob posted a new review and called authorized must be textual...Let's take a look!" "Three pages! Posted at 8:06 am today!" Why am I not surprised.

 

[danekristjan]

But these are not versions which those of us committed to the KJV wish to use. We don't accept them as of equal quality or faithfulness. So if your argument is "the KJV is obsolete use the ESV" that's never going to convince us. Instead of tearing down you should be building up. Produce an as faithful translation of the TR, which is not reliant on the heretics Westcott and Hort (ala NKJV), then we can talk.

The NKJV is a translation of the received texts. But okay. Truth is irrelevant I guess. As long as the narrative is promoted we can just say whatever none sense we want I guess.

 

[danekristjan]

We aren't in the reforming times necessary to produce a new and faithful version of the received text. That will require a church unity and attainment in her officers such as we saw in the Reformation years. Meanwhile, the KJV works excellently for those who hold to the doctrine of a received text; it is useful (and preferred) for evangelism, for preaching, and for teaching.

Thank God for Anglicanism's unifying effect!

 

[alexandermsmith]

The NKJV is a translation of the received texts. But okay. Truth is irrelevant I guess. As long as the narrative is promoted we can just say whatever none sense we want I guess.

In the Old Testament the NKJV places non-Masoretic "variants" in the margins and in some places substitutes these for the Masoretic in the body of the text itself; it also does this with the New Testament, placing Majority and Critical Text "variants" in the margins and in some instances in the body of the text itself. There are also throughout both Testaments many renderings different from the KJV which are inferior to the KJV, often changing the meaning of the verse(s) altogether.

The principal editor of the NKJV, Dr A.L. Farstad, makes clear in his preface that he is not a proponent of the TR, preferring the Majority Text. Elsewhere he seems to advocate for further textual criticism in order to determine the authentic text of Scripture. In the preface to the Majority Text, edited by Zane Hodes and Farstad, it is said "‘It should therefore be kept in mind that the present work, The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, is both preliminary and provisional. It represents a first step…’ We see here a clear repudiation of the principles on which TR proponents stand today. We do not believe the text of Scripture is in "flux", we believe we have it. The project of the NKJV is not faithful to the principles and theology of those who hold to the TR/KJV and therefore is not a suitable alternative.

https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.tbsbibles.org/resource/collection/D4DCAF37-AEB6-4CEC-880F-FD229A90560F/The-New-King-James-Version-A-Critique_.pdf

 

[RamistThomist]

What exactly is the danger?

The danger is that it fails in communication at that point. If you think a word means x, but it really means y, then you don't understand that passage in particular.

The spiritual content of the ESV will be just as foreign to the darkened mind as the KJV. It is the preaching of the word and not merely reading of the Word that is primary means of evangelization - or else the Ethiopian eunuch (or is there a more modern word?)

True, but we still preach in a language that people understand.

So you are proposing this same thinking to all documents with so-called "false friends"? The 18th century sections of the US Constitution should constantly be rewritten?

The Constitution is constantly amended. In any case, the KJV translators thought that their version would probably be re-translated and updated as language changes.

Shouldn't we instead turn to the "preaching" of the judges and lawyers "ordained" to exposit the words of law?

That is literally what we do in court.

 

[Polanus1561]

I think the efforts here are a bit misguided. If one side claims they have navigated their way past the obstacles in reading, there is no point telling them to look back at the obstacles.

Nevertheless, the book and the review here has mentioned some information useful for anyone in the least bit interested in bible translations.

 

[Northern Crofter]

That is literally what we do in court.

Exactly. Then why are you opposed to this (expositing a text with what is to some people archaic wording) in the Church? The amendment process in the US Constitution does not update the wording - it adds (or detracts) from the original.

 

[Sam Jer]

If the bible WAS in "king James" English, would you advocate translating it to modern English?

 

[Logan]

Arguments against the NKJV always come off as extremely petty, in my opinion. Since a problem can't really be found with the text (particularly of the NT), it focuses on who was involved in it, or marginal notes. Marginal notes!! (as a side note of my own, that article against the NKJV is one of the worst "scholarly" articles TBS hosts).

Not all the KJV translators were upstanding men, and the KJV also had similar marginal notes giving textual variants, but apparently that's only a problem for translations other than the KJV. If, like the KJV, these marginal notes were excised from the NKJV, would the opinion of the NKJV change? Of course not. The standard is so biased it's stunning.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Arguments against the NKJV always come off as extremely petty, in my opinion. Since a problem can't really be found with the text (particularly of the NT), it focuses on who was involved in it, or marginal notes. Marginal notes!! (as a side note of my own, that article against the NKJV is one of the worst "scholarly" articles TBS hosts).

Not all the KJV translators were upstanding men, and the KJV also had similar marginal notes giving textual variants, but apparently that's only a problem for translations other than the KJV. If, like the KJV, these marginal notes were excised from the NKJV, would the opinion of the NKJV change? Of course not. The standard is so biased it's stunning.

Marginal notes are fine for scholars, but for the average congregant reading in the pew, these can introduce doubt into their full persuasion and assurance that what they have before them is the infallible truth. The Church's testimony via its appointment and/or approval of a translation (like the Geneva in Scotland, or the Bishop's Bible in England - setting aside for the moment the issues of Erastianism and objections to the Establishment Principle) moves and induces people to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture, regardless of the individual merits of the translators or the translation. But how can a Church endorse variants? Is it not within their authority to make a determination as to which reading is best? It is certainly not within the authority of groups of scholars, especially if the translating team includes some (or many) who may not be professing Christians. This is different than adding notes that suggest different translation alternatives.

I appreciate those churches that state what their "pew Bible" is - for those who are not textual scholars or capable of following such debates, it affords them some assurance of a reliable text in their hands without introducing distracting doubt.

 

[Polanus1561]

Marginal notes are fine for scholars, but for the average congregant reading in the pew, these can introduce doubt into their full persuasion and assurance that what they have before them is the infallible truth. The Church's testimony via its appointment and/or approval of a translation (like the Geneva in Scotland, or the Bishop's Bible in England - setting aside for the moment the issues of Erastianism and objections to the Establishment Principle) moves and induces people to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture, regardless of the individual merits of the translators or the translation. But how can a Church endorse variants? Is it not within their authority to make a determination as to which reading is best? It is certainly not within the authority of groups of scholars, especially if the translating team includes some (or many) who may not be professing Christians. This is different than adding notes that suggest different translation alternatives.

I appreciate those churches that state what their "pew Bible" is - for those who are not textual scholars or capable of following such debates, it affords them some assurance of a reliable text in their hands without introducing distracting doubt.

Ok, if there were no marginal notes, would that lead the NKJV to be acceptable to you? Any other changes you would make?

 

[RamistThomist]

Exactly. Then why are you opposed to this (expositing a text with what is to some people archaic wording) in the Church? The amendment process in the US Constitution does not update the wording - it adds (or detracts) from the original.

I'm not opposed in principle to it. The idea, though, is antithetical to the spirit of the translators upon whom the KJV relied. Words are meant to be understood.

 

[Polanus1561]

TBS has a word list of archaic terms which they provide modern equivalents for.

If they revised the KJV and released a revision that includes replacing archaic terms according to this word list, are there any here who would object to it? Not that it means it would be your primary Bible.

Just positing a standard of a Modern TR that is not the NKJV.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Ok, if there were no marginal notes, would that lead the NKJV to be acceptable to you? Any other changes you would make?

I would want (and do use) a translation that has a Church's testimony via its appointment and/or approval. If the NKJV had that within my church's testimony, I would have no reason to not accept it.

 

[Northern Crofter]

TBS has a word list of archaic terms which they provide modern equivalents for.

If they revised the KJV and released a revision that includes replacing archaic terms according to this word list, are there any here who would object to it? Not that it means it would be your primary Bible.

Just positing a standard of a Modern TR that is not the NKJV.

I wouldn't object in principle, but in reality, this would be a never-ending process. How many "archaic terms" before a revision is needed? 5? 10? a certain percent? Or every 7, 40, 50, 70, or 400 years? Who decides? Again, I would want the "they" initiating and revising the text to be a Church or group of particular Churches (for example, amongst the Churches of nations speaking primarily the same language).

 

[RamistThomist]

I wouldn't object in principle, but in reality, this would be a never-ending process. How many "archaic terms" before a revision is needed? 5? 10? a certain percent? Or every 7, 40, 50, 70, or 400 years? Who decides? Again, I would want the "they" initiating and revising the text to be a Church or group of particular Churches (for example, amongst the Churches of nations speaking primarily the same language).

And that's the point. Language changes. There is no way to stop it. When you have to spend as much time glossing what the words mean today, translation will become inevitable.

 

[Polanus1561]

I wouldn't object in principle, but in reality, this would be a never-ending process. How many "archaic terms" before a revision is needed? 5? 10? a certain percent? Or every 7, 40, 50, 70, or 400 years? Who decides? Again, I would want the "they" initiating and revising the text to be a Church or group of particular Churches (for example, amongst the Churches of nations speaking primarily the same language).

Fair enough. You have set an objective standard for any revision.

 

[danekristjan]

Marginal notes are fine for scholars, but for the average congregant reading in the pew, these can introduce doubt into their full persuasion and assurance that what they have before them is the infallible truth. The Church's testimony via its appointment and/or approval of a translation (like the Geneva in Scotland, or the Bishop's Bible in England - setting aside for the moment the issues of Erastianism and objections to the Establishment Principle) moves and induces people to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture, regardless of the individual merits of the translators or the translation. But how can a Church endorse variants? Is it not within their authority to make a determination as to which reading is best? It is certainly not within the authority of groups of scholars, especially if the translating team includes some (or many) who may not be professing Christians. This is different than adding notes that suggest different translation alternatives.

I appreciate those churches that state what their "pew Bible" is - for those who are not textual scholars or capable of following such debates, it affords them some assurance of a reliable text in their hands without introducing distracting doubt.

By that same standard, we should never encourage lay people to read Matthew Henry, Matthew Poole, the Westminster annotations, or really any Puritan commentator. Since these men all introduce and even maintain textual variants different than the readings of the KJV, it will just cause lay people to doubt the Bible if they read Matthew Henry et al. They also should not read any edition of the KJV which has the KJV translator notes since they often put variants in the margin just like the NKJV (so they better toss all their fancy Cambridge, Allan, Oxford and TBS Westminster bibles).

 

[Santos]

Exactly.
"John Wycliffe, can you translate the Bible into English for us?"
"No, it's not a time of reformation or revival."
"William Tyndale, can you translate the Bible into English for us?"
"No, it's not a time of reformation or revival."
"Miles Coverdale, can you translate the Bible into English for us?"
"No, it's not a time of reformation or revival."
"John Knox and other refugees in Geneva, can you translate the Bible into English for us?"
"No, it's not a time of reformation or revival."

I've never understood where one would gather these criteria from Scripture.

There should be an oh, snap emoji available here.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Exactly.
"John Wycliffe, can you translate the Bible into English for us?"
"No, it's not a time of reformation or revival."
"William Tyndale, can you translate the Bible into English for us?"
"No, it's not a time of reformation or revival."
"Miles Coverdale, can you translate the Bible into English for us?"
"No, it's not a time of reformation or revival."
"John Knox and other refugees in Geneva, can you translate the Bible into English for us?"
"No, it's not a time of reformation or revival."

I've never understood where one would gather these criteria from Scripture.

Those men all did live and do their work in times of reformation. Reformation winds were blowing long before Scotland and Westminster. The KJV, in God’s providence, was the final translation for those times and the one that stuck.

And again, this is not to say that work isn’t being done now on revision. Perhaps winds of reformation are blowing in certain quarters even now. Perhaps the time is coming for a revision or new translation of the TR “for the churches.”

 

[retroGRAD3]

Those men all did live and do their work in times of reformation. Reformation winds were blowing long before Scotland and Westminster. The KJV, in God’s providence, was the final translation for those times and the one that stuck.

And again, this is not to say that work isn’t being done now on revision. Perhaps winds of reformation are blowing in certain quarters even now. Perhaps the time is coming for a revision or new translation of the TR “for the churches.”

I have to continue and protest that this is a real standard or requirement. Unless you can point to a biblical requirement for this "reformation times" only, there is no way to define what these "reformation winds" actually are. Everyone and their dog could have their own opinion on this.