If it involves a translator's view of the inspiration of Scripture, I would say it is material. On the other hand, I do not think God allowing rulers engaged in vile sin to promote the translation of Scripture is the same issue, though considering to what degree (if any) their involvement influenced the proceedings is fair game. For example, I would not trust the current translation allegedly being worked on with the support and approval of the CCP.
But why would the presence or absence of marginal notes be relevant for public reading? Many KJV have textual variants and alternate translations in the margins. So should people only bring bare texts to church to participate in public reading? Should they check their TBS westminster bibles at the door so they don't accidentally see the listed variants in the margin and start doubting? But why could they use them in private then? Also, is their minister never going to expound the text (part of which involves dealing with difficulties in the text itself)? None of this makes any sense to anyone except Sam Gipp and other KJV onlyists. I'm sorry, but this is just wild and out there stuff followed by none of our reformed fathers. I say this as a staunch defender of the received text.
Some would tell you they are the most serious thing ever. Most would tell you no. The man has no balance and terrible theology.
Not by those who wish to be taken seriously themselves.
They are world class literature, but outside of IFB circles no one takes them seriously
At first blush, I seriously thought it was for personal amusement but did not want to come across pejorative so I framed it as a question - glad to learn my first impression was somewhat accurate
I won't take the time to respond to all you've expressed as you haven't taken the time to read and/or understand what I've written above in this thread (for example, the distinction I've made between textual variants and alternate translations, or the role of a minister expounding the text).
As someone who has been involved in Bible translation for the CSB, I think I can answer your question. Translators don't get to write five pages of commentary as to why they chose the particular translation they did, as might be the case with a commentary. Footnotes are the only opportunity you get to provide alternatives, and most translators would like to provide a lot more notes than editors will allow. The editors are probably right; most people don't read footnotes, just as they don't read Bible introductions, where you carefully explain your methodology.
But I still do not understand including text critical notes in every Bible - perhaps in an edition aimed at scholars (but wouldn't they be consulting the original languages and not a translation?) or in a "study Bible" for those who accept the possibility of the original reading being found elsewhere, but what is the purpose of indicating "significant" textual variants for everyone else?
This is not a KJV issue, so I apologize if this line of questioning is considered off-topic, and I understand that variants exist, but what does having someone point them out do for my faith and comfort? Personally, it does not help me maintain my belief that "our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth [of Scripture], and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts" (from WCF 1.5). Has anyone experientially gained knowledge or comfort from having textual variants pointed out? I used translations with such notes for many years (and read every note, just like I read every footnote in every book I read - I'm one of those people...) and I cannot think of any time it benefitted my understanding of Scripture or growth in grace. I can think of times where it planted seed of doubt about the veracity of the text I was reading. Again, someone please explain to me the point and/or importance of including notes regarding variants in translations aimed at the largely non-scholarly populace simply wanting to read God's Word.
I am feeling your opinion here. Let me ask you if you think seminarians should study variants, and what good does it do (if it does) for them?
Good question. Unfortunately for me, it only raises more. If the OT (Hebrew and Septuigant) were settled in Christ's time, why would we keep looking for/examining new discoveries (as recently as 2021)? As for the NT, what are we still looking for? Is there a possibility of the existence of a new variant that could overturn a doctrinal position? If not, why do we keep bringing them in when they are discovered? Why do we accept the work of scholars who may not be professing Christians into the process of evaluating the legitimacy of these new discoveries? Why is it not limited to or at least vetted by the Church or, at the very least, a confessing parachurch or interdenominational organization? How does the acceptance and/or study of textual variants edify the Body? Consider Romans 14.9. Do these variants bring peace? Do they edify?
Why are the responses assuming the one reading this are biblically literate adults?
What exactly is he supposed to do with that?
But that's exactly the point, this depends entirely on your adopted TR theory being the correct one, that we know we have the perfectly preserved text in the TR and everything else is untrustworthy or corrupted and introduces needless doubt. But if you're wrong, and there's very strong evidence to suggest that you are, then you are the one creating doubt as people are forced to cling to an untenable theory that the TR is the perfectly preserved text, that modern translations are corrupted in some sense and ought not to be trusted, and therefore the good Christian should just stop asking questions as they're questioning the authority and trustworthiness of God's Word.
I get the difficulty of thinking someone has hidden information from you and feeling betrayed or belittled by that (I felt that way after being exposed to Reformed theology as something other than a bogeyman as a young adult). And I am not in favour of hiding the variants - I believe I made clear above I think a minister should address any that might significantly present a challenge. But how has acquiring the knowledge of the manuscript variants helped you grow in your faith? I'm not being sarcastic - I am genuinely curious. I grew up reading CT/MT versions as well as the KJV pew Bible. It was a congregation of 400-500 so there were a few KJV-onlyist types present which I could see early on as a child were a bit off. I cannot say the variant notes were profitable at all in any way. Notes saying there were more and/or older manuscripts that were slightly different were never helpful. Even as a child it never made sense to me the assumed logic that because a text was older it must be more authentic, or that democratic principles should be applied to textual criticism. Without knowing that the alternative texts that were in the majority weren't copied from a very old inaccurate copy (which can doubtfully ever be proven) why should I give them any credence?
But this, right here, is your issue; you are assuming that that is indeed what is taking place, that people are nefariously looking for more information to undermine our doctrines or change them.
Which is why all the evidence should be on the table to test whether his theory is actually true or not. So I ought to be taught that textual variants exist, and if you're a TR advocate then it's up to you to demonstrate why the TR is the perfectly preserved text and deal with the variants. So far, I've seen very little good scholarly work from the TR side doing this. Which tells me their case isn't particularly good.
To cut a long story short, I was raised fairly nominally Christian, then doubted most of it, then when coming back to church I adopted full fundamentalism (TR only, YEC only and all else is heresy, etc) probably to convince myself that this is what I needed to give myself greater confidence in Scripture and Christianity. However, when I actually engaged with the evidence properly and fairly, I realised that this was untenable. Now, I could either cling to a narrative that I didn't actually believe and pretend that's real faith, or accept that there were serious objections to certain beliefs I held.
Actually, more importantly I should say that I don't think we are revising any Reformed doctrines in this case. I genuinely don't believe the Westminster divines held the theory of preservation that is being advanced by the TR-onlyists.
Can you provide an example?
CT/MT proponents are constantly saying "none of the variants discovered effect any major doctrines." Are you saying you think it is probable that we will someday find a variant reading that will cause us to change doctrine?
