No. The motto is, "Reformed and always to be reformed." The passive is quite important. It means new reformation is not at the expense of past attainments, but is a more consistent carrying forward of them.
Revised ESV
- Thread starter larryjf
- Start date
- Status
No. The motto is, "Reformed and always to be reformed." The passive is quite important. It means new reformation is not at the expense of past attainments, but is a more consistent carrying forward of them.
The ESV wasn't "reformata" to begin with, but "deformata;" so there can be no "semper reformanda."
BlackCalvinist
Puritan Board Senior
*smh*
I'm truly convinced some of you just like to argue.
Use that energy wisely, get off of this message board, and tell someone about the gospel.
I'm truly convinced some of you just like to argue.
Use that energy wisely, get off of this message board, and tell someone about the gospel.
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
Those would be one and the same, I'm thinkin'...
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
Sure. Other translations also question it - but they also always include it, so the questioning can't be too serious.
Thankyou, Richard, for confirming the use of the AV in preaching the gospel. So at the end of the day it is the translators of the ESV who have shown a love for arguing, because they include footnotes "which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith."
Educate the public in the proper study of believing textual criticism; don't write short notes which give them the impression the words they read in their Bibles cannot be trusted.
Buy in bulk and distribute "The Divine Original" (http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/div-orig.asp) or some such pamphlet which teaches the Scriptures are the Word of God.
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
Is that what I said?
BlackCalvinist
Puritan Board Senior
The original 1611 has footnotes.
I have a reprint here.
Most KJV's currently in use are either 1859 or 1789 revisions of the text (7th and 8th revisions respectively, since 1611, if I'm remembering correctly).
[obvious sarcasm]Of course, with Mark 16:9-20 being questioned in most modern translations, our entire basis for the gospel will fall apart and we can no longer preach, so this is a wasted exercise.[/obvious sarcasm]
I have a reprint here.
Most KJV's currently in use are either 1859 or 1789 revisions of the text (7th and 8th revisions respectively, since 1611, if I'm remembering correctly).
[obvious sarcasm]Of course, with Mark 16:9-20 being questioned in most modern translations, our entire basis for the gospel will fall apart and we can no longer preach, so this is a wasted exercise.[/obvious sarcasm]
Exactly!
Contra Marcion
Puritan Board Freshman
Absolutely, assuming you're willing to answer the questions that may come up when congregants ask about the meaning of the footnotes........
There is nothing UNIQUE in the longer ending of Mark, that would incriminate you, should the autographa be proven to have actually ended with v. 8.
BTW, just to beat the dead horse all the way into pudding, it isn't the ESV that casts doubt on the longer ending of Mark, but rather the manuscript evidence itself. The ESV is just faithfully reporting the facts of this evidence, allowing the reader to make up his/her own mind.
There is nothing UNIQUE in the longer ending of Mark, that would incriminate you, should the autographa be proven to have actually ended with v. 8.
BTW, just to beat the dead horse all the way into pudding, it isn't the ESV that casts doubt on the longer ending of Mark, but rather the manuscript evidence itself. The ESV is just faithfully reporting the facts of this evidence, allowing the reader to make up his/her own mind.
Maybe I should have continued with the [obvious sarcasm] tags of my interlocutor. My contention is that he doesn't know what the gospel teaches if he accepts the last twelve verses of Mark are fraudulent. The debate cannot be so easily dismissed for the purpose of freeing up time to preach the gospel. It may be an academic whiz can be resolved by the platitudes of modern textual criticism, but anyone who has studied the subject in any depth sees that the modern state of text critical studies casts doubt upon the integrity of every ms. we possess. Recent works such as Misquoting Jesus reveal an increasing skepticism as to the possibility of discovering what the apostles actually wrote.
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Doctor
This is a link to a recent post on another thread where the last 12 verses of Mark are defended: http://www.puritanboard.com/showpost.php?p=263480&postcount=5
Steve
Steve
larryjf
Puritan Board Senior
Here's one of the revisions that i just came across because my pastor preached on it this morning. We have the unrevised ESV's in our pews so we read...
2 Cor 12:7
So to keep me from being too elated by the surpassing greatness of the revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to harass me, to keep me from being too elated.
I didn't like how that was translated, but then i got home and checked the revision and i liked it!...
Revised
So to keep me from becoming conceited because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to harass me, to keep me from becoming conceited.
2 Cor 12:7
So to keep me from being too elated by the surpassing greatness of the revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to harass me, to keep me from being too elated.
I didn't like how that was translated, but then i got home and checked the revision and i liked it!...
Revised
So to keep me from becoming conceited because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to harass me, to keep me from becoming conceited.
Thank you for this link Rev Winzer. I just read the article and found it very informative.
- Status
