Slightly Imperfect Bibles?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi Logan,

You can take your pick of these sources re Paulus Bombasius and his correspondence with Erasmus from various places, it being common knowledge.

You are surely entitled to your view of God's providential preservation of His word, especially as you have considered this matter for some time. But it comes down to this: there are essentially two lines of textual transmission of that text, the Critical Text and the TR. Yes, the TR has some fine points at variance in the general TR mss, if we may refer to them in that manner.

There are so many battles pertaining to the 1 John 5:7 passage; here's a now rare book on that topic from my Google Drive: Michael Maynard's, A History Of The Debate Over 1 John 5.7-8 free for the taking; Mr. Maynard died young (fairly recently) – and it's a shame he's not around to speak to this matter. But he did leave his witness.

The translators of the Reformation's AV (and the Geneva 1599) considered it genuine, as did the Westminster divines to use it in their Scripture proofs. The Johannine Comma was cited a proof text for the Trinity in the following confessions and catechisms:



* Westminster Confession of Faith 1646 2.3

* Westminster Larger Catechism Q&A 6
* Westminster Shorter Catechism Q&A 6
* The London Baptist Confession of 1689 2:3

* The Belgic Confession of 1561, Article 9 quotes the passage: “There are three who bear witness in heaven– the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit– and these three are one.”

* The Heidelberg Catechism of 1563, Lord’s Day 8, Q&A 25, footnote 5

I'll side with these witnesses over the modern ones who differ.
 
Steve, I am curious as to why you feel the need to set the TR over against the CT as if they were somehow opposed to each other. They agree with each other in FAR more places than they differ, and it is not even close. This sort of gets at one of my biggest objections to the TR position: it sets one group of manuscripts over in opposition to another set of manuscripts. This has the effect of implying that the "CT manuscripts" shouldn't even be used at all for textual criticism, as if utilizing Sinaiticus and Vaticanus for any reason in textual criticism is somehow a betrayal of God's Word. Speaking as someone who values ALL the manuscript evidence and doesn't believe ANY of it should be thrown out or ignored, I value the Byzantine texts far more highly than most CT guys do. The TR position almost universally exaggerates the differences between the TR and the CT. This is not helpful.
 
You can take your pick of these sources re Paulus Bombasius and his correspondence with Erasmus from various places, it being common knowledge.

Thanks Steve, but I want to know if there is a specific proof of an intentional rejection. This "common knowledge" all seems to stem from major assumptions over silence.

For example, the search you linked to gives me the textus-receptus.com page which states:
"[Bombasius] offered to make the entire document available to Erasmus for use in his latest edition of the TR. However, Erasmus rejected the readings of the Vatican manuscript because he considered from the massive evidence of his day that the Textus Receptus data was correct."

Okay, what's his source to say that Erasmus rejected the readings? Thankfully, this page links to Jones' paper, which cites from Vincent and Scrivener. Vincent's A History of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, which can be found online but it merely states, p 53:
"Erasmus also refers in his notes to other manuscripts seen by him in his travels, but the allusions are indistinct, and some of the readings are not to be found. That he had heard of B, appears from Sepulveda's correspondence with him in 1533. Sepulveda speaks of a "most ancient Greek exemplar in the Vatican Library, containing both Testaments, most carefully and accurately written in uncial characters, and differing greatly from ordinary copies."

Well that doesn't prove whatever Jones was trying to prove about Erasmus rejecting the readings, all we can gather is that Erasmus was told about some copy of Greek in the Vatican Library. So what about Jones' other source, Scrivener? We find in Scrivener A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, p 109
"Tischendorf says truly enough that something like a history might be written of the futile attempts to collate Cod. B, and a very unprofitable history it would be. The manuscript is first distinctly heard of (for it does not appear to have been used for the Complutensian Polyglott) through Sepulveda, to whose correspondence with Erasmus attention has been seasonably recalled by Tregelles...and after noticing as a weighty proof of excellence its agreement with the Latin version...against the common Greek text...he furnishes Erasmus with 365 readings as a convincing argument in support of his statements. It would probably be from this list that in his Annotations to the Acts, published in 1535, Erasmus cites the reading kanda, ch. xxvii. 16 ('quidam admonent' is the expression he uses), from a Greek codex in the Pontifical Library, since for this reading Cod. B is the only known Greek witness, except a corrector of Cod. Aleph. It seems, however, that he had obtained some account of this manuscript from the Papal Librarian Paul Bombasius as early as 1521...Lucas Brugensis, who published his Notationes in S. Biblia in 1580, and his Commentary on the Four Gospels (dedicated to CArdinal Bellarmine) in 1606, made known some twenty extracts from Cod. B taken by Werner of Nimeguen; that most imperfect collection being the only source from which Mill and even Wetstein had any acquaintaince with the contents of this first-rate document. More indeed might have been gleaned from the Barberini readings gathered in or about 1625 (of which we shall speak in the next section) but their real value and character were not known in the lifetime of Wetstein...In 1669 indeed the first real collation of the manuscript with the Aldine edition (1518) had been attempted by Bartolocia, then Librarian of the Vatican; from some accident, however, it was never published, though a transcript...was first discovered and used by Scholz in 1819, and subsequently by Tichendorf and Muralt."

This is so far from proving Jones' statement, it actually undermines it: Erasmus apparently did use at least one reading in his Annotations to the Acts which is known only to Cod. B. This doesn't at all prove he rejected it, but actually considered it as having some use. And Scrivener's account also undermines the claim that the Westminster Divines or KJV translators would have known (and rejected) its readings, because knowledge of the document is so obscure and unknown...

I find these arguments usually become "common knowledge" because someone somewhere along the line noticed a lack of certain readings, and then leapt to the assumption that it was because of a positive rejection, rather than a passive "didn't include" (for whatever reason unknown). The only proof of this claim that I would find convincing would be Erasmus saying "I will not include these readings because..." or the Westminster Divines or KJV Translators specifically making mention of it. An argument from silence is not proof at all. It's an assumption, and a biased one.

Maybe Erasmus knew and rejected it. But unless he said so, we can't know. And evidence might actually lean the other way. Certainly the evidence seems to be that almost nobody else would have even known about it to even have the opportunity to reject it.
 
Let me see if I can put it more succinctly:

The argument I see on this goes like this:
"Sepulveda and/or Bombasius told Erasmus (in Basel, Switzerland) that there was an ancient Greek manuscript in the Vatican Library (Rome, Italy) some 600 miles away Even sent some readings showing how it agreed with the Latin Vulgate. Erasmus didn't use this manuscript in his compilation, therefore he must have rejected it as spurious and corrupt."

Or maybe traveling 600 miles wasn't feasible. Or maybe Erasmus was being a good scholar and not trusting someone else's word in a letter as to what the readings said, but only would believe the manuscripts sitting in front of him. I just don't find the above argument proof. It's speculation unless Erasmus says something about it.
 
Hi Lane,

In response to your saying in post #32, "I am curious as to why you feel the need to set the TR over against the CT as if they were somehow opposed to each other", I think you overlook the nuance of my view, as I said (and please note the words in bold, which I've added here), "I nonetheless value the modern versions built upon the CT as truly adequate Bibles – preserved in the main, if not in some minutiae – and easily used by the Lord to save and to nurture those individuals and churches He has set His electing love upon. I consult those modern versions almost every day to glean nuances and shades of meaning as they variously translate certain passages, to my great benefit."

For there are two aspects to my view of the CT vis-à-vis the TR (and the Byz): on the one hand there are significant variant readings in the CT which depart from the older traditional text, which enemies of the Bible such as Bart Ehrman see as the soft underbelly of the "better, newer" Bibles to be attacked with lethal effectiveness. These enemies say that if God did not care to preserve His word in the minutiae, why should we even think He inspired them in the first place? (Ehrman has a different way to attack the older Bibles.)

Plus there is a scandalous history involved in the 1881 revision of both the Greek and English versions.

But even so, I state that – in the main – the preservation is truly adequate for God's use. Please, don't only focus on the issue of minutiae over that of in the main. I may well highlight one over the other when talking of the different aspects, but I try to balance them together – as I do when teaching on textual criticism, so as not to cause a rift between the users of different Bibles. The unity of the church is of great importance to me. And talking of "bad variants" is much easier to discuss than "bad Bibles" – which latter divides the church. I do try to be balanced in this.

But we must – at the same time – have academic freedom to discuss the weighty issues involved in all their aspects.
 
Last edited:
As to the argument of purity, it is a question of degree. There are variants among ALL the TR/MT manuscripts, as many as Christian alleges are between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. I have a larger definition of "pure" than the TR/MT guys have. There are degrees of purity, yes, but the Scripture has been kept pure in all ages, in some ages very pure, and in some ages, a bit less pure, but still with integrity.
I grew up in a KJV only home and I really struggled over the issue of textual variances. I struggled to reconcile this with the inerrancy and verbal plenary inspiration of the Scriptures.

In particular I struggled with the idea of variances in the text and the teaching of 2 Tim 3:15 "All Scripture is breathed out by God" (ESV). After all if all scripture is breathed out by God Himself, it would seem we have a perfect text as God Himself is perfect. I have often reflected on Calvin's powerful words in his Institutes 1:9 on the relationship between the word and Spirit. Calvin says: “By a kind of mutual bond the Lord has joined together the certainty of His word and of His Spirit so that the perfect religion of the word may abide in our minds when the Spirit, who causes us to contemplate God’s face, shines; and that we in turn may embrace the Spirit with no fear of being deceived when we recognise Him in His own image, namely, in the word.” (Institutes 1:9:3) In other words if there is an inextricable link between word and Spirit should we not expect the text of scripture to be pure as the Spirit Himself is pure?

The modern day Received Text Confessional text position seeks to grapple with this problem. I did note, for example, when James White debated Jeffrey Riddle on Eph 3:9, White said Riddle opened the door to skepticism because Riddle ignored the multitude of Byzantine manuscripts to defend a KJV reading which has very little mss support. I am sure White is correct. But surely Riddle can say White also has a problem because the critical text scholar has a text that is changing as we find new mss and/or change our text method (such as adopting the coherence-based genealogical method). Riddle would say there is a disconnect between a changing text and the inerrancy and verbal plenary inspiration of the Scriptures. Again, the scriptures are breathed out by God, who is pure.

I am aware of the various attempts to solve this problem. I am unsure if the problem is fully solved. The closest I have come is to see this as a difficult providence in the sense of Deut 29:29 "The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever".
Thomas, I seriously doubt that we are going to discover some new cache of manuscripts that is going to upend our entire apparatus of textual criticism.
I am sure you are correct, but it is a faith position.
 
I grew up in a KJV only home and I really struggled over the issue of textual variances. I struggled to reconcile this with the inerrancy and verbal plenary inspiration of the Scriptures.

In particular I struggled with the idea of variances in the text and the teaching of 2 Tim 3:15 "All Scripture is breathed out by God" (ESV). After all if all scripture is breathed out by God Himself, it would seem we have a perfect text as God Himself is perfect. I have often reflected on Calvin's powerful words in his Institutes 1:9 on the relationship between the word and Spirit. Calvin says: “By a kind of mutual bond the Lord has joined together the certainty of His word and of His Spirit so that the perfect religion of the word may abide in our minds when the Spirit, who causes us to contemplate God’s face, shines; and that we in turn may embrace the Spirit with no fear of being deceived when we recognise Him in His own image, namely, in the word.” (Institutes 1:9:3) In other words if there is an inextricable link between word and Spirit should we not expect the text of scripture to be pure as the Spirit Himself is pure?

The modern day Received Text Confessional text position seeks to grapple with this problem. I did note, for example, when James White debated Jeffrey Riddle on Eph 3:9, White said Riddle opened the door to skepticism because Riddle ignored the multitude of Byzantine manuscripts to defend a KJV reading which has very little mss support. I am sure White is correct. But surely Riddle can say White also has a problem because the critical text scholar has a text that is changing as we find new mss and/or change our text method (such as adopting the coherence-based genealogical method). Riddle would say there is a disconnect between a changing text and the inerrancy and verbal plenary inspiration of the Scriptures. Again, the scriptures are breathed out by God, who is pure.

I am aware of the various attempts to solve this problem. I am unsure if the problem is fully solved. The closest I have come is to see this as a difficult providence in the sense of Deut 29:29 "The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever".

I am sure you are correct, but it is a faith position.

Once we reject the TR/KJV position, I think we avoid a crisis of faith by re-evaluating our understanding of how our holy, holy, holy God has chosen to interact with His fallen creation. The TR position is incongruent with everything else we know about the mode of God's special revelation. Unlike the false god of Mormonism, the real God did not dictate the text or give it to us on levitating gold plates. He could have, right? But He didn't. We all know this -- but if the failure of the TR position causes us issues with our doctrine of God, I think it means we haven't fully thought through the issues of inspiration and providential preservation of Scripture.

One practical consideration that I sometimes entertain in my own reflections upon this issue is that I try to imagine what it would be like to have the singular autograph of the Scriptures extant to us today. Imagine the abuse that this might cause in the hands of fallen humans -- attempts to destroy or pervert the text, claims of alteration, actual alterations and attempts to use those alterations to pervert the church. Yes, God could supernaturally protect that autograph, but this type of constant supernatural activity is clearly incongruent with how we understand the primacy and focus of God's revelation in His Word in these post-apostolic times. So, instead, we have an amazing and overwhelming collection of manuscripts, despite the fires, wars and strife over the centuries. When we compare the manuscript evidence of the Scriptures to any other ancient book, the sheer volume is remarkable and is, I believe, a clear marker of divine preservation. The decentralization of the manuscripts is a masterpiece of preservation through the ages, in the face of a Gospel that man naturally resists and obscures. Not even the Roman Catholic Church was ultimately powerful enough to obscure the plain meaning of the text.
 
Once we reject the TR/KJV position, I think we avoid a crisis of faith by re-evaluating our understanding of how our holy, holy, holy God has chosen to interact with His fallen creation. The TR position is incongruent with everything else we know about the mode of God's special revelation. Unlike the false god of Mormonism, the real God did not dictate the text or give it to us on levitating gold plates. He could have, right? But He didn't. We all know this -- but if the failure of the TR position causes us issues with our doctrine of God, I think it means we haven't fully thought through the issues of inspiration and providential preservation of Scripture.
This is a fairly gross misrepresentation of what the "TR position" actually holds.
 
I grew up in a KJV only home and I really struggled over the issue of textual variances. I struggled to reconcile this with the inerrancy and verbal plenary inspiration of the Scriptures.

In particular I struggled with the idea of variances in the text and the teaching of 2 Tim 3:15 "All Scripture is breathed out by God" (ESV). After all if all scripture is breathed out by God Himself, it would seem we have a perfect text as God Himself is perfect. I have often reflected on Calvin's powerful words in his Institutes 1:9 on the relationship between the word and Spirit. Calvin says: “By a kind of mutual bond the Lord has joined together the certainty of His word and of His Spirit so that the perfect religion of the word may abide in our minds when the Spirit, who causes us to contemplate God’s face, shines; and that we in turn may embrace the Spirit with no fear of being deceived when we recognise Him in His own image, namely, in the word.” (Institutes 1:9:3) In other words if there is an inextricable link between word and Spirit should we not expect the text of scripture to be pure as the Spirit Himself is pure?

The modern day Received Text Confessional text position seeks to grapple with this problem. I did note, for example, when James White debated Jeffrey Riddle on Eph 3:9, White said Riddle opened the door to skepticism because Riddle ignored the multitude of Byzantine manuscripts to defend a KJV reading which has very little mss support. I am sure White is correct. But surely Riddle can say White also has a problem because the critical text scholar has a text that is changing as we find new mss and/or change our text method (such as adopting the coherence-based genealogical method). Riddle would say there is a disconnect between a changing text and the inerrancy and verbal plenary inspiration of the Scriptures. Again, the scriptures are breathed out by God, who is pure.

I am aware of the various attempts to solve this problem. I am unsure if the problem is fully solved. The closest I have come is to see this as a difficult providence in the sense of Deut 29:29 "The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever".

I am sure you are correct, but it is a faith position.
Every position on textual criticism has difficulties. I have pointed out a few with the TR position. The one you mention is a difficulty with the CT position. Although, I would qualify this by asserting that a "changing" text is not a problem only for the CT position. The text "changed" during the process of producing the TR as well. The text "changed" every time a new manuscript was copied that was not absolutely the same as the Vorlage. Within the changes and all the manuscripts, however, the original reading remains secure and unchanging. It is there. And it is the original reading that connects to inerrancy and verbal plenary inspiration of the Scriptures. So the thread goes like this. 1. The original autographs are breathed out by God into the prophets and apostles and written down by concursus (God's power working through the personalities of the writers, in such a way that there is a dual authorship of such a kind that God's very words are recorded). 2. The original autographs are copied imperfectly, but in such quantities that the original reading is always still there in the copies. The original reading is in various places depending on the variation discussed. 3. We can discern what that is to a very high degree of completion. 4. Although our discernment may change, and the face of the evidence might slightly alter, that does not change the original reading at all.
 
I didn't expect this to be received well by TR advocates.
Indeed, being compared to Mormons, even if only by implication, would bother any Christian, not just “TR advocates.” I don’t think your comment furthers this discussion.

For myself, I am still frankly undecided on the issue. I find myself stuck somewhere in the middle. I am very pleased and find myself in essentially total agreement with the comments made thus far by @Logan and @greenbaggins. I understand and sympathize with both positions on different points.
 
For myself, I am still frankly undecided on the issue. I find myself stuck somewhere in the middle.

Being in the middle isn't necessarily bad :)
Textual history, textual transmission, and textual criticism are prone with human error and subjectivity. Thankfully---in God's providence---to an extremely small degree. I'd love for it to be different, but honesty recognizes it's not clear cut...at least when you look at historical evidence.

I see a providential purpose in the preservation of all manuscripts, but what the purpose is might not be so easy to discern in all cases. To claim to be certain seems to me to be more presumption than faith or knowledge but I recognize and sympathize with the desire.
 
I can understand scholars in the church continuing to look at manuscripts, and even forming opinions and having private debate as individuals. What doesn't seem good to me is the individualistic publishing of alternate versions of the Bible than what we received from the Reformation, which leave out portions of Scripture from that Bible, casting doubt not only on those passages but potentially many more. Ought it not to have waited for a called and proper church council, in a prayed-for time of outpouring of prayer and reformation, with concern for the unity of the church and the mind of God on the matter?
 
I can understand scholars in the church continuing to look at manuscripts, and even forming opinions and having private debate as individuals. What doesn't seem good to me is the individualistic publishing of alternate versions of the Bible than what we received from the Reformation, which leave out portions of Scripture from that Bible, casting doubt not only on those passages but potentially many more. Ought it not to have waited for a called and proper church council, in a prayed-for time of outpouring of prayer and reformation, with concern for the unity of the church and the mind of God on the matter?
I think this is a very valid concern. I have said to many people that I wish Reformed church bodies (OPC, RPCNA, ARP, etc.) would group together to produce such a work. At the same time, it also seems unfair to assume that the work of current translations was done individualistically and prayerlessly. The vast majority of modern translations were in fact not done individualistically, but in quite large groups (some of which are more than 100 scholars). And these committees all seem to be comprised of prayerful, godly, and pious people, as far as we know.

But this brings up an important question I have. How was the assembly of men who translated the AV any different than, say, the assembly of men who translated the ESV? As far as I know, the AV was not the result of a called Church council, but was rather a group of churchmen called by a king. This is a sincere (i.e., not a polemical) question, because I have seen the claim numerous times that the AV was "the work of the Church."
 
Last edited:
I think it should be borne in mind too that the translation committees for the various translations today don't just slavishly follow the CT. In fact, what we call the CT isn't so much a text as an apparatus that tries to show the weight for any given reading. So the translation committees can (and do) evaluate individual readings. There can certainly be a bias toward and against certain weighting of evidence but I think it's theoretically possible to use that CT apparatus and translate it into the KJV.

This indicates to me that the vast majority of translators do think the weight of evidence goes against the TR in many instances. That doesn't necessarily mean they are right and one could argue that it's merely because of their education, but these are intelligent, gifted individuals who are also evaluating the evidence presented to them. So the responsibility is certainly shared by translation committees.

Again, I sympathize with arguments on both side. Actually I find Maurice Robinson's approach with the Byzantine Priority most persuasive (and his critiques of both the TR and CT) but Taylor and I might be the only two people in the world who feel that way ;)
 
I think this is a very valid concern. I have said to many people that I wish Reformed church bodies (OPC, RPCNA, ARP, etc.) would group together to produce such a work. At the same time, it also seems unfair to assume that the work of current translations was done individualistically and prayerlessly. The vast majority of modern translations were in fact not done individualistically, but in quite large groups (some of which are more than 100 scholars). And these committees all seem to be comprised of prayerful, godly, and pious people, as far as we know.

But this brings up an important question I have. How was the assembly of men who translated the AV any different than, say, the assembly of men who translated the ESV? As far as I know, the AV was not the result of a called Church council, but was rather a group of churchmen called by a king. This is a sincere (i.e., not a polemical) question, because I have seen the claim numerous times that the AV was "the work of the Church."
My thinking is that even though the work of modern translations was undertaken by large groups, and I'm sure prayerfully, it's still individualistic compared to an ecclesiastical undertaking? Individualistic may not be the right word. Private may be better?

My understanding is that the king did call together a church council in calling together the AV assembly. Isn't it very similar to Parliament calling together the Westminster council?
 
My understanding is that the king did call together a church council in calling together the AV assembly. Isn't it very similar to Parliament calling together the Westminster council?
Thanks for clarifying. So, suppose President Bush (who was president during the ESV committee's initial work) called the ESV committee together, instead of Crossway. All other things being equal, would that have legitimized the ESV as the "new" AV? Again, this isn't polemics. I am really trying to understand the difference.
 
Thanks for clarifying. So, suppose President Bush (who was president during the ESV committee's initial work) called the ESV committee together, instead of Crossway. All other things being equal, would that have legitimized the ESV as the "new" AV? Again, this isn't polemics. I am really trying to understand the difference.
The analogy would have been President Bush calling together a committee to produce the most faithful English Bible from the most reliable manuscripts, I suppose. I don't know if that would have been the ESV committee, or from a wider pool. But what if churchmen steeped in our confession and church history and walking in the path of the Puritans knew that these aren't the times, nor is the church in the right state to be undertaking such a work...
Thankful that didn't happen. :)
 
The analogy would have been President Bush calling together a committee to produce the most faithful English Bible from the most reliable manuscripts, I suppose. I don't know if that would have been the ESV committee, or from a wider pool. But what if churchmen steeped in our confession and church history and walking in the path of the Puritans knew that these aren't the times, nor is the church in the right state to be undertaking such a work...
Thankful that didn't happen.
I think I can understand, but it still doesn't help me in determining how the two were actually different.
 
I think I can understand, but it still doesn't help me in determining how the two were actually different.
I guess they're not different in the sense you mean, that a magistrate can call together a group of Christian leaders... But consider that you could ask the same question about the council of Nicaea (what if the council had been called by a different emperor, etc). God in his providence had it called when it was. God governs the calling together of faithful church councils, and the faithful church discerns that it's him calling and sees the need and is prepared by him providentially to be ready for this time and season of settling important issues.
 
I struggle to articulate. but it has to do with extraordianary times in which God is doing something very outward and public in the visible church in the way of reformation. Momentous times and occasions, pivotal times. That are huge for the outward, visible and invisible unity of the church. Such as a common confession of faith and the settling on a common bible (and psalter).
 
My understanding is that the king did call together a church council in calling together the AV assembly. Isn't it very similar to Parliament calling together the Westminster council?

While the committees did fine work, I'm not sure they were exactly a church council. They were all scholars and all were members of the Church of England (probably most everyone was at that time).

So if you mean "Established Church" then maybe. But it certainly didn't include the Puritans or those outside the Church of England. Actually, steps were taken to limit Puritan influence. The Puritans favored the Geneva Bible, which King James found offensive. This was his "Authorized Version" as opposed to the unauthorized Geneva Bible. The printing of the Geneva Bible was actually banned by King James after his edition was published. To get around this, some printers kept printing illegal copies, but with the date 1599 to make it seem like they were earlier editions.

I can admire the KJV, but I don't particularly find its history or the circumstances surrounding it all that rosy as though it was a glorious age of universal church council cooperation and godly men. I actually believe it was admirable in spite of its circumstances, not because of them.
 
...consider that you could ask the same question about the council of Nicaea (what if the council had been called by a different emperor, etc). God in his providence had it called when it was. God governs the calling together of faithful church councils, and the faithful church discerns that it's him calling and sees the need and is prepared by him providentially to be ready for this time and season of settling important issues.
I struggle to articulate. but it has to do with extraordianary times in which God is doing something very outward and public in the visible church in the way of reformation. Momentous times and occasions, pivotal times. That are huge for the outward, visible and invisible unity of the church. Such as a common confession of faith and the settling on a common bible (and psalter).
I can appreciate all this. I really can. But, again, I don't see the difference yet, unfortunately (aside from who called the assembly). God's providence was just as much over the Council of Nicaea and the AV as he was over the organization of the ESV committee by Wayne Grudem and Lane Dennis. Sure, the former were perhaps more extraordinary (Nicaea especially so), but we don't judge truth from outward glory. There have been many crucial and wondrous works of God that have happened without the notice of any other human eye, things about which we will all surely learn one day in glory. Such does not make them insignificant.

Again, I say all this as one who is deeply sympathetic to your position. This has just been a matter of struggle for me, and I want closure, so I am somewhat sensitive to arguments that don't seem too strong to me.
 
God's providence was just as much over the Council of Nicaea and the AV as he was over the organization of the ESV committee by Wayne Grudem and Lane Dennis.
Yes, his providence is over everything. But the outcome of the Council of Nicaea was discerned and recognized by the true church as authoritative to the church, whereas the work of the ESV committee isn't. Why?
 
... a committee to produce the most faithful English Bible from the most reliable manuscripts, I suppose.

To be completely fair, this doesn't exactly describe the situation with the AV/KJV either. King James gave the translators some instructions on exactly how they were supposed to translate certain things.
 
...the outcome of the Council of Nicaea was discerned and recognized by the true church as authoritative to the church, whereas the work of the ESV committee isn't.
Of course it wasn't. Was the AV recognized in the same way as the Nicene Creed? I feel the comparison of the AV committees to Nicaea is unhelpful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top