That Time of Year Again - What's Your Favorite Translation

[YeshuaFan]

NKJV/ESV. I especially like the NKJV for including the alternate reading options in the notes.

I've grown increasingly annoyed with the ESV being more like a software version than a fixed text that then gets a full update 30-40 years or more later. For that same reason + the full set of 2nd person pronoun forms that the older English uses, I also appreciate the arguments for using the KJV.

The esv did back in 2016/17 state that they plan to have a "fixed" text, like the NKJV, but then decided to keep on updating it
[automerge]1769012694[/automerge]

I Use the NKJV as my main text although I take my ESV to church.

I am looking at the Berean Standard Bible as a serious option. I am still researching this, but I like its balance between a literal translation and a dynamic equivalent translation. It appears to be similar to the CSB but closer to the Tyndale tradition. More specifically as someone who likes the Byzantine Text, I am interested in the Majority Standard Bible. The OT text is the same as the Berean Standard Bible, but it uses the Byzantine Priority Text in the NT.

Isn't the World bible based upon the Majority text?

 

[iainduguid]

I've grown increasingly annoyed with the ESV being more like a software version than a fixed text that then gets a full update 30-40 years or more later. For that same reason + the full set of 2nd person pronoun forms that the older English uses, I also appreciate the arguments for using the KJV.

I understand and and sympathetic with the desire for a fixed text, but think about what you are saying: "I would rather have a wrong translation that stays the same, than a translation that fixes mistakes and becomes more accurate over time". The KJV itself went through a number of changes before it became fixed, and there are still plenty of places where it is wrong. People don't change translations just for the fun of it, but because they notice small discrepancies that would improve consistency or accuracy. As part of the CSB Oversight committee, it's my job to evaluate places where we could do better, for future updates. I also regularly send suggestions for changes to Crossway for the ESV, because I would rather have a Bible that is as near to a perfect translation of the Hebrew as I can make it than shrug my shoulders and say, "Oh well, it is the law of the Medes and the Persians that cannot be changed".

 

[Andres]

I understand and and sympathetic with the desire for a fixed text, but think about what you are saying: "I would rather have a wrong translation that stays the same, than a translation that fixes mistakes and becomes more accurate over time". The KJV itself went through a number of changes before it became fixed, and there are still plenty of places where it is wrong.

VIII. 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;(r) so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.(s) But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them,(t) therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,(u) that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner;(w) and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.(x)
(r) Matt. 5:18.
(s) Isa. 8:20; Acts 15:15; John 5:39, 46.
(t) John 5:39.
(u) I Cor. 14:6, 9, 11, 12, 24, 27, 28.
(w) Col. 3:16.
(x) Rom. 15:4.

Do you and others who hold your views take exception to WCF I.8 above? Would you expect men taking licensure exams to state an exception here if they believed the AV to be a faithful translation?

 

[iainduguid]

VIII. 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;(r) so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.(s) But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them,(t) therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,(u) that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner;(w) and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.(x)
(r) Matt. 5:18.
(s) Isa. 8:20; Acts 15:15; John 5:39, 46.
(t) John 5:39.
(u) I Cor. 14:6, 9, 11, 12, 24, 27, 28.
(w) Col. 3:16.
(x) Rom. 15:4.

Do you and others who hold your views take exception to WCF I.8 above? Would you expect men taking licensure exams to state an exception here if they believed the AV to be a faithful translation?

No. Do you hold the KJV to be a perfect translation, without flaw in every translation choice that it adopts? If so, you have no need for the Greek and Hebrew. There is no perfect translation, as I'm sure you would agree. Like churches, translations may be more or less faithful to the original languages, but we are blessed to have many translations that are faithful to the point where we can say "This is the Word of God", even though we confess that no English translation is our ultimate standard by which controversies of religion may be settled. You don't need to take an exception to say that the KJV or ESV or CSB is a faithful translation. You would have to if you want to say that the KJV is a perfect translation.

 

[Andres]

No you're correct I affirm the original languages are the inerrant Word of God, but I guess I am not clear what you mean to say the KJV is the wrong translation compared to the ESV that fixes mistakes and becomes more accurate over time. So an example would be to ask a man on the floor of Presbytery exams, "Is the longer ending of Mark found in the KJV the inspired word of God - yes or no?" My understanding is proponents of the ESV would say no, it is not. I find that to go against the portion of the confession I quoted. Doesn't rejecting the longer ending of Mark's gospel essentially state the Reformers had a "wrong" translation in the AV? Or how would you view that?

 

[iainduguid]

No you're correct I affirm the original languages are the inerrant Word of God, but I guess I am not clear what you mean to say the KJV is the wrong translation compared to the ESV that fixes mistakes and becomes more accurate over time. So an example would be to ask a man on the floor of Presbytery exams, "Is the longer ending of Mark found in the KJV the inspired word of God - yes or no?" My understanding is proponents of the ESV would say no, it is not. I find that to go against the portion of the confession I quoted. Doesn't rejecting the longer ending of Mark's gospel essentially state the Reformers had a "wrong" translation in the AV? Or how would you view that?

I am not particularly critiquing the KJV and promoting the ESV; both are faithful translations. I am merely making the point, with which you seemingly agree, that neither is perfect and therefore there could be disadvantages as well as advantages with having a fixed text. A fixed text means that a Bible translation's errors cannot be corrected.

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

I prefer the KJV or ASV. The only advantage I see to the ESV over the ASV is that it gets rid of the "thees and thous." Translationally it's not an improvement whatsoever.

 

[Andres]

I am not particularly critiquing the KJV and promoting the ESV; both are faithful translations.

See I don't understand this either because how can they both be faithful translations if they are different translations? I don't mean different word choice for one particular Greek word or something like that but instead the ESV says the longer ending of Mark isn't the inspired Word of God, right? Have I been missing something all this time? So if the KJV includes the longer ending and the longer ending isn't the inspired word of God, then how is the KJV still a faithful translation? Sorry for my obtuseness but it is certainly not intentional.

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

See I don't understand this either because how can they both be faithful translations if they are different translations? I don't mean different word choice for one particular Greek word or something like that but instead the ESV says the longer ending of Mark isn't the inspired Word of God, right? Have I been missing something all this time? So if the KJV includes the longer ending and the longer ending isn't the inspired word of God, then how is the KJV still a faithful translation? Sorry for my obtuseness but it is certainly not intentional.

Well they obviously can't both be faithful in those 12 verses. They could both be sound in the other 31,090 verses of the bible, though.

I think Jason would actually agree with you in terms of preferring the TR / Byzantine text / majority text or something along those lines.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

What about the net Bible, or the World Bible?

Don't know much about the Net Bible. Never heard of the World Bible.

 

[iainduguid]

See I don't understand this either because how can they both be faithful translations if they are different translations? I don't mean different word choice for one particular Greek word or something like that but instead the ESV says the longer ending of Mark isn't the inspired Word of God, right? Have I been missing something all this time? So if the KJV includes the longer ending and the longer ending isn't the inspired word of God, then how is the KJV still a faithful translation? Sorry for my obtuseness but it is certainly not intentional.

Well, to be fair the ESV does not say "the longer ending of Mark isn't the inspired Word of God"; it says, "Some of the earliest manuscripts to not include 16:9-20", which is an incontrovertibly true statement. You are making my point for me, however. If the ESV were to declare its text fixed, there would no longer be the possibility (however remote) of them changing their minds on that issue. In the same way, the mistakes in the KJV are now baked into the text and cannot be fixed. They don't make the text an unfaithful translation, though, because all translations contain errors.

 

[MW]

Could you update your translation once a year the way that the computer is continually putting patches on its operating system? I suppose you could, theoretically. When my computer continually puts patches on the OS there are programs that are adversely affected, and some of them have even stopped working. I then have to start again and reinstall the programs. And even then some programs will not work if the developer hasn't created a patch for them. The Scriptures are designed to be the rule of faith and life. If you keep updating them there will be no true settlement in doctrine and ethics. And unlike the computer you can't just throw it away and buy a new one to make everything brand new. We listen to the Scriptures for the eternal salvation of our souls. And it is a renewing process. We are renewed, not the Scriptures.

The people doing the updating of our translations are not what you would call conservative confessional Christians. The majority don't subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith, and even among subscribers we know there are different levels of subscription. Who holds to the "whole doctrine" of the Confession? How can you hold to the whole doctrine when your translation of Scripture overtly rejects specific Scriptural reflections that are part of the text and teaching of the Westminster Confession? People who are for updating the Bible should be updating their Confession to follow the new understanding they have adopted. But they don't do this. Instead we all have to deal with cognitive dissonance that is created from the Scriptures saying one thing and the Confession saying another.

 

[TheInquirer]

The people doing the updating of our translations are not what you would call conservative confessional Christians. The majority don't subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith, and even among subscribers we know there are different levels of subscription. Who holds to the "whole doctrine" of the Confession? How can you hold to the whole doctrine when your translation of Scripture overtly rejects specific Scriptural reflections that are part of the text and teaching of the Westminster Confession? People who are for updating the Bible should be updating their Confession to follow the new understanding they have adopted. But they don't do this. Instead we all have to deal with cognitive dissonance that is created from the Scriptures saying one thing and the Confession saying another.

I find it quite amusing when some here claim strict subscription to the WCF, make all kinds of arguments based upon it, and in reality hold to the American revision.

 

[Northern Crofter]

I find it quite amusing when some here claim strict subscription to the WCF, make all kinds of arguments based upon it, and in reality hold to the American revision.

I find it amusing that you think someone in Australia holds to the American revision.

And, though I am in an American denomination but subscribe to the original WCF, I am also fine with folks claiming to be strict subscriptioinists to the American revision if that is what their American denomination holds to. Why is that amusing?

 

[TheInquirer]

I find it amusing that you think someone in Australia holds to the American revision.

I didnt say that did I?

And, though I am in an American denomination but subscribe to the original WCF, I am also fine with folks claiming to be strict subscriptioinists to the American revision if that is what their American denomination holds to. Why is that amusing?

Which version is correct?

And what is the response to Dr. Duguid’s observation that the KJV itself has undergone revisions?

What is “amusing” is this claim that certain beloved documents are “fixed” when in fact in the examples I cited they are not. Ignoring that reality seems disingenuous.

 

[MW]

I find it quite amusing when some here claim strict subscription to the WCF, make all kinds of arguments based upon it, and in reality hold to the American revision.

Your amusement is my bemusement. At the least, they have a confession that reflects their "updated" understanding of Scripture, though I take it to be erroneous. Looking at your later post, I'm not sure what your objections have to do with my original point. The idea of having a Confession that is contradicted by your translation of Scripture is the main issue I was drawing attention to, not to any idea that the KJV is "fixed."

 

[TheInquirer]

Matthew, my comments pointing out inconsistencies were along the same line of thinking of you pointing out inconsistencies.

Added - in other words claims, realities, and practice are not in alignment.
[automerge]1769048326[/automerge]
Another point of amusement - claiming God has preserved his word exclusively in a translation that was created in 1611.

 

[MW]

Matthew, my comments pointing out inconsistencies were along the same line of thinking of you pointing out inconsistencies.

Added - in other words claims, realities, and practice are not in alignment.

But what does this have to do with the alignment of confession and translation? If that is what they think the Scriptures teach at least their confession expresses it. Whereas there are multiple places where modern translations express a different understanding of the Scriptures to the Westminster Confession.

Another point of amusement - claiming God has preserved his word exclusively in a translation that was created in 1611.

Who holds that? It would be contrary to the translator's preface. At the same time Scriptures principally teach faith and life. There is no wonderment in the idea that a translation and Confession created in close proximity reflect much the same understandings of the main things taught in Scripture.

 

[Ed Walsh]

I find it quite amusing when some here claim strict subscription to the WCF, make all kinds of arguments based upon it, and in reality hold to the American revision.

Pardon me if somebody's already shown this list or one like it.

1646 Original (Scottish/English)	1788 American Revision
WCF 23:3 (Civil Magistrate)	The magistrate has the duty to ensure "unity and peace be preserved in the Church" and to suppress "all blasphemies and heresies."	The magistrate may not "in the least, interfere in matters of faith," but must protect the church without giving "preference to any denomination."
WCF 20:4 (Christian Liberty)	People publishing opinions contrary to the light of nature or known principles of Christianity "may lawfully be called to account... by the power of the civil magistrate."	The phrase "and by the power of the civil magistrate" was deleted, removing the state's power to punish theological errors.
WCF 31:1 (Synods/Councils)	Civil magistrates may "lawfully call a synod of ministers... to consult and advise with about matters of religion."	This section was deleted. It now states that synods and councils are called by the oversight of the church itself, not the state.
WLC 109 (Larger Catechism)	Lists "tolerating a false religion" as a sin forbidden by the Second Commandment.	The phrase "tolerating a false religion" was deleted, aligning the catechism with American principles of religious freedom.

The "Fifth" Major Change (1903/Later)​

• WCF 25:6 (The Pope): The original 1646 text explicitly called the Pope "that Antichrist, that man of sin." The American revision eventually removed this language, simply stating that the Lord Jesus Christ is the only head of the Church.

It is been for years my strongly held conviction that the revision, although only in Five Points is so radically opposed to the meaning of the original Westminster Confession that it no longer deserves the name Westminster at all.

 

[WithinThePale]

Could you update your translation once a year the way that the computer is continually putting patches on its operating system? I suppose you could, theoretically. When my computer continually puts patches on the OS there are programs that are adversely affected, and some of them have even stopped working. I then have to start again and reinstall the programs. And even then some programs will not work if the developer hasn't created a patch for them. The Scriptures are designed to be the rule of faith and life. If you keep updating them there will be no true settlement in doctrine and ethics. And unlike the computer you can't just throw it away and buy a new one to make everything brand new. We listen to the Scriptures for the eternal salvation of our souls. And it is a renewing process. We are renewed, not the Scriptures.

What are good examples of things that have been 'broken' in newer texts? I've heard the claim that it's unwise to teach based exclusively on a passage where a textual variant changes the meaning significantly, and better to have 2 undisputed texts as backing.

I'm also sure that one could construct some parallel to computer operating systems in that patches are required to keep it secure on a network.

 

[Sam Jer]

What are good examples of things that have been 'broken' in newer texts? I've heard the claim that it's unwise to teach based exclusively on a passage where a textual variant changes the meaning significantly, and better to have 2 undisputed texts as backing.

I'm also sure that one could construct some parallel to computer operating systems in that patches are required to keep it secure on a network.

Of the top of my head, take the crazy ideas advocated based on Deuteronomy 32:8 KJV as an example (compare Deuteronomy 32:8 ESV) and Deuteronomy 32:43 KJV (Deuteronomy 32:43 ESV). Or the omission of the comma johaneum. Or the footnote casting doubt on Mark 16. From time to time you really bump into places where it matters. And of course the reimagini g of the doctrine of preservation into an idea where you cannot trust a verse because a scribe somewhere made a mistake once, and so you start making your belief in any given passage conditional.

 

[Sam Jer]

I’m curious to hear from others here: what is your favorite Bible translation, and which translation does your church primarily use?

I’ll go first.

For personal, devotional reading, my favorite translation is the NLT. I read from it nightly—one chapter from the Old Testament and one from the New Testament. It’s the only translation I’ve ever used to read the Bible straight through from cover to cover. I would never use it for formal study, but devotionally it’s been invaluable. It helps me read Scripture faithfully and steadily, almost like reading a well-written narrative, without losing the weight of the text.

Both churches I’ve been a member of have used the ESV, and it is the only translation I’ve ever personally preached from. I find its literalness beautiful—especially in the Psalms—and very fitting for preaching and public reading. That said, it’s not my go-to translation for extended, casual reading. At times I find it a bit too tight or formal for that purpose, even though I deeply appreciate it.

For nightly Bible study with my wife, we use the MacArthur Study Bible (NKJV). That Bible had a significant influence on me—it’s what originally shaped my thinking toward dispensationalism, even though I now hold to covenant theology. Despite that shift, I still find the commentary faithful, careful, and very helpful. I especially appreciate the way the text is consistently exposed and explained.

Finally, the King James Version (Thomas Nelson) is my primary personal study Bible. It’s the one I take notes in, linger over, and return to when I want to slow down and really “wash” myself in the Word.

I’d love to hear from others—men and women alike—what translations you use devotionally, for study, and in your local churches, and why.

Lord Bless.
-Kerry

In English: The Authorised Version (KJV) and 1650 Metrical Psalter. I am mostly okay with the NKJV too but it's accuracy is damaged by it's attempt to not be archaic.

In Hebrew: The Masoretic Text for the OT, TBS's revised Delitch for the NT. I sometimes look at the two paraphrases of the OT too but I often find the KJV to be better when the Hebrew is hard.

 

[Northern Crofter]

I didnt say that did I?

Your comment "I find it quite amusing when some here claim strict subscription to the WCF, make all kinds of arguments based upon it, and in reality hold to the American revision" was a reply to MW quoting MW who is a minister in the Australian Free Church. Maybe you should have been more specific with who the "some here" you were referring to.

Which version is correct?

And what is the response to Dr. Duguid’s observation that the KJV itself has undergone revisions?

What is “amusing” is this claim that certain beloved documents are “fixed” when in fact in the examples I cited they are not. Ignoring that reality seems disingenuous.

The American revision was not a "fix" as much as it was an adaption (unnecessary in my opinion) to a different political context.

Confessional statements and Biblical texts are not in the same category. But I agree that sometimes you cannot separate them - for example, there are verses from the end of Mark 16 used as proof texts in the original Westminster Standards. So if you change the text underlying your standards, you have issues. I pointed this out to a minister who questioned the end of Mark and he was consistent enough to accept it on the basis of it being used by the Westminster Assembly as a proof text.

 

[Sam Jer]

I pointed this out to a minister who questioned the end of Mark and he was consistent enough to accept it on the basis of it being used by the Westminster Assembly as a proof text.

The order there is still upside down though... it's the one used in Rome and the Rabbinical religion and would if consistently applied point to one of them...

 

[Ed Walsh]

1788 American Revision

Greetings,

I thought it would be helpful to see the exact words changed in the "AmericanRevision." This is found on the OPC website.
What a difference "145 words can" make.

American Revisions to the Westminster Confession of Faith​

The Confession of Faith of the Westminster Assembly was approved by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland on August 27, 1647, and (together with the Larger and Shorter Catechisms) has served as one of the doctrinal standards, subordinate to the Word of God, for Presbyterian churches since that time. As an American Presbyterian church, the OPC descended from the Presbyterian Church USA and inherited revisions to the Confession made prior to 1900, some of which were ratified by the Synod of New York and Philadelphia as early as 1788. The OPC did not adopt the revisions to the Confession made by the PCUSA in 1903 (notably, new chapters entitled "Of the Holy Spirit" and "Of the Love of God, and Missions"; and a "Declaratory Statement" softening the Confession's position on election), except for deletions in chapters 22 (about refusing a lawful oath) and 25 (about the Pope being the Antichrist). (For further information, see the Report of the Committee on the Constitution submitted to the Second General Assembly [1936].) Aside from minor spelling changes, the OPC made no revisions to the text of the Shorter Catechism. The Larger Catechism was adopted with the deletion of the phrase "tolerating a false religion" in answer 109.
Though the American revisions to the Confession of Faith are not insignificant, yet, compared to the total length of the Confession, they are quite minor, involving 145 words out of 12,063. Below is a comparison of the two versions (differences are highlighted in italics).

Original Wording​	American Revision​
Chapter XX Of Christian Liberty, and Liberty of Conscience​ IV. And because the powers which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another; they who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God. And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity, whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation; or, to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the Church, they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against by the censures of the Church, and by the power of the civil magistrate.	Chapter 20 Of Christian Liberty, and Liberty of Conscience​ 4. And because the powers which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another, they who, upon pretense of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God. And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity (whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation), or to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the church, they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against, by the censures of the church.
Chapter XXII Of Lawful Oaths and Vows​ III. Whosoever taketh an oath ought duly to consider the weightiness of so solemn an act; and therein to avouch nothing but what he is fully persuaded is the truth. Neither may any man bind himself by oath to anything but what is good and just, and what he believeth so to be, and what he is able and resolved to perform. Yet it is a sin to refuse an oath touching anything that is good and just, being imposed by lawful authority.	Chapter 22 Of Lawful Oaths and Vows​ 3. Whosoever taketh an oath ought duly to consider the weightiness of so solemn an act; and therein to avouch nothing but what he is fully persuaded is the truth. Neither may any man bind himself by oath to anything but what is good and just, and what he believeth so to be, and what he is able and resolved to perform.
Chapter XXIII Of the Civil Magistrate​ III. The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.	Chapter 23 Of the Civil Magistrate​ 3. (Completely rewritten) Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith. Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.
Chapter XXIV Of Marriage and Divorce​ IV. Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity forbidden by the Word. Nor can such incestuous marriages ever be made lawful by any law of man or consent of parties, so as those persons may live together as man and wife. The man may not marry any of his wife's kindred nearer in blood than he may of his own; nor the woman of her husband's kindred nearer in blood than of her own.	Chapter 24 Of Marriage and Divorce​ 4. Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity forbidden by the Word. Nor can such incestuous marriages ever be made lawful by any law of man or consent of parties, so as those persons may live together as man and wife.
Chapter XXV Of the Church​ VI. There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof: but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.	Chapter 25 Of the Church​ 6. There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof.
Chapter XXXI Of Synods and Councils​ I. For the better government, and further edification of the Church, there ought to be such assemblies as are commonly called synods or councils.	Chapter 31 Of Synods and Councils​ 1. For the better government, and further edification of the church, there ought to be such assemblies as are commonly called synods or councils: and it belongeth to the overseers and other rulers of the particular churches, by virtue of their office, and the power which Christ hath given them for edification and not for destruction, to appoint such assemblies; and to convene together in them, as often as they shall judge it expedient for the good of the church.
II. As magistrates may lawfully call a synod of ministers, and other fit persons, to consult and advise with, about matters of religion; so, if magistrates be open enemies to the Church, the ministers of Christ of themselves, by virtue of their office, or they, with other fit persons, upon delegation from their Churches, may meet together in such assemblies.	(Original paragraph II is omitted; paragraphs III-V are renumbered 2-4.)

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church

CONTACT US

+1 215 830 0900

Contact Form

Find a Church

ABOUT US

https://opc.org/historian.html

 

[Northern Crofter]

The order there is still upside down though... it's the one used in Rome and the Rabbinical religion and would if consistently applied point to one of them...

I understand your concern but I don't see it that way. First you must trust in the Biblical text, then you create your confessional standards. Those standards should then be a guide back to what they are based on. If you start questioning your text, then you need to start questioning the standards built upon them. The Westminster Assembly believed the end of Mark 16 to be inspired Scripture and therefore used it as a proof for their confessional statements. Pointing someone back to the Biblical basis of their confessional standards is far different than what the Roman and Rabbinical religions do.

I don't trust a Biblical text whose compilation (and/or translation) includes major contributions from those outside the visible Church over one used and endorsed by a particular church and Christian State.

 

[Sam Jer]

I understand your concern but I don't see it that way. First you must trust in the Biblical text, then you create your confessional standards. Those standards should then be a guide back to what they are based on. If you start questioning your text, then you need to start questioning the standards built upon them. The Westminster Assembly believed the end of Mark 16 to be inspired Scripture and therefore used it as a proof for their confessional statements. Pointing someone back to the Biblical basis of their confessional standards is far different than what the Roman and Rabbinical religions do.

I don't trust a Biblical text whose compilation (and/or translation) includes major contributions from those outside the visible Church over one used and endorsed by a particular church and Christian State.

My problem with this is that it makes reception by community x the standard. Why Presbyterianism then? Why do you start counting at 1647? Instead, I think we should be going from the scriptures to the "tradition" which follows the teachings and practices it points to.

 

[Cornelius Van Halen]

The Westminster Assembly believed the end of Mark 16 to be inspired Scripture and therefore used it as a proof for their confessional statements.

Is the use of Mark 16 ever isolated in its usage? As in, is there something in the confession that ONLY finds its proof in Mark 16, and can only find its proof in Mark?

WSC 28 uses Mark 16:19 as a proof regarding the ascension, yet that isn't the only place we read of the ascension of Christ (Luke 24:50-51).
Therefore, in this instance, not accepting the longer ending has no bearing on the theology of the confession.

The same can be said for WLC 35, 51, 60, 63 (some of these have multiple prooftexts alongside Mark's longer ending).

And again, the same can be said for WCF 7.3, 8.4, 17.3, and 28.4.

The teaching of the confession holds, with or without Mark's longer ending. And, noticeably absent, are the passages from Mark that don't find direct correspondence with the other Gospels.

In this particular situation, I'm approaching the matter from a relatively unbiased position (we don't read the KJV in Hungary), but I don't see how rejecting the long ending detracts from the theology found in the Westminster Confession.

EDIT

My point is not that I think what I've said proves things one way or another, but it would help me to understand why losing the long ending undermines the WCF.

 

[Sam Jer]

we don't read the KJV in Hungary

It seems like you do have a translation based on the same original text, however.

 

[Cornelius Van Halen]

It seems like you do have a translation based on the same original text, however.

It wasn't listed on the poll.