Battle Royale XIV discussion thread

[Ask Mr. Religion]

A recent discovery of an ancient draft of the King James Bible is overturning our understanding of how the text was actually translated.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/15/b...f-king-james-bible-is-found-scholar-says.html

The fanciful speculation found in this article would be laughable with a current document trying to gain insight into the internal workings of an organization. This "expert" simply asserts that "...this is the way things were..." from a distance of 400 years. :AMR:

The author's leap from finding a notebook of a member of the translation committee to assuming the "committee" operative was not in force staggered me. He nearly screamed, "Aha! Those guys were not working as a team and all were doing the King's bidding!" Now as I read it, I could very well see myself a member of the committee and having my own notebook with my own solitary thinking and studies therein....that I would bring to bear in my work within the committee. How the article's author draws a different conclusion is clearly by reading into the matter presuppositions biased against the AV translation's actual history.

Wait for it...wait...the Erhmans of the world will capitalize on this sort of nonsense.

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Thanks AMR, that was interesting, and informative.

In studying the history of the KJV, I have come across numerous opinions from people who claim the KJV was an anti-Puritan Bible and King James only had it made because he hated the Geneva Bible.

Moreover, there are claims that King James commissioned the bible due to the Millenary Petition given to him by the Puritans. Part of the petition was that the king commission a new English Bible.

However, that doesn't make sense because:

The Puritans came into power in the mid 1600's. The last Geneva Bible was printed in 1616 (5 years after the KJV), but the Puritans were more receptive to the KJV when they had the power.

If there is any truth to these claims, why did the Reformers incorporate the language of the KJV into the WCF instead of the Geneva Bible?

This piece offers a nice summary:
https://blog.logos.com/2013/06/scri...-tradition-the-story-of-the-king-james-bible/

In relation to the Geneva Bible, we should bear in mind that it was the Puritan party at the Hampton Court Conference which called for a new translation to take in the best aspects of the Geneva and Bishops Bibles; and the result was a significant improvement. The idea that the Puritans rejected the King James Version in favour of the Geneva Bible is not attested by the facts. Certainly the Geneva Bible contained those valuable book and chapter digests and textual annotations which made it appealing; but the fact remains that Puritan works predominantly quote from the Authorised Version at least from the 1640s, when the Puritan revolution was in the ascendancy.


As an aside...

A friend of mine asked Dr. Maurice Robinson a few weeks ago...

What would you say the percentage difference is between the Critical Text and the Majority Text/Byzantine Priority (AMR's preferred manuscript tradition)?

His answer...

Easy answer: if all differences are included, including spelling issues, the difference is about 6%, with about 94% of the text the same in both. If only translatable differences are considered, the difference would be only about 3%.​

While a lot can happen in 3%, if you are losing sleep over textual variants I hope this gives you some perspective.

Why do we believe the Scriptures are inspired? Because Scripture itself states it plainly and quotes itself as inspired. Since later Scriptures make this attestation of earlier Scriptures, it must include within it the belief in the preservation of Scripture. What is inspired is also preserved, according to the self-attestation of Scripture. When Moses is quoted 1400 years later, or David is quoted 1000 years later, it is always on the presupposition that what was written has been preserved in its original purity.

Now the question is, Which text-critical theory gives the greatest weight and place to the attested preservation of Scripture? Is it the belief which holds the original is lost forever and must be reconstructed as men are able, or is it the belief which affirms the original has been faithfully transmitted through means of the church and is in possession of the church as an authority for final appeal?

I do not think it is difficult to decide once the doctrine of preservation is accepted as an essential part of the self-attestation of holy Scripture. It is undoubtedly true that there are difficulties connected with the work of textual criticism regardless of which view one takes. But these difficulties should not decide one's position. The testimony of the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures should decide that point.

Which tradition a person favors has everything to do with how you weight the various criteria in textual criticism. And any debate, like the one planned next week rests upon the following technical details...

If one ties God's providence to the church in preserving manuscripts, and does not believe that God's providence works outside those boundaries, then the TR/MT will likely be your choice (my view).

If you believe God's providence can work in preserving manuscripts outside the church as well as inside, then the CT (Alexandrian Critical Text) will probably be your choice.

As to individual variants, if you believe that the majority rules, then you will probably hold to the MT.

If you believe that geographical distribution and the age of the manuscript is more important, then the CT will probably be your choice.

As for me, the TR is real; the CT is an idea. The TR is fixed; the CT is fluid. The TR is preserved; the CT is reconstructed, or in the case of eclectic criticism, deconstructed. The TR is "received;" the CT is "examined." A student of history will have to agree that the only area that even could have preserved Scripture throughout the years was the Byzantine area because the Western Church adopted Latin as their official language (thus no longer copying Greek texts), and the Alexandrian area had fallen to Islam early on (thus no longer copying any Bible texts). With the TR I may humbly sit at the feet of the Word and learn; with the CT I am required to stand over the Word and exercise judgement upon it.

Finally, beloved, onlyism is not a bad word when properly used. Is the Bible "the Word of God?" If so, it is an exclusive concept. This means everyone who embraces the word of God is functioning with some kind of onlyism. It may be, for charitable reasons, that this exclusivity is not brought to the fore in discussion with others. It may be that it is presented in a subtle way due to the bad associations with which it has been connected. Nonetheless, it is there; and a candid treatment of the issues will not take place without an open acknowledgement that the Word of God itself is an exclusive concept.

AMR

 

[Shasta]

The Westminster Larger Catechism, answer 157 also states, "The holy scriptures are to be read with an high and reverent esteem of them; with a firm persuasion that they are the very word of God."

For the Reformed, if one cannot approach their particular translation with this conviction, then their view of the translation in their hand is obviously at odds with the confessional view. We do not come to worship and hear the Word of God if we are standing in judgement of the very word of God.

The conservative Reformed view in general is as stated in the WCF portion you quoted above. Some within the Reformed community, myself included, will also note that the Scripture proofs used in the WCF are clearly from the AV and that since the underlying TR of the NT is the "received text" by the Reformed church that confesses the WCF, then the AV is the very word of God. Admittedly, not all Reformed churches follow this approach, yet all Reformed churches do not denounce those that do.

More on my view is found here:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4458764#post4458764

Accordingly, I believe there should be one official Bible in the Reformed church. The fact is, that the AV held that place among English speaking people for centuries, while no modern version has reached the same status. Without an official Bible, the church effectively says, we do not know where the Word of God is to be found in the English language. Children of the Reformation should use the Scriptures of the reformation. The AV was made by men who each and every one upheld the Thirty-Nine Articles. They acknowledged versions that were made by "men of their own profession" as the Word of God. Can anyone point to a modern version to be made by men who upheld the Reformation standard? The fact that so much of the earlier versions is in the AV should demonstrates how much continuity existed between the reformation versions. The fact that so little of the AV is to be found in the modern versions is clear evidence of a departure that ultimately leads to dilution and division within the Reformed churches.

Nevertheless, I readily concede that there are renderings in the AV which can be improved, and I can envisage a day when the English speaking churches will recover their visible unity and the task of faithful "revision" using the Byzantine manuscript tradition can commence again. Until that time, we should bear with the occasional "archaism" in the AV. If the NT could borrow words from the dated vocabulary of the Greek version of the OT, then I see nothing wrong with bearing with a few antiquated expressions for the sake of adhering to the most faithful rendering of the inspired Scriptures.

So for those that are churchmen who have covenanted with a visible vestige of Our Lord's Bride, it is the church that has spoken about what it considers the very word of God. For many within my Reformed tradition, the text that has been received by the church relies upon the TR within the Byzantine tradition of manuscripts. For those adrift outside church membership, the translation being used is but a personal choice, or for those outside the church that use the AV, a choice that borrows from the intellectual and spiritual capital of the Reformed kinsmen who translated the AV.

AMR

Your desire for one united Reformed Church with one "official Bible" is reminiscent of the Catholic's Church's historic ambition to unite Christendom through the control of information. In this case the "authorizing" Body would be some committee of Reformed scholars and ministers. While I have no doubt this would that would consolidate the control over information and make people feel more "secure" would that really facilitate an unbiased quest for truth and the "faith once delivered to the saints?" I do not think so. If anything I would think it would lead to shutting down of that noble mission to read and understand the word in the sense that it was originally written.

In these days when the tools for understanding the original languages are abundantly available there is no need to submit our inquires to a select group of "translators" endeavoring to provide the "official" "authorized" answers to neophytes in the tradition of the Reformed Churches. As a clergyman and activist in your tradition I can certainly understand why you think this way. The people do not need to be "disturbed" by contrary opinions. In my own thinking, linguistics (not a Church body) should be the bar at which the accuracy of any translation should be determined. While we do not judge the inspired scriptures we must attempt to ascertain the meaning that best fits the original in English. That is an ongoing endeavor that I heartily support.

Personally, I want honest scholars not necessarily those who have as their mission to promote my own view. I want all the evidence to be laid out before me so I can see it for myself. This is why I like the 60,000+ notes that are provided in the NET Bible. Unlike the Geneva Bible, the Schofield Study Bible and the numerous other Bibles to which are appended with the names of pastors and theologians, past and present, the notes in the NET Bible consist almost entirely of translational, linguistic and textual matters. If I want to know what all those other teachers have said and are saying I can go and check them out.

Most of the word is self-evident (imo). While we may not have all the light we have more than enough to live by. Our comfort and security with any particular Bible translation ultimately has to be sacrificed to the quest for accuracy. No translation is definitive or flawless but by comparing translations and consulting the tools for understanding the original language we have at least as good of an opportunity to understand the entire Word than has almost anyone since the original text was written. Of course, even having a perfect tranlation would not prevent errors. It did not even in the early centuries when everyone, including heretics could read the scriptures in the original Greek tongue.

 

[Shasta]

Your desire for one united Reformed Church with one "official Bible" is reminiscent of the Catholic's Church's historic ambition to unite Christendom through the control of information. In this case the "authorizing" Body would be some committee of Reformed scholars and ministers. While I have no doubt this would that would consolidate the control over information and make people feel more "secure" would that really facilitate an unbiased quest for truth and the "faith once delivered to the saints?" I do not think so. If anything I would think it would lead to shutting down of that noble mission to read and understand the word in the sense that it was originally written.

In these days when the tools for understanding the original languages are abundantly available there is no need to submit our inquires to a select group of "translators" endeavoring to provide the "official" "authorized" answers to neophytes in the tradition of the Reformed Churches. As a clergyman and activist in your tradition I can certainly understand why you think this way. The people do not need to be "disturbed" by contrary opinions. In my own thinking, linguistics (not a Church body) should be the bar at which the accuracy of any translation should be determined. While we do not judge the inspired scriptures we must attempt to ascertain the meaning that best fits the original in English. That is an ongoing endeavor that I heartily support.

Personally, I want honest scholars not necessarily those who have as their mission to promote my own view. I want all the evidence to be laid out before me so I can see it for myself. This is why I like the 60,000+ notes that are provided in the NET Bible. Unlike the Geneva Bible, the Schofield Study Bible and the numerous other Bibles to which are appended with the names of pastors and theologians, past and present, the notes in the NET Bible consist almost entirely of translational, linguistic and textual matters. If I want to know what all those other teachers have said and are saying I can go and check them out.

Most of the word is self-evident (imo). While we may not have all the light we have more than enough to live by. Our comfort and security with any particular Bible translation ultimately has to be sacrificed to the quest for accuracy. No translation is definitive or flawless but by comparing translations and consulting the tools for understanding the original language we have at least as good of an opportunity to understand the entire Word than has almost anyone has ever had since the original text was written. Of course, even having a perfect translation would not prevent errors. It did not even in the early centuries when everyone, including heretics could read the scriptures in the original Greek tongue.

 

[Shasta]

oops

 

[Shasta]

Originally Posted by Shasta View Post
Your desire for one united Reformed Church with one "official Bible" is reminiscent of the Catholic's Church's historic ambition to unite Christendom through the control of information. In this case the "authorizing" Body would be some committee of Reformed scholars and ministers. While I have no doubt this would that would consolidate the control over information and make people feel more "secure" would that really facilitate an unbiased quest for truth and the "faith once delivered to the saints?" I do not think so. If anything I would think it would lead to shutting down of that noble mission to read and understand the word in the sense that it was originally written.

In these days when the tools for understanding the original languages are abundantly available there is no need to submit our inquires to a select group of "translators" endeavoring to provide the "official" "authorized" answers to neophytes in the tradition of the Reformed Churches. As a clergyman and activist in your tradition I can certainly understand why you think this way. The people do not need to be "disturbed" by contrary opinions. In my own thinking, linguistics (not a Church body) should be the bar at which the accuracy of any translation should be determined. While we do not judge the inspired scriptures we must attempt to ascertain the meaning that best fits the original in English. That is an ongoing endeavor that I heartily support.

Personally, I want honest scholars not necessarily those who have as their mission to promote my own view. I want all the evidence to be laid out before me so I can see it for myself. This is why I like the 60,000+ notes that are provided in the NET Bible. Unlike the Geneva Bible, the Schofield Study Bible and the numerous other Bibles to which are appended with the names of pastors and theologians, past and present, the notes in the NET Bible consist almost entirely of translational, linguistic and textual matters. If I want to know what all those other teachers have said and are saying I can go and check them out.

Most of the word is self-evident (imo). While we may not have all the light we have more than enough to live by. Our comfort and security with any particular Bible translation ultimately has to be sacrificed to the quest for accuracy. No translation is definitive or flawless but by comparing translations and consulting the tools for understanding the original language we have at least as good of an opportunity to understand the entire Word than has almost anyone has ever had since the original text was written. Of course, even having a perfect translation would not prevent errors. It did not even in the early centuries when everyone, including heretics could read the scriptures in the original Greek tongue.

 

[Shasta]

...

 

[CabinetMaker]

It will never lead you astray, you can rely on it, and believe it.

Frankly, I would never rely on a book. A book may serve as a guide, but I will always rely on God in prayerful contemplation of which ever translation is open.

 

[Shasta]

As for me, the TR is real; the CT is an idea. The TR is fixed; the CT is fluid. The TR is preserved; the CT is reconstructed, or in the case of eclectic criticism, deconstructed. The TR is "received;" the CT is "examined." A student of history will have to agree that the only area that even could have preserved Scripture throughout the years was the Byzantine area because the Western Church adopted Latin as their official language (thus no longer copying Greek texts), and the Alexandrian area had fallen to Islam early on (thus no longer copying any Bible texts). With the TR I may humbly sit at the feet of the Word and learn; with the CT I am required to stand over the Word and exercise judgement upon it.

These seem to be very subjective reasons. The feeling of security is imparted by the idea that the TR is "fixed." A negative connotation is associated with the CT by the fact that it has been "examined" and "reconstructed" but we want a version that has been examined and determined to be the closest to the original. It seems illogical to me that later MSS that comprise the MT point to the original autographs better than much older ones. It could also be argued that when the West ceased copying the Greek the MSS tradition was frozen in time and is therefore MORE accurate to the original.

The fact that you have decided the MT is closest to the original could also be construed in your terms as "sitting in judgement over the word." I do not take it that way. Your judgment is that the MT is closest to the original autographs but you have still made a decision.

 

[Shasta]

...

 

[fzappa13]

The thing I don't like about the premise of the debate is that it leaves room for the "KJV better" folks ... and that would be me. For my money, the source texts used in any translation are the more important point. After that it may accurately be said that any translation has warts depending upon the language and the intent or predisposition of the translators. The KJV's warts are likely the most well documented and it's texts the most well supported as it concerns ancillary documents (Strong's etc.)

Is the KJV the only version inspired of God. Likely not. Is it the best of the group. I think so.

 

[fzappa13]

Why do you not get to edit your posts on this thread?

 

[fzappa13]

First post should read "no room".

 

[Desert Reign]

Some basic ideas about the debate.

1. The only authoritative version of any text is the original language text.
2. An original text is preserved through copying.
3. Copies may and probably do contain errors.
4. What is preserved carries the authority of the original to the extent that it is accurate.
5. Translations carry three types of error: a) they replicate the textual errors in the original language copies; b) there are going to be simple translation mistakes and personal or theological biases of translators and c) even with the best of translating, the mere fact of translating causes a divergence from the original text. It's why other languages are called 'foreign' at all.
6. Translations carry the authority of the original to the extent they are faithful renderings. Such authority is of necessity significantly less than the authority of the original or of the original language copies.

Note that none of the above appeals to any theological presuppositions about God's ability to preserve his 'Word'. Neither does it make any theological assumption about the very concept of a written 'Word of God'. Nor does it make any assumption about the divine inspiration of scripture or the canon. Hence, the above principles are very practical in application. They are sustainable by mere reason or common sense. Many of the arguments for the KJVO position use theological presuppositions which seek to undermine these practical principles. This is also why KJVOnlyists go to great lengths to justify these theological presuppositions because if they fail to do so, then reason alone would defeat them.

However, KJVOnlyists need to do more than justify their theological presuppositions. Beyond that, they must prove that the KJV itself is the very embodiment of those presuppositions. In other words they must move from the heavenly realm of doctrine to the earthly realm of actual translations in the course of real history. In so doing they will always be confronted with the common sense principles outlined above which are rooted and grounded in real human interactions and the real process of history. Even if they can prove theologically that God will preserve his 'Word', they will find it a great deal harder to prove that the KJV is that preserved word.

 

[George Affleck]

I am looking forward to this.

Even though the question is not framed quite the way I would like it to be. I don't believe any individual scripture or the Bible is/was inspired so no version can be either.

 

[Danoh]

I am looking forward to this.

Even though the question is not framed quite the way I would like it to be. I don't believe any individual scripture or the Bible is/was inspired so no version can be either.

I may be off on this; but I've yet to hear or read of any MADists who are KJVO who hold that it was inspired.

That'd be perhaps informational along a different line - two MADists - one KJVO, one not: both who actually know their position; that is.

Again, though; I've yet to hear or read any on any side who have not ended up reading their view into things in some places.

 

[George Affleck]

I may be off on this; but I've yet to hear or read of any MADists who are KJVO who hold that it was inspired.

That'd be perhaps informational along a different line - two MADists - one KJVO, one not: both who actually know their position; that is.

Again, though; I've yet to hear or read any on any side who have not ended up reading their view into things in some places.

Book 'em

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Your desire for one united Reformed Church with one "official Bible" is...

You overlooked my emphasis upon the church's role in one's walk of faith. Your logic would dismantle the very thing our Lord established. I will not abide caviling by the Just Me and My Bible folk, Lone Ranger believers, and anyone else who thinks the church exists external to their faith. The two are not separable. If you think the church has nothing to say about the word of God, then you have abandoned what the Reformation was all about.

Within the church we confess what the sound patterns of Scripture teach. We confess what the "word of God" means as we come to hear it regularly. When the pastor exhorts from the word of God, I hope all holding a book in their hands actually believe it to be the word of God, and not but an academic exercise wherein the jots and tittles are regularly debated, preservation, infallibility, and inerrancy doubted, or the disagreement between this version or that version is lending more fog in the pews from the apparent mist in the pulpit by a man who thinks any translation will do.

I do not begrudge the person who uses a translation that I do not use. God can bring anyone into His Kingdom in spite of a weaker translation of His special revelation. My only point in this thread is that one should spend time understanding what the "very word of God" means to the church and act accordingly. If they and their church believes the ESV, NIV, or whatever recent translation they prefer is that very word of God, my peace is upon them.

AMR

 

[Angel4Truth]

Bob E, excellent first post!

 

[tetelestai]

Bob E, excellent first post!

I agree.