[ducks]

In light of the two or three current threads on the TR/AV/KJV I thought it may be beneficial to have a sort of repository where we can line by line, verse by verse compare the KJV and modern translations in regard to theology not mss. Hopefully, we will see if it be true or not that their is a difference in theology between the KJV and modern translations due to their respective renderings of said passages.

I'll post the first example (Rev. Winzer brought this one up previously):

Are the differences in translations affecting the theological teaching or not? Is the NIV arminian?

I hope many will contribute, especially AV proponents, as this will prove beneficial for all.

[unsheathes sword, lifts shield]

__________________
Chris
Presbyterian Reformed Church of Charlotte (PRC)
Student, Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary
SC

...hope is nothing but the nourishment and strength of faith.
~ Calvin's Institutes III.ii.43

With all due respect, I don't consider the NIV a translation worthy of consideration. I suggest comparing the best of both camps. The KJV or AV vs. the NASB or ESV. These are the "heavy weights" of their respective leagues.

__________________
Bill Brown
Elder
Reformed Baptist
Maryland

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?
Visit my BLOG Theology for the Rest of Us

Good idea. Please do.

BTW, I used the NIV in my example because it is one of the most popular modern translations. It's nothing but a rag to me but its popular nonetheless.

Perhaps the header should be AV theology compared to modern versions. On the texts underlying the translations, the difference is generally in the Deity of Christ.

There are some words which have become theologically standard as a result of the AV, which are needlessly changed in various modern versions. E.g., Eph. 1:5, "good pleasure of his will," thankfully retained in the NKJV, becomes "the kind intention of His will" in the NASB, "his pleasure and will" in the NIV, and "the purpose of his will" in the ESV. The NASB is obviously the worst offender, removing the strong volitional idea that is inherent in the AV.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

Heb. 2:16 is one verse which has been uniformly rendered by all ancient and reformation versions, but which has been altered by all modern versions. See P. E. Hughes' commentary in loc. for further information. AV reads, "For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham." NKJV, "For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham." NASB, "For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendant of Abraham." NIV, "For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham's descendants." ESV, "For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham."

The passage says nothing of Christ "helping," but speaks of His actual saving of His brethren by partaking of their nature and doing what they were unable to do for themselves.

A further weakening of the AV's strong predestinarian language may be seen in the uniform change which modern versions have made to Acts 13:48. AV, "and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, "all change "ordained" to "appointed." The word "ordain" means "to order by virtue of superior authority; decree," and correctly represents the original. The meaning of "appoint" is "to create and charge with a task or function."

I hope to provide some more examples later, DV.

Thank you...

I think.

I think it would do well if we had some CT guys comment on the good Rev.'s views.

You're right. I can't change the header, Rich?

We may note the well known statement of the apostle Paul in Rom. 9:16, which is intended to show that man's will and work contribute nothing to salvation. The AV strictly renders the original, "So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." Thankfully this is retained by the NKJV, but it is altered in NASB to "So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy." NIV, "It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy." ESV, "So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy." The inclusion of the word "depend" diminishes the absolute negative of the text, and leaves the door open for human will, desire, exertion or effort to be contributive in some measure to one's salvation.

It is also worthwhile to take note of slight differences of wording, which show a change of emphasis. In Rom. 9:21, the AV reads, "Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?" The NKJV retains the same sense. The NASB inserts the word "use," which restricts the claim of sovereignty to purposes of utility. "Dishonour" becomes "common," and so neutralises the negative impact of reprobation: "Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?" The NIV goes one step further, and by a slight change in syntax diminishes the power or right of the potter over the clay: "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?" In other words, the power the potter has over the clay is confined to His making them for different uses, whereas the passage should be understood as teaching that the potter has an absolute right over the clay, and in the exercise of that right He may make of them what He pleases. The ESV retains the idea of "use," reverts back to the word "dishonour," but then corrupts the idea of absolute right in a deceptive rendering of the negative: "Has the potter no right over the clay?" So that the sense is, He has some right over what He has made.

In ver. 22 of the same chapter the NASB must be found guilty of deliberate alteration of the sense of the original. The AV reads, "What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction." NKJV, NIV, and ESV all retain the same sense more or less, only weakening "willing" to "wanting," "desiring," and "choosing," the latter of these three words being the only one which retains the idea of positive volition. The NASB, however, reads as follows: "What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?" This rendering suggests that God has engaged in the activity of longsuffering contrary to the specific purpose of demonstrating His wrath. What a difference the alteration or addition of one word can make!

In preaching on Hebrews 11:1 a couple of weeks back I noticed an interesting trend. The AV reads:

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Notice how faith is defined objectively by this rendering. This rendering is also supported by many commentaries and BAGD lexicon as well.

Now see how most of the popular modern translations treat this verse (the NKJV retains the same language as the AV).

NASB/ESV: "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."

NIV: "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."

It is interesting that all these modern versions focus on the subjective aspect of faith. Now of course, faith does have this subjective aspect. Nevertheless, the point of Hebrews 11 is not about subjective assurance and conviction. The overarching point is that by faith we objectively lay hold of that same reality which the OT fathers laid hold of and thus we, like they are enabled to perservere. Faith in Hebrews is more than assurance; it reaches outside of itself to the objective, eternal, heavenly, unseen realities.

__________________
Rev. Adam King
Minister in the RPCNA
Pastor,Trinity Reformed Church
Wichita, KS

In Rom. 5:12-21, the locus classicus for the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity, there are a few slight variations which do not materially affect the passage, but which accumulate with the help of one notable alteration to provide a completely different sense than that which the passage conveys. The notable alteration comes in ver. 15, which the AV renders, "But not as the offence, so also is the free gift." This brings out what exegetes call an antithetical parallelism. Adam is a figure of Christ to come in that the action of the one has consequences on the many. But the relative actions and their consequences are opposite. Now this antithetical parallelism is lost in translation in modern versions. NKJV, "But the free gift is not like the offense." NASB, "But the free gift is not like the transgression." NIV, "But the gift is not like the trespass." ESV, "But the free gift is not like the trespass." In all that follows the idea of Adam as a figure of Christ to come is obscured by the absolute negative that what Christ has done is not like what Adam has done; whereas the AV renders the original faithfully, even in terms of its awkwardness, and brings out the antithetical parallelism which is integral to the reformed doctrine of the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity and of Christ's righteousness to the many He represented. This obscurity is deepened when some of the modern versions insert the words "result" or "brought," whereas the original and the AV place the action and its consequence in the nearest possible conjunction.

There are some places where modern versions interpret a passage which could be taken in either of two senses. One example is 1 Pet. 1:2, which the AV renders, "unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ." Matthew Poole's annotations note that this could have reference to either (1.) the obedience of Christ to God, or (2.) the obedience of believers to Christ. The NKJV translates Gk. "eis" (unto) as "for" and slightly skews the original, whereas NASB, NIV, and ESV all interpret the original in favour of the second meaning, that of the believer's obedience to Christ: NASB, "to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood;" NIV, "for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood;" ESV, "for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood." This interpretative bias hides the fact that the Greek could be taken one of two ways, and at least from this interpreter's point of view they rule out what is the natural understanding of the passage, since it is clear that the aposltle is referring to the objective work of the Trinity in the salvation of the elect, and hence the obedience of Christ is more than likely the apostle's meaning.

Brother, since you are not really going to the center of the issue but rather attacking the "english" words used by the translators, I wanted to pick this and really tell you what infact the NASB used that is the same as the AV in this word "appoint" or "ordain.

The greek word used there is Tasso, which means:

1) to put in order, to station

a) to place in a certain order, to arrange, to assign a place, to appoint

1) to assign (appoint) a thing to one

b) to appoint, ordain, order


There are other passages in scripture that use the same greek word, which are: (Please note, the look at the words with the number 5021, and also notice this is the KJV. )

Mat 28:16 Then 1161 the eleven 1733 disciples 3101 went away 4198 into 1519 Galilee 1056, into 1519 a mountain 3735 where 3757 Jesus 2424 had appointed 5021 them 846.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Luk 7:8 For 1063 I 1473 also 2532 am 1510 a man 444 set 5021 under 5259 authority 1849, having 2192 under 5259 me 1683 soldiers 4757, and 2532 I say 3004 unto one 5129, Go 4198 , and 2532 he goeth 4198 ; and 2532 to another 243, Come 2064 , and 2532 he cometh 2064 ; and 2532 to my 3450 servant 1401, Do 4160 this 5124, and 2532 he doeth 4160 [it].

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Act 13:48 And 1161 when the Gentiles 1484 heard this 191 , they were glad 5463 , and 2532 glorified 1392 the word 3056 of the Lord 2962: and 2532 as many as 3745 were 2258 ordained 5021 to 1519 eternal 166 life 2222 believed 4100 .

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Act 15:2 When therefore 3767 Paul 3972 and 2532 Barnabas 921 had 1096 no 3756 small 3641 dissension 4714 and 2532 disputation 4803 with 4314 them 846, they determined 5021 that Paul 3972 and 2532 Barnabas 921, and 2532 certain 5100 other 243 of 1537 them 846, should go up 305 to 1519 Jerusalem 2419 unto 4314 the apostles 652 and 2532 elders 4245 about 4012 this 5127 question 2213.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Act 22:10 And 1161 I said 2036 , What 5101 shall I do 4160 , Lord 2962? And 1161 the Lord 2962 said 2036 unto 4314 me 3165, Arise 450 , and go 4198 into 1519 Damascus 1154; and there 2546 it shall be told 2980 thee 4671 of 4012 all things 3956 which 3739 are appointed 5021 for thee 4671 to do 4160 .

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Act 28:23 And 1161 when they had appointed 5021 him 846 a day 2250, there came 2240 many 4119 to 4314 him 846 into 1519 [his] lodging 3578; to whom 3739 he expounded 1620 and testified 1263 the kingdom 932 of God 2316, 5037 persuading 3982 them 846 concerning 4012 Jesus 2424, both 5037 out of 575 the law 3551 of Moses 3475, and 2532 [out of] the prophets 4396, from 575 morning 4404 till 2193 evening 2073.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rom 13:1 Let every 3956 soul 5590 be subject 5293 unto the higher 5242 powers 1849. For 1063 there is 2076 no 3756 power 1849 but 1508 of 575 God 2316: 1161 the powers 1849 that be 5607 are 1526 ordained 5021 of 5259 God 2316.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1Cr 16:15 1161 I beseech 3870 you 5209, brethren 80, (ye know 1492 the house 3614 of Stephanas 4734, that 3754 it is 2076 the firstfruits 536 of Achaia 882, and 2532 [that] they have addicted 5021 themselves 1438 to 1519 the ministry 1248 of the saints 40,)


The point that I'm trying to get across is that it's really not much of the greek word, since the greek word used is the same in both the word "appoint" and "ordain". Your accusation is based more on the english translation. And when it comes down to that, it's really preference rather then heresy. This is why we should know the greek texts, like I've stressed in the other threads.

In Christ,
A.P.C

__________________
Andrew Cunningham
From:Reno, NV Currently: San Deigo, Camp pendleton
Attending:seeking a church in San Diego area
"by His scourging we are healed" Isaiah 53:5
"Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin" Psalm 51:2

Again, I do not have the other mss, therefor, to make an accusation without knowledge of the other mss, which I believe you have no knowledge of, then you cannot be taken seriously. If you want to argue this, you must bring in the greek texts AKA the orignal language. Accusing the english words gets us no where until we know the greek text.

It is also necessary to learn semantic domains, which Strongs is not very useful for; it is something that can be picked up only by reading the Greek NT. If we pay attention to the different contexts in which the Gk. word is used, we shall find that the word "ordain" conveys the stronger decretal connotation of the word. Surely you can see the theological difference between an "appointment" to apostolic office, or to meet a person at a time and place, and the "ordination" of individuals to eternal life. Or perhaps not. It may be that the conflation of the two ideas in modern translations has given you a preference to always see the word in terms of "appointment" -- which would serve to substantiate my point.

Perhaps you should examine my knowledge before you sit in judgement. I know enough to know that there is no textual variant except a slight variation in eleountos. And if you peruse my first post in this thread you will discover that I am speaking of the differences IN TRANSLATION, and the way they affect the theological reading of the text. "Depends" is an addition. If you would be so kind as to consult the Greek before commenting you might be in a better position to add something meaningful to the thread.

Brother, first I want to say sorry for the attacks seeming to be more personal, and I do not mean them that way. I wanted to say sorry.

Here is something that i would have you read though:

Friend, Your apology is very warmly accepted. I do not see how any of the "defects" mentioned by the article you provided have a bearing on the theology of the AV. It appears to be a case of pedantic nit-picking to me. Dean Burgon's Revision Revised answers some of them, if I remember correctly. If I hadn't packed that book away in a box for our impending move I could have double-checked, but as I can't refer to it I will provide some personal animadversions when time permits, DV. The Lord's day draws near, so it may be first thing Monday morning before I can attend to it. Blessings!

Indeed, let's remember this point. I created this thread specifically excluding the incessant Greek battles and focusing it on the TRANSLATIONS affect on the theological reading of the text.

Maybe, there are many who have not gotten to this thread yet on the NASB/ESV camp so I am looking forward to their thoughts on Rev. Winzer's points.

Where is the smiley that greedily rubs his hands in expectation?

If you base your theology soley on the english translation, then that theology is a very limited one indeed. You must understand the greek text.

Yes, the minister of the Word should understand the original languages. The AV is translated from the Greek and Hebrew is it not?

Is it your position that all who are not acquainted with the original languages have a "very limited theology"? If so, what of the laymen? Are they condemned to a "very limited theology" their entire lives?

Brother, I don't know what church you go to, but all the churches that I know of, that are sound in their theology (my SBC church is very weak in theology since they do not understand how to study the word) teach their laymen how to study the word, which includes interlinear bibles, lexicons, greek word dictionaries. So to answer your question, if they do not know how to study their bible, then yes.

Studying passages and researching the greek words within those passages does not take a theologian.

I have had the privilege to be acquainted with a few ladies and gentlemen who knew not a word of Greek (excepting those words that are carried over into English), who would theologically outstrip the average seminary graduate. What was it B. B. Warfield said about Shorter Catechism boys growing to be men? Then I've known not a few who have learned just enough of the original languages to be dangerous to themselves and others. Like stepping into a car with a person who thinks they know how to drive because they can turn the steering wheel and push down on the accelerator, and that is all. If you require interlinears, lexicons, etc., and you admit that the people who write these tools are fallible men, then you are in much the same situation as a person who reads the English translation of the men who were equipped to write interlinears and lexicons. To restate a point I made in an earlier thread -- translations reflect the biblical and theological understanding of the men who make them. Translations differ because men approach the Scriptures with different beliefs. Which shows the absurdity of trusting to a translation (or lexicon, or interlinear, or any other Bible tool) made by men who are not of our profession. Blessings!

On the other hand, there are places where the AV, with its Elizabethan English, gets in the way of clarity. For example:

The days of our yeres are threescore yeeres and ten, and if by reason of strength they be fourescore yeeres, yet is their strength labour and sorrow: for it is soone cut off, and we flie away. (Psalm 90:10, AV)

The years of our life are seventy, or even by reason of strength eighty; yet their span is but toil and trouble; they are soon gone, and we fly away. (Psalm 90:10, ESV)

The Hebrew in this verse simply has the numbers "seventy" and "eighty," so the AV had no manuscript warrant for using the English terms it used, which are relics of the English of its day. The AV translators were perfectly aware of the words "seventy" and "eighty". This is a minor example, I grant you, but it demonstrates how the AV's sometimes more-flowery-than-necessary language can obscure meaning.

__________________
Richard T. Zuelch, M.Div
Ruling Elder, OPC (not currently serving)
Westminster Presbyterian Church, CA (OPC)
www.alexandermaclaren.wordpress.com
www.reiterations.wordpress.com
www.spurgeonswords.wordpress.com

Devout souls do not take offence at the depths and difficulties of God's Word, but are, thereby, drawn to intenser contemplation of them. - Alexander Maclaren (1826-1910)

Richard, besides the antiquated spelling, which is not to be found in modern reprints, there is nothing "relic" like in the portion you have quoted. I am sure you will see the phraseology quaintly used in modern literature. One thing is for certain, we sing it from our Psalters, and my children don't seem to have any problem grasping the meaning. I suspect what you are urging upon us is a Bible that can be understood by people who have limited vocabularies. My antidote for this is to give people something which by constant reading may give them a better acquaintance with the language they purport to communicate with. But this is getting off subject. Certainly there is nothing of a theological bias in the example provided.

So, are you saying that all men who are of the faith, believe the same thing? Are you telling me that everyone on the AV committe had the same convictions?

For example, the NASB committe all believed in one thing: the bible must be translated literally. Whatever they believed beyond that point came from the scriptures. Quoting translations like the NIV or the Message are not good examples since those committees actually put their thoughts into the english texts, hence they are called "equivalent dynamics" or thought-for-thought.


Not just the scholarly but also the men of the faith are also falliable, since all men are sinners.


I thought you would have said this.

Again, for example, do they know(since they do not look up the greek words; By the way, knowing the greek language and looking them up are to different things. One you go to school for, the other you use "tools") what the word "any" or "all" mean? Do they know what the word "whosoever" means in John 3:16? (Hint: it doen't mean "whosoever," it is actually very specific to whom Christ is refering to.... oops... wait... I just blasphemed the Holy King James Version.... I must repent...)

They were men of the reformed faith, subscribing to the 39 articles of the Church of England. Do you know of any other Bible translation committee who were committed to the reformed faith in this way?

The NASB committee has been shown to put their thoughts into the translation as well, as per the examples I provided above.

See the Calvin commentary on Isa. 59:21, which I posted on the authority thread. It shows clearly the reformed view as to where we are to look for the deposit of God's Spirit and Word. I would not trust an infidel to rightly divide the word of truth for me.

You mean, do they know the Hebrew words? since Richard quoted from the Old Testament, not the New.

Have you thought of studying the reformed view of these subjects, perhaps as expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 1, section 8? It is worth noting what it says about preservation, and examining carefully the texts of Scripture offered in proof. It is also good to see what it says about the value of a faithful translation, and to examine the Scripture texts appended. According to the reformed faith, a faithful translation mediately conveys the inspired and infallible Word to the reader, so that they are able to read it with reverence as the very Word of God.

And what on earth are you referring to in John 3:16? Everybody knows the adjective "pas" may be used individually as well as collectively.

Richard, I just googled "threescore and ten," and there are "scores" upon "scores" of articles which use the term -- especially used in natural history, and always understood to be indicative of an average lifespan.

Done.

__________________
Josh Hicks, Chloë's Dad
Christ Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church, RPCGA
Facebook - The Calvinist Vent
Board Rules - Signature Rules - Suggestion Box

It is God that multiplies our sorrows.... God, as a righteous Judge, does it, which ought to silence us under all our sorrows; as many as they are, we have deserved them all, and more: nay, God, as a tender Father, does it for our necessary correction, that we may be humbled for sin, and weaned from the world by all our sorrows; and the good we get by them, with the comfort we have under them, will abundantly balance our sorrows, how greatly soever they are multiplied. - Matthew Henry

The antiquated spelling appeared in my quotation of Psalm 90:10 (one of my favorite psalms, by the way) because the only KJV I own is the one Thomas Nelson published some years ago which is a replica of the original 1611 publication.

However, my point was that the Hebrew text (which is inspired by God) uses the terms "seventy" and "eighty," not words that should be translated "threescore and ten." Every literate person knows what "threescore and ten" means. But, it's still true that the KJV, in that place, gave what we would call a "dynamic equivalent" translation instead of using the literal words of the text. What disturbs me is that, since it's the KJV, you're willing to give it a pass (since apparently the KJV translators could do no wrong). But, if some other translator made the same move, you'd be up in arms about it.

I think I have been fairly clear that I am "up in arms" over the sense of the original being tinkered with, and particularly when it results in a different theological slant being placed on the text. All translations are dynamic equivalent when it comes to style. I quite like the variation the AV uses with clothing in James 2. I remember reading A. B. Davidson's critical analysis of the R.V., and he mentioned one of the problems of the new translation was its rigidly wooden verbal structures. I am all for flair in language, as long as it conveys the correct meaning. Three score and ten conveys the correct meaning and does so with style!

May we return to the purpose of the thread now?

Neither does it make one know the original languages. Thus, according to you, they will have a very "limited theology". Do you teach this to the laymen in your church? Or do you just keep it to yourself?

Exactly. There are many Greek scholars who are flaming heretics.

See above. You should refrain from this kind of low-blow sarcasm - it only helps others already tired of these threads to stay away. Especially, in light of your not engaging with Rev. Winzer's points on the theology of the different translations.

Andrew,

Because someone is merely able to search out the etymology of a word (as you have done using Strong's) doesn't mean that you have the full meaning of the words. As a prof. of mine says (Chris you'll appreciate this), "Use, not etymology, determines meaning." Brother, it sounds as if you yourself do not have a working knowledge of the greek...so does that mean your theology is limited? Would God not allow good theology to come from faithful and accurate translations of the Scriptures? It appears that you are more interested in "picking a bone" with the AV proponents than to actually deal in a scholarly way with the subject at hand. (This post does not convey my emotion or tone, but to assure you, I am stating this harshly, but in a matter of concern.)
-SDG-

__________________
soli Deo gloria!
~Nicholas~ Ordained Pastor
Member, Fulton PCA; GPTS Student
Christians are like snow covered dung; it is the purity of the covering which the Father sees. -Luther-
There is nothing more ugly than a Christian orthodoxy without understanding or without compassion.
-Francis Schaeffer-

?

If you havent read my previous posts, there is a difference between knowing them, and researching the original language. And for the one who commented earlier, as well, again, you can know what the passage is saying if you take the time to really study the Word.

I'm going to be leaving this thread though.

Good luck!

P.S. I do not hate the AV, brothers. I love the text, really I do. I'm thankful that I can come on these threads and have a hearty debate. Have a good debate brothers Chris and Winzer.