You hit the nail on the head, brother. Shame on the man that would teach the people (implicitly or explicitly) they can't trust their English bible.

Who agrees with this statement: The English translation (be it AV/ESV/NASB) is sufficient for the English speaking believer?

If yes, then what do you say to the theological differences that Rev. Winzer has been pointing out? To my mind, it is at least something deserving much consideration.

Here is the thread's topic: AV Theology Compared to Modern Versions

Is there no NASB/ESV/NIV/XYZ fan, that can correct Rev. Winzer points or offer a different perspective?

The silence thus far has been deafening. I hope its just because they simply have better things to do.

At last count, no one will interact with Rev. Winzer's several theological points. I don't know why but I thought this would be an easier thing to do compared to the other threads that rehash mss. arguments over and over.

__________________
Chris Mangum
Presbyterian Reformed Church of Charlotte
student, GPTS
.357 Mangum

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. James 1:27

So far this is less like a debate and more like a smack-down. Where are all the ESV users? Isn't that the official Bible now of the some of the Presby denoms? (Where do they get off calling it the 'standard' anyway?)

Signed,

KJV lover Ken

__________________

THE AV is still IT.

__________________
~etexas~

Respectfully, the reason you don't generally see much counter to these sorts of threads is because most people who dogmatically support the KJV over against the other translations argue 'a priori' in favor of the KJV; that is, dialog over individual readings with people are meaningless if they hold the position that essentially says that "if it is in the KJV, it is correct".

Having said that, I'd like to ask Armourbearer, just to find out where you are in the spectrum...could you point out 1 example in the KJV where the translation is wrong?

In answer to a few of the texts you selected…

In Ephesians 1:5, the ESV's rendering "according to the purpose of his will", is much stronger wording for the doctrine of election (which is the context) then the KJV's "according to the good pleasure of his will". Either translation is arguably correct in this context (eudokia).

In Hebrews 2:16 the ASV reads "For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham." The ESV reads, " For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham." Which is correct? Is the text specifically dealing with the nature which Christ took on in his incarnation or with who he came to help?

The Greek word in question here is "epilambanomai". This word literally means to 'lay hold of with vigor' for a specific purpose (to help, to injure, to attain, etc.). The Youngs Literal Translation renders this verse, "or, doubtless, of messengers it doth not lay hold, but of seed of Abraham it layeth hold".

What we see here is that both the ESV and the KJV are interpreting the text (a dynamic equivalent in this case) for the reader. Personally, I would rather see both translations render this text more literally as the interpretation could arguably go in either direction. While both interpretations fit the context, I favor the interpretation as presented in the ESV, that here Christ is taking hold of the seed of Abraham in the 'help' sense. However, if it were up to me (thankfully it isn’t), I would rather see passages like this more literally translated. In either of the translations (KJV & ESV--along with just about all others), the reader has no idea that there is a difficulty in this verse that needs some thinking.

I'll leave it to the reader to decide from himself the wisdom in employing comparisons of these two renderings to establish a superior translation of the English Bible.

Moving on to Acts 13:48…a quibble was presented with the translation of 'tasso' as 'appointed' instead of 'ordained'. I would argue that 'appointed' is the superior translation in this place. While the word 'appoint' conveys the simpler meaning of being chosen or selected for something, the word 'ordain' can convey additional meaning (ordination to the specific office of elder for instance). I understand that either word can be used either way, but as Armourbearer previously stated, the English word 'ordain' typically conveys something more. For this reason, 'appointed' is, in my opinion, a better word choice for Acts 13:48. Conversely, in Titus 1:5, I think the KJV is better in this instance to use the word 'ordain' over the ESV's 'appoint' because here we are dealing with the ordination of elders.

Out of time…gotta go.

__________________
Robert Truelove
Pastor
Christ Reformed Church
Lawrenceville, GA

My concern is not so much in the translation -- although there are significant differences -- but in the Greek text underneath which affects the meaning due to omissions and/or changes.

I have seen committed Calvinists stay true to doctrine using a variety of modern versions.

There is not much doubt in my mind that the Critical Text -- deriving from the Westcott/Hort Greek text -- weakens the testimony to the deity of Christ (to consider just one doctrine). Consider the remarks of the Unitarian Dr. Vance Smith concerning the deletion of the word “God” in the text of 1 Timothy 3:16, where the Scripture in speaking of Jesus talks of “the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh”. The Revisers replaced it with “who”. Dr. Smith later wrote,

The old reading [of 1 Tim 3:16] is pronounced untenable by the Revisers, as it has long been known to be by all careful students of the New Testament…It is in truth another example of the facility with which ancient copiers could introduce the word God into their manuscripts,—a reading which was the natural result of the growing tendency in early Christian times…to look upon the humble Teacher as the incarnate Word, and therefore as “God manifested in the flesh”.* …It has been frequently said that the changes of translation…are of little importance from a doctrinal point of view…[A]ny such statement [is]…contrary to the facts.** (*Texts and Margins of the Revised New Testament Affecting Theological Doctrine Briefly Reviewed, by Dr. Vance Smith (London: 1881), pages 39, 47. Cited in Revision Revised, by Burgon, pages 515, 513. ** Ibid., page 45. Cited in Riplinger, page 432)

The only instance in the N.T. in which the religious worship or adoration of Christ was apparently implied, has been altered by the Revision: ‘At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow,’ [Philippians 2:10] is now to be read ‘in the name.’ Moreover, no alteration of text or of translation will be found anywhere to make up for this loss; as indeed it is well understood that the N.T. contains neither precept nor example which really sanctions the religious worship of Jesus Christ. [Emphasis added] (Texts and Margins, Smith, page 47. Cited in, For Love of the Bible: The Battle for the King James Version and the Received Text from 1800 to Present, by David W. Cloud (WA: Way of Life Literature, 1997), page 31.)

A.G. Hobbs, in his Forward to the reprint of Burgon’s The Revision Revised, wrote,

Here is a real shocker: Dean Stanley, Westcott, Hort, and Bishop Thirwall all refused to serve if Smith were dismissed [in the face of the public outcry at his presence on the Revision Committee]. Let us remember that the Bible teaches that those who uphold and bid a false teacher God speed are equally guilty. ‘For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds’ (2 John 9-11). No wonder that the Deity of Christ is played down in so many passages. (The Revision Revised, by John William Burgon (Centennial Edition, Fifth printing, 1991), Forward [no page #]. See also, Life of Westcott, Vol I, page 394.)

We orthodox and Reformed believers may say that theology is not affected in the modern versions, but the men who made the Greek text underlying these versions had a diffent view of the matter -- and a distinct agenda as regards affecting the theology of the text.

Steve

__________________
Steve Rafalsky
Elder, International Evangelical Church (Reformed)
Limassol, Cyprus

"I am set for the defense of the gospel" (Philippians 1:17)

"Strengthened with all might, according to His glorious
power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness..." (Colossians 1:11)

Big Amen!

Why not ask a question which requires me to state where I am in the spectrum rather than create this meaningless test? If you are testing me to see if I am cynical as to the results of all human endeavour because of human fallibility, No, I am not. I have not seen any errors in the Westminster Confession of Faith and I cannot see any errors in the Authorised Version of the Bible. There may be places where the wording of both human productions might be more precisely constructed, but the sense conveys the truth, in my humble opinion.

Eudokia and prothesis are two different words conveying distinct ideas, as will be seen by comparing ver. 5 with ver. 11. "Good pleasure" shows that the spring of God's purpose is in God Himself. Matthew Henry: “Here is also the rule and fontal cause of God’s election: it is according to the good pleasure of His will (v. 5), not for the sake of anything in them foreseen, but because it was his sovereign will, and a thing highly pleasing to him." When reformed writers come to prove the unconditionality of God's purpose they generally do so by an appeal to the fact that God predestinates according to His good pleasure. The word "purpose" or "intention" falls short of conveying this idea satisfactorily.

The ESV translates prothesis in ver. 11 with the same word, "purpose," thereby obscuring the fact that two different ideas are conveyed in vv. 5, 11. Moreover, in Phil 2:13, it inconsistently retains "good pleasure."

See John Owen in loc.

The AV rendering represents the reformed understanding of the Greek of Heb. 2:16. All modern versions follow the Anabaptist and Socinian interpretation. It is not a matter of what the Greek word ordinarily means in and of itself, but what it signifies in the context of the passage, which clearly teaches what Christ has done for His brethren in assuming their nature.

See my previous comments about semantic domains. Acts 15:2 provides a similar use of the word with a decretive connotation. We cannot allow the use of "ordain" with reference to office to dominate the meaning of the word when it is used with reference to destiny.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

To this I say . Let me state that, again, you raise some excellent points about problems in the way men have chosen to translate manuscripts. I find myself more in agreement with you than disagreement on this issue. Not being a scholar in Greek myself, I'm increasingly skeptical about forming opinions on a text from a Church or a theologian I don't trust. I think we all need to be careful which engines we hitch ourselves to.

I do appreciate the mooring that you provide to trusting the Church over others. I'm still not sure about manuscript choices per se and whether the Church can consentially decide to use a certain set for other languages but I do appreciate the weight of the idea that we ought not to be too cavalier about the fact that a bunch of tools exist to help us decide for ourselves what the Scriptures say apart from the testimony of the Church.

Blessings,

Rich

__________________
Rich
Okinawa, Japan

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

I find this thread very edifying. Keep it up!

__________________
Ivan Schoen, Pastor
Maranatha Baptist Church
Poplar Grove, Illinois USA
http://maranatha-sbc.org/
"When a denomination begins to consider doctrine divisive, theology troublesome, and convictions inconvenient, consider that denomination on its way to a well-deserved death." Dr. Albert Mohler, President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Using the term "standard" in the title of a Bible translation probably got started with the ASV (the American Standard Version) in 1901. This was picked up by the RSV (the Revised Standard Version) in 1952, by the NASB (the New American Standard Bible) in 1973, and then by the ESV (the English Standard Version) in 2001.

The ASV, in turn, was based on the ERV (the English Revised Version) of 1885, which, in its turn, was a revision of the KJV/AV of 1611.

And the KJV/AV incorporates William Tyndale's translation of the New Testament as about 90% of its New Testament text.

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

Talking to oneself is, I believe, considered a sign of lunacy. Thinking to oneself is most certainly a sign of it. - G. K. Chesterton (1874-1936), in January, 1906

The RV was not a revision of the AV, else it would have used the same originals, and would have retained about the same percentage of words as the AV borrowed from Tyndale. That percentage, it is worth noting, is usually calculated at 80%; and it is only the "words," not the whole text, that is considered. I regard such a high percentage as a benefit because it results in greater conformity between texts. This consistency would be true on a macro scale as well, if all of the vulgar reformation versions were taken into account (that is, with respect to sense).

If the RV was not a revision of the AV, then to what does the term "revised" in the RV refer to, if anything?

Perhaps it can be understood as a hollow claim, the same as the RSV, which O. T. Allis dubbed a new translation.

Yup!

If the RV was not a revision of the AV, then to what does the term "revised" in the RV refer to, if anything?

It was not a revision of the AV, and not a revision of the AV's underlying Greek, for it went far beyond revising the Greek, to the point of actually replacing it with a grossly inferior textform. It might more aptly have been called the SV -- Supplanting Version. If one looks at the Jehovah's Witnesses' Interlinear Gr/Eng NT, one can see they use the Greek text underlying the RV, which is the very Westcott and Hort Greek Text. And they prefer it with good reason.

Steve

This is what I meant by many KJV defenders who argue 'a priori'. Since, in your view the KJV has no errors, it is futile to discuss textual and translational issues because there will always be some dogmatic reason the KJV is right and everything else is wrong...and ultimately, the reason is not truely the arguements given, but because the reading is in the KJV (the presupposition).

Either way you see it, comparing the AV and modern English translations in regard to their affects on theology is a massive help and a very enlightening endeavor.

Your post #45 was the first in this thread that actually engaged the topic that Rev. Winzer has so brilliantly been hitting on.

I hope you continue.

Maybe another modern translation proponent?