This should have not been done in the case of translating the Person of the Holy Spirit.
Biggest errors in the KJV?
- Thread starter Jeremy Ivens
- Start date
- Status
I do not think just for financial rewards, but was a large part of when the Niv was revised in 2005 and then again 2011, due to Zondervan taking away all 1984 versions, and same thing to happen now with the Csb replacing the Hcsb.
The modern versions need not be updated that quickly though, as the source etxts such as Greek texts are not updated that quickly.
Think about this though. Was it really necessary for Holman to publish a translation, so soon after the success that Crossway had with the ESV? How does this help the average lay person, or new believer in having to decide which Bible is the Bible?
Jeremy Ivens
Puritan Board Freshman
Sad to say, many decisions, even in Christian circles, comes down to the dollar.
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
It was worse than that. For about 28 seconds earlier this year, the ESV people said that they were now calling it the "Permanent Text," in which changes would be minor and rare. Well, they got thoroughly laughed at and derided for that decision (and rightly so), after which they dropped the idea entirely. And I report this as a big fan of the translation.
TheOldCourse
Puritan Board Sophomore
The Holy Spirit inerrantly referred to himself in the neuter when inspiring the pertinent texts. Are we to correct him in our translation?
The AV translates the Paraclete sayings in John 14-16 with masculine pronouns.
Again, the translation should reflect the diversity of the original. The Spirit is not merely a person but also fulfils an office. One should not so emphasise His personality as to obscure His office, nor vice versa. Both should be made apparent in the translation. To give an example, your president is referred to as "he," but his presidency is referred to as "it."
It is particularly appropriate to refer to the Spirit officially in those places where His work in believers is described. Besides, there is an age-old debate as to whether the Holy Spirit can be said to "personally" dwell in believers.
Last edited:
In taking this fatal step you have committed yourself to a belief in an "errant" word of God. This is something that the holy Scripture NEVER teaches. It is a doctrine devised by human imagination.
iainduguid
Puritan Board Junior
WCF 1.8 distinguishes carefully between the original Hebrew and Greek texts, which are the ultimate authority in all controversies in religion, and translations of these originals into various languages which by their nature can only have a derived inerrancy. That is, they are inerrant insofar as they are an accurate rendition of the original Greek and Hebrew. Otherwise, there would be no need to retain the right to appeal to the Greek or Hebrew, and we would have to decide which translations were most inerrant, since the English, French and German translations do not agree at all points.
The same section also speaks to the necessity and authority of translations for those who do not know the original languages, "that the word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope."
Larger Catechism, answer 157, says that these 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."
iainduguid
Puritan Board Junior
Of course I am firmly persuaded that the various English translations are the Word of God. And, inasmuch as they are excellent translations of the original Greek and Hebrew, they are fully inspired and inerrant. But sometimes recourse to the original languages may be required, which suggests that our translations are not always perfect. Indeed they cannot be, since what the confession is talking about is not merely translation into English but into multiple different local languages and no two languages work in exactly the same way. Where those translations disagree, we are not to have recourse to the KJV and correct other language translations to match it, we are to go back to the Greek and Hebrew and see what the original says.
On that we agree. The point of my previous post was to show that WCF 1.8 also speaks to the heritage of all God's people, and this heritage is not to be denied by the few who know the original languages. Making up a new article of faith and binding the people to believe in an errant word of God is not reformed.
iainduguid
Puritan Board Junior
As is insisting that a particular translation into English is completely without error. Were that the case, we would never need recourse to the original languages; we could simply refer to the English translation (which one? why that one, given that it was not the first translation into English). As has been noted above, the 1611 edition of the KJV had numerous mistakes that needed to be fixed. In addition, there are places where it differs from translations into other languages. Is English the only language with a completely inerrant translation?
That was John Goodwin's contention. It was well answered by Samuel Rutherford in Pretended Liberty of Conscience: "Mr. John Goodwin will allow us no foundation of faith, but such as is made of grammars and Characters, and if the Scripture be wrong pointed, or the Printer drunk, or if the translation slip, then our faith is gone: Whereas the means of conveying the things believed may be fallible, as writing, printing, translating, speaking, are all fallible means of conveying the truth of old and new Testament to us, and yet the Word of GOD in that which is delivered to us is infallible."
tdh86
Puritan Board Freshman
Apart from it being technically true in the Koine Greek of course. ;-) I think if you read the 'that's in the KJV as 'who's then it reads much better. It was obviously the way that English was used to say 'the man that...' or 'a woman that...' rather than 'the man who...' and 'a woman who...' Once you have 'the Spirit who...' then I personally don't lose much sleep over the Spirit being referred to as 'it'. We need to be careful not to make God in our own image and presume that because the Father and the Son are both referred to as 'He' that the Spirit should be too. Do we know from Scripture that the Spirit has a gender?
The text should reflect that He is a He.
Jesus claimed that He has one.
I agree that the scriptures as in the Originals were fully inerrant, without any mistakes/errors, and true in all they described, and the translations are infallible witness, but none of them were inspired, and have some minor know mistakes/errors from copying process, and from some parts of the originals not fully brought over to us in Greek/Hebrew texts fully.
tdh86
Puritan Board Freshman
You mean when referring to the Comforter? Not wanting to get into a debate on this but the Greek word for Comforter dictates a masculine pronoun so I wouldn't say it's that clear cut. Either way, I'm comfortable with he or it. The personality of the Spirit is the all important point I believe.
I am not saying that it is "wrong" to have had the KJV translate Him as it in that context, but why was it the only translation that called the Spirit an It at all?
tdh86
Puritan Board Freshman
The only answer that I can give is that they tried to be as literal as possible. Which, in my book, should be applauded. Even if it can make things tricky sometimes.
Their desire to be as literal as possible is a good thing, but not at the expense of labeling the Third person of the trinity as an it, as that would be more as what JW see the Spirit as being.
Holy Scripture does not teach this. Uninspired, errant men teach this.
Our Lord and His apostles referred to copies and translations of holy Scripture when they quoted the Old Testament. They relied on the words of these copies and translations as being inspired and infallible.
The doctrine of an inspired and infallible word can only be received by anyone today through copies, and only by those who do not know the original languages through translations. Their faith in holy Scripture presupposes what they have is the inspired and infallible word of God.
Last edited:
- Status
