bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
I'm not sure that's possible.
Who went from KJV to ESV and stayed there/went back to KJV?
- Thread starter Polanus1561
- Start date
- Status
I'm not sure that's possible.
I agree that it might be an overstatement to call the ESV 'ridiculous' in spots.
But as to these 'qualified linguistic scholars, by whom are they qualified? And who says they have a high view of Scripture? The publisher? The seminaries?
How much does the church know about the translators' qualifications and esteem for God's Word?
Free Christian
Puritan Board Sophomore
I'll stand by my statement of ridiculous. When God says something in clear terms that a primary school child could understand and someone comes along and makes it say something completely the opposite, that's ridiculous. Perhaps we could get pedantic on the use of a particular word as ridiculous, someone may use another type of word! But changes to words that are attributed to God directly speaking something to mean the exact opposite are quite frankly "ridiculous" and an example of lack of diligence and care to what they are actually handling. Perhaps I should have used "pathetic" instead.
Ed Walsh
Puritan Board Senior
Here's my question:
What difference does it make as to who prepares the Greek text or who translates the Bible? It's still the Word of God. Right? You might as well ask, "What difference does it make as to who delivers the Lord's Day sermon to your congregation?"
Jeremiah 2:8
The priests said not, Where is the Lord? and they that handle the law knew me not: the pastors also transgressed against me, and the prophets prophesied by Baal, and walked after things that do not profit.
The priests said not, Where is the Lord? and they that handle the law knew me not: the pastors also transgressed against me, and the prophets prophesied by Baal, and walked after things that do not profit.
I have always thought that everything to do with the Bible texts and translations should be handled by theologians (hopefully Reformed) who possess the skills needed for compiling the texts and translating the same. Modus operandi - So when there are two equally plausible manuscript texts or words the same principle as used for the interpretation of Scripture should be used in translation.
"The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men." (Westminster Confession Ch 1. par 6)
Here's an older PB thread (Dec. 2013) that discusses Westcott and Hort's Greek text that most modern translations use as their source.
How much does it matter how and who translated our Bibles? (Note by me: Wescott and Hort did NOT translate the Bible. They prepared the Greek text)
Gipp's Understandable History of the Bible Paperback – January 1, 1987
by Sameul C. Gipp
I am sure by now that most of you are familiar with this book's critique on Wescott and Hort, but I think it is crucial.
from: Chapter 8: Westcott and Hort (read the whole chapter)
Below are just a few examples of their beliefs: (See the link above for the rest of the chapter)
A Shocking Revelation
That these men should lend their influence to a family of MSS which have a history of attacking and diluting the major doctrines of the Bible, should not come as a surprise. Oddly enough, neither man believed that the Bible should be treated any differently than the writings of the lost historians and philosophers!
Hort wrote, "For ourselves, we dare not introduce considerations which could not reasonably be applied to other ancient texts, supposing them to have documentary attestation of equal amount, variety and antiquity."
He also states, "In the New Testament, as in almost all prose writings which have been much copied, corruptions by interpolation are many times more numerous than corruptions by omission." (Emphasis mine.)
We must consider these things for a moment. How can God use men who do not believe that His Book is any different than Shakespeare, Plato, or Dickens? It is a fundamental belief that the Bible is different from all other writings. Why did these men not believe so?
Blatant Disbelief
Their skepticism does, in fact, go even deeper. They have both become famous for being able to deny scriptural truth and still be upheld by fundamental Christianity as biblical authorities! Both Westcott and Hort failed to accept the basic Bible doctrines which we hold so dear and vital to our fundamental faith.
Hort denies the reality of Eden: "I am inclined to think that no such state as 'Eden'(I mean the popular notion) ever existed, and that Adam's fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants, as Coleridge justly argues."90
Furthermore, he took sides with the apostate authors of "Essays and Reviews."
Hort writes to Rev. Rowland Williams, October 21, 1858, "Further I agree with them [Authors of "Essays and Reviews"] in condemning many leading specific doctrines of the popular theology ... Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue. There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, and especially the authority of the Bible."
We must also confront Hort's disbelief that the Bible was infallible: "If you make a decided conviction of the absolute infallibility of the N.T. practically a sine qua non for co-operation, I fear I could not join you." He also stated:
"As I was writing the last words a note came from Westcott. He too mentions having had fears, which he now pronounces 'groundless,' on the strength of our last conversation, in which he discovered that I did 'recognize' 'Providence' in biblical writings. Most strongly I recognize it, but I am not prepared to say that it necessarily involves absolute infallibility. So I still await judgment."
And further commented to a colleague:
"But I am not able to go as far as you in asserting the absolute infallibility of a canonical writing."
Last edited:
TrustGzus
Puritan Board Freshman
Ken, I think that’s a fair question.
Unless I’m misinformed and/or have a serious misunderstanding, this information isn’t hard to get a hold of.
Here is a link to the ESV translation oversight committee...
https://www.esv.org/translation/oversight-committee/
These are the people responsible for what is in the ESV.
I assume many of in this forum have more books than we’ve ever read but have read many that we do have.
Wayne Grudem is on the list. I assume many of us own and have read his Systematic Theology. So we know his view of Scripture.
J.I. Packer, Leland Ryken, R. Kent Hughes, Vern Poythress. Others that some may or may not know.
So it’s not the publisher or the seminaries that say they have X or Y view of Scripture, it’s their own published works that are available for any of us to read.
Last edited:
TrustGzus
Puritan Board Freshman
Hi Brett, perhaps you know Hebrew at a level that qualifies to read the Hebrew and call it ridiculous. In regard to Hebrew, I do not. I can only compare English and use Hebrew tools to try to snow someone into believing I know what I’m really talking about.
But me comparing English version to English version and picking an older one over a newer, possibly more informed rendering would be me adhering to tradition.
Maybe it is ridiculous, but maybe it’s more informed than precious generations have been on Hebrew. I don’t know.
For myself, I’ll reserve judgment till I can read more on the subject. Or if I complete 6-7 semesters of Hebrew and remember this thread I’ll be glad to come back and comment.
Last edited:
Ben Zartman
Puritan Board Junior
Funny, the ESV interpretation of Gen 3:16 (which I just looked up online) is pretty much what I took it to mean in KJV. And anyone who is married can attest to the truth of the first part of ESV Gen 3:16! 
Polanus1561
Puritan Board Junior
wow we have strayed from the first page..
This would seem to indicate that the standard Reformed viewpoint on the scriptures is what the 1979 Statement does affirm.
All of the modern versions translators who worked on the Niv/Esv/Nas affirmed the 1979 Statement, and would all see the scriptures as being the inspired word of God to us. The main differences between the translation would not really be based upon which sources used, such as the Tr/Ct, but more on whether they were in a philosophy of formal or DE for how they chose to translation into English..
Pretty much all who have worked on translations such as Nas/esv/Niv have affirmed that the scriptures are the inspired word of God to us, and are infallible in what they teach to us.
Who is 'us'? Is it the responsibility of each and every Christian to wade through the published works of these people and decide for themselves whether they are qualified translators and have a high view of Scripture?
TrustGzus
Puritan Board Freshman
It’s obviously not the responsibility of every Christian to do so. Not all Christians can. Most probably cannot.
Most Christians probably don’t think about such things. Most just have an NIV or ESV or KJV because that’s what the pastor says to buy. Most don’t realize every handful of years major translations make some revisions. I don’t suspect God expects most Christian to have deep knowledge of these things.
However, neither are most Christians on forums like this saying the ESV 2016 edition has a ridiculous rendering of Genesis 3:16.
Right. I am just trying to see whose responsibility it is to 'qualify' these translators. According to Websters, qualify means "to declare competent or adequate." Who examines these translators and declares their competency? The publishers, the seminaries, or the consumers?
Last edited:
U
Username3000
Guest
Why are Christians from 17th century England considered to be the Church's authority on any textual or translation issues?
This plea to authority makes an impenetrable citadel of all things KJV, and halts any further discussion on the real topic.
To be consistent, why are their other pronouncements not considered binding on the English speaking Church today?
Obviously there is not going to be any Church-wide agreement/decisions on these issues in today's fragmented Western Church, so are we obligated to use the KJV for the next 1500 years if that remains unchanged?
This plea to authority makes an impenetrable citadel of all things KJV, and halts any further discussion on the real topic.
To be consistent, why are their other pronouncements not considered binding on the English speaking Church today?
Obviously there is not going to be any Church-wide agreement/decisions on these issues in today's fragmented Western Church, so are we obligated to use the KJV for the next 1500 years if that remains unchanged?
Was this an attempt to answer my question or someone elses?
U
Username3000
Guest
I understand your frustration, however, it isn't fair to stridently accuse most of the people on PB of being intransigent, inconsistent bullies, and then just bow out.
You should either substantiate your accusations or delete them.
Forum Rules and Etiquette
3. Pause Before You Post
This is something that everyone can benefit from. Before you send the latest jab, punch, tweak, etc into cyberspace, take a minute (or two, or five) to make sure that you are doing so in a spirit of Christian maturity (cf. #4 below). Study first, pray, post after.
You should either substantiate your accusations or delete them.
Forum Rules and Etiquette
3. Pause Before You Post
This is something that everyone can benefit from. Before you send the latest jab, punch, tweak, etc into cyberspace, take a minute (or two, or five) to make sure that you are doing so in a spirit of Christian maturity (cf. #4 below). Study first, pray, post after.
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
You will have to unpack the broad assertion "common belief" and "Gold Standard". Among active members, such a statement is not in accord with the facts.
For example:
https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...te-main-bible-translation.84855/#post-1060027
Seems almost an even split between KJV/NKJV and the other various translations.
Yes, as there are good bible translations available to us for use today, in addition to the KJV version itself.You will have to unpack the broad assertion "common belief" and "Gold Standard". Among active members, such a statement is not in accord with the facts.
For example:
https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...te-main-bible-translation.84855/#post-1060027
Seems almost an even split between KJV/NKJV and the other various translations.
I would say that while those such as the KJVO crowd would agree with your assessment here regarding the KJV, but that there seem to be none of them here who post.
Free Christian
Puritan Board Sophomore
I suppose when you think about it there is no real issue. Just as long as what we use for our walk towards eternity has the word Bible printed on the cover, what's it matter what the people who translated it believed!? As long as the one we choose suits our own personal taste it should be ok. Like, it's not as if we're in some kind of warfare or anything, or as if there is anything trying to hinder us or corrupt God's Word! I mean, seriously, anyone would think our life depended on it.
TrustGzus
Puritan Board Freshman
Brett, who has expressed any such ideas?
- Status
Similar threads
