Why the Modern Translations should not be used by the Reformed.

Status
Not open for further replies.

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
By comparing and contrasting the 501 copies of 1 John we can then weed out the transmission errors and come to the pure apograph of the autograph.

I hope this helps.

So, if there are 250 Byzantine mss. of Rev. 22:19 and 99 percent say Tree instead of Book, would you call Tree a TR reading??
 

CalvinandHodges

Puritan Board Junior
By comparing and contrasting the 501 copies of 1 John we can then weed out the transmission errors and come to the pure apograph of the autograph.

I hope this helps.

So, if there are 250 Byzantine mss. of Rev. 22:19 and 99 percent say Tree instead of Book, would you call Tree a TR reading??

Yes, but "book" would also be a Byzantine reading - though a minority one.

-Rob
 
Last edited:

C. M. Sheffield

Puritan Board Senior
Does the Trinitarian Bible Society support a new translation of the TR? I'd be interested in knowing.

Hi Pastor:

I am not sure. I believe that the Trinitarian Bible Society would support a new translation done exclusively from the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus. I have sent an inquiry to them regarding this question.

Blessings,

Rob

Thanks Rob. I'm interested to hear what their response will be. Keep me posted!
 

KSon

Puritan Board Junior
Does the Trinitarian Bible Society support a new translation of the TR? I'd be interested in knowing.

Hi Pastor:

I am not sure. I believe that the Trinitarian Bible Society would support a new translation done exclusively from the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus. I have sent an inquiry to them regarding this question.

Blessings,

Rob

Thanks Rob. I'm interested to hear what their response will be. Keep me posted!

Briefly, so as to not derail the thread; while the same textual base could be used, it would be very difficult to emulate the confessional agreement of the translators and the rigor of the translation-team methods used by the AV translators. It is in these that an irreplaceable value of the AV exists. So if the TBS answers in the affirmative, the next question that would have to follow is, "Who would do the translating?".

Sorry if this is a derailment from the OP.
 

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
So, if there are 250 Byzantine mss. of Rev. 22:19 and 99 percent say Tree instead of Book, would you call Tree a TR reading??
Yes, but "book" would also be a TR reading - though a minority one.

So if 99 percent of Byzantine mss leave out 1 John 5:7-8, would the absence of that verse in a translation be a TR reading?
 

CalvinandHodges

Puritan Board Junior
Hi:

Kipp: I do not think it is a derailment of this thread - as the question/answer is relevant to the discussion.

JM: Thanks! - Blessings! :)

TimV: No, it would not be a TR reading - as the Johannine Comma is in the Textus Receptus. It would be a reading of the Byzantine MSS, though. I had to change my answer in the previous post to be more precise.

Blessings,

Rob
 

teddyrux

Puritan Board Freshman
1 Cor 5:1 - the phrase "is named" is in the Textus Receptus, but is omitted in Nestle/Aland. The ESV follows less literally the translation here. However, the NASB claims that the fornicating sin that Paul speaks of "does not exist" among the Gentiles. This is not simply contrary to what Paul is saying, but is a flat out lie - Greek Mythology talks about the "Oedipus complex."

Isn't this similar to saying that the Bible is inaccurate because Jesus said that the mustard seed is the smallest of seeds?
 

Philip

Puritan Board Graduate
Hi Robert:

No. Because the word "is named" is in the Greek Text.

Rob, I just did a check of the AV, and the verse came out thusly:

"It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife."

Not exactly sure how this is supposed to make your case. At any rate, the sense is the same in either version.
 

CalvinandHodges

Puritan Board Junior
Hi Philip:

Maybe a side-by-side comparison would be helpful:

KJV at 1 Cor 5:1 reads: "It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife."

NASB at 1 Cor 5:1 reads: "It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father's wife."

Paul, in the TR version, is saying that the Gentile practice this type of immorality, but it is "not named" among them.

The NASB is following the Critical Text in saying that the Gentiles do not practice this type of immorality it, "does not exist."

To say that something "does not exist" is not the same as saying it is "not named."

Grace and Peace,

Rob
 

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
So to clarify, Rob:

The word Tree in Rev. 22:19 is in the TR even though it's never been in any version of the TR.

1 John 5:7-8 is in the TR, even though it's not in the overwhelming Byzantine mms., since it's in the TR.

Do I have this right so far?
 

CalvinandHodges

Puritan Board Junior
Hi:

TimV: "Tree" (Rev 22:19) is not a reading of the TR - it is a Byzantine reading. Yes, 1 John 5:7,8 is in the TR and is a reading of the Byzantine MSS - though a minority one.

Philip: The meanings are not the same. To give you an example: In the Harry Potter series the main evil character is called by many, "He-who-must-not-be-named." This character really exists (in the book), but "is not named." The NASB says that this sin "does not exist." So, something that is "not named" can exist - it is just that people do not talk about it. However, the NASB says it does not exist - which is untrue.

LTL: The NKJV is acceptable, but not preferable. Would I consider it a modern translation? Insofar as it is influenced by the Critical it - which is present but slight - then I would consider it a modern translation.

Blessings,

Rob
 
Last edited:

Philip

Puritan Board Graduate
Philip: The meanings are not the same. To give you an example: In the Harry Potter series the main evil character is called by many, "He-who-must-not-be-named." This character really exists (in the book), but "is not named." The NASB says that this sin "does not exist." So, something that is "not named" can exist - it is just that people do not talk about it. However, the NASB says it does not exist - which is untrue.

False---even "he-who-must-not-be-named" is a name. Paul is talking about it, therefore it is named. His point is that even the Gentiles know it's disgusting and wrong. Again, either way, it's a hyperbole that has more or less the same force. You're quibbling over words.

If something is "not named" then you can't talk about it. In fact, you can't think about a concept with no word for it (at least not coherently).
 

jayce475

Puritan Board Freshman
Philip: The meanings are not the same. To give you an example: In the Harry Potter series the main evil character is called by many, "He-who-must-not-be-named." This character really exists (in the book), but "is not named." The NASB says that this sin "does not exist." So, something that is "not named" can exist - it is just that people do not talk about it. However, the NASB says it does not exist - which is untrue.

False---even "he-who-must-not-be-named" is a name. Paul is talking about it, therefore it is named. His point is that even the Gentiles know it's disgusting and wrong. Again, either way, it's a hyperbole that has more or less the same force. You're quibbling over words.

If something is "not named" then you can't talk about it. In fact, you can't think about a concept with no word for it (at least not coherently).

Are you arguing that God's words are only important in terms of ideas and concepts and that it does not matter if we get the words wrong as long as the idea is somewhat there, even if the wrong words are used?
 

Philip

Puritan Board Graduate
Are you arguing that God's words are only important in terms of ideas and concepts and that it does not matter if we get the words wrong as long as the idea is somewhat there, even if the wrong words are used?

Not exactly. I'm arguing that an argument for the TR cannot be based upon this passage, as both renderings accord with Paul's intent and meaning.
 

Romans 8 Verse 28

Puritan Board Freshman
Does the Trinitarian Bible Society support a new translation of the TR? I'd be interested in knowing.

Pastor Sheffield:

I don't think they support a new English translation of the TR. See "Why not produce a modern version of the English Bible for the 21st Century?" article from their Quarterly Record magazine. It's issue 582 from A.D. 2008 (I found a link to it online here: http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/qr/qr582.pdf).

BTW Pastor Sheffield, are you kin to the south Georgia Sheffield's (Early county, etc)? When I was going through the Mock family tree I remember a number of Sheffield's in it.
 
Last edited:

C. M. Sheffield

Puritan Board Senior
Does the Trinitarian Bible Society support a new translation of the TR? I'd be interested in knowing.

Pastor Sheffield:

I don't think they support a new English translation of the TR. See "Why not produce a modern version of the English Bible for the 21st Century?" article from their Quarterly Record magazine. It's issue 582 from A.D. 2008 (I found a link to it online here: http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/qr/qr582.pdf).

BTW Pastor Sheffield, are you kin to the South Georgia Sheffield's (Early county, etc)? When I was going through the Mock family tree I remember a number of Sheffield's in it.

Jeff,

Thanks for the link. And as a matter of fact I are a south Georgia Sheffield. Now what my relation to the Sheffields in Early county is, I'm not sure. But our clan traces its roots back to Bullock county to before the War of Northern Aggression. ;) But I'd seriously doubt there not being a connection to my family tree.
 

Romans 8 Verse 28

Puritan Board Freshman
Does the Trinitarian Bible Society support a new translation of the TR? I'd be interested in knowing.

Pastor Sheffield:

I don't think they support a new English translation of the TR. See "Why not produce a modern version of the English Bible for the 21st Century?" article from their Quarterly Record magazine. It's issue 582 from A.D. 2008 (I found a link to it online here: http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/qr/qr582.pdf).

BTW Pastor Sheffield, are you kin to the South Georgia Sheffield's (Early county, etc)? When I was going through the Mock family tree I remember a number of Sheffield's in it.

Jeff,

Thanks for the link. And as a matter of fact I are a south Georgia Sheffield. Now what my relation to the Sheffields in Early county is, I'm not sure. But our clan traces its roots back to Bullock county to before the War of Northern Aggression. ;) But I'd seriously doubt there not being a connection to my family tree.

Pastor Sheffield:

Sure, my pleasure brother. I had that TBS Quarterly Record magazine handy as it was one of my favorites issues from A.D. 2008 (and thankfully they also post them online).

Regarding the south Georgia Sheffield's, it seems a number of them married into the Mock family on my dad's side. I cannot recall all the details, but I have the family tree information packed up around here somewhere (and there are a number of Sheffield's in it).

---------- Post added at 10:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:21 PM ----------

Hi Jeff:

Thanks for your post. I put my "helpful" on it! :)

Blessings,

Rob

Rob:

Sure, my pleasure brother.
 

JonathanHunt

Puritan Board Senior
Regarding the TBS and a new translation of the MT/TR. It is a question I have asked in the past, and they are certainly not against a new translation, but the resources and time required are, they have said, beyond their scope at the present time. Their income is falling at the moment, evangelical newspapers here have recorded a half million deficit in this years accounts, so they are cutting costs.

Knowing some TBS folk personally, I would say that there isn't much will for a new translation as they believe the KJV to be the best translation ever made, and still entirely adequate for life and ministry today. If you read the Chair of the Society's attack pamphlet on the NKJV you will see that if the TBS made an updated AV, they would not update 'thees and thous' and so forth.
 

C. M. Sheffield

Puritan Board Senior
Regarding the TBS and a new translation of the MT/TR. It is a question I have asked in the past, and they are certainly not against a new translation, but the resources and time required are, they have said, beyond their scope at the present time. Their income is falling at the moment, evangelical newspapers here have recorded a half million deficit in this years accounts, so they are cutting costs.

Knowing some TBS folk personally, I would say that there isn't much will for a new translation as they believe the KJV to be the best translation ever made, and still entirely adequate for life and ministry today. If you read the Chair of the Society's attack pamphlet on the NKJV you will see that if the TBS made an updated AV, they would not update 'thees and thous' and so forth.

I don't wont them to do away with the 'thees and thous,' I like 'em. The're actually helpful to understanding. But there are other words that could be updated. For instance instead of "broided" say "braided" (I Tim. 2:9); instead of the adverb "anon" say "immediately" or "at once" (Mt. 13:20; Mk. 1:30); it could say "helped" instead of "holpen" (Ps. 38:8; Lk. 1:54). You get the idea.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top