My view:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3986847#post3986847
Just in case anyone is wondering,
I am not a KJBOnlyist.
In fact, I readily admit that there are some places, such as some of the obvious archaic words, in the KJV that I think could be improved upon—indeed I even hope a day will come when the church will take up the task of creating a faithful revision of the KJV. Until that happens, I don’t see the harm in having to bear with a few outdated expressions for what I consider to be the best faithful translation of the inspired Holy Writ.
I own what I think are all the major translations of Scripture. I have studied them, as well as their underlying manuscripts, and consult them often. But at the end of the day I have to make a choice such that I will be judged by or I will judge—and judge I must. Why? When I am confronted with conflicting versions of Scripture translations, I am compelled to make a choice, for I believe
the 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 (
WLC-Q.157). If we are taught from Scripture to hear the Word of the Lord, that is,
to hear and not bring up all manner of questions criticizing the Word of the Lord, then this convinces me that I cannot in good conscience hold conflicting versions in
reverent esteem as if both versions are the
word of God.
For me this begins with confession that the divine revelation of God is that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, and that I and others who so confess the same are the real successors of Peter, all speaking by the influence of the Holy Spirit. When I examine what version was predominantly quoted from by the Reformers and the Puritans that have come before me, the KJV stands out for
I believe, as it was similarly understood by the forefathers, that the KJV excels because the version
(1) drew upon the best Hebrew and Greek manuscripts;
(2) was translated with a conservative philosophy of translation;
(3) deployed great wisdom when using transliteration;
(4) matched the majesty of the style of Scripture in dignified and very elegant English;
(5) when read according to the purpose for which the Scriptures were delivered by God, is easily understood; and,
(6) makes the sense of Scripture clearer through the use of
italicized words.
I recognize that some complain that the KJV uses English that was not spoken by English-speaking persons of any time in history.
Nevertheless, the KJV represents a written composition and there is no reason to argue that written composition need be something widely spoken—a fact that any student of English composition must admit.
Turretin, on the authority of translations of the Scriptures, writes that while the authority of a translation from its original is not to be made equal to the original,
nevertheless all authority must not be denied to versions. Clearly, the
words and the
sense of Scripture are to be distinguished. The words of any translation are not inspired words, but the
sense that these words conveyed, when accurately translated
is inspired.
Continuing, Turretin observes,
Although any version made by fallible men cannot be considered divine and infallible with respect to the terms, yet it can well be considered such with respect to the things, since it faithfully expresses the divine truth of the sources. On the foundation of our faith, I also note what Turretin has to say:
Thus faith depends not on the authority of the interpreter or minister, but is built upon the truth and authenticity (authentia) of the things contained in the versions. (See: Francis Turretin
Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1:123-127, available
here.
If Turretin was on to something here, and I believe he was, and that we believers should be building our faith
upon the things contained in the version, I fail to see how a proper function of the ministry is to lay out contradictory views, or things that are to be believed. Furthermore, lest I be misunderstood, I have no argument with seeking to update the language of the Scriptures of the Reformation,
if such an effort were for the goal of making that Scripture more intelligible. In fact, I would heartily commend such an effort.
Unfortunately, it is my opinion, having studied carefully for many years all the translations whose editors have claimed this very goal, that in pursuit of the goal, changes have been introduced that change the meaning of the English Scriptures, changing the
things contained in the version, supra Turretin, and the
very word of God, supra
WLC-Q.157.
AMR
