Is The Spiritual Content of Scripture Compromised by Many Modern English Translations

[Martin Marprelate]

Thomas Barlow (1607-1691) wrote: “Whatsoever is contained in those four books [which included our Liturgy—the Book of Common Prayer] which concerns either Doctrine or Discipline, is authentic and obligatory to the whole Church and Nation, and all persons whether Clergy or Laity”

That is why 2,000 ministers left the C of E in 1662.

 

[JD731]

But they did get a New Testament in a different language than what was spoken. I think this may have been because they (the whole initial audience of the New Testament) DID need a different language (it was written in Koine Greek, the common everyday language).

I am sure God could have taught all of them Hebrew. He could make us understand Hebrew as well.

Perhaps there is more to God using the everyday common language (instead of a more eloquent and percise Greek) than many identify.

The Jews have their own language and when they are addressed in a different tongue it is a sign from God that they are under his disciplinary judgement.



The Jews national language is Hebrew.

Isaiah 36:13
Then Rabshakeh stood, and cried with a loud voice in the Jews' language, and said, Hear ye the words of the great king, the king of Assyria.

Principles are established through languages. Consider this passage from the KJV.

1 Cor 14:21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people (Israel); and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not (see V 21 - it was Isael who did not believe in this context) : but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

Paul would say to Jews later in Acts 28:

27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
28 Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.

Companion passages:

Zephaniah 3:1-3
Woe to her that is filthy and polluted, to the oppressing city! She obeyed not the voice; she received not correction; she trusted not in the LORD; she drew not near to her God. Her princes within her are roaring lions; her judges are evening wolves; they gnaw not the bones till the morrow.

V4- 5 The just LORD is in the midst thereof; he will not do iniquity: every morning doth he bring his judgment to light, he faileth not; but the unjust knoweth no shame.

This pretty much describes Judah with her capitol city of Jerusalem during the days of Jesus Christ on earth, but there is hope because in the same chapter, he says this:


8 Therefore wait ye upon me, saith the LORD, until the day (that would be the day of the LORD) that I rise up to the prey: for my determination is to gather the nations, that I may assemble the kingdoms, to pour upon them mine indignation, even all my fierce anger: for all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my jealousy.

9 For then (at that time) will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.

"pure" language in this sense is meant to convey the fact that all his peaple Israel will speak one language and it will be Hebrew.

God just wants people to believe him. He does not say the same things to every people. For instance, in this chapter he says one thing to Israel and one thing to the nations in the same context and with a different result.

This chapter tells of the next time Jesus is in their midst on earth. Check it out.

14 Sing, O daughter of Zion; shout, O Israel; be glad and rejoice with all the heart, O daughter of Jerusalem.
15 The LORD hath taken away thy judgments, he hath cast out thine enemy: the king of Israel, even the Lord, is in the midst of thee: thou shalt not see evil any more.
16 In that day (the day of the LORD) it shall be said to Jerusalem, Fear thou not: and to Zion, Let not thine hands be slack.
17 The LORD thy God in the midst of thee is mighty; he will save, he will rejoice over thee with joy; he will rest in his love, he will joy over thee with singing.
18 I will gather them that are sorrowful for the solemn assembly, who are of thee, to whom the reproach of it was a burden.

19 Behold, at that time I will undo all that afflict thee: and I will save her that halteth, and gather her that was driven out; and I will get them praise and fame in every land where they have been put to shame.
20 At that time will I bring you again, even in the time that I gather you: for I will make you a name and a praise among all people of the earth, when I turn back your captivity before your eyes, saith the Lord.

I may not have done a good job of responding to your post and I am sorry about that but I took the opportunity to say some good stull and exalt the word of God that is preserved for us in the KJV from where I got it, having confidence that every word will be meticulously fulfilled literally.

Many people do not understand these prophecies though they have scores of new bibles with different words to describe them. Why new Bibles if they don't help?? This current age is the time God takes away Israel's national identity and thier national language and saves the remnant as gentiles lest they all perish.

That is my reasoning and belief and the wisdom of God..

 

[JD731]

There is only division because you and a few others keep harping on about a certain translation of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Scriptures. I understand that you wish to read a translation that is in Elizabethan English, and I have no problem if you wish to do that. But there is no way in the world that I am going to join with you. If the current translations into modern English are not good enough, then let's have yet another one, but please stop going on about it. I will use the KJV if a church at which I am preaching asks me to do so, but otherwise, thanks, but no thanks!

But even if everyone used the KJV (not going to happen!), there would still be division because of different "sects" treating the words of Scripture differently. There would still be premil, amil, postmil, dispensational, preterist and hyper-preterist; Reformed, Arminian, charismatic and so forth. No doubt this will continue until our Lord returns. 'For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face; now I know in part; but then I shall know even as I am known.' 'Let every man be persuaded in his own mind.'

Are you saying that what one believes about what is written does not matter that much with God but just how serious you are in your belief system?

 

[JonC]

The Jews have their own language and when they are addressed in a different tongue it is a sign from God that they are under his disciplinary judgement.

I was speaking of Scripture (the New Testament Scriptures which God did not gove in Hebrew). Many of the Jews during this period did not speak Hebrew.

The majority of Jews during this time fid not speak Hebrew (they spoke Aramaic with the vommon language of the region being Koine Greek).

My point was that God could have chosen Hebrew to give the New Testament, but He did not. He could have chosen Attic Greek (more elioquent, more percise) but He did not.

Instead God chose the common everyday language spoken throughout that area. Not the "higher" more percise Greek but the common Greek.

If we demanded translators use this same principle used by God then the KJV would not have been created. The translators were influenced by Catholic traditions in terms of elevated language (a carry over from Roman public pagan worship). But that is how we, as Western people, are raised to think (how we view sacredness).

 

[JonC]

I understand that you wish to read a translation that is in Elizabethan English...

Jacobean English (the KJV language is post-Elizabethan, and is a stylized form that was never a spoken form).

But what @JD731 is talking about is late 18th century (after the standardization of Modern English). Still...not an actual spoken form of English, but it is pretty.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Are you saying that what one believes about what is written does not matter that much with God but just how serious you are in your belief system?

I believe that God wants His word written accurately in the language of as many people as possible. I do not believe that Elizabethan or Jacobean (or whatever @JonC wants to call it) English is anyone's language today. Tyndale had it right when he told a Roman Catholic scholar, If God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a boy that driveth the plow shall know more of the Scripture than thou dost.” Using the KJV today, is driving a wedge between ploughboys (and other less-educated people) and the Bible.
If you want to use the KJV, that's fine by me. If you want to use it in your posts, I have no objections. I am just sick to death of this argument being played out over and over again. It's a dead letter; there are more important translation issues today, particularly over so-called 'gender-neutral' versions, but no one seems to bring that up.

 

[JonC]

I believe that God wants His word written accurately in the language of as many people as possible. I do not believe that Elizabethan or Jacobean (or whatever @JonC wants to call it) English is anyone's language today. Tyndale had it right when he told a Roman Catholic scholar, If God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a boy that driveth the plow shall know more of the Scripture than thou dost.” Using the KJV today, is driving a wedge between ploughboys (and other less-educated people) and the Bible.
If you want to use the KJV, that's fine by me. If you want to use it in your posts, I have no objections. I am just sick to death of this argument being played out over and over again. It's a dead letter; there are more important translation issues today, particularly over so-called 'gender-neutral' versions, but no one seems to bring that up.

I agree.

The language of the KJV never was anybody language (it is a stylized form of English).

But what is interesting is the fact that the common spoken English was considered, well, too common for God's words when that is exactly what God chose in koine Greek. It is interesting because of what sacredness had become.

We see this with music as well. Biblical music was energetic, trying to reflect the might and glory of God. The music of the bible would never present an almighty God through quiet and solmn music. That would be contray to what the music was to express.

But for us, solemn music is associated with sacredness just as higher stylized language is associated with the same.

 

[Logos1560]

not once have I been tempted to adopt the doctrines that make the Church of England distinct from other Christian groups.

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church noted that the Church of England's Book of Common Prayer preserved the traditional Catholic teaching concerning baptism (p. 127). Booty's edition of The Book of Common Prayer--1559 stated: "It is certain by God's Word that children being baptized have all things necessary for their salvation, and be undoubtedly saved" (p. 283). Edmund Calamy observed that the ministers ejected or silenced by the 1662 Act of Uniformity maintained that the Book of Common Prayer “teaches the doctrine of real baptismal regeneration, and certain salvation consequent thereupon” (Nonconformist’s, p. 39). Charles Spurgeon observed that "in the Prayer-Book, as plainly as words can express it,--you have this baptismal regeneration, preparing stepping-stones to make it easy for men to go to Rome" (Jenkens, Baptist Doctrines, p. 136).

Thomas Barlow (1607-1691) wrote: “Whatsoever is contained in those four books [which included our Liturgy—the Book of Common Prayer] which concerns either Doctrine or Discipline, is authentic and obligatory to the whole Church and Nation, and all persons whether Clergy or Laity” (Genuine, p. 52). William Hunt noted that King James I had approved canons in 1604 that "required subscription to the entire Book of Common Prayer and the endorsement of all Thirty-nine Articles" (Puritan Moment, p. 108). Maurice Lee wrote: "The canons of 1604 demanded that every benefice-holder subscribe to a statement that the Prayer Book and the Thirty-nine Articles were entirely agreeable to the word of God" (Great Britain's Solomon, p. 172). With these 1604 canons, Lori Anne Ferrell asserted: “The authoritative text has, arguably, shifted; sacramental doctrine is to be judged relative to its articulation in the Book of Common Prayer, not scripture” (Killeen, Oxford Handbook, p. 267).

Bishop Richard Bancroft had preached that “the doctrine of the Church of England, is pure, and holy: the government therefore, both in respect of her Majesty, of our Bishops is lawful, and godly: the Book of Common Prayer containeth nothing contrary to the Word of God” (Seymour, English Sermon, I, p. 124). William Hunt noted that King James I had approved canons in 1604 that "required subscription to the entire Book of Common Prayer and the endorsement of all Thirty-nine Articles" (Puritan Moment, p. 108).

The clear, documented historical evidence shows that the KJV translators were required to accept the Book of Common Prayer and to believe that nothing in the Book of Common Prayer was contrary to the word of God. Therefore, it indicates that the KJV translators did not believe that the doctrine of baptismal regeneration taught in the Book of Common Prayer was contrary to the word of God in their translation [the KJV].

Does that mean that the KJV translators themselves believed that the KJV taught the Church of England's doctrine of baptismal regeneration just as the Book of Common Prayer does?

JD731, are you demonstrated that you understand and interpret the KJV very differently from how its Church of England makers understood and interpreted it?