Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

So what is authorized and what is left in a state of ambiguity

Expand Messages
  • Edgar Ibarra
    So, I am looking over my copy of the Treasury of the Scottish Covenant by Rev. John C. Johnston and came across this, begin quote: THE HOLY BIBLE, CONTAINING
    Message 1 of 4 , Jun 15 9:02 PM

      So, I am looking over my copy of the Treasury of the Scottish Covenant by Rev. John C. Johnston and came across this, begin quote:

            THE HOLY BIBLE, CONTAINING THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS ACCORDING TO THE AUTHORISED VERSION. 1611

             This was the outcome of the famous Conference convened by James IV. to hear a formal complaint by the Puritans, and to examine "things pretended to be amiss in the Church".  On the third day Dr. Reynolds made objections to various renderings in the exidting versions of the Bible, and requested the King to authorise a new translation.  The King wisely supported the great Puritan, and selected 54 learned men, 47 of whom were ultimately employed, Dr. Reynolds being one of the number.  The authorised version never had the sanction of the ecclesiastical authority in Scotland.  It seems to have been intended by the Westminster Assembly of Divines to issue a version of the Scriptures, which might bear their imprimatur, but nothing came of it.  The Book of Canons issued by Laud in 1636 provided that each parish should have a Bible, the translation of King James.  The Canons were abjured, but the authorised version gradually made way on its merits.  Henderson, in preaching before the Assembly in 1639, read from the Geneva Bible.  Hugh Binning seems to have used the authorised version.  Alexander Peden's Bible, still preserved, was not King James's, but a copy of the translation of Beza's version published in London in 1599.

      End quote.

      So how is the King James the Authorized Version for the Church?  What Church Court ratified it?  Should Presbyterians go back to the Geneva Bible with the Psalter, or is the KJV a superior translation that eventually received Church approval?  Since different people used different versions based on the Textus Receptus, does the English version matter so long as it is based on the Textus Receptus? 

      What are your takes on this? I have seen some promote the Geneva Bible while decrying the KJV, do they have a point?

      By the way, I don't want any Papists to answer my questions.  You Papists are a waste of time.  Go burn your wooden idols or something good like that, repent, leave your Pope and turn to Jesus Christ alone for your salvation.

      Thanks,

      Edgar Ibarra

    • gmw
      I miss Dr. Letis. ... gmw. ... ACCORDING TO
      Message 2 of 4 , Jun 16 5:25 AM
        I miss Dr. Letis.

        :(

        gmw.

        --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Edgar Ibarra"
        <puritanpresbyterian@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > So, I am looking over my copy of the Treasury of the Scottish Covenant
        > by Rev. John C. Johnston and came across this, begin quote:
        >
        > THE HOLY BIBLE, CONTAINING THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS
        ACCORDING TO
        > THE AUTHORISED VERSION. 1611
        >
        > This was the outcome of the famous Conference convened by James
        > IV. to hear a formal complaint by the Puritans, and to examine "things
        > pretended to be amiss in the Church". On the third day Dr. Reynolds
        > made objections to various renderings in the exidting versions of the
        > Bible, and requested the King to authorise a new translation. The King
        > wisely supported the great Puritan, and selected 54 learned men, 47 of
        > whom were ultimately employed, Dr. Reynolds being one of the number.
        > The authorised version never had the sanction of the ecclesiastical
        > authority in Scotland. It seems to have been intended by the
        > Westminster Assembly of Divines to issue a version of the Scriptures,
        > which might bear their imprimatur, but nothing came of it. The Book of
        > Canons issued by Laud in 1636 provided that each parish should have a
        > Bible, the translation of King James. The Canons were abjured, but the
        > authorised version gradually made way on its merits. Henderson, in
        > preaching before the Assembly in 1639, read from the Geneva Bible. Hugh
        > Binning seems to have used the authorised version. Alexander Peden's
        > Bible, still preserved, was not King James's, but a copy of the
        > translation of Beza's version published in London in 1599.
        >
        > End quote.
        >
        > So how is the King James the Authorized Version for the Church? What
        > Church Court ratified it? Should Presbyterians go back to the Geneva
        > Bible with the Psalter, or is the KJV a superior translation that
        > eventually received Church approval? Since different people used
        > different versions based on the Textus Receptus, does the English
        > version matter so long as it is based on the Textus Receptus?
        >
        > What are your takes on this? I have seen some promote the Geneva Bible
        > while decrying the KJV, do they have a point?
        >
        > By the way, I don't want any Papists to answer my questions. You
        > Papists are a waste of time. Go burn your wooden idols or something
        > good like that, repent, leave your Pope and turn to Jesus Christ alone
        > for your salvation.
        >
        > Thanks,
        >
        > Edgar Ibarra
        >
      • forisraelssake
        Hi Edgar, here is my two cents, ... Although the original documents that would confirm (or disconfirm) it have been destroyed in the great fire of 1666, it
        Message 3 of 4 , Jun 16 8:28 PM
          Hi Edgar, here is my two cents,

          > So how is the King James the Authorized Version for the Church?

          Although the original documents that would confirm (or disconfirm) it
          have been destroyed in the great fire of 1666, it seems generally most
          likely that the AV was so named because at some point James I mandated
          it for the English Church to the exclusion of all others. However no
          such decree ever existed for the realm of Scotland. And Covenanters
          don't per se care about English civil or (prelatical) church rulings
          on matters, since we are moral descendents of the Scottish church and
          not the English one.


          What
          > Church Court ratified it? Should Presbyterians go back to the Geneva
          > Bible with the Psalter, or is the KJV a superior translation that
          > eventually received Church approval? Since different people used
          > different versions based on the Textus Receptus, does the English
          > version matter so long as it is based on the Textus Receptus?

          At some level any bible translation can go, since I am not aware of a
          faithful Scottish or Covenanter church court mandating a particular
          version or edition for pulpit use. However we would be wise at so many
          levels to insist on it being a formal-equivalence translation,
          translated by faithful ministers, and from a known pure homologated
          text (any of the TR editions of Stephenus, Beza, or Elzivar or the
          reverse-engineered Scrivener would do). This is not to say the
          majority text or the united bible societies Greek texts are impure,
          but only that they are not yet homologated by any faithful Reformed
          church court and so should be avoided for pulpit bibles. Since it is
          highly probable that either the Majority text or the UBS text are much
          closer to the autographs than the TRs, we should by no means disallow
          private persons to use these texts and bible translations based off
          them for their private studies, if they are sufficiently informed of
          the relevant issues.

          While the NKJV almost fits this profile (except for WHO it was
          translated by--Baptist and Neopresbyterians) and even while the KJV is
          undesirable in so many ways (archaic everywhere with nearly 500 year
          old translations of Tyndale and innaccurate in places), it does seem
          most logical for the pulpit bible of the lawful church to use a KJV,
          preferably something like the 1611 edition itself (now available in a
          critical edition by Cambridge University Press edited by David
          Norton), rather than an earlier or a later version. (Nearly all KJV's
          sold today are from a text altered as late as the 1760s.)

          As far as I know, from the sources I've read (which tended to idolize
          the KJV translation), the KJV did mark a modest overall improvement
          from the Geneva bible with respect to the translation itself.


          >
          > What are your takes on this? I have seen some promote the Geneva Bible
          > while decrying the KJV, do they have a point?

          Irrational reactionaries, as far as I can tell.

          >
          > By the way, I don't want any Papists to answer my questions. You
          > Papists are a waste of time. Go burn your wooden idols or something
          > good like that, repent, leave your Pope and turn to Jesus Christ alone
          > for your salvation.
          >

          GG - this means you!

          > Thanks,
          >
          > Edgar Ibarra
          >

          --Chris
        • Ricardo
          ... Yes, I do too. His online Guest Book is set to expire on June 27th of this year. If anybody is interested in keeping his guestbook online, you can use the
          Message 4 of 4 , Jun 22 4:15 PM
            --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "gmw"
            <raging.calvinist@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > I miss Dr. Letis.
            >
            > :(
            >
            > gmw.
            >


            Yes, I do too.

            His online Guest Book is set to expire on June 27th of this year. If
            anybody is interested in keeping his guestbook online, you can use the
            following link:

            http://snipurl.com/q1cd

            Feel free to contact me offlist if anybody would like to pool
            resources for this.

            Sincerely,
            Ricardo
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.