Title & Purpose

Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy mountain: let all the inhabitants of the land tremble:

for the day of the LORD cometh, for it is nigh at hand, Joel 2:1.


All quotations from the Scriptures will be from the Authorised Version - the best and most accurate English translation of the Scriptures.

Please see sermons down the left hand column of the Blog about why the Authorised Version is the best and most accurate English translation of the Scriptures

and why we reject the many perversions of the Scriptures, including those so beloved of many neo-evangelicals at present such as ESV & NKJV.

Beware of the Errors in The Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible! 
Featured Sermon -

Thursday, 24 February 2011

Why we use only the Authorised Version of the Scriptures Part 2

II. Why a raft of new translations? 
The lay person has his/her reason for new translations - the Scriptures must be made more understandable, more easily read etc. That is a false premise in itself for natural man will never understand the Scriptures by himself, no matter what versions are made available. The work of the Holy Spirit is needed.

But we need to dig a little deeper to find out the real reasons why new translations have come unto the market.

Over a period of years there were a number of new translations leading up to the A.V. 1611 and its editing of 1769. From then until the late 1800s there was no new translations. In 1881 a new Greek text was issued by Westcott and Hort and there followed what was known as the Revised Version. From then till now these new versions have multiplied. What were the real reasons for a new translation?

1. To facilitate ecumenism. At the time when the Revised Version appeared the Oxford Movement was in full flow with its Romanising tendencies. There was a clamour among ecumenists to have the Authorised Version superseded. The Revisionists by and large were in full sympathy with the Oxford Movement.

The Revised Version appeared in the form of a 'Common Bible', the first page said in large letters: AN ECUMENICAL BIBLE. The New English Bible which appeared sometime later stated in the preface that its goal was: the promotion of the ecumenical church and the oneness of the people of God in all sorts of Churches worldwide. The Authorised Version was too much a Protestant Bible and this would never do in the new ecumenical, Romanising climate that was developing.

Examples of this ecumenical facilitation is found in the way in which these new translations treat specific texts: The Good News Bible/Today's English Bible puts Peter as the rock. The New International Version has a footnote that says Peter is the rock. The New English Bible puts the word 'tradition' in 1 Cor 11:23 which gives justification for the mass.

2. A hatred of the truth. Westcott and Hort were the two main Revisioners. Hort gloried in the fact that a Unitarian had been invited unto the Committee. Had he been forced to resign when this became more widely known Westcott would have resigned with him. 

Both denied the vicarious atonement and the bodily resurrection of Christ. Hort called it 'an immoral counterfeit of the truth'. They both favoured the Larger Hope, Darwinism and O.T. Higher Criticism. Westcott said: No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history. Hort said: I am inclined to think that no such state as Eden existed. They were on record as saying that they fully intended to bring about doctrinal changes by their revisions. Sodomites later on sat on the New International Version translation committee. 

How can men who openly opposed and ridiculed orthodox Christianity ever be trusted to compile a new translation of the Scriptures? The Scriptures ask: Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one, Job 14:4.

3. A hatred for the Authorised version. The new translation was never about updating the words. It stemmed from a hatred of the Authorised Version. In 1851 Hort called the Greek text that underlay the Authorised Version: the villainous Textus Receptus. The full quote reads: 
I had no idea until the last few weeks of the importance of texts having read so little Greek Testament and dragged on with the villainous Textus Receptus. Think of that vile Textus Receptus leaning entirely on late manuscripts.

This was said even though he had read very little of the Greek N.T. Hort is said by other critics to have organised his entire argument to depose the received Text which underlies the Authorised Version. The man was prejudiced against this Majority Text. He believed that the most accurate texts were those discovered in the Vatican and in a monastery on Mt Sinai. These were characterised by omissions. The reason they were the oldest was because they had been set aside as corrupt. Yet Westcott & Hort relied heavily upon them.

The modern translations come mainly from the manuscripts that had been discarded. A reading which has 80-90% support from the Received/Majority Text would be discarded in favour of a reading from these corrupt manuscripts just because it came from these manuscripts. Westcott & Hort showed a distinct prejudice against the Authorised Version from the very outset. The new translation wasn't an effort to provide a faithful translation it was a prejudiced attempt to discard the Authorised Version.

4 comments:

Chris said...

Brian, you really are becoming that monster aren't you? Dehumanising everything that doesn't think and sound like you into an enemy. But I forgot, you have the Bible nailed, i wish that i had nothing left to learn like you.. I'm just glad that someone understands everything while the rest of flounder in ignorance... Your facts are one sided, tailored to your argument and show that you know little about the subject of translation of literature.. Good work. What are you for Brian? What are you protesting for? I'm bored of hearing what you're protesting against. What is the real worth if your reformed protestant faith. Tell us what you love, what you're passionate about, what keeps you up
Thinking, what you love about scripture, where it challenges you, where it escapes you, where is
It still reforming, what are you struggling with... Tell us who you are and stop telling us what you are not.... I think it'd be refreshing.

Rev Brian McClung said...

Chris

Why don't you deal with the points raised rather than engaging in personal abuse. Your comments say more about you than they do about me.

If my facts are one sided, tailored to my argument and show that I know little about the subject of translation of literature then it will be very easy indeed for you to demonstrate that fact. Feel free to post your reply.

Brian McClung

Anonymous said...

I think to call my post "personal abuse" is rather strong. I never intend to abuse anyone or anybody personally. For that I apologise if received that way.

I'd be keen to know more about what you love Brian. All your posts detail what you stand against. What do you stand for? I know you love the Gospel (as you understand it) but what are the things that it informs int he greater picture of this life that you stand for and that make life here worth living in light of it...

So often the Protestant tradition can state what it is protesting against and forget what it is protesting for

Rev Brian McClung said...

Anonymous/Chris

Apology accepted.

The primary purpose of this blog is to contend on those issues deemed to be of importance to the well being of the cause of Christ. I think I make that clear in the heading to the blog.

There are also examples of what I stand for. There are links to the sermons preached every Lord's day in Newtownabbey FPC plus recommended sermons titles etc.

It is very true Chris that you can't define yourself by what you are against and I am well aware that you can't always be preaching about what you are against. That is one of the reasons why I run the blog in addition to my preaching duties. The blog exists primarily to contend for the faith.

I still would like to hear from you where my arguments in support of the Authorised Version are 'one sided', 'tailored to my argument' and 'show that I know little about the subject of translation of literature'.

Brian McClung