While likely to be a point of contention, but my view is as follows.
When we approach holy Scripture we must make a choice—we either stand
to be judged by the Word of God, or
we sit in judgment upon it.
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 God, 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.
Again, Scripture calls upon believers to "
hear the Word of the Lord"—to
hear, not to raise critical questions. Accordingly, the early church prefaced the public reading of holy Scripture with the summons to
hear the Word of the Lord. Likewise, Reformed piety taught that
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, answer 157). It is contrary to Reformed piety to allow two different translations which contradict each other, all the while esteeming them
both as the Word of God.
For me this begins with the
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 of the Byzantine manuscript tradition 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 admit 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.
Just in case anyone is wondering, I am not a
KJBOnlyist. Moreover, I concede that there are renderings in the AV which can be improved, and I can envisage a day when the English-speaking
churches will recover their visible unity and the task of faithful "
revision" can commence again. Until such time, God willing, we should bear with the occasional "
archaism" in the AV. If the NT could borrow words from the dated vocabulary of the Greek version of the OT, then I see nothing wrong with bearing with a few antiquated expressions for the sake of adhering to what I consider and confess to be the most faithful rendering of the inspired Scriptures.
Concerning the question as to the aforementioned priority of
translation or
confession—if we follow the
path of the enlightenment, which lives in the dreamy world of uncorrupted human reason, follows the myth of neutrality, and insists upon the right of private judgment, then
translation naturally comes first.
On the other hand, if we follow the
path of Christian discipleship, which acknowledges the noetic effects of the fall, the absolute necessity of spiritual illumination, and the constant requirement to engage in self-denial, then
confession must be placed in the forefront.
Accordingly, I believe there should be one official Bible in the Reformed church. The fact is, that the AV held that place among English speaking people for centuries, while no modern version has reached the same status. Without an official Bible, the church effectively says, we do not know where the word of God is to be found in the English language.
Children of the Reformation should use the Scriptures of the reformation.
Those who have not studied the history of translations may be unaware of this, but the Reformers and Puritans had good cause to reject certain works in that era which called themselves
the Word of God. In the Reformed period, Castellio; and in the Puritan period, the Rheims. Perhaps more astonishing and dismaying is the fact that these rejected translations have borne an influence on modern versions which "
reformed" people so readily accept. One example which comes to mind is to be found in John Knox's work on
Predestination, wherein he rejects the
Anabaptist's Pelagian rendering of Gen. 4:7; that rendering is now to be found in every modern version.
The AV was
made by men who each and every one upheld the Thirty-Nine Articles. They acknowledged versions that were made by "
men of their own profession" as the Word of God.
Can anyone point to a modern version to be made by men who upheld the Reformation standard? The fact that so much of the earlier versions is in the AV should demonstrates how much continuity existed between the Reformation versions. The fact that so little of the AV is to be found in the modern versions is clear evidence of a departure that ultimately leads to dilution and division within the Reformed churches.
So for those that are churchmen who have covenanted with a visible vestige of Our Lord's Bride, it is
the church that has spoken about what it considers the very word of God. For many within my Reformed tradition, the text that has been received by the church relies upon the TR within the Byzantine tradition of manuscripts. For those adrift outside church membership, the translation being used is but a personal choice, or for those outside the church that use the AV, it is but a choice that borrows from the intellectual and spiritual capital of the Reformed kinsmen who translated the AV.
