Bible Translators of the Received Text required

:jesus:

My name is Nigel Dixon, and you can contact me at

[email protected]

It is my belief that the Received Text (the original Hebrew and Greek autographa on which the KJV Authorised Version was based) comprise the inerrant Word of God.

I love the Authorised Version, and I use it exclusively, as do all my family. For the past 11 years I have been working for, and subsequently alongside, an evangelist who equips local Bible-believing churches to make disciples of Jesus Christ, and he has always used the Authorised Version.

However, as an evangelist working amongst young people in the UK who have no Christian upbringing, I am often transliterating from the Authorised Version into current spoken English, as I preach.

23 years ago I sensed the Lord's leading to study theology in a place totally opposed to my beliefs - I have always believed in the inerrancy of the Word of God. At King's College London where I received a Theology degree, I discovered how many modern translations have departed from the Received Text upon which believers have relied and have perceived as divinely preserved since the earliest days of the church. I studied Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Greek, and I have continued to do so these past 23 years.

I am looking for a team of fellow laborers who believe as I do that the Received Text (Textus Receptus) is the inerrant Word of God, and who are willing to undertake with me a new translation of the Word of God that is totally faithful to the Received Text and based on the Authorised Version.

I have signed up to www.baptistboard.com upon the encouragement this afternoon of Deborah Anderson, the Hebrew Translator at the Trinitarian Bible Society, in my search for co-laborers. She said that although the Trinitarian Bible Society lacks the manpower to carry out this work, this is an important undertaking that ought to be done.

So far I have translated Genesis, Matthew, Galatians and Ephesians. I have also written an Introduction to explain why I have undertaken this work. These require peer review of believers who are in sympathy with the purpose - who believe also that the Received Text is the inerrant Word of God.

I propose to make all the translation work, both in its draft and final form, available free of charge to anyone seeking to use it or indeed publish it on a not-for-profit basis, as I believe that the Word of God should be accessible to all.

So, if you know some Biblical Greek or Biblical Hebrew and wish to see a faithful current English translation of the Received Text, please assist. Also, If you have not studied Biblical languages but you are an English linguist and believe in the inerrancy of the Received Text, please assist me in reviewing the work that I have done already since September 5 this year.

I am open to correction. I am acutely aware of the injunctions in Deuteronomy and Revelation to neither add to, nor take away from the Word of God.

In Christ Jesus,

Nigel Dixon.

 

Thank you, all of you, for your very helpful responses.

I list 5 questions in number sequence below:

1. Why have I done some work on my own already?

I would have liked to work with others - but most people knowledgeable in Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Greek are not of the persuasion that the Received Text is the inerrant Word of God. This is because those Bible Colleges and Theology Faculties in the major universities where the translation work is done, are almost exclusively of the opinion that we should be using the Westcott-Hort edition of the New Testament rather than the Received Text. On my Thelogy Degree course at King's College London people like me were persecuted and some (though not me) had mental breakdowns. Others joined the course believing the Lord's call to ministry but came out liberal-modernist.

There are very few people like me, who have come through a course of rigorous academic training in Biblical languages and retained their belief in the inerrancy of the Received Text - and I would like to find them. Will you help me?

It is essential that any translation work is done with people working together. I am concerned about an individual translator having bias or blind spots. The work that I have done is not final and I wish to submit it for scrutiny - not only to specialist translators but to pastors and to teachers of the Word of God. It is free of charge on a not-for-profit basis and I welcome any proposed changes that conform to the Received Text. If you would like to read, and peer-review (hopefully with suggested improvements or changes) please contact me at

[email protected]

I propose not to put the words of our Lord in red, because I believe that the whole Bible is the inerrant Word of God. However - if you wish to receive, and evaluate, some of my work so far, please feel free to put proposed changes in red so that I can identify quickly which parts are being proposed for change. Maybe I could post verses queried on here?

2. Why have I not engaged others alongside me sooner?

I have been looking for others since 9/5/07. The reason I joined www.baptistboard.com was that the Hebrew Editor at the Trinitarian Bible Society suggested that I join this discussion board to find co-laborers who stand by the Received Text.

3. Why a poll?

I want to find out where people stand regarding the inerrancy of the Received Text, without causing uproar.

4. Does this poll call into question my belief in the inerrancy of the Received Text?

I believe that the Received Text is the inerrant Word of God, and I believe that the Authorised Version is a faithful translation of the Received Text.

5. Will this be a paraphrase or an accurate translation?

The history of Bible translation during the Reformation, was one where existing translations were used as a base for further work, while accepting the inerrancy of the Received Text. This is the methodology I propose to continue with. What does this mean? - let me explain: I propose to work on the basis that the Authorised Version is a base line, but where either a word or a phrase in the Authorised Version does not transliterate easily into current spoken US English, I seek to translate directly from the Received Text. My start point is that the Received Text is the inerrant Word of God, and the Authorised Version is a faithful translation of the Received Text into English.

The following question has not been asked, but ought, I think:

Why spoken US English rather than English as spoken in the land of my birth?

I lived in the USA during '72-5, and when I was born again on March 21, 1976 I began to appreciate the Christian legacy of many Bible-believing preachers during America's history. I believe, personally, that English is by divine providence becoming an almost universally spoken language, and I believe that just as the printing press was a great agent in the Lord's hands to bring the Word of God into the hands of ordinary people, so too I believe that despite its excesses, the internet today is capable of being harnessed as the Lord's agent to distribute the Word of God. When I joined this bulletin board, I was asked for my favorite verse. I stand by the whole counsel of the Word of God, not seeking to emphasise one part against the other but to interpret scripture by scripture. That said, these verses have always fired me up: Matthew 28:18-20

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the word. Amen.

As a teenager I belonged to an Anglican church which preached the Word of God uncompromisingly - except with regard to the issue of believers baptism. Then, as I reflected on these verses, I realised that not only was it my responsibility to be baptised as a believer, but that this was the Lord's command, and this command is inextricably linked with evangelising the nations.

It is now easier to teach to all nations all things whatsoever our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ has commanded us - but it is my belief that there is no recent translation of the inerrant Word of God which is, in my belief, faithful. Therefore, how can we fulfill the Lord's command in these verses, unless we have a translation in current spoken US English which young people who have never been to church can understand?

My concern is in the main for young people, because I believe that many older people in America and in the UK have already heard the Gospel, and it is my belief that many older people have rejected the cost of being a disciple of Jesus Christ, for whatever reason.

It is also my personal belief that the young people of America, the UK, the English-speaking nations and Europe, are almost entirely ignorant of the Word of God, and it is my personal experience that these young people are very open to hearing the Word of God and are open also to the opportunity of being called to become disciples of Jesus Christ.

My heart's desire, above all, is to see the young people of my children's generation rise up in the faith of Jesus Christ and him crucified, knowing the Word of God and living their lives in conformity to the Word of God - knowing sound doctrine and free from every passing wind, and free from superstition of every kind.

I believe it is no coincidence that the majority of English-speakers in the world today speak US English, and I believe that it is no coincidence that America has a major role in preaching the Gospel to the nations. On a practical level, young people in my own nation and across Europe are very familiar with US spoken English through media. Therefore the very tool that the devil has used to corrupt young people, may yet prove to be an instrument of the Lord's grace, by enabling young people across the world to hear the Word of God and become disciples of our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ.

It is my desire, as an Englishman born in the Reformation's cradle, to co-labor with brothers in Christ across the Atlantic Ocean ('the pond') to see a faithful translation of the Word of God, based exclusively upon the Received Text and using the Authorised Version as a guide rail or benchmark.

For over thirty years since I placed my faith and reliance upon Jesus Christ who saved me through the blood he shed upon the cross, I have been praying for the Lord Jesus Christ once again to prevail on the hearts of the peoples of our two nations and across the lands marked as the cradle of the Reformation.

I believe we have not seen a major move of the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ because many congregations have moved away from translations based exclusively upon the Received Text. This is why, I believe, the preaching of some has lacked power unto salvation - the problem with adding to or taking away from the Received Text is similar to adding a drop of blue dye into a tank of fresh water - the whole is now tinged with blue, and if we are to preach Christ crucified then we must not change the Word of God. Another reason may be our responsibility - we have preached to our congregations, but we have neglected the lost.

In Christ,

Nigel.

 

Please accept my unconditional apology. I do not wish to cause offence.

Dear Ed,

I do not want to do cause any controversy. If, inadvertently by initiating a poll, I may have done this, please forgive me. If this poll is unhelpful, is it possible for me to ask the moderator to remove it?

I am sorry that I failed to fully understand your comments. Now that I have reviewed what you wrote, I understand your concern, and I share it too.

I respect your wish not to stir a controversy regarding Bible translations.

I do not believe that disputing promotes Christian discipleship. I dislike intensely arguments among Christians when I believe we all ought to be devoting our zeal and energies in the direction of loving one another from the heart, laying down our lives for one another, encouraging one another, and seeking to cooperate together for the purpose of preaching the Gospel and teaching the Word of God, and encouraging people to become disciples of Jesus Christ.

I am new to your web site. I have never before initiated a poll on a bulletin board. I saw the option when I was drafting my first post. I thought that a simple anonymous poll might take the heat out of a controversy, but also indicate to me whether there are people who contribute to your bulletin board who are willing to co-labor with me.

I have also read again the 'please read this' post citing some of the problems with running a bulletin board about the Bible and translations.

Yours,

Nigel.

 

Dear Franklin,
in answer to TR-based New Testament translations, I was not aware of this. I would be very interested in finding out more, if you could point me in the right direction. Much appreciated. I would like very much to compare existing work and work to be done, alongside other translations based on the Textus Receptus.

There are some interesting challenges -
1. do you try, where possible, to remove words in italics, as the AV translators put these in italics to remind us that they are not in the Textus Receptus but have been inserted to make it possible to read the text more easily. For example, often the verb 'to be/Iam/you are/ he is' does not appear but is implied in the original autographa.
2. where the AV translators used a word like 'baptize' for example, do you translate the greek word 'baptizo' into a word that will faithfully reflect the original meaning but does not sound like the word 'baptize'? For example, it seems clear that the word 'baptizo' means something to do with dying a garment, plunging a garment in liquid, or immersing someone or something in water. Therefore do you give a rendition of that word along the lines of any of the following 'dip/plunge/immerse'? If so, which of those 3 do you go for?
3. some of the words, particularly in the greek Textus Receptus, were clearly very challenging for the AV translators to translate. Therefore we have words that are very unusual even in the vocabularly common in use in and around 1611. So what do you do with these challenging words, when particularly you can break down many of these challenging greek words into component parts.
Nigel

Dear Franklin,
The Hebrew text I am using is the same text as published by the Trinitarian Bible Society since 1894 and re-published by them in 1998.

This is a quote from their preface: "It is the collection of manuscripts compiled by Jacob ben Chayim in the early 16th century in what was then the most complete Hebrew Old testament possible. This volume was published by Daniel Bomberg in 1524-5, and it became the standard editjon of the Hebrew Old Testament. It was for first to present the complete Hebrew Masorah - the Masoretic notes on the text - and was the second Rabbinic Bible, the only authorised Masoretic recension, becoming in time the 'textus receptus' for the Old Testament. It was used as the basis for many Reformation-era translations such as the Authorised Version (KJV) and the Dutch Statenvertaling as well as many other versions up to the present day. In the late 19th century the Christian David Ginsburg employed the text as the basis of his edition of the Hebrew Old Testament".

In Christ,

Nigel

 

Dear Phil,

I had assumed for some years that the New King James Version, also known as the Spirit-Filled Version, published by Thomas Nelson, was a faithful rendition of the Authorised Version into current English.

The New King James Version is not based on the Received Text. In fact, from what I have studied, I conclude that most if not all of the key changes in the New King James Version are triggered by referring back to Westcott-Hort rather than the Received Text.

What I have discovered, with careful research, and I am happy to supply this to you and any reader upon request (a comparison table that it is a file in Word XP, 544 kilo bytes in size), is that the New King James Version frequently refers back to the Westcott-Hort text rather than the Received Text.

When I discovered this, I was surprised, because I thought that the purpose of the New King James Version was simply to put the Authorised Version into language that modern readers can understand more fluently.

What the New King James Version has done is to keep much of the poetry of the Authorised Version, but dive into Westcott-Hort text. This has resulted in some surprising changes concerning the doctrine of Christ. Personally, I would prefer for young readers less poetry, but total faithfulness to the Received Text. Poetry does not equal truth. Just because a translation sounds nice, that does not mean it is the real McCoy.

Personally, I feel misled by something calling itself the 'New' King James Bible because it does not rely on the orignal baseline text source that the Authorised Version does - and I know many Christians will have bought the NKJV because they think it is true to the original. At leats the NIV is not appearing as something else - it makes no big deal about the fact that it is based on Westcott-Hort.

I am mindful that my purpose is not to stir controversy. I hate debate - all I want to do is preach the Gospel to young people and teach them the Word of God faithfully and accurately, and see young people become disciples who are mature in the faith, sound in doctrine, and able to handle the Word of God and teach others appropriately.

The reason why Westcott-Hort causes me much concern, is that when I studied Theology at King's College London, the rationale for employing that text was their view that the bible was full of errors, in their view an unreliable document full of myth, in their view a document whose base autographa needed revising because no text traditionally used could be relied upon at all. The result of this approach was terrible confusion - every few words, you would come across different words that could not be vouched for.

My other concern with Westcott-Hort is a predisposing liberal-modernist bias of Westcott.

My other concern is that in my responsibility - preaching the Gospel to young people and seeing those who are born again grow as disciples of Jesus Christ, the practice in all modern translations of running textual criticism in the page notes lends a view that the text is not reliable. My faith is based in the Word of God. What kind of faith can I have if I do not believe that the Word of God is totally trustworthy?

Some people say that the differences between Westcott-Hort and the Received Text are minor. Actually, they are in some places major.

Not wishing to provoke controversy, the table of comparison of Bible Versions is available to anyone who asks.

if anyone wants this comparison table, my email address is

[email protected]

and you can contact me on my cell in the UK also- from USA it's

0044 798 339 7780

my land line from USA is 0044 1403 275 239

Your brother in Christ Jesus,

Nigel

 

Dear Ed,

"Which will it be?"

My goal is a high, or lofty, one - to see a faithful, accurate translatio of the Received Text into current US spoken English. Does that response answer your question?

Yours,

Nigel

 

Dear Roger,

I am happy to send you by return of email, a Table of Comparison of Bible versions, so you can see where the New King James Version departs from the Received Text, and you can form your own conclusions.
my email address is

[email protected]

Kind regards,

Nigel.

 

Dear friend,

I am happy to send you a comparison table so that you can see how the NKJV departs from the Received Text, and form your own conclusions.

My email address is

[email protected]

Kind regards,

Nigel

 

Dear Rippon,

The question I posed is,

"Should there be an accurate translation of the Received Text into current English?".

You answered "No".

I honor you and receive you as my brother in Christ. I am not infallible. It is always possible for me to be deceived. That is why I believe in living my life in a manner that is open and accountable to my fellow brothers in Christ.

So - I wish to express that accountability to you also. I am open to the possibility that I may be wrong, and I am also open to the possibility that we can be brothers in Christ, and also disagree on something.

Please share with me your answer to this question in such a way that I can understand why your answer is "No".

Thank you.

In Christ Jesus,

Nigel

 

I am still looking for translators of the Received Text

Dear friends, my brothers and sisters in Christ,

I posted a request for co-laborers to translate the Received Text into current spoken English two days ago.

Along the way, I have been drawn into a discussion about the relative merits of the New King James Version. I have answered those questions, simply to explain why I personally believe that there is a need for an accurate current translation of the Received Text into US spoken English. So, along the way, I have sought to explain why the New King James Version does not fit my criteria.

If the NKJV did fit my criteria, I would be using it as an evangelist among young people, and not seeking to undertake my current task.

So please - if you adhere to the Received Text (the Textus Receptus of the Greek New Testament and the Masoretic Text in the Hebrew Bible as used exclusively by the Reformers and the translators of the Authorised Version), and you have some knowledge of Biblical Hebrew or Biblical Greek, please assist me.

If you know anyone with these skills, or you know of someone who knows of someone, however distant, who is a born-again Christian in good standing with ihs local church and in sympathy with this aim, please pass on this request.

thank you,

[email protected]

Nigel