Calvinistic Bible Translations

[TCassidy]

That's why I said "generally"

I'm not a General!

 

[HankD]

I'm not a General!

OK Major

 

[David Kent]

The Church of England was Calvinist, and they produced the KJV

 

[HankD]

The Church of England was Calvinist, and they produced the KJV

You of all people David should know that is debatable.

The Church of England was deeply divided then with ancient ties to the church of Rome with bloodshed.

Some (even today) celebrating "mass" and the Eucharist as a sacrament.

It seems that a Church divided with a sacramental system of works can in no wise be considered "calvinistic".

 

[37818]

Well, when you are wrong your are doubly wrong.

First of all the ESV is not the only "popular (or even semi-popular) translation to translate that Greek word in Rev 13:8 as "before" instead of as "from.""

The RSV of 1952 reads "[8] and all who dwell on earth will worship it, every one whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slain."

And the logical reason for the similarity is that the ESV is a revision of the RSV. I rather thought that would be common knowledge among all the bible translation experts in this thread.

Yeah. The RSV is also known to mistranslate other passages like: * Hebrews 1:3; * Romans 9:5; And most famously Isaiah 7:14 with
virgin in the margin. * compare those two with the NWT used by Jehovah's Witness cult.

 

[37818]

I only believe it because you have proven it over and over again.

You have made like assertion before, that is true.

 

[David Kent]

You of all people David should know that is debatable.

The Church of England was deeply divided then with ancient ties to the church of Rome with bloodshed.

Some (even today) celebrating "mass" and the Eucharist as a sacrament.

It seems that a Church divided with a sacramental system of works can in no wise be considered "calvinistic".

Not so. The CoE declared it was Calvinist at the beginning not Lutheran. While it retained Bishops, and Archbishops. A simple table replaced the altar. Archbishop Laud reinstated the altar in the east of the church.

In the early 1800's in Oxford university, (at that time you had to be an Anglican to attend the university) th ere were two groups, the chutrchmen and the Calvinists, or evangelicals. Amongst the (churchmen) was John Newman founder of the Oxford Movement, which aimed to return the CofE back to Rome. He later became Cardinal Newman. From that time much of the Anglican church moved closer to Rome, with masses and confessions, but not all. There are still evangelical churches there, some could almost be called Baptist.

 

[TCassidy]

compare those two with the NWT

And there again is evidence of your problem. You compare English versions with each other rather than comparing the English translation with the Hebrew and Greek from which it was translated.

 

[InTheLight]

I already answered this but I will try to type it real s.l.o.w. so you can keep up.

Here is what you have said about it:

Look up the word "polysemous" in any good dictionary.

and

The ESV is a revision of the RSV. The RSV read "before" and the ESV revisers chose to retain the original reading.


So then I asked:

Why did the RSV renders the Greek word as "before" while almost all others render it "from"?

Are you going to answer, or is more obfuscation forthcoming?

 

[HankD]

Not so. The CoE declared it was Calvinist at the beginning not Lutheran. While it retained Bishops, and Archbishops. A simple table replaced the altar. Archbishop Laud reinstated the altar in the east of the church.

In the early 1800's in Oxford university, (at that time you had to be an Anglican to attend the university) th ere were two groups, the chutrchmen and the Calvinists, or evangelicals. Amongst the (churchmen) was John Newman founder of the Oxford Movement, which aimed to return the CofE back to Rome. He later became Cardinal Newman. From that time much of the Anglican church moved closer to Rome, with masses and confessions, but not all. There are still evangelical churches there, some could almost be called Baptist.

Ya right.

 

[TCassidy]

Why did the RSV renders the Greek word as "before" while almost all others render it "from"?

I know it will be a great shock to you but, in spite of my abilities in biblical languages, I was not asked to be on either the translation committee of the RSV or the ESV. If you want to know why they chose as they did you will have to ask them.

 

[37818]

I already answered this but I will try to type it real s.l.o.w. so you can keep up.

The ESV is a revision of the RSV. The RSV read "before" and the ESV revisers chose to retain the original reading.

And, of course, as the ESV, which is a revision of the RSV, is the current most popular English translation, yes, I would have thought you, as an expert on bible translation, would have thought of the RSV as a "modern version," IE, a version based on the "modern" Greek texts springing from the Textual Criticism of W/H and others in the 1880s.

The New Revised Standard Version has "From" in 13:8. And correctly translates Romans 9:5.

 

[37818]

And there again is evidence of your problem. You compare English versions with each other rather than comparing the English translation with the Hebrew and Greek from which it was translated.

So? Bad translation is still bad translation.

 

[InTheLight]

I know it will be a great shock to you but, in spite of my abilities in biblical languages, I was not asked to be on either the translation committee of the RSV or the ESV. If you want to know why they chose as they did you will have to ask them.

So on the one hand you said you'd already answered this question and on the other you say you don't know the answer. OK.

 

[Logos1560]

The Church of England was Calvinist, and they produced the KJV

A study of the English history during this period and of the Church of England's doctrinal views at the time of the making of the KJV would show that the majority of the KJV translators would have been Calvinists.

All the KJV translators were members of the Church of England, and they had to accept its doctrinal views according to the canons [church laws] made in 1604 by Archbishop Richard Bancroft and approved by King James. The Church of England's Thirty-Nine Articles that the 1604 canons required to be accepted were in agreement with Calvinism. John Tulloch noted: "But if not exclusively or rigidly Genevan in doctrine, even under the primary of Whitgift, the Church of England was yet so far from finding any cause of quarrel in this doctrine, that it embodied it substantially in its thirty-nine articles; while Whitgift's well-known Lambeth articles remain to testify how far more closely he and others were prepared to bring the creed of the Church of England into conformity with the Genevan theology in its most extreme forms" (English Puritanism and its Leaders, p. 6). Part of the Church of England's stated doctrinal views at the time of the making of the KJV were the 1595 Lambeth Articles.

At the time of the making of the KJV, the Church of England's 1595 Lambeth Articles were still accepted. Gerald Bray noted that these 1595 Lambeth Articles "express a Calvinistic doctrine of predestination" (Documents of the English Reformation, p. 390). Otto Scott noted that the Lambeth Articles "were unequivocally Calvinist" (Great Christian Revolution, p. 129). If anyone reads those Lambeth Articles, they can see that Calvinism was then accepted in the Church of England. Did any of the KJV translators publicly express any opposition to these Lambeth Articles before 1611?

Concerning the period 1559-1625 in England, Patrick Collinson wrote: "'Orthodox' meant Calvinist. Calvinism can be regarded as the theological cement of the Jacobean Church" (The Religion of Protestants: The Church in English Society 1559-1625, p. 82). The term Jacobean Church would refer to the Church of England during the reign of King James I.

The Puritan party in the Church of England was clearly Calvinist, and some of the KJV translators had been associated with the Puritan party. John Tulloch observed: "The Puritan was a Calvinist naturally and entirely" (English Puritanism, p. 41). Even the High Church party in the Church of England still accepted Calvinism [at least a moderate Calvinism] at the time of the making of the KJV. John Tulloch pointed out that "the Churchman was Calvinistic" (p. 41). The KJV translators used as their Greek NT text editions edited by Theodore Beza, a strong Calvinist, and some of Beza's textual decisions are said to be influenced by his Calvinism. Would Arminians choose to trust the textual decisions of a strong Calvinist such as Beza? The KJV translators borrowed much from the 1560 Geneva Bible, which was translated by Calvinists.

The historical evidence would suggest that it would be after 1620 [thus years after the making of the KJV] when some or many in the High Church party in the Church of England would become associated with Arminianism. Gerald Bray claimed that the Calvinistic 1595 Lambeth Articles faded from view in the Church of England during the reign of Charles I (1625-1649) which would suggest that the Lambeth Articles still had been accepted at the time of the making of the KJV (Documents of the English Reformation, p. 390). It would be during this later reign of Charles I when several Church of England bishops would be identified as Arminian.

Along with the 1595 Lambeth Articles, another historical fact that would show that Calvinism was still accepted in the Church of England at the time of the making of the KJV is the fact that a Calvinist was named as the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1611. After the death of Archbishop Richard Bancroft in late 1610, King James I made George Abbot, who had been one of the translators of the KJV, the Archbishop of Canterbury. Otto Scott noted that George Abbott, Archbishop of Canterbury, was "a Calvinist" (Great Christian Revolution, p. 143).

In 1618, King James I and Archbishop Abbot sent English delegates, including two men who had been KJV translators, to the Dort Synod. Representing the Church of England, those English delegates voted for the Calvinist position. Otto Scott noted that these English delegates "voted to uphold Calvinist principles in their entirety" (Great Christian Revolution, pp. 143, 146). Thus, as late as 1618 at the Dort Synod, the Church of England still publicly supported Calvinism.

Robert Gell (1595-1665), who had been a chaplain to KJV translator George Abbott and who thus had first-hand information, claimed that there was Calvinistic bias in the KJV
See his 1659 book entitled An Essay Toward the Amendment of the last English Translation of the Bible.

 

[HankD]

A study of the English history during this period and of the Church of England's doctrinal views at the time of the making of the KJV would show that the majority of the KJV translators would have been Calvinists.

All the KJV translators were members of the Church of England, and they had to accept its doctrinal views according to the canons [church laws] made in 1604 by Archbishop Richard Bancroft and approved by King James. The Church of England's Thirty-Nine Articles that the 1604 canons required to be accepted were in agreement with Calvinism. John Tulloch noted: "But if not exclusively or rigidly Genevan in doctrine, even under the primary of Whitgift, the Church of England was yet so far from finding any cause of quarrel in this doctrine, that it embodied it substantially in its thirty-nine articles; while Whitgift's well-known Lambeth articles remain to testify how far more closely he and others were prepared to bring the creed of the Church of England into conformity with the Genevan theology in its most extreme forms" (English Puritanism and its Leaders, p. 6). Part of the Church of England's stated doctrinal views at the time of the making of the KJV were the 1595 Lambeth Articles.

At the time of the making of the KJV, the Church of England's 1595 Lambeth Articles were still accepted. Gerald Bray noted that these 1595 Lambeth Articles "express a Calvinistic doctrine of predestination" (Documents of the English Reformation, p. 390). Otto Scott noted that the Lambeth Articles "were unequivocally Calvinist" (Great Christian Revolution, p. 129). If anyone reads those Lambeth Articles, they can see that Calvinism was then accepted in the Church of England. Did any of the KJV translators publicly express any opposition to these Lambeth Articles before 1611?

Concerning the period 1559-1625 in England, Patrick Collinson wrote: "'Orthodox' meant Calvinist. Calvinism can be regarded as the theological cement of the Jacobean Church" (The Religion of Protestants: The Church in English Society 1559-1625, p. 82). The term Jacobean Church would refer to the Church of England during the reign of King James I.

The Puritan party in the Church of England was clearly Calvinist, and some of the KJV translators had been associated with the Puritan party. John Tulloch observed: "The Puritan was a Calvinist naturally and entirely" (English Puritanism, p. 41). Even the High Church party in the Church of England still accepted Calvinism [at least a moderate Calvinism] at the time of the making of the KJV. John Tulloch pointed out that "the Churchman was Calvinistic" (p. 41). The KJV translators used as their Greek NT text editions edited by Theodore Beza, a strong Calvinist, and some of Beza's textual decisions are said to be influenced by his Calvinism. Would Arminians choose to trust the textual decisions of a strong Calvinist such as Beza? The KJV translators borrowed much from the 1560 Geneva Bible, which was translated by Calvinists.

The historical evidence would suggest that it would be after 1620 [thus years after the making of the KJV] when some or many in the High Church party in the Church of England would become associated with Arminianism. Gerald Bray claimed that the Calvinistic 1595 Lambeth Articles faded from view in the Church of England during the reign of Charles I (1625-1649) which would suggest that the Lambeth Articles still had been accepted at the time of the making of the KJV (Documents of the English Reformation, p. 390). It would be during this later reign of Charles I when several Church of England bishops would be identified as Arminian.

Along with the 1595 Lambeth Articles, another historical fact that would show that Calvinism was still accepted in the Church of England at the time of the making of the KJV is the fact that a Calvinist was named as the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1611. After the death of Archbishop Richard Bancroft in late 1610, King James I made George Abbot, who had been one of the translators of the KJV, the Archbishop of Canterbury. Otto Scott noted that George Abbott, Archbishop of Canterbury, was "a Calvinist" (Great Christian Revolution, p. 143).

In 1618, King James I and Archbishop Abbot sent English delegates, including two men who had been KJV translators, to the Dort Synod. Representing the Church of England, those English delegates voted for the Calvinist position. Otto Scott noted that these English delegates "voted to uphold Calvinist principles in their entirety" (Great Christian Revolution, pp. 143, 146). Thus, as late as 1618 at the Dort Synod, the Church of England still publicly supported Calvinism.

Robert Gell (1595-1665), who had been a chaplain to KJV translator George Abbott and who thus had first-hand information, claimed that there was Calvinistic bias in the KJV
See his 1659 book entitled An Essay Toward the Amendment of the last English Translation of the Bible.

No matter what the CoE idealists claim, I refuse to believe that a Church in love with the sacramental system under the control of a sacerdotal priesthood wearing the grave clothes of the Church of Rome could in actuality be calvinistic.

 

[TCassidy]

So on the one hand you said you'd already answered this question and on the other you say you don't know the answer.

And once again you demonstrate the remarkable ability to fail to understand rather simple sentences.

 

[TCassidy]

Bad translation is still bad translation.

You do not determine the worth of a translation by comparing it to other translations. You determine the worth of a translation by comparing it to the original language texts.

 

[TCassidy]

The New Revised Standard Version

I did not mention the NRSV. Another non-sequitur.

 

[InTheLight]

And once again you demonstrate the remarkable ability to fail to understand rather simple sentences.

Sure, sure....

Now, explain why the ESV is one of the only translations that renders the Greek word as "before" while almost all others render it "from".

I already answered this but I will try to type it real s.l.o.w. so you can keep up. The ESV is a revision of the RSV.

Why did the RSV renders the Greek word as "before" while almost all others render it "from"?

I was not asked to be on either the translation committee of the RSV or the ESV. If you want to know why they chose as they did you will have to ask them.

So on the one hand you said you'd already answered this question and on the other you say you don't know the answer. OK.