"As it currently stands, the decision to release a new translation of the Bible is a decision that is made between academics and businessmen."

I love Doug Wilson, but I think this is one of his weaknesses. If God has principles of interpretation and translation for us, I would think that anyone following those principles (be it corporations, or academicians) would be able to come out with a translation. Wilson seems to think that the authority has to flow from the church. Unfortunately error has flowed from sectors of the church too, even though as a whole it is the pillar and ground of the truth.

Doug seems to think that the KJV is the measuring stick for all other translations. In his own grading system, it manages to score 3 As. How convenient. I wonder what authority from God he thinks the king of England had to authorize a translation. Further, the monarchist adoring translators were hardly objective about it.

I wonder if Doug grades all versions of the KJV the same.

Greg,

Wouldn’t you say that the ordinances and translations are in completely different categories? I am not sure they stand for comparison.

In the end, isn’t Doug employing his own paradigm of textual criticism? His comparative analysis is really of no value, if God has divinely preserved one text - especially so if that preservation is in one translation. I appreciate Doug’s attempt, but it seems to me that he merely sets up his own paradigm. Though Doug may come to a diametrically different conclusion to the eclectic text adherents, he nonetheless engages in the same activity, which should be anathema to the KJVO or TRO adherents.

Greg. I see what you’re saying. Larry I think answered it well by putting translation and decemination of a translation of scripture into a completely different category. It’s a different category in the sense that it is very clear who is to do the ordinances of the church… the church. We see a glimpse in scripture that, for example, Peter was familiar with Paul’s writings and knew them as scripture. However we don’t see any other hint at how the church should be directly involved in the decemination of Scripture. Where there is less clarity, I would give more discretion.

Similarly a fallacy of Wilson’s is that since a translation (such as the ESV) has men doing the translation who are each under the authority of their own churches, it seems to me that these men aren’t doing their work apart from the church as extreme a way Wilson seems to say they are. He gives the ESV, NASB, and NKJV each an F in this category. Wilson wants translation to be “under the authority of the church” and since no translation has since had that defining characteristic, he pretty much rejects them.

Again I really appreciate his teaching, but on this and his recent “in defense of gay jokes” … I think he has a blind side.

Which church would do such a translation? the Baptist? which Baptist church? It seems to me that even though Crossway has a financial interest (much like James the 6th of Scotland and 1st of England had a political interest), it still did a good job with bringing together various church scholars. If not a corporation than a king? Why? Why not let principles rule the decision of whether a translation is good or not? If you can’t think of a real-world scenario in which “the Church” would translate the scriptures, then maybe put forward an alternative to Crossway.

Does Wilson prefer the model where a King and the head of the state church decides?

Jim, he is post-millennial, and somewhat of a Theonomist. So in theory… yes.

So he is confused on multiple fronts.

/getspen

/writesoff

Time and time again I find myself agreeing with Doug Wilson on many things but this is not one of them. In light of everything else he believes I cannot understand why he takes this position and for some of the reasons he does. I do understand his points but I dont understand why he finds them convincing.

Wilson is the northern Idahoan Protestant who is the strongest defender in America’s West for interlocking bibliology with ecclesiology, unlike the counterfeit in the I-15 Corridor.

I think there are three main pastor leaders in the Western United States who push the KJV tradition (for various reasons): Doug Wilson, Chuck Smith, and Paul Chappel.

Btw, Happy 400th to everyone! Last week, I watched the DVD - “KJV: The Making of The King James Bible” (Vision Video), and I am currently almost halfway through the book, Bible: The Story of the King James Version, 1611-2011 (Oxford, 2010) by Gordon Campbell.

While there is something to fact that all the Bible translations being put out are almost exclusively “for-profit” in the USA today, is there legitimately another way to do this? Would any translator or publisher be willing to forego the funds they would need to defray the expense of publishing?
In such a case, to just rate any other translation an F and the KJV an A seems a bit disingenuous. Is there any “in between” there. Could we delineate between non-profit and for-profit and have different grades? I will be honest and say that I do think we have too many translations and that it is muddying the waters for all.