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

William Noah, in charge of the national Ink and Blood Bible exhibit (http://www.inkandblood.com/), is a very good persuader for taking you back to Tyndale and Geneva before the days of politics and later, the commercialism in Bible translation. His lectures critique the modern translation Bible business. It was interesting.

[Greg Linscott] The Bible Society model come to mind.

That’s the model the NIV used. The New York Bible Society (later renamed International Bible Society, and now Biblica) was involved from very early on. See http://www.niv-cbt.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/The_Challenge_of_Bibl…] this history .

I don’t know how it can be said that Crossway is negatively controlling the use of the ESV translation. It’s free online to anyone who wants it. On every e-book store (Apple, Amazon, Google) it’s always totally free (and very often downloaded, on the launch of the Apple iBook store, the ESV was in the top 10 for several days). Maybe they have a profit motive at base, but it doesn’t seem like that motive plays badly. How is a society different than a corporation in an organic way? It’s still not what Doug wants to see: “the Church” controlling the translation.

The ESV has also allowed Accordance Bible Software, to use the ESV as the default version of their new iPhone App, which is probably the best Bible App out there right now.

@ RPittman - No doubt Wilson is very articulate, educated and intelligent. For the most part I agree with his assessment of ultimate control of the publication of versions. I dont agree with his conclusion that because the KJV is the only one in its category that it should be the only one used. Further, I wonder how Wilson can justify using other translations if they are controlled by unsaved business men. It is the only one he reads from in the pulpit but that is about it.

Also, just because Wilson may be right about many things does not mean he is beyond being wrong about anything, some things or this issue. He is a postmillennialist but I am pretty sure no one on SI would put their stake in that camp. Just because he can make a good presentation for his case does not make him right. Wilson’s arguments need to be taken seriously and it is easy to do so because of the respect he carries as a good educated thinker. Too many of the KJV Only advocates resort to less than intelligible arguments and cannot get to the heart of the issue. Thus, they produce believers who are ignorant of the relevant issues.

Much more could be said but I am afraid it would do no good here.

As Shaynus pointed out earlier, Wilson is postmill. This combined with his view that the church should control and produce translations (which in theory I like) are the foundational reasons for his position.

RPittman wrote:We cannot intentionally decide to produce another translation that will necessarily be God’s Word.

Why wouldn’t a faithful translation of the original languages into a receptor language necessarily be the Word of God?

When you intentionally turn the lights out and try to make everyone join you in the dark, you can make any wild claims you want without a challenge!

Roland, from where I am sitting, it seems very apt. You frequently make statements like this one from post 26:

We cannot intentionally decide to produce another translation that will necessarily be God’s Word. Preservation is God’s doing and is accepted by faith but we don’t know much about how it works. Is it alright to say: “I don’t know”?

Then you turn around and make opposing statements like this in post 30:

I do not accept the inane hypothesis that God’s Word is preserved collectively in all the manuscripts and translations in the world.

One minute you don’t know how preservation works; the next minute you speak with absolute certainty about what it is not. You chose to stand in the dark, but you should not be surprised if others refuse to join you.

[James K] So he is confused on multiple fronts.

/getspen

/writesoff

I don’t think he’s confused.

James I actually find most of Wilson’s teaching to be very challenging, even though I disagree strongly with some of his politics and millennial views. Even though he is post-millennial, I think he’s responsibly post-millennial. I love the debate between Wilson/Hamilton/Storms on millennial views. It made me both stronger in my own view, and more respectful of the enormous problems of interpreting these kinds of things. Therefore, I read and watch him in order to be able to be conversant with well-reasoned reformed types.

Shaynus, that he is KJVO is proof enough of his confusion. Is he really that ignorant about the textual issues? I guess so. That he is also a postmill/theonomist is just sad. It explains a lot though.

There is no such thing as responsibly postmill anymore than responsible KJVO. To be postmill or KJVO is to be irresponsible.

RPittman, after all the cricket sounds from my last questions to you about KJVO, I have no desire to interact about the issues ever again. You prove my second paragraph.

James,

I think you should back down from the rhetoric. Calling Dougals Wilson confused, ignorant, and irresponsible because you disagree with him seems harsh.

Allen, someone is right about these very serious matters and someone is confused. No matter how much charity you want to extend to people, they can still be confused. The combination of KJVO, postmill, and statechurchism smack of confusion. He might think clearly in his own mind about the issues, but it doesn’t change the fact that he is confused.

On these matters I do not take the position of agnostic.

[James K] Allen, someone is right about these very serious matters and someone is confused. No matter how much charity you want to extend to people, they can still be confused. The combination of KJVO, postmill, and statechurchism smack of confusion. He might think clearly in his own mind about the issues, but it doesn’t change the fact that he is confused.

On these matters I do not take the position of agnostic.

This isn’t a formal moderator note (this post is not a violation, for starters) but as long as folks are careful to address the issues at hand (“KJVO, postmill, and statechurchism”) and not attack the person (ignorant, irresponsible, etc) then all’s fair.

Let’s keep to the issues. It could be that someone is right and someone is wrong, but why does confusion have to come into the picture? Have you considered why Doug Wilson prefers the text and translation of the KJV, or do you assume anyone who does not accept CT theories is confused?

I have not read much of Wilson on this topic, but it’s likely that he does not get to his conclusions by any commonly traveled path. He does not think inside anybody’s box.