The KJVOs here continue to use the phrase "Reformation Bible" to refer to the King James Version. I will disagree with the use of the phrase for at least a few reasons:
The Reformation was complete (end of Thirty Years War) by the time the KJV was the commonly accepted version. The KJV was a "johnny come lately" in the scheme of the Reformation.
The Reformation was not defined by the KJV, but a variety of translations. Not to mention foreign language versions including the German versions used by Luther, the French used by the Hugenots.
The Reformation was not about establishing a singular Bible but the rejection of the papist authority and the commitment to Sola Scripture, Solus Christus, Sola Gratia...
The Reformation was about the dissemination of God's Word to the world so consciences would no longer be chained to a tradition.
The KJV was obviously a product of the Reformation, but to give it the label "The Reformation Bible" is simply a misnomer and an attempt by the KJVO to once again bind our consciences to a tradition.
What think ye?
__________________ Simply observing the floccinoccinihilipilification of the KJVO movement.
If the name should be applied to any English Bibles, English translations such as Tyndale's, the 1537 Matthew's Bible, or the 1560 Geneva Bible would clearly deserve the name "Reformation Bible" more than the later 1611 KJV would.
The Reformers clearly did not advocate any view of Bible translation similar to that held by modern-day KJV-only advocates.
The KJVOs here continue to use the phrase "Reformation Bible" to refer to the King James Version. I will disagree with the use of the phrase for at least a few reasons:
The Reformation was complete (end of Thirty Years War) by the time the KJV was the commonly accepted version. The KJV was a "johnny come lately" in the scheme of the Reformation.
The Reformation was not defined by the KJV, but a variety of translations. Not to mention foreign language versions including the German versions used by Luther, the French used by the Hugenots.
The Reformation was not about establishing a singular Bible but the rejection of the papist authority and the commitment to Sola Scripture, Solus Christus, Sola Gratia...
The Reformation was about the dissemination of God's Word to the world so consciences would no longer be chained to a tradition.
The KJV was obviously a product of the Reformation, but to give it the label "The Reformation Bible" is simply a misnomer and an attempt by the KJVO to once again bind our consciences to a tradition.
What think ye?
I think they are misapplying Ruckman's label for the KJV. He is obviously referring to the text type (TR vs. Wescott and Hort) and not to the translation.
__________________
Infiltrating the feebleminded since 1999
Theology, not morality, is the first business on the church's agenda of reform, and the church, not society, is the first target of divine criticism.
-Michael Scott Horton, Beyond Culture Wars
I think they are misapplying Ruckman's label for the KJV. He is obviously referring to the text type (TR vs. Wescott and Hort) and not to the translation.
If Peter Ruckman uses the phrase, that is excellent on his account. Although if he limits the term to the KJB (do you have any evidence for that ?) this would be an improper limitation.
The KJB is only one example, from our perspective the purest and perfect form, of the Reformation Bible. Which is simply the proper scholarly term for the Bible that was accepted by the Reformation and for 100s of years by essentially all evangelical believers and today by all who hold to true tangible infallibility with inerrancy.
While the Received Text is a related phrase, the Textus Receptus, or Received Text, applies specifically to the source language manuscripts. While the Reformation Bible applies to Bibles in all languages, source and target both, making the phrase the most precise scholarly term for the text-form with historical lineage.
If Peter Ruckman uses the phrase, that is excellent on his account. Although if he limits the term to the KJB (do you have any evidence for that ?) this would be an improper limitation.
Interesting...
Avery wrote: And the purity and perfection and majesty of the Reformation Bible manifests fully in the Holy Bible, the Authorised Version, the King James Bible.
__________________ Simply observing the floccinoccinihilipilification of the KJVO movement.
Avery wrote: And the purity and perfection and majesty of the Reformation Bible manifests fully in the Holy Bible, the Authorised Version, the King James Bible.
Avery has a reading comprehension problem.
__________________
Infiltrating the feebleminded since 1999
Theology, not morality, is the first business on the church's agenda of reform, and the church, not society, is the first target of divine criticism.
-Michael Scott Horton, Beyond Culture Wars
The phrase "Reformation Bible" (another phrase is the "Bible of the Reformation") is clearly an excellent phrase and is used by many. KJB defenders, Textus Receptus folks, those with Reformation doctrine, specific Bible scholarship and general scholarship. Thus to see it attacked is rather strange.
The strangest attack is the idea that the Reformation Bible defenders did not have a Bible text, that they were simply negative toward the Latin Vulgate. That is a bit of a laugher and a and can only be made by those unfamiliar with 400 years of Bible history. And especially uninformed about the battle of the Bible of the 1500s and 1600s.
Now, first, to "Reformation Bible" we will continue with Peter Ruckman, who was mentioned above. It would take a while to find and go through his material, such as the Bible Believers Bulletins, yet from these two quotes on the web it is clear he uses the phrase both generally and specifically. The second quote is in the context of the specific KJB translation of Psalm 12:6 so imo it really should not be read as a one-Bible limitation, especially since we have the first quote to go with.
Peter Ruckman
The reformation Bible of Martin Luther WAS NOT translated from Vaticanus! (James White web sites)
"that GENERATION that saw the publication of the English Protestant Reformation Bible (AV 1611) would 'keep God's word'" (Commentary on Psalms, Peter Ruckman , p. 71).
Since Peter Ruckman is only marginally significant on this phrase, we will next go to other usages.
The posters on PuritanBoard include some of the most informed on the net. They include a wide range of views with number of posters defenders of the Received Text / Reformation Bible. Here are a few quotes. In the informed environment of that board there is no objection to the usage "Reformation Bible" even though there are a good number of modern version proponents. In a sense I consider these even more significant that "scholarly" references, since these quotes are from knowledgeable Christian Bible believers.
=====================================
armourbearer
The Geneva version is acknowledged as a faithful reformation Bible. However, the AV was a significant improvement upon it. Note what the preface to Poole's Annotations says: "About the year 1640 some deliberations were taken for the composing and printing other English notes (the old Geneva Notes not so well fitting our new and more correct translation of the Bible)". (a)
=====================================
Virginia Huguenot
Catholics felt it necessary to prepare a Counter-Reformation Bible, as well as engage in open apologetics or Jesuit-style subversive strategies. (b)
I saw a great Reformation Bible exhibit at the Library of Congress a few years ago. The Gutenberg Bible is on permanent display there. (c)
=====================================
Steven Rafalsky
The Dutch Reformation Bible, the Staten Vertaling (1619), reads Heere – Lord, or mister – in 12:11. (d)
I would say it was when the church lost her moorings to the Reformation Bible. (e)
There is a small contingent of men and women who hold to the old Reformation Bible, the TR. We are quite able to withstand all our opponents, be they doctors, Greek "experts", textual critics, etc. We do it for love of His word. (f)
"Reformation Bible" - usage by Received Text defenders
Hi Folks,
The next two usages are Received Text defenders. The first uses the phrase "Reformation Bible" properly for the superior Spanish Bible of 1602, translated from the Received Texts. The second article uses the phrase consistently, in fine context.
The work on the revision of the Spanish Bible is being undertaken on the edition of Reina-Valera 1602 Reformation Bible known as the Reina-Valera 1909 Bible.
the inspired Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words that God has specially and providentially preserved in the traditional and majority manuscripts, and in the printed received texts underlying the Reformation Bibles which God has continuously and supernaturally kept pure throughout the ages without any loss of any of the inspired words and always available to His people even up till the present, which are today fully represented by the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures underlying the KJV which we have in our hands today.
(And additional quotes in the Jeffrey Khoo article, as this is a theme.)
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Last edited by Steven Avery; 11-02-2009 at 12:54 AM.
The next two usages are Received Text defenders. The first uses the phrase "Reformation Bible" properly for the superior Spanish Bible of 1602, translated from the Received Texts. The second article uses the phrase consistently, in fine context.
The work on the revision of the Spanish Bible is being undertaken on the edition of Reina-Valera 1602 Reformation Bible known as the Reina-Valera 1909 Bible.
the inspired Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words that God has specially and providentially preserved in the traditional and majority manuscripts, and in the printed received texts underlying the Reformation Bibles which God has continuously and supernaturally kept pure throughout the ages without any loss of any of the inspired words and always available to His people even up till the present, which are today fully represented by the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures underlying the KJV which we have in our hands today.
(And additional quotes in the Jeffrey Khoo article, as this is a theme.)
Shalom,
Steven Avery
I am sure Brother Khoo would be aghast that a modalist would use his material to defend anything. Brother Khoo believes in the Reformed Doctrine of the Trinity, not the heretical view you espouse.
__________________
Infiltrating the feebleminded since 1999
Theology, not morality, is the first business on the church's agenda of reform, and the church, not society, is the first target of divine criticism.
-Michael Scott Horton, Beyond Culture Wars
The views and opinions expressed on this web site are not necessarily those of the Fighting Fundamental Forums management. This is an open and unmoderated forum. The content of each post is the sole responsibility of the poster. Participants are expected to follow the simple rules of the forum. Within these wide parameters various views are welcome to be expressed freely.
The college names used on the FundamentalForums.com web site are trademarks of their respective schools. The forums are not officially sanctioned by any of the institutions represented.
The Reformation Bible: A bit of a misnomer?
and can only be made by those unfamiliar with 400 years of Bible history. And especially uninformed about the battle of the Bible of the 1500s and 1600s.
Linear Mode
