Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
CR Jan 2005 Inside Pages

CR Jan 2005 Inside Pages

Ratings: (0)|Views: 15|Likes:

More info:

Published by: Chalcedon Foundation on Apr 26, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

04/26/2010

pdf

text

original

 
Publisher & Chalcedon President 
Rev. Mark R. Rushdoony 
Chalcedon Vice-President 
Martin Selbrede
Editor
Rev. Christopher J. Ortiz
Managing Editor
Susan Burns
Contributing Editors
Lee Duigon Walter & Megan Lindsay Buddy Hanson
Chalcedon Founder
Rev. R. J. Rushdoony 
(1916-2001) was the founder of Chalcedonand a leading theologian, church/state expert, and author of numer-ous works on the application of Biblical Law to society.
Receiving
Faith for All of Life:
This mag-azine will be sent to those who requestit. At least once a year we ask that youreturn a response card if you wish toremain on the mailing list. Contributorsare kept on our mailing list.
SuggestedDonation:
$35 per year ($45 for allforeign — U.S. funds only). Tax-deduct-ible contributions may be made out toChalcedon and mailed to P.O. Box 158,Vallecito, CA 95251 USA.Chalcedon may want to contact itsreaders quickly by means of e-mail.If you have an e-mail address, pleasesend an e-mail message includingyour full postal address to our office:chaloffi@goldrush.com.
For circulation and data management contact Rebecca Rouse.Contact her at (209) 736-4365 ext. 10or chaloffi@goldrush.com
The Chalcedon Report 
, No. 470 January 2005
Faith for All of Life,
published monthly by Chalcedon, a tax-exempt Christian foundation, is sent to all who request it. All edito-rial correspondence should be sent to the managing editor, P.O. Box 569, Cedar Bluff, VA 24609-0569. Laser-print hard copy and electronic disk submissions firmly encouraged. All submissions subject to editorial revision. Email: chalcedon@adelphia.net.The editors are not responsible for the return of unsolicited manuscripts which become the property of Chalcedon unless otherarrangements are made. Opinions expressed in this magazine do not necessarily reflect the views of Chalcedon. It provides aforum for views in accord with a relevant, active, historic Christianity, though those views may on occasion differ somewhatfrom Chalcedon’s and from each other. Chalcedon depends on the contributions of its readers, and all gifts to Chalcedon aretax-deductible. ©2005 Chalcedon. All rights reserved. Permission to reprint granted on written request only. Editorial Board:Rev. Mark R. Rushdoony, President/Editor-in-Chief; Chris Ortiz, Editor; Susan Burns, Managing Editor and Executive Assistant.Chalcedon, P.O. Box 158, Vallecito, CA 95251, Telephone Circulation (8a.m. - 4p.m., Pacific): (209)736-4365 or Fax (209)736-0536; email: chaloffi@goldrush.com; www.chalcedon.edu; Circulation:Rebecca Rouse.
Translation and Subversion 2
R.J. Rushdoony 
The Father as a Teacher of the Word 5
 Mark R. Rushdoony 
 Why We Changed theName of the Magazine 7
Christopher J. Ortiz 
How Scripture Came to Us 9
Greg Uttinger 
How to Read theBible Biblically 11
 Joseph Morecraft, III 
The Bible as a Precondition for Knowledge 13
 Jim West 
Deconstructionism,Postmodernism andBiblical Revelation 15
Rev. Christopher B. Strevel 
Governing Our Livesby the Word of God 18
Roger Schultz 
Sovereignty and Truth:The Basic Argumentfor Inerrancy 20
Eugene Clingman
Mark My Words:Effective Bible Notation 21
Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D.
The Bible as a Tool of Dominion 23
Samuel L. Blumenfeld 
God’s Word Is Truth 24
Buddy Hanson
Robert E. Lee:Self-GovernmentRequires Self-Denial 26
Rick Williams 
Classifieds 30Product Catalog 32
 
2
Faith for All of Life 
 January 2005
T
he publication of a new translationof the Bible should be an occa-sion for rejoicing. The availability of Scripture in a new language, or a freshrendering in “modern dress” for peoplealready possessing the Bible, can be of great importance in propagating thefaith.
The faith
, this indeed is the centralmotive in many contemporary versions,but by no means all. At least two othermotives are important factors on thecontemporary scene:
 rst,
a nancialmotive and,
second 
, an anti-Christianreligious motive.
The Prot in Bibles
 A prot motive is, in its place, agodly aspect of life, by no means tobe condemned unless it transgressesthe laws of God. Without faith, every aspect of life is under condemnation, alllife then is out of focus, and things, inthemselves pure, become impure in thehands of the ungodly. As is well known, the Bible is theconsistent best seller. The annual saleof millions of copies makes it thereforea phenomenal sales item. Its potential-ity as a moneymaker is thus enormous,almost staggering to the economically minded imagination. But one very serious drawback exists: the Bible, in itsmost popular English form, the King James Version, is not subject to copy-right. Any publisher can print it andenter into a highly competitive eld where the margin of prot must be keptvery low for competitive reasons. Thehandicaps thus are very real, althoughseveral publishers have regularly counted
R.J. Rushdoony 
Translation and Subversion
(Reprinted from the
 Journal of Christian Reconstruction
, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1989)
Founder’s Column
on their Bible sales for assured prots. Isit any wonder, therefore, that publishers,among others, have come to recog-nize the tremendous potentialities of a
copyrighted Bible 
? A copyrighted Bibleis thus a major bonanza to publishersand a nancial and prestigious assetto scholars participating as translatorsand editors. Not every new translationhas been a moneymaking scheme, butmany of them have clearly had thismotive as among their central ones. Itis no wonder that new versions are thusoften front-page news; the advertisingand promotion behind a major versionmakes it a nancial asset to many media.
Possession
of a copyright is again a majoraffair and, in one recent case, was asubject of legal battle. Thus, the RevisedStandard Version is copyrighted by theDivision of Christian Education of theNational Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America,and rst published by Thomas Nelsonand Sons in New York, Toronto, andEdinburgh. Because many evangelicalsregarded this version as “modernist” incharacter, in 1962, a “study” edition wasput out by the A. J. Holman Company of Philadelphia, with 59 evangelicalscholars giving their evangelical “impri-matur” to it by means of brief introduc-tions and articles.
The unstated fact 
isthat, with every copy and every edition,the prot goes to the Division of Chris-tian Education of the National Councilof the Churches of Christ. The NationalCouncil has thus a source of incomenow entirely apart from any donationsby member churches. It has an investedinterest in a particular Bible. The use of this Bible is thus promoted in a variety of circles. It is used for responsive read-ings in hymnals and in Sunday schoollessons. The Holman Study Bible wasgiven away as a subscription premiumby 
Christianity Today 
, ostensibly a voiceof evangelical Christianity. “New Bibles”are big money and their by-productsare likewise protable. They are usedin newer commentaries by permissionto further their popularity and concor-dances suggest their durability. With allthe money at stake in new versions, isit any wonder that people are urged, totheir confusion, to believe in the neces-sity for new versions?
Revision, Translation,or Paraphrase?
It might be well to note here afurther area of confusion. The RevisedStandard Version claims to be a revi-sion of the King James Version,
i.e.
,not a new translation but merely theKing James corrected and modernized.Oswald T. Allis, in
Revision or NewTranslation
(Presbyterian and ReformedPublishing Company, 1948), has calledattention to the fact that it is closer of-ten to a new translation by unconserva-tive scholars. In
Recent Revised Versions 
,Dr. Allis extended his critique to theNew English Bible.New translations, moreover, tendto follow radical readings of erroneousor “wastebasket” texts in preferenceto standard readings. With each new version, the number of departures fromthe Received Text is steadily increasing.
 
 January 2005
Faith for All of Life 
3
Faith for All of Life 
it should be
understandable 
and here,all arguments to the contrary notwith-standing, the King James speaks a lan-guage which, while sometimes difcultbecause the matter itself is so, is moreoften simple, clear-cut, and beautiful.Some modern versions are very help-ful, but none equal the King James inits clarity and memorable beauty. Thegreatest single demerit of the King James Version is simply this, it is notcopyrighted and, hence, no organizationand no scholar can prot thereby.
 A Trustworthy Translation
The question of a
trustworthy 
trans-lation is all-important, especially sincenovelty is increasingly characteristic of many new translations. Which transla-tion is a trustworthy one? At this point, it needs to be notedthat all translations face certain per-plexing problems. The meanings of certain Hebrew words are uncertain,and the exact identity of many plantsand animals subject to debate. Withthese details, we are not concerned. Themarginal readings of a good edition arehelpful in clarifying meanings or givingalternates translations at difcult points.The important question is inanother area. What
text 
of the Bible isbeing translated? In answering this ques-tion, let it be noted, we are departingfrom virtually all accepted scholarship.This however does not trouble us for,after all, the major break with “accept-ed” scholarship comes with acceptanceof Christ as Lord and Savior, and theBible as the inspired and infallible wordof God.Since the days of Westcott andHort, textual criticism has applied toBiblical textual criticism a rigorously alien category of thought and “an es-sentially naturalistic method.”
3
Thisscholarship assumes man to be autono-mous and ultimate rather than God;and it requires all documents to meetThe sales value of these new versions, judging by some promotional mate-rial, seems to depend on new and novelreadings. There is, in the minds of somebuyers at least, a premium on newnessand on departures from the “old Bible.” With some, there is almost a hope-ful note that the newer Bibles mightgradually convert “Thou shalt notcommit adultery” to “Thou shalt com-mit adultery”! New versions, of variousqualities of good and bad, are purchasedby many persons almost as fetish objectsand remain unread.But many of the new versions arenot
translation
. They are
 paraphrases 
. What is the difference? A transla-tion is an exact and literal renderingof the original Greek or Hebrew intoEnglish. A paraphrase tries to put theoriginal thought into modern thoughtforms. One of the most popular liberalparaphrasers today is J. B. Phillips. A paraphrase can be a very valuable helpat times, but it can never substitute fora translation. Thus, Edgar J. Goodspeedrenders Matthew 5:3, “Blessed are thepoor in spirit,” as “Blessed are those who feel their spiritual need.” This isbrilliant and telling; it gives us a vividgrasp of the meaning, but unfortunately Goodspeed, while giving us a few suchgems, also neutralizes many of the basictheological terms of the New Testament with weak paraphrases.The King James Version is not aparaphrase. It is both a revision of earliertranslations in part and a new transla-tion in its day.
 Archaic Language
 
One of the charges consistently leveled against the King James Version isthat its language is archaic and obso-lete. The answer is a simple one: it isintended to be. In 1611 the King JamesVersion was as “out of date” as it istoday. Compare the writings of Shake-speare, Ben Jonson, King James I, and John Lyly with the King James Versionand this becomes quickly apparent. Thetranslators
avoided 
the speech of theirday for a basic English which would besimple, timeless, and beautiful, and they succeeded. Their version spoke fromoutside their age and tradition withelemental simplicity. Their wisdom hereexceeds that of their successors. Nothingseems more ridiculous than an outdated“modern” translation. Let us examine William Mace, 1729, as he rendered James 3:5-6:
The tongue is but a small part of the body, yet how grand are its pretensions! A spark of   re! What quantities of timber will it blowinto ame? The tongue is a brand that sets the world into a combustion; it is but one of the numerous organs of the body, yet it can blast whole assemblies. Tipped with infernal sulphur it sets the whole train of life in a blaze.
In 1768, Dr. Edward Harwood’s
Liberal Translation of the New Testament,i.e.,
a paraphrase, rendered Luke 15:11, “A certain man had two sons,” as “A gentleman of splendid family opulentfortune had two sons.” This is clearly an extreme instance, but it does illus-trate a point: if we consider our age andits requirements as
normative 
, we caninvolve ourselves in absurdities. Andsuch absurdities are not missing fromthe various versions. The critic DwightMacdonald has called attention to someof these in the Revised Standard Versionin a
New Yorker 
article, “The Bible inModern Undress.”
1
Macdonald com-ments on the RSV by way of a conclu-sion, “Whether it will be any more suc-cessful in replacing the K.J.V. than the1885 version was remains to be seen. If it is, what is now simply a blunder — aclerical error, so to speak — will becomea catastrophe. Bland, favorless medioc-rity will have replaced the pungency of genius.”
2
The issue is not that the Bibleshould speak our everyday language,for this involves debasement, but that

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->