Listen to this popish fool...

R. Scott Clark writes:

Translations [of the Bible] are for the laity who cannot read the original languages. Ministers are to read the original languages and not rely on translations.

God help us all if this is what 'ministers' think. First of all: the so-called 'laity' (that would be regenerate Christians, i.e. Christians who actually have the Holy Spirit in them) get the necessary translating done IF IT NEEDS TO BE DONE. Clerics and academics come along long after that gets done. And long after the 'laity' found the universities the academic clerics get their degrees from.

Translations are mutable necessarily. I doubt there is an extant translation, including the AV, that has not been changed.

You "doubt"? Can't you kind of, look that up...maybe? No, the Authorized Version hasn't been changed.

Archaic English is not the "vulgar" tongue by definition.

See how this academic exposes his shallowness by calling the Elizabethan language of the AV1611 'archaic'. By archaic he means: "Really hard to understand, like that Chaucer guy in the original, or something. Like if the Hobbit was written in Middle Earth, or something." And to call the language of the AV1611 no longer vulgar once again exposes this academic's shallowness regarding literature and language. By the way, who today expects some fool with letters after his name like R. Scott Clark to have real understanding of language and literature, let alone the Word of God? Who really does? These modern day academics are fools. They wear suits and ties and go to conferences and write endless thin, vain books and put it on their ridiculous resumes. They're jokes. Of course they can't see the devil's attack on the Word of God in the emergence of the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts in the 19th century. They neither have the Spiritual discernment to see such a thing, nor do they have the appreciation of language and literature to be able to discern rot from the real thing.

The divines did not rely on Wycliffe's translation from the Vulgate nor did they even rely on Tyndale's marvelous translation. Rather, they depended on the original languages and, if or when they read the Scriptures in translation, they used the Geneva (widely used until the 1640s) or perhaps the AV (which was a relatively new work in the mid '40s).

Wycliffe's translation was not from the Vulgate, for the record (this is a typical error made by modern day self-described Christian academia). These academics have no sense of the work of the devil in the history of redemption, and hence regarding Wycliffe and his translation have no clue of the destruction and corruption of the few non-destroyed manuscripts by the papists of his day. Now notice he says "Tyndale's marvelous translation." What does he know? He's read about Tyndale and has read that Tyndale's English was remarkable (etc., etc.) so he throws this in, but his discernment for and appreciation of Tyndale's work is about the same as his discernment for and appreciation of Beethoven's late string quartets. I.e., he doesn't have a clue. He's a modern day academic. He can tell you about good places to find ice cream where he lives, things like that...

There is and should be no need to learn archaic English to have access to faithful Bible translations.

rsc
__________________
R. Scott Clark, D.Phil
Associate Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology
Westminster Seminary California

Translation: "I'm still not going to mention the underlying manuscripts because as a Christian academic I fear the opinions of my professors and peers more than I fear God. Plus, I can't win the argument based on manuscripts. I've seen enough evidence of that to not venture down THAT road (hey, hey, hey)..."