Wittenberg Wednesday Response: Chuck Surrett

My third response to our Wittenburg Wednesday question came from Dr. Chuck Surrett.  Dr. Surrett is the Academic Dean at Ambassador Baptist College.  He has written a book entitled, Which Greek Text?: The Debate Among Fundamentalists. 

Remember, our topic has been - Is it time for another English Bible translation?  Here is Dr. Surrett’s response:

Thank you for your thoughtful email.  It is not the English translation that is “God-breathed,” but the original writings in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaiac.  Although the original manuscripts have not been preserved, the words in those manuscripts have (Isa 59:21).  Thus, our loyalty is to the original, not to a translation, as such. 

I would not have a theological objection to a modern translation being made of the Masoretic Old Testament and the Textus Receptus.  However, it is a huge undertaking, and would require a great deal of time and expertise.  The New King James claimes to be taken from the TR, but David Waite thinks that it follows many Critical Text readings instead.  I have not made a study of this, so I am not qualified to evalute the New King James. 

No matter which translation of the Bible one uses, it will take a measure of education to be able to read it.  I think the readability of modern-day translations may be a little “over-rated,” perhaps by those who market them. 

My conclusion is that it would be easier to assist people with certain vocabulary words in the KJV than to translate the entire Bible again.  No other English Bible in history has had the impact on people that the KJV has.  I see no reason to give up on it, and I am not convinced that there is a truly TR-based improvement available.