Jude 2

Posted: **July 8th, 2009, 12:42 am**

I am in high gear prepping for a trip to Fuller, and can't put my hand on this; can any of you COGOP polity experts cite the current/latest COGOP position on Bible translations for me?

Posted: **July 8th, 2009, 4:50 am**

I just looked through the policy manual and I can't find anything on it. Dad doesn't think there was ever a ruling on it. I'm going to thumb through it some more.

Posted: **July 8th, 2009, 5:08 am**

i wasn't aware of any official stand. only local dogmas. are you looking for something that says to use such and such a version, or that the COGOP officially approves such and such a version? if so, don't know it to be there. I am digging out my encyclopedic minutes pdf for w quick search...

Posted: **July 8th, 2009, 5:19 am**

The 1961 General Assembly, 56th AM, p. 131, QSC, states,

Inasmuch as many Bible translations give conflicting views with regard to the doctrine as taught by the Church, we recommend that this Assembly give voice of approval to the English King James Version of the bible as being the authority for our Church doctrine and teaching.

The 66th AM reads, as ruled on in 1971, p. 143, QSC,

...We recommend that this Assembly give voice of approval of the Spanish Antigua Version de Casiodoro de Reina of the Bible up to 1909 AD as being the authority for our Church doctrine and teaching in the Spanish language.

I got this from a copy of TCOG minutes that I was loaned, and it quotes COGOP minutes up until 1990, I think, or 1992 (not sure). So, that's the best I can contribute. :lol:

Posted: **July 8th, 2009, 5:31 am**

yup - just found that as well. however, there was further discussion that was tabled and apparently not picked back up (GA77)

SECTION 3 BIBLE TRANSLATIONS In the 76th Assembly in 1981 it was decided that the section of the report of the Questions and Subjects Committee concerning Bible Translations be held over until the next Assembly. We have prayerfully reviewed this section with considerable deliberation and we appreciate the prayers that have been offered in our behalf. While this committee remains supportive of the General Overseer's position on this subject as outlined in his Annual Address in the 76th Assembly, it is our feeling that more time should be given before presenting it for further consideration by the Assembly.

Posted: **July 8th, 2009, 5:32 am**

I thought the "if it was good enough for Paul, it's good enough for me," argument was the rule of thumb for translations. :oops:

Gee, I'm way behind.

PG, forgive my silly intrusion.

Posted: **July 8th, 2009, 6:44 am**

maybe we should all use Nestle Aland with critical apparatus (latest revision, currently 27) for NT reference

Posted: **July 8th, 2009, 12:07 pm**

oops, sorry, dinna meeeen to kill the thread.

Jude 2

COGOP Minutes experts

COGOP Minutes experts

minutes