The Westminster Larger Catechism, answer 157 also states, "The holy scriptures are to be read with an high and reverent esteem of them; with a firm persuasion that they are the
very word of God."
For the Reformed, if one cannot approach their particular translation with this conviction, then their view of the translation in their hand is obviously at odds with the confessional view. We do not come to worship and hear the Word of God if we are standing in judgement of the very word of God.
The conservative Reformed view in general is as stated in the WCF portion you quoted above. Some within the Reformed community, myself included, will also note that the Scripture proofs used in the
WCF are clearly from the AV and that since the underlying TR of the NT is the "received text" by the Reformed church that confesses the WCF, then the AV is the very word of God. Admittedly, not all Reformed churches follow this approach, yet all Reformed churches do not denounce those that do.
More on my view is found here:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4458764#post4458764
Accordingly, I believe there should be one official Bible in the Reformed church. The fact is, that the AV held that place among English speaking people for centuries, while no modern version has reached the same status. Without an official Bible, the church effectively says, we do not know where the Word of God is to be found in the English language. Children of the Reformation should use the Scriptures of the reformation. The AV was made by men who each and every one upheld the Thirty-Nine Articles. They acknowledged versions that were made by "men of their own profession" as the Word of God. Can anyone point to a modern version to be made by men who upheld the Reformation standard? The fact that so much of the earlier versions is in the AV should demonstrates how much continuity existed between the reformation versions. The fact that so little of the AV is to be found in the modern versions is clear evidence of a departure that ultimately leads to dilution and division within the Reformed churches.
Nevertheless, I readily concede that there are renderings in the AV which can be improved, and I can envisage a day when the English speaking
churches will recover their visible unity and the task of faithful "revision" using the Byzantine manuscript tradition can commence again. Until that time, we should bear with the occasional "archaism" in the AV. If the NT could borrow words from the dated vocabulary of the Greek version of the OT, then I see nothing wrong with bearing with a few antiquated expressions for the sake of adhering to the most faithful rendering of the inspired Scriptures.
So for those that are churchmen who have covenanted with a visible vestige of Our Lord's Bride,
it is the church that has spoken about what it considers the very word of God. For many within my Reformed tradition, the text that has been received by the church relies upon the TR within the Byzantine tradition of manuscripts. For those adrift outside church membership, the translation being used is but a personal choice, or for those outside the church that use the AV, a choice that borrows from the intellectual and spiritual capital of the Reformed kinsmen who translated the AV.
AMR
