Posted on 08/25/2003 11:28:40 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." (Psalm 12:6)
As any student of English Bible history knows, the Authorized Version of 1611 was not the first Bible to be translated into English. But even though hundreds of complete Bibles, New Testaments, and Scripture portions have been translated into English since 1611, it is obvious that the Authorized Version is the last English Bible; that is, the last English Bible that God "authorized."
Because the Authorized Version is the "last" English Bible, and because its defenders believe it to contain the very words of God, various schemes have been contrived to make the English Bibles up to and including the Authorized Version fit the description in Psalm 12:6 of the words of the Lord being "purified seven times." The problem is that the Authorized Version is not the seventh English Bible -- it is the tenth one.
Although there were some attempts during the Old and Middle English period to translate portions of the Bible into English, the first complete Bible or New Testament in English did not appear until the fourteenth century.
John Wycliffe (c.1320-1384) is credited with being the first to translate the entire Bible into English. It is to be remembered that no Greek or Hebrew texts, versions, or editions were yet fabricated. Wycliffe did his translating primarily from the only Bible then in use: the Latin Vulgate. He is often called the "Morning Star of the Reformation" for his opposition to ecclesiastical abuses and the Papacy. Wycliffe's New Testament translation was completed in 1380, and the entire Bible in 1382.
William Tyndale (c. 1494-1536) has the distinction of being the first to translate the New Testament from Greek into English. He early distinguished himself as a scholar both at Cambridge and Oxford, and was fluent in several languages. Tyndale soon advanced both his desire and his demise, as seen in his reply to a critic: "I defy the pope and all his laws; if God spare my life, ere many years I will cause the boy that driveth the plough in England to know more of the Scriptures than thou doest." The Bible was still forbidden in the vernacular, so after settling in London for several months while attempting to gain approval for his translation efforts, Tyndale concluded: "Not only that there was no room in my lord of Londons palace to translate the New Testament, but also that there was no place to do it in all England, as experience doth now openly declare."
Accordingly, Tyndale left England in 1524 and completed his translation of the New Testament in Germany. The moving factor in his translation of the New Testament was that he "perceived by experience, how that it was impossible to establish the lay people in any truth, except the scripture were plainly laid before their eyes in their mother tongue, that they might see the process, order and meaning of the text." The printing of his New Testament was completed in Worms and smuggled into England, where it was an instant success. Tyndale then turned his attention to the Old Testament. He never finished it, however, for on May 21, 1535, Tyndale was treacherously kidnaped and imprisoned in Belgium. On October 6, 1536, he was tried as a heretic and condemned to death. He was strangled and burned, but not before he uttered the immortal prayer of "Lord, open the King of England's eyes."
Although Tyndale's English Bible was the first to be translated directly from the original languages, it was just the New Testament. It was Myles Coverdale (1488-1569) who was the first to publish a complete English Bible. In 1533, King Henry VIII established the Church of England, and, in 1534, the Upper House of Convocation of Canterbury petitioned King Henry to decree "that the holy scripture should be translated into the vulgar English tongue by certain good learned men, to be nominated by His Majesty, and should be delivered to the people for their instruction." Thomas Cromwell (1485-1540) and Archbishop Cranmer (1489-1556) were likewise convinced of the desirability of having the Bible translated into English. Coverdale's Bible was printed in October of 1535. He based his work on the Zurich Bible of Zwingli, the Vulgate, the Latin text of Paginius, Luther's Bible, and the previous work of William Tyndale, especially in the New Testament.
Although Coverdale's second edition of 1537 contained the license of the king, the first Bible to obtain such license was published earlier the same year. The Matthew Bible was more of a revision than a translation. Thomas Matthew was just a pseudonym for John Rogers (c. 1500-1555), a friend of Tyndale, to whom he had turned over his unpublished manuscripts on the translation of the Old Testament. Rogers used Tyndale's New Testament and the completed parts of his Old Testament. For the rest of the Bible, he relied on Coverdale. The whole of this material was slightly revised and accompanied by introductions and chapter summaries. Cranmer commented in a letter to Cromwell that he liked it "better than any other translation heretofore made." And so it happened that Tyndale's translation, which was proscribed just a few years earlier, was circulating with the King's permission and authority both in the Coverdale and Matthew Bibles.
Although the Coverdale and Matthew Bibles were "set forth with the King's most gracious license," the Great Bible was the first "authorized" Bible. Cromwell delegated to Myles Coverdale the work of revising the Matthew Bible and its controversial notes. In 1538, an injunction by Cromwell directed the clergy to provide "one book of the bible of the largest volume in English, and the same set up in some convenient place within the said church that ye have care of, whereas your parishioners may most commodiously resort to the same and read it." The completed Bible appeared in April of 1539. Although called the Great Bible because of its large size, it was referred to by several other designations as well. It was called the Cromwell Bible, since he did the most to prepare for its publication. It was also termed the Cranmer Bible, after the often reprinted preface by Cranmer beginning with the 1540 second edition. Several editions were printed by Whitechurch, and hence it was also labeled the Whitechurch Bible. In accordance with Cromwell's injunction, copies of the Great Bible were placed in every church. This led to it being called the Chained Bible, since it was chained in "some convenient place within the said church."
At the same time as Coverdale was preparing the Great Bible, Richard Taverner (1505-1577) undertook an independent revision of Matthew's Bible. It appeared under the title of: "The Most Sacred Bible whiche is the holy scripture, conteyning the old and new testament, translated into English, and newly recognized with great diligence after most faythful exemplars by Rychard Taverner." He was a competent Greek scholar and made some slight changes in the text and notes of the Matthew Bible. His work was eclipsed by the Great Bible and had but minor influence on later translations.
During the reign of the Catholic queen, Mary Tudor (1553-1558), many English Reformers, among them Myles Coverdale, fled to Geneva. It was here in 1557 that William Whittingham (1524-1579), the brother-in-law of John Calvin, and successor of John Knox at the English church in Geneva, translated the New Testament in what was to become the Geneva Bible. When Elizabeth, the sister of Mary, assumed the throne in 1558, many exiles returned to England. But Whittingham and some others remained in Geneva and continued to work on a more comprehensive and complete revision of the entire Bible that superseded the 1557 New Testament -- the Geneva Bible of 1560.
The superiority of the Geneva Bible over the Great Bible was readily apparent. It was the notes, however, that made it unacceptable for official use in England. Archbishop Matthew Parker soon took steps to make a revision of the Great Bible that would replace both it and the Geneva Bible. The Bible was divided into parts and distributed to scholars for revision. Parker served as the editor and most of his revisors were bishops, hence the Bishops' Bible. The first Bible to be translated by a committee, it was published in 1568.
The Douay-Rheims Bible was the first Roman Catholic translation of the Bible in English. When English Romanists fled England for the Continent under the reign of Elizabeth, many settled in France. In 1568, an English college was established by William Allen (1532-1594) at Douay. The college moved for a time to Rheims in 1578 under Richard Bristow (1538-1581). It was here that Gregory Martin (d. 1582) began translating the Bible into English from the Latin Vulgate. This was precipitated by Allen's recognition that Catholics had an unfair disadvantage compared with Bible-reading Protestants because of their use of Latin and the fact that "all the English versions are most corrupt." The Catholic New Testament was finished in 1582, but the complete Old Testament did not appear until 1610.
After the death of Elizabeth in 1603, James I, who was at that time James VI of Scotland, became the king of England. One of the first things done by the new king was the calling of the Hampton Court Conference in January of 1604 "for the hearing, and for the determining, things pretended to be amiss in the church." Here were assembled bishops, clergyman, and professors, along with four Puritan divines, to consider the complaints of the Puritans. Although Bible revision was not on the agenda, the Puritan president of Corpus Christi College, John Reynolds, "moved his Majesty, that there might be a new translation of the Bible, because those which were allowed in the reigns of Henry the eighth, and Edward the sixth, were corrupt and not answerable to the truth of the Original."
The next step was the actual selection of the men who were to perform the work. In July of 1604, James wrote to Bishop Bancroft that he had "appointed certain learned men, to the number of four and fifty, for the translating of the Bible." Although fifty-four men were nominated, only forty-seven were known to have taken part in the work of translation. The completed Bible, known as the King James Version or the Authorized Version, was issued in 1611, and remains the Bible read, preached, believed, and acknowledged as the authority by all Bible believers today.
Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew, Great, Taverner, Geneva, Bishops', Douay-Rheims, and King James -- ten English Bibles. As mentioned previously, various schemes have been contrived to make the English Bibles up to and including the Authorized Version fit the description in Psalm 12:6 of the words of the Lord being "purified seven times." The problem with this noble goal is that it entails the elimination of three versions. But which three? Wycliffe's Bible is sometimes omitted because it was translated from the Latin instead of the original Hebrew and Greek. Tyndale's Bible is sometimes omitted because it was not a complete Bible -- just a New Testament and portions of the Old Testament. Coverdale's and Matthew's Bibles could conceivably be omitted because they rely so much on Tyndale. Taverner's Bible is sometimes omitted because it was a revision of Matthew's Bible and had little influence on later English versions. The Geneva Bible could conceivably be omitted because King James considered it to be the worst of the English versions. The Douay-Rheims, because it is a Roman Catholic version, is always omitted from the list.
This leaves the Great Bible, the Bishops' Bible, and the King James Bible -- three out of the ten. It appears that Bible believers have manipulated the history of the English Bible to prove a bogus theory.
Or have they?
The answer is yes and no. As will presently be proved, the theory is not bogus at all -- even if some zealous brethren have been careless in the way they went about proving it.
The definitive list of Bibles that makes the Authorized Version the seventh Bible, thus fitting the description in Psalm 12:6 of the words of the Lord being "purified seven times," is not to be found in the opinions of the many writers on the history of the English Bible. To the contrary, the definitive list is to be found in the often-overlooked details concerning the translating of the Authorized Version.
To begin with, the translators of the Authorized Version did acknowledge that they had a multitude of sources from which to draw from: "Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch." The Greek editions of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza were all accessible, as were the Complutensian and Antwerp Polyglots, and the Latin translations of Pagninus, Tremellius, and Beza. What we want, however, is a reference to English Bibles.
The translators also acknowledged that they had at their disposal all the previous English translations of the sixteenth century: "We are so far off from condemning any of their labors that travailed before us in this kind, either in this land or beyond sea, either in King Henry's time, or King Edward's (if there were any translation, or correction of a translation in his time) or Queen Elizabeth's of everrenowned memory, that we acknowledge them to have been raised up of God, for the building and furnishing of his Church, and that they deserve to be had of us and of posterity in everlasting remembrance." Although this statement of the translators refers to English Bibles, it is not specific as to exactly which versions.
The information we need is to be found, not in the translators' "The Epistle Dedicatory" or their "The Translators to the Reader," but in the "Rules to be Observed in the Translation of the Bible." These general rules, fifteen in number, were advanced for the guidance of the translators. The first and fourteenth, because they directly relate to the subject at hand, are here given in full: "1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit." "14. These translations to be used when they agree better with the Text than the Bishops Bible: Tindoll's, Matthews, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's, Geneva."
And thus we have our answer. The seven English versions that make the English Bibles up to and including the Authorized Version fit the description in Psalm 12:6 of the words of the Lord being "purified seven times" are Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, the Great Bible (printed by Whitechurch), the Geneva Bible, the Bishops' Bible, and the King James Bible.
The Wycliffe, Taverner, and Douay-Rheims Bibles, whatever merits any of them may have, are not part of the purified line God "authorized," of which the King James Authorized Version is God's last one -- purified seven times.
That means that they believe that God has reneged on his promise. I believe that God guided the preparation of the KJV; any other position is a position of unbelief a one level or another. The 'modern' translations are part of an incremental attack on God's word, and their acceptance is evidential of the prophecied falling away.
Both cannot be right; if the modern translations are correct then there was a long period where the world was without God's word. Do you believe that?
Does the fact that God has preserved His word imply that a particular translation is perfect (absolutely no errors), or, simply inspired (subject to human interpretation fault)? What side of this issue do the KJVist's take?
If you read both sides of the argument, you will see two mechanisms proposed for the means God used to preserve His word. Both sides claim that the text has been preserved. The KJV-Only folks have claimed that the KJV is a perfect translation based upon the perfect manuscipts - the TR. Those of us who do not hold this position propose another mechanism: Using the early persecution and dispersion of the church, God distributed the copies of the autographs rapidly over a wide geographical area. No one group ever controlled all the copies. The second part of this argument is the vast number of copies, translations, and and quotations by early belivers. This provides what those of us in science call 'oversampling'. Using the terms of signal processing, oversampling increases the signal to noise ratio. When compared to all other documents of antiquity, the purity of the Scriptures is vastly superior to any other document. It isn't even close.
The KJV-Only school likes to charge the Alexandrians with the heresy of gnosticism and claim that it has corrupted the oldest complete manuscripts. This ignores the influence of Arian heresies in the West. Indeed, the Alexandrian bishop, Athanasius, led the charge against Arianism.
despite his conceiving the Divine Right of Kings, James I(VI) was not God.
JAMES I
(1603-1625)
Rudyard Kipling
THE child of Mary Queen of Scots,
A shifty mother's shiftless son,
Bred up among intrigues and plots,
Learned in all things, wise in none.
Ungainly, babbling, wasteful, weak,
Shrewd, clever, cowardly, pedantic,
The sight of steel would blanch his cheek,
The smell of baccy drive him frantic.
He was the author of his line—
He wrote that witches should be burnt;
He wrote that monarchs were divine,
And left a son who—proved they weren't!
And he was also a miserable "gay". (not that there's anything wrong with that)
That charge was completely refuted about 10 years ago in a book aptly entitled "King James Defended." I don't remember the author's name.
No, that is the opinion of those who make other versions.
The King James is the Bible all the other 'versions' compare themselves with and acknoweldge as it being the dominant English translation for almost 400 years.
First, we are speaking of a Protestant Reformation Bible.
Second, yes, if the Roman and Orthodox churches do not use the Received texts they are not using the correct texts.
Nothing 'circular' about it at all.
Funny, how NIV and NASB users do not seem to love their bibles like the King James believers do theirs? There's a difference between loving our Bibles and fixating and obsessing, and in a way, worshipping our Bibles. And besides, it truly seems that you love "your" Bible, and not what's actually in it. Just the name of the KJV and it's style of prose, not what it says.
No, I do not find any NIV 'only' people, or NASB 'only' people.
They just prefer that translation.
King James believers know that they are reading the very words of God, hence their love for the Book.
Most of us choose to love the words in the Bible, and even more importantly, the Trinitarian God behind it.
Well, good, then you need pure words, not corrupt ones like the ones from the corrupt Critical text of the Roman Catholic church, used in all the modern versions (except the NKJ which uses the correct NT text but not the correct Old Testament text)
Maybe its because we know our is pure (Psa.119:140) And ours isn't? You don't know how cultic you sound here, with your exclusive and elitist attitude.
No, it isn't.
I posted an article on the Greek text by the TBS, you should read and find out why the Received text is the pure text and the Critical text isn't.
As for the apostasy in the churches, do you know one major denomination that is not going apostate? (Rev.3) All of the Protestant sects started apostate. Every apostate move since then is irrelevant.
No, the Protestant churches returned to the Bible and got out of apostasy, the RCC.
The Catholic and Orthodox Churches remain true, even if individuals or organized groups within these sects have gone apostate (which is nothing new anyway, since ever since two individuals in these groups have disagreed, usually one of them has gone apostate). The Church of England long ago gave up their King James Bibles for the modern versions, hence the rise in apostasy! Logical fallacy. Just because event B happened after event A does not mean event A caused event B.
No, it doesn't, but if we look for a common element on apostasy, the first sign of it is when the church gives up its Bible for alternative authorities like Popes, Councils, Priests,Creeds, Scholars etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.