The AV1611: Purified seven times

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.

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.

Amen!

It is indeed amazing to watch the bitter reaction to the King James Bible.

Then they say that they are not reacting to it but to us and our claims that it is perfect.

If someone said a New Version was perfect I would not get bent out of shape.

I would debate the truth of the statement and see if it were true or not.

If it wasn't it should be easy enough to prove and discredit.

The problem the anti-King James crowd have is that they can't find an error in the King James that will stick.

I've noticed the "KJV only" battle raging here for a few weeks now but have not involved myself. Seeing this issue come up over and over again has raised my curiousity though. Do KJVist's believe that because the KJV is authorized by God that it is perfect in it's english form? Or, do you believe that it is the best english translation available based on a perfect greek text?

I can't speak for other King James Only people, but I would say that it is perfect in its English form.

However, if someone took the second position, I would find that acceptable.

What are your thoughts and opinions of the NKJV

The NKJ has the correct text in the NT.

However, while it does retain the correct readings, it negates them with footnotes calling them into question.

Moreover, it does follow the modern version readings (not textual readings, but translation changes) in such passages as 2Cor.2:17,(corrupt-peddle) 1Tim.6:10 ('kinds of' it to its credit puts the added words in italics) 1Tim.6:20 (science to knowledge), 2Tim.2:15 (study-diligence).

These changes are not footnoted, so one does not know that changes have been made from the King James.

It also does not use the correct Hebrew Text (Ben Chayim), so there will be some problems there.

Thank you for your thoughful post, I hope I was of some help.

If you would like more information on the King James or NKJ just let me know.

Here is a good, godly Calvinist explaining 1Tim.6:10

John Gill's Exposition of the Bible

1 Timothy 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evil… Of all the evils before mentioned, and of others; not money itself, as silver and gold, which are God's creatures, and his gifts, and may be used to, and answer many good purposes; but the love of it, and not any love of it; for there may be a lawful love of it, and desire after it, so far as it is requisite to the necessaries of life, to answer the calls of Providence, the duties we owe to God and men, to serve the interest of Christ, and do good to fellow creatures and fellow Christians: but it is an immoderate insatiable desire after it, and an inordinate love of it, which is here meant, such as is properly idolatry: as when a man loves it, not only besides, but above God; serves it as if it was God, and places his trust and confidence in it, independent of God, and his providence; such love of it is the source and spring of all iniquity, as above; it was the sin of Judas, and the root of all his iniquity. The phrase is Jewish. So idolatry is said to be (twnwe lk rqye) , "the root of all iniquities" F17; see (Hebrews 12:15)

Note the passage does not say the love of money was the root of all evil, it is speaking in the present tense, about todays world system.

It does not state that the love of money was the cause of all sin (Ezek 28:12-15)

***If someone said a New Version was perfect...*** Who would be so foolish to make such an irrational claim, except Joseph Smith?

Gee, you think a Christian would at least think his Bible was without any errors.

***The problem the anti-King James crowd have is that they can't find an error in the King James that will stick.*** ... stick in YOUR MIND, ftD.

Well, I haven't seen any and you would think that since you are dealing with a book that is almost 400 years old you could come up without something better then 1Tim.6:10!

It got its name the Authorized 1611 due to the authority it obtained in all the Christian churches. Except of course, the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, and since then, many other Protestant sects. But I guess by your logic, those groups are not Christians for not accepting the primacy of the KJV translation (as circular an argument as I've ever seen).

>>>>>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.

Well, if you're saying that "all the Christian Churches" recognized its authority, and you admit that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches don't and never have, then the only way for your statement to be true is to say that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are not actually Christian. To me that is a bit circular, if you are in fact disqualifying as a Christian anyone who disagrees with your particular doctrine.

I guess what I'm really trying to get it is, do you feel that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are not Christian? For that matter, anyone who doesn't hold to the KJV only doctrine?

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.

Well, to bring up Popes, Councils, and Creeds (it was the Lutherans, Calvinists, and other Reformation-era Protestants who followed the priests and scholars) is just silly, since the Christian Church was following those for over a millennia, and nearly all Christian Churches still recognize at least some of the Councils and Creeds.

If you ask me, there are two common starting points when apostasy began. The first is the Reformation itself, for the rather broad reason that it gave approval to the idea that anyone who felt like it could start their own sect based on their own personal interpretation of Scripture. The second, is 1930 when the first Christian sect began endorsing artificial birth control. You can see that since then, the slide into moral equivalency has accelerated. To me, it's Christianity's need to "get with the times" that is hurting it.

It is indeed amazing to watch the bitter reaction to the King James Bible.

It's not bitterness towards the Bible or any version of it; it's a reaction towards a silly man-made elitist, exclusivist doctrine, whose proponents are basically saying "Unless you you love, read, and bow down before our translation, the KJV, you aren't a Christian."

I've seen this "bitter" reaction towards cultists like the Jehovah's Witnesses, who say "I cannot believe the bitterness of these people who will not believe the truth that Jesus is Michael the Archangel."

Why so much emphasis on the 'purified seven times'? Especially with the amount of hoop-jumping needed to get the number to seven. This is from one of the books of poetry. Since seven usually stands for 'completeness', might not the author be saying that the words of the Lord are 'completely' pure.

I've always considered this akin to Psalm 19, where it is stated:

Psalms 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
8 The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.
9 The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.
10 More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.

Same idea, Perfect, clean, complete. Taking verse 10 in just such a literal manner, I should find that eating the pages of a KJV Bible is sweeter to my taste-buds than honey.

First of all, I want to thank each of you for responding and making the issue a little clearer for me. I will continue to look into this issue in the future.

My chief concern has been wether or not the fact that a document is inspired implies that it is perfect. Does the fact that God inspired the translators mean that they were above the error that is prone to the human nature they possessed.

The application of infallibility to the KJV is somewhat puzzling to me because for many years there has been one verse that has always given me a chuckle because, I believe, it is an obvious mistranslation (an error). While I accept the obvious inspiration of the KJV I have a hard time with the concept of infallibility being applied to it. The verse that I have found humor in is Acts 12:4 which reads in the KJV

"And when he had apprehended him, he put [him] in prison, and delivered [him] to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people."

What has humored me is the fact that the greek word pascha is incorrectly translated as "Easter" instead of the correct word "Passover". Without going into the history of Easter I believe most of you will agree that it didn't exist as a holiday until much later in Christian history. I haven't seen that translation used in any other Bible and the NKJV has removed the Easter reference and replaced it with Passover.

Now, I have not studied much into this issue and am still forming my position. Currently, I do believe God has preserved his inspired Word for us. However, I'm having trouble accepting the inpiration = infallibility position or that the preservation of God's word stopped with the KJ version.

I'm not trying to be argumentative and my mind is open on the issue so your thoughful responses are greatly appreciated.

<< What has humored me is the fact that the greek word pascha is incorrectly translated as "Easter" instead of the correct word "Passover". Without going into the history of Easter I believe most of you will agree that it didn't exist as a holiday until much later in Christian history. I haven't seen that translation used in any other Bible and the NKJV has removed the Easter reference and replaced it with Passover. >>

I've got so much stuff defending the use of the word "easter" that you wouldn't have time to read it.

First of all, most of the pre-1611 English Bibles DID use easter, rather than passover. The English Bibles before the KJV also used the word Easter, so it is not a mistake of the KJV. In fact, the word Passover was invented by William Tyndale. If Passover was the proper word here, the guy who invented it would be the top authority on that - and Tyndale used Easter in this passage!

Second, passover proper is the first day of the celebration, the rest of the week is called the days of unleavened bread (although rarely the entire feast was referred to as pascha). But using the predominant scriptural definition, in this verse the passover had ALREADY HAPPENED (they were already in the days of unleavened bread), so if Herod was going to wait until "after pascha", he was going to have to wait a long time.

Third, easter was a reference to a pagan holiday, not the OT passover or the NT easter. Herod would have been more likely to be concerned about a pagan holiday than a biblical one. Easter was not originally a Christian holiday - it was a pagan holiday celebrating the goddess of fertility and the rites of spring, also called Astarte, Asteroth, Oester, and Ishtar. The Jews were pleased to see the Christians (James) killed. Herod would have had no reason to wait for a Jewish holiday - they killed Jesus during a Jewish holiday! He might have waited till after his own pagan holiday, however.

Fourth, ask any living Greek to wish you a happy easter, and they will respond "Kalee Pascha!"

Fifth, it is entirely possible that the early Christians did indeeed already celebrate the easter resurrection. A good article asserting that claim is at http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/easter_or_passover1.htm

Easter is not a mistake, it's the correct word.

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.