Independent Baptist Connection
The Quest for Truth
In previous articles, we examined the reliability of the bible, what it is and how it came into existence. We also peeled back the veneer of modern versions. Beyond the reaches of personal opinion, we proved that not all bibles say the same things. Then we traced the roots of modern bible versions and learned that a continuous line of error reached all the way back to the Garden of Eden, where Satan raised doubts about God’s Word. It was no surprise to learn the questions Satan raised and the additions that Eve brought up that still continue until this writing. There was also an examination of the culprits of perversion that felt it more important to change God’s Word to agree with their own corrupt theology than it was for them to change their personal theology to agree with God. They took the liberty that let man be true and God a liar. The Bible says God should be true and every man a liar. Their efforts were aimed at turning God’s word into something it was not.
Before we address the other side of this issue, I want to point out that the two biggest criticisms of independent Baptists are their supposed legalistic practices and their use of only the 1611 King James version of the bible. However, before reading this article, take note of the fact that neither of the previous statements are always true.
Not all independent Baptists believe the KJV is the only bible all Christians should use! The reason why we make this statement is a large part of this article. The King James Version is far from being a dangerous bible translation and the notion that it is dangerous is nothing less than a slap in the face of history, as well as a denial of the preservation of God’s word. Should Christians adopt the KJV and exclude all other versions of the bible? That’s a decision you must make for yourself. Before you decide though, will you look at the evidence with an open mind?
It started with God
The Bible wasn’t generally written as the hand of man reaching up to God. It was the hand of God reaching down to man in a language he could understand, sort of like God’s love letter to mankind. God’s Spirit moved in the hearts of holy men. He also moved men to write these words down on just about every surface they could find.
No one but God knows what happened to the original writings or texts of the Bible. Some scholars feel the originals were burned when the surface they were written on (animals skins, papyrus, etc.) began wearing out. Others feel the originals were buried or that something else happened to them. Either way, God has kept them from us. This is probably because men would tend to worship the originals rather than worshipping the God they came from.
Though the whereabouts of the original texts remains a mystery, it’s no mystery that God has kept His promise of preserving His word throughout history. The truth has always been here, partially protected and propagated by those who felt they were dealing with the Holy Word of God itself.
These men were once called scribes and they felt a grave responsibility to God and His word. They copied the scriptures by hand in a process so strict that the presence of a single error made them start the work over after destroying the faulty copy. Their reverence for God and the scriptures led them in what they felt was a God-given ministry of making copies as accurate as the texts they copied from. Since the scribes weren’t inspired in the same way as the original “instruments” God used, they didn’t make copies more accurate than the texts they worked with. However, they took great care to make sure their copies were as accurate as their originals. This was the preserving work of God, not the false notion of progressive inspiration. It was preservation. No person can improve God’s original words!
Scholar Erich Sauer put it this way: “A mere jot or tittle of the written Word was of more value than all star worlds and sun systems of the entire universe.”
Why did the scribes feel this way? Every word, every space, every part was important to them. Do you feel every word of God is important?
The Masoretic Text of the Old Testament
Not until after the time of Christ was the Old Testament standardized in the form we see today. It was here in fragment form and there was a need for a standard Hebrew text of the Old Testament. In the sixth century A.D., orthodox Jewish scholars extracted from the Talmud (Jewish civil and canonical law not included in the Pentateuch) the standard text that came to be known as the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament. Orthodox and truth seeking Jews rejected the Samaritan Pentateuch. Most bible students remain aware of the rift between Samaritans and orthodox Jews that existed in bible times.
Who were the Masoretes? The historical record explains them as special scholars that were chosen by the nation of Israel to keep pure and intact the scriptures given by God in the beginning.
Doctor Robert Wilson was a former professor at Princeton University who mastered 45 ancient languages. He studied the Masoretic Text for thirty years. This was the conclusion of his vast studies:
“I can affirm that there is not a page of the Old Testament concerning which we need have any doubt. We can be absolutely certain that substantially we have the text of the Old Testament that Christ and the Apostles had and which was in existence from the beginning.”
It seems Christ never quoted the Samaritan Pentateuch. Neither did the Apostles. What did they use? Wilson said they used the Masoretic Text! How many bible versions today use the Masoretic Text?
The text for the New Testament…
As men did in Old Testament times, so did they in the time of Christ and afterwards. Though made by hand, there were still 5,309 surviving Greek manuscripts that contained all or part of the New Testament. They agreed with each other 95% of the time! That’s why these texts are also called the Majority Text.
These were also the same texts used by the Apostles in manuscript form and accepted and used by early churches around the world. Because the early churches gladly accepted them as authentic, they came to be called the Received Text or the Textus Receptus, aka the Majority Text.
More information about these manuscripts is discussed below.
Remember the statement used in the footnotes of many bibles today that a certain word or phrase doesn’t appear in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts? (Read “The Culprits of Perversion”) This argument leads the reader to conclude that older is both the most accurate and the most reliable. While that isn’t always true, let’s use this idea in our next section. If older is more reliable, the footnotes leave out something of crucial importance.
The Peshitta
The Peshitta was in use in 150 A.D., more than 150 years before Eusebius, the Vaticanus or the Sinaiticus! Using the argument of the footnotes, it should be trusted more than any other text. But there’s more to it than that.
Smith’s Bible Dictionary also says this text was thought to be Apostolic and authoritative as the Bible of the Syrian Christians. Syrian scholars consider is the “Queen of Versions”. This is part of the Received Text.
This means the testimony of history directly contradicts the footnotes that say otherwise. Where were the followers of Christ first called Christians? Did you know it was at Antioch? This was the capitol of Syria.
Older equals more reliable? Someone is wrong.
The Muratorian Canon
It was also used by churches in 150 A.D., long before the “most ancient and reliable manuscripts“. That makes it part of the Received Text.
The Itala Version
Another document that is part of the Received Text is the Itala Version, used in 157 A.D. in northern Italy. This was considered a pure text by the Waldenses. Much more could be said about this text, used long before the Vaticanus or the Sinaiticus.
If a person uses the test of age for accuracy, it removes the need for the Sinaiticus or the Vaticanus. There remains a greater test than age for accuracy. It lies in what the early churches accepted and used. They rejected the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus and accepted the Peshitta, the Muratorian Canon, the Itala Version and other parts of the Received Text.
Hunger for God’s Word
Thirteen hundred years after Christ, bibles were readily available to the general public in the English speaking world. However, they weren’t available in English. People were hungry for God’s Word, but it was only available in German, Latin, Hebrew or Greek and not in English. Many people of the time had trouble reading their own languages, let alone a language they didn’t know.
John Wycliffe
God sent John Wycliffe. He became the first man that translated the bible into English. Wycliffe knew no Hebrew or Greek, but he did know Latin. Though he was concerned about the truth, Wycliffe worked from the Latin Vulgate of Jerome, which was actually the Itala Version with the readings of the Received Text removed. Though he was a member of the Roman church, he made a bold statement about putting the bible in the English language.
“They say it is heresy to speak of the Holy Scriptures in English and so they would condemn the Holy Spirit, who gave it in tongues to the apostles of Christ, to speak the Word of God, in all languages that were ordained of God under heaven…Why, then, should it be taken away from us in this land that are Christian men?”
His attempts to reform the Catholic church resulted in his martyrdom and he remained nominally a Catholic until his death.
Erasmus
During the Reformation, God used Erasmus to divide all Greek manuscripts into two classes of documents: those that agreed with the Received Text and those that agreed with the Vaticanus.
Yes, Erasmus knew about the Vaticanus in 1534 and his writings about it were read by the King James translators during their work. Erasmus rejected the Vaticanus.
Erasmus was also a contemporary of Martin Luther. Though he was a member of the Roman church, he died in the midst of Protestant friends after breaking all ties with the Roman Catholic Church.
Before we address the other side of this issue, I want to point out that the two biggest criticisms of independent Baptists are their supposed legalistic practices and their use of only the 1611 King James version of the bible. However, before reading this article, take note of the fact that neither of the previous statements are always true.
Not all independent Baptists believe the KJV is the only bible all Christians should use! The reason why we make this statement is a large part of this article. The King James Version is far from being a dangerous bible translation and the notion that it is dangerous is nothing less than a slap in the face of history, as well as a denial of the preservation of God’s word. Should Christians adopt the KJV and exclude all other versions of the bible? That’s a decision you must make for yourself. Before you decide though, will you look at the evidence with an open mind?
It started with God
The Bible wasn’t generally written as the hand of man reaching up to God. It was the hand of God reaching down to man in a language he could understand, sort of like God’s love letter to mankind. God’s Spirit moved in the hearts of holy men. He also moved men to write these words down on just about every surface they could find.
No one but God knows what happened to the original writings or texts of the Bible. Some scholars feel the originals were burned when the surface they were written on (animals skins, papyrus, etc.) began wearing out. Others feel the originals were buried or that something else happened to them. Either way, God has kept them from us. This is probably because men would tend to worship the originals rather than worshipping the God they came from.
Though the whereabouts of the original texts remains a mystery, it’s no mystery that God has kept His promise of preserving His word throughout history. The truth has always been here, partially protected and propagated by those who felt they were dealing with the Holy Word of God itself.
These men were once called scribes and they felt a grave responsibility to God and His word. They copied the scriptures by hand in a process so strict that the presence of a single error made them start the work over after destroying the faulty copy. Their reverence for God and the scriptures led them in what they felt was a God-given ministry of making copies as accurate as the texts they copied from. Since the scribes weren’t inspired in the same way as the original “instruments” God used, they didn’t make copies more accurate than the texts they worked with. However, they took great care to make sure their copies were as accurate as their originals. This was the preserving work of God, not the false notion of progressive inspiration. It was preservation. No person can improve God’s original words!
Scholar Erich Sauer put it this way: “A mere jot or tittle of the written Word was of more value than all star worlds and sun systems of the entire universe.”
Why did the scribes feel this way? Every word, every space, every part was important to them. Do you feel every word of God is important?
The Masoretic Text of the Old Testament
Not until after the time of Christ was the Old Testament standardized in the form we see today. It was here in fragment form and there was a need for a standard Hebrew text of the Old Testament. In the sixth century A.D., orthodox Jewish scholars extracted from the Talmud (Jewish civil and canonical law not included in the Pentateuch) the standard text that came to be known as the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament. Orthodox and truth seeking Jews rejected the Samaritan Pentateuch. Most bible students remain aware of the rift between Samaritans and orthodox Jews that existed in bible times.
Who were the Masoretes? The historical record explains them as special scholars that were chosen by the nation of Israel to keep pure and intact the scriptures given by God in the beginning.
Doctor Robert Wilson was a former professor at Princeton University who mastered 45 ancient languages. He studied the Masoretic Text for thirty years. This was the conclusion of his vast studies:
“I can affirm that there is not a page of the Old Testament concerning which we need have any doubt. We can be absolutely certain that substantially we have the text of the Old Testament that Christ and the Apostles had and which was in existence from the beginning.”
It seems Christ never quoted the Samaritan Pentateuch. Neither did the Apostles. What did they use? Wilson said they used the Masoretic Text! How many bible versions today use the Masoretic Text?
The text for the New Testament…
As men did in Old Testament times, so did they in the time of Christ and afterwards. Though made by hand, there were still 5,309 surviving Greek manuscripts that contained all or part of the New Testament. They agreed with each other 95% of the time! That’s why these texts are also called the Majority Text.
These were also the same texts used by the Apostles in manuscript form and accepted and used by early churches around the world. Because the early churches gladly accepted them as authentic, they came to be called the Received Text or the Textus Receptus, aka the Majority Text.
More information about these manuscripts is discussed below.
Remember the statement used in the footnotes of many bibles today that a certain word or phrase doesn’t appear in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts? (Read “The Culprits of Perversion”) This argument leads the reader to conclude that older is both the most accurate and the most reliable. While that isn’t always true, let’s use this idea in our next section. If older is more reliable, the footnotes leave out something of crucial importance.
The Peshitta
The Peshitta was in use in 150 A.D., more than 150 years before Eusebius, the Vaticanus or the Sinaiticus! Using the argument of the footnotes, it should be trusted more than any other text. But there’s more to it than that.
Smith’s Bible Dictionary also says this text was thought to be Apostolic and authoritative as the Bible of the Syrian Christians. Syrian scholars consider is the “Queen of Versions”. This is part of the Received Text.
This means the testimony of history directly contradicts the footnotes that say otherwise. Where were the followers of Christ first called Christians? Did you know it was at Antioch? This was the capitol of Syria.
Older equals more reliable? Someone is wrong.
The Muratorian Canon
It was also used by churches in 150 A.D., long before the “most ancient and reliable manuscripts“. That makes it part of the Received Text.
The Itala Version
Another document that is part of the Received Text is the Itala Version, used in 157 A.D. in northern Italy. This was considered a pure text by the Waldenses. Much more could be said about this text, used long before the Vaticanus or the Sinaiticus.
If a person uses the test of age for accuracy, it removes the need for the Sinaiticus or the Vaticanus. There remains a greater test than age for accuracy. It lies in what the early churches accepted and used. They rejected the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus and accepted the Peshitta, the Muratorian Canon, the Itala Version and other parts of the Received Text.
Hunger for God’s Word
Thirteen hundred years after Christ, bibles were readily available to the general public in the English speaking world. However, they weren’t available in English. People were hungry for God’s Word, but it was only available in German, Latin, Hebrew or Greek and not in English. Many people of the time had trouble reading their own languages, let alone a language they didn’t know.
John Wycliffe
God sent John Wycliffe. He became the first man that translated the bible into English. Wycliffe knew no Hebrew or Greek, but he did know Latin. Though he was concerned about the truth, Wycliffe worked from the Latin Vulgate of Jerome, which was actually the Itala Version with the readings of the Received Text removed. Though he was a member of the Roman church, he made a bold statement about putting the bible in the English language.
“They say it is heresy to speak of the Holy Scriptures in English and so they would condemn the Holy Spirit, who gave it in tongues to the apostles of Christ, to speak the Word of God, in all languages that were ordained of God under heaven…Why, then, should it be taken away from us in this land that are Christian men?”
His attempts to reform the Catholic church resulted in his martyrdom and he remained nominally a Catholic until his death.
Erasmus
During the Reformation, God used Erasmus to divide all Greek manuscripts into two classes of documents: those that agreed with the Received Text and those that agreed with the Vaticanus.
Yes, Erasmus knew about the Vaticanus in 1534 and his writings about it were read by the King James translators during their work. Erasmus rejected the Vaticanus.
Erasmus was also a contemporary of Martin Luther. Though he was a member of the Roman church, he died in the midst of Protestant friends after breaking all ties with the Roman Catholic Church.
William Tyndale
God used another man named William Tyndale. He was an Oxford scholar who also translated the bible into English. Unlike Wycliffe though, Tyndale was a true scholar. He bypassed the Latin and translated directly from the Hebrew in the Old Testament and the Greek in the New Testament. Tyndale used the Received Text for his work, not the Latin Vulgate that Wycliffe used.
Tyndale spoke seven other languages so well that they sounded like his native tongue. He was fluent in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Italian, Spanish, French and German. He could have used the Latin Vulgate, but chose not to! Why not? It seems he knew that every language between the original language and English posed a whole new set of problems that resulted in countless things that couldn’t be accurately translated. Each language is like a mountain range of words that may not have an English equivalent. Do you see why he wanted to avoid going from Greek to Latin English?
His work first appeared at Worms in 1526, though it wasn’t the complete bible. While one would think the English speaking world was eternally grateful it finally had an English bible translated by a true scholar, the Bishop of London bought large quantities of them and burned them. This reaction didn’t stop Tyndale. He simply went back to work and published a better version.
When 1536 arrived, Tyndale’s work finally stopped. Or did it? He was captured and arrested during the Inquisition and found himself sentenced to die. The procedure at that time was burning at the stake.
Before the hangman strangled Tyndale to death and burned the body publicly, Tyndale prayed fervently, “Lord! Open the king of England’s eyes.”
Do you believe God answered prayers 500 years ago? Does He still answer them today?
Less than a year later, the same king who ordered Tyndale’s death also gave his permission for his bible to be placed in parish churches. The people of England rejoiced to have the bible in their own language thanks to the ruling of King Henry VIII.
During the following years, the seed of God’s Word in English grew into many other bibles. These included the Coverdale Bible in 1535, the Tomas Matthew Bible in 1537, the Great Bible in 1538, the Geneva Bible in 1560, the Bishop’s Bible in 1568 and other versions as well.
Though many English translations were available, many of them were found faulty when compared to the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts they came from. There was still a need for something better than what the English speaking world of the time had in its possession….an accurate bible that could act as a standard translation because of a high degree of reliable scholarship.
Tyndale spoke seven other languages so well that they sounded like his native tongue. He was fluent in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Italian, Spanish, French and German. He could have used the Latin Vulgate, but chose not to! Why not? It seems he knew that every language between the original language and English posed a whole new set of problems that resulted in countless things that couldn’t be accurately translated. Each language is like a mountain range of words that may not have an English equivalent. Do you see why he wanted to avoid going from Greek to Latin English?
His work first appeared at Worms in 1526, though it wasn’t the complete bible. While one would think the English speaking world was eternally grateful it finally had an English bible translated by a true scholar, the Bishop of London bought large quantities of them and burned them. This reaction didn’t stop Tyndale. He simply went back to work and published a better version.
When 1536 arrived, Tyndale’s work finally stopped. Or did it? He was captured and arrested during the Inquisition and found himself sentenced to die. The procedure at that time was burning at the stake.
Before the hangman strangled Tyndale to death and burned the body publicly, Tyndale prayed fervently, “Lord! Open the king of England’s eyes.”
Do you believe God answered prayers 500 years ago? Does He still answer them today?
Less than a year later, the same king who ordered Tyndale’s death also gave his permission for his bible to be placed in parish churches. The people of England rejoiced to have the bible in their own language thanks to the ruling of King Henry VIII.
During the following years, the seed of God’s Word in English grew into many other bibles. These included the Coverdale Bible in 1535, the Tomas Matthew Bible in 1537, the Great Bible in 1538, the Geneva Bible in 1560, the Bishop’s Bible in 1568 and other versions as well.
Though many English translations were available, many of them were found faulty when compared to the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts they came from. There was still a need for something better than what the English speaking world of the time had in its possession….an accurate bible that could act as a standard translation because of a high degree of reliable scholarship.
King James
The next series of events, though filled with controversy, remain a fact of history. A noted scholar by the name of Dr. Miles Smith, wrote a letter to King James shortly before he ascended the throne of England. One of the demands included in the Millenery Petition, supposedly signed by a thousand ministers in the early 1600’s, asked the King to authorize a new translation of the Bible.
“May your Majesty be pleased to direct that the Bible be now translated…” So wrote Dr. Smith. In 1604, a royal command supporting the Puritan proposal for a new Bible translation was issued by King James.
The King also arranged the payment of a small salary to pay for expenses during the translation work. These men were all learned men who spoke from three to ten languages.
Critics claim the King James translators did nothing more than revise earlier work by Tyndale and others. Yet, the flyleaf of the KJV Bible says, “Translated out of the original tongues….”
In the letter from the translators to the readers, the translators said their work was a revision. This raises an interesting question. Was it a translation or was it a revision? What else did the translators say about this issue?
“We never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one; but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark.”
The original printing of the 1611 KJV said on the title page, “The Holy Bible, containing the Old Testament and the New; Newly Translated out of the Original tongues; & and with the former Translations diligently compared and revised by his Majesties special Commandment. Appointed to be read in churches.”
How can we reconcile these seemingly opposed viewpoints? Here’s what I think happened. As the translators started the work, they had revision in mind. But after they started, they found places where the words weren’t accurately translated at all. Therefore, they changed the words or translated them more correctly that other translations. This process involved not only revision but translation too. The King James translators both translated and revised as they found it necessary to do so in the process of putting together a highly accurate English translation. That’s only a part of the story.
The King approved the committee in 1604 with 54 men. Not every man chosen for the work actually participated in it and that brought the number down to 48. Every man on the committee felt every word the committee dealt with was of the greatest importance because they saw every word in the Bible as God’s Word.
Their high regard for God’s Word led them to write the following about the Bible itself: “If we be ignorant, they will instruct us, if out of the way, they will bring us home; if out of order, they will reform us; if in heaviness, they will comfort us; if dull, quicken us; if cold, inflame us.” These statements sound far from any desire to change God’s Word to agree with their personal theologies. As the reader knows, this was spoken from who understood the need to let God change their lives to agree with the guidelines of scripture.
No committee of this nature was ever assembled before this time for any kind of Bible translation.
The work lasted from 1604 to 1611. Renowned historian John C. Ridpath wrote the following about this work:
“The men chosen were as learned as the age in which they lived, and the translation which they produced was as good as could have been made in their times. Following the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew original, they fell into many errors which a riper scholarship would have avoided; and the sterling language employed in the rendition, rather than accuracy of translation, has prevailed for more than two and a half centuries to give to the ‘Bible of King James’ a permanent hold on the affections of the English speaking race.”
Unfortunately, Ridpath was completely wrong about some of his statements. Many people tend to think that because one historian says something, it must be true. Keep reading and you’ll soon see for yourself that the King James translators did not use the Septuagint, but they used the Hebrew and Greek originals. They made no secret about this issue and openly discussed it in their letter from the translators to the readers. Ridpath did the same thing that many “scholars” do today…simply repeat what someone else said.
Our historian was also wrong about the lacking scholarship of the time. How many people speak three to ten languages today. One of the men on the translating committee was Lancelot Andrewes. He was considered one of the rarest linguists in Christendom. His fluency in 21 languages, including Hebrew and Greek, was a rare accomplishment for any person in history.
An examination of the men on the translating committee reveals fact that this was a great work of scholarship, as well as a spiritual accomplishment. It’s doubtful that an equal or greater group of scholars can assemble today partly because we are now 400 years further removed from the original languages. But the accuracy of the King James version rests on more than just a group of scholars.
There were Bishops, Professors, expert scholars, experts on the Tabernacle and the Temple, doctors of divinity, preachers, and college Presidents on the translating groups.
God’s Word says there is wisdom in a multitude of counsel. Was that true in Old Testament times? Was this true in 1611? Is it still true today?
The committee was divided into six groups that met separately. Two groups met at Cambridge, two at Westminster, and two at Oxford.
What did they use? They used the Hebrew Masoretic Text Old Testament (not the Septuagint) and the Textus Receptus New Testament. Any similarity between their work and earlier ones shows people that all translations contain some truth, but the average person doesn’t know how much.
The translators also addressed the Septuagint in their letter to the readers. This is part of what it said.
“They did many things well, as learned men; but yet as men they stumbled and fell, one while through oversight, another while through ignorance, yea, sometimes they may be noted to add to the original, and sometimes to take from it…This may suffice touching the Greek translation of the Old Testament.”
Don’t be fooled into thinking the KJV translators didn’t have the “older and more accurate texts” of the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus. They had copies of them, knew they were corrupt, and rejected them.
Every book of the bible went through the whole body of translators and was double-checked for accuracy. Any areas of doubt were sent to a special committee and checked again and again for accuracy. The translators were guided by a specific set of rules from King James, a translator himself. As a result of this extensive work, the world was presented in 1611 with the most accurate English translation of the Bible in history!
The translators weren’t inspired in the same sense as the original human instruments that God used to give us the Bible. Still, they were providentially guided and most graciously helped in their work.
Has it been revised?
Many critics of the 1611 KJV ask questions about which 1611 version readers really use. They point out that the 1611 KJV has been revised several times, as if each revision is a new translation or makes major changes in the text. Is this true?
Before answering that question, note what researcher C.E. Stowe wrote about this issue in “Origin and History of the Books of the Bible”, written in 1867.
“There was never yet a book printed so carefully but that there were some typographical errors in it…but these no more impair the authority of the revelation than misprints destroy a statute book. Misprints may be so numerous and gross, and on points of such importance as to destroy the usefulness and authority of a book…but this certainly is not the case with the Bible.”
When a person says he uses the 1611 KJV, is it the 1611, the 1629, or the 1762 or the 1769? What’s the difference?
The first revision, made in 1629, was a careful correction of earlier printing errors. Revisions made in 1762 and 1769 made spelling changes, not changes in the text itself.
Therefore, the 1611 KJV is essentially still the 1611 KJV. Did you know that the original transcripts of the 1611 version disappeared long ago? No one knows what happened to them.
Students of the Bible is familiar with Berry’s Interlinear. Notice what the Preface says about the preserving power of God in relation to scripture.
“…The Received Text has been preserved by an almighty Providence…Berry’s Interlinear maintains the basic integrity of the Received Text….since it is represented by 95% of the manuscript evidence. This is in sharp contrast to the Westcott-Hort tradition…the shaky foundation of many of today’s versions. In the 16th century, Erasmus…knowingly rejected…the readings of Codex Vaticanus. They also rejected Jerome’s Latin Vulgate as a corrupt version.”
James Strong, author of Strong’s Concordance said this about the 1611 King James Version: “The King James Version continues to hold the field, having withstood myriads of versions since this work appeared in 1894. For this reason we have dropped the Comparative Concordance to the Revised Version.”
What more can we say? Agree or not, the testimony of history repeatedly confirms the 1611 KJV as the most accurate English translation of the Bible currently in existence. It’s highly doubtful that a better English translation will ever be made, partly because we find ourselves farther removed from the original languages of scripture. Does that mean the entire world should use nothing but the KJV?
Every language inserted between the Hebrew and Greek and the English created mountains of impossible language barriers. Can you see the difficulty of going from Greek to Latin to German to English? There are obviously great advantages of moving from the original language directly into English.
If only the King James Version should be used today, what about the Spanish speaking believers who can’t read, write or speak English? Should a Spanish Bible be translated from the KJV English into Spanish for these Christians? This effort would inject another language barrier for the Spanish speaking people of the world. We would go from Greek to English to Spanish. Is there a better way? There’s another bible version that was translated directly from the Hebrew and Greek into Spanish. The Rena-Valera version is equivalent to the KJV for the Spanish speaking believer. Attempts at translating from the KJV English to the Spanish have resulted in terrible errors!
What about German speaking people? If a German bible was accurately translated directly from the Hebrew and Greek into German, would that be better than translating from the Hebrew/Greek to the KJV English and then to German?
Do you understand what I’m saying? For the English speaking world, the 1611 KJV is the best translation. By faith it’s accepted as inspired for the reasons already discussed. That doesn’t mean the 1611 KJV is the best translation for German speaking or Spanish speaking believers, unless they are fluent in the English language.
I personally study and preach only from the 1611 KJV because the only language I understand is English. By faith, I also accept this version as the inspired Word of God. That doesn’t mean I believe that God miraculously corrects printing errors as the bible comes off the press. Nor does it mean that I think the translators did work that improved the original texts they worked from. Without the element on faith on your own part, there would never be any certainty about what God really said or preserved for our world today. You would constantly find yourself asking, “Hath God said?”
“May your Majesty be pleased to direct that the Bible be now translated…” So wrote Dr. Smith. In 1604, a royal command supporting the Puritan proposal for a new Bible translation was issued by King James.
The King also arranged the payment of a small salary to pay for expenses during the translation work. These men were all learned men who spoke from three to ten languages.
Critics claim the King James translators did nothing more than revise earlier work by Tyndale and others. Yet, the flyleaf of the KJV Bible says, “Translated out of the original tongues….”
In the letter from the translators to the readers, the translators said their work was a revision. This raises an interesting question. Was it a translation or was it a revision? What else did the translators say about this issue?
“We never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one; but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark.”
The original printing of the 1611 KJV said on the title page, “The Holy Bible, containing the Old Testament and the New; Newly Translated out of the Original tongues; & and with the former Translations diligently compared and revised by his Majesties special Commandment. Appointed to be read in churches.”
How can we reconcile these seemingly opposed viewpoints? Here’s what I think happened. As the translators started the work, they had revision in mind. But after they started, they found places where the words weren’t accurately translated at all. Therefore, they changed the words or translated them more correctly that other translations. This process involved not only revision but translation too. The King James translators both translated and revised as they found it necessary to do so in the process of putting together a highly accurate English translation. That’s only a part of the story.
The King approved the committee in 1604 with 54 men. Not every man chosen for the work actually participated in it and that brought the number down to 48. Every man on the committee felt every word the committee dealt with was of the greatest importance because they saw every word in the Bible as God’s Word.
Their high regard for God’s Word led them to write the following about the Bible itself: “If we be ignorant, they will instruct us, if out of the way, they will bring us home; if out of order, they will reform us; if in heaviness, they will comfort us; if dull, quicken us; if cold, inflame us.” These statements sound far from any desire to change God’s Word to agree with their personal theologies. As the reader knows, this was spoken from who understood the need to let God change their lives to agree with the guidelines of scripture.
No committee of this nature was ever assembled before this time for any kind of Bible translation.
The work lasted from 1604 to 1611. Renowned historian John C. Ridpath wrote the following about this work:
“The men chosen were as learned as the age in which they lived, and the translation which they produced was as good as could have been made in their times. Following the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew original, they fell into many errors which a riper scholarship would have avoided; and the sterling language employed in the rendition, rather than accuracy of translation, has prevailed for more than two and a half centuries to give to the ‘Bible of King James’ a permanent hold on the affections of the English speaking race.”
Unfortunately, Ridpath was completely wrong about some of his statements. Many people tend to think that because one historian says something, it must be true. Keep reading and you’ll soon see for yourself that the King James translators did not use the Septuagint, but they used the Hebrew and Greek originals. They made no secret about this issue and openly discussed it in their letter from the translators to the readers. Ridpath did the same thing that many “scholars” do today…simply repeat what someone else said.
Our historian was also wrong about the lacking scholarship of the time. How many people speak three to ten languages today. One of the men on the translating committee was Lancelot Andrewes. He was considered one of the rarest linguists in Christendom. His fluency in 21 languages, including Hebrew and Greek, was a rare accomplishment for any person in history.
An examination of the men on the translating committee reveals fact that this was a great work of scholarship, as well as a spiritual accomplishment. It’s doubtful that an equal or greater group of scholars can assemble today partly because we are now 400 years further removed from the original languages. But the accuracy of the King James version rests on more than just a group of scholars.
There were Bishops, Professors, expert scholars, experts on the Tabernacle and the Temple, doctors of divinity, preachers, and college Presidents on the translating groups.
God’s Word says there is wisdom in a multitude of counsel. Was that true in Old Testament times? Was this true in 1611? Is it still true today?
The committee was divided into six groups that met separately. Two groups met at Cambridge, two at Westminster, and two at Oxford.
What did they use? They used the Hebrew Masoretic Text Old Testament (not the Septuagint) and the Textus Receptus New Testament. Any similarity between their work and earlier ones shows people that all translations contain some truth, but the average person doesn’t know how much.
The translators also addressed the Septuagint in their letter to the readers. This is part of what it said.
“They did many things well, as learned men; but yet as men they stumbled and fell, one while through oversight, another while through ignorance, yea, sometimes they may be noted to add to the original, and sometimes to take from it…This may suffice touching the Greek translation of the Old Testament.”
Don’t be fooled into thinking the KJV translators didn’t have the “older and more accurate texts” of the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus. They had copies of them, knew they were corrupt, and rejected them.
Every book of the bible went through the whole body of translators and was double-checked for accuracy. Any areas of doubt were sent to a special committee and checked again and again for accuracy. The translators were guided by a specific set of rules from King James, a translator himself. As a result of this extensive work, the world was presented in 1611 with the most accurate English translation of the Bible in history!
The translators weren’t inspired in the same sense as the original human instruments that God used to give us the Bible. Still, they were providentially guided and most graciously helped in their work.
Has it been revised?
Many critics of the 1611 KJV ask questions about which 1611 version readers really use. They point out that the 1611 KJV has been revised several times, as if each revision is a new translation or makes major changes in the text. Is this true?
Before answering that question, note what researcher C.E. Stowe wrote about this issue in “Origin and History of the Books of the Bible”, written in 1867.
“There was never yet a book printed so carefully but that there were some typographical errors in it…but these no more impair the authority of the revelation than misprints destroy a statute book. Misprints may be so numerous and gross, and on points of such importance as to destroy the usefulness and authority of a book…but this certainly is not the case with the Bible.”
When a person says he uses the 1611 KJV, is it the 1611, the 1629, or the 1762 or the 1769? What’s the difference?
The first revision, made in 1629, was a careful correction of earlier printing errors. Revisions made in 1762 and 1769 made spelling changes, not changes in the text itself.
Therefore, the 1611 KJV is essentially still the 1611 KJV. Did you know that the original transcripts of the 1611 version disappeared long ago? No one knows what happened to them.
Students of the Bible is familiar with Berry’s Interlinear. Notice what the Preface says about the preserving power of God in relation to scripture.
“…The Received Text has been preserved by an almighty Providence…Berry’s Interlinear maintains the basic integrity of the Received Text….since it is represented by 95% of the manuscript evidence. This is in sharp contrast to the Westcott-Hort tradition…the shaky foundation of many of today’s versions. In the 16th century, Erasmus…knowingly rejected…the readings of Codex Vaticanus. They also rejected Jerome’s Latin Vulgate as a corrupt version.”
James Strong, author of Strong’s Concordance said this about the 1611 King James Version: “The King James Version continues to hold the field, having withstood myriads of versions since this work appeared in 1894. For this reason we have dropped the Comparative Concordance to the Revised Version.”
What more can we say? Agree or not, the testimony of history repeatedly confirms the 1611 KJV as the most accurate English translation of the Bible currently in existence. It’s highly doubtful that a better English translation will ever be made, partly because we find ourselves farther removed from the original languages of scripture. Does that mean the entire world should use nothing but the KJV?
Every language inserted between the Hebrew and Greek and the English created mountains of impossible language barriers. Can you see the difficulty of going from Greek to Latin to German to English? There are obviously great advantages of moving from the original language directly into English.
If only the King James Version should be used today, what about the Spanish speaking believers who can’t read, write or speak English? Should a Spanish Bible be translated from the KJV English into Spanish for these Christians? This effort would inject another language barrier for the Spanish speaking people of the world. We would go from Greek to English to Spanish. Is there a better way? There’s another bible version that was translated directly from the Hebrew and Greek into Spanish. The Rena-Valera version is equivalent to the KJV for the Spanish speaking believer. Attempts at translating from the KJV English to the Spanish have resulted in terrible errors!
What about German speaking people? If a German bible was accurately translated directly from the Hebrew and Greek into German, would that be better than translating from the Hebrew/Greek to the KJV English and then to German?
Do you understand what I’m saying? For the English speaking world, the 1611 KJV is the best translation. By faith it’s accepted as inspired for the reasons already discussed. That doesn’t mean the 1611 KJV is the best translation for German speaking or Spanish speaking believers, unless they are fluent in the English language.
I personally study and preach only from the 1611 KJV because the only language I understand is English. By faith, I also accept this version as the inspired Word of God. That doesn’t mean I believe that God miraculously corrects printing errors as the bible comes off the press. Nor does it mean that I think the translators did work that improved the original texts they worked from. Without the element on faith on your own part, there would never be any certainty about what God really said or preserved for our world today. You would constantly find yourself asking, “Hath God said?”