The King James Bible of 1611
Chapter 11
Page 107
King James I of England was born in 1567. He
was crowned King of Scotland at the age of thirteen months. He became King
of England upon the death of Queen Elizabeth I in 1603.
By the age of eight, he had mastered the Latin,
Greek, French, Italian and Spanish languages.
James was a born again believer and a
Protestant. He was a devout believer in salvation by grace and the
divinely inspired Word of God. He wrote a devotional commentary on the
Book of Revelation and a work entitled "Meditations on the Lord's
Prayer." He published a pamphlet against the use of tobacco. He also
translated the Book of Psalms into English. His work, however, never
appeared in the Authorized Version of the Bible which bears his
name.
King James was the first earthly monarch to
encourage the propagation of God's Word in the language of the people. He
wanted the Word of God to be in the hands, the hearts, and the homes of his
subjects, not chained to the pulpits or read only by scholars and
theologians.
James continued to support the printing of the
Geneva Bible in England, though some of the marginal notes he found to be
offensive. The notes were not directed at him, having been written before
his birth, but the Geneva Bible translators were not bashful in their railings
against the abuses of the Church and the throne.
King James' desire was the same as his
predecessor, Queen Elizabeth--an English Bible for the English Christians and
churches produced on English soil.
In 1604 John Rainolds approached the king with the
idea of a new translation of the Bible to be produced in England.
King...
Page 108
James welcomed the suggestion, and commissioned
fifty-four of the greatest scholars the world has ever known to produce this new
Bible. "All principal learned men of the kingdom" were also extended an
invitation to prticipate in this greatest of endeavors.
Let us look at just a few of these men and their
astounding credentials.
William Bedwell produced translations of Scripture
portions into Hebrew, Syriac, Chaldee and Arabic, wrote a Persian dictionary,
and translated the Gospel of John into Arabic.
Thomas Holland received his Bachelor of Arts in
1570, his Master of Arts in 1575, his Bachelor of Divinity in 1582, his Doctor
of Divinity in 1584, and his Master of Divinity in 1589.
Of all the translators, he was probably the most
opposed to Romanism. Whenever he went on a journey away from his
professoriate he would call the faculty and the students together and "commend
them to the love of God and to the abhorrence of popery."
He loved and longed for God, for the presence of
God, and for the full enjoyment of Him. His soul was framed for heaven,
and could find no rest till it came there. His dying prayer was, "Come, o
come, Lord Jesus, thou Morning Star! Come, Lord Jesus; I desire to be
dissolved, and to be with Thee."
John Boys began reading Hebrew at age five.
He often studied Greek from four o'clock in the morning till eight o'clock at
night. He became so skilled in the Greek language that many of his college
mates would attend a class he taught in his dormitory room at four
a.m.
Lancelot Andrews spoke Latin, Greek, Hebrew,
Chaldee, Syrian, Arabic and fifteen other languages. It was said that he
might have been "interpreter General at the Tower of
Babel."
His biographer noted: "A great part of five hours every day he spent in prayer, (most Christians
do not spend five minutes every day in prayer!) and
in his last illness spent all his time in prayer. And when both his voice
and eyes and hands failed in their office, his countenance showed that he still
prayed and...
Page 109
praised god in his heart, until it pleased God to
receive his blessed soul to Himself."
Miles Smith was called a "walking library" and "a
third University." Considering that the other two Universities at the time
were Oxford and Cambridge, that put Miles Smith in pretty prestigious
company!
Smith wrote the preface to the King James Bible
called "The Translators to the Reader." In it he said, "There were many
chosen (for the translation work) that were greater in other men's eyes than in
their own, and that sought the truth rather than their own praise." There
are not many intellectual giants like that around anymore. I recall one
man's astute observation of theologians and "scholars." He said, "There
are some brilliant men in the world today. If you do not believe it, just
stick around a little while and they will tell you just how brilliant they
are." The cause of Jesus Christ would greatly benefit from men who are
"greater in other men's eyes than in their own," or more importantly, greater in
God's eyes than in their own.
George Abbott studied at Oxford and Balliol
College. He received his Bachelor of Divinity in 1593, his Doctor of
Divinity in 1597, and the same year became Master of the University. At
age thirty-five, he was the youngest man upon whom that honorable position was
ever bestowed.
Abbot opposed the king's declaration permitting
sports and pastimes on the Lord's Day. Remember when there were "Blue
Laws"? Remember when almost everyone went to church on Sunday because
there really was not much else to do on Sunday? Remember when the mall was
closed on Sunday? Remember when grocery stores, and gas stations, and
restaurants, were all closed on Sunday? Remember when Christians
used to avoid working and shopping and playing and other worldly pursuits on the
Lord's Day?
When was it that Sunday became just another day of
the week? When did Sunday become best described as a day for ballgames,
time-and-a-half on the job, yard work, shopping, and sleeping
in?
Page 110
How much better the state of affairs in our
churches and in our land would be today if we had a generation of Christian
people who once again made a distinction between the Lord's day and the rest of
the week.
How hypocritical it is for us to go to a
restaurant after church on Sunday and scold the waitress for not being in
church! We are the ones causing her to work on the Lord's Day! We
are the ones guilty of turning the day commemorating the resurrection of the
Lord Jesus Christ into just another business day.
John Rainolds, as previously stated, was the
driving force behind the King James Bible project. He served as head of
the Puritan church at that time. He died before the translation work was
ever completed, but it was he who established the guidelines governing the work
of the translators.
Of the fifty-four men selected, four were college
presidents, six were bishops, five were University deans, thirty were Ph.D.s,
thirty-nine had Master of Arts degrees, forty-one were University professors,
thirteen were highly skilled Hebrew scholars, ten were highly skilled Greek
scholars, and three were eastern linguists who were as fluent in Arabic as in
English.
All fifty-four men believed in the plenary, verbal
inspiration of the Scriptures and the deity of Christ. All fifty-four were
men of prayer.
Note the humility, the awe, and the gravity with
which the translators approached their work, as evidenced in Miles Smith's
The Translators to the Reader:
"The Scriptures then being acknowledged to be
so full and so perfect, how can we excuse ourselves of negligence, if we do not
study them? or curiosity, if we be not content with them? (The Scriptures are)
not only an armour, but also a whole armoury of weapons, whereby we may save
ourselves, and put our enemies to flight. (They are) a whole paradise of
trees of life, a shower of heavenly bread sufficient for a whole host, be it
never so great, a treasury of most costly jewels, finally, a fountain of most
pure...
Page 111
water, springing up into everlasting
life. And what marvel? the original thereof being from heaven, not from
earth; the author being God, not man...the penmen, such as were sanctified from
the womb, and endued with a principal portion of God's Spirit...the matter,
verity, piety, purity, uprightness; the form, God's Word, God's testimony, God's
oracles, the word of truth, the word of salvation; the effects, light of
understanding, stableness of persuasion, repentance from dead works, newness of
life, holiness, peace, joy in the Holy Ghost; lastly, the end of reward of the
study thereof, fellowship with the saints, participation of the heavenly nature,
fruition of an inheritance immortal, undefiled, and that shall never fade
away. Happy is the man that delighteth in the Scripture, and thrice happy
that meditateth in it day and night."
If we compare the preface written by the King
james Bbile translators with that of the writers of the modern translations,
some striking differences come to light. For instance, the Revised
Standard Version translators inform their readers that all changes to the text
were agreed upon by a two-thirds vote of the committee. Allow me to pose a
question here. What if the one-third that voted against the change in the
text was the part of the committee that was right? I wonder if that is
what happened when the translators of the Revised Standard Version decided to
render the Hebrew word "almah", which everywhere else in their bible or anyone
else's Bible is properly translated "virgin," in Isaiah 7:14 as "young
woman."
Isaiah 7:14 is one of the strongest, clearest
prophecies concerning the virgin birth of Jesus Christ in the entire
Bible. "Therefore the LORD himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his
name Immanuel."
There is nothing miraculous about a young woman
conceiving and bearing a child. Just take a stroll into the nursery or the
day care provided for the teenage mothers in your local public
high...
Page 112
school and you will see that such an occurrence is
all too common. There is something miraculous,
however, about a virgin being with child. It
only happened once; it will never happen again. Jesus Christ was the
prophesied virgin born Son of God.
The translators of the Revised Standard Version,
with absolutely no manuscript evidence to warrant a change in this text, took it
upon themselves, by two-thirds vote, to violate the doctrine of the virgin birth
of Christ in Isaiah 7:14. If Jesus Christ was not born of a virgin, then
we are yet dead in our trespasses and sins, and Jesus died for no one's sins but
His own. If Jesus Christ was not born of a virgin, then there is no
salvation. If Jesus Christ was not born of a virgin, then He was just a
sinner like us, born in sin, living in sin, and dying in sin. If Jesus
Christ was not born of a virgin, then there is no Saviour.
I use the Revised Standard Version as an example
of the corruption of the true Biblical text because I consider it the
"grandfather" of the modern translations. For two hundred and seventy-four
years, from 1611 to 1885, the King James Bible had no rival. In the
English language you had your choice of two Bibles--the King James 1611 or the
Douay-Rheims, the Roman Catholic bible. Obviously, no one other than Roman
Catholics embraced their translation. The King James Bible was the English
Bible.
Wecott and HOrt's Revised Version, published in
England in 1885, proved to be no competition for the Authorized Version of
1611. The American Standard Version, the American edition of Wescott and
Hort's Revised Version, released in the United States in 1901, enjoyed fleeting
popularity, but proved to be no real threat to replace the King James Version as
the Bible of choice.
The Revised Standard Version, published by the
National Council of Churches of Christ in 1952 opened the floodgates for the
more than two hundred English translations now wvailable. It is a corrupt
translation based on a corrupted text. Every modern translation of the
Bible in English comes from the same corrupted text as the Revised Standard
Version, and therefore, every depar-...
Page 113
ture in those translations from the faithful
Biblical text of the King James Bible is borrowed directly from the RSV and the
polluted text from which it came.
The following is a direct quotation from the
preface of the Revised Standard Version, written by the translators
themselves. Notice the almost apologetic air about these statements, as
the translators admit their obvious incompetency in the area of Bible
translation:
"Sometimes it is evident that the text has
suffered in transmission, but none of the versions provides
a satisfactory restoration (not even theirs? then why buy it? -
author's note). Here we can only follow the best
judgment of competent scholars as to the most probable reconstruction of
the original text."
Maybe they did not expect anyone to read their
prefatory remarks, but I did. It seems to me that not only are they not
sure of their work, but since you and I obviously are in no position
intellectually or academically to challenge or question their uncertainty, we
are left with no other choice but to "follow the best judgment of competent
scholars as to the most probable reconstruction of the original
text."
Friends, I do not have to settle for anyone's
"best judgment" or "probable reconstruction" when it comes to the Word of
God. "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away,"
said the Lord Jesus Christ in Matthew 24:35. Well, heaven and earth are
still here, and so are the Words of God.
"It may be assumed that the new rendering was not
adopted without convincing evidence" - Revised Standard Version preface.
In other words, "We want you to assume that the new rendering was not adopted
without convincing evidence," such as in the case of Isaiah 7:14, where there
was not one shred of evidence justifying the change to the text. The only
thing it is safe to "assume" when dealing with liberals or their bibles is that
they are dishonest and deceptive. And I do not make that assumption
without con-...
Page 114
vincing evidence, such as Isaiah
7:14.
The RSV translators continue: "We (are) now far
better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek
text."
May I remind you that the translators of the King
James Bible had access to the Peshitta, an early second century Syrian
translation of the original Greek manuscripts?
They also had before them more than four thousand manuscripts and translations,
the vast majority of which are in strong agreement with the Peshitta, hence in
strong agreement with "the original wording of the Greek
text." The better equipment spoken of by the Revised Standard
Version translators amounts to nothing more than Wescott and Hort's proven
corrupt Greek text.
The New International Version printed in England
is different than the New International Version printed in the United States of
America. How can they both be the "Holy Bible" like it says on their
covers? They are different!
Some statements made by the men and women behind
the translation work of the New International Version bear repeating at this
time. Remember, these are direct quotations from the translators
themselves, and not the biased opinion of a King James only Baptist
preacher.
"Sometimes a variant reading in the margin was
used instead of the text itself. That is interesting. Suppose the
NIV translators would have used Roger's note on I Peter 3:1 instead of using the
text itself. The NIV, rather than teaching wives to submit themselves to
their own husbands, would say, "And if she be not obedient and helpful unto him,
endeavor to beat the fear of God into her head..." Of course, the unisex,
transdenominational New International Version would never be guilty of such a
sexist remark as that, especially in their soon-to-be-realeased "gender
inclusive" version. Even some of the proponents of the NIV are in an
uproar over this blatant perversion of the Scriptures, which just goes to show
you, even those who appear not to have a backbone may surprise you if you push
them far enough. Everybody has...
Page 115
their limits. Everybody has standards by
which they operate. The problem is, their standards are not nearly as high
as God's standards.
Again I quote the NIV translators: "Where existing
manuscripts differ, the translators made their choice of readings where there
are uncertainty about what the original text was." The only "uncertainty
about...the original text" was uncertainty they created in their own
minds. More than ninety percent of more than five thousand extant Greek
manuscripts are in strong agreement with the text of the King James Bible and in
strong agreement with each other. The only existing manuscripts that
differ are those diabolical, corrupted texts that the modern translators
introduced into the Bible mnauscript equation. The King James translators
knew about the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, the texts of Origen and Eusebius, but
they wisely rejected them because they were so bad, and so far removed from what
the Biblical text actually said.
Did you know that the New International Version
printed in 1973 is different than the one printed in 1978, which is different
from editions printed after 1983? Thank God, the King James Bible printed
in England reads the same as the one printed in the United States and around the
world, and the King James Bible printed in 1611 reads the same as the King James
Bible printed in 1997.
The NIV translators sum up their efforts with this
closing statement made in their preface: "Like all translations of the Bible,
made as they are by imperfect man, this one undoubtedly falls short."
Again I am forced to ask, "Then why buy it?" If it falls short of the Word
of God, then why should I want it? The King James Bible says that I come
short of the glory of God; but nowhere does the Bible say that it comes short,
nor do the translators of the King James Bible say that it falls short, like the
NIV translators admit of their faulty efforts at producing a bible. Quite
the contrary, the Bible says concerning itself, "The words of the LORD are pure
words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, ...
Page 116
purified seven
times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this
generation (David's generation, c. 1000 BC) for ever (right up through and
including 1997 and beyond)."
In Psalm 12:;6 God emphasized the purity of His
Word, purified seven times. In verse seven, God
promised the preservation and perpetuity of His pure Word.
In 1604, fifty-four men were chosen for the
monumental task of producing "one more exact translation of the holy Scriptures
into the English Tongue." These are the very words of the King James Bible
translators referring to what they had produced. Compare that statement to
what we just read about the modern translators and their assessment of their
work! These men set aside three years of their lives for seasons of prayer
and fasting in preparation for the translation work.
In 1607 the work began. Forty-seven men
remained of the fifty-four originally selected. Some had died. Some
had resigned due to ill health or other unforeseen
circumstances.
The first printing was completed in 1611, exactly
seven years from the initiation of the project.
"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth,
purified seven times." The King James Bible,
also known as the Authorized Version of 1611, is the seventh major English translation of the Bible. The
first was Wycliffe's Bible, second was Tyndale's, third was Coverdale's, fourth
was the Matthews Bible, fifth was the Great Bible, sixth was the Geneva Bible
and seventh (God's number of completion and perfection) is the King James Bible.
"The words of the LORD are pure words...purified seven times."
I have often compared the earlier reliable English
translations of the Bible (those produced from the faithful, majority text after
the manner of Tyndale's work) to a diamond in the rough. In Tyndale's
work, the diamond of the Word of God was there, but it was not the polished,
faceted, perfect gem that it would become. Coverdale's revision, followed
by the Matthews Bible, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bbile and the Bishops Bible,
were all steps in...
Page 117
God's process of refining and purifying. The
King James Bible, the seventh major English translation of the holy Scriptures,
is the refined, purified, perfect diamond God intended His Word to be.
"...Purified seven times."
If you add anything to perfection, you have added
imperfection. You need go no further than perfection. If you add
anything to purity, you have added impurity. You need go no further than
purity.
Please read and re-read this
next paragraph. Please allow this truth to sink in. The King James
Bible was the last English translation of the Scriptures based on the Textus
Receptus, the Received Text, the traditional, faithful, pure text of the Word of
God, the text for which Tyndale, Coverdale, Rogers, and so many other Christians
have been persecuted and slain. There has not been one English translation
produced after the King James Bible that came from the true Bible text...NOT
ONE! God in His Providence has seen to it that the King James Bible is His
Book for the English-speaking world by not allowing another English Bible to be
produced from the pure, faithful text. It is truly amazing that God has
not moved on the hearts of any Bible-believers to produce a replacement for the
King James Bible. Every English bible produced after the King James Bible
of 1611, the Authorized Version, came from the perverted, corrupted text
fabricated by Wescott and Hort. This cannot be
overemphasized. You need to understand this truth. Any bible that was produced after AD 1611 is not a Bible at all,
but an erroneous departure from the true Word of God. Do not settle for
the devil's counterfeit!
The forty-seven men on the translation committee
were divided into six companies which met in three locations across
England. The entire Bible was divided into six sections and each of the
six committees received a portion to translate. Each man in each committee
personally translated the entire portion of Scripture his committee had been
assigned, then the whole committee reviewed one another's work. Until they
came to one hundred percent...
Page 118
unanimous consent that what they had produced was
an accurate, faithful, correct translation of the Word of God into English, the
work never went beyond that committee.
Each portion from each committee passed through
all six committees' hands for review, and all six committees had to agree by one
hundred percent unanimous consent that an accurate, faithful, correct
translation of the Scriptures was what they had before them before each section
of the Bible left each committee.
Then a seventh and
final review committe met in 1610 and for one year perused the finished
product. They, too, came to a one hundred percent unanimous vote that what
they had produced was "one more exact translation of the holy Scriptures in the
English Tongue." "The words of the Lord are pure words...purified seven times.
The translators of the Authorized Version of 1611
had more than four thousand manuscripts available to them, including the corrupt
text of the modern bibles, which the liberals say they did not have access to
and knew nothing of. The fact is, they did know about the corrupt Catholic
text, but wisely rejected those manuscripts, choosing rather to rely on the
Majority Text, the Textus Receptus Greek and the Masoretic text of the Hebrew,
and the thousands of other documents that are in strong agreement with these
texts.
Of the more than four thousand Old and New
Testaments manuscripts and translations available to the translators in 1611,
and of the more than five thousand Greek manuscripts extant today, between
ninety and ninety-five percent make up the Textus Receptus, the Received Text,
which is the text of the King James Bible.
Every English translation produced since 1611 (you
read correctly--EVERY English translation produced since 1611) is based on the
inferior, corrupt, minority text invented by two lost, infidel, spiritist,
ghost-chasing Episcopalian/Romish priests named Wecott and Hort. The
minority text, comprised chiefly of Codices Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and
Alexandrinus, accounts for... Continued...
