History of the King James Bible

standingtall said:

Actually (believe it or not), the site he referenced above (www.kjvonly.org) is not a kjv-only site.

From the main page:

This website is dedicated to the defense of the Bible as originally written,
against the flood of falsehood propagated by King James Onlyism.

Click to expand...

lol That's surprising. I stand corrected. Thanks.

*subscribing*

Hentenza said:

lol That's surprising. I stand corrected. Thanks.

Click to expand...

A accept your retraction. Thank You.

Jack

standingtall said:

Truthfully, it was in your defense. I might be highly disgusted by KJVonlyism, but I'm not one to hold back on the truth - as I see it.

Click to expand...

standingtall,

I thank you for your defense, in the pursuit of truth. I pray that as you see the continued information from sites that are NOT biased toward the King James, you will see that there is more to this issue than is covered in most Bible colleges, and scholars, on “non-KJV only sites” (such as the one provided by Doug Kutilek).

Jack

History of the King James Bible

by

Jack Koons


Part 5

As we continue addressing Erasmus, and His Greek Text,


We will now take a short review of the “named” Greek manuscripts that Erasmus used for the FIRST edition of his Greek text, in addition, we will briefly look at the additional manuscripts he used for his later editions, as well as how many differences there were in each edition. The format will be simple: a site will be given; followed by the pertinent information, or a quote will be given, followed by its source. (Even though some information is given concerning the second edition (1519), third edition (1522), the fourth edition (1527), and finally, the fifth edition (1535), my main focus at this juncture, is the first edition.)

“SOURCES FOR THE NOVUM INSTRUMENTUM
Seven manuscripts were used by Erasmus in Basel to compile the
Greek text which was printed alongside his Latin translation. 46
1. Codex 1 eap , a minuscule containing the entire NT except for Revela-
tion, dated to about the 12th century.
2. Codex 1 r , a minuscule containing the book of Revelation except for the
last 6 verses (Rev 22:16–21), dated to the 12th century.
3. Codex 2 e , a minuscule containing the Gospels, dated to the 12th cen-
tury.
4. Codex 2 ap , a minuscule containing Acts and the Epistles, dated to the
12th century or later.
5. Codex 4 ap , a minuscule containing Acts and the Epistles, dated to the
15th century.
6. Codex 7 p , a minuscule containing the Pauline Epistles, dated to the
11th century.
7. Codex 817, a minuscule containing the Gospels, dated to the 15th cen-
tury.”
(DBSJ -- Volume 1, Number 1: Spring 1996, Pg. 45 (Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal))

This information is also found at:

Novum Instrumentum omne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is a representation of a chart found at the above address:

Manuscript Content Date
Minuscule 1eap Entire NT (except Revelation) 12th Century
Minuscule 1rk Book of Revelation 12th Century
Minuscule 2e Gospels 12th Century
Minuscule 2ap Acts and Epistles 12th Century
Minuscule 4ap Pauline epistles 15th Century
Minuscule 7p Pauline epistles 12th Century
Minuscule 817 Gospels 15th Century

“Manuscripts 1eap and 1rK Erasmus borrowed from Johannes Reuchlin. The rest of the manuscripts he borrowed fromDominicans.[n 1] It is significant that he did not use the Codex Basilensis, which was held at the Basel University Library, and was available for him. Erasmus had three manuscripts of the Gospels and Acts, four manuscripts of the Pauline epistles, but only one manuscript with the Book of Revelation.”

These are the “named” manuscripts Erasmus had for his first Greek text. This does not include the vast knowledge Erasmus had due to his extensive studies, and travels. As an example, Dr. Jack Van Impe calls to mind literally thousands of Bible verses as needed. Erasmus, had traveled and studied for many decades prior to producing his Novum Instrumentum. God used those travels, and studies to give Erasmus the knowledge needed for this specific task. Modern scholars are quick to point to the “mere” seven manuscripts available to Erasmus in Basel, but they forget to mention his vast knowledge and access to manuscripts all over Europe.

In 1519 Erasmus produced his second Greek text, Novum Testamentum. In the second edition (1519) Erasmus also used Minuscule 3.

“Minuscule 3 (in the Gregory-Aland numbering), δ 253 (von Soden).[1] It is a Greek minuscule manuscript of the New Testament, on a parchment. Palaeographically it has been assigned to the 12th century.[2] It was one of the manuscripts used by Erasmus.”
“The codex contains the entirety of the New Testament except the Book of Revelation in the order: Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, General epistles, andPauline epistles on 451 parchment leaves, with size 24.5 cm by 17.5 cm.”

The text of the second edition differs from the first edition, in approximately 400 places.

Erasmus then produced his third edition in 1522, it was the first to contain the Comma Johanneum.

Codex Montfortianus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“Codex Montfortianus designated by 61 (on the list Gregory-Aland; Soden's δ 603),[1] and known asminuscule 61, Erasmus named it Codex Britannicus, is a Greek minuscule manuscript of the New Testamenton paper. It is dated to the early 16th century, though a 15th-century date is possible on palaeographicgrounds.[2] The manuscript is famous for the Comma Johanneum. It has marginalia.”
“The codex contains the entire of the New Testament. The text is written in one column per page, 21 lines per page, on 455 paper leaves (15.8 cm by 12 cm).[3]”

The third edition differed from the second edition in 118 places.

Note: Since there is an extreme amount of controversy concerning the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum in Erasmus's third edition, feel free to read the thread, “Does 1 John 5:7 Belong in the Bible?”, while it is a rather long thread, the information gained, will be a great gain on your investment of time.

The fourth edition was produced in 1527, depending on who is counting, it differs from the third edition in about 100-110 places.
Novum Instrumentum omne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“Shortly after the publication of his third edition, Erasmus had seen the Complutensian Polyglot, and used its text for improvement of his own text. In the Book of Revelation he altered his fourth edition (1527) in about 90 passages on the basis of the Complutensian text.[19] Unfortunately Erasmus had forgotten what places of the Apocalypse he translated from Latin and he did not correct all of them.[20] Except in the Revelation, the fourth edition differed only in about 20 places from his third (according to Mill about 10 places).[20] The fourth edition was printed in three parallel columns, they contain the Greek, Erasmus' own Latin version, and the Vulgate.[19]”

Finally, the fifth edition of 1535 differed from the fourth in only 4 places, according to Mill.
Novum Instrumentum omne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“The fifth edition of Erasmus, published in 1535, the year before his death, discarded the Vulgate. According to Mill the fifth edition differed only in four places from the fourth.[24]”

It is often stated that Erasmus's first Greek Text (1516) was rushed. But this matters not, due to the fact that his first edition has no part in the lineage of the King James. Additionally, Erasmus had three additional years to revise his second edition (1519), three more years to revise his third edition (1522), five more years to revise his fourth edition (1527), and finally, eight more years to revise his fifth edition (1535). Hence, whether Stephanus used either the third, or either of the latter editions which (which would be in the lineage of the King James Bible), no one can say that these works were in any way rushed works. It is also stated that the changes made to the later editions of Erasmus's text were of no great significance. Therefore, the errors contained in the first edition, were not corrected in the subsequent editions. There could of course be an alternative explanation: the so-called “errors” of the first edition, (the “errors” that were not corrected in subsequent editions), were not really “errors” at all. Remember, those who say that Erasmus's Greek Text was full of errors, are descendants of German Rationalists, who denied the Divine Authorship of the Bible. For more information, read my thread, “The History of Textual Criticism”.

Jack

History of the King James Bible

by

Jack Koons


Part 6

Erasmus published the first edition of his Greek text Novum Instrumentum in 1516. This Greek text however, was NOT part of the lineage of the King James. There is an interesting point that is good to know about this first edition. His Novum Instrumentum contained three parts: the Greek text, Erasmus's Latin translation, and his Annotationes in Novum Testamentum, (his explanatory remarks).

Alpha and Omega Ministries, The Christian Apologetics Ministry of James R. White

In the article, “ERASMUS OF ROTTERDAM: HIS NEW TESTAMENT AND ITS IMPORTANCE”, By James White, we read the following: (taken from the above site)

“The book contained 679 pages, about half of which were given over to his own annotations to the text and descriptions of errors in the Vulgate version. The rest was Erasmus’s Latin translation and the Greek text. As an added precaution against attack, Erasmus (ironically) dedicated the volume to Pope Leo X, even though he had not yet received an answer to his request to do so. It was a lucky gamble for him, as when the Pope’s answer did arrive, it was positive in tone.”

I would like you to notice Dr. White's testimony to the real purpose of the Novum Instumentum. He states, 1) “The book contained 679 pages, about half of which were given over to his own annotations to the text and descriptions of errors in the Vulgate version”.

Half of Erasmus's work was “annotations to the text and descriptions of errors in the Vulgate”. While many have accused Erasmus of being a devout Catholic, it would seem that this information about his 'opinion' of Jerome's Latin Vulgate, shows otherwise. Erasmus, well learned in both Latin and Greek, takes much time to point out the errors of the Bible the Catholic church had been using for over 1000 years. This Novum Instrumentum was the catalyst that spurred the reformation. While, (as has already been stated) it is not in the lineage of the King James, it is the foundation that paved the way for the Word of God to be placed in the common tongue of the people, not the common tongue of the presbyter.

Then 2), Dr. White correctly states, “The rest was Erasmus’s Latin translation and the Greek text”. Erasmus then dedicated his work to Pope Leo X. (Many scholars use this dedication to show that Erasmus was a devout Catholic.) This (Erasmus being a devout Catholic) however was not the case. Erasmus was no fool; he dedicated the work to the Pope, because he knew the work would never stand a chance at being published without the Pope's permission to do so. Even though it was published, it caused such a stir in the Catholic hierarchy, that Jerome's Latin Vulgate was made the official Bible of the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent (1545-63).

The real questions relating to this issue are, 1) Did Erasmus have ample manuscripts to do the task at hand?; and 2) How did Erasmus choose, or know which variants to use in making his text?; and finally, 3) Did Erasmus choose correctly?

1) Did Erasmus have ample manuscripts to do the task at hand?
The answer, is a qualified Yes. While Erasmus did not have EVERY manuscript to make a 'completely' correct Greek text, he had enough manuscripts to accomplish what needed to be accomplished by him, at that particular point of history. The manuscripts he had available, along with the knowledge of manuscripts he had obtained through his travels and studies, enabled him to put together the base Greek text that God would use him, and others after him, to give the people of the world a perfect representation of His Word, as given in the originals.

Allow me to use a simple illustration. Let's pretend that I sell coffee cups. My inventory consists of 51 blue cups, (slightly different, but all blue), 1 red cup, and 1 yellow cup. A customer wants to see my cups. I grab 1 blue cup, my 1 red cup, and my 1 yellow cup. This 1 blue cup is a true representation of the other blue cups. It may only be one cup, but it does in fact properly represent the other blue cups.

Please consider (Just for the record):
Textus Receptus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“Johann Albrecht Bengel (1687–1752), in 1725 edited Prodromus Novi Testamenti Graeci Rectè Cautèque Adornandi, in 1734 edited Novum Testamentum Graecum. Bengel divided manuscripts into families and subfamilies. He favoured the principle of lectio difficilior potior ("the more difficult reading is the stronger").
Johann Jakob Wettstein. His Apparatus was fuller than of any previous editor. He introduced the practice of indicating the ancient manuscripts by capital Roman letters and the later manuscripts by Arabic numerals. He published in Basel Prolegomena ad Novi Testamenti Graeci (1731).
J. J. Griesbach (1745–1812) combined the principles of Bengel and Wettstein. He enlarged the Apparatus by considering more citations from the Fathers, and various versions, such as the Gothic, the Armenian, and the Philoxenian. Griesbach distinguished a Western, an Alexandrian, and a Byzantine Recension.[13] Christian Frederick Matthaei (1744–1811) was a Griesbach opponent.”
It was (and still is) textual critics (as seen above) that divide[d] the manuscripts into different families. It is textual critics that determine the characteristics that place each manuscript into the proper family. When a given manuscript is placed in the “Byzantine” family, it means that that given manuscript bears the same characteristics of other manuscripts in the “Byzantine” family. Just as one blue cup represents the other blue cups, (even though they have slight differences), one manuscript in the Byzantine family, (or Alexandrian family), represents other manuscripts in the same family.

Note: Distinguishing the differences in the manuscripts is a good thing. This in and of itself if not the problem: the problem occurs when the scholars noting the differences are taught, (or believe on their own), that the scriptures are not of Divine origin, and are therefore not above their critique. Differences which these scholars do not support (by their faulty understanding of the Divine origin of the Scriptures), are counted as “errors”. (See my thread, “History of Textual Criticism) This is the very reason there are so many modern versions, which are doing two things: 1) They dilute the doctrines of the Bible, by diluting the texts upon which these doctrines rest. 2) The sale of these 'Modern Bibles' provide untold wealth for both the scholars, and those who publish them.
2) How did Erasmus choose, or know which variants to use in making his text?
Allow me to say first of all, what Erasmus did not do, was use the rules of 'modern textual criticism'. Then what did he use? It is my belief that by submission to God, Erasmus was led of the Holy Spirit, (not to be confused with inspiration), and was given “wisdom that is from above” (James 3:17), to make the decisions he did, as he collated the differing Greek texts, along with using his knowledge of the Latin in the Revelation. Keep in mind that Erasmus produced his Greek text more than 100 years BEFORE the rules of textual criticism were developed. Modern textual critics like to say that Erasmus used “textual criticism”, then they say that his selection of available manuscripts were so feeble, he could only do 'so much', with what he had. Having more manuscripts isn't the answer, having a few 'quality' manuscripts is the answer. Then, as already stated, God guided Erasmus, not rules made by man.

3) Did Erasmus choose correctly?
Again, the answer is a qualified Yes. For the most part, Erasmus made the right choices in his collation of texts, into one Greek text. Was the work final? No. But his first edition again, was in deed that Greek text that God would use as the foundation for His Word to be continually preserved in Greek, and eventually into other languages, such as English. Furthermore, it was Erasmus's Novum Istrumentum that truly ignited the Reformation, as noted in the previous installment.

Jack

Thank you Jack Koons.

brinny said:

Thank you Jack Koons.

Click to expand...

Your are more than welcome brinny. But hold on, we are not nearly finished yet.

Jack

Ok, i appreciate all you are posting.

brinny said:

Ok, i appreciate all you are posting.

Click to expand...

Ms brinny:

FYI, my 2c are that I greatly appreciate and use the King James. But I am not King James Only; there is a difference.

Blessings.

faroukfarouk said:

Ms brinny:

FYI, my 2c are that I greatly appreciate and use the King James. But I am not King James Only; there is a difference.

Blessings.

Click to expand...

Yes faroukfarouk, there is a difference. There is a difference between those who 'prefer' the King James (such as you), those that use only the King James, (people like me). However, I must also say that there are many flavors of people who use only the King James. I am a person who uses the King James, but does not believe the King James 'corrects' the Greek. Additionally, I believe since we have a Hebrew and Greek text that can be used to translate into any other language, that is the path that should be taken.

When the planned 'installments' of this thread come to an end, I believe the evidence will show that there is a well-founded reason to use only the King James.

Jack

Part 7

Erasmus has finished his first three editions, and another person is about to be used in God's plan to bring about His Word in English. The man's name is William Tyndale.


William Tyndale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“William Tyndale (sometimes spelled Tynsdale, Tindall, Tindill, Tyndall; c. 1494–1536) was an English scholar who became a leading figure in Protestant reform in the years leading up to his execution. He is well known for his translation of the Bible into English. He was influenced by the work of Desiderius Erasmus, who made the Greek New Testament available in Europe, and by Martin Luther.[1] While a number of partial and incomplete translations had been made from the seventh century onward, the grass-roots spread of Wycliffe's Bible resulted in a death sentence for any unlicensed possession of Scripture in English—even though translations in all other major European languages had been accomplished and made available.[2][3]Tyndale's translation was the first English Bible to draw directly from Hebrew and Greek texts, the first English one to take advantage of the printing press, and first of the new English Bibles of the Reformation. It was taken to be a direct challenge to the hegemony of both the Roman Catholic Church and English Laws to maintain church rulings. In 1530, Tyndale also wrote The Practyse of Prelates, opposing Henry VIII's divorce on the grounds that it contravened Scripture.”

Tyndale as Translator
The following is as excerpt of text of “the seventh annual Hertford Tyndale Lecture 19 October 2000” by Professor Morna Hooker.
“Tyndale used both the second edition of Erasmus’ text, published in 1519, and the third, published in 1522, but it is difficult to decide whether he deliberately switched from the earlier to the later or used whichever happened to be available to him.”

While I do not agree with all the opinions stated by these authors, I use these simple excerpts to serve as simple documentation for points that are generally known.

Since Tyndale was killed in 1536, Myles Coverdale would then take over where Tyndale left off.

Myles Coverdale
Coverdale Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“Coverdale based his New Testament on Tyndale’s translation. For the Old Testament, Coverdale used Tyndale’s published Pentateuch and possibly his published Jonah. He apparently did not make use of any of Tyndale’s other, unpublished, Old Testament material (cf. Matthew Bible). Instead, Coverdale himself translated the remaining books of the Old Testament and the Apocrypha. Not being a Hebrew or Greek scholar, he worked primarily from German Bibles—Luther’s Bible and the Swiss-German version (Zürich Bible) of Zwingli[1] and Juda—and Latin sources including the Vulgate.”

Great Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“The Great Bible was the first authorized edition of the Bible in English, authorized by King Henry VIII of England to be read aloud in the church services of the Church of England. The Great Bible was prepared by Myles Coverdale, working under commission of Thomas, Lord Cromwell, Secretary to Henry VIII and Vicar General. In 1538, 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 Great Bible includes much from the Tyndale Bible, with the objectionable features revised. As the Tyndale Bible was incomplete, Coverdale translated the remaining books of the Old Testament and Apocrypha from the Latin Vulgate and German translations, rather than working from the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic texts. Although called the Great Bible because of its large size, it is known by several other names as well: the Cromwell Bible, since Thomas Cromwell directed its publication; Whitchurch's Bible after its first English printer; the Chained Bible, since it was chained to prevent removal from the church. It has also been termed less accurately Cranmer's Bible, since Thomas Cranmer was not responsible for the translation, and his preface first appeared in the second edition.[1]”

Let's take a moment for a short review. Erasmus has published the first three editions of his Greek New Testament. Tyndale uses Erasmus' second and third editions as the basis for his English Bible. Tyndale gets burned at the stake by King Henry the VIII in 1536, and therefore his work is finished by Myles Coverdale. Not only does Coverdale finish Tyndale's Bible, but is also commissioned to publish the Great Bible, which again uses much of the Tyndale Bible as a base, in 1539.

Myles Coverdale is not done yet. During the reign of Bloody Mary, many Protestants moved to Geneva to escape the Queen's persecution.

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/index.html
“In the 1550's, the Church at Geneva, Switzerland, was very sympathetic to the reformer refugees and was one of only a few safe havens for a desperate people. Many of them met in Geneva, led by Myles Coverdale and John Foxe (publisher of the famous Foxe's Book of Martyrs, which is to this day the only exhaustive reference work on the persecution and martyrdom of Early Christians and Protestants from the first century up to the mid-16th century), as well as Thomas Sampson and William Whittingham. There, with the protection of the great theologian John Calvin (author of the most famous theological book ever published, Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion)and John Knox, the great Reformer of the Scottish Church, the Church of Geneva determined to produce a Bible that would educate their families while they continued in exile.”

The Geneva Bible
“The New Testament was completed in 1557, and the complete Bible was first published in 1560. It became known as the Geneva Bible. Due to a passage in Genesis describing the clothing that God fashioned for Adam and Eve upon expulsion from the Garden of Eden as "Breeches" (an antiquated form of "Britches"), some people referred to the Geneva Bible as the Breeches Bible.”
“The Geneva Bible was the first Bible to add numbered verses to the chapters, so that referencing specific passages would be easier. Every chapter was also accompanied by extensive marginal notes and references so thorough and complete that the Geneva Bible is also considered the first English "Study Bible". William Shakespeare quotes hundreds of times in his plays from the Geneva translation of the Bible. The Geneva Bible became the Bible of choice for over 100 years of English speaking Christians. Between 1560 and 1644 at least 144 editions of this Bible were published. Examination of the 1611 King James Bible shows clearly that its translators were influenced much more by the Geneva Bible, than by any other source. The Geneva Bible itself retains over 90% of William Tyndale's original English translation. The Geneva in fact, remained more popular than the King James Version until decades after its original release in 1611! The Geneva holds the honor of being the first Bible taken to America, and the Bible of the Puritans and Pilgrims. It is truly the “Bible of the Protestant Reformation.” Strangely, the famous Geneva Bible has been out-of-print since 1644, so the only way to obtain one is to either purchase an original printing of the Geneva Bible, or a less costly facsimile reproduction of the original 1560 Geneva Bible.”


The next English Bible to arrive on the scene was the Bishop's Bible.

Bishops' Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“The Bishops' Bible is an English translation of the Bible which was produced under the authority of the established Church of England in 1568. It was substantially revised in 1572, and this revised edition was to be prescribed as the base text for the Authorized King James Version of 1611.”

“The Bishops' Bible was first published in 1568,[2] but was then re-issued in an extensively revised form in 1572. In the revision a number of switches were made to the New Testament in the direction of more "ecclesiastical" language (e.g. introducing the term "charity" into I Corinthians 13), but otherwise to correct the text more in line with that found in the Geneva Bible; and in the Old Testament, the Psalms from the Great Bible were printed alongside those in the new translation—which had proved impossible to sing. From 1577 the new psalm translation was dropped altogether; while further incremental changes were made to the text of the New Testament in subsequent editions. The Bible had the authority of the royal warrant, and was the second version appointed to be read aloud in church services (cf. Great Bible, King James Bible). It failed to displace the Geneva Bible as a domestic Bible to be read at home, but that was not its intended purpose. The intention was for it to be used in church as what would today be termed a pulpit Bible. The version was more grandiloquent than the Geneva Bible. The first edition was exceptionally large and included 124 full-page illustrations. The second and subsequent editions were rather smaller, around the same size as the first printing of the King James Bible, and mostly lacked illustrations other than frontispieces and maps. The text lacked most of the notes and cross-references in the Geneva Bible, which contained much controversial theology, but which were helpful to people among whom the Bible was just beginning to circulate in the vernacular. The last edition of the complete Bible was issued in 1602,[2] but the New Testament was reissued until at least 1617.[2] William Fulke published several parallel editions up to 1633,[2] with the New Testament of the Bishops' Bible alongside the Rheims New Testament, specifically to controvert the latter's polemical annotations. The Bishops' Bible or its New Testament went through over 50 editions, whereas the Geneva Bible was reprinted more than 150 times.”

I am not known for holding back truth in what I present. The following excerpt, also comes from the above source:

“The thorough Calvinism of the Geneva Bible (more evident in the marginal notes than in the translation itself) offended the high-church party of the Church of England, to which almost all of its bishops subscribed. They associated Calvinism with Presbyterianism, which sought to replace government of the church by bishops (Episcopalian) with government by lay elders. However, they were aware that the Great Bible of 1539 —which was the only version then legally authorized for use in Anglican worship—was severely deficient; in that much of the Old Testament and Apocrypha was translated from the Latin Vulgate, rather than from the original Hebrew,Aramaic and Greek. In an attempt to replace the objectionable Geneva translation, they circulated one of their own, which became known as the Bishops' Bible.”

The above battle; Presbyterianism vs. Episcopalianism, was not only being fought in the 16th and 17th centuries, but it is still being fought today. This, as is stated above is an argument over the methodology of church government: the first, having a governing polity consisting of elders elected from the congregation (commonly known as a 'church board'); the latter, having a governing polity in which a 'bishop' (or single [one]) or overseer leads the church in both spiritual, and political matters. I will be very clear on this issue; the text of the Geneva Bible was not the main issue, (although there is the avoidance of the word “bishop” in the text, for obvious reasons), the 'marginal notes' were. Since the Church of England was opposed to Presbyterianism, it was not in favor of the Geneva Bible which included notes which clearly supported Presbyterianism. Hence, the need for the Bishop's Bible. The real problem is, neither the Church of England (mainly Episcopalians), nor the Reformers (Calvinistic) felt that the Bishop's Bible was a proper Bible. The reformers were happy with the Geneva Bible, but since the Church of England was not, they (the Church of England, along with the Reformers) had a problem, what Bible could they both agree on?

This was a problem only God could take care of, and He did. Each step of the way, God would use men who valued getting God's precious Word into the hands of the common man, more than the value of their own lives. Each of these men understood that the church of Rome had kept the Bible out of the hands of the common man, for fear of them actually understanding the message of God to them. Their motivation wasn't money, power, or pride; it was their love for the Word of God, and a mission that God had given them to perform, even if it meant loosing their own life to complete.

Also keep in mind that true modern 'textual criticism' was not yet developed. This doesn't mean that the forerunners of textual criticism were not developing their future tactics, it simply means that they didn't have any part in the publication of reformation Bible's, including the King James.

Jack

Cody2 said:

The King James Bible is the pure word of God, without error. We do not have the Originals today, we have hundreds of Greek texts that differ with each other. Before God preserved His word in texts the King James translators used. It's my belief that Holy Spirit led the translators in their translating and which text used for each verse. They used several editions of the Textus Receptus, the Old Latin, Masoretic text, Tyndale Bible and etc. The Greek books today are based off the Westcott & Hort texts. One would be wise to research those two men and find out how much they were messed up in their doctrine. They rejected the same very doctrines that the new versions mess with, like the virgin birth, the deity of Christ and etc. If you're wanting a Bible that is free from error then your best bet is the King James Bible, which is responsible for many revivals and has brought forth more fruit than any other bible on the market. God used Greek in the New Testament because it was the Universal language of that day. Now Greek is far from the Universal language. Today English is the Universal language. God knew that would be ahead of time, which is why He used the KJB. If you're wanting a Bible that has been corrupted by men then pick any new version you like on the basis of it being "easier" to read when the KJB is on a 6th grade reading level. The thees and thous preserve the proper pronouns. The new versions come from the Vaticanus and Sinaticus.

Click to expand...

Good Day,

The King James translators used 3 texts which were different from one another.....

Which one do you prefer of the three?

Beza, Stepanus, or Erasmus 3rd edition.

It is you belief that God lead the JK translators, ok see we are all sola scripturaist which portion of the scripture do you translate to include a translation being sanctioned by a governmental owned and operated church, will have translators guided by God himself....

They were great men, and all Reformed Calvinist they had their view of God and the word God correct, but never did they claim that which you have assigned to them.

Even in their preface, they said they were looking forward to other translations in the future.

In Him,

Bill

BBAS 64 said:

Good Day,

The King James translators used 3 texts which were different from one another.....

Which one do you prefer of the three?

Beza, Stepanus, or Erasmus 3rd edition.

Click to expand...

This will be answered in a future installment.

It is you belief that God lead the JK translators, ok see we are all sola scripturaist which portion of the scripture do you translate to include a translation being sanctioned by a governmental owned and operated church, will have translators guided by God himself....

Click to expand...

I would be careful making such accusations; I would advise you to see who brought you your Bible … you may find yourself living in a glass house, while throwing stones. (I will cover this in a later installment.)

They were great men, and all Reformed Calvinist they had their view of God and the word God correct, but never did they claim that which you have assigned to them.

Even in their preface, they said they were looking forward to other translations in the future.

In Him,

Bill

Click to expand...

This also shall be covered in a future installment.

Jack

Part 8


We have entered into the 1530's, and we now have Erasmus's later editions of the Greek New Testament. It is at this time that a new name is introduced to the story of the King James. That name is Robert Estienne, also known as Stephanus (1503–1559). Stephanus is the man you can thank for separating the text of the New Testament into chapters, and verses.

Robert Estienne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“Robert was born in Paris, the second son of the famous humanist printer Henri Estienne (the Elder) and became acquainted early on with ancient languages. After Henri's death in 1520 the printing establishment was maintained by his former partner Simon de Colines who also married Robert's mother, the widow Estienne. In 1526 Robert assumed control of his father's printing shop while de Colines established his own firm nearby.[2][3]”

“Of more importance are his four editions of the Greek New Testament, 1546, 1549, 1550, and 1551, the last in Geneva. The first two are among the neatest Greek texts known, and are called O mirificam; the third is a splendid masterpiece of typographical skill, and is known as the Editio Regia; the edition of 1551 contains the Latin translation of Erasmus and the Vulgate, is not nearly as fine as the other three, and is exceedingly rare. It was in this edition that the division of the New Testament into verses was for the first time introduced.”

We here continue to trace the history of the Greek text that underlies the King James.

Textus Receptus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“With the third edition of Erasmus' Greek text (1522) the Comma Johanneum was included, because "Erasmus chose to avoid any occasion for slander rather than persisting in philological accuracy", even though he remained "convinced that it did not belong to the original text of l John."[8] Popular demand for Greek New Testaments led to a flurry of further authorized and unauthorized editions in the early sixteenth century, almost all of which were based on Erasmus's work and incorporated his particular readings, although typically also making a number of minor changes of their own.[9]

The overwhelming success of Erasmus' Greek New Testament completely overshadowed the Latin text upon which he had focused. Many other publishers produced their own versions of the Greek New Testament over the next several centuries. Rather than doing their own critical work, most just relied on the well-known Erasmian text.”

Stephanus used Erasmus's Greek text. There is some argument as to which of the last three editions of Erasmus's Greek texts Stephanus used, but it matters not, since Stephanus published four editions, (1546, 1549, 1550, and 1551), of which the last two editions only differed by the application of numbering the verses of the text.

“He [Stephanus] used Polyglotta Complutensis(symbolized by &#945 and 15 Greek manuscripts. Among these are included: Codex Bezae, Codex Regius, minuscules 4, 5,6, 2817, 8, 9.”

Concerning the Polyglotta Complutensis:
“Septuagint. The causes which produced this version, the number and names of the translators, the times at which different portions were translated, are all uncertain. It appears at the present day in four principal editions. 1. Biblia Polyglotta, A.D. 1514-1517. 2. The Aldine Edition, Venice, A.D. 1518. 3. The Roman Edition, edited under Pope, Sixtus V., A.D. 1587. 4. Facsimile Edition of the Codes Alexandrius, by H. H. Baker, A.D. 1816. 1,2. The texts of (1) and (2) were probably formed collation of several MSS. 3. The Roman edition (3) is printed from the venerable Codex Vaticanus. A transcript transcript of the Codex Vaticanus, prepared by Cardinal Mai was lately published at Rome, by Vercelloni. It is much to be regretted that this edition is not so accurate as to preclude the necessity of consulting the MS. 4. The Facsimile Edition, by Mr. Baber, is printed with types made after the form of the letters in the Codex Alexandrinus.---Manuscripts.” (A CONCISE DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE; ITS ANTIQUITIES, BIOGRAPHY, AND NATURAL HISTORY, Page 845, By William Aldis Wright)

Codex Bezae:
Codex Bezae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“The Codex Bezae Cantabrigensis, designated by siglum Dea or 05 (in the Gregory-Aland numbering), δ 5 (von Soden), is a codex of the New Testament dating from the 5th century written in an uncial hand onvellum. It contains, in both Greek and Latin, most of the four Gospels and Acts, with a small fragment of 3 John. Written one column per page, the codex contains 406 extant parchment leaves (from perhaps an original 534) measuring 26 x 21.5 cm, with the Greek text on the left face and the Latin text on the right.[1] A digital facsimile of the codex[2] is available from Cambridge University Library, which holds the manuscript.”

Codex Regius
Codex Regius - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“Cōdex Rēgius (which is Latin for "(The) Royal Book", in Icelandic Konungsbók) (GKS 2365 4to) is an Icelandic manuscript (See also Codex) in which thePoetic Edda is preserved. It is made up of 45 vellum leaves, thought to have been written in the 1270s. It originally contained a further 8 leaves, which are now missing. It is the sole source for most of the poems it contains. In scholarly texts, this manuscript is commonly abbreviated as [R] for Codex Regius, or as [K] for Konungsbók.”

This codex is a 'book' of what I would call 'pagan' poems and writings. With over 25 years of Biblical study and research, I assure the reader that, while some of these 'manuscripts' may have been available for Stephanus to use, none of this type of material is in God's Word.

Minuscule 4
Minuscule 4 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“Minuscule 4 (Gregory-Aland), ε 371 (Soden),[1] is a Greek minuscule manuscript of the New Testament, on 212 parchment leaves (18.5 cm by 14.3 cm), dated palaeographically to the 13th century.[2] Formerly it was named Codex Regius 84.[3] It has full marginalia. It was adapted for liturgical use.”
“The codex contains almost complete text of the four Gospels with four lacunae (Matthew 2:9-20; Mark 15:42-16:14; John 1:1-13.49-3:11). The text is written in one column per page, 26-28 lines per page.[2]”
Note* “A lacuna[Note 1] is a gap in a manuscript, inscription, text, painting, or a musical work. A manuscript, text, or section suffering from gaps is said to be lacunose (or lacunulose).” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lacuna_(manuscripts))

Minuscule 5
Minuscule 5 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“Minuscule 5 (in the Gregory-Aland numbering), δ 453 (Soden).[1] It is a Greek minuscule manuscript of theNew Testament, on 342 parchment leaves (21 cm by 15.5 cm), dated palaeographically to the 13th century.[2] It has marginalia.”
"The codex contains entire of the New Testament except the Book of Revelation. The order of books: Gospels, Acts, Catholic epistles, Pauline epistles; Hebrews placed before 1 Timothy, Colossians precede Philippians. The text is written in one column per page, 28 lines per page.[2]”
Marginalia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“Marginalia (or apostil) are scribbles, comments and illuminations in the margins of a book.”

Minuscule 6
Minuscule 6 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“Minuscule 6 (in the Gregory-Aland numbering), δ 356 (Soden).[1] It is a Greek minuscule manuscript of theNew Testament, on 235 parchment leaves (14.4 cm by 10.5 cm), dated palaeographically to the 13th century.[2] The manuscript has complex contents and full marginalia. It was adapted for liturgical use.”
“The codex contains entire of the New Testament except the Book of Revelation (Catholic epistles placed before Pauline epistles) with some lacunae. The text is written in one column per page, 29-47 lines per page.[2] It is written in elegant small letters.[3]”

Minuscule 2817
Minuscule 2817 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“Minuscule 2817 (in the Gregory-Aland numbering), α 287 (von Soden). Formerly it was labeled as 7pK in all catalogs, but it was renumbered by Gregory, because two manuscripts had number 7 (7e and 7p). It is a Greek minuscule manuscript of the New Testament, dated palaeographically to the 12th century.”
“The codex contains the text of the Pauline epistles, on 387 parchment pages with only one lacunae. Manuscript ends on Hebr 12:18. It is written in one column per page, 28-32 lines per page.[1] The text is written on a parchment in minuscule. It contains notes and glosses.”

Minuscule 8
Minuscule 8 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“Minuscule 8 (in the Gregory-Aland numbering), ε 164 (von Soden),[1] is a Greek minuscule manuscript of the New Testament on parchment. It is dated palaeographically to the 11th century. The manuscript has complex contents.[2] It has complex contents and full marginalia.”
“The codex contains the complete text of the four Gospels, on 199 parchment leaves (28.7 cm by 21.8 cm). The text is written in two columns per page, 22 lines per page.[2]”

Minuscule 9
Minuscule 9 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“Minuscule 9 (in the Gregory-Aland numbering), ε 279 (Soden),[1] is a Greek minuscule manuscript of the New Testament, on parchment. Palaeographically it has been assigned to the 12th century, but according to the colophon it was written in 1167.[2]”
“The codex contains the complete text of the four Gospels, on 298 parchment leaves (23.5 cm by 17 cm). The text is written in one column per page, 20 lines per page, size of text has only 16.4 by 11 cm.[2]”

We can see by the above excerpts that Stephanus brought more manuscripts to the table, and in the same manner as Erasmus, God guided Stephanus through his editing process. The end result was a Greek text that was one more step in God's plan in bringing about the collation of a Greek manuscript that would be representative of the originals. A Greek manuscript that people around the world could use as the basis for translating into other languages, such as English.

Jack

Part 9


God is not done with His Greek text at this point. The next person we see God use is Theodore Beza.

Theodore Beza - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“Theodore Beza (Latin Theodorus Beza', French Théodore de Bèze or de Besze) (June 24, 1519 – October 13, 1605) was a French Protestant Christian theologian and scholar who played an important role in the Reformation. A member of the monarchomaque movement who opposed absolute monarchy, he was a disciple of John Calvin and lived most of his life in Switzerland.”
“Of no less importance are the contributions of Beza to Biblical scholarship. In 1565 he issued an edition of the Greek New Testament, accompanied in parallel columns by the text of the Vulgate and a translation of his own (already published as early as 1556). Annotations were added, also previously published, but now he greatly enriched and enlarged them.
In the preparation of this edition of the Greek text, but much more in the preparation of the second edition which he brought out in 1582, Beza may have availed himself of the help of two very valuable manuscripts. One is known as the Codex Bezae or Cantabrigensis, and was later presented by Beza to the University of Cambridge; the second is the Codex Claromontanus, which Beza had found in Clermont (now in the National Library at Paris).
It was not, however, to these sources that Beza was chiefly indebted, but rather to the previous edition of the eminent Robert Estienne (1550), itself based in great measure upon one of the later editions of Erasmus. Beza's labors in this direction were exceedingly helpful to those who came after. The same thing may be asserted with equal truth of his Latin version and of the copious notes with which it was accompanied. The former is said to have been published over a hundred times.”

Notice that Beza in producing his Greek text, based his work on the Greek text of Robert Estienne (Stephanus), who based his Greek text on the Greek text of Erasmus. Once again, God uses another man who is submitted to him, to bring the Greek text one step closer to a perfect representation of the originals.

We now move to the two people who gave us the term “Textus Receptus”. Note: These two names are not part of the lineage of the King James Bible, however, they 'coined' a 'name' that would be forever 'attached' to the King James. The second edition of the Elzevir Greek New Testament from which the name “Textus Receptus” originated, came AFTER the KJV was already published, but the title refers to the entire body of Greek texts that stand behind the King James Bible.

Textus Receptus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“The origin of the term Textus Receptus comes from the publisher's preface to the 1633 edition produced by Bonaventure and his nephew Abraham Elzevir who were partners in a printing business at Leiden. The preface reads, Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum: in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus, translated as, "so you hold the text, now received by all, in which (is) nothing corrupt." The two words textumand receptum were modified from the accusative to the nominative case to render textus receptus. Over time, this term has been retroactively applied to Erasmus' editions, as his work served as the basis of the others.[10]”

Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir
House of Elzevir - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“An edition of Eutropius, which appeared in 1592, was long regarded as the earliest Elzevir publication, but the first is now known to be Drusii Ebraicarum quaestionum ac responsionum libri duo, which was produced in 1583. In all Louis published about 150 works. He died on 4 February 1617. Of his seven sons, five, Matthieu/Matthijs, Louis, Gilles, Joost and Bonaventura, adopted their father's profession. Among them Bonaventura Elzevir (1583–1652) is the most celebrated. He began business as a publisher in 1608, and in 1626 took into partnership Abraham Elzevir, a son of Matthijs, born at Leiden in 1592. In 1617 Isaac Elzevir (1596–1651), Matthijs' second son, was the first in the family to acquire printing equipment, which then passed into the hands of the partnership of Bonaventura and Abraham in 1626 when he decided to exit the business. Abraham died on 14 August 1652, and Bonaventura about a month afterwards.”

The Elzevir's were a family of publishers in the late 1500's and 1600's. As seen in the excerpt above, Bonaventure was one seven sons of Louis Elzevir who died in 1617. Bonaventura's brother Matthijs, had a son named Abraham, who joined in a partnership with him in the family business.

“The fame of the Elzevir editions rests chiefly on the works issued by the firm of Bonaventure and Abraham. Their Greek and Hebrew impressions are considered inferior to those of the Aldines and the Estiennes, but their small editions in 12mo, 16mo and 24mo, for elegance of design, neatness, clearness and regularity of type, and beauty of paper, cannot be surpassed. Special mention ought to be made of the two editions of the New Testament in Greek, published in 1624 and 1633, of which the latter is the more beautiful and the more sought after; the Psalterium Davidis, 1653; Virgilii opera, 1636; Terentii comediae, 1635; but the works that gave their press its chief celebrity are their collection of French authors on history and politics in 24mo, known under the name of the Pelites Republiques, and their series of Latin, French and Italian classics in small 12mo. Also, they are noted for their publication in 1638 of Galileo's last work, the Two New Sciences, at a time when the Inquisition forbade the latter's writings.”

It is interesting that in this article it states, “Special mention ought to be made of the two editions of the New Testament in Greek, published in 1624 and 1633, of which the latter is the more beautiful and the more sought after; the Psalterium Davidis, 1653; Virgilii opera, 1636; Terentii comediae, 1635; but the works that gave their press its chief celebrity are their collection of French authors on history and politics in 24mo, known under the name of the Pelites Republiques, and their series of Latin, French and Italian classics in small 12mo.”

I'm glad they thought that the Elzevir's Greek New Testament was worthy of “special mention”.

Jack

Part 10


In this installment we will examine false allegations about how the King James Bible came into being. In 1604 there was a conference at Hampton Court, between King James, the Puritans, and the Bishops. One of the issues brought before King James was the publishing of a new English Bible, remember, while the Reformers were happy with the Geneva Bible, the Church of England was not. I have been told, “These scholars were all commited to the "via media" of the Anglican Church, and if that were not enough, they were under direct political pressure to produce a Bible translation just as hybrid and compromised as the head of the Anglican Church, which has never been Jesus the Christ, but rather the King or Queen of England. Can we please remember the KJV included the RC Apocrypha”? But can these 'accusations' be substantiated?

1) These scholars were all commited to the "via media" of the Anglican Church
The phrase “via media” is Latin, and means, “the middle road”. It usually means one of two things: 1) It represents (what is supposed to be a positive) the view that is inclusive of all sides … Kind of like the color “purple” in politics, in lieu of red or blue; or 2) It represents (in the negative) a compromise of two opposing views. This is the intention here, as discussed in Installment #7. What does the evidence show? As discussed in Installment #7, the only real issue of controversy was the one of “governmental procedure”. So then, this accusation of “via media” is claiming that anything other than complete compliance with Presbyterianism would be the compromise of “via media”. The problem here, is that not everyone in Christendom adheres to Presbyterian polity. Just for the record, Presbyterianism is only one of several types of polity in Christendom. To claim that one who does not share your particular view of “governmental polity” as 'via media”, could easily be considered “religious bigotry”.

2) they were under direct political pressure to produce a Bible translation just as hybrid and compromised as the head of the Anglican Church

History of the King James Version
“Arrangements for this version were completed by the appointment of fifty-four learned men, who were also to secure the suggestions of all competent persons, that, as the king put it, "our said translation may have the help and furtherance of all our principal learned men within this our kingdom." This attitude of the king, the removal of their first suspicions, and the undoubted merits of the case, brought about a hearty acquiescence on the part of those who had at first opposed the movement. His Majesty's instructions to the translators were these:
INSTRUCTIONS TO THE TRANSLATORS.

The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit.
The names of the prophets and the holy writers, with the other names in the text, to be retained, as near as may be, accordingly as they are vulgarly used.
The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, as the word church, not to be translated congregation.
When any word hath divers significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most eminent fathers, being agreeable to the propriety of the place and the analogies of faith.
The division of chapters to be altered either not at all, or as little as may be, if necessity so require.
No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot, without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed, in the text.
Such quotations of places to be marginally set down as shall serve for the fit reference of one Scripture to another.
Every particular man of each company to take the same chapter or chapters; and, having translated or amended them severally by himself where he thinks good, all to meet together to confirm what they have done, and agree for their part what shall stand.
As any one company hath dispatched any one book in this manner, they shall send it to the rest, to be considered of seriously and judiciously; for his Majesty is very careful on this point.
If any company, upon the review of the book so sent, shall doubt or differ upon any places, to send them word thereof, to note the places, and therewithal to send their reasons; to which if they consent not, the difference to be compounded at the general meeting, which is to be of the chief persons of each company, at the end of the work.
When any place of special obscurity is doubted of, letters to be directed by authority to send to any learned man in the land for his judgment of such a place.
Letters to be sent from every bishop to the rest of his clergy, admonishing them of this translation in hand, and to move and charge as many as, being skillful in the tongues, have taken pains in that kind, to send their particular observations to the company, either at Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford, according as it was directed before in the king's letter to the archbishop.
The directors in each company to be the Deans of Westminster and Chester, for Westminster, and the king's professors in Hebrew and Greek in the two universities.
These translations to be used, when they agree better with the text than the Bishops' Bible: Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's [Rogers'], Whitchurch's [Cranmer's], Geneva."
By a later rule, "three or four of the most ancient and grave divines, in either of the universities, not employed in translating, to be assigned to be overseers of the translation, for the better observation of the fourth rule."”
The above excerpt begins by a paragraph that is supported by the 11th rule seen above: “When any place of special obscurity is doubted of, letters to be directed by authority to send to any learned man in the land for his judgment of such a place.” I would say that it is hard to accuse the translators of being under political pressure, (that is, when the above rules were in place). By the way, I have offered these rules in former discussions concerning the development of the King James Bible, but my opponents always pretend they can't read. (I would hate to think they were simply ignoring established facts.)

3) which has never been Jesus the Christ, but rather the King or Queen of England.

Acts of Supremacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“Elizabeth declared herself Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and instituted an Oath of Supremacy, requiring anyone taking public or church office to swear allegiance to the monarch as head of the church established rules of the Church of England unless their actions directly undermined the authority of the English monarch, as was the case in the vestments controversy.”

The above excerpt is the most important sentence in the article which defines the “Act of Supremacy”. The key part of the sentence (as for as I am concerned) is, “ head of the church established rules”. This “Act” did not make the monarch “God”.

The problem of course here is the insinuation that monarchies are evil, and against God. The only problem with this ideology is that God Himself set up the Monarchy of Israel:
2 Samuel 7: 1 And it came to pass, when the king sat in his house, and the Lord had given him rest round about from all his enemies; 2 that the king said unto Nathan the prophet, See now, I dwell in an house of cedar, but the ark of God dwelleth within curtains. 3 And Nathan said to the king, Go, do all that is in thine heart; for the Lord is with thee. 4 And it came to pass that night, that the word of the Lord came unto Nathan, saying, 5 Go and tell my servant David, Thus saith the Lord, Shalt thou build me an house for me to dwell in? 6 Whereas I have not dwelt in anyhouse since the time that I brought up the children of Israel out of Egypt, even to this day, but have walked in a tent and in a tabernacle. 7 In all the places wherein I have walked with all the children of Israel spake I a word with any of the tribes of Israel, whom I commanded to feed my people Israel, saying, Why build ye not me an house of cedar? 8 Now therefore so shalt thou say unto my servant David, Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I took thee from the sheepcote, from following the sheep, to be ruler over my people, over Israel: 9 and I was with thee whithersoever thou wentest, and have cut off all thine enemies out of thy sight, and have made thee a great name, like unto the name of the great men that are in the earth. 10 Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as beforetime, 11 and as since the time that I commanded judges to be over my people Israel, and have caused thee to rest from all thine enemies. Also the Lord telleth thee that he will make thee an house. 12 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever. 14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: 15 but my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. 16 And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.”

Just for the record, David was not anointed to be king of Israel once; he was anointed three times. The first time was in private, when Samuel chose him from among his brethren. (1 Samuel 16: 1-13) The second time was after King Saul's death when the tribe of Judah anointed him king. (2 Samuel 2: 4) The third time was when all Israel came to Hebron to anoint him king. (2 Samuel 5: 3)

My point is that a “monarchy” in and of itself is not wicked. When the monarch is wicked, the kingdom suffers; however, when the monarch is holy, and in submission to God, the kingdom receives the blessings of God. We must always remember, “Don't throw out the baby with the bath water”!

4) Can we please remember the KJV included the RC Apocrypha?

Yes, the 1611 KJV included the RC Apocrypha. Why? Because the translators believed that the Apocrypha does have a certain amount of historical value. However, the Apocrypha was not 'woven' throughout the OT as in the RC Bible, rather, it was placed SEPARATELY between the Old, and New Testaments. Additionally, the name, Apocrypha itself shows these writings are NOT scripture. Furthermore, after realizing that including the Apocrypha was not the best decision, it was removed from the last edition of the King James Bible.

Apocrypha - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“Apocrypha are statements or claims that are of dubious authenticity. The word's origin is the medieval Latin adjective apocryphus, "secret, or non-canonical", from the Greek adjective ἀπόκρυφος (apocryphos), "obscure", from verb ἀποκρύπτειν (apocryptein), "to hide away".[1]”

Back to how we actually got the King James Bible.

The King granted the petition, and work began.

Jack

Part 11


We will now consider the sources used by the King James translators in making the King James Bible.

The King James Version of the Bible

“The Sources Used In Translating

Original Languages

The particular English of this version is also due to the fact that the King James Version is at the same time both a new translation and a revision of previous translations. It is indeed a new translation which goes back to the original languages. The translators had editions of both the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament available to them. Miles Smith writes,If you ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the New. The age in which they lived was bursting with knowledge. Since the fall of Constantinople (1453), the West had been flooded with scholars and knowledge had increased tremendously. There was renewed interest in the ancient tongues and as a result the originals were there for them to use.
The Hebrew text had been remarkably preserved by God. At the time the translators were ready to begin their work, they had no less than ten printed editions of the Hebrew Old Testament available to them. There was the Complutensian Polyglot of Cardinal Ximenes published in 1517 which contained the Hebrew text (the fifth complete O. T.) as well as the Latin Vulgateand the Greek Septuagint translations of it. They had four editions by Daniel Bomberg (1516-17, 1516-17, 1521, 1525-28). The last of these was popular with the Reformers. The standard edition was considered to be that of Jacob ben Chayim-the Second Rabbinic Bible. Besides these, there was the Antwerp Polyglot (1572) with the Hebrew text of Arius Montanus and the Latin interlinear translation of Pagninus.
The Greek text was readily available in the Complutensian Polyglot (1514), the five editions of Erasmus (1516-1535), the four editions of Robert Stephanus (1546-1551), and the ten editions of Theodore Beza (1560-1598). They also consulted the editions of Aldus (1518), Colinaeus (1534), and Plantin (1572).
There can be no doubt, therefore, that the King James Version translators went back to the primary sources. Thus they could ask the reader, If truth be (is) to be tried by these tongues (the originals) then whence should a translation be made, but out of them. They recognized the fact that the final authorities in this work were the Hebrew and the Greek texts.
Previous Translations

Yet the King James Version is not a totally new work. In terms of literary units-phrases and clauses-the King James Version is about thirty nine percent new translation. Sixty one percent of the phrases are taken over from older English versions. In fact, the King James Version can be considered the fifth revision of the work of William Tyndale who first translated the New Testament into English from the Greek. Before Tyndale there was the translation (1380) of John Wycliffe (An English Reformer often called the Morning Star of the Reformation) and the translation of John Purvey (A Colleague of Wycliffe), but they were translated from the Latin Bible. Tyndale was the first to go back to the original languages.
The first revision of Tyndale was done by John Rogers (Rector of a London church and later chaplain to the English merchants in Antwerp) and is called the Matthew's Bible (1537). Under the auspices of Thomas Cromwell, Myles Coverdale (Tyndale's assistant) revised the Matthew's Bible to produce the Great Bible (1539). In 1560 the Protestants in exile at Geneva produced the Geneva Bible which was the third revision of Tyndale. Finally in 1568 the English bishops prepared what is known as the Bishops' Bible, which was the version from which the translators were to make their revisions, according to the command of King James.
In actuality they used all of these versions plus many other translations such as the German and French Bibles as well as many commentaries such as Calvin's and Beza's. In their own words, Neither did we think much to consult the translators or commentaries, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch (German)... Of all the English versions used, more of the phrases and clauses found in the King James Version come form the Geneva Bible than any other-about 19 percent. While it is said that five sixths to nine tenths of the general literary style comes from the translation of William Tyndale.”

47 of the greatest scholars of the original languages of the Bible agreed on every word of the King James Bible. As one can see by the above excerpt, 83% - 90% (5/6th to 9/10ths) of the King James Bible came from the translation of William Tyndale,

The 47 scholars were divided into six companies, two to meet at Cambridge, to meet at Oxford, and two to meet at Westminster. After each company translated its portion of the Bible, it was passed to the next company to be translated. Each company translated each portion in this manner, until all portions of the scripture had been translated, by all of the six companies. Finally, the heads of each company, along with another selected member of each team, went over the entire Bible, one more time. The end result was an English Bible that God would use to bring revivals, and a great awakening, such as had not been seen since the days of the Apostles.

Who were these “scholars”?

History of the King James Version

“A few of the principal men among those learned translators were these:
Dr. Launcelot Andrewes, Dean of Westminster, presided over the Westminster company. Fuller says of him: "The world wanted learning to know how learned this man was, so skilled in all (especially Oriental) languages, that some conceive he might, if then living, almost have served as an interpreter-general at the confusion of tongues." He became successively Bishop of Chichester, Ely and Winchester. Born 1555, died 1626.
Dr. Edward Lively, Regius Professor of Hebrew at Cambridge, and thus at the head of the Cambridge company, was eminent for his knowledge of Oriental languages, especially of Hebrew. He died in 1605, having been Professor of Hebrew for twenty-five years. His death was a great loss to the work which he had helped to begin, but not to complete.
Dr. John Overall was made Professor of Divinity at Cambridge in 1596, and in 1604 was Dean of St. Paul's, London. He was considered by some the most scholarly divine in England. In 1614 he was made Bishop of Litchfield and Coventry. He was transferred to the See of Norwich in 1618. Born 1559, died 1619.
Dr. Adrian de Saravia is said to have been the only foreigner employed on the work. He was born in Artois, France; his Father was a Spaniard, and his mother a Belgian. In 1582 he was Professor of Divinity at Leyden; in 1587 he came to England. He became Prebend of Canterbury, and afterward Canon of Westminster. He was noted for his knowledge of Hebrew. Born 1531, died 1612.
William Bedwell, or Beadwell, was one of the greatest Arabic scholars of his day. At his death he left unfinished MSS. of an Arabic Lexicon, and also of a Persian Dictionary.
Dr. Laurence Chadderton was for thirty-eight years Master of Emanuel College, Cambridge, and well versed in Rabbinical learning. He was one of the few Puritan divines among the translators. Born 1537; died 1640, at the advanced age of one hundred and three.
Dr. John Reynolds, who first suggested the work, was a man of great attainments in Hebrew and Greek. He died before the revision was completed, but worked at it during his last sickness as long as his strength permitted. Born 1549, died 1607.
Dr. Richard Kilbye, Oxford Professor of Hebrew, was reckoned among the first Hebraists of his day. Died 1620.
Dr. Miles Smith was a student of classic authors from his youth, was well acquainted with the Rabbinical learning, and well versed in Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac and Arabic. He was often called a "walking library." Born about 1568, died 1624.
John Boyse, or Bois, at six years of age could write Hebrew elegantly. He was for twelve years chief lecturer in Greek at St. John's College, Cambridge. Bishop Andrewes, of Ely, made him a prebend in his church in 1615. He was one of the most laborious of all the revisers. Born 1560, died 1643.
Sir Henry Saville was warden of Merton College, Oxford, for thirty-six years. He devoted his fortune to the encouragement of learning, and was himself a fine Greek scholar. Born 1549, died 1622.
Dr. Thomas Holland was Regius Professor of Divinity in Exeter College, Oxford, and also Master of his college. He was considered a prodigy in all branches of literature. Born 1539, died 1612.”

I often hear that the men involved with the bringing about of the King James (from Erasmus to the translators of the King James itself), did the best they could, with what they had. A statement that insinuates that either the manuscripts they had available were of a lessor quality, or that their knowledge of the Biblical languages was somewhat less than that of the scholars today. I do not believe either of the above statements are true, in any way, shape, or form. When one takes time to study textual criticism, and German rationalism, (which was its for-runner), it does not take very long to see how Satan has been very successful in the destruction of the words of God, via, modern versions of the Bible. Take time to examine the evidence with an open mind, and heart; the results may surprise you.


Jack

Here is one of the better debates on the issue:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbQLAavs7Hw

Jack, on what grounds do you criticize the Catholic church's mistranslations, etc, in the Latin Vulgate of the Medieval Period that Erasmus later corrected by comparing against the Greek? I thought you were arguing that it made no sense for God to allow such mistakes to be allowed by the Spirit since He preserves the Word for all generations of man.

Examples: "penance" instead of "repentance", Mary as FULL of Grace rather than as having found favor by God, etc.


Another hypocritical argument I have seen KJV only persons make is that Mormons and Muslims are incorrect that the Bible has been corrupted, because Scripture says that the Scriptures are supernaturally preserved. And yet we see cases now where the new modern translations are considered by KJV only adherents to be corrupted. Couldn't the modern translations use of the other, older text be a Spirit directed act of preserving the Scriptures from past corruptions?

I apologize if you answered this previously, but I did not have time to go through all of your posts. These are just some thoughts I had based on reading a few of your comments and from hearing other KJV only proponents.