A quote from the translators of the 1611 Authorized Version delineates several of the quandaries facing any translator of God’s Word, “… that out of the Original Sacred Tongues, together with comparing of the labors, both in our own, and other foreign Languages of many worthy men who went before us, there should be one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English Tongue; …” The key issues in determining the value of any translation were:
· method: formal or dynamic. They understood the need to preserve God’s inspired word (“more exact Translation;” Rev 3:8, 10).
· manuscripts: preserved or reconstructed. They were careful to use “preserved” texts [“Original Sacred Tongues” (Hebrew and Greek, universally accepted as inspired and preserved by God, Psalm 12:7)] which recorded God’s inspired word. But they also compared them with “other foreign Languages.”
· Apocrypha: inspired or impaired. They understood the difference between inspired scripture (inerrant) and historical documents (flawed, e.g. Apocrypha).
· men: saints or sinners. They understood some men work under false pretenses (Phil 1:15-16, fame or fortune) but they were continued the work of other “worthy men.”
· messengers: martyrs or merchants. They understood the cost of serving God. Many people (translators, printers and copiers, carriers, those who owned their Bibles) were martyred because of their involvement in translating God’s Word into English. No other English translation has cost its adherents so dear a price.
“God is not a God of chance, or a God of chaos, but a God of order (1 Corinthians 14:33), who has used men to order the books of the Bible just as he wishes. Am I saying that the book order in the Bible is inspired? No. Certainly not in the same sense that he breathed (inspired, 2 Timothy 3:16) his words into the human authors of scripture. I am contending that God has never lost control of his words, nor any part of the historical process that has delivered these words to us today. God is the author of the Bible, but he employed human beings as his writing instruments. These men were not robots, or God’s dictaphone, but God used their background, personality, style, and experience to say exactly word-for-word what he wanted to say. That unfathomable paradox—the Heavenly Author directing each and every word of the human authors—is the great mystery of the inspiration of scripture (2 Peter 1:19-21). It should be no stretch of faith to believe that a God, who is so powerful and so concerned to faithfully communicate his words to men, would likewise divinely supervise their transfer from ancient times to the present. Why would God deliver his word to men, then not preserve it into our present age? I believe that God has controlled every step along the way in transmitting his inspired words from the 1st to 21st century, including the order of the books in the Bible.” – Jeff Adams, Job: Adventures in the Land of Uz
Method: formal or dynamic[]
God’s message is not given by some mystical method but by words.[i] God has specifically chosen language as the mode for communicating what he wants you to know. Scripture makes plain that the Word of God is a detailed message communicated by individual words, not mere concepts.[ii] Jesus himself said not one jot or one tittle will “pass from the law till all be fulfilled” (Matthew 5:18).[iii] It has become fashionable to promote the idea that Scripture conveys information primarily through concepts rather than words. But you must understand that the basic building blocks for expressing thoughts are individual words. And without the precision of those words the thoughts and intent of the author cannot be reliably determined. This, in part, explains the emphasis in Scripture on the very words themselves (as shown by the reliance of Jesus on grammatical subtleties in his arguments using the Scriptures).[iv] The importance of the individual words of Scripture is also illustrated by the dire warning given to those who would add or remove words from the prophetic book given to John (Rev 22:18).
This is the central issue as to which translation is God’s word. The only true, God-given translation (preservation, Psalm 12:7) is one which uses formal equivalence (the exact meaning of the individual words is preserved as closely as possible). Unfortunately, most English translations (and probably all other languages as well) other than the Authorized Version (AV) involve some interpretation (not just translation) by the translators, and most translations are more interpretive than others. It is these ‘interpretive’ translations (which employ thought-for-thought dynamic equivalence) which must be avoided. Therefore, the issue is clear: did the ‘translators’ stick to translating words [formal equivalence] or try to interpret the meaning [dynamic equivalence], thus hijacking the holy Spirit’s role?
What is particularly damning about dynamic equivalence is that ambiguity in the text is diminished or eliminated by the interpretive decisions of the thought-for-thought translators. In reality, they are performing both translation and interpretation (the holy Spirit’s role). It is the latter which must be avoided. Thus, translators have to decide, “What am I going to do with ambiguity in the text?” If the Greek or Hebrew isn’t clear (and can mean several different things), what is their modus operandi? The AV translators answer that question, “Leave it alone. If we can reproduce in English the same ambiguity that is present in the original languages, then we will leave it that way. We will not make up the reader’s mind.” On the other hand, English ‘interpretations’ try to eliminate ambiguity by interpreting the meaning for you.
Another error is translating the Hebrew and Greek into modern slang and idiomatic English expressions whereas the AV was “as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek.” The problem with Anglicization is that it ignores verbal inspiration. The form in which God gave his word is important (2Tim 1:13). It should be preserved as much as possible in translation rather than pandering to modern English usage, which in turn produces the need for new ‘translations’ (interpretations) periodically (Bible of the month club?) to ‘update’ the language.
The purpose of translation is to communicate facts from one language in another language so the receiver can understand the message. In the past (such as the AV), the communication was an information transfer. But in modern ‘translations’ it is seen as a process that takes into account the target culture. Thus, the message is not static (absolute) but relative to the culture being addressed. This is the same tactic used by Satan beginning in Genesis 3:1, “Yea, hath God said, …” The wise reader will see how this parallels modern morality in what is called situational ethics: “There is no absolute truth. What’s right for you may not be right for me.” Fortunately, the AV translators avoided this error, which preserved the doctrinal and dispensational teachings of the scripture.
Modern translators deny God’s ability to convey perfect, eternal truth through flawed, human beings and their languages. Although human language is presently imperfect (since the tower of Babel—Gen 11:19, and until he restores it—Zeph 3:9), God’s word isn’t subject to the limitations of human language and culture. God can overcome them by using words in a way that is self-defining, self-‘commentating,’ and most of all, self-sufficient. All you need to do is study the context of God’s words, both narrow (the immediate verse, sentence, paragraph, chapter and book its in) and broad (the overall teaching in the rest of the Bible).
One helpful tip is that the only reliable translation for serious study (as opposed to devotional reading) is one which uses italicized words (which indicate words added by the translators for clarity of reading, but for which no corresponding words are in the original text). These words indicate formal equivalence was used. This also helps the diligent student know when he is standing on ‘solid ground’ (words not in italics) or ‘thin ice’ (italicized words).[v]
Manuscripts: preserved or reconstructed[]
In addition to the debate about which method to use in translating (formal or equivalent), there are also contradictory opinions about whether to rely on the most ancient manuscripts (such as the Dead Sea Scrolls) or the ones accepted through the ages by the priesthood of believers (Church). Textual criticism is the attempt to determine which Hebrew and Greek texts give an accurate rendering of the original manuscript. Not surprisingly, there are two opposing philosophies:
1. traditional: The true text wasn’t lost but faithfully preserved by the priesthood of believers (Jewish scribes, Church) down through the ages. This method only seeks to find what God has preserved.
2. modern: The true text was lost and corrupted early. This “pick and choose” method uses many sources. It isn’t an inductive, scientific method but rather is based on the subjective bias of the translators.
For example, on page 480 of the UBS3 text, Acts 16:6-13 is printed on the top half of the page. On the bottom half of the page (below the “line of despair”), are listed the places where there were various readings in the Greek MSS. After each verse number in which there is a possible variation is listed the reading chosen by the translators, followed by the MS evidence for their choice, and then a listing of the variations they had to choose from (with the respective evidence for each). Each variation is given a letter value (e.g. A = fairly certain, down to D = anybody’s guess). Acts 16:12 contains a superscript “2,” which indicates there are variations. But, when you check below, you see it is a D reading. If you keep looking to the right, instead of finding the MS evidence they used, there is a “cj” (conjecture) in italics. That means they made it up (making them the authority, not God)! In other words, there isn’t a single manuscript that supports their “private translation” (2 Peter 1:20).
The alternatives for Christians are NOT between the AV and other translations (NIV, RSV, ASV, NASB, Living Bible, Amplified Bible, etc.) but between God’s preserved text and the UBS3reconstructed text (which all modern translations use). It’s the difference between passionately keeping God’s word (Rev 3:10) and being lukewarm (vs. 16). Thus, the only conclusion for Christians is that the text of the Bible was supernaturally preserved uncorrupted (and used by Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, the Elzevir brothers), not reconstructed (by Westcott, Hort, Metzger, Aland, Black, Martini, and Wikgren). The latter approach clearly violates God’s warning against adding to (as shown above) and subtracting from his word (Deuteronomy 4:2, Revelation 22:18).
The O.T. Hebrew text has been preserved (uncorrupted) in the Masoretic text. Fortunately, there is very little debate as to its authenticity and accuracy. Unfortunately, the N.T. Greek text (Textus Receptus, to which 95% of the manuscripts agree) is not universally recognized as authoritative. But this is the text used by the AV translators (unlike most other modern language versions). But, when the last person who spoke Koine Greek died, it became a dead language. In its place, another universal language (like Greek was in the Gospels) has supplanted it—English (used in every international setting: airport towers and pilots, United Nations, many government documents, etc.). Thus, if the AV is not the inerrant word of God, then there wasn’t one until 270 years later when modern ‘translations’ appeared.
The AV translation (at the behest of King James I of England, 1566-1625) went through a purification process as prescribed in Psalm 12:6–7, “The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified_______________.[i] Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt _______________[ii] them from this generation for ever.” This is clearly seen in the 1611 AV (which no other language has):
1526 Tyndale Bible
1535 Coverdale Bible
1537 Matthew’s Bible
1539 Coverdale’s Great Bible
1560 Geneva Bible
1568 Bishop’s Bible
1611 King James Bible
(Wycliffe’s Bible isn’t included since it was translated from Jerome’s Latin Vulgate which was based on corrupt manuscripts.)
One criticism of the 1611 Authorized version is that it’s been ‘updated’ several times (the last being 1769) so it’s not really the 1611 version. But in reality, only minor changes were made in spelling (sope/soap, heauen/heaven, Dauid/David, Mofef/Moses, etc.) and grammar, not the message or meaning.
Apocrypha: inspired or impaired[]
In order to be included in the official canon of scripture (“a straight rod used for measuring,” e.g. the accepted standard), there were at least four criteria:
· origin: It had to come directly or indirectly from an apostle (including James and Jude, the brothers of Jesus; Mark, who recorded Peter’s account; Paul, who saw the risen Lord and was taught by revelation).
· time: They had to written during the apostolic age (language and time were critical).
· usage: It was used in the churches (confirming it was approved by God).
· inspiration: The content must agree with the doctrines about Jesus (intrinsic) and edify the saints (subjective).
So, what about the Apocrypha (“hidden” or “secretive writings”)? It is fourteen books sometimes inserted between the Old and New Testaments. They were written in the 3rd to 1st centuries B.C. after prophecy, oracles, and direct revelation from God had ceased (between Malachi and Matthew). The authors are generally unknown.
It wasn’t included in the Hebrew O.T. (the Jews didn’t consider them scripture) but they were included in the Septuagint (the corrupt Greek translation of the O.T., earliest copy in 350 A.D.). Neither were they accepted by the early Church as inspired. It wasn’t until the Council of Trent (1546 A.D.) that the Roman Catholic Church declared them to be scriptural (contrary to God’s witness through the Jews and Christians). It was included between the Testaments in every English Bible printed until about 1820 (by non-Catholics), but they were only seen as documents which illustrated the customs, manners, language, historical events and opinions of the East. Several factors validate their rejection as scripture:
· none were included in the canon in the first four centuries of the Church
· they contain contradictory statements and doctrines, both internally[i] and with scripture
· they teach lying, suicide, assassination and the use of magic
· none are written in Hebrew
· none of the writers claimed to be inspired
· none were acknowledged as scripture by the Jews
· none were ever quoted in the N.T. (Luke 24:44)
Men: saints or sinners[]
Initially, the N.T. was transmitted by the holy Spirit (John 16:13–14), “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all ________:[i] for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall ________,[ii] that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of __________,[iii] and shall shew it unto you.” But God had a more reliable method (2 Peter 1:16–20), “For we have not followed cunningly devised ____________,[iv] when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were _________________[v] of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a __________[vi] [inspiration] to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of _________;[vii] whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the ________________[viii][preservation] is of any private interpretation. For the __________[ix] came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God __________[x] as they were moved by the Holy Ghost [inspiration].” Peter shows the three elements of God’s word in this passage (see Introduction): inspiration (given), preservation (recorded) and interpretation(received).
Subsequently, it was preserved by the priesthood of believers (Church) in the canon.[xi] Since most of the 1stcentury saints were Jewish converts, they exercised the same care toward preserving the N.T. that the Hebrew scribes (priests) had toward the O.T.[xii]
Similarly, the 52 men (17 at Westminster, 15 each at Oxford and Cambridge; plus five others who supplemented the work) in England who translated the 1611 Authorized Version were eminently qualified in every way. According to Alexander McClure (Translators Revived), “all the colleges of Great Britain and America, even in this proud day of boastings, could not bring together the same number of divines equally qualified by learning and piety for the great undertaking.” Additionally, King James ordered the bishops to locate any men of learning in their diocese’s and charge them to send suggestions and observations to the translators. Every Bible verse was first translated individually by each member, then reviewed by its own section, then by the whole company (Westminster, Cambridge, Oxford) and finally by a 12 member committee.
This highlights another problem with modern translations. Even though scholarship was in demand in the 19thcentury, there was an indifference regarding the spiritual qualifications of the translators. For example, the RV accepted anyone “eminent for scholarship, to whatever nation or religious body they belong” (including a Roman Catholic and Unitarian). Yikes!
Plus, only the AV’s adherents suffered persecution (Bloody Mary, Spanish Armada, Inquisition), which Satan intended to thwart their efforts.
Messengers: martyrs or merchants[]
The men who pioneered the English Bible’s translation (and those who copied, printed, transported, bought, sold or in any way supported it) were mercilessly persecuted, tortured and slain (as they are in some parts of the world today). No other English translation can make that claim. Why? Satan knows the AV is the single, most deadly weapon against him (similar to what Jesus demonstrated in his wilderness temptation). He will do anything to nullify it. Notice just a few of the evils perpetrated against them in Satan’s zeal to bury the word of God.
John Wycliffe[]
The Council of Constance declared Wycliffe a heretic on May 4 1415, and banned his writings. It also decreed his works should be burned. In 1428, at Pope Martin V‘s command, Wycliffe’s corpse was exhumed and burned and the ashes cast into the River Swift, which flows through Lutterworth.
William Tyndale[]
In 1535 AD, Tyndale was betrayed by Henry Phillips to the imperial authorities, seized in Antwerp and held in the castle of Vilvoorde near Brussels. He was tried for heresy in 1536 and condemned to be burned to death, despite Thomas Cromwell‘s intercession on his behalf. Tyndale “was strangled to death while tied at the stake, and then his dead body was burned.” His final words “at the stake with a fervent zeal, and a loud voice” were “Lord! Open the King of England’s eyes.” Within four years, at the same king’s command, four English translations of the Bible were published in England (all based on Tyndale’s work), including Matthew Henry’s Great Bible.
John Rogers[]
On August 16, 1553, John Rogers was summoned before the council and told to stay in his own house. In January 1554, Bonner, the new Bishop of London, sent him to Newgate Prison, where he lay for a year. On January 28 and 29 he came before the commission appointed by Cardinal Pole and was sentenced to death for heretically denying the Christian character of the Church of Rome and the real presence in the sacrament (transubstantiation). He was burned at the stake on February 4, 1555 at Smithfield.
Conclusion[]
One of Satan’s characteristics is his subtlety (Genesis 3:1). The following quote shows this in his attack on the Bible:
… the strong intellectual temptation of Greek philosophy began its subtle encroachment with the apex of Judaic defection realized under the Jewish scholar, Philo (20 B.C.-50 A.D.) [in Alexandria, Egypt]. With a ministry that spanned both Testaments, this ‘renegade son of Abraham’ established a theological school to promote the merger of Old Testament Judaism with Greek philosophy.” In a city that housed a library famous for its 700,000 scrolls, we can see that intellectualism was more important to the apostate Jews of this city than true Biblical spirituality[i] (2 Timothy 3:7 “Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth”).
The first “Christian” headmaster of this school was Pantaenus (about 150 A.D.). This school is where many Jews who were dispersed to Africa studied theology; however, Pantaenus mixed his brand of Christianity and Bible doctrine with pagan philosophy; therefore these professing Jews were in fact apostates—much like many of the Jews during the time of the Maccabees. … This school was continued by Clement of Alexandria (about 190-202 A.D.), and later brought into prominence by Origen, their most famous student. Origen, among his many false doctrines, denied the inspiration of the Scriptures, was responsible for the corruption of Biblical texts (specifically in the Alexandrian stream of texts), and allegorized/spiritualized the Bible. He has been referred to by some as the father of textual criticism, and we can see by his many changes and editing of the Biblical texts that he was the one to lay the foundation for modern Bible versions. It is also believed that before the time of Christ, the Greek Septuagint only contained the books of Moses—until Origen took and translated the rest of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek, according to his fanciful suppositions. “From this account we may at least derive as historical these facts: that the Pentateuch (for to it only the testimony refers) was translated into Greek, at the suggestion of Demetrius Phalareus, in the reign and under the patronage (if not by direction) of Ptolemy II. (Philadelphus).”[ii] In other words, this corrupt text that modern version editors and translators like to use and justify their corrections with was in fact not written until several hundred years after Christ. It is not reliable at all.
The Emperor Constantine commissioned Eusebius (who lived 270-340 AD), a church historian and follower of Origen, to make a Greek Bible for his realm—this Bible, of which 50 copies were made, was taken from Origen’s text. Many believe the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are two of the surviving copies of this Bible, and these two corrupt manuscripts are the primary sources that Westcott and Hort and other modern textual critics used to translate their modern Bible versions from. Jerome also used this Origen/Euse- bius text to produce his Catholic Latin Vulgate. It is not too difficult to see where this stream of texts has obtained its pollution, and how this corrupt stream has come down to us today.
Instead of reading the modern Bible versions, put together by those apostates who say they are Christians but are not, cling to the [only] English Bible that has stood the test of time—the King James Bible![iii]
One final note. The most prolific and extensive spread of the gospel and Christianity (other than during the book of Acts) came immediately on the heels of the AV’s printed publication (and coinciding with Great Britain’s imperial expansion—the only nation to embrace the AV). Rather than enhancing and furthering this work, other English ‘translations’ have only perverted, diluted and confused God’s message.
[i] William Grady, Final Authority, pg.74
[ii] Alfred Edersheim, The Life And Times Of Jesus The Messiah, Volume 1 Page 24
[iii] Jerry Bouey, Revelation, Chapter 2
[i] truth
[ii] hear
[iii] mine
[iv] fables
[v] eyewitnesses
[vi] voice
[vii] prophecy
[viii] scripture
[ix] prophecy
[x] spake
[xi] 2Cor 2:17
[xii] counted every letter, word, and verse when copying
[i] in the two books of Macabees, Antiochus Epiphanes dies three different ways at three different times
[i] seven times
[ii] preserve
[i] 1Tim 6:3, Acts 11:14, 1Cor 2:13
[ii] Josh 8:35; Jer 26:2; Matt 5:18; Luke 16:17; John 5:46; 17:8; Acts 24:14; Rom 3:2; 16:26; 1Cor 14:37; Rev 22:7, 22:18-19
[iii] A “jot” refers to the smallest Hebrew character: (י), yod. A “tittle” is the fraction of a pen stroke which distinguishes similar Hebrew characters: for example the tiny overhang in the upper right which distinguishes a dalet (ד) from a resh (ר). This tiny pen stroke distinguishes words which appear almost identical, but with meanings as different as “to stand” (אָמַד [ʾāmaḏ]) and “to speak” (אָמַר [ʾāmar]).
[iv] Matt 22:31, 22:42-45; John 10:35; Gal 3:16
[v] For example, if you search all the occurrences of the word “Israel” in the N.T., using the NIV translation, you find Eph 3:6 among the verses listed, “This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.” Yet in the Greek, the word “Israel” (Ισραηλ [Israēl] ) doesn’t appear! This may seem like an insignificant point, especially since in this particular verse the idea conveyed by the NIV seems correct. But over the long haul it is problematic to rely on a dynamic equivalency translation for study—you simply do not know when you are looking at a detail which is not present in the original.