Article:Commentary On The King James Bible Translators’ Preface by Scott Jones
From Textus Receptus
Translators’ Preface
It has been the fashion of critics of the Authorised Version to ignorantly take an out-of-context quotation from Miles Smith, the author of The Translators To The Reader, which is the Preface that appeared in the 1611 King James Bible, and attempt to use this out-of-context quotation to assert that the King James Bible translators would approve of just any old "bible," even though the translators themselves state in their Preface that they held certain principles to be inviolable with regard to biblical translation, and in his follow-up Miles Smith demonstrated in no uncertain terms that the Authorised Version translators did not consider any old "bible" to be legitimate. This follow-up by Miles Smith, after he defends the principle of translation in general by referring to the Septuagint and other translations, is simply devastating in its scope, for Smith quickly warms to his subject and thus proceeds to excoriate the Roman Catholic translators for doing precisely the same thing that modern translators do, as we'll see presently, an excoriation that goes unnoticed by the blind critics of the Authorised Version. In fact, one ignorant critic of proponents of the Authorised Version recently emailed me and asked --
- "Are the translators of the King James Bible in error in their preface when they state, ANY TRANSLATION, no matter how mean, is the Word of God?" (emphasis added)
In the first place, of course, the Preface states no such thing. Not even close. Here is the actual quotation by Miles Smith --
- "Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible IN ENGLISH, SET FORTH BY MEN OF OUR PROFESSION, (FOR WE HAVE SEEN NONE OF THEIRS OF THE WHOLE BIBLE AS YET) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God." Translators To The Reader (emphasis added)
Only someone who is mentally incompetent -- or a complete ignoramus of English grammar -- could fail to see the vast difference between the accuser's gross misquotation and the actual quotation made by Miles Smith. In fact, the QUALIFIERS added to the statement by Miles Smith literally leap out at anyone who understands plain English.
Moreover, it is clear to anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of this matter that Miles Smith is referring to the Douai-Rheims ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT here, which was published by the Roman Catholics in 1582, the Old Testament not appearing until some five or six years AFTER the King James Bible translators began their own work of translation, hence the reason for Smith's notation that they had "SEEN NONE OF THEIRS OF THE WHOLE BIBLE AS YET." It is equally clear to anyone with an ounce of common sense that Smith is making a notable distinction between his own group of translators and the Roman Catholic translators by the set-off -- men of our profession...none of theirs -- a distinction which he'll make much use of only a few short paragraphs later when he excoriates the Roman Catholic translators for engaging in precisely the same behavior that modern translators have engaged in.
Again, only someone who is mentally incompetent or wilfully blind could fail to notice this marked distinction.
Now, very briefly, before we get into the explicit statements of Miles Smith and thereby demonstrate IN CONTEXT how foolish the critics of the Authorised Version and its proponents are, let it first be known that even if the translators of the Authorised Version differed from us on this matter -- which they don't -- but even if they did, that would not alter the truth of the matter, that is, that modern "bible" translations are corrupt through and through, founded principally on two blasphemous manuscripts that are proven habitual liars. Nor would it alter the fact that the Authorised Version has not only been blessed by the Holy Spirit more than any other text in the history of the world, including the underlying Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, but that the Authorised Version is still God's only viable written Word in the English language today. This is the issue; all else is diversion.
You see, it matters not what the translators of the Authorised Version thought about the matter, nor how they saw themselves, even though, as we'll see, they saw themselves DIVINELY APPOINTED, but rather, what matters is God's blessing on their efforts. That is the ONLY criteria by which we are to judge -- a criteria of which the critics of the Authorised Version are blithely ignorant. Not only are God's blessings on the Authorised Version and the efforts of its translators undeniably favorable, but it is equally undeniable that God has NOT blessed modern English "bible" translations, not even REMOTELY so, and only a wilfully blind man could fail to notice this. Again, this is the issue.
Thus, whenever a critic of the Authorised Version ignorantly attempts to discredit the King James Bible by appealing to the position of the translators, he engages in both a logical and a spiritual disconnect and thereby demonstrates only his own feeble-mindedness, as well as revealing he doesn't have a clue as to the real issue with regard to bible translation and textual criticism.
For precedent on the feelings of the King James Bible translators, all I must do is refer to the Bible itself. Many men in the Bible saw themselves as useless instruments, and yet God employed them to fulfill his perfect will. The penmen of the New Testament, for example, were none of them infallible, and yet they produced an infallible text. A seeming paradox, but only for those who have not the Spirit, and who are therefore none of Christ's. Thus, those who attempt to discredit the proponents of the Authorised Version by appealing to the position of the translators are no different than the enemies of the penmen of the New Testament. They prosecute the same misguided, feeble-minded argument.
Moses stated he was not eloquent enough to be Jehovah's deliverer, and yet his eloquence in the Pentateuch has spoken to countless generations throughout time. David was the runt of the litter, a ruddy youth who couldn't bear the king's armor, and yet he became the greatest earthly king Israel has ever known. Time would fail me to talk of John the Baptist, or of Paul (who not only questioned who is sufficient for these things, but who doubtless didn't consider his letter to the Corinthians to be infallible, and yet God ordained it so) 1, or of so many, many others.
In short, the philosophical position of the translators of the Authorised Version is utterly irrelevant. All that matters is -- hath God spoken through them? And the answer to that is a resounding YES! The fact is, God has spoken through their production like no other production in the history of the world. That is the issue, as Jesus himself stated --
- "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." Matthew 7:20
This is a matter -- that is, FRUIT is a matter of which the critics of the Authorised Version are consistently and unregenerately blind. Conversely, ALL who are born of the Spirit recognize the FRUIT of the Authorised Version while simultaneously recognizing the FLESH and the CORRUPTION of modern English translations, and he who doesn't possess such a recognition is INFALLIBLY unregenerate. There are no exceptions.
Accordingly, had my accuser's ignorant misquotation been true, to wit, would the translators of the King James Bible have been in error had they stated "ANY TRANSLATION, no matter how mean, is the Word of God," the answer would be, YES! Had the translators made such a statement, or even implied such, they would most definitely have been in error, being fallible as they were. But they didn't make such a statement, nor did they imply it. In fact, they asserted nothing of the sort (which is why they added QUALIFIERS to their statement in the first place), an artifice that utterly escapes the ignorant, who clearly don't have a clue that the reason a QUALIFIER was employed by Miles Smith in this statement is precisely because he did NOT consider "ANY TRANSLATION" to be the Word of God. In other words, the QUALIFIER demonstrates the EXACT OPPOSITE of the accuser's ignorant misquotation, as anyone who understands basic English grammar knows.
So even though it matters not what the translators of the King James Bible felt about their own work, that their feelings about their translation were completely irrelevant, as we have shown, nevertheless, in order to leave no stone unturned, allow me to briefly DEMONSTRATE how the King James Bible translators truly felt about the matter. I'll do so by using their own words IN CONTEXT, which is another artifice our accusers are blithely ignorant of.
To begin with, it is doubtful that the translators of the Authorised Version considered the King James Bible they produced to be infallible, just as Paul doubtlessly didn't consider his letter to the Corinthians to be infallible. In fact, Paul, as well as the other writers of the New Testament, may very well not have considered anything they wrote to be infallible, but of course God overruled them. The only certain exception to this is John and the book of Revelation, wherein it is clear that John felt the book of Revelation, which he personally penned while experiencing the events he wrote about, to be infallible. Other than that, there is no clear indication of whether the penmen of the New Testament considered their work to be infallible or not. Based on their statements, and based on God's usual method of inspiration, it is doubtful that at the time they wrote their letters or gospels that they felt them to be infallible. 2
Well then, how did they see themselves? Generally speaking, the penmen of the New Testament saw themselves merely as weak, fallible, imperfect instruments, while at the same time recognizing the hand of God upon them in all that they did. Which is exactly how the translators of the King James Bible saw themselves, and who also recognized the hand of God upon them, as they EXPLICITLY stated --
- "And in what sort did these assemble? In the trust of their own knowledge, or of their sharpness of wit, or deepness of judgment, as it were in an arm of flesh? At no hand. THEY TRUSTED IN HIM THAT HATH THE KEY OF DAVID, OPENING AND NO MAN SHUTTING; THEY PRAYED TO THE LORD THE FATHER OF OUR LORD, to the effect that S. Augustine did; “O let thy Scriptures be my pure delight, let me not be deceived in them, neither let me deceive by them.” [S. Aug. lib. II. Confess. cap. 2.] In this confidence, and with this devotion did they assemble together; not too many, lest one should trouble another; and yet many, lest many things haply might escape them... Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch; neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered: but having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at length, THROUGH THE GOOD HAND OF THE LORD UPON US, brought the work to that pass that you see." Translators To The Reader (emphasis added)
In other words, while the translators of the Authorised Version may not have considered their work infallible, they nevertheless DID assert that the Holy Ghost permeated their work, that they were DIVINELY APPOINTED to their work. That is an important distinction, one which no modern translation can honestly make, or has dared to honestly make, and which no modern translation can back up with Holy Spirit FRUIT, unlike the Authorised Version, whose genuine, Holy Spirit FRUIT is so abundant that only an unregenerate, purposely, wilfully bind man could fail to see it. Mark it!
In any case, whether or not the translators of the Authorised Version actually produced an infallible Bible is not the issue here. That is another issue entirely. The issue here is what the King James Bible translators felt about their work, and the work of others. That is all we are addressing here, even though, as we saw, their feelings are irrelevant to the final outcome.
The Roman Catholics had been vociferously opposing the translation of the Bible into English for almost a hundred years or more. Once they saw they couldn't stop it, however, they determined to undermine it in what is now known as the Counter Reformation. In short, by giving the written Word to the layman in his own tongue, the Protestants had ultimately forced the Roman Catholics to translate the Bible into English, and a large part of the Counter Reformation was the production of the Douai-Rheims English translation, which largely followed the underlying Greek and Hebrew (and Latin) text of the Latin Vulgate, as well as laying the groundwork for an avalanche of absurd variants, such as those found in Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph, the two habitual liars that are aligned with the Latin Vulgate text and which underlie modern "bibles" like the NASB, NIV, ESV, NRSV, ad nauseam.
This text -- the Latin Vulgate text -- had been roundly and decisively rejected by the Reformers and all ensuing Protestants, including the translators of the King James Bible. Accordingly, Rome sought to undermine the Protestant text in English by offering their own English text, yet a different text, a competing text, and this they did with the Douai-Rheims. Of course, as I mentioned, only the New Testament of the Douai-Rheims had been published by the time the King James Bible translators began their task, but it was based on a different text than that of the King James Bible. It was based on the Latin Vulgate text which the Protestants and King James Bible translators utterly rejected.
This is noteworthy, for modern "bibles" such as the NASB, NIV, ESV, NRSV, et al, have realigned themselves with Rome by adopting an almost identical text, based almost wholly on Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph, which are patently Vulgate in character. That is not debatable. It is a matter of FACTS IN EVIDENCE, and all one must do to demonstrate this is compare the two texts. It's that simple. Unfortunately, modern Protestants are completely blind to this simple fact, either not knowing that it is true, or knowing it but believing that it's not significant.
Of course, If they were indwelt by the Holy Spirit, they'd know it's true and they'd know just how truly significant it is.
In any case, even then, even by the time the King James Bible translators undertook their task, beginning in about 1604, there were still many Roman Catholic protestations against translating the Scriptures into English. These criticisms from Rome had really not subsided, although with the production of a competing text they were changing form. But since a full-blown analysis of this situation is not within the scope of this paper, suffice it to say that it was THIS criticism by Rome -- that is, Rome's criticism of translating the Bible into English -- that Miles Smith was chiefly responding to when he wrote the relevant paragraphs in the Preface. In other words, Miles Smith was justifying the PRINCIPLE of translating the Bible into English, nothing more.
Smith began by defending Bible translation IN PRINCIPLE. Miles Smith was not making a sweeping statement on the validity of various "bible" versions. Not at all. What he was doing was defending the LEGITIMACY of Bible translation into English IN PRINCIPLE. That is all he was doing in his opening salvo in his "AN ANSWER TO THE IMPUTATIONS OF OUR ADVERSARIES."
Miles Smith was not, as we'll shortly see, defending just any old translation. Rather, he was merely asserting the RIGHT to translate. Period. This could hardly be clearer to anyone who has carefully read what Miles Smith wrote and who possesses even a rudimentary understanding of the historical situation. Here are Smith's exact words to the point --
- "No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the Sun, where Apostles or Apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God’s spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand? THE ROMANISTS THEREFORE IN REFUSING TO HEAR, AND DARING TO BURN THE WORD TRANSLATED, did no less than despite the spirit of grace, from whom originally it proceeded, and whose sense and meaning, as well as man’s weakness would enable, it did express." Translators To The Reader (emphasis added)
It is patently transparent that Smith's issue is the PRINCIPLE of translation, of the RIGHT to translate the Scriptures into another tongue, and that his entire argument in this paragraph has NOTHING to do with the veracity of any particular translation or edition. He saves that argument for later, as we'll see. Thus, in asserting the privilege to translate in principle, Smith then gives several examples, including the use by the Apostles of the LXX. Even though Smith, as is clear, is doing nothing more than defending the right to translate, there are several things to be briefly noted here.
First, we have no clue as to what the LXX looked like during Apostolic times, but that, again, is another issue entirely. Suffice it to say that the LXX we possess today is a hopeless mishmash of texts based primarily on manuscripts several hundred years LATER than Christianity. Secondly, if the Apostles actually quoted from the LXX, the LXX we possess today was not the LXX they quoted from, as I and others have demonstrated conclusively. In short, to assert that the LXX we possess today is what the Apostles quoted from is simply not a tenable position. Thirdly, it is clear that the Apostles -- if they quoted the LXX at all -- did so selectively. Conversely, it is very evident that the writers of the New Testament principally quoted from the Hebrew.
In their selectivity, the Apostles were guided and ruled by the Holy Spirit. For example, Paul quoted heathen philosophers, yet the Holy Spirit employed those words in Scripture. In other words, the writers of the New Testament were privileged with a license that is not available to Bible translators today, or during the Reformation, or at any other time since the writing of the autographa of the New Testament.
So this example by Smith, while demonstrating that the Apostles approved of translating the Scriptures into other tongues, does not address in any way, shape, or form the validity of a particular translation produced AFTER the Canon was closed. Since the closing of the Canon, no new material is authorized for insertion into the New Testament; no material currently existing in the Canon is authorized for excision. The Apostles could quote and insert and excise all they wanted in penning their letters; that was in their purview. They were, after all, constructing the charter for the new covenant. But that is not the case today. The Canon is closed. That is an inviolable rule commanded from on High. Thus the context of Smith's entire argument in that paragraph had nothing to do with the content of a translation, per se, but only with the PRINCIPLE of translation itself, and he employed the example of the Apostles solely for the purpose of authorizing that principle, NOT for validating just any old translation, as we'll clearly see in just a moment.
Jesus says "judge not" (Matthew 7:1), and then says "judge righteous judgment" (John 7:24), and only an intentional deceiver would try to use one quote out of context against another, which is EXACTLY what critics of the Authorised Version attempt to do by an appeal to the translators and nakedly asserting that Smith was approving of just any old "bible" here, especially when the Translators REJECTED the Roman Catholic texts out of hand, not to mention Smith's further statements on the matter, which we will now examine.
Rome had accused the Protestants of corrupting the Scriptures because there were differences between the various Protestant translations over the past almost hundred years. Of course, what Rome didn't say was that the Protestant translations were all based on the same text -- the Textus Receptus (even though it was not named that until later ) -- and that the differences were for the most part minute and inconsequential.
Miles Smith won't let them get away with this subterfuge. He begins by affirming Rome's accusation, and notice the context, namely, all that follows comes AFTER Smith's defense of translating IN PRINCIPLE, thus revealing, since it comes AFTER, that Smith's definitive word on translation is not to be taken out of context from what went before. In adhering to the context, Smith demonstrates that he is now descending into PARTICULAR TRANSLATIONS and PARTICULAR TEXT TYPES --
- "But the DIFFERENCE THAT APPEARETH BETWEEN OUR TRANSLATIONS, and our often correcting of them, IS THE THING THAT WE ARE SPECIALLY CHARGED WITH; let us see therefore whether they themselves be without fault this way, (if it be to be counted a fault, to correct) and whether they be fit men to throw stones at us." Translators To The Reader (emphasis added)
After stating Rome's case against the Protestants, Smith volleys by inserting a marked distinction between the Textus Receptus and the corrupt Latin Vulgate text (the very same Latin Vulgate text which now underlies modern "bibles" like the NASB, NIV, ESV, NRSV, et cetera) --
- "If we should tell them that Valla, Stapulensis, Erasmus, and Vives FOUND FAULT WITH THEIR VULGAR TRANSLATION, and consequently wished the same to be mended, or a new one to be made, they would answer peradventure, that we produced their enemies for witnesses against them; albeit, they were in no other sort enemies, than as S. Paul was to the Galatians, for telling them the truth [Gal 4:16]: and it were to be wished, that they had dared to tell it them plainlier and oftener. But what will they say to this, that Pope Leo the Tenth allowed Erasmus’ Translation of the New Testament, SO MUCH DIFFERENT FROM THE VULGAR, by his Apostolic Letter and Bull; that the same Leo exhorted Pagnine to translate the whole Bible, and bare whatsoever charges was necessary for the work? [Sixtus Senens.] Surely, as the Apostle reasoneth to the Hebrews, that if the former Law and Testament had been sufficient, there had been no need of the latter: [Heb 7:11 and 8:7] SO WE MAY SAY, THAT IF THE OLD VULGAR HAD BEEN AT ALL POINTS ALLOWABLE, TO SMALL PURPOSE HAD LABOUR AND CHARGES BEEN UNDERGONE, ABOUT FRAMING A NEW." Translators To The Reader (emphasis added)
In other words, if -- Smith chides -- if the differences between the Vulgate and the Textus Receptus were as little as the differences between the various Protestant versions, why, then it would only require "small purpose" of "labour and charges" to produce a new one, but that is clearly not the case, Smith notes. In fact, the differences are so significant that Valla, Stapulensis, Erasmus, Vives, and all subsequent Protestants found the Roman Catholic text insuperable. Thus, Smith herein makes it known that the differences between the Latin Vulgate text and the Textus Receptus were extraordinarily significant, while the differences between the various Protestant versions were negligible by comparison.
But of course, Smith is merely mocking Rome and the latent hypocrisy in her unfounded accusation while simultaneously pointing out that Rome's text -- the Latin Vulgate-Vaticanus B-Sinaiticus Aleph text-type -- was a significant corruption. (Yes, I know that Aleph hadn't been discovered yet, and that the Vatican banned anyone from examining B for several hundred years, but neither manuscript contains any significant readings that the translators of the King James Bible weren't already aware of, and that they didn't summarily reject). It is no surprise, of course, that the proponents of Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph keep the fact of their close affinity with the Latin Vulgate so quiet.
But Smith was just beginning to warm to his subject. He now launches into an excoriation of Rome and her corrupt text, the likes of which has never been repeated. And in so doing, Smith nails modern "bibles" and modern translators to the same pole --
- "Nay, we will yet come nearer the quick: doth not their Paris edition differ from the Lovaine, and Hentenius his from them both, and yet all of them allowed by authority? Nay, doth not Sixtus Quintus confess, that certain Catholics (he meaneth certain of his own side) were in such an humor of translating the Scriptures into Latin, THAT SATAN TAKING OCCASION BY THEM, though they thought of no such matter, did strive what he could, OUT OF SO UNCERTAIN AND MANIFOLD A VARIETY OF TRANSLATIONS, SO TO MINGLE ALL THINGS, THAT NOTHING MIGHT SEEM TO BE LEFT CERTAIN AND FIRM IN THEM, etc.? [Sixtus 5. praefat. fixa Bibliis.] Nay, further, did not the same Sixtus ordain by an inviolable decree, and that with the counsel and consent of his Cardinals, that the Latin edition of the old and new Testament, which the Council of Trent would have to be authentic, is the same without controversy which he then set forth, being diligently corrected and printed in the Printinghouse of Vatican? Thus Sixtus in his Preface before his Bible. And yet Clement the Eighth his immediate successor, published another edition of the Bible, CONTAINING IN IT INFINITE DIFFERENCES from that of Sixtus, (AND MANY OF THEM WEIGHTY AND MATERIAL) and yet this must be authentic by all means. WHAT IS TO HAVE THE FAITH OF OUR GLORIOUS LORD JESUS CHRIST WITH YEA OR NAY, IF THIS BE NOT? AGAIN, WHAT IS SWEET HARMONY AND CONSENT, IF THIS BE?" Translators To The Reader (emphasis added)
Smith here states EXPLICITLY that "UNCERTAIN" translations ('UNCERTAIN meaning, of course, an UNRELIABLE TRANSLATION, thereby DEMOLISHING the ignorant assertion that just "ANY TRANSLATION," was acceptable, which likewise corroborates Smith's QUALIFIER in his initial quotation on the subject at hand, an artifice, as we saw, that completely escapes the ignorant, for Smith now EXPLAINS his qualifier, Smith now DEFINES his qualifier), so indeed, Smith here states EXPLICITLY that "UNCERTAIN" translations, thereby descending, NOW -- for the first time since entering this domain -- into PARTICULARS, into the VALIDITY, or rather INVALIDITY, of PARTICULAR versions, not with regard to the PRINCIPLE of translation, but rather with regard to the TRANSLATIONS THEMSELVES, along with the evil of a "MANIFOLD A VARIETY" of translations (once again CONDEMNING certain "UNCERTAIN" translations, dealing with the INVALIDITY of certain "UNCERTAIN" translations, dealing with PARTICULARS, as opposed to the PRINCIPLE of translation itself), indeed, Smith states that all this is nothing but the very workshop of SATAN, and that the production of these "UNCERTAIN AND MANIFOLD A VARIETY OF TRANSLATIONS" is so confusing that "NOTHING" is "LEFT CERTAIN AND FIRM."
This, of course, is EXACTLY what's happening today. And it goes without saying that the translators of the King James Bible, in addition to their negative feelings about so "UNCERTAIN AND MANIFOLD A VARIETY OF TRANSLATIONS," likewise utterly rejected and condemned the Latin Vulgate text, the SAME TEXT of Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph, the SAME TEXT of the NASB, NIV, ESV, NRSV, ad nauseam.
Smith closes out his righteous tirade by stating that this practice by Rome, which is mimicked today, does nothing but overthrow the faith of Jesus Christ, of having the faith of Jesus Christ with "YEA OR NAY" instead of "YEA AND AMEN," as the Scripture so eloquently states --
- "For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us." 2 Corinthians 1:20
Give the widest latitude possible, if you will, to what Smith has stated several paragraphs earlier, yet it does not in any wise negate what he has just stated NOW, and what he has just stated NOW is his EXPLICIT CONDEMNATION of "UNCERTAIN AND MANIFOLD A VARIETY OF TRANSLATIONS," along with his condemnation of the practice and methodology of Rome's translators, which is mirrored by Protestant translators today, as well as his condemnation of Rome's text, the Latin Vulgate text, the text of Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph, the text of the NASB, NIV, ESV, NRSV, ad nauseam.
Thus, for someone to suggest that the translators of the King James Bible would approve of modern "bibles" flies in the face of the actual evidence, flies in the face of the King James Bible translators' known repulsion of the Latin Vulgate text, flies in the face, in fact, of the translators OWN WORDS IN CONTEXT. To be perfectly clear, in other words, these ignorant assertions about the King James Bible translators flies in the face of the FACT that the translators of the King James Bible REJECTED the VERY SAME text that the NASB, NIV, ESV, NRSV, and so forth, is based on. For someone to thus take Smith's quotation at the beginning of his excursus on this matter out of context, while simultaneously ignoring Smith's pregnant qualifier, without a clue as to the historical context of the issue, especially after seeing what Smith followed with in his excoriation of Rome and her "UNCERTAIN AND MANIFOLD A VARIETY OF TRANSLATIONS," for someone to misquote Smith so grossly, as my email accuser has done, is either sheer ignorance or sheer deceitfulness. Or both.
But there's more.
You see, the translators of the King James Bible not only clearly sensed that they were DIVINELY APPOINTED, as was noted in their quotation above, but they also sensed that their work would have lasting -- nay, EVERLASTING -- effects. On that score, let me offer a prescient statement by John Burgon, a veritable expert on the subject, who perceptibly noted over a hundred years ago --
- "But then it speedily becomes evident that, at the bottom of all this, THERE EXISTED IN THE MINDS OF THE REVISIONISTS OF 1611, A PROFOUND - SHALL WE NOT RATHER SAY, A PROPHETIC? - CONSCIOUSNESS, that the fate of the English Language was bound up with the fate of their Translation... OF ALL THIS, THE GREAT SCHOLARS OF 1611 SHOWED THEMSELVES PROFOUNDLY CONSCIOUS... VERILY, THOSE MEN UNDERSTOOD THEIR CRAFT! THERE WERE GIANTS IN THOSE DAYS. As little would they submit to be bound by the new cords of the Philistines as by their green withes. Upon occasion, they could shake themselves free from either. And why? For the selfsame reason: viz. BECAUSE THE SPIRIT OF THEIR GOD WAS MIGHTILY UPON THEM." John Burgon, The Revision Revised (emphasis added)
One statement by the translators relative to their motivation and intention with regard to the King James Bible they produced is so inescapable that it's hard to believe anyone who claims to have read the Preface could miss it. To wit, it is clear that the translators believed they were producing ONE Bible to rule the land, not merely a peer among many, as many ignorant critics assert today, and Smith could not have possibly made it any clearer, for he explicitly noted --
"Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, (for then the imputation of Sixtus had been true in some sort, that our people had been fed with gall of Dragons instead of wine, with whey instead of milk:) but to make a good one better, OR OUT OF MANY GOOD ONES, ONE PRINCIPAL GOOD ONE, NOT JUSTLY TO BE EXCEPTED AGAINST; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark." Translators To The Reader (emphasis added)
Yes, there were giants in those days, divinely appointed giants who, unbeknownst to them, produced a Bible which Jesus Christ by his Spirit has blessed more than any text in the history of the world. Much more could be proved, but more than enough has already been produced for the real seeker of truth.
Let him therefore who denigrates the King James Bible, and who denigrates those of us who trust that Jesus Christ has given and preserved for us his perfect written Word, have a care how they proceed, for it cannot be that such a man, such a critic, is regenerate, and unless he becomes regenerate, he will rue for eternity the day he was born. As Bunyan, who believed the Authorised Version was infallible, warned --
- "There wanteth even in the hearts of God’s people a greater reverence of the Word of God than to this day appeareth among us, and this let me say, that want of reverence of the Word is the ground of all disorders that are in the heart, life, conversation, and in Christian communion. Besides, the want of reverence of the Word layeth men open to the fearful displeasure of God." A Treatise On The Fear Of God
The Holy Spirit bears infallible witness in all he indwells that the Textus Receptus and the King James Bible it is based on is the work of Almighty God, and he who doesn't recognize this in his heart is deluding himself if he thinks he's indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
When John Bunyan -- who has demonstrated a greater and deeper knowledge of the Word of God than any man since apostolic times -- was chided by a scholar of his day for not being able to read the original Hebrew or Greek, Bunyan responded by asking the scholar if he had the original Hebrew and Greek himself. The scholar responded in the affirmative. Bunyan pressed him by stating that he was not talking about copies in Hebrew and Greek, but rather asked the scholar if he possessed the original autographs themselves. Naturally, the scholar replied that he did not possess the autographa, but that he believed the Hebrew and Greek copies he had were accurate copies of the autographa. Bunyan then told the scholar that he believed his English Bible, the Authorised Version, was also an accurate copy of the autographa.
Let all who would be wise and who would hear Jesus Christ truly speak to them believe the same, for Jesus Christ will bear witness to his true Word, and that infallibly.
FOOTNOTES:
1 In 1 Corinthians 7:12 Paul states, "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord:", and yet the Lord made his words Scripture. It may be disputed how one is to exegete these statements of Paul, but it may not be disputed -- at least by anyone who calls himself a Christian -- that God made Paul's words Scripture. It is true that at times Paul claimed to be speaking for God, and he doubtless considered those instances to be instances of infallibility insofar as he accurately represented God, but it is equally clear that there were times when Paul did not claim to be speaking for God, such as in the clause above.
2 Although Peter referred to Paul's letters as "Scripture," there is no indication that Paul himself -- AT THE TIME HE WROTE THEM -- considered his letters to be infallible. Whether or not he ever considered his letters as a whole to be infallible is likewise nowhere indicated. He did or he didn't. It doesn't matter because God overruled the circumstances and made Paul's letters, at least those that have been canonized, infallible, (just as God overruled circumstances and made our Canon infallible), and it is God's decree that matters, not Paul's.
External Links
|
1 ·
2 ·
3 ·
4 ·
5 ·
6 ·
7 ·
8 ·
9 ·
10 ·
11 ·
12 ·
13 ·
14 ·
15 ·
16 ·
17 ·
18 ·
19 ·
20 ·
21 ·
22 ·
23 ·
24 ·
25 ·
26 ·
27 ·
28 ·
29 ·
30 ·
31 ·
32 ·
33 ·
34 ·
35 ·
36 ·
37 ·
38 ·
39 ·
40 ·
41 ·
42 ·
43 ·
44 ·
45 ·
46 ·
47 ·
48 ·
49 ·
50 ·
51 ·
52 ·
53 ·
54 ·
55 ·
56 ·
57 ·
58 ·
59 ·
60 ·
61 ·
62 ·
63 ·
64 ·
65 ·
66 ·
67 ·
68 ·
69 ·
70 ·
71 ·
72 ·
73 ·
74 ·
75 ·
76 ·
77 ·
78 ·
79 ·
80 ·
81 ·
82 ·
83 ·
84 ·
85 ·
86 ·
87 ·
88 ·
89 ·
90 ·
91 ·
92 ·
93 ·
94 ·
95 ·
96 ·
97 ·
98 ·
99 ·
100 ·
101 ·
102 ·
103 ·
104 ·
105 ·
106 ·
107 ·
108 ·
109 ·
110 ·
111 ·
112 ·
113 ·
114 ·
115 ·
116 ·
117 ·
118 ·
119 ·
120 ·
121 ·
122 ·
123 ·
124 ·
125 ·
126 ·
127 ·
128 ·
129 ·
130 ·
131 ·
132 ·
133 ·
134 ·
135 ·
136 ·
137 ·
138 ·
139 ·
140 ·
List of New Testament minuscules
1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 · 30 · 31 · 32 · 33 · 34 · 35 · 36 · 37 · 38 · 39 · 40 · 41 · 42 · 43 · 44 · 45 · 46 · 47 · 48 · 49 · 50 · 51 · 52 · 53 · 54 · 55 · 56 · 57 · 58 · 59 · 60 · 61 · 62 · 63 · 64 · 65 · 66 · 67 · 68 · 69 · 70 · 71 · 72 · 73 · 74 · 75 · 76 · 77 · 78 · 79 · 80 · 81 · 82 · 83 · 84 · 85 · 86 · 87 · 88 · 89 · 90 · 91 · 92 · 93 · 94 · 95 · 96 · 97 · 98 · 99 · 100 · 101 · 102 · 103 · 104 · 105 · 106 · 107 · 108 · 109 · 110 · 111 · 112 · 113 · 114 · 115 · 116 · 117 · 118 · 119 · 120 · 121 · 122 · 123 · 124 · 125 · 126 · 127 · 128 · 129 · 130 · 131 · 132 · 133 · 134 · 135 · 136 · 137 · 138 · 139 · 140 · 141 · 142 · 143 · 144 · 145 · 146 · 147 · 148 · 149 · 150 · 151 · 152 · 153 · 154 · 155 · 156 · 157 · 158 · 159 · 160 · 161 · 162 · 163 · 164 · 165 · 166 · 167 · 168 · 169 · 170 · 171 · 172 · 173 · 174 · 175 · 176 · 177 · 178 · 179 · 180 · 181 · 182 · 183 · 184 · 185 · 186 · 187 · 188 · 189 · 190 · 191 · 192 · 193 · 194 · 195 · 196 · 197 · 198 · 199 · 200 · 201 · 202 · 203 · 204 · 205 · 206 · 207 · 208 · 209 · 210 · 211 · 212 · 213 · 214 · 215 · 216 · 217 · 218 · 219 · 220 · 221 · 222 · 223 · 224 · 225 · 226 · 227 · 228 · 229 · 230 · 231 · 232 · 233 · 234 · 235 · 236 · 237 · 238 · 239 · 240 · 241 · 242 · 243 · 244 · 245 · 246 · 247 · 248 · 249 · 250 · 251 · 252 · 253 · 254 · 255 · 256 · 257 · 258 · 259 · 260 · 261 · 262 · 263 · 264 · 265 · 266 · 267 · 268 · 269 · 270 · 271 · 272 · 273 · 274 · 275 · 276 · 277 · 278 · 279 · 280 · 281 · 282 · 283 · 284 · 285 · 286 · 287 · 288 · 289 · 290 · 291 · 292 · 293 · 294 · 295 · 296 · 297 · 298 · 299 · 300 · 301 · 302 · 303 · 304 · 305 · 306 · 307 · 308 · 309 · 310 · 311 · 312 · 313 · 314 · 315 · 316 · 317 · 318 · 319 · 320 · 321 · 322 · 323 · 324 · 325 · 326 · 327 · 328 · 329 · 330 · 331 · 332 · 333 · 334 · 335 · 336 · 337 · 338 · 339 · 340 · 341 · 342 · 343 · 344 · 345 · 346 · 347 · 348 · 349 · 350 · 351 · 352 · 353 · 354 · 355 · 356 · 357 · 358 · 359 · 360 · 361 · 362 · 363 · 364 · 365 · 366 · 367 · 368 · 369 · 370 · 371 · 372 · 373 · 374 · 375 · 376 · 377 · 378 · 379 · 380 · 381 · 382 · 383 · 384 · 385 · 386 · 387 · 388 · 389 · 390 · 391 · 392 · 393 · 394 · 395 · 396 · 397 · 398 · 399 · 400 · 401 · 402 · 403 · 404 · 405 · 406 · 407 · 408 · 409 · 410 · 411 · 412 · 413 · 414 · 415 · 416 · 417 · 418 · 419 · 420 · 421 · 422 · 423 · 424 · 425 · 426 · 427 · 428 · 429 · 430 · 431 · 432 · 433 · 434 · 435 · 436 · 437 · 438 · 439 · 440 · 441 · 442 · 443 · 444 · 445 · 446 · 447 · 448 · 449 · 450 · 451 · 452 · 453 · 454 · 455 · 456 · 457 · 458 · 459 · 460 · 461 · 462 · 463 · 464 · 465 · 466 · 467 · 468 · 469 · 470 · 471 · 472 · 473 · 474 · 475 · 476 · 477 · 478 · 479 · 480 · 481 · 482 · 483 · 484 · 485 · 486 · 487 · 488 · 489 · 490 · 491 · 492 · 493 · 494 · 495 · 496 · 497 · 498 · 499 · 500 · 501 · 502 · 503 · 504 · 505 · 506 · 507 · 543 · 544 · 565 · 566 · 579 · 585 · 614 · 639 · 653 · 654 · 655 · 656 · 657 · 658 · 659 · 660 · 661 · 669 · 676 · 685 · 700 · 798 · 823 · 824 · 825 · 826 · 827 · 828 · 829 · 830 · 831 · 876 · 891 · 892 · 893 · 1071 · 1143 · 1152 · 1241 · 1253 · 1423 · 1424 · 1432 · 1582 · 1739 · 1780 · 1813 · 1834 · 2050 · 2053 · 2059 · 2060 · 2061 · 2062 · 2174 · 2268 · 2344 · 2423 · 2427 · 2437 · 2444 · 2445 · 2446 · 2460 · 2464 · 2491 · 2495 · 2612 · 2613 · 2614 · 2615 · 2616 · 2641 · 2754 · 2755 · 2756 · 2757 · 2766 · 2767 · 2768 · 2793 · 2802 · 2803 · 2804 · 2805 · 2806 · 2807 · 2808 · 2809 · 2810 · 2811 · 2812 · 2813 · 2814 · 2815 · 2816 · 2817 · 2818 · 2819 · 2820 · 2821 · 2855 · 2856 · 2857 · 2858 · 2859 · 2860 · 2861 · 2862 · 2863 · 2881 · 2882 · 2907 · 2965 ·
01 · 02 · 03 · 04 · 05 · 06 · 07 · 08 · 09 · 010 · 011 · 012 · 013 · 014 · 015 · 016 · 017 · 018 · 019 · 020 · 021 · 022 · 023 · 024 · 025 · 026 · 027 · 028 · 029 · 030 · 031 · 032 · 033 · 034 · 035 · 036 · 037 · 038 · 039 · 040 · 041 · 042 · 043 · 044 · 045 · 046 · 047 · 048 · 049 · 050 · 051 · 052 · 053 · 054 · 055 · 056 · 057 · 058 · 059 · 060 · 061 · 062 · 063 · 064 · 065 · 066 · 067 · 068 · 069 · 070 · 071 · 072 · 073 · 074 · 075 · 076 · 077 · 078 · 079 · 080 · 081 · 082 · 083 · 084 · 085 · 086 · 087 · 088 · 089 · 090 · 091 · 092 · 093 · 094 · 095 · 096 · 097 · 098 · 099 · 0100 · 0101 · 0102 · 0103 · 0104 · 0105 · 0106 · 0107 · 0108 · 0109 · 0110 · 0111 · 0112 · 0113 · 0114 · 0115 · 0116 · 0117 · 0118 · 0119 · 0120 · 0121 · 0122 · 0123 · 0124 · 0125 · 0126 · 0127 · 0128 · 0129 · 0130 · 0131 · 0132 · 0134 · 0135 · 0136 · 0137 · 0138 · 0139 · 0140 · 0141 · 0142 · 0143 · 0144 · 0145 · 0146 · 0147 · 0148 · 0149 · 0150 · 0151 · 0152 · 0153 · 0154 · 0155 · 0156 · 0157 · 0158 · 0159 · 0160 · 0161 · 0162 · 0163 · 0164 · 0165 · 0166 · 0167 · 0168 · 0169 · 0170 · 0171 · 0172 · 0173 · 0174 · 0175 · 0176 · 0177 · 0178 · 0179 · 0180 · 0181 · 0182 · 0183 · 0184 · 0185 · 0186 · 0187 · 0188 · 0189 · 0190 · 0191 · 0192 · 0193 · 0194 · 0195 · 0196 · 0197 · 0198 · 0199 · 0200 · 0201 · 0202 · 0203 · 0204 · 0205 · 0206 · 0207 · 0208 · 0209 · 0210 · 0211 · 0212 · 0213 · 0214 · 0215 · 0216 · 0217 · 0218 · 0219 · 0220 · 0221 · 0222 · 0223 · 0224 · 0225 · 0226 · 0227 · 0228 · 0229 · 0230 · 0231 · 0232 · 0234 · 0235 · 0236 · 0237 · 0238 · 0239 · 0240 · 0241 · 0242 · 0243 · 0244 · 0245 · 0246 · 0247 · 0248 · 0249 · 0250 · 0251 · 0252 · 0253 · 0254 · 0255 · 0256 · 0257 · 0258 · 0259 · 0260 · 0261 · 0262 · 0263 · 0264 · 0265 · 0266 · 0267 · 0268 · 0269 · 0270 · 0271 · 0272 · 0273 · 0274 · 0275 · 0276 · 0277 · 0278 · 0279 · 0280 · 0281 · 0282 · 0283 · 0284 · 0285 · 0286 · 0287 · 0288 · 0289 · 0290 · 0291 · 0292 · 0293 · 0294 · 0295 · 0296 · 0297 · 0298 · 0299 · 0300 · 0301 · 0302 · 0303 · 0304 · 0305 · 0306 · 0307 · 0308 · 0309 · 0310 · 0311 · 0312 · 0313 · 0314 · 0315 · 0316 · 0317 · 0318 · 0319 · 0320 · 0321 · 0322 · 0323 ·
List of New Testament lectionaries
1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 25b · 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 · 30 · 31 · 32 · 33 · 34 · 35 · 36 · 37 · 38 · 39 · 40 · 41 · 42 · 43 · 44 · 45 · 46 · 47 · 48 · 49 · 50 · 51 · 52 · 53 · 54 · 55 · 56 · 57 · 58 · 59 · 60 · 61 · 62 · 63 · 64 · 65 · 66 · 67 · 68 · 69 · 70 · 71 · 72 · 73 · 74 · 75 · 76 · 77 · 78 · 79 · 80 · 81 · 82 · 83 · 84 · 85 · 86 · 87 · 88 · 89 · 90 · 91 · 92 · 93 · 94 · 95 · 96 · 97 · 98 · 99 · 100 · 101 · 102 · 103 · 104 · 105 · 106 · 107 · 108 · 109 · 110 · 111 · 112 · 113 · 114 · 115 · 116 · 117 · 118 · 119 · 120 · 121 · 122 · 123 · 124 · 125 · 126 · 127 · 128 · 129 · 130 · 131 · 132 · 133 · 134 · 135 · 136 · 137 · 138 · 139 · 140 · 141 · 142 · 143 · 144 · 145 · 146 · 147 · 148 · 149 · 150 · 151 · 152 · 153 · 154 · 155 · 156 · 157 · 158 · 159 · 160 · 161 · 162 · 163 · 164 · 165 · 166 · 167 · 168 · 169 · 170 · 171 · 172 · 173 · 174 · 175 · 176 · 177 · 178 · 179 · 180 · 181 · 182 · 183 · 184 · 185 · 186 · 187 · 188 · 189 · 190 · 191 · 192 · 193 · 194 · 195 · 196 · 197 · 198 · 199 · 200 · 201 · 202 · 203 · 204 · 205 · 206a · 206b · 207 · 208 · 209 · 210 · 211 · 212 · 213 · 214 · 215 · 216 · 217 · 218 · 219 · 220 · 221 · 222 · 223 · 224 · 225 · 226 · 227 · 228 · 229 · 230 · 231 · 232 · 233 · 234 · 235 · 236 · 237 · 238 · 239 · 240 · 241 · 242 · 243 · 244 · 245 · 246 · 247 · 248 · 249 · 250 · 251 · 252 · 253 · 254 · 255 · 256 · 257 · 258 · 259 · 260 · 261 · 262 · 263 · 264 · 265 · 266 · 267 · 268 · 269 · 270 · 271 · 272 · 273 · 274 · 275 · 276 · 277 · 278 · 279 · 280 · 281 · 282 · 283 · 284 · 285 · 286 · 287 · 288 · 289 · 290 · 291 · 292 · 293 · 294 · 295 · 296 · 297 · 298 · 299 · 300 · 301 · 302 · 303 · 304 · 305 · 306 · 307 · 308 · 309 · 310 · 311 · 312 · 313 · 314 · 315 · 316 · 317 · 318 · 319 · 320 · 321 · 322 · 323 · 324 · 325 · 326 · 327 · 328 · 329 · 330 · 331 · 332 · 368 · 449 · 451 · 501 · 502 · 542 · 560 · 561 · 562 · 563 · 564 · 648 · 649 · 809 · 965 · 1033 · 1358 · 1386 · 1491 · 1423 · 1561 · 1575 · 1598 · 1599 · 1602 · 1604 · 1614 · 1619 · 1623 · 1637 · 1681 · 1682 · 1683 · 1684 · 1685 · 1686 · 1691 · 1813 · 1839 · 1965 · 1966 · 1967 · 2005 · 2137 · 2138 · 2139 · 2140 · 2141 · 2142 · 2143 · 2144 · 2145 · 2164 · 2208 · 2210 · 2211 · 2260 · 2261 · 2263 · 2264 · 2265 · 2266 · 2267 · 2276 · 2307 · 2321 · 2352 · 2404 · 2405 · 2406 · 2411 · 2412 ·
