History of the Authorized King James Bible : Pt 2

HISTORY OF THE AUTHORIZED KING JAMES BIBLE : PART 2

Copyright 1994 - 2008 Endtime Prophecy Net

Last Updated : July 23, 2006

Bloody Mary's Reign, Flight to Geneva, God's Mighty Army,
Geneva Bible, Bishop's Bible, Authorized King James Version,
Textus Vaticanus, Textus Sinaiticus, 'He' And 'She' Bibles,
Political Correctness In The AKJV, The Translators To The
Reader, 'Ebed' And 'Doulos', Spirit-Filled AKJV, Price Of The
AKJV Bible, Compromise In Modern Translations, Elizabethan
English - Not Difficult To Understand, My Daughter's Example

Following this busy period of productivity by the Reformers,
as is usually the case when God's Word is widely proclaimed,
(please refer to the Book of Acts), a new threat arose. As
the cry for reform within the extremely conservative, power-
ful and corrupt Roman Catholic Church grew stronger, it was
only a matter of time before the 'Holy Mother Church' would
react; and she did. William Tyndale was but one of the first
Reformers to die a cruel agonizing death at the hands of the
blood-drenched Roman Catholic inquisitors. In the year 1553,
Mary Tudor, the eldest child of King Henry VIII, and the only
surviving child of his first marriage to Katherine of Aragon,
arose to the English throne. Being a staunch Roman Catholic,
she posed a serious obstacle to the publication of an English
version of the Bible. This woman seemed to be possessed by a
demon in her quest to return England to the fold of the Roman
Catholic Church.

In 1555, this English Queen Jezebel, who would become known
as 'Bloody Mary', ordered John Rogers and Thomas Crammer to
be burned at the stake. However, Queen Mary's iniquity, and
her lust for blood, did not stop there. In all, she killed
almost three hundred so-called 'heretics', because of their
'crime' of just being Protestants. This dark era resulted in
the Marian Exile, and the Reformers fled from their beloved
England, with little hope of ever seeing their homeland
again. Apparently, by God's Design, some of these brave men
regrouped in Geneva, which was one of the few safe havens
for them in Europe. There, they were received with sympathy
by the blossoming Protestant church. This band of Christian
refugees was led by Myles Coverdale, John Foxe, (author of
'Fox's Book Of Martyrs', also known as 'Book of Acts and
Monuments'), Thomas Sampson, and William Whittingham.

What amazed me as I began to conduct my research for this
current series, is the realization that all across Europe,
from England, to the Netherlands, to France to Germany, to
Switzerland, God's Spirit was moving, and He was raising up
an army of willing soldiers, who would challenge the corrupt
beast that was the Roman Catholic Church. God heard the cry
of the poor and the illiterate, and He responded in a great
and mighty way, which would affect the world for centuries
to come; in fact, to our present day.

Under the protection of Frenchman John Calvin and Scotsman
John Knox, who were also important figures in the Reform
movement, the Church of Geneva decided to produce a Bible
which they could use to educate their families while they
continued in exile. The New Testament was completed in 1557,
and the complete Bible was first published in 1560. Known as
the Geneva Bible, it was the first Bible which incorporated
verse numbers in each of the chapters. Every chapter was
also accompanied by extensive marginal notes and references
so thorough and complete, that the Geneva Bible has come to
be regarded by some scholars as the very first English study
Bible.

For over one hundred years, the Geneva Bible was the Bible
of preference amongst English-speaking Christians; so much
so, that renowned playwright, William Shakespeare, extracted
many quotes from it. Between 1560 and 1644, at least one
hundred and forty-four editions of the Geneva Bible were
published. Close examination of the 1611 Authorized King
James Version demonstrates the influence of the Geneva
Bible, and thus the influence of William Tyndale, because
the Geneva Bible retains approximately ninety per cent of
Tyndale's translation. It may surprise you to know that for
many decades, the Geneva Bible remained even more popular
than the Authorized King James Version. Not only that, but
it holds the honor of being the very first Bible which the
Puritans and the Pilgrims brought to America.

As a side note, due to a verse in the Book of Genesis which
describes the clothing which God made for Adam and Eve upon
expulsion from the Garden of Eden as 'Breeches', (which is
an Old World form of the word Britches'), some people have
referred to the Geneva Bible as the Breeches Bible.

With the end of Queen Mary's reign in 1558, the Reformers
were finally able to safely return to England. The Anglican
Church, (or Church of England), under Queen Elizabeth I,
reluctantly tolerated the printing and distribution of the
Geneva Bible; however, the marginal notes, which were very
critical of the Roman Catholic Church, (even comparing it to
Babylon the Great in the Book of Revelation, and accusing
the pope of being the Antichrist), were not viewed with
favor by those in authority. The solution was simple: a new
version without all of the inflammatory remarks added by the
Reformers, must be produced. Thus, in 1568, the Bishop's
Bible was introduced. Even though the government backed this
version, and despite the fact that nineteen printings were
made between 1568 and 1606, this compromised edition never
gained popularity amongst the people; the reason being that
the Geneva Bible was simply too trusted to compete with.

With the death of Queen Elizabeth I in 1603, James Stuart,
who was then Prince James VI of Scotland, became King James I
of England. One year later, in 1604, the Protestant clergy
approached the king, and requested that a new translation be
made to replace the Bishop's Bible, which, as I have already
stated, was not faring very well amongst the common people.
In other words, there was still no Bible to rival the very
popular, yet controversial and anti-Roman Catholic, Geneva
Bible. This was the primary motivation behind the desire for
yet another edition of the Holy Bible. The English religious
authorities simply wanted a Bible which would be politically
correct, non-offensive to King James, and which would not
expose the glaring sins of the Roman Catholic Church. It is
a known fact that King James did not like the Geneva Bible
for both political and religious reasons. In fact, he said
that it was the worst of translations.

How much this sounds exactly like the attitude which is now
prevalent in our modern, liberal society, where the Bible is
being translated once again, and God's Holy Word is being
seriously tampered with, in order to produce a politically-
correct, non-offensive version, which will neutralize some
of the Holy Scriptures' most fundamental teachings regarding
sexual morality. For more information regarding this issue,
please refer to my series 'When Sin Is No Longer A Sin'.

Referred to as the 'translation to end all translations', the
Authorized King James Version was the result of the combined
efforts of about fifty brilliant scholars. This body of men
was very educated in the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic languages.
As I noted earlier, they relied heavily upon Tyndale's New
Testament, as well as on the Coverdale Bible, the Matthew's
Bible, the Great Bible, and the Geneva Bible; and they even
used the Catholic Rheims New Testament for comparison. In
addition to this, and perhaps even more importantly, they
had access to the Textus Receptus, which is still available
to scholars and translators today. Please note that this was
Erasmus' original Textus Receptus, and not the fake, corrupt
one which is said to have surfaced later. The accuracy of
the Textus Receptus was also confirmed by the Majority Text.

It is also worthy of note that this body of AKJV scholars did
not rely upon any of the documents which form a part of the
Alexandrian Text, which they believed were invented by the
Roman Catholic Church. This includes the Textus Vaticanus,
which was discovered in 1481 in the Vatican Library. While
the Textus Vaticanus was known to Erasmus, it was not used
in his compilation of the Textus Receptus in 1516 due to his
suspicions about the same. Another questionable text which
has been rejected by some scholars, is the Textus Sinaiticus;
which was found in 1844 at Saint Catherine's Monastery in a
trash heap. The Sinaiticus contains many omissions, as well
as many marked out and rewritten words and phrases. Sadly,
the modern Roman Catholic Bible is derived from both the
Textus Vaticanus, as well as the Textus Sinaiticus, which
casts serious doubt upon its accuracy.

To continue; for the first two years, from 1605 to 1606, this
group of scholars, (among whom is believed to have numbered
William Shakespeare), engaged in private research; and then
from 1607 to 1609, they assembled their work. A year later,
in 1610, it went to press; and the year 1611 saw the first
publication of the official King James Bible. Similar to the
Great Bible, this massive tome was sixteen inches in height,
and was made available to all Church of England pulpits.

It took many years for it to overtake the Geneva Bible in
popularity, but eventually, the King James Version not only
became the official Bible of the English people, but it also
became the most printed book in the history of the world. In
fact, for around two hundred and fifty years, the Authorized
King James Version remained unrivaled, until the appearance
of the Revised Version in 1881. While the very first Bible
to be printed in the United States of America was done by
John Eliot in 1663 and was in the Algonquin Indian language,
the first English language Bible to be printed was the King
James Version. That was by Robert Aitken in 1782. In 1791,
Isaac Collins vastly improved upon the quality and size of
the typesetting of American Bibles, and produced the first
'Family Bible', which likewise utilized the Authorized King
James Version. That same year, Isaiah Thomas published the
first Illustrated Bible in America as well. It too was the
King James Version.

As an interesting side note to this story of the history of
the AKJV, due to a typographical error in Ruth 3:15, in which
the pronoun 'She' was erroneously rendered as 'He', some of
the first editions of the 1611 AKJV acquired the name of 'He'
Bibles, while others were referred to as 'She' Bibles.

Before concluding this article, allow me to make a few more
comments. As I point out in other articles such as 'The Lamb
Of God Was A Goat', and 'My God Is A Shocker', while I fully
recognize that the AKJV Bible is a work of the inspiration of
God's Spirit, given the political and spiritual environment
surrounding the court of King James I during the early seven-
teenth century, it would be foolish of me, or of any of us,
to deny that there were political and religious forces which
influenced its translation. So, while I view the AKJV Bible
as an inspired work, so much so that it is the only Bible
which I personally trust, I must still recognize the fact
that the dedicated men who translated it into our English
tongue, were just as human as you or I. In other words, they
were not perfect; and by virtue of their imperfection, the
AKJV Bible cannot be perfect either. Every single word is not
'Thus saith the Lord', despite what some die-hard AKJV users
might wish to claim.

To verify this point, I encourage you to read what the 1611
translators had to say for themselves regarding their own
work. In the original AKJV Bibles, following the 'Epistle
Dedicatory', that is, the dedication to King James I, there
is another lengthy section entitled 'The Translators To The
Reader', which is a detailed explanation of how those men
went about their work. By reading it, we get a glimpse into
the minds and hearts of the translators. You will find this
document on our web site, in the 'In Defense Of The KJV'
article section.

Knowing human nature, it is difficult for me to accept that
the translators were so in tune to the Lord, and so yielded
to His Spirit, that they got every single word right. While
some people may consider my position somewhat heretical, I
prefer to think that I am being a realist. It is my view,
that given the puritanical spirit which was prevalent in
England during that time, and considering the desire of the
translators to produce a version which would be acceptable
to the king, that we should suspect that at least a few
words were intentionally toned down during the translation
process.

One example of this, is the word 'ebed'. This Hebrew word
means 'slave', and is equivalent to the Greek word 'doulos'
in the New Testament. Now, despite their clear meaning in
the Hebrew and Greek lexicons, the actual word 'slave' is
found only one time in the entire Old Testament, and nowhere
in the New Testament; and the one time that it is found in
the Old Testament, (in Jeremiah 2:14), it is in italics, in
order to show that it was added by the English translators,
as a clarification of the sentence. All of the other times
that 'ebed' and 'doulos' are used, (and they number in the
hundreds), they are translated as either bondman, bondmaid,
or servant. Why is this? Might it have something to do with
the fact that England was heavily involved in slave trade,
and so using the correct word 'slave' might have been a bit
offensive to King James? In other words, 'We all know that
we practice slavery, but let's use a softer, more polite
word in our translation, in order to not offend the king'.

Allow me to reiterate that in spite of the few verses where I
have found what I personally view as possible discrepancies
in the translation, I still trust the AKJV much more than any
other English Bible which has been published from then until
now. To strengthen my position, consider also the fact that,
according to what I have read, any authentic parchments or
scrolls which have been discovered since the time that the
AKJV was translated, have only served to verify the accuracy
of the same; they have not detracted from it. As I point out
in my companion series, 'In Defense Of The KJV', perhaps one
of the key factors which influences me to trust in the AKJV,
is that more than in any other modern translation, I sense
the Power of God in the AKJV Bible. It speaks out to me like
no other version does. The others are dry and spiritless by
comparison. The AKJV moves me, and it excites me when I read
it. Not only does it inspire my faith, but apparently it has
done the same for many others as well, because millions of
souls have been won to Christ through the use of the AKJV
over the past four centuries; and that says a lot! It is
tried and proven!

There is another very important reason why I have confidence
in the AKJV Bible. It has to do with the price. No, I am not
referring to its commercial value, but rather to the price
in persecution, blood and martyrdom, which had to be paid in
order for me to hold a copy of the AKJV in my hands today. No
other modern version of the English Bible can make this very
same claim; only the AKJV and earlier versions can. From the
persecution of John Wycliffe and the evil desecration of his
grave, to the persecution, torture and martyrdom of William
Tyndale and the sixteenth century Reformers, a steep price
was paid indeed; and that should say something about what
calibre of men they were, as well as about the calibre of
the Bible they have all given us.

By comparison, today's modern translations are based upon
mere whim, and sadly, upon the financial considerations of
huge publishing houses which I do not believe have the same
fear of God, or respect for His Word, as those men of old.
They will change a word here, or change a phrase there, if
it suits their convenience, and allows for higher sales. As
I noted earlier, it has gotten so bad now, that they are
even altering verses which condemn the ungodly practices of
homosexuality and lesbianism, in order that God's Word won't
be so offensive to those who indulge in such unhealthy and
sinful practices. This is spiritual compromise at its worst.

In spite of the AKJV's proven track record, it still has its
critics. Principle among them are those who claim that the
language of the AKJV has become outdated. They insist that
Elizabethan English is simply too difficult for the modern
reader to understand. One person who wrote to me some time
ago really took this position to the extreme when he stated
that Elizabethan English is like a foreign language. I find
such a thought to be absolutely ludicrous. My argument is
simple: If a young English-speaking person can go to school,
and over a period of a few years, learn a foreign language
such as Spanish, French, German or Italian, which, by the
way, has completely different sentence structure, then in my
mind, they should have no difficulty in understanding a form
of English which is only a variation of his own English. In
light of this fact, I have to view the 'Elizabethan English
is too difficult' argument as being rather baseless.

Furthermore, rather than create yet another translation
which might stray even further from the meaning and intent
of the original authors, that is, the holy men and prophets
of old, is it not a much safer practice to simply allow the
reader to use the Hebrew and Greek lexicons, when he or she
is in doubt, and trust God's Holy Spirit to rightly lead
that person in their understanding of the Holy Scriptures?
That is precisely what I do with my Online Bible program,
which includes both of the lexicons. I simply fail to see
why others cannot do the same as I do, instead of having to
rely upon some publishing company doing another translation,
in which they basically tell the reader what God's Word is
supposed to mean, instead of letting them determine that for
themselves through personal diligence and study. It is not
the duty or responsibility of these companies to do this for
us. Their considerations are financial first, and not the
spiritual well-being of the flocks of God.

To add weight to my argument, consider the fact that I have
read commentaries which state that when compared with some
of the more modern versions, the AKJV scores considerably
higher in scholastic reading and grammar tests. In fact, if
I recall correctly, it is at the fifth grade reading level.
In other words, a fifth grade American student can easily
read the AKJV Bible, and grasp most of its meaning, if he
applies himself to the task. For those of you who may wish
to refute that statement, allow me to share the example of
my very own daughter. She is a normal child of middle school
age. Scholastically-speaking, she is above average in some
areas, but by no means exceptional. She could easily be the
child next door. Since her elementary school years, she has
been reading the AKJV Bible, and she understands a great
deal of it. In fact, she knows some of its stories and
Parables better than I do; and she has memorized a number of
verses as well. In addition to this, she also knows how to
use the Hebrew and Greek lexicons, and has written a number
of Bible-based articles, which you can find on our web site.

I do not say any of this to boast, but merely to make a
point, and that is this: If this precious child of the Lord
can take the initiative and accomplish so much, because she
hungers for the full truth of God's Word, why can't some of
you who criticize the AKJV, do the very same thing? Surely
you possess as much intelligence as my daughter. Or is it
that your criticisms of the AKJV are motivated by something
else? With these thoughts, I am going to bring this article
to a close. I trust that you have found it interesting and
informative, and that it has been a blessing in your life. I
also hope that the beloved AKJV has been a blessing in your
life as well.

Go To Part Three . . .