Tuesday, February 11, 2014

The Translations that Came Before the King James Version


Many people do not realize that the King James Bible was not the first Modern English translation. There were actually 6 other translations published before the KJV:

1525 - Tyndale Bible
1535 - Coverdale Bible
1537 - Matthew Bible
1539 - Great Bible
1560 - Geneva Bible
1568 - Bishops Bible

Someone may ask why the Wycliffe Bible is not included in the list. It is not included for two reasons:

1. The Wycliffe Bible was not in Modern English. It was in Middle English. The period of Middle English is considered to be the time from 1154-1485. Wycliffe translated the Bible in the 1380s.

2. The Wycliffe Bible was not translated from the original languages (Greek and Hebrew). It was translated from the Latin Catholic Vulgate.

The 6 Modern English translations leading up to the KJV were all translated from various editions of what we call today the Greek "Textus Receptus." The first several of these printed Greek editions were published by Desiderius Erasmus, and later editions used to produce the Geneva Bible and Bishops Bible were published by Robert Estienne a.k.a Stephanus. The KJV translators also translated from the Greek Textus Receptus, using the editions of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza.

Modern Bible versions are translated from a completely different source. They are translated by critical texts edited by Nestle/Aland and the United Bible Societies in the 20th Century. These modern Greek editions are based on corrupt manuscripts like Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, as well as more recent Egyptian papyri discoveries. It is not a coincidence that Egypt is the source of the corruption underlying modern perversions like the NIV, ESV, NLT, etc.

The 6 Bibles leading up to the KJV were all translated from the Textus Receptus (the correct Greek textual tradition) and are therefore consistent with the KJV. They agree with the KJV. The modern versions, on the other hand, are dramatically different. Therefore, if a person accepts the modern Bible versions as accurate, they are not only rejecting the King James Version. They are also rejecting every English Bible that came before it! According to them, every English translation before the 20th Century has been wrong!

The King James Bible is the culmination of the 6 Bibles that led up to it. It is the culmination of almost 100 years of scholarship and sacrifice that gave us our English Bible. That is why the 6 earlier translations eventually went out of print, and the KJV became the standard English Bible used by virtually all Christians until recently. People recognized that the KJV was the final draft of the English Bible, so it replace the 6 rough drafts that led up to it. The 6 Bibles before the KJV were good Bibles, and the KJV could never have been the magnificent Bible that it is without having had those 6 excellent rough drafts.

"The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." - Psalm 12:6


For more information on the history of the King James Bible, check out the DVD "New World Order Bible Versions" which includes a detailed history of the English Bible in addition to exposing the Satanic agenda behind the modern versions.

21 comments:

Eric Ennis said...

Excellent blog. I love Psalm 12:6 at the end. Thanks pastor

jordandavis7 said...

Interesting correlation between the history of God's Word and Psalm 12:6, followed by Psalm 12:7 of course with the promise "Thou shalt keep them O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

Good stuff, God Bless

Matt Furse said...

Exactly!
Pastor Anderson, Thanks, for this posting... "Six Rough Drafts", and then the "grand finale"... It is not by coincidence that the period of the 1600s was also the pinnacle of English vocabulary, as well!

Why do you think that the Geneva is now being pushed? ...Is it because of the un-inspired "Protestant" notes?

sanderson1611 said...

Matt Furse, From what I've seen, it seems like when people are promoting the Geneva, it's combined with an attack on the KJV.

I think it's also just a trendy thing. Everyone is always looking for "some new thing." The Geneva Bible is not a bad translation, but it just doesn't make any sense to read it when the KJV only improved upon it.

I wouldn't fight someone who wants to read the Geneva Bible, but I believe the KJV is without error and is superior to the Geneva.

I WILL fight the modern versions though, including the NKJV.

Saint Teal said...

Excellent blog! Speaking of KJV bibles, I just got the Nelson Ultraslim and it's a fantastic quality bible. I wish it wasn't from Lifeway but, it was the only store close by that sold it. Man going in that store makes me angry, they're all about the modern (per)versions.

Lynn said...

I have a KJV Hendrickson 1873 edition and didn't realize at first but the numbers aren't alighned and its missing the ___; in Exodus 32:32.

Anonymous said...

Awesome, learned this sitting in class with William Grady. Love your teaching Bro. Anderson

Anonymous said...

So your argument is that God's word was not pure before 1611. That it became progressively pure. That is quite a claim! I instead believe God's word was ALWAYS pure. Assuming it was perfectly pure in 1611, and assuming the KJV did not exist in 1611, and assuming that the Tyndale (for example) is not the KJV (which it isn't), then God's word as given to man before 1611 was less than pure. But that does not seem to agree with the Biblical testimony.

The "purified 7 times" has nothing to do with progressive purifying. Rather, it is a metaphor. Nothing, in the ancient world, was more pure than silver or gold tried 7 times. The comparison is NOT that the word is purified 7 times (as if it was ever unpure). Rather, the Word has been, and always be, as pure as the most pure thing we can imagine.

I welcome your reply.

sanderson1611 said...

Anonymous, of course God's word was pure before 1611...in languages other than modern English (i.e. Hebrew, Greek, et al.).

The 6 English translations before the KJV were good, but not quite perfect. They progressively got better. The KJV is the finished product.

Yes, the word of God has always been pure, but it was not perfectly pure IN MODERN ENGLISH until the King James Version.

People like you always ask, "Well, where was the perfect word of God before 1611," as if it is some profound question. The answer is actually pretty obvious: "in other languages!" The English we speak is only 500 years old. Get over it.

Yousef said...

Thank you for your reply.

Unfortunately, we still have several unanswered issues (I cannot gloss over these issues, though you may want me to):

1) The versions we have, prior to the English Bibles, are not the same (word for word) as the KJV. There is no single version you can point to that matches the KJV in each chapter and verse. If the KJV is the standard of purity, then God did not give the church his pure word until 1611. There is no way around this.
2) You did not address the metaphor of "purified 7 times". This is not a progressive process that God's word is being compared to. Knowing the context and culture and language, the Word is being compared to something that is ALREADY 100% pure.
3) If the KJV was the first 100% pure Bible (you claim it is 100% pure, and there is no version prior to it that matches every chapter/verse), then why 1611? What evidence do we have of supernatural oversight of the translation process, compared to other versions?
4) If in fact, we are not to add to the Bible, I cannot see how you can expect people to only use the KJV, when the KJV itself does not require this. Nor did the KJV translators. If you can show me in the KJV, or ANY translation, that God predicts the KJV, or commands the use of the KJV, then I am more than happy to obey. (The coming of Christ is clearly prophesied so as to leave no question. You would think something as important as Bible versions would get more support in Scripture). But to require the use of the KJV alone, without the command of God, is to place undue burdens on men's backs. Something that Jesus particularly felt strongly about.

I welcome your reply.

sanderson1611 said...

1) Did you even read my comment? The perfectly pure word of God was IN OTHER LANGUAGES before 1611. It was not 100% perfect in modern English yet, which is why the KJV was even produced!

2)So what?

3)I never claimed that the KJV was the first 100% pure Bible. THE BIBLE WAS PURE IN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGES AND IN OTHER LANGUAGES. I don't know how else to say it.

4)What you are saying doesn't make any sense. If we are "not to add to the Bible," then we should fight against versions like the NIV, NASB, ESV, NLT, etc., because they add to the Bible! I am not against people reading from the 6 Bibles before the KJV, but what is the point when the KJV improved on them?

An undue burden on people's backs? Why would it strain your back to read from one Bible rather than 400? Carrying 400 bibles is more likely to hurt your back than carrying 1 Bible, the KJV.

Yousef said...

Thank you for your reply. I will give these things consideration and, if okay with you, respond in the near future.

Anonymous said...

Pastor Anderson I was hoping you can give some history on the holy men who wrote the kjv. Bible, how many men, who where they, and how long did they take to write the kjv??

PAUL RIVERS said...

this was really really enlightening and informative. I agree wholeheartedly; the KJV has an unmatched poetic beauty to it that is clearly superior to the versions, not sure why anyone would want to fix something that was never broken

PAUL RIVERS said...

This was really informative and enlightening. I've always known and loved the KJV only and knew it was special but know I know exactly why; God's number of perfection and completeness is 7!! Makes perfect sense. I totally agree Bro Anderson; the KJV has such a distinct poetic beauty and is so obviously supreme to the other english translations, why would anyone ever want to use one of the drafts? More importantly, why in the world would anyone try to fix what never has been nor ever will be broken??

Anonymous said...

Wow knowing all this info just makes me love the kjv all the more perfect bible I'm having the best time of my life since I got saved and I see Gods love everywhere I never saw anything before its truly like being blind all my life and one day I open my eyes and the world and sky and space and JESUS CHRIST let me see the true world. With all the great and ugly things I never saw before. This is true fun when I learn another new thing. Thank you Pastor Anderson :)

Anonymous said...

I'm just curious, what do you do with all the unicorn verses in the KJV?

Anonymous said...

Unicorns in the KJV. Are simply rhinoceros. Even a old dictionary will tell you that.

carrierwave said...

I heard on one of the Revelation series studies that there was a section about 2 Thess.2:3 where (some) pre-trib rapture people believe that "falling away" refered to a "departure" rather than spiritual "apostacy".

Pastor Anderson said this was simply a lie. However when you check the Geneva, Bishop's, Great Bible, sure enough it says "departure" and not "falling away".

There was also discussion that the "day of Christ" is at hand was not the rapture but that is speaking of the "day of the Lord" (beginning of the 7 year 70th week of Daniel.) This seems to make sense. How could the "rapture" be spoken of as "is at hand" (presently in progress)and the Thessalonians be "shaken in mind" about it? The rapture is like a "lightening" flash and not period of time. Paul also said that he would be crowned "at that day"..."of his appearing". 2Tim.4:8. This is the rapture--HIS appearing.

This seems to indicate a pre-trib rapture and not a mid-7 year position--especially when the subsequent English Bibles say "departure". This would add support that the "falling way" is a "departure" away from the earth of the saints. Saints don't fall "down" at the rapture, but they "depart away" from this world.

Luis Rosales said...

Pastor Anderson,
Thank you for sharing your knowledge. Im trying to get a KJV, im searching kjvstore.com they have different versions, I think im not sure, Hendricks and another, im assuming they are publishers are they different? Which one should I get? Please help me. Luis Rosales Los Angeles Ca peanuterwf@gmail.com

Anonymous said...

Pastor Anderson, what about the Tamil Bible? Its the oldest language in the world (probably) and is also my native language. Is it in accordance with King James Version?

The only info I could gather was it was translated by Bartholomäus Ziegenbalg at Tranquebar in 1706 who was a german missionary and was a member of the Lutheran clergy and the first Pietist missionary to India. So my guess is that he translated the Tamil Bible from Luther Bible and Martin Luther was, well a false prophet.

Waiting for you reply.