The 1555 Latin Vulgate Published by Robert Stephens -- The First Bible with Numbered Chapters and Verses

THE HISTORY AND CONTENT OF THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE

The word Bible is derived from the Greek biblia, meaning "books," and refers to the sacred writings of Judaism and Christianity. The Bible consists of two parts. The first part, called the Old Testament by Christians, consists of the sacred writings of the Jewish people and was written originally in Hebrew, except for some portions in Aramaic. The second part, called the New Testament, was composed in Greek and records the story of Jesus and the beginnings of Christianity. Translated in whole or in part into more than 1,500 languages, the Bible is the most widely distributed book in the world. Its influence on history and culture, including literature and the other arts, is incalculable. THE OLD TESTAMENT Major Themes and Characteristics The Hebrew Bible, written over a period of more than 500 years, consists of many types of literature and reflects varying points of view. It is essentially religious, but, unlike most ancient religious books, the Old Testament is characterised by a strong sense of history; even laws and exhortations are woven into the narratives. The themes are the uniqueness and glory of GOD (Yahweh), the COVENANTS he made with Israel, the Law, God's control of history and Israel's special destiny, God's revelation through the PROPHETS, the nature of humanity, corporate and individual sin and its remedy, and the true worship of God. The Hebrews believed that their religion was founded on covenants that God offered them and that they had accepted. Yahweh had agreed to make them his specially chosen people and to protect them, but only if they obeyed his Law. Covenants were made with NOAH, which embraced all humankind, and with ABRAHAM and his descendants; but the most important covenant was revealed to MOSES. Later, after the division of the JEWS into two kingdoms -- JUDAH and ISRAEL – the people of Judah believed that a special covenant had also been made with King DAVID and his royal descendants. Yahweh was different from all other deities. Israel was forbidden to worship any other god, and the Mosaic religion perhaps implied that no other existed, although this was not specifically emphasised until the time of the exile during the Babylonian Captivity (587-37 BC). Other gods personified natural forces or tribes and nations, but Yahweh was supreme over everything. Because he controlled history, he could use Assyria or Babylonia to punish a rebellious Israel. Plentiful crops depended on his will alone and not on the magical rites by which the Baals of Canaan were worshiped. The concept of the Book of LEVITICUS was that the Hebrews were to be a holy people, separated from all defilement. Many laws in the Pentateuch, or TORAH, the first five books, were not different from those of surrounding nations. However, some unique commandments were given, without specific rewards and punishments; most important were the TEN COMMANDMENTS, which have a high ethical content. The TORAH (Law) was a complete religious and civil law for the whole nation. It prescribed sacrifices and festivals similar to those of other nations, but the emphasis was on morality. Yahweh was a God of justice. All sin and injustice was an offense against him; and repentance could bring forgiveness. In the Book of JOSHUA, Yahweh is a God of war who commands the slaughter of the Canaanites, but the Hebrew religion gradually outgrew such a concept, as can be seen in the books of JEREMIAH and JONAH. The prophets saw history as an interaction between the living God and his people, and its outcome depended on their obedience. Israel was destined to be a light to the nations, but it always had a special place in God's purpose and love, and the Hebrews always struggled with the two concepts of God's impartial justice and his love toward Israel. Late in the biblical period, writers of APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE, unlike the earlier prophets, despaired of the normal forces of history and believed that God would put an end to the present age, bringing in a miraculous reign of righteousness. These themes were not systematised into a theology but can be discerned from the literature as a whole, which expresses the hopes, fears, laments, thanksgivings, and even the doubts of the Hebrews. Thus the Book of JOB criticises the popular, facile doctrine of reward and punishment, and the Book of ECCLESIASTES often approaches skepticism. THE CANON The canon, or officially accepted list of books in the Hebrew Bible, consists of 24 books according to Jewish reckoning and is divided into three parts: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. The Law (Torah), often called the Pentateuch, comprises five books, GENESIS through DEUTERONOMY. The Prophets (Nevi im) are divided into three parts: the earlier prophets (Joshua, JUDGES, 1 and 2 SAMUEL, and 1 and 2 KINGS); the later prophets (ISAIAH, Jeremiah, and EZEKIEL); and twelve books called the Minor Prophets because of their brevity. The 11 Writings (Ketuvim) include three poetic books (PSALMS, PROVERBS, and Job); the five scrolls (SONG OF SOLOMON, RUTH, LAMENTATIONS, Ecclesiastes, and ESTHER); an apocalyptic work, DANIEL; and EZRA-NEHEMIAH and 1 and 2 CHRONICLES. Christian Bibles arrange the books differently. The Law, or Pentateuch, comes first, then all the historical books. These are followed by the poetical, or wisdom, books and finally the prophetic books. Thus Ruth, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther appear in the second group and Daniel and Lamentations in the fourth. The Jews never ceased writing religious books. Several books composed in Hebrew or Greek after 300 BC are part of the SEPTUAGINT, or Old Greek version, and were regarded as Scripture by many Christians. Roman Catholics and the Orthodox include these books, called APOCRYPHA or deuterocanonical books, in the Bible. Protestants omit them or print them as an appendix to the Bible. DIVISIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT The following discussion uses the Christian classification of books. Pentateuch. Genesis recounts the creation of the universe and the first human beings, the traditions of the DELUGE, and the stories of the patriarchs down to the sojourn of the Hebrews in Egypt and the deaths of JACOB and JOSEPH. EXODUS tells how Moses led the people from Egypt and received the covenant and Law on Mount Sinai. Leviticus is largely a legal code; NUMBERS continues the story of migration toward the Promised Land. Deuteronomy partly repeats the narrative, recording other laws, and concludes with the death of Moses. It teaches a strict doctrine of corporate reward and punishment. The Pentateuch is based on four principal sources. The oldest, J, was perhaps written in Judah, the southern kingdom, about 950 BC. Between 900 and 750, another version from Israel, the northern kingdom, was woven in; this is called EPHRAIM (E). In the 7th century BC, Deuteronomy, or most of it (D), was compiled. About 550 BC, during the exile, the final edition of the Torah added a priestly source (P), some parts of which are very old. Historical Books. Joshua tells of a thorough conquest of Canaan, but Judges contains traditions of the Hebrew tribes in the period before the monarchy that reveal the conquest as partial. The books of Samuel are about the founding of the monarchy under SAUL and David and contain a magnificent early source for the life of David, probably written about 961-22 BC. All the above books have been extensively edited by writers who shared the theology of the D source. Ezra and Nehemiah were composed after the exile, when these two leaders restored Judaism in Palestine, and Nehemiah's own memoirs make up much of the latter book. The two Books of Chronicles cover Hebrew history from Ezra's priestly point of view but contain some valuable earlier traditions. Ruth is the story of a foreign woman who became loyal to Israel and was the ancestor of David. Esther is a tale of a Jewish queen of Persia who saved her people from persecution. Poetical, or Wisdom, Books. Job contains some of the finest poetry in the Bible. Its themes are the problems of suffering and of man's standing before God. The Psalms were essentially composed for temple worship, although some may be pieces of individual devotion. Many are ascribed to David, but some come from an earlier period. Proverbs comprises several collections of ancient wisdom. Parts of Ecclesiastes are skeptical, but other sections express conventional wisdom. The Song of Solomon is a collection of love poems. The Prophets. The great prophets of the 8th century BC were AMOS, HOSEA, ISAIAH, and MICAH. They proclaimed God's holiness and his judgment on the idol worship and moral abuses of the Hebrew kingdoms, and called the people back to loyalty to the covenant. Jeremiah, the greatest prophet of the 7th century BC, was unique in recording his inner spiritual struggles and in promising a new covenant. Like Isaiah, he opposed military alliances with foreign nations and resistance to the Babylonian invasion. ZEPHANIAH and perhaps HABAKKUK belong to the same century. NAHUM gloats over the destruction (612 BC) of Nineveh. The most significant prophets during the period of Babylonian exile were the Ezekiel and the unknown authors of chapters 40-55 and 56-66 of Isaiah, who encouraged the return of the Jews to the Holy Land and promised a glorious national life. Lamentations reflects the miseries of the exile. The remaining prophets followed the exile. OBADIAH is strongly nationalistic; JONAH expresses God's concern for Gentiles as well as Jews. HAGGAI and ZECHARIAH 1-8 reflect the rebuilding of a small temple in Jerusalem. JOEL, Zachariah 9-14, and MALACHI combine the themes of judgment and restoration and have apocalyptic elements. Daniel is an apocalypse from the Maccabean period (c.164 BC) and promises God's help to the Jews in time of persecution. THE NEW TESTAMENT Major Themes and Characteristics Covenant and law are central in the Old Testament, and JESUS CHRIST is central in the New Testament. The dominant theme is the interpretation of Jesus' nature as CHRIST or MESSIAH (the anointed one), Son of man, Son of God, Lord, and Prophet. This was a complete reinterpretation of the Jewish hope for an anointed king descended from David. Perhaps before Jesus' death, his disciples had already acclaimed him as Messiah, but they became convinced of this from experiences that proved to them he was again alive. Thus the RESURRECTION is the second major theme. The Messiah now came to mean, not a conquering, successful king, but a crucified Lord whose unique relationship to God could be suggested only partially by the titles applied to him. In explaining and defending their faith, the disciples of Jesus found passages in the Old Testament that they believed were prophecies of his death, resurrection, and nature (for example, Psalm 110:1, Isaiah 53; Daniel 7:13-14). They also preserved Jesus' sayings and the stories of his life, which they interpreted in light of their faith. Jesus had proclaimed the gospel ("good news") of the coming reign, or kingdom, of God and carried on a ministry of teaching, forgiveness, and healing. Although much of his teaching agreed with that of other Jews, his more radical and prophetic sayings made enemies. The high priest and his associates feared Jesus as a threat to the established order, and the Roman governor Pontius PILATE was persuaded to have Jesus crucified. Thus, the gospel tradition contains both the message of Jesus and the proclamation of his divine nature. Other new experiences of ecstasy and prophecy were interpreted as gifts of the HOLY SPIRIT. Indeed, most books of the New Testament ponder the relation of the old and the new. Christians, and Jesus himself, believed in the same God as other Jews and recognised the authority of the Old Testament. Yet Jesus had made radical statements that undermined the separateness of Judaism and led logically to the admission of Gentiles into the community. Thus, there emerged a CHURCH embracing Jews and non-Jews that was interpreted as based on a new covenant inaugurated by Jesus. PAUL, the greatest apostle of the Gentile mission, defended his policies by teaching that the basis for acceptance by God is faith in Jesus Christ; yet Paul did not wish to break continuity with the old religion. The New Testament contains a strong apocalyptic element. Jesus' parables and sayings regarding the coming reign of God are enigmatic, and it is not certain that he expected the early end of the world; but many original Christians believed they were living in the last age. Nevertheless, much of the moral teaching of the New Testament is aimed at everyday life in this world, and Christian behaviour is a constant theme. The New Testament reflects other concerns of community life, including public worship and church organisation, but equal emphasis is placed on individual PRAYER and communion with God. The New Testament covers a much shorter period of time than the Old Testament, and its interests are fewer and more intense. This is partly because Christians had access to the Old Testament and other Jewish books. The New Testament was written concisely. Almost no attempt was made to imitate the fashionable literature of the time; yet the writings have great rhetorical power. Natural science had little influence. The outlook is not unscientific but prescientific; these are writings of faith, not speculation. The Canon The process by which the canon of the New Testament was formed began in the 2d century, probably with a collection of ten letters of Paul. Toward the end of that century, IRENAEUS argued for the unique authority of the portion of the Canon called the Gospels. Acceptance of the other books came gradually. The church in Egypt used more than the present 27 books, and the Syriac-speaking churches fewer. The question of an official canon became urgent during the 4th century. It was mainly through the influence of ATHANASIUS, bishop of Alexandria, and because JEROME included the 27 books in his Latin version of the Bible called the Vulgate, that the present canon came to be accepted. Divisions of the New Testament The New Testament consists of four Gospels, the ACTS OF THE APOSTLES, collections of Epistles, and the Book of REVELATION. The Gospels. Originally gospel meant "good news" (Greek evangelion). The term was later applied to books embodying this message. These are not biographies but proclamations of the good news in story form. Although all dates for New Testament books are debated, prevailing opinion dates MARK AD 68-72, LUKE and MATTHEW c.85, and JOHN 95-100. The first three, called synoptic because they can be compared side by side, have a complicated literary relationship with each other. Probably Matthew and Luke used Mark and a lost document called Q (German Quelle, "source"), consisting mainly of Jesus' sayings. The parables--short illustrative stories told by Jesus, usually reflecting daily life--are prominent in the synoptics. The Gospel of John differs from the others in structure and reflects the theological development of the first century, but it contains traditions independent of the synoptics. The Acts The Acts of the Apostles was evidently written by Luke as a sequel to his Gospel. It recounts the traditions of the earliest churches in Palestine and gives the details of Paul's missionary journeys. The Epistles Two kinds of Epistles are attributed to St. Paul in the New Testament. Nine of them (ten, if EPHESIANS is included) are letters addressed by Paul to specific churches and deal mainly with problems of faith, morals, and community life. These letters disclose Paul's interpretation of Christianity and his methods of dealing with pastoral problems. The remainder are not actual letters; rather they are writings in letter form, intended for the whole church or large parts of it. Thus, the pastoral Epistles--1 and 2 TIMOTHY and TITUS--written in Paul's name, contain directions for church leaders and warn against errors in doctrine and behaviour. HEBREWS is a carefully constructed sermon by an unknown author and interprets Christ as high priest and urges fidelity in time of persecution. The general, or catholic, Epistles are so called because they are directed to the church as a whole. The Epistle of JAMES emphasizes the importance of good deeds against an empty type of belief that involves no right action. The first Epistle of PETER proclaims joy in the face of persecution and is addressed particularly to congregations with newly baptized members. The Epistles of JOHN resemble the fourth Gospel. St. John teaches the intimate relationship between love of the brotherhood and the true doctrine about Christ; he also attacks division within the church. Revelation The Book of REVELATION was probably written to encourage Christians to be faithful during a persecution under Domitian (AD 81-96). It portrays the future through many symbols, and the prophet expects God's judgment on the Roman Empire, a 1,000-year reign of Christ, and a new heaven and a new Earth. VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE Several Aramaic targums (free translations or paraphrases) of the Old Testament exist; some of them may be older than the Christian Era. The Greek Septuagint, whose canon was not strictly defined, was gradually produced during the last three centuries BC. An Old Latin version of both Testaments was revised by Jerome, producing the Vulgate. Ancient versions exist in Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, and other languages. During the Middle Ages, parts of the Bible were put into Anglo-Saxon and Middle English. The first English versions of the entire Bible were made (1380-93) by John WYCLIFFE and his associates who used the Latin text. The REFORMATION gave further impulse to translations into modern languages, notably that of Martin LUTHER in German and William TYNDALE in English. Among later versions are the following: Miles COVERDALE's Bible (1535), Matthew's Bible (1537), the Great Bible (1539), Geneva Bible (1560), Rheims-Douai Bible (1582, 1609), King James, or Authorized, Version (1611), English Revised Version (1881-85), American Standard Version (1946-57), New English Bible (1961-70), Jerusalem Bible (1966), New American Bible (1970), Today's English Version (1966-76), and the Revised Standard Version (1946-1971).

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE

By Dr. Laurence M. Vance As the reign of Elizabeth (1558-1603) was coming to a close, we find a draft for an act of Parliament for a new version of the Bible: "An act for the reducing of diversities of bibles now extant in the English tongue to one settled vulgar translated from the original." The Bishop's Bible of 1568, although it may have eclipsed the Great Bible, was still rivaled by the Geneva Bible. Nothing ever became of this draft during the reign of Elizabeth, who died in 1603, and was succeeded by James 1, as the throne passed from the Tudors to the Stuarts. James was at that time James VI of Scotland, and had been for thirty-seven years. He was born during the period between the Geneva and the Bishop's Bible. One of the first things done by the new king was the calling of the Hampton Court Conference in January of 1604 "for the hearing, and for the determining, things pretended to be amiss in the church." Here were assembled bishops, clergymen, and professors, along with four Puritan divines, to consider the complaints of the Puritans. Although Bible revision was not on the agenda, the Puritan president of Corpus Christi College, John Reynolds, "moved his Majesty, that there might be a new translation of the Bible, because those which were allowed in the reigns of Henry the eighth, and Edward the sixth, were corrupt and not answerable to the truth of the Original." The king rejoined that he: "Could never yet see a Bible well translated in English; but I think that, of all, that of Geneva is the worst. I wish some special pains were taken for an uniform translation, which should be done by he best learned men in both Universities, then reviewed by the Bishops, presented to the Privy Council, lastly ratified by the Royal authority, to be read in the whole Church, and none other." Accordingly, a resolution came forth: "That a translation be made of the whole Bible, as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek; and this to be set out and printed, without any marginal notes, and only to be used in all churches of England in time of divine service." The next step was the actual selection of the men who were to perform the work. In July of 1604, James wrote to Bishop Bancroft that he had "appointed certain learned men, to the number of four and fifty, for the translating of the Bible." These men were the best biblical scholars and linguists of their day. In the preface to their completed work it is further stated that "there were many chosen, that were greater in other men's eyes than in their own, and that sought the truth rather than their own praise. Again, they came or were thought to come to the work, learned, not to learn." Other men were sought out, according to James, "so that our said intended translation may have the help and furtherance of all our principal learned men within this our kingdom." Although fifty-four men were nominated, only forty-seven were known to have taken part in the work of translation. The translators were organized into six groups, and met respectively at Westminster, Cambridge, and Oxford. Ten at Westminster were assigned Genesis through 2 Kings; seven had Romans through Jude. At Cambridge, eight worked on 1 Chronicles through Ecclesiastes, while seven others handled the Apocrypha. Oxford employed seven to translate Isaiah through Malachi; eight occupied themselves with the Gospels, Acts, and Revelation.

WHY THE KING JAMES VERSION IS NOT THE BEST TRANSLATION AVAILABLE TODAY

By: Daniel B. Wallace , Th.M., Ph.D. First, I want to affirm with all evangelical Christians that the Bible is the Word of God, inerrant, inspired, and our final authority for faith and life. However, nowhere in the Bible am I told that only one translation of it is the correct one. Nowhere am I told that the King James Bible is the best or only ‘holy’ Bible. There is no verse that tells me how God will preserve his word, so I can have no scriptural warrant for arguing that the King James has exclusive rights to the throne. The arguments must proceed on other bases. Second, the Greek text which stands behind the King James Bible is demonstrably inferior in certain places. The man who edited the text was a Roman Catholic priest and humanist named Erasmus.[1] He was under pressure to get it to the press as soon as possible since (a) no edition of the Greek New Testament had yet been published, and (b) he had heard that Cardinal Ximenes and his associates were just about to publish an edition of the Greek New Testament and he was in a race to beat them. Consequently, his edition has been called the most poorly edited volume in all of literature! It is filled with hundreds of typographical errors which even Erasmus would acknowledge. Two places deserve special mention. In the last six verses of Revelation, Erasmus had no Greek manuscript (=MS) (he only used half a dozen, very late MSS for the whole New Testament any way). He was therefore forced to ‘back-translate’ the Latin into Greek and by so doing he created seventeen variants which have never been found in any other Greek MS of Revelation! He merely guessed at what the Greek might have been. Secondly, for 1 John 5:7-8, Erasmus followed the majority of MSS in reading “there are three witnesses in heaven, the Spirit and the water and the blood.” However, there was an uproar in some Roman Catholic circles because his text did not read “there are three witnesses in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit.” Erasmus said that he did not put that in the text because he found no Greek MSS which had that reading. This implicit challenge—viz., that if he found such a reading in any Greek MS, he would put it in his text—did not go unnoticed. In 1520, a scribe at Oxford named Roy made such a Greek MS (codex 61, now in Dublin). Erasmus’ third edition had the second reading because such a Greek MS was ‘made to order’ to fill the challenge! To date, only a handful of Greek MSS have been discovered which have the Trinitarian formula in 1 John 5:7-8, though none of them is demonstrably earlier than the sixteenth century. That is a very important point. It illustrates something quite significant with regard to the textual tradition which stands behind the King James. Probably most textual critics today fully embrace the doctrine of the Trinity (and, of course, all evangelical textual critics do). And most would like to see the Trinity explicitly taught in 1 John 5:7-8. But most reject this reading as an invention of some overly zealous scribe. The problem is that the King James Bible is filled with readings which have been created by overly zealous scribes! Very few of the distinctive King James readings are demonstrably ancient. And most textual critics just happen to embrace the reasonable proposition that the most ancient MSS tend to be more reliable since they stand closer to the date of the autographs. I myself would love to see many of the King James readings retained. The story of the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11) has always been a favorite of mine about the grace of our savior, Jesus Christ. That Jesus is called God in 1 Timothy 3:16 affirms my view of him. Cf. also John 3:13; 1 John 5:7-8, etc. But when the textual evidence shows me both that scribes had a strong tendency to add, rather than subtract, and that most of these additions are found in the more recent MSS, rather than the more ancient, I find it difficult to accept intellectually the very passages which I have always embraced emotionally. In other words, those scholars who seem to be excising many of your favorite passages from the New Testament are not doing so out of spite, but because such passages are not found in the better and more ancient MSS. It must be emphatically stressed, however, that this does not mean that the doctrines contained in those verses have been jeopardized. My belief in the deity of Christ, for example, does not live or die with 1 Timothy 3:16. In fact, it has been repeatedly affirmed that no doctrine of Scripture has been affected by these textual differences. If that is true, then the ‘King James only’ advocates might be crying wolf where none exists, rather than occupying themselves with the more important aspects of advancing the gospel.[2] Third, the King James Bible has undergone three revisions since its inception in 1611, incorporating more than 100,000 changes. Which King James Bible is inspired, therefore? Fourth, 300 words found in the KJV no longer bear the same meaning—e.g., “Suffer little children…to come unto me” (Matt 19:14). “Study to shew thyself approved unto God” (2 Tim 2:15). Should we really embrace a Bible as the best translation when it uses language that not only is not clearly understood any more, but in fact has been at times perverted and twisted?[3] Fifth, the KJV includes one very definite error in translation, which even KJV advocates would admit. In Matthew 23:24 the KJV has ‘strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.’ But the Greek has ‘strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.’ In the least, this illustrates not only that no translation is infallible but also that scribal corruptions can and do take place-even in a volume which has been worked over by so many different hands (for the KJV was the product of a very large committee of over 50 scholars).[4] Sixth, when the KJV was first published, it was heavily resisted for being too easy to understand! Some people revere it today because it is difficult to understand. I fear that part of their response is due to pride: they feel as though they are able to discern something that other, less spiritual folks cannot. Often 1 Corinthians 2:13-16 is quoted with reference to the KJV (to the effect that ‘you would understand it if you were spiritual’). Such a use of that text, however, is a gross distortion of the Scriptures. The words in the New Testament, the grammar, the style, etc.—in short, the language—comprised the common language of the first century. We do God a great disservice when we make the gospel more difficult to understand than he intended it. The reason unspiritual people do not understand the scriptures is because they have a volitional problem, not an intellectual problem (cf. 1 Cor. 2:14 where ‘receive,’ ‘welcome’ shows clearly that the thing which blocks understanding is the sinful will of man). Seventh, those who advocate that the KJV has exclusive rights to being called the Holy Bible are always, curiously, English-speaking people (normally isolated Americans). Yet, Martin Luther’s fine translation of the Bible into German predated the KJV by almost 100 years. Are we so arrogant to say that God has spoken only in English? And where there are substantial discrepancies between Luther’s Bible and the KJV (such as in 1 John 5:7-8), are we going to say that God has inspired both? Is he the author of lies? Our faith does not rest in a singular tradition, nor is it provincial. Vibrant, biblical Christianity must never unite itself with provincialism. Otherwise, missionary endeavor, among other things, would die. Eighth, again, let me repeat an earlier point: Most evangelicals—who embrace all the cardinal doctrines of the faith—prefer a different translation and textual basis than that found in the KJV. In fact, even the editors of the New Scofield Reference Bible (which is based on the KJV) prefer a different text/translation! Finally, though it is true that the modern translations ‘omit’ certain words and verses (or conversely, the KJV adds to the Word of God, depending on how you look at it), the issue is not black-or-white. In fact, the most recent edition of a Greek New Testament which is based on the majority of MSS, rather than the most ancient ones (and thus stands firmly behind the King James tradition), when compared to the standard Greek New Testament used in most modern translations, excises over six hundred and fifty words or phrases! Thus, it is not proper to suggest that only modern translations omit; the Greek text behind the KJV omits, too! The question, then, is not whether modern translations have deleted portions of the Word of God, but rather whether either the KJV or modern translations have altered the Word of God. I contend that the KJV has far more drastically altered the scriptures than have modern translations. Nevertheless, I repeat: most textual critics for the past two hundred and fifty years would say that no doctrine is affected by these changes. One can get saved reading the KJV and one can get saved reading the NIV, NASB, etc. I trust that this brief survey of reasons I have for thinking that the King James Bible is not the best available translation will not be discarded quickly. All of us have a tendency to make mountains out of molehills and then to set up fortresses in those ‘mountains.’ We often cling to things out of emotion, rather than out of true piety. And as such we do a great disservice to a dying world that is desperately in need of a clear, strong voice proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ. Soli Deo gloria! Addendum One further point is necessary. With the recent publication of several different books vilifying modern translations, asserting that they were borne out of conspiratorial motives, a word should be mentioned about this concocted theory. First, many of these books are written by people who have little or no knowledge of Greek or Hebrew, and are, further, a great distortion of the facts. I have read books on textual criticism for more than a quarter of a century, but never have I seen such illogic, out-of-context quotations, and downright deceptions about the situation as in these recent books. Second, although it is often asserted that heretics produced some of the New Testament MSS we now have in our possession, there is only one group of MSS known to be produced by heretics: certain Byzantine MSS of the book of Revelation. This is significant because the Byzantine text stands behind the KJV! These MSS formed part of a mystery cult textbook used by various early cults. But KJV advocates constantly make the charge that the earliest MSS (the Alexandrian MSS) were produced by heretics. The sole basis they have for this charge is that certain readings in these MSS are disagreeable to them! Third, when one examines the variations between the Greek text behind the KJV (the Textus Receptus) and the Greek text behind modern translations, it is discovered that the vast majority of variations are so trivial as to not even be translatable (the most common is the moveable nu, which is akin to the difference between ‘who’ and ‘whom’!). Fourth, when one compares the number of variations that are found in the various MSS with the actual variations between the Textus Receptus and the best Greek witnesses, it is found that these two are remarkably similar. There are over 400,000 textual variants among NT MSS. But the differences between the Textus Receptus and texts based on the best Greek witnesses number about 5000—and most of these are untranslatable differences! In other words, over 98% of the time, the Textus Receptus and the standard critical editions agree. Those who vilify the modern translations and the Greek texts behind them have evidently never really investigated the data. Their appeals are based largely on emotion, not evidence. As such, they do an injustice to historic Christianity as well as to the men who stood behind the King James Bible. These scholars, who admitted that their work was provisional and not final (as can be seen by their preface and by their more than 8000 marginal notes indicating alternate renderings), would wholeheartedly welcome the great finds in MSS that have occurred in the past one hundred and fifty years. [1] Now a humanist in the sixteenth century is not the same as a humanist today. Erasmus was generally tolerant of other viewpoints, and was particularly interested in the humanities. Although he was a friend of Melanchthon, Luther’s right-hand man, Luther did not care for him. [2] It is significant that Erasmus himself was quite progressive in his thinking, and would hardly be in favor of how the KJV Only advocates have embraced him as their champion. For example, every one of his editions of the Greek NT was a diglot—Latin on one side and Greek on the other. The Latin was his own translation, and was meant to improve upon Jerome’s Latin Vulgate—a translation which the Catholic church had declared to be inspired. For this reason, Cambridge University immediately banned Erasmus’ New Testament, and others followed suit. Elsewhere, Erasmus questioned whether the pericope adulterae (the story of the woman caught in adultery [John 7:53-8:11]), the longer ending of Mark (16:9-20), etc., were authentic. [3] “Suffer” in Matt 19:14 means “permit”; “study” in 2 Tim 2:15 means “be eager, be diligent.” See the Oxford English Dictionary (the largest unabridged dictionary of the English language) for help here: it traces the uses of words through their history, pinpointing the year in which a new meaning came into vogue. [4] There are other mistakes in the KJV which persist to this day, even though this translation has gone through several editions. For example, the KJV in Heb 4:8 reads: “For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.” This sounds as though Jesus could not provide the eternal rest that we all long for! However, the Greek word for Jesus is the same as the word for Joshua. And in the context of Heb 4, Joshua is obviously meant. There is no textual problem here; it is rather simply a mistake on the part of the translators, perpetuated for the last 400 years in all editions of the KJV.

WHO WROTE THE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE, AND WHEN?

GENESIS: Moses, ? – 1445 B.C. EXODUS: Moses, 1445 – 1405 B.C. LEVITICUS: Moses, 1405 BC. NUMBERS: Moses, 1444 – 1405 B.C. DEUTERONOMY: Moses, 1405 B.C. JOSHUA: Joshua, 1404 – 1390 B.C. JUDGES: Samuel, 1374 – 1129 B.C. RUTH: Samuel, 1150 ? B.C. FIRST SAMUEL: Samuel, 1043 –1011 BC. SECOND SAMUEL: Ezra?, 1011 – 1004 B.C. FIRST KINGS: Jeremiah ?, 971 – 852 B.C. SECOND KINGS: Jeremiah ?, 852 – 587 B.C. FIRST CHRONICLES: Ezra ?, 450 – 425 B.C. SECOND CHRONICLES: Ezra ?, 450 – 425 B.C. EZRA: Ezra, 538 – 520 B.C. NEHEMIAH: Nehemiah, 445 – 425 B.C. ESTHER: Mordecai ?, 465 B.C. JOB: Job ?, ? ? PSALMS: David, 1000 B.C. Son of Korah wrote Psalms 42, 44-49, 84-85, 87; Asaph wrote Psalms 50, 73-83; Heman wrote Psalm 88; Ethan wrote Psalm 89; Hezekiah wrote Psalms 120-123, 128-130, 132, 134-136; Solomon wrote Psalms 72, 127. PROVERBS: 950 – 700 B.C. Solomon wrote 1-29; Agar wrote 30; Lemuel wrote 31 950. ECCLESIASTES: Solomon, 935 B.C. SONG of SOLOMON: Solomon, 965 B.C. ISAIAH: Isaiah, 740 – 680 B.C. JEREMIAH:Jeremiah, 627 – 585 B.C. LAMENTATIONS: Jeremiah, 586 B.C. EZEKIEL: Ezekiel, 593 – 560 B.C. DANIEL: Daniel, 605 – 536 B.C. HOSEA: Hosea, 710 B.C. JOEL: Joel, 835 B.C. AMOS: Amos, 755 B.C. OBADIAH: Obadiah, 840 or 586 B.C. JONAH: Jonah, 760 B.C. MICAH: Micha, 700 B.C. NAHUM: Nahum, 663 – 612 B.C. HABAKKUK: Habakkuk, 607 B.C. ZEPHANIAH: Zephaniah, 625 B.C. HAGGAI: Haggai, 520 B.C. ZECHARIAH: Zechariah, 520 – 518 B.C. MALACHI: Malachi, 450 – 600 B.C. MATTHEW: Matthew , 60s A.D. MARK: John Mark, late 50s – early 60s. LUKE:Luke, 60. JOHN: John, late 80s – early 90s. ACTS: Luke, 61. ROMANS: Paul, 55. 1 CORINTHIANS: Paul, 54. 2 CORINTHIANS: Paul, 55. GALATIANS: Paul, 49. EPHESIANS: Paul, 60. PHILIPPIANS: Paul, 61. COLOSSIANS: Paul, 60. 1 THESSALONIANS: Paul, 50 – 51. 2 THESSALONIANS: Paul, 50 – 51. 1 TIMOTHY: Paul, 62. 2 TIMOTHY: Paul, 63. TITUS: Paul, 62. PHILEMON: Paul, 60. HEBREWS: (Paul, Apollos, Barnabas...?) 60's. JAMES: James, half brother of Jesus, 40's or 50's. 1 PETER: Peter, 63. 2 PETER: Peter, 63 – 64. 1 JOHN: John, late 80's - early 90's. 2 JOHN: John, late 80's - early 90's. 3 JOHN: John, late 80's - early 90's. JUDE:Jude, half brother of Jesus, 60's or 70's. REVELATION: John, late 80's - early 90's.

WAS THE BIBLE INSPIRED BY GOD?

Perhaps it would help to understand the structure and authorship of the Bible. That which is referred to in the English Bible as the "Old Testament" is composed of several parts, which the Jews, who were given Scripture by God, readily recognize. Let me address these parts in common terms. First are the five books of Moses. Why are they called the "books of Moses"? Because Moses wrote them. Where did Moses get the information? From direct revelation from God while on the Mount for 80 days. You say, "Wait, wasn't he there for 40 days? He was there for 40 days, the tablets were scribed by God Himself, then, when Moses came down and found the people in idolatry having an orgy, Moses smashed the tablets. After smashing the tablets, Moses had to go back up for another 40 days and write them down himself while God dictated. Then there are the historical books. There are the books that record the history of Israel, such as Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I-II Kings, I-II Chronicles, etc. They were recorded by the designated scribes of each respective generation. There are the poetic books, such as Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, etc. Then there are the prophetic books with the major prophets and the minor prophets, major and minor being determined largely by the amount written. The prophetic words are the words of God Himself just as the first five books of Moses were directly from God. Given this basic structure and understanding of the OT, it should be clear that not every word of the OT was from God Himself, particularly the historical and poetic books. Historical books were just that - scribes recording what people did. It should also be noted that scribes are not prophets, they are only scribes. I don't think these books were dictated by God to the scribes. I do believe scribes accurately recorded events, however, and a true account of events is truth. Poetic books were largely written by men who were moved by emotions and spirit which means some of these writings were not dictated or directed by God. When David is asking God to take revenge on his enemies or to take his life because he is so miserable, I hope we can see this is simply David expressing his anger or anguish, since such attitudes and desires are not consistent with God's character and nature; such words are not God inspired. However, David did have such feelings and did record his prayer for posterity. Some psalms we also know were prophetic, particularly those we call the "messianic psalms", but not all are prophetic. When Paul writes II Tim 3:16 referring to "all Scripture", you must remember that Paul was Jewish, trained as a Pharisee, and understood religious writings from this perspective. In this school of thought, there was The Torah, The Prophets, and The Writings. "Scripture" as used by Paul generally referred to The Torah and The Prophets. It is important to understand what the authors were referring to when they use terms such as "prophets" (not every writer was a prophet, such as scribes) and "Scripture" (not every book was included in this term). Which brings us to the "New Testament" as it is commonly called. The Gospels are accurate eye witness accounts of the life of Christ. John 14:26 records how the accuracy would be maintained. Jesus says the Holy Spirit will bring all things to remembrance. This statement I will accept at face value. The book of Acts is a historical record of the acts of the apostles just after the death of Christ. The rest of the "New Testament" is a collection of letters written by the apostles to various peoples. How I understand these letters is they were written by men who were taught by Christ Himself, whose understanding was enlightened by the Holy Spirit, who were anointed, gifted, and empowered to be the leaders of believers after Christ's departure to carry on the work and message of Christ which includes the Great Commission - go and make disciples in every nation. Do I believe every word of these writings was from God Himself? No. Do I believe these men wrote what is true and it should be followed? Yes. Paul at times even says he is writing or arguing as a man and not speaking from God's direction. That's quite plain. Then comes the issue of repeated copyings and translations. Have some words been changed, altered, or even "lost in the translation" from the original writings to what we have today? Yes. Does this mean the intent, message, and essential ideas and actions have been corrupted or lost? No. There is such a high degree of internal consistency that we can rest assured what we have is reliable and sufficiently accurate to guide our faith, our beliefs, our behaviours, and our lives. When there is some doubt or question, we do have the Holy Spirit who will guide us into all truth. While I have done a fair job of addressing what I see to be the question at hand, to properly address the question, we have to have a common understanding of precisely what is meant by "inspiration", "inerrancy" and "Scripture." If by "inerrant" one refers to every single word, punctuation mark, and sense, then we must admit there are likely errors since it is not possible to translate precisely from one language to another. However, if we mean by this term the essence of the idea or action being conveyed, then it is inerrant. If by "Scripture" one refers to the 66 books of the English Bible, then, as I presented above, not all Scripture was "inspired" by God. If, however, one means the five books of Moses and the prophetic writings, then, yes it was. The historical books are accurate but not "inspired" for the reasons I previously stated. A useful afterthought. The apostles never considered the letters they were writing, which we call "the New Testament," as Scripture. When they refer to "all Scripture" this reference was not intended by these authors to include their own writings. How is it we consider their writings as "sacred Scripture" when they themselves did not?