Scrivener’s edition of the TR

 “In Scrivener We Trust”  

“My hope is built on nothing less –

than Scrivener’s edition, and the T.B.S. press –

I dare not fully trust the KJV,

But actually lean on Greek, you see!”

(motto & theme song of the “TR-only”, but NOT KJV-only “scholars”)

Whenever a “TR-only” man cites Greek, he usually points to Scrivener’s edition of the New Testament. And— to be fair, Scrivener’s is probably the best edition of any Greek New Testament, available today. However, it is NOT the “underlying text” of the AV1611. 

Here’s some reasons why:

1. Scrivener edited & engineered his Greek NT in 1881 (the KJV was first published in 1611).

2. In Scrivener’s original preface (1881 Cambridge University Press) he states this fact: “…the Authorised Version was not a translation of any one Greek text then in existence, and no Greek text intended to reproduce in any way the original of the Authorised Version has ever been printed.” --- See: Original Preface: https://assets.cambridge.org/97811080/24723/frontmatter/9781108024723_frontmatter.pdf 

3. In Scrivener’s original preface (1881 CUP), Scrivener indicates that he assumed the AV 1611 translators used Beza’s Greek NT more than any other, and thus, Scrivener collated from Beza (and a few others) as much as possible—HOWEVER, he also admitted--- “It was manifestly necessary to accept only Greek authority, though in some places the Authorised version corresponds but loosely with any form of the Greek original, while it exactly follows the Latin Vulgate.” (NOTE: the TBS editions available today, do not include Scrivener’s original preface, but rather claim the following falsehood in their edited preface— “The Textus Receptus printed in this volume is the Greek text followed by the translators of the English Authorised Version of the Bible first published in the year 1611.”  [“…this volume IS the Greek text…”???] …THIS claim is NOT TRUE! …Certainly it is very similar, as was Scrivener’s goal--- but it is not THE Greek text that the translators followed! …Is someone trying to sell “knock-off” copies of a Greek NT to desperate “TR-only” men???)

In 1881, Scrivener was trying to match a Greek text to the AV 1611, but he admitted that he could not always find a Greek text that actually matched the KJV, but instead, he did find that the Latin Vulgate matched the KJV, exactly. Therefore, in order to produce an “underlying Greek text” matching the KJV, one can only assume that Scrivener actually “back-translated” from either the Latin Vulgate, or the KJV, Itself, in said passages— in order to “reverse-engineer” his 1881 Greek edition. And, while the result is almost exactly the same in Greek, as It reads in the English, AV 1611--- there are some minor differences between Scrivener’s 1881, and the AV1611. So, which should we choose as the “final authority”? …Seriously? …Is it even a debate??? 

(NOTE: It is of little concern to me that the AV1611 DOES read exactly as the Latin Vulgate, in certain places---obviously, if the KJV translators found the Vulgate to be correct IN THOSE passages, then they left It, as is--- no harm done.)

But, here is where the harm is done—

Sadly, most “KJV Bible colleges” are using the “Scrivener TR” (the TBS edition— which doesn’t include his original preface, as found in the 1881 CUP edition, cited above). And, when a young Greek student in typical “IFB Bible college” sees his professor hold up a TBS Greek NT, and hears --- “this IS the TR underlying the AV 1611”, yet he discovers that “Scrivener’s TR” isn’t quite the same as the KJV--- a similar thought process happens---as what happens to Greek students at BJU, et al, when a student is convinced that the Nestles-Aland is the “true Greek”, and yet, it doesn’t match the KJV— DOUBT – DOUBT – DOUBT — Doubt upon the 1611 English translation of God’s Word. 

-For those students convinced that the UBS, Alexandrian, Nestles-Aland text is more trustworthy—touting these corrupted Greek MSS results in a complete rejection for the authority of the KJV, and its TR family of texts. 

-Similarly, for the student at the IFB college— it results in a wariness that the KJV is “still the best we’ve got in English”—but, should not be considered to be as authoritative as the “trusted Greek TR”—edited by Scrivener in 1881. This is what happened to Timothy Berg (and, no doubt, to countless other young men, once enrolled at “IFB Bible College”, who are now casualties to the “Greek-is-better-game”) – see here: https://kjbhistory.com/the-preface-to-the-greek-tr-of-f-h-a-scrivener/ 

Do I respect the TR family(the TRUE majority text)? Of course, I do. I believe that the vast majority of MSS within the TR family is obviously the correct lineage of Greek MSS, and the evidence is overwhelmingly on our side--- but, I am NOT “TR-only”— I am unashamedly, “KJV-only”. I reject the false teaching that God only preserved His Word in “the originals”, or, only in the “original languages”. Anyone who believes that, doesn’t really have a “Bible” = a single bound copy of God’s PRESERVED Word, that they can hold in their hand. Before I ever entered an “IFB Bible College”, my pastor warned me that today’s accepted Greek MSS remnants (the “originals” are gone) do NOT hold authority over the AV1611—praise God for faithful, Bible-believing pastors! 

THIS is why I refuse to play the “Greek game”… It’s like playing a game of “Greek cards”, without all of the cards. It is a lose-lose game, and it isn’t necessary--- we (today’s English speaking people) ALREADY have God’s Word. We don’t need to go backwards, searching for “something better”.

And, to all of my “TR-only” & “Scrivener TBS” friends, out there--- Mark Ward is grinning at you, from ear to ear---See for yourself:  https://byfaithweunderstand.com/2021/11/23/is-the-textus-receptus-perfect-in-every-jot-and-tittle-henry-ambrose-vs-frederick-scrivener/ 

— Pastor Matt Furse

September 2023

Dr. Peter Ruckman on “Church of Christ” Campbellism

“You have to watch out when these Campbellites talk about “the gospel of Christ.” The gospel of Christ can be taken two ways. It can be the gospel about Christ, which is the gospel of 1 Corinthians 15:1–4 and Galatians 1:6–9. Or you can have the gospel which Christ preached, which is the gospel of the kingdom in Matthew 4 and 24. They are not the same, and the baptisms that accompany them are not for the same purpose. You have to rightly divide those things, and no Campbellite does. Every Campbellite alive thinks that the “Gospel” is Acts 2:38, and it’s not.” — Dr. Peter Ruckman

Jeremiah 6:22 debunks the Flat Earth conspiracy theory

Flat Earth conspiracy theorists claim to be so Biblical, even though their conspiracy theory comes from New Age and pseudoscience YouTube videos. They are so caught up in YouTube that they miss what the Bible says about the Earth. 

Jeremiah 6:22 Thus saith the LORD, Behold, a people cometh from the north country, and a great nation shall be raised from the sides of the earth.

Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

The “circle of the earth” has a “north” and “sides”. A circle with sides would have to be a globe. Flat Earthers believe the Earth is a flat disc with an ice wall and dome over it, no people could come from the “sides” of their Earth model. 

By my count the word “flat” is only used 4 times in the Bible and none of those references are to the shape of the Earth. I understand that word “globe” is not in the Bible, but other terminology in the Bible references a round Earth. We see that in Jonah 2:5-6 “the deep” and the “earth and her bars” was “ROUND about” Jonah. Per Jonah 2:1-4, he was in “hell”. Ezekiel 31:16-17, 32:18, and 32:24 shows that hell is in the “nether parts of the earth”, or the “heart of the earth” as Christ said (Matt. 12:40). So if someone like Jonah is in the “heart”of the Earth, with the Earth “ROUND about” them, that sounds like a round Earth. Or in modern terms, a “globe” Earth.

“The Fake Asbury Revival” (David O’Steen)

 

Atheists accidentally prove creationism

 

An atheist shared this with the implication that the universe is not a good place and that a perfect God would not have created it to be so “deadly”. That is, Earth is the only habitable planet to our knowledge. Most of the universe is either too hot or too cold to support life. 

In my mind, this actually proves creation by God! If 99.99999… percent of the universe is deadly and does not promote life then we are certainly in a special place under miraculous circumstances. Atheists say that the Sun will burn out in the next 7 billion years and then Earth will no longer be able to support life. But we happen to be on it right now. Of course, we would not have to worry about that because they also say all the continents will erode in the next 2 billion years. But we just so happen to live on it right now. We do not have to worry about the continents eroding though, because they say a major asteroid could strike Earth within the next 200 years. But we just so happen to be living during a time where no major asteroids have collided with Earth. 

It seems to me that atheists believe in more miracles than Christians! 

“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.” (Ps. 14:1)

“And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:” (Heb. 9:27) 

“For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:” (1 Cor. 15:3-4) 

“He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” (John 3:36)

Dr. Peter Ruckman quotes on various topics

Here are some quotes from Dr. Peter Ruckman I found on social media. I may not agree with every detail of all of these statements, but I thought they were worth sharing. Unfortunately the original poster of these quotes did not include the sermons or books that they are found in. 

“Ah, the unsearchable riches of the King's English--minus the 'original Hebrew' and the 'original Greek.' How unsearchable are the revelations and truths of the Elizabethan English compared with 'THE' Greek text!" -Dr. Ruckman

"There are FOUR 'plans of salvation' in the book of Acts.

1. Water baptism necessary to receive the Holy Spirit, but no talking in tongues ( Acts 2:38 ). 

2. Laying on of hands necessary for receiving the Holy Spirit, but no talking in tongues ( Acts 8:17 ). 

3. Salvation with baptism, but laying-on of hands before talking in tongues (Acts 19:1-9).

4. Salvation without water baptism, talking in tongues, or laying on of hands (Acts 8:37)." -Dr. Ruckman 

"You must face it, if you are going to teach "dispensational truth," there ARE more than 200 verses in the New Testament that cannot apply doctrinally to a born-again believer in the Body of Christ." -Dr. Ruckman

"In the Tribulation, if any man ('any') takes the mark of the beast or the 'number of his name,' he goes into the Lake of Fire (Rev. 14:10-11). Suppose he 'believes on Christ' (like the Philippian jailor) and then takes the mark? Does he go to heaven in the Tribulation? He doesn’t. He loses his salvation, just like that bird in Mathew 25:30 lost his. And he DID lose it." -Dr. Ruckman

"In the Tribulation, there seems to be two 'plans' of salvation operating. One of these is a Gentile 'gospel' (Rev. 14:6-7), which is contingent on CONSCIENCE, and not taking the mark of the beast. The other is a Jewish 'gospel' (Rev. 12) which is contingent on observing the Commandments in the Pentateuch (including sacrifices and temple worship--Rev. 11:1-3), and not taking the mark of the beast." -Dr. Ruckman

"Every heresy in this age is THE TRUTH misplaced. Every theological LIE in this age is a Biblical TRUTH misplaced" -Dr. Ruckman

"The Book says what it means and means what it says, as it says it, in the context in which it says it." -Dr. Ruckman

"In this age the only "good news" (gospel) is the "gospel of the grace of God" (Acts 20:24). Every false teaching in this age comes from diluting this gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-5) with works of some kind (see Rom. 4:1-8). Paul said a man is "accursed" (Gal. 1:8-9) if he teaches Acts 2:38 or the Sermon on the on the Mount" as a "plan of salvation" (see Rom. 10:1-14). " -Dr. Ruckman

"Salvation in the Tribulation "Faith Plus Works”. Since this is not the time of the Church's trouble, but "the time of Jacob's trouble" (Jer. 30:7), the law comes back in into effect (see Rev. 12:17 and 14:12) for Israel (see Matt. 24:15, 20). A man must "endure unto the end" (Matt. 24:13) and not take "the mark" (Rev. 13:1-18, 12:10-12). In this period, "the gospel of the grace of God" (Acts 20:24, 15:1) is not preached. An "everlasting gospel" is preached to Gentiles (Rev. 14:6) and the gospel of "the kingdom of heaven" is preached to Israel (see rMatt. 24:13-15, 3:2, 4:17, 6:10, 7:21, 8:11, 10:7, 11:11, 13:11, 24)." Dr. Ruckman

"Salvation in the Millennium 'Works Only' (Matt. 5-7) The word "faith" only occurs one time in the 'Sermon on the Mount,' and then it is not a reference to salvation (Matt. 6:30). (Psa. 24:1-7; Matt. 25) Christ is visibly present (Isa. 2; Zech. 14). No one is 'walking by faith.' All are walking by sight (2 Cor. 5:7; Rom. 8:24).  Christ is on the throne at Jerusalem (Luke 1:30-33; Jer. 33:17; Matt. 25:30-33), which explains Psalm 76:3 and Haggai 2:9. Jerusalem means 'city of peace' (see Zech. 14:1-12)." -Dr. Ruckman

“Technically speaking, there is no New Testament minimum to give. Now, don't get me wrong. I believe in tithing. I think any New Testament Christian under grace ought to do as much as Old Testament Jew under the Law. I think God gave you examples of tithing, before the Law, in Abraham (Gen. 14) and Jacob (Gen. 28). The Lord did not start blessing me financially, after my salvation, until I began to tithe. But in the final analysis, New Testament giving lies between you and the Lord. You have to settle in your heart with the Lord what you are going to do, and He is going to reward you according to how you and He work the thing out. In my way of thinking, the trick is to find out how much you can give and get away with it." -Dr. Ruckman

"I have always taught that the tithe was the minimum. I say that God is entitled to 10 percent as a token gesture, and then, after that, you start to give." -Dr. Ruckman

“Do you think God loves murderers? You say, 'Well He died…'. That's past tense. I said do you think he loves them, present tense? Aw, He still loves them.' Then why do they go to Hell when they die? You say, 'They don't go to Hell when they die.' They do if they don't accept the love He offered them at Calvary." -Dr. Ruckman

Human evolution crumbles again: early hominins newly discovered in Turkey

“The discovery of an ancient ape skull may challenge the long-held belief that the ancestors of apes and humans came from Africa, a controversial new study says.

The partial skull of the ape, called an Anadoluvius turkae, was found in Cankiri, Turkey, and appears to date back to 8.7 million years ago, Live Science reported.

Meanwhile early hominins, which include humans, the African apes, and their fossil ancestors, are not seen in Africa until around seven million years ago.

The discovery challenges the widely-held view that the ancestors of African apes and humans originated exclusively in Africa.

Researchers say that this suggests that hominins might have first evolved in Europe before migrating to Africa.”

The article starts off by saying, “The discovery of an ancient ape skull may challenge the long-held belief that the ancestors of apes and humans came from Africa.” May challenge? Well it certainly does challenge it. We are talking about an over 20% difference in the timeline and a completely different part of the world. Yet those who hold to evolutionary theory are so certain of the accuracy of their dating methods. So if the skull (by their dating methods) is truly 8.7 millions old, how could this not definitely challenge the long held belief that humans evolved first in Africa? The full article (see here https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/an-8-7-million-year-old-ape-skull-suggests-that-human-and-ape-ancestors-may-have-evolved-in-europe-not-africa/ar-AA1gb8dI?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=ed9b74db6860471aa2151cdd7344934c&ei=42#interstitial=1 ) says, “Not all scientists are convinced by the theory” and that this is “controversial”. Why is it controversial? If the dating methods used by secular scientists are so accurate then why is this not convincing evidence that humans evolved first outside of Africa? It is controversial because it disagrees with the mainstream secular narrative of human evolution. If a fact or piece of evidence contradicts evolution, then they say the facts are wrong. But it is their dating methods that are contradicting their own narrative of human evolution. Neodarwinists cherry pick evidence even using their own dating methods to hold up their theories. 

The article goes on to say:

“This new evidence supports the hypothesis that hominins originated in Europe and dispersed into Africa along with many other mammals between nine and seven million years ago, though it does not definitively prove it.

In order to prove this, more fossils from Europe and Africa would need to be found from between seven and eight million years ago to try and find a link between the two groups, he added.” 

They say “more fossils” need to be found to prove the theory that humans evolved first outside of Africa. But if the one fossil truly is 8.7 million years old then why do they need more proof? They are leaving something out. For one fossil to not be “proof” enough, then that means they either do not have confidence in the dating method or they do not have confidence that the skull fragment is truly that of an ape. All it takes is 1 definite hominin and 1 definite date of 8.7 millions years to throw out the old theory, which is that early hominins originated in Africa 7 million years ago. 

What about Christian rock and rap?

An independent Baptist preacher said recently: 

“ The “hymns only crowd” is just as much of an extreme as the “contemporary only crowd”. 

You don’t hear brothers in Christ fighting over food.  They’ll attack you for listening to a contemporary song, but go down to McDonald’s and get 3 Big Macs and a large Coke with no hesitation. 

There are some songs that are bad for your Christian walk, there is some food that is bad for your health, but not all songs and all food are bad in moderation.  Everybody has an opinion. Using scripture to teach an opinion is dangerous.  

I proudly listen to some contemporary songs that are intricate in song writing, talent and biblically sound. A lot of them have a rock beat. 

As a Pastor I’d never let drums into my church, but it doesn’t mean I wouldn’t listen to a song with drums. 

Quit being ridiculous and yelling at people who listen to contemporary music. It’s a strawman argument.  There’s no definitive scripture that is in context that teaches what these people claim. You can have an opinion and a rule for your church, but you cannot call it “doctrine”.”

My perspective is that if rock music is wrong and rap music is wrong, why try to polish it up and make it ‘Christian’? It is obvious that the people who developed “Christian rap” and “Christian rock” were fans of worldly music and were attempting to make the church’s music sound more like it, whether it was for their own flesh’s entertainment or to try to appeal to worldly people. We have been told to “come out from among them” and “be ye separate” (2 Cor. 6:17). I would say that adapting our music to sound like the world’s music is not following Romans 12:2 “be not conformed to this world”. We are also commanded to “abstain from all appearance of evil” (1 Thes. 5:22).  

I do agree that the main thing is for the words of  the song to reflect sound doctrine that praises God, and some new music does that. But the exception proves the rule. Most of the newer songs do not hold a candle to the old hymns as far as meaning and doctrine. This is not to say that all hymns are good. A lot of hymns are not dispensationally correct doctrinally speaking. And this is not to say that any new song is bad. I am speaking about “church” music designed to sound like rock or rap.

God created music for His honor and worship before the world began (Ezek. 28:13, Job 38:7). When you see His music in the Bible, it always worships Him for His works, His character, and provokes thanksgiving and fear of Him in those singing it. Worldly music is designed to appeal to the flesh. You can contrast the song of Moses “unto the LORD” in Exodus 15 with the “noise of the people” sung in Exodus 32 in connection with idolatry and immorality. 

Exodus 15:1 Then sang Moses and the children of Israel this song unto the LORD, and spake, saying, I will sing unto the LORD, for he hath triumphed gloriously: the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea.

Exodus 32:

[17] And when Joshua heard the noise of the people as they shouted, he said unto Moses, There is a noise of war in the camp.
[18] And he said, It is not the voice of them that shout for mastery, neither is it the voice of them that cry for being overcome: but the noise of them that sing do I hear.

[19] And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf, and the dancing: and Moses' anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and brake them beneath the mount. 

I am not saying that all of man’s music is worshipping idols or is connected to immorality, but it is safe to say that a lot of it is. Most rock, rap, country, etc expresses desire for fleshly lusts such as alcohol, drugs, money, sexual immorality, covetousness, etc. 

At best, worldly music offers worldly wisdom to make us feel better about worldly problems and rejoice in things other than the Lord. 

1 John 2:17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

1 Corinthians 7:31 And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.

1 Corinthians 1:20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

I think if we consider these principles in music, it will eliminate a lot of music other than hymns. “But let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind” (Rom. 14:5). 

“Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen…” (Jer. 10:2)

Are you “saved” or “being saved”? KJV vs the modern versions

 

THE AV 1611: Purified Seven Times By Dr. Laurence M. Vance

THE AV 1611: Purified Seven Times

By Dr. Laurence M. Vance

“The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." (Psalm 12:6)

As any student of English Bible history knows, the Authorized Version of 1611 was not the first Bible to be translated into English. But even though hundreds of complete Bibles, New Testaments, and Scripture portions have been translated into English since 1611, it is obvious that the Authorized Version is the last English Bible; that is, the last English Bible that God "authorized."

Because the Authorized Version is the "last" English Bible, and because its defenders believe it to contain the very words of God, various schemes have been contrived to make the English Bibles up to and including the Authorized Version fit the description in Psalm 12:6 of the words of the Lord being "purified seven times." The problem is that the Authorized Version is not the seventh English Bible -- it is the tenth one.

Although there were some attempts during the Old and Middle English period to translate portions of the Bible into English, the first complete Bible or New Testament in English did not appear until the fourteenth century.

John Wycliffe (c.1320-1384) is credited with being the first to translate the entire Bible into English. It is to be remembered that no Greek or Hebrew texts, versions, or editions were yet fabricated. Wycliffe did his translating primarily from the only Bible then in use: the Latin Vulgate. He is often called the "Morning Star of the Reformation" for his opposition to ecclesiastical abuses and the Papacy. Wycliffe's New Testament translation was completed in 1380, and the entire Bible in 1382.

William Tyndale (c. 1494-1536) has the distinction of being the first to translate the New Testament from Greek into English. He early distinguished himself as a scholar both at Cambridge and Oxford, and was fluent in several languages. Tyndale soon advanced both his desire and his demise, as seen in his reply to a critic: "I defy the pope and all his laws; if God spare my life, ere many years I will cause the boy that driveth the plough in England to know more of the Scriptures than thou doest." The Bible was still forbidden in the vernacular, so after settling in London for several months while attempting to gain approval for his translation efforts, Tyndale concluded: "Not only that there was no room in my lord of Londons palace to translate the New Testament, but also that there was no place to do it in all England, as experience doth now openly declare."

Accordingly, Tyndale left England in 1524 and completed his translation of the New Testament in Germany. The moving factor in his translation of the New Testament was that he "perceived by experience, how that it was impossible to establish the lay people in any truth, except the scripture were plainly laid before their eyes in their mother tongue, that they might see the process, order and meaning of the text." The printing of his New Testament was completed in Worms and smuggled into England, where it was an instant success. Tyndale then turned his attention to the Old Testament. He never finished it, however, for on May 21, 1535, Tyndale was treacherously kidnaped and imprisoned in Belgium. On October 6, 1536, he was tried as a heretic and condemned to death. He was strangled and burned, but not before he uttered the immortal prayer of "Lord, open the King of England's eyes."

Although Tyndale's English Bible was the first to be translated directly from the original languages, it was just the New Testament. It was Myles Coverdale (1488-1569) who was the first to publish a complete English Bible. In 1533, King Henry VIII established the Church of England, and, in 1534, the Upper House of Convocation of Canterbury petitioned King Henry to decree "that the holy scripture should be translated into the vulgar English tongue by certain good learned men, to be nominated by His Majesty, and should be delivered to the people for their instruction." Thomas Cromwell (1485-1540) and Archbishop Cranmer (1489-1556) were likewise convinced of the desirability of having the Bible translated into English. Coverdale's Bible was printed in October of 1535. He based his work on the Zurich Bible of Zwingli, the Vulgate, the Latin text of Paginius, Luther's Bible, and the previous work of William Tyndale, especially in the New Testament.

Although Coverdale's second edition of 1537 contained the license of the king, the first Bible to obtain such license was published earlier the same year. The Matthew Bible was more of a revision than a translation. Thomas Matthew was just a pseudonym for John Rogers (c. 1500-1555), a friend of Tyndale, to whom he had turned over his unpublished manuscripts on the translation of the Old Testament. Rogers used Tyndale's New Testament and the completed parts of his Old Testament. For the rest of the Bible, he relied on Coverdale. The whole of this material was slightly revised and accompanied by introductions and chapter summaries. Cranmer commented in a letter to Cromwell that he liked it "better than any other translation heretofore made." And so it happened that Tyndale's translation, which was proscribed just a few years earlier, was circulating with the King's permission and authority both in the Coverdale and Matthew Bibles.

Although the Coverdale and Matthew Bibles were "set forth with the King's most gracious license," the Great Bible was the first "authorized" Bible. Cromwell delegated to Myles Coverdale the work of revising the Matthew Bible and its controversial notes. In 1538, an injunction by Cromwell directed the clergy to provide "one book of the bible of the largest volume in English, and the same set up in some convenient place within the said church that ye have care of, whereas your parishioners may most commodiously resort to the same and read it." The completed Bible appeared in April of 1539. Although called the Great Bible because of its large size, it was referred to by several other designations as well. It was called the Cromwell Bible, since he did the most to prepare for its publication. It was also termed the Cranmer Bible, after the often reprinted preface by Cranmer beginning with the 1540 second edition. Several editions were printed by Whitechurch, and hence it was also labeled the Whitechurch Bible. In accordance with Cromwell's injunction, copies of the Great Bible were placed in every church. This led to it being called the Chained Bible, since it was chained in "some convenient place within the said church."

At the same time as Coverdale was preparing the Great Bible, Richard Taverner (1505-1577) undertook an independent revision of Matthew's Bible. It appeared under the title of: "The Most Sacred Bible whiche is the holy scripture, conteyning the old and new testament, translated into English, and newly recognized with great diligence after most faythful exemplars by Rychard Taverner." He was a competent Greek scholar and made some slight changes in the text and notes of the Matthew Bible. His work was eclipsed by the Great Bible and had but minor influence on later translations.

During the reign of the Catholic queen, Mary Tudor (1553-1558), many English Reformers, among them Myles Coverdale, fled to Geneva. It was here in 1557 that William Whittingham (1524-1579), the brother-in-law of John Calvin, and successor of John Knox at the English church in Geneva, translated the New Testament in what was to become the Geneva Bible. When Elizabeth, the sister of Mary, assumed the throne in 1558, many exiles returned to England. But Whittingham and some others remained in Geneva and continued to work on a more comprehensive and complete revision of the entire Bible that superseded the 1557 New Testament -- the Geneva Bible of 1560.

The superiority of the Geneva Bible over the Great Bible was readily apparent. It was the notes, however, that made it unacceptable for official use in England. Archbishop Matthew Parker soon took steps to make a revision of the Great Bible that would replace both it and the Geneva Bible. The Bible was divided into parts and distributed to scholars for revision. Parker served as the editor and most of his revisors were bishops, hence the Bishops' Bible. The first Bible to be translated by a committee, it was published in 1568.

The Douay-Rheims Bible was the first Roman Catholic translation of the Bible in English. When English Romanists fled England for the Continent under the reign of Elizabeth, many settled in France. In 1568, an English college was established by William Allen (1532-1594) at Douay. The college moved for a time to Rheims in 1578 under Richard Bristow (1538-1581). It was here that Gregory Martin (d. 1582) began translating the Bible into English from the Latin Vulgate. This was precipitated by Allen's recognition that Catholics had an unfair disadvantage compared with Bible-reading Protestants because of their use of Latin and the fact that "all the English versions are most corrupt." The Catholic New Testament was finished in 1582, but the complete Old Testament did not appear until 1610.

After the death of Elizabeth in 1603, James I, who was at that time James VI of Scotland, became the king of England. 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, clergyman, 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 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." Although fifty-four men were nominated, only forty-seven were known to have taken part in the work of translation. The completed Bible, known as the King James Version or the Authorized Version, was issued in 1611, and remains the Bible read, preached, believed, and acknowledged as the authority by all Bible believers today.

Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew, Great, Taverner, Geneva, Bishops', Douay-Rheims, and King James -- ten English Bibles. As mentioned previously, various schemes have been contrived to make the English Bibles up to and including the Authorized Version fit the description in Psalm 12:6 of the words of the Lord being "purified seven times." The problem with this noble goal is that it entails the elimination of three versions. But which three? Wycliffe's Bible is sometimes omitted because it was translated from the Latin instead of the original Hebrew and Greek. Tyndale's Bible is sometimes omitted because it was not a complete Bible -- just a New Testament and portions of the Old Testament. Coverdale's and Matthew's Bibles could conceivably be omitted because they rely so much on Tyndale. Taverner's Bible is sometimes omitted because it was a revision of Matthew's Bible and had little influence on later English versions. The Geneva Bible could conceivably be omitted because King James considered it to be the worst of the English versions. The Douay-Rheims, because it is a Roman Catholic version, is always omitted from the list.

This leaves the Great Bible, the Bishops' Bible, and the King James Bible -- three out of the ten. It appears that Bible believers have manipulated the history of the English Bible to prove a bogus theory.

Or have they?

The answer is yes and no. As will presently be proved, the theory is not bogus at all -- even if some zealous brethren have been careless in the way they went about proving it.

The definitive list of Bibles that makes the Authorized Version the seventh Bible, thus fitting the description in Psalm 12:6 of the words of the Lord being "purified seven times," is not to be found in the opinions of the many writers on the history of the English Bible. To the contrary, the definitive list is to be found in the often-overlooked details concerning the translating of the Authorized Version.

To begin with, the translators of the Authorized Version did acknowledge that they had a multitude of sources from which to draw from: "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." The Greek editions of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza were all accessible, as were the Complutensian and Antwerp Polyglots, and the Latin translations of Pagninus, Tremellius, and Beza. What we want, however, is a reference to English Bibles.

The translators also acknowledged that they had at their disposal all the previous English translations of the sixteenth century: "We are so far off from condemning any of their labors that travailed before us in this kind, either in this land or beyond sea, either in King Henry's time, or King Edward's (if there were any translation, or correction of a translation in his time) or Queen Elizabeth's of everrenowned memory, that we acknowledge them to have been raised up of God, for the building and furnishing of his Church, and that they deserve to be had of us and of posterity in everlasting remembrance." Although this statement of the translators refers to English Bibles, it is not specific as to exactly which versions.

The information we need is to be found, not in the translators' "The Epistle Dedicatory" or their "The Translators to the Reader," but in the "Rules to be Observed in the Translation of the Bible." These general rules, fifteen in number, were advanced for the guidance of the translators. The first and fourteenth, because they directly relate to the subject at hand, are here given in full: "1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit." "14. These translations to be used when they agree better with the Text than the Bishops Bible: Tindoll's, Matthews, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's, Geneva."

And thus we have our answer. The seven English versions that make the English Bibles up to and including the Authorized Version fit the description in Psalm 12:6 of the words of the Lord being "purified seven times" are Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, the Great Bible (printed by Whitechurch), the Geneva Bible, the Bishops' Bible, and the King James Bible.

The Wycliffe, Taverner, and Douay-Rheims Bibles, whatever merits any of them may have, are not part of the purified line God "authorized," of which the King James Authorized Version is God's last one -- purified seven times.