Please notice the DATES on the following quotes! 

 QUOTE #1a –

 “We must never leave out of sight that for a GREAT MULTITUDE of readers the English Version [AV, ed.] is not the translation of an inspired Book, but IS ITSELF THE INSPIRED BOOK ... The English Bible [AV, ed.] is to them all which the Hebrew Old Testament, which the Greek New Testament, is to the devout scholar.  It receives from them the same UNDOUBTING AFFIANCE [confidence, pledge of fidelity, ed.]...”

On the AUTHORIZED VERSION of the NEW TESTAMENT in Connection With Some Recent Proposals for its  Revision,  Richard Chenevix Trench, D.D., Dean of Westminster, 1858, pg. 174

Comments:

Ø      The author said, “great multitude of readers”?  This is no small sect!  This quote is taken before 1858!  Didn’t someone offer $1,000 for finding anyone who believed the AV to be “inspired” before 1950?  Who were these people that held the AV to be an inspired book?  JW’s?  Mormons? Ruckmanites”?  I’ll tell you who they were:  They were COMMON BELIEVERS of a COMMON BIBLE which had been recognized as the FINAL AUTHORITY in all matters of faith and practice!

Ø      Notice that before 1858 there was a great multitude that held the AV to be INSPIRED!

Ø      Notice also that with the same FAITH, FIDELITY, and CONFIDENCE “devout scholars” had for the originals – they had for the AV! 

Quote #1b -

“The Roman Catholics and the Unitarians [Old time JW’s, ed.] are, I believe, the only bodies who have counted it necessary to make VERSIONS OF THEIR OWN.  With the exception of these, the Authorized Version is COMMON GROUND for ALL in England who call themselves Christians...is alike the heritage of all.”, ibid., pg. 176 

Comments:

Ø      Before 1858 there were three types of Bibles – Roman Catholic, Unitarian and the Bible of ALL CHRISTIANS – the Authorized Version.

Ø      This was “common ground” for all.  Since then, those who have IMPOSED new versions on the common people have CAUSED division in the church of God

Quote #1c -

In speaking about the proposed revision and problems that it would cause: 

“Two things then might happen.  Either they would adhere to the old Authorized Version, which is not, indeed, very probable; or they would carry out a revision; it might be two or three, of their own.  In either case the ground of COMMON SCRIPTURE, of an English Bible which THEY and WE hold EQUALLY SACRED, would be TAKEN FROM US; the SEPARATION and DIVISION, which are now the sorrow, and perplexity, and shame of England, would BECOME MORE MARKED, more deeply fixed than ever...Thus, the issue might only too easily be, that we should LOSE in respect of them also the common ground of ONE AND THE SAME SCRIPTURE, which WE NOW POSSES [emphasis mine]”, ibid, pg. 176

Comments:

Ø      There was a “common Scripture” recognized and held as SACRED by two fractional parties.  This Scripture was the Authorized Version.

Ø      Someone was going to “TAKE” away that common Scripture and cause “separation and division” and this would become “more marked” and “more deeply fixed than ever. This all before 1880!  In fact some time before 1858! 

Ø      Now, who caused the “division” in the church?  Here is a man accurately predicting “division and separation” not by those holding to the AV but by those who would try and take the AV away from the common people and replace it with two or three of their own. 

Quote #1d 

“Another most serious consideration presents itself, Will one revision satisfy? ... Is it not inevitable that after a longer or shorter period ANOTHER REVISION, and on that ANOTHER, will be called for?  Will not in this way ALL SENSE OF STABILITY pass away from our ENGLISH SCRIPTURES?”  Ibid. pg. 176 

Comments:

Ø      The revision did not satisfy!  It only brought another revision upon another!

Ø      All stability is LOST!  Why?  Because we now have over 100+ “revisions” since then! 

QUOTE #2 I got this off of the Pilgrim Internet site.

HENRY ALFORD

Hebrews 10:23 (KJV) "Let us hold fast the profession of our faith, without wavering..." We have here an extraordinary example of the persistence of a blunder, through centuries. The word FAITH, given here by the A.V., instead of HOPE — breaking up the beautiful triad of versus 22, 23, 24 ~ faith, hope, love — was a mere mistake, "hope" being accordingly the rendering of all the English versions previously to 1611. And yet this is the version which some would have us regard as infallible, and receive as the written word of God! [The New Testament for English Readers vol. 4, pg. 1546 (written ca. 1860)] http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/quotesbt.htm

Comments:

Ø   Henry Alford in his attack on the AV acknowledges before 1860(!) that there were some “which would have us regard as INFALLIBLE, and RECEIVE as the WRITTEN WORD OF GOD” the Authorized Version.  So, this is a 2nd witness that BEFORE 1860 people BELIEVED the AV to be “infallible” but much more, it is to be RECEIVED as the WRITTEN WORD OF GOD!

Ø   Notice that my receiving the AV also as “infallible” and the “written word of God” was not something “new” and “cultic”!  It is the SAME FAITH that that great numbers of COMMON believers held before 1860 

Quote #3 again from the Pilgrim site

“What is the Correct Principle on which Translations of the Holy Scriptures should be made? To this I reply, that they should be conformed, as nearly as possible, to the inspired originals. Let it be remembered, that the Bible which we possess is a translation. The words of our English version are invested with Divine authority, only so far as they express just what the original expresses. I present this thought because there is, in the minds of many, a superstitious reverence for the words and phrases of our English version (KJV).”, [Baptists: The Only Thorough Reformers (1876), pg. 128-129, http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/quotesbt.htm 

Comments:

Ø   Again, before 1876 there were “MANY” who revered the WORDS AND PHRASES of our English Versions [AV].  Now, Adams, or whoever wrote this book belittles this reverence as “superstitious” – that is his opinion.  However, that is not my point.  My point is, even quoting the opposite side’s sources one can PROVE that there were people who actually BELIEVED the AV as the word of God BEFORE 1900!

Ø   One would do well to recognize the faith of this “great multitude” and “many” believers without flippantly rejecting their faith or worse DENYING that it ever existed.  If nothing else you could at least acknowledge it as real faith without salving your consciences with snide remarks like: “superstitious”, “uninformed”, “non-scholarly”, “ignorant”, etc. 

Quote #4 –

BASIL MANLY, JR.

“Why so strenuous of exact inspiration of the words, when you admit there may be errors of transcription? What do you gain? We answer, we gain all the difference there is between an inspired and an uninspired original; all the difference between a document truly divine and authoritative to begin with — though the copies or translations may have in minute particulars varied from it — and a document faulty and unreliable at the outset, and never really divine... There is even now, with some ignorant persons, an assumption of the infallibility and equality with the original of some particular translation, as the Vulgate, or King James, or Luther’s.” [The Bible Doctrine of Inspiration (1888) pg. 84]

Comments:

Ø      Notice again how before 1888 people believed the AV as “infallible” and “equal with the original”! 

Ø      Notice the hatred and the belittling language being used: ignorant and assuming from the side of those who opposed the AV as the word of God.

 

Quote #5 –

WILLIAM CATHCART

“The Baptists of America had withdrawn from the American Bible Society because it refused aid to the Bengalee and Burmese translations, made by Baptist missionaries, in which the Greek term baptizo and its cognates had been rendered by words signifying "immerse," "immersion," etc. The English translation had been made the standard to which all other translations should conform and not the inspired originals, and the founders of the (American Bible) Union felt compelled by consistency to demand that on the principle of fidelity, translations in all languages should be conformed to the Hebrew and Greek texts.”, [The Baptist Encyclopedia (1881), pg. 98] http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/quotesbt.htm

Comments:

Ø   Again, notice that William Cathcart before 1881 recognized that there were “Baptists” who took the “English translation [AV] as the standard to which all other translations should conform and not the inspired originals”.  All this before 1881!  My, my, my!  Wow!

Ø    Baptists recognized the AV as the standard before 1881.

Ø   Translations should conform to the AV not to the “inspired originals”.  Remember NO ONE HAS THE ORIGINALS!  Therefore, how anyone could DEMAND conformity to the “originals” is beyond me! 

Ø      Someone was translating into Bengalee and Burmese from the AV.

 

Note: As the above is unclear to me as to who is referring to whom one might want to replace “Baptists” with “American Bible Society”.  The argument stands either way “people” were translating the AV in to foreign languages before 1881.  They recognized the AV as the Standard before 1881.

Conclusion:

Ø   Before 1880 there was a great multitude of common people who BELIEVED the Authorized Version was equal in authority to the “original”.  They believed the AV to be thus inspired.

Ø   Before and after 1880 there was a “smaller” group of people who violently opposed this faith and derided these common BELIEVERS as being “ignorant”, “superstitious”, “not-scholarly”, etc. 

Ø   By imposing revision after revision since 1880 this non-believing group caused “division” and great “separation” amongst the people of God.  They have taken away the STANDARD, which had held all sides together on COMMON ground – THE SCRIPTURES!

Ø   There was “vehement” hatred for the AV before 1880 and this brought about a desire for REVISION!!!  Notice this!  Faith in the Authorized Version was “resented”, “hated”, and “belittled” way before 1880!   Those who went into the REVISION committee went in with PREJUDICES AGAINST THE AV!!!!  In other words they were BIASED against readings in the Authorized Version before doing an alleged revision of the AV!

Ø   This was not an “update” of the AV in order to help “understand” the English.  It was a movement pushed forward by those already BIASED against the AV.  What they gave us – the common people – was not an update Authorized Version but a completely NEW VERSION!!!

Ø   Based partially on this “common faith” of the common man in the recognized Standard – the Authorized Version – I by holding a similar stand do not believe a “new doctrine”.  Nor am I a member of a “sect” which divides.  It is the other side that divides and I hold the faith of my fathers.  I am of course not to expect anything LESS than what my fathers received: ridicule, derision, mocking, disrespect, etc.  Thank God they aren’t burning us at the stake any more!  Praise God for that!


 


Please do write if you have any questions or comments!

Home   English   Polish  Spanish  Contact