|Place Order | Contact Us | Subscribe|
The Authorized Version continued...
Dr. Lancelot Andrews, a member of the Westmenster Company is known for his linguistic ability.
Dr. Andrews was also known as a great man of prayer.
Although he was a mighty preacher and prayer warrior, he was not "above" the people around him.
Lastly we review his ability as a translator of the Word of God.
Dr. John Overall was another of the King James translators. He, too, was known for his opposition to Roman rule. He was present at the hanging of the Jesuit Henry Garnet, mastermind of 'the Gun-powder Plot.'
In spite of his opposition to Rome, he had an interest in individual souls and urged Garnet to make a true and lively faith to God-ward."204
Dr. Overall was vital to the translation because of his knowledge of quotations of the early church fathers. Without a man with such knowledge it might have been impossible to verify the authenticity of passages such as I John 5:7. This verse has a multitude of evidence among church fathers, though its manuscript evidence suffers from the attacks of Alexandria's philosophers.
It was also cited by Cyprian in 225 A.D. 206
This is one hundred and seventy-five years before Eusebius penned the Vatican manuscript.
We can see then that Dr. Overall's contribution to the translation would be of the utmost importance. No "modern" translation has so candidly investigated the evidence of the church fathers.
Dr. Hadrian Saravia, another learned translator, was as evangelical as he was scholarly. McClure reports:
He too, as any truly dedicated soldier for Christ, was a constant foe of Rome. In 1611 he published a treatise on Papal primacy against the Jesuit Gretser.
He is said to have been "educated in all kinds of literature in his younger days, especially several languages."208
Dr. John Laifield was another man of unique talents which lent to his extraordinary value as a translator. Of him it is said: "That being skilled in architecture, his judgement was much relied on for the fabric of the tabernacle and temple."209
Dr. Robert Tighe was known as "an excellent textuary and profound lingtlist."210
Dr. William Bedwell was "an eminent Oriental scholar." His epitaph mentions that he was "for the Eastern tongues, as learned a man as most lived in these modern times."
In addition to his work on the Authorized Version, Dr. Bedwell left several other contributions to his age:
Dr. Edward Lively was known as "one of the best linguists in the world ... Much dependence was placed on his surpassing skill in Oriental languages."214
Dr. Lawrence Chaderton was raised a Roman Catholic and encouraged by his family to become a lawyer. He traveled to London where he was converted to Christ and joined the Puritan Congregation there. 215 It is said that:
Dr. Chaderton was a powerful preacher who lived to the age of one hundred and three. A preaching engagement in his later years was described as follows:
Dr. McClure leaves us to ponder the direction scholarship has taken in these modern times. "For even now people like to hear such preaching as is preaching. But where shall we find men for the work like those who gave us our version of the Bible?"
Dr. Francis Dillingham was so studied in the original languages that he participated in public debate in Greek.218
Dr. Dillingham was another soldier for Christ who took aggressive action against the teaching of Rome. "He collected out of Cardinal Bellarmine's writings, all the concessions made by the acute author in favor of Protestantism. He published a Manual of Christian Faith, taken from the Fathers, and a variety of treatises on different points belonging to the Romish controversy."219
Dr. Thomas Harrison, it is recorded, was chosen to assist the King James translation due to his knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. In fact his ability served him well in his duties as Vice-Master of Trinity College in Cambridge.
John Harding was an ardent scholar of whom it is said concerning his ability: "At the time of his appointment to aid in the translation of the Bible, he had been Royal Professor of Hebrew in the University for thirteen years. His occupancy of that chair, at a time when the study of sacred literature was pursued by thousands with a zeal amounting to a possession, is a fair intimation that Dr. Harding was the man for the post he occupied."221
Dr. John Reynolds had been raised in the Roman Catholic Church. As Chaderton, he too trusted Christ and became a Puritan. The attributes leading to his position on the translation committee are recorded as follows:
His aggressive nature toward the false teachings of his former church are exemplified in the following record:
His skills in Hebrew and Greek made his appointment to the company of translators a wise one. While on his death bed, it is recorded:
Dr. Richard Kilby was a man worthy of the position of translator. One incident in his life, which occurred shortly after the Authorized Version had been published, suffices not only to reveal his depth, but also the dangers of the self-esteemed "scholars" changing the translation of even one word in God's Book.
Dr. Miles Smith was the man responsible for the preface to the King James Bible. This preface is no longer printed in the present copies of the Book. He had a knowledge of the Greek and Latin fathers, as well as being expert in Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic. "Hebrew he had at his finger's end." 226 And so was the Ethiopic tongue.
Dr. Henry Saville was known for his Greek and mathematical learning. He was so well known for his education, skilled with languages and knowledge of the Word, that he became Greek and mathematical tutor to Queen Elizabeth during the reign of her father, Henry VIII. 227
Dr. McClure tells us, "He is chiefly known, however, by being the first to edit the complete works of John Chrysostom, the most famous of the Greek Fathers." 228
We could go on and on concerning the scholarship of the King James translators, but we have not the space here. Dr. McClure's book, Translators Revived, is recommended for an in-depth study of the lives of these men.
It should be noted that these men were qualified in the readings of the church fathers which prevented them from being "locked" to the manuscripts, causing early readings to be overlooked. This is vastly better than the methods used by modern translators.
It should also be recognized that these men did not live in "ivory towers." They were men who were just as renowned for their preaching ability as they were for their esteemed education. It is a lesson in humility to see men of such great spiritual stature call themselves "poor instruments to make God's Holy Truth to be yet more and more known."
We shall now briefly examine a few of the translators of the Revised Standard Version. The reasons that we shall examine these revisors are as follows:
First, it is due to the secrecy surrounding translations such as the New American Standard Version and the New International Version. The Lockman Foundation has elected to remain anonymous. This is, of course, the safest method, as it prevents investigative eyes from discovering truths such as those we shall see concerning the Revised Standard Version translators.
The translating committee of the New International Version is also nameless. We are assured of their "scholarship" although words without proof ring of a snake oil salesman in the days of the Old West. Of course, it must be admitted, they are both in the "selling business."
Secondly, we have chosen to examine the Revised Standard Version translators because they are of the exact same conviction concerning biblical MSS as Westcott and Hort, Nestle, the Lockman Foundation, the New Scofield Board of Editors, and the majority of unsuspecting college professors and preachers across America today. Namely, they believed the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS are more reliable than the God-preserved Universal Text.
Thirdly, due to this mistaken preference for Roman Catholic MSS, EVERY Bible translation since 1881 is linked directly to the Revised Version, and had nothing to do with the Authorized Version. These new translations follow the same MSS family as the Revised version. This family is the Local Text of Alexandria, Egypt and has no relationship whatsoever to the Authorized Version. It is the text which Satan has altered and promotes as a replacement for God's Universal Text.
All modern translations, such as the New American Standard Version, are linked to the Revised Standard Version of 1952, which is a revision of the American Standard Version of 1901, which was originally marketed as the American Revised Version - an American creation growing from the English Revised Version of 1881.
Edgar Goodspeed was on the Revised Standard committee. Goodspeed did not believe in the deity of Jesus Christ. He looked at Jesus Christ as a social reformer who gave His life as a martyr for a "cause." Goodspeed said, "Jesus' youth was probably one of the dawning and increasing dissatisfaction with the prevalent form of the Jewish religion in Nazareth and in his own home. HE DID NOT IN THOSE EARLY YEARS SEE WHAT HE COULD DO ABOUT IT, but he must have felt a growing sense that there was something deeply wrong about it, which should be corrected."229
Goodspeed continues, "He faced the question of his next step in his work. He had no mind to die obscured in some corner of Galilee, to no purpose. A bolder plan was now taking shape in his mind. He would present himself to Jerusalem ... publicly offer them their Messianic destiny, AND TAKE THE CONSEQUENCES. And he would do this in ways that would make his death something that would never be forgotten, but would carry the message to the end of time. Yet how could this be done?" 230
Goodspeed also, like Westcott, seemed to think it necessary to explain away Christ's miracles. Here we see what he thought took place at the feeding of the five thousand:
Goodspeed called Genesis the product of an "Oriental story teller at his best." 232
Julius Brewer, another revisor, stated, "The dates and figures found in the first five books of the Bible turn out to be altogether unreliable." 233
Henry Cadbury, another member of the Revised committee, believed that Jesus Christ was a just man who was subject to story telling. "He was given to overstatements, in his case, not a personal idiosyncrasy, but a characteristic of the Oriental world." 234
He also doubted the deity of Christ. "A psychology of God, if that is what Jesus was, is not available." 235
Cadbury, like Westcott, was a socialist, and he attempted to fit Jesus Christ into the same mold. "His (Jesus') gospel was in brief, a social gospel." 236
Walter Bowie was another revisor who believed that the Old Testament was legend instead of fact. He says in reference to Abraham, "The story of Abraham comes down from the ancient times; and how much of it is fact and how much of it is legend, no one can positively tell." 237
In speaking of Jacob wrestling with the Angel, he says, "The man of whom these words were written (Genesis 32:31) belongs to a time so long ago that it is uncertain whether it records history or legend." 238
Bowie did not believe in the miracle of the burning bush. "One day he (Moses) had a vision. In the shimmering heat of the desert, beneath the blaze of that Eastern sun, he saw a bush that seemed to be on fire, and the bush was not consumed." 239
Clarence Craig was one of the revisors who denied the bodily resurrection of Christ. "It is to be remembered that there were no eyewitnesses of the resurrection of Jesus. No canonical gospel PRESUMED to describe Jesus emerging from the tomb. The mere fact that a tomb was found empty was CAPABLE OF MANY EXPLANATIONS. THE VERY LAST ONE THAT WOULD BE CREDIBLE TO A MODERN MAN WOULD BE THE EXPLANATION OF A PHYSICAL RESURRECTION OF THE BODY." 240
Craig also held Westcott's view that Christ's second coming was a spiritual coming, not physical. "In other words, the coming of Christ is to THE HEARTS of those who love him. IT IS NOT HOPE FOR SOME FUTURE TIME, but a present reality of faith." 241
Strangely enough, Craig is found to agree with the position of the present day "godly Christian scholars" who believe that God is not able to preserve His Word. "If God once wrote His revelation in an inerrant book, He certainly failed to provide any means by which this could be passed on without contamination through human fallibility...The true Christian position is that the Bible CONTAINS the record of revelations." 242
Frederick Grant was in agreement with Westcott and Hort's belief in prayer for the dead. "It would seem that modern thought...demands that if prayer be real or effective at all, it shall not cease when those who have gone before advance, as by a bend in the road beyond our sight...must we cease to pray for them? The answer is CEASE NOT TO PRAY, for they are living still, in this world of the other, and still have need of prayers." 243