Thought for the Day ~ 07 March, 2025 A.D.

No thanks to the Roman Catholic church it was against the law for anyone but the priests to possess a copy of the Scriptures, especially so during the time of the 13-15th centuries. In order for the word of God to come into the English language, there was a lot of work done by a number of great men during that time.  These men risked their very lives to put the word of God into the English language and into the hands of the common people.   In 1380 A.D., John Wycliffe was among the first try to bring the Latin version of the Bible into English.  He was greatly influenced by the Lollard Anabaptists, and might have been a Lollard himself.  

Another man of note is William Tyndale.  In 1534 A.D., he is of the first to bring a translation of the Bible from the original languages, Hebrew and Greek.  He was a Lollard Anabaptist.  As much as 5/6ths to 9/10ths of the KJV Bible is attributed directly to him. And there were other great involved in translating the Bible into English: Miles Coverdale, John Rogers (under the pseudonym Thomas Matthews) and Thomas Cranmer. 

Then in 1604 A.D., King James (James Charles Stuart, 1566-1625) set up six committees to work on a translation of the Bible. Unbeknownst to him, the result of these committees, two at each of the universities of Cambridge, Oxford and Westminster was almost wholly the work of Tyndale: the 1611 King James Version Bible.  And this version of the Bible became the popular version for the next 270 years, until another version of the Bible was published?  Then things changed

In the year 1881 the Revised Version of the Bible was published.  The committees which convened for this version were directed by two renowned Catholics, B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort.  These two men left an indelible impress upon almost every other translation and version of the Bible released subsequent to the Revised Version. The science of textual (lower) criticism was turned on its ear. 

The goal of textual criticism was to restore the biblical text to its original message by comparing all of the ancient materials. However, changed the means for comparing these ancient materials.  In short, the older manuscripts were preferred as the original readings of Scripture over the more popular and widely disseminated ones.  If Satan can’t keep the word of God out of the hands of the people, then the next thing to do is change that word.  That has a familiar ring to it, doesn’t it? "Yea, hath God said ... ?" (Genesis 3.1)

All this to say that almost without exception the major Bible versions released since the Revised Version of 1881 have this prejudiced, textual critical method applied. I think, as children of God, we should give this serious consideration to this before we begin to use other versions of the Bible than the 1611 King James Version.  It will affect our doctrine.  How can that not be so when portions of God’s word are added to, altered, called into question as true, and even deleted? 

I think that these versions published since the release of the 1611 King James Version have contributed the most to the confusion there is in Christendom today.  And I think that these same versions carry some, if not most of the blame for the great falling away from the faith of Christ we see today. That’s what I think.

-author unknown

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Putrid Cup of Tolerance: When Evil Poses as Progress

JESUS - Rock of Ages

GLORY ALONE IN THE LORD JESUS CHRIST