Myles Coverdale, who worked from German and Latin texts, revised the work of Tyndale and completed the translation of the Old Testament. Coverdale, a talented literary stylist and translator, was the first to place the Apocrapha as an appendix, thus separating it from the Old Testament.

***1537: MATTHEW’S BIBLE (John Rogers)

John Rogers was an associate of Tyndale. He produced this Bible under the pen name of Thomas Matthew. It was basically a revision of Tyndale’s and Coverdale’s works, and it sharpened these translations by refining many details. This Bible was also known as the Cranmer Bible because later editions contained a preface by Archbishop Cranmer.

***1539: GREAT BIBLE (Myles Coverdale)

Myles Coverdale directed this revision of Matthew’s Bible after government and church officials had ceased their efforts to persecute those involved in Bible translation. Copies of this Bible were commonly found in churches throughout England until the 1560"s.

***1560: GENEVA BIBLE

The Geneva Bible, so named because it was translated by a group of men working in Geneva, Switzerland, remained the primary English translation for seventy-five years. This very accurate translation was widely accepted by English-speaking people. Numbered verses appeared for the first time in this translation, as did marginal notes which indicated variations in the Greek manuscripts. English pilgrims brought this Bible to the American colonies.

***1568: BISHOPS’ BIBLE

This Bible was produced under the sponsorship of the Church of England to counteract the popularity of the Geneva Bible. It was basically a revision of the Great Bible, but lacked the scholarship found in the Geneva translation.

***1611: KING JAMES VERSION

This translation bore the name of its sponsor, King James 1 of England. He authorized its translation at the Hampton Court Conference which had been called to settle disputes between arguing forces within the Church of England. Though also called the Authorized Version, this translation was not approved by the English Parliament. This Bible was to have been a revision of the Bishops’ Bible; however, less than five percent followed that translation. Almost all of the new Testament was identical to Tyndale’s translation. Other portions of the King James Version reflected the Wycliffe Bible, the Coverdale Bible, the Geneva Bible and other translations of that day. About thirty-nine percent of the King James Version contained new language. The fourth and final major revision of the King James version was completed in 1769.

***1885: ENGLISH REVISED VERSION

Fifty-four of the finest English biblical scholars joined together to produce the English Revised Version. This distinguished group[ included the famous Greek scholars, B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort. It was believed that a new translation of the Bible was needed because many changes had occurred in the English language since the completion of the King James Version. Also, the Hebrew language was more fully understood at this time and there were many more fully understood at this time and there were many more Greek textual resources available than when the King James Version was produced. The completed English Revised Version was recognized as a milestone in translation accuracy.

***1901: AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION

The American Standard Version was the American counterpart of the English Revised Version. A committee of scholars labored more than twenty years to complete the American version of the English Revised Version. It was recognized as a superior work at that time and still commands the respect of biblical students for its translation accuracy. Because of the scholarship reflected in the American Standard Version, it has frequently been used as a standard for other translations.

***1971: NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE

In 1959, a Christian layman, F. Dewey Lockman, called a group of biblical scholars and pastors together for the purpose of producing a new translation of the Bible based on the American Standard Version of 1901. It was determined that the translation would preserve the scholarship and accuracy of the American Standard Version while incorporating recent discoveries of Hebrew and Greek textual sources. Additionally, the translation was to be written in a fluent and readable style according to current English usage and grammar, and give the Lord Jesus Christ His proper place in the Word. In 1971, the work was completed and the New American Standard Bible was published. In the ensuing years, the translation has been acclaimed for its accuracy and readability. Bible publishers have used the New American Standard Bible text with study helps to produce prominent study Bibles such as the Open Bible (Thomas Nelson), NAS Study bible (Holman), Master Study Bible (Holman), the Ryrie Study Bible (Moody Press), and the NAS Study Bible (Cambridge). Numerous reference and evangelistic editions have also been published.

Not only has the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE earned the devotion of Bible readers, but it’s text has been diligently studied, used in memory courses, set to music, read on tape, extensively quoted by authors of Christian literature, used as a text for teaching Greek translation, and has become the standard translation for use by many seminaries, colleges, churches, evangelical groups. lay-ministries, Bible study groups, and others. The New American Standard Bible is widely used in English-speaking countries around the world and has grown in acceptance every year since it was first published.

Recently, the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD EXHAUSTIVE CONCORDANCE of the Bible was published. This concordance is not simply an alphabetical listing of the words contained in the New American Standard Bible, but included the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek dictionaries supporting the English translation. This concordance is possibly because of the accurate translation of the New American Standard Bible. similar editions cannot be produced to support less literal translations or paraphrases of the Bible. The New American Standard Bible has a rich heritage and stands in a long line of English translations dating back to William Tyndale. The New American Standard Bible and the Tyndale tradition of translation will continue to be the source toward which Christians look as they study the Word of God.

The Lockman Foundation 1983

This short history of Bible translations reveals that the question is not WHICH Bible is the best of all Bibles, but rather that the tradition of translating Bibles into contemporary languages, that most closely follow the original languages and word meanings, will be a continuing practice, even into the future, Lord willing.

Should the KJV Bible be used at all? Of course, it should. However, NOT as the ONLY, singular Bible allowed. The KJV was never designed to be a ‘paper pope’. Such a movement obviously is just becoming another latter day “tradition of men” (Mark 7:6 - 9), just like the Papacy.

Are there any reasons, perhaps, why the KJV should not be used exclusively, at this time in history, except as a useful reference or secondary “counselor” for safety’s sake? Yes, there are, and many of them make good sense and are reasonable.

•   I. To start with, here is a list of words used in the KJV 1611 A.D. Version. After each word (or phrase), and WITHOUT a dictionary, write it’s known meaning or definition:

 1. Milch Kine                                        2. Coffer

 3. Emerods                                           4. Whit

 5. Her hap was to light on a part            6. Provender

 7. Victuals                                            8. Wist

 9. Wot                                                 10. Withs

11. Haft                                               12. Thread of tow

13. Houghed                                        14. Surfeiting

15. Rereward                                       16. Cocatrice

17. Sounding of thy bowels                   18. Tabering

19. Sottish                                           20. Succour

21. Suborned                                       22. Strawed

23. Pilled                                             24. Stracte

25. Rovers                                           26. Ringstraked

27. Pourtray                                         28. Fens

29. Amerce                                          30. Blains

31. Bolled                                            32. Brigandine

33. Broided                                          34. Calamus       

35. Cauls                                              36. Chapmen

37. Chode                                             38. Clouts

39. Collops                                            40. Conies

41. Couching place                                 42. Cotes

43. Holpen                                             44. Hosen

45. Imperious                                         46. Drave

47. Coulter                                             48. Crisping

49. Wimples                                           50. Flotes

51. Gier                                                  52.Knops                   

53. Lees                                                 54. Lign

55. Ligure                                               56. Mallows

57. Maneh                                              58. Meteyard

59. Minish                                              60. Neesings

61. Onycha                                             62. Ossifrage

63. Ouches                                             64. Overdrive

65. Overplus                                           66. Peep

67. Peradventure                                     68. Pestle

69. Pommels                                           70. Poels

71. Pygarg                                              72. Rasor

73. Seatward                                          74. Shewedest

75. Sodering                                           76. Sope

77. Stanched                                           78. Stomacher

79. Suretiship                                          80. Sycamine

81. Taches                                              82. Teil

83. Tenth-deal                                        84. Thyine

85. Trow                                                86. Wagging

87. Wilily                                                88. Yern

O.K. Now have your child SPELL these words. Say them to him, and without showing them to him, simply have him spell them. Of course, your child might say they don’t know how to spell them, since they aren’t taught on any spelling list in the school system as far as I know. Now, how did you do on the word definition test above? Did you pass the test and identify all the words? How did your child do on his spelling test?

Now, if you are a KJV-ONLY Bible reader, you had better KNOW what all those words mean (and many others not listed), or you really don’t know your Bible as a whole and won’t be able to explain those parts of it to others. The simple fact is, that almost all those words are no longer used in the English language today. With all those revisions of the KJV Bible, at least seven, it was high time in this century to produce a new, contemporary translation, faithful to the manuscripts and updated with the latest in archaeology and paleography.

•   II. What must be remembered is that the King James Version Bible is a Bible written over 370 years ago, while the English language was still in development. Language DOES change with the times we live in, with new technology, with the addition of new idioms, with the sloughing off of outdated, obsolete, changed word meanings. The KJV Bible-ONLY people are going to have to realize that, Lord willing, the English language a hundred years hence, will be different than today’s language forms and idioms. God says:

“Forgetting those things in the past...”. There are people who want to live in the past and idolize it. The Bible viewpoint is for Christians to stay in touch with the present, while looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus. Now is the time of salvation, and people need to be saved in the language that gives a clear gospel (Colossians 4:4; 1 Corinthians 14:9).

                                What must also be remembered is that the KJV Bible was the leading contemporary version Bible of its time; that is, it was written in the commonly understood language, and literary customs and dictionary word spellings of its time. There is a principle to be learned from this: not that the KJV is the ONLY Bible to be read, but that the KJV followed the principle that a Bible translated at any time, MUST be relevant to the group literary mentality at that time.

For example, the Old Hebrew Bible was written by Moses and the prophets in the commonly understood Hebrew of their time. While it is true that Hebrew changed very little during the Old Testament period, the English language has not followed the Hebrew pattern. As a matter of fact, anyone who has ever studied Hebrew will discover there are two Hebrews today: Biblical Hebrew and Contemporary Hebrew. The Hebrew spoken in Israel today is not biblical Hebrew. So, if any KJV-ONLY Bible devotee has the motive that, if Hebrew didn’t change, so English must not change either, they are in error because even today, Hebrew is changing.

In the Book of Daniel, we discover that when he was in Babylonia, he wrote his prophetic book in the Hebrew language starting from Chapter 1 until Chapter 2, verse 3. At that point he switches over to Aramaic, the commonly spoken language of Babylonia, and the language that a whole generation of Jews were schooled in, so that they could read and understand his prophecy, and/or so that the Babylonians would have a record of his prophecies concerning them. Then, in Chapter 8, Daniel returns back to the Hebrew language for prophetic purposes that relate to the Jews, and he stays with Hebrew until the end of the book.

With Daniel’s bi-lingual approach to writing the Scriptures we see that God can use other languages than Hebrew to reveal His Word. We also notice that it was the contemporary languages of Daniel’s time that he used.

Later, when Alexander the great conquered the known world, “koine” — the commonly understood Greek of Alexander’s time — became the Empire’s language. Because of this, the Alexandrian Jews translated the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek — the Septuagint Version — about 2 ½ centuries before the birth of Christ. Here again, we see the sovereignty of God in translation work, in preparing the world of that time for the coming Greek New Testament.

So, even though the new Testament writers could have written the New Testament in the old Hebrew or Aramaic, they CHOSE the contemporary, common tongue that was being spoken throughout the Empire of their time. One should also realize that when Jesus spoke, He spoke in the Aramaic tongue, which the gospel writers had to translate into the Greek language of the New Testament. Even Christ’s last words in Aramaic had to be translated and actually are used in the crucifixion account.

   In Acts 22:1 & 2, Paul was demonstrating this common language principle of communicating to the masses in their own language, when he addressed the Jews of Asia, who were in Jerusalem and who got upset when they saw him go into the Temple. By using their own language, he captured their initial attention. But in Acts 21:37 (only 4 verses before), Paul had addressed the Roman commander of the cohort in Greek to explain and clarify who he was. Again, we see a common sense principle of unbelievers can understand. Since the Bible is the witness of God’s Own Word, it ought to be the clearest statement to the masses that translators can make. But notice what Luke did when he translated these accounts into the Book of Acts: although he KNEW what Paul had spoken in Greek to the commander, and what Paul had said to the Jews of Asia in the Hebrew dialect, Luke never the less was under God’s sovereign directive to translate both events into the contemporary Greek language of the masses of his time.

  Now, much later in 1382, John Wycliffe, for the first time, produced a Bible in the contemporary English of his time. Oh, yes! There were those who hated him for doing that too, even as we have enmities today for producing contemporary English translations in the commonly understood language of today. There is strangely a vague similarity between the KJV-ONLY prohibition, to the earlier Catholic church decree that forbade the church members from even READING the Bible. This infamous decision was made at the Council of Trent in its Fourth rule concerning forbidden books, and was approved by Pope Pius the IV in 1563, only forty eight years earlier than the publishing of the KJV in 1611.

Today, the KJV-ONLY proponents would have all other Bibles banned if they could. Though the Catholic church banned the Bible for centuries, they did have a Latin translation of it, which only a few of the Catholic elite could have access to.

Today, the KJV-ONLY movement is a similar sort of “elitist” movement to “freeze” the English language to a standard that is 370 years old and to forbid the Bible to be translated into today’s contemporary English. History thus has shown that God in His sovereignty, protects His Word and keeps the communication link with lost humanity open by using their common languages for His Bible translations even though past suppressors have tried either to eradicate the Bible itself, or its translators, or its translation into other languages. However, history clearly shows that the KJV-ONLY bias, will, eventually fail, and God’s will, will NOT be quenched, but will be done.

•   III. Since the reading, spelling, handwriting, and comprehension levels in our country today, and in most schools, has been gradually getting worse every year, how can any KJV-ONLY proponent expect the ignorant lost to learn, in the public schools, a text and a grammar over three centuries old that doesn’t even relate to the kind of education found in contemporary schools today? Schools are getting poorer in quality and NOT because we don’t use the ‘King’s’ English any longer. Schools are getting worse because we don’t use the King’s discipline and rod any more as part of the education process. The psychologists, psychiatrists and liberals have rendered any form of punishment of a corporal nature as ‘child abuse’. The younger generation in our schools today have very little respect for authority and elders, much less for King Jamesian English. How many children are studying Chaucer and Shakespeare today and using that kind of lingo in their every day conversation?

•   IV. How about missionaries? Since they can’t ‘speak in tongues’ because speaking in foreign languages as a Holy Spirit gift has ceased, should the Guarani Indians of Paraguay (an obscure jungle tribe) be taught the English KJV Bible as the ONLY Bible? Should the Guaranis be taught the “King’s English”, as a result, instead of their tribal “tongue”? Wouldn’t locally translated Bibles in the contemporary language and idioms of those people be more logical for them to use, as well as reasonable, in following God’s historical pattern of reaching the lost with their OWN language? How does one say “ye”, “thou”, “thee”, etc. in Guarani? Have the KJV-ONLY people really thought out the many problems they create by such an obtuse position?

The KJV was relevant to the educated masses that read it nearly 4 centuries ago, and that’s who the KJV translators were commissioned by King James (a politician) to write it for. It was the Bible of IT’S time. It is no longer the singular Bible of our time. It was not a Bible translated with the Guaranis in mind.

•  V. On thing we know for sure: Paul NEVER used the KJV and neither did Jesus.

•  VI. Something else we know for sure: neither Paul, nor Jesus, EVER used “thee”, “thy”, “ye”, “wist”, etc. in their vocabulary. Such words are uniquely “archaic English”, while Jesus spoke in Aramaic, and Paul in Hebrew, which are Semitic-root languages, and Paul spoke in Greek; all languages, which in no way spell out or sound out the equivalent words as those mentioned.

•  VII. There are no such things as “bishops” in the Christian Church. (KJV: 1 Timothy 3:1 & 2). The correct English word in those passages should be “overseer”, from the Greek word which means one who “looks upon”. The word “bishop” is NOW a hierarchal term in the Catholic and other apostate churches and true Christians should divorce themselves from such terminology in order to keep up with the command to separate from apostates in ALL areas.

There is no such celebration as Easter in the Bible as we know it today, and there is no such word as Easter in the original manuscripts either. This mistranslation in the KJV Bible shows that the translation IS NOT INFALLIBLE. The word SHOULD have been “passover”, a Jewish feast. The original Greek word is “pascha”, which means “passover”.

Why the goof? Because one must remember that the KJV is a conglomerate Bible of which the earlier “Bishop’s Bible” of 1568 forms a small part and influence in the KJV translation, which includes these hierarchal vestiges left over from Romanism.

We do NOT drink “damnation” to ourselves when we receive the Lord’s Table unworthily as the KJV says. We drink judgment (discipline), or physical chastisement in THIS life (1 Corinthians 11:29). The word “damnation” is a hangover from the thinking of the old Roman Catholic idea that if you receive “communion” in sin and die, you would go to hell.  After all, King Henry the VIII broke off relations with Rome in 1534, only 34 years earlier than the publication of the Bishop’s Bible in 1568, parts of which were used in the KJV only 77 years later. So, it follows that the Church of England in those early years after separating from the Papacy, really was not very much different than the Roman church in doctrine.

There is no verse 7 of 1 John 5 in the OLDEST manuscripts as it is found in the KJV. Although the verse is doctrinally sound, it was some scribe’s overenthusiastic addition to Scripture. Even the cultic Jehovah Witnesses know that 1 John 5:7 is an addition to the text. Why don’t KJV-ONLY people know that? Yet, in contradiction to reason, facts, and logic, the KJV-ONLY supporters say the KJV translation is “infallible”. Likewise, the Pope says he’s “infallible”, too. Sadly, both the KJV-ONLY people and the Pope are both wrong.

•  VIII. Just how is the KJV Bible used in churches today? Sadly, traditions of men die hard. Many times in a KJV church, the pastor reads a text or a verse or a complete chapter before expounding on it. (How well it would be if the text were clear and could stand alone WITHOUT commentary, but here is what usually happens.) After reading the antiquated English text, the pastor usually (if he has been seminary trained) will take each key word, phrase and colloquialism and idiom, (usually more British-tainted and ecclesiastical-slanted), and RE-translate those archaic and foggy manners of expression, back FIRST into Greek, revealing what the ORIGINAL idiom REALLY was. He then RE-translates THAT, expounding it back into contemporary, commonly understood American expressions, and RE-converts the Greek idioms into modern, Uncle Sam American language, so that the person in the pew will know what is going on as he holds his KJV Bible in his hand.

       Thus, we have the KJV pastor doing EXACTLY what contemporary Bible translators have already done in trying to adhere as closely as possible to the original languages in a fluent and readable style, according to current English usage and understanding.
                                                                               

CONCLUSION

    1. The idea that ONLY the KJV Bible is inspired and that the translators of the KJV were also inspired is FALSE, and violates: Titus 3:9; Isaiah 40:8; Matthew 24:35; and 2 Timothy 3:16 & 17.

    2. Since Jesus recognized the Septuagint, an Alexandrian translation of the Hebrew O. T. into contemporary Greek that the early Christians and Jews used as their primary Bible before and while the New Testament was being written, AND He never stated a word against it in the Gospels, we can conclude that ALL languages, that adhere as closely as possible to the original Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew languages have God’s Providential Hand, protection, and sovereignty over such translations.

    3. History has shown that it is not how long a translation lasts in the public domain that determines its value to the Christian church and to society, but rather, whether a translation is FAITHFUL to the original languages in conveying clearly, and as accurately as possible in contemporary and understandable terms to the masses (NOT just to an elite, educated group) what God has said in His Word, to the church and the lost wherever they may be.

    4. Just because the British Empire was a world Empire at the time of the writing of the KJV in England, and had the money and the scholars with what degree of available illumination and manuscripts they had at that time, doesn’t preclude the fact that a continuing advancement in scholarly translation, along with any new discovery of older manuscripts is an ongoing and progressive science, as history has shown. Future translations and revisions of the contemporary translations (and even of the KJV, is an ongoing Divine phenomenon within the sovereignty of God. In fact, we can safely say that, if the Lord tarries, there, no doubt, will continue to be even new, updated translations even a hundred years hence, Lord willing, due to the continuing flux in word meanings, linguistics, colloquialism and idioms found in all language development.

    5. God has guaranteed His Word to stand apart from any singular effort to freeze the translation process, destroy the Bible, martyr the Bible writers and translators, kill the Christians who read the Bible, or by cults or paraphrasers who distort the translations.

    6. What God commands is obedience to the Scriptures, according to what the indwelling Holy Spirit teaches us from those Scriptural translations. God does not want a KJV faction, or an NAS faction, or an NIV faction. Factions are sins that divide the church and sow disunity on God’s methods of the preservation of His Word. God hates factions that spread disunity when He says in Proverbs 6:16 & 19:

“There are six things which the Lord hates...” And the sixth thing mentioned is:“...one who spreads strife among brothers.”

    7. The Christian has the right and freedom, under grace, to choose any translation that best relates to the original languages as well as that best relates to the individual Christian’s illumination in his own contemporary language.

    8. That the Bible teaches that there is safety in a multitude of counselors is a principle that applies to the use of several translations of the Scriptures rather than just one, and can be applied in rebuke to the KJV-ONLY controversy. The reason I don’t want the KJV-ONLY as my Bible, is to be sure that I can check other translations as well as the Greek and Hebrew texts for greater clarity, expanded insights, a more accurate focus, a more complete coverage of word meanings, a comparison of contexts, and even an analysis of various cross-references, etc. Any legalistic attempt to restrict a Christian to one rigid translation, is an attack on the Christian’s freedom under grace.

    9. Lastly, God never intended that the brethren should ever be divided over what version of Bible one uses. There was no division over the two Bible versions of Jesus’ time, and there ought not to be any divisions over Bible versions in our time. For we know that churches that have “pastoral primacy”, plus “paper popery”, may be guilty of the sin of pernicious prating. Only in churches with a balanced leadership; pastor and staff evangelist (Ephesians 4:11), with multiple rule (Hebrews 13:7; 1 Peter 5:1 - 3), and the freedom to use multiple Bible translations, will the Christian ever retain his freedom from legalism and divisive movements.

SUMMARY

Thus, a Christian in these latter days should probably have SEVERAL Bible translations for study, including multiple interlinear of the Greek and Hebrew texts. In these times of false teachers, cults, and Christian legalisms, no one Bible translation should exclude all other translations. Rather, each individual Christian needs to study even harder to be sure in what he believes, and whether he is truly obedient to whatever text he follows. (2 Peter 1:5-10; 2 Timothy 2:15)