Darkness to Light Home Page


Books and eBooks by the Director

King James and His Translators

By Rick Norris

Director’s Comment:  I hesitated to post these items as I am reluctant to "bash" people who are long dead and cannot defend themselves. However, KJV Only advocates do use the supposed godly character of King James and the translators of the KJV as "proof" of the KJV’s inspiration (see KJV Only Arguments). As such, it is warranted to evaluate these claims.


The Great Hypocrite or Great Dissembler:
Was "godly" King James a Liar, a Compromiser, or Both?

While king in Scotland, Benjamin Brook noted that James had declared in the general assembly at Edinburg, with his hands lifted to heaven, "that he praised God that he was born to be the king of the purest kirk [church] in the world." "As for our neighbor kirk [church] of England," said he, their service is an evil-said mass in English." James also said "that the Book of Common Prayer was the English mass book, and that the surplice, copes, and ceremonies were outward badges of popery" (Lives of the Puritans, Vol. 1, p. 60).

W. H. Stowell also pointed out that James "had made strong declarations in Scotland of his adherence to the Presbyterian discipline in which he had been educated, publicly avowing his gratitude that he belonged to the purest church in the world, and his purpose to maintain its principles as long as he lived" (History of the Puristans in England, p. 222). Can the evidence be any clearer that King James either lied in Scotland or else later compromised his own professed beliefs in order to promote the very false teachings of the state church in England that he had claimed were retained from Roman Catholicism?

King James was known as a "great dissembler." "To dissemble" is "to conceal or disguise the actual nature of somethings," "to make a false show of," or "to conceal one's true nature, intentions, etc.; act hypocritically."

W. H. Stowell noted that James was "a great dissembler, a greater liar" and that he was "unscrupulous in breaking his promises" (History of the Puritans, pp. 230, 246). Ashley observed: "James was a congenital, if perhaps unconscious liar: he did not regard truthfulness as a necessary royal attribute" (Stuarts in Love, p. 103). Sir Walter Scott pointed out that James "had been early imbued with the principle that the power of dissembling was essential to the art of reigning" (SCOTLAND, Vol. 2, p. 138).

W. M. Hetherington wrote: "The policy of principle he knew not, because he was himself unprincipled; but the policy of falsehood, cunning, and sycophancy, he well understood and practised" (History of the Church of Scotland, p. 203). Hetherington also noted that James "had repeatedly broken his most solemn pledges, and brought his word into such suspicion, that the more earnestly he protested, the less he was believed" (Ibid., p. 175).

P. Hume Brown noted that in Scotland "the ministers perfectly understood that James was ready to change his faith the moment he should find it expedient" (History of Scotland, Vol. 2, p. 192). It seems that the godly pastors in the Church of Scotland regarded King James as a compromiser and as unworthy of trust. How does all this evidence line up with the unproven claim that James had a godly character?

Director’s Comment:  In addition to King James’ possible dishonesty, I also have had several people e-mail me and claim King James was a homosexual. I e-mailed Rick and asked him if he had any information on this possibility. Below is his reply.

Hello Gary,  In answer to your question about King James, I have read several biographies, histories of England or English kings, etc. that claim that King James was a homosexual. Otto Scott in his 1976 book James I: The Fool as King and published by Ross House Books, P.O. Box 67, Vallecito, CA 95251 claimed that he was.

On the other hand, in his book defending James, Stephen A. Coston, claimed that the majority of historians are wrong in their view that James was a homosexual and that there is not a preponderance of evidence to support their claim. While Coston has a few possible explanations to explain away some of the evidence against James, he seemed to start with the assumption that James was a godly ruler; therefore, he was not a homosexual.

Clearly, the overall evidence does not prove that James had a godly character.

Comment:  Whatever the case as to King James' sexuality, it is true, as a couple of the e-mails I received pointed out, that the KJV’s rendering of 1Cor 6:9 is rather "soft" on homosexual behavior. I discuss the translation of this verse at length in my article "Homosexuals" in 1Corinthians 6:9.


The Doctrinal Views of A "Superior" KJV Translator

D. A. Waite, a KJV-only advocate, listed Lancelot Andrewes as one of three "superior King James Old Testament translators" (Defending the KJB, p. 68). Gustavus Paine stated that Andrewes was "the real head or chairman" of all the KJV translators, directly under Archbishop Bancroft (Men Behind the KJV, pp. 16, 70).

Higham observed that the faith of men such as Andrewes and Archbishop Bancroft was "Catholic in its respect for ancient custom, ordered worship, and episcopal rule" (Lancelot Andrewes, p. 34). Ashley noted that Andrewes "sought to reconcile Catholic ceremonies with Protestant beliefs" (England in the Seventeenth Century, pp. 41-42). Hill pointed out that "Catholic tradition in the Church of England owes a great deal" to Andrewes (Who’s Who in History, p. 31).

Horton Davies observed that Anglican spirituality had a "continuing link with Catholicism in Lancelot Andrewes and his successors" (Worship and Theology in England, p. 428). Ian Green also referred to the "High Church or Anglo-Catholic persuasion" of men like Andrewes and Laud (History of Religion in Britain, p. 174). Robert Ottley noted that Andrewes considered the Eucharist "both as a sacrament and as a sacrifice" (Lancelot Andrewes, p. 204). In an introduction to a book of sermons by Andrewes, G. M. Story noted that some have claimed that Andrewes was "virtually a crypto-Catholic" (Andrewes, Sermons, p. xiii).

Andrewes had a large influence on William Laud, who was a leader among the younger Anglicans during the reign of James, and who became Archbishop during the reign of Charles I, James's son.

Some of Andrewes' writings and sermons have been included in a series of books entitled the Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology. One would think that KJV-only advocates would be shocked if they actually read some of the sermons of Andrewes and saw for themselves his Anglo-Catholic views.

For example, in a sermon on John 20:23, Andrewes taught the doctrine of absolution and confession (Ninety-six Sermons, pp. 82-103). In his sermon points, he claimed that in the institution of baptism and the holy Eucharist, there is a power for the remission of sins.

In the texts that head his sermons, Andrewes used the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate along with an English translation. Could a man who preached from the Latin Vulgate be influenced by it in his translating?

Please excuse an ordinary believer like myself for examining the evidence about the views of this "great" scholar and "superior" KJV translator. Surely, there must be some Scripture verse that teaches that the "superior" KJV translators were perfect in all their interpretations of God's Word whether in their doctrinal views or in their translating, but I don't know of one.


Archbishop Richard Bancroft and his Influence on the KJV

The Church of England was established as a State Church under the King of England, Henry VIII, following the Pope's refusal to grant Henry a divorce from Catherine of Aragon to facilitate a marriage to Anne Boleyn (1533).

Thus, the King of England became the Head of the Church of England, a split off of the Church of Rome. Next in the chain of command was the Archbishop of Canterbury. Diocesan bishops were under the Archbishop. Under King James I, the English Bishops were "Erastian"--that is, they accepted the State as being over the Church and its affairs -- which meant the King was sovereign over both.

King James I had Archbishop Richard Bancroft oversee the translating of the KJV, which was published in 1611. In their preface to the King James Version, the Translators referred to Bancroft as the "chief overseer and task-master under his Majesty, to whom were not only we, but also our whole Church, much bound." Thus, Archbishop Bancroft was known for his determination to make everyone conform to the views of the State Church, the Church of England. He harassed and persecuted the Puritans and other Non-conformists, including Baptists.

In an 1852 booklet, Baptists stated: "Bishop Bancroft, to whom the king confided very much in the actual execution of the work [KJV], was one of the most bigoted and bloody sectarians in the civilized world" (The Bible Question, p. 38). Albert Peel wrote that Bancroft was described by Andrew Melville as "the capital enemy of all the Reformed Churches in Europe" (TRACTS, p. x).

Alexander McClure noted that Bancroft "was the ruling spirit in that infamous tribunal, the High Commission Court, a sort of British Inquisition" (KJV Translators Revived, p. 217). Daniel Neal reported: "Bancroft was a divine of a rough temper, a perfect creature of the prerogative, and a declared enemy of the religious and civil liberties of his country" (History of the Puritans, p. 240).

It was Archbishop Bancroft that approved or made the rules for the translation of the KJV. By his establishment of the rules and overseeing of the actual translation, Bancroft had great influence on the KJV. Bancoft's chaplain, Leonard Hutten, was one of the translators. Several bishops who were in agreement with many of Bancroft's views and were directly under his chain of command were also translators.

In spite of his great influence and authority over the translation, the finished work of the KJV translators did not satisfy Bancroft. This proud Archbishop had to make some changes in the translation before it was even published. Paine noted that Miles Smith, final Editor of the KJV with Thomas Bilson, "protested that after he and Bilson had finished, Bishop Bancroft made fourteen more changes" (Men Behind the KJV, p. 128).

Henry Jessey, a Baptist pastor in the early 1600's, complained about the KJV for its bent favoring "episcopacy," and said that Bancroft, "who was supervisor of the present translation, altered it in fourteen places to make it speak the language of prelacy" (Williams, Common English Version, p. 53). "Prelacy" refers to a system of church government by Prelates such as Archbishops and Bishops set over more than one local church.

Were these fourteen changes directly inspired or approved by God? Are they the "verbally inspired Word of God, preserved through all ages since the Apostles?" One reason to question these fourteen changes is that the changes were certainly made to support episcoplian church government views of the Church of England. The changes were also in violation of some of the translation rules for the KJV. In addition, expressed opposition by some of the KJV translators to these changes indicate that these changes were viewed wrong by these translators.


The Influence of the High Commission Court on the KJV

Most likely, most believers today know very little about the High Commission Court in England in the late 1500's and 1600's. On the other hand, believers during the 1600's knew a great deal about the great power of the High Commission Court. The Church of England used the High Commission Court and the Star Chamber to force everyone in England to conform to this state church.

Walker pointed out that the High Commission Court "could examine and imprison anywhere in England and had become the right arm of episcopal authority" (History of the Christian Church, pp. 406-407). John Brown stated that this Court's "methods of investigation were described as worthy only of the Spanish Inquisition" (English Puritans, p. 76). Neal also observed that this Court's methods "were almost equal to the Spanish Inquisition" with its "long imprisonments of ministers without bail or bringing them to trial" (History of the Puritans, p. xi).

Thomas Smith noted that John Cotton (1585-1652) complained that "the ecclesiastical courts are dens of lions," "cages of uncleanness, and roosting places of birds of prey, the tabernacles of bribery, forges of extortion, and fetters of slavery, a terror of all good men, and a praise to them that do evil" (Select Memoirs, pp. 391-392).

In 1610 during the reign of King James I, Babbage stated that "the House of Commons addressed a Petition to the king for the redress of grievances arising through the Court of High Commission" (Puritanism and Richard Bancroft, pp. 286-287). Alexander McClure noted that Archbishop Richard Bancroft "was the ruling spirit in that infamous tribunal, the High Commission Court, a sort of British Inquisition" (KJV Translators Revived, p. 217).

What possible connections or links are there between this hated High Commission Court and the KJV? Directly under King James I, Archbishop Richard Bancroft, a leading member of this Court, was the overseer for the translation of the KJV. He approved or made the rules for the translation, and he clearly had the power to force his views on others. A KJV translator claimed that Bancroft made at least fourteen changes in the KJV before it was published.

Other members of this High Commission Court were KJV translators Lancelot Andrewes and George Abbott. Abbott became Archbishop after Bancroft died. Other KJV translators that were Bishops were most likely also members of this Court. A disciple or follower of Lancelot Andrewes, William Laud (1573-1645), who was a leader among the younger Anglicans during the reign of James, would become the Archbishop during the reign of Charles I, James's son. Frere described Laud as "the man who was to take up Andrewes' work and carry it out into practice by energetic means" (English Church, p. 371).

Some may question whether the High Commission Court with its "distinguished" members such as some KJV translators and several Archbishops can be fairly compared to the Inquisition. As members of this Court, George Abbott and Lancelot Andrewes urged the burning at the stake of two men for their religious views and King James approved this sentence.

The brutality of some of the punishments issued by this court are shocking. The example of the treatment of one Puritan preacher, Alexander Leighton, in 1628 or 1629 illustrates this brutality. For writing a book that condemned the institution of bishops as "anti-Christian and satanic," the High Commission Court issued a warrant for him. He was taken to Laud's house and then to Newgate prison without any trial. Leighton was put in irons in solitary confinement in an unheated cell for fifteen weeks. Smith stated that the roof of his cell was uncovered so that the rain and snow beat in upon him (Select Memoirs, p. 428). None of his friends nor even his wife were permitted to see him during this time. According to four doctors, Leighton was so sick that he was unable to attend his supposed sentencing (Ibid.).

Durant noted that Leighton also "was tied to a stake and received thirty-six stripes with a heavy cord upon his naked back; he was placed in the pillory for two hours in November's frost and snow; he was branded in the face, had his nose split and his ears cut off, and was condemned to life imprisonment" (Age of Reason Begins, pp. 189-190).

In 1615, Archbishop Abbott, a High Commission Court member, "forbade anyone to issue a Bible without the Apocrypha on pain of one year's imprisonment" (Moorman, Forever Settled, p. 183). This order was likely aimed at the Geneva Bible with its 1599 edition printed without the Apocrypha. Archbishop Laud can be linked to using the power of the High Commission Court to make the KJV the officially approved translation.

Conant noted, "So pertinaciously, indeed, did the people cling to it [the Geneva Bible], and so injurious was its influence to the interests of Episcopacy and of the 'authorized version,' that in the reign of Charles I, Archbishop Laud made the vending, binding, or importation of it [Geneva Bible] a high-commission crime" (English Bible, p. 367). Was it the power of this cruel High Commission Court that finally forced believers to give up their beloved and popular Geneva Bible?

Does this documented information, that some of the KJV translators were members of this court which was known as a "terror of all good men," relate to the claim that these men were "superior translators?" How could truly godly men take part in the cruelty of this court? Why did none of the KJV translators condemn the many abuses of power by this Court? Why did King James or the KJV translators do nothing to stop this Court's persecution of true believers?


Follow-up

Note: I engaged the following email correspondence with someone commenting on the third section above:

>You have a strange article up on your web-site that purports to be history that is a bit of an embarrassment to your own accuracy and integrity. There are a lot of problems with the article, but I simply want to emphasize one point.

The finished work of the KJV translators did not satisfy Bancroft. This proud Archbishop had to make some changes in the translation before it was even published.

There is no primary source documentation for this account. The quote given arose hundreds of years later, essentially a fabrication, and the author of your article is well aware of the lack of primary source documentation, not even in the later 1600s, when there were a lot "rumours unduly exaggerated" (Samuel Newth - Lectures on Bible Revision). Even then, there is no record of any such claim.

In fact, Richard Bancroft died in 1610, so nobody today even knows if he was alive and active at the time the King James Bible translation was finished.

How you could allow such trash history to be on your web-site is a bit of a puzzle ... although I grant that few know the specifics and it is written as if it were factual.

You can see more of the strange method of writing history of Rick Norris analyzed on the following 3 page thread.

historical Bancroft assertion (conjectural fabrication) unsupported

http://www.fundamentalforums.com/bible-versions/79713-historical-bancroft-assertion-conjectural-fabrication-unsupported.html 

There are many more problems than just the specific claim. However in that thread you can understand how your author, Rick Norris, fabricates history.

Shalom,
Steven
3/4/2010<

As I say on the contact page: "To comment on an article written by someone other than me, please use the appropriate e-mail address from the list below." I say this as I obviously did not do the research for articles not by me so I am not in a position to gauge the accuracy of any objections to them.

>Hi Gary,

Actually there is nothing complicated in "gauging the accuracy" of a fabricated historical claim. Especially when you can see the specific dialogue about the false assertion. By posting the article you are indicating confidence in the material, which can reflect on your credibility when the material is a fabrication. Since Rick Norris is the fox who wrote up this hen house, asking him to guard it is not likely to be productive.

Anyway, I just thought I would share with you, so you would have the opportunity to keep your own website away from distortions and fabrications. Ultimately, it is your choice.

Shalom,
Steven<


I emailed rick Norris as to how he would respond to this claim. Below is his response.

>Hello Gary,

The information in my article is based on documented evidence from many sources, including several standard histories of our English Bible. Some of the information is found on pages 92-98 of my book The Unbound Scriptures. I have found even more evidence including several 1600's sources since I wrote my book. I will email you separately my expanded pages on this matter [seen below]....

In Christ,
Rick<


In his 1671 book, Edward Whiston wrote: “Mention might be made of some unhandsome dealing, not in the translators, but in a great prelate of that time, the chief supervisor of the work, who, as the Reverend Doctor Hill declared in a great and honourable Assembly, would have it speak the prelatical language, and to that end altered it in 14 places” (Life and Death of Henry Jessey, p. 49).

 

Henry Jessey was at Cambridge several years in the 1620’s where he could have had firsthand contact with some of the KJV translators that were there during that time. John Lewis noted that Jessey was "one well skilled in the Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, and Greek tongues" (Complete History, p. 355). The reference work Dictionary of National Biography noted that “his memory for scripture was so minute and accurate that he was termed a living concordance” (Vol. X, p. 808). James Granger referred to Jessey as “an eminent puritan divine” (Biographical History, p. 413). Daniel Neal wrote: “The original languages of the Old And New Testament were as familiar to him [Jessey] as his mother tongue” (History of the Puritans, II, p. 254). John Christian stated that Jessey "was one of the most noted men of his times" (History of the Baptists, I, p. 271). Cathcart’s Baptist Encyclopaedia noted that “his character was marked by unselfishness and an intense love for the truth and its Divine Author” (p. 600). Benjamin Evans stated that “John Bunyan calls him ‘honest and holy Mr. Jessey’” (Early English Baptists, II, p. 150 footnote).

 

KJV-only advocates may question the validity of Jessey's claim about changes reflecting Episcopal bias being introduced in the 1611, but this claim is likely based on a similar reported claim by someone who would have known firsthand, one of the KJV translators themselves. Gustavus Paine maintained that Miles Smith, final editor of the KJV with Thomas Bilson, “protested that after Bilson and he had finished their editing, Bishop Bancroft made fourteen more changes.” He gave as an example Bancroft's insistence on using "the glorious word bishopric even for Judas in Acts 1:20" (Men Behind the KJV, p. 128). Paine added: “The fact that Smith was the one to protest Bancroft’s amendments suggests that he stood against both Bilson and Bancroft in such matters as the importance of bishoprics” (Ibid.). Edward Whiston asserted that “many of those in King James’ time (had they been as well conscientious in point of fidelity and godliness, as they were furnished with abilities, they) would not have moulded it to their own Episcopal notion rendering episkope, (the office of oversight) by the term Bishoprick Acts 1:20 as they do in 14 places more” (Life, p. 44).

 

In 1739, John Lewis referred to an essay towards an amendment of this last translation of the Bible “said to have been drawn up” by Henry Jessey (Complete History, p. 355). In his 1845 book, Christopher Anderson also referred to an essay for the amendment of the last translation by Henry Jessey, and Anderson quoted Jessey as writing in that essay that “Dr. Hill declared in open assembly that Bancroft ‘would needs have the version speak prelatic language; and to that end altered it in fourteen several places;’ and that Dr. Miles Smith complained of the Bishops’ alterations” (Annals, II, p. 378). White commented that Jessey “apparently produced a paper arguing the need for a new translation” (Knox, Reformation, p. 141). This 1600’s essay or paper may have been an unprinted manuscript since no printed book written by Jessey with a title like that is known. This essay seems to have been used by Edward Whiston in his 1671 book about the life of Jessey.

 

In 1727, Edmund Calamy (1671-1732) noted that Henry Jessey “tells us that Dr. Hill declared in a great assembly, that a great Prelate, viz. Bancroft, who was a supervisor of it, would needs have it speak the prelatical language; and to that end altered it in fourteen several places. And Dr. Smith, who was one of the translators and the writer of the preface, (and who was afterwards Bishop of Glouchester,) complained to a minister of that county, of the Archbishop’s alterations: But says he, he is so potent, that there is no contradicting him” (A Continuation, I, p. 47). In 1808, Walter Wilson affirmed that Miles Smith “complained of the Archbishop’s unwarrantable alterations” (History, I, p. 44 note M). In 1839, Benjamin Hanbury maintained that “Bancroft, the supervisor of James’s translation, altered fourteen places to make it speak the language of prelacy” (Historical Memorials, I, p. 2). In his 1853 book, Alexander McClure also referred to Miles Smith's complaint about the Archbishop's alterations: "It is said that Bancroft altered fourteen places, so as to make them speak in phrase to suit him" (KJV Translators Revived, p. 220). Bobrick confirmed that "Smith afterward complained that Bancroft made fourteen changes on his own account" (Wide as the Waters, p. 248). In 1671, Edward Whiston commented: “Indeed those and such other alterations were not only against the minds of the translators, but of the Bishop of Gloucester [Miles Smith], who was joined with the other as a Supervisor, and complained of it to a friend, a minister of that county, but he is so potent, said he, that there is no contradicting him” (Life, p. 50). Joseph Fletcher noted that “the Bishop of Gloucester excused himself for submitting to this tampering with the sacred text, by saying, ‘but he is so potent, there is no contradicting him’” (History, III, p. 39).

 

Opfell also reported: "In the end Smith complained that Bishop Bancroft had introduced 14 more changes" (KJB Translators, p. 106). Opfell concluded that “as some translators had attested, he [Bancroft] had poked his nose into the text often enough to assure himself that no indignity had been done to bishops” (p. 118). Conant asserted that Bancroft "was publicly charged with having altered the version [KJV] in fourteen places" (The English Bible, p. 440). John McClintock and James Strong also wrote that Bancroft "is said to have made some alterations in the version [KJV]" (Cyclopaedia, I, p. 560). Josiah Penniman observed that “it is said that Bancroft, Bishop of London, insisted on fourteen alterations” (Book about the English Bible, p. 393). Edwin Bissell wrote: “And ‘my Lord of London,‘ who is probably the one referred in the Preface as the chief overseer of the work, was publicly charged at the time, with having altered the version on his own sole authority in fourteen places, the rendering of 1 Peter 2:13, ‘to the king as supreme,‘ being instanced as one of them” (Historic Origin, p. 78). Alister McGrath asserted that Bancroft “had reserved for himself the privilege of making revisions to what hitherto thought of as the final draft” (In the Beginning, p. 178). He also referred to Smith’s complaint “that Bancroft had introduced fourteen changes in the final text without any consultation” (p. 188). In the introductory articles found in Hendrickson’s reprint of the 1611, Alfred Pollard maintained that “another Bishop, Bancroft of London, is said to have insisted on fourteen alterations” (p. 42). Even Laurence Vance, a KJV-only author, acknowledged that Bancroft “is to said to have made fourteen changes” (King James, His Bible, p. 52). Henry Fox asserted: “Again and again were renderings upon which the translators had agreed altered by him [Bancroft] to suit his own views” (On the Revision, p. 7).

 

Along with Henry Jessey and KJV translator Miles Smith, another man made a report about these changes. In his 1648 sermon, Thomas Hill (c1602-1653), a member of the Westminster Assembly, stated: “I have it from certain hands, such as lived in those times, that when the Bible had been translated by the translators appointed, the New Testament was looked over by some of the great Prelates, (men I could name some of their persons) to bring it to speak prelatical language, and they did alter …fourteen places in the New Testament to make them speak the language of the Church of England” (Six Sermons, p. 24; see also Eadie, English Bible, II, p. 272). Thomas Smith noted that Thomas Hill was “much distinguished for his humility and purity of life,” and he described him as “an excellent and useful preacher of great learning and moderation” (Select Memoirs, p. 554). Samuel Clark observed that Hill “was sound in the faith, orthodox in his judgment” (Lives, p. 90). Thomas Hill would have known KJV translator Laurence Chaderton (1536 or 7-1640), who was Master of Emmanuel, when Hill received his B. A. from Emmanuel. Hill could have had contact with other KJV translators in his years at Cambridge. For example, KJV translator Thomas Harrison (1555-1631) was vice-prefect of Trinity College at Cambridge the last twenty years of his life so that Hill could have met him or at least could have had access to his books and papers. KJV translator Samuel Ward was master of Sidney-Sussex College at Cambridge a number of years so that Hill could have met him. KJV translator John Richardson died at Cambridge and was buried in Trinity College chapel. The time before 1638 when two KJV translators were among those editing the KJV for the 1638 Cambridge edition would have been another opportunity for Thomas Hill to have had firsthand contact with translators. In addition, Thomas Hill had access to other primary sources at Cambridge, including the Lambeth Library with the papers of Archbishop Richard Bancroft. Therefore, it can be validly concluded that Thomas Hill had access to enough primary sources to know whether or not the information in his sermon was reliable. Along with Hill’s 1648 sermon, there are state papers from 1652-1653 that cite his sermon and that refer to the testimony of other preachers.

 

The Calender of State Papers, Domestic Series, 1652-1653 as edited by Mary Green noted: “Statement that Dr. Hill declared in his sermon, and has since published, that when the Bible had been translated by the translators appointed, the New Testament was looked over by some prelates he could name, to bring it to speak prelatical language, and that he was informed by a great observer, that in 14 places, whereof he instanced five or six, it was corrupted by them. The like testimony was given by some other ancient and godly preachers who lived in those times, and some appearance hereof may yet be seen in a part of that very copy of those translations” (p. 73). John Eadie pointed out that the report of these 14 changes became part of the preamble of a bill in Parliament around 1657 (English Bible, II, p. 272). Eadie cited that preamble as noting that “the like testimony of these prelates” making those changes was “given by some other ancient and godly preachers also, who lived in those times” (Ibid.). Eadie also reported the preamble affirmed that “some appearance hereof may yet be seen in part of that very copy of these translators” (Ibid.). That important evidence asserts that some who examined the copy of the text prepared by the KJV translators for the printers saw evidence of the changes made by a prelate or prelates in that copy before it was lost or destroyed [perhaps around 1660 in the London fire].

The above items were posted on this Web site in 1998.
The follow-up was added March 5, 2010.

Bible Versions Controversy: KJV-Onlyism
Bible Versions Controversy

Text Search     Alphabetical List of Pages     Subject Index
General Information on Articles     Contact Information

Darkness to Light Home Page
www.dtl.org


Click Here for Books and eBooks by Gary F. Zeolla

www.dtl.org/versions/article/king-james.htm