The King James Only movement

The King James Only movement is a complex and diverse phenomenon. Within this movement, there are varying beliefs and degrees of adherence. Some groups believe the King James Version (KJV) is the only acceptable English translation, while others hold a more nuanced view that the KJV's textual basis, the Textus Receptus (TR), is superior.

Here's a breakdown of the denominations and groups that are often associated with a KJV-only or Perfect TR position:

Independent Baptist Churches: This is the most common group associated with the King James Only movement. Many independent Baptist churches, particularly those in the "fundamentalist" tradition, teach that the KJV is the providentially preserved and perfect Word of God for English speakers.

Conservative Anabaptist Churches: Some Anabaptist groups, such as the Dunkard Brethren Church and the Apostolic Christian Church, have a stated preference for or exclusive use of the KJV. This is often tied to a desire for uniformity and a conservative theological stance.

Other Conservative and Fundamentalist Churches: The KJV-only position is not exclusive to Baptists. It is also found in some:

• Conservative Holiness Methodist churches

• Apostolic Faith Church (a Holiness Pentecostal denomination)

• Bible-Presbyterian churches (particularly those in Singapore)

• Some smaller Protestant Reformed and Free Presbyterian denominations.

Belief in a "Perfect TR":

The "Perfect TR" position, which asserts that the Greek texts used to create the KJV are without error, is a core belief for many KJV-only advocates. However, it's important to note that this is a doctrinal position rather than a denominational one, and its expression can vary. Some advocates of the TR might accept a modern translation if it were based on the same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, but they generally believe the KJV is the only faithful translation of the TR in English.

It is worth noting that some individuals and organizations, such as the Trinitarian Bible Society, hold a position that the TR is the superior textual base for translation, but they do not necessarily view the KJV itself as a "perfect" or divinely inspired translation. Instead, they see it as the best available translation from the best available text. This highlights the different nuances within the broader movement.

Tyndale House, Cambridge

Tyndale House, Cambridge is an international center for biblical studies that has a reputation for rigorous academic research and a strong commitment to making its findings accessible to the wider public. Founded in 1945, its name honors William Tyndale, the 16th-century English scholar and reformer who famously translated the Bible directly from its original Hebrew and Greek sources, a move that was revolutionary at the time and laid the foundation for the King James Version. This legacy of returning to the original texts and making them understandable to ordinary people continues to inform the mission of Tyndale House today.

The core of Tyndale House's work revolves around two central pillars: textual criticism and biblical translation. Textual criticism, the scholarly discipline of reconstructing the most accurate original wording of ancient texts, is a cornerstone of their research. They have a world-class specialist library and bring together leading Christian researchers from across the globe to collaborate on projects that contribute significantly to this field. A notable achievement in this area is the publication of *The Greek New Testament, Produced at Tyndale House, Cambridge* in 2017. This groundbreaking edition aimed to present the earliest recoverable wording of the Greek New Testament by re-examining the manuscript evidence with a rigorous philological approach.

Tyndale House's pursuit of a more perfect Bible is not just an academic exercise. Their research directly impacts biblical translation, seeking to ensure that modern translations are as faithful as possible to the original manuscripts. By providing the best possible information about the Bible, they aim to resource the global church, helping people to understand and trust the Word of God. Their work contributes to a more accurate and nuanced understanding of the scriptures, ultimately enabling people to engage with the Bible in a more meaningful way. In essence, Tyndale House's mission is to bridge the gap between high-level scholarship and the daily life of believers, ensuring that the legacy of William Tyndale—of making the Bible accessible to all—is carried forward in the 21st century.

The pursuit of the "perfect" English Bible is an ongoing journey

How to Get the Autograph Original Bible

First, it's crucial to understand that the "autograph original" Bible does not exist today. The original manuscripts, penned by the biblical authors themselves (e.g., Moses, Paul, etc.), have long since perished due to time, decay, and the materials they were written on (papyrus, parchment). This is a widely accepted fact among biblical scholars.

Even with the premise of manuscripts discovered in 2025 (which would be truly groundbreaking if they were actual autographs), it's highly improbable that complete, undisputed autograph originals would be found. Archaeological discoveries typically yield fragments or older copies, not the very first writings.

What we do have are thousands of ancient copies and fragments of biblical texts, dating back centuries after the originals. 

Ensuring the Message of God is Kept Pure in All Ages

This is the core challenge. The process involves:

1. Collecting and Cataloging Manuscripts: Identifying and documenting all known biblical manuscripts, including fragments, codices (book-form manuscripts), and lectionaries (books of Scripture readings for liturgical use).

2. Analyzing Textual Variants: Comparing these manuscripts word by word to identify differences (variants). These variants can range from minor spelling differences to the inclusion or exclusion of entire verses or passages.

3. Evaluating Variants: Determine which variant is most likely to be the original reading. These principles include:

   • Prioritizing Older Manuscripts: Generally, older manuscripts are closer to the original and have had fewer opportunities for errors to creep in.

   • Geographical Distribution: Readings supported by manuscripts from diverse geographical regions are often considered more reliable, as they are less likely to represent a localized scribal tradition or error.

   • Scribal Habits: Understanding common scribal errors (e.g., dittography, haplography, confusion of similar-looking letters) helps in identifying accidental changes.

   • "Harder Reading" Preference: Scribes often tended to smooth out difficult or unusual readings. Therefore, a "harder" reading (one that is grammatically or theologically more challenging) might be closer to the original, as a scribe would be less likely to introduce it deliberately.

   • Theological Harmony: While not the primary criterion, consider whether a variant aligns with the overall theological message and style of the author and the surrounding context.

4. Creating Critical Editions: Scholars produce "critical editions" of the Greek New Testament and Hebrew Old Testament. These editions present a reconstructed text that, in the judgment of the editors, represents the closest approximation to the original based on the available manuscript evidence. They also include an "apparatus" that lists significant textual variants and the manuscript evidence supporting them.

Steps Towards Pursuing the Perfect English Bible in the Future

The concept of a "perfect" English Bible is complex, as it involves both textual accuracy and readability/understandability for contemporary audiences. However, steps towards an optimal English Bible would include:

1. Continued Textual Research:

   • Discovery of New Manuscripts: While a full autograph is unlikely, new discoveries of older manuscripts or fragments could provide valuable new evidence and refine our understanding of the earliest text.

   • Refinement of Methodologies: As technology advances (e.g., DNA analysis of parchment, advanced imaging techniques), and as scholars gain deeper insights into ancient languages and scribal practices, methods can continue to be refined.

   • Consensus on Difficult Passages: Ongoing scholarly dialogue and research can lead to greater consensus on particularly challenging textual variants.

2. Linguistic and Cultural Sensitivity:

   • Updated Lexicography and Grammar: As our understanding of biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek continues to evolve through linguistic research and new epigraphic discoveries, translations can incorporate these refinements for greater precision.

   • Modern English Usage: English is a living language. Future translations will need to continually assess how best to convey ancient concepts and literary forms in clear, natural, and contemporary English, without sacrificing accuracy. This often involves balancing "formal equivalence" (word-for-word) with "dynamic equivalence" (thought-for-thought) translation philosophies.

   • Addressing Cultural Nuances: Translators must consider how cultural contexts and idioms of the ancient world can be effectively communicated to a modern audience, avoiding anachronisms or misunderstandings.

3. Collaborative and Transparent Translation Process:

   • Interdenominational and International Teams: Bringing together scholars from diverse theological backgrounds and geographical regions can enrich the translation process and foster broader acceptance.

   • Open Access to Resources: Making critical editions, manuscript data, and linguistic tools more accessible to a wider scholarly community can accelerate research and foster greater collaboration.

   • Continuous Revision and Review: A "perfect" Bible isn't a static product. It's an ongoing process. Regular revisions based on new scholarship and linguistic developments are essential.

People Leading the Study of Manuscripts Presently

The field of biblical manuscript studies is vibrant and involves numerous highly respected scholars and institutions. While it's impossible to list everyone, here are some prominent names and research centers that are currently at the forefront:

Leading Scholars (some prominent examples, this list is not exhaustive and includes those recently active):

• Dr. Daniel B. Wallace: A very well-known figure, particularly in New Testament. He is the Senior Research Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary and the Executive Director of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (CSNTM), which is digitizing countless Greek New Testament manuscripts.

• Dr. Larry Hurtado: (Sadly, he passed away in 2019, but his work continues to be highly influential). He was a leading scholar in early Christianity and New Testament, particularly known for his work on early Christian devotion and the earliest New Testament manuscripts.

• Dr. Peter Head: A prominent scholar in New Testament, often involved in projects related to the Greek New Testament.

• Dr. Hugh Houghton: Associated with the Institute for Textual Scholarship and Electronic Editing (ITSEE) at the University of Birmingham, a leading center for textual studies, particularly on the Latin New Testament.

• Dr. Eldon Epp: (Also deceased, but his work remains foundational). His extensive research on the textual history of the New Testament, particularly in the Alexandrian tradition, is still widely consulted.

• Dr. Stanley Porter: A prolific scholar whose work often touches on Greek linguistics and its implications for textual criticism and biblical interpretation.

• Dr. Charlotte Hempel: Specializes in the Dead Sea Scrolls and their relation to the Hebrew Bible.

• Dr. Candida Moss: Works on the New Testament, book history, and ancient literary culture.

• Dr. Amy Myshrall: Focuses on Greek New Testament manuscripts.

Key Institutions and Projects:

• Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (CSNTM): Led by Daniel B. Wallace, this center is dedicated to digitizing and making accessible Greek New Testament manuscripts from around the world.

• Institute for Textual Scholarship and Electronic Editing (ITSEE) at the University of Birmingham: A major hub for research on the textual history and transmission of biblical texts, including the Greek and Latin New Testament. They are involved in projects like the Editio Critica Maior of Paul.

• International Greek New Testament Project (IGNTP): A long-standing collaborative project dedicated to producing critical editions of the Greek New Testament.

• Tyndale House, Cambridge: A renowned research center for biblical studies that contributes significantly to textual criticism and biblical translation.

• Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) and its Textual Criticism sections: These academic societies foster research and discussion among scholars in the field.

• Various university departments: Many universities worldwide have professors and research programs dedicated to biblical languages, textual criticism, and ancient Near Eastern studies.

The pursuit of the "perfect" English Bible is an ongoing journey, driven by scholarly rigor, new discoveries, and a commitment to accurately conveying the ancient texts to modern readers. While the autograph originals remain elusive, the continuous work of textual critics ensures that we have an increasingly accurate and reliable understanding of the Bible's original message.

Critique of Jack Sin's article "A Grave Matter"

Based on the article “A Grave Matter” by Jack Sin, we can summarize and critique his views on the Byzantine Text, the Textus Receptus (TR), and the Alexandrian Text, particularly in relation to modern KJV-onlyism and Perfect TR positions. "A Grave Matter" could be downloaded from https://www.lifebpc.com/images/stand/Rev%20Jack%20Sin%20-%20A%20Grave%20Matter.pdf

---

📌 SUMMARY OF JACK SIN’S POSITION

1. Byzantine Text as "Kept Pure in All Ages"

Jack Sin affirms:

“We believe in God’s sovereign, perpetual and full preservation of the body of the Byzantine or Traditional complete family of texts... kept pure through the ages by the providence of God...” (p.4)

He views the Byzantine Text (the textual tradition underlying the TR and KJV) as superior, trustworthy, and providentially preserved. However, he does not claim it is perfect in every detail.

2. Critical of Perfect TR and KJV-onlyism

He explicitly rejects the doctrine of a perfect TR:

“There are approximately 30 revisions of the TRs since Erasmus... none of them are perfect.” (p.2)

Likewise, he notes:

“The TR underlying the KJV is a subset of the Byzantine family... NOT synonymous.” (p.4)

He criticizes those who claim the TR used in the KJV is exactly the perfect Word of God.

3. View on Alexandrian Texts

He refers to the Alexandrian text-type as:

“inferior Alexandrian text type” (p.4)

Though he does not go into extensive detail, he clearly disregards the Alexandrian manuscripts (like Codex Sinaiticus or Vaticanus) due to theological bias and their divergence from the Byzantine tradition.

---

🔍 CRITIQUE OF JACK SIN'S ARTICLE

✅ Positive Aspects

a. Rejects Extremes

Jack Sin wisely rejects KJV-onlyism and Perfect TR doctrines, which lack both biblical and textual support. He aligns more with a providential preservation view consistent with the Westminster Confession of Faith, which does not teach that one printed edition is perfect.

b. Honest Textual Nuance

He acknowledges variant readings, typographical errors, and the non-perfection of the TR, quoting E.F. Hills and Dean Burgon to support a more balanced bibliology:

“We do not, by any means, claim perfection for the Received Text.” — Dean Burgon (p.6)

c. Upholds Reformed Tradition

By anchoring his views in the Westminster Confession and historical Reformed theology, he shows continuity with the historic Protestant understanding of Scripture preservation — not in one edition, but in the totality of faithful manuscripts.

---

❌ Weaknesses in His View

1. Overstates Byzantine Text Superiority

Calling the Alexandrian text “inferior” lacks nuance. Many Alexandrian manuscripts (like Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus) are the oldest extant witnesses to the New Testament and often agree with early church quotations.

To call them inferior based solely on theological alignment is circular reasoning:

• Early does not equal corrupt.

• Many textual scholars see value in weighing both Byzantine and Alexandrian readings, based on internal and external evidence.

2. Equivocates on “Preservation”

He affirms preservation of the Byzantine family, but this still begs the question:

• Which manuscripts exactly?

• If no single TR is perfect, and the Byzantine manuscripts differ among themselves, what is the exact preserved text?

This position, though moderate, still assumes an idealized text exists — without being able to define it.

3. Dismissive toward Modern Textual Criticism

He does not interact with reasons scholars use Alexandrian readings (e.g. shorter, more difficult readings are often considered more original; fewer harmonizations; older witnesses). His rejection of Alexandrian texts is theological, not evidential.

---

📚 THEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL CLARITY

✦ Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF I.8)

“...the Old Testament in Hebrew... and the New Testament in Greek... being immediately inspired by God and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages...”

• This affirms providential preservation, not perfect replication.

• It does not support the idea that a single printed edition (like TR or KJV) is perfect.

✦ KJV Translators

“We never thought... that we should need to make a new translation... but to make a good one better.”

• They explicitly did not claim perfection for the KJV or its Greek source (TR).

• They welcomed improvement and valued other versions.

---

❌ PROBLEMS WITH KJV-ONLY / PERFECT TR PROPONENTS

1. Ahistorical

   • The KJV and TR are not fixed entities. The TR has multiple versions, and the KJV itself was revised several times (e.g. 1611, 1769).

   • The idea of a perfect TR or perfect KJV is a modern invention, unknown to the Reformers or the KJV translators.

2. Unscriptural

   • No Bible verse names the KJV or TR as the perfect preserved form.

   • The Bible was preserved through many manuscripts, not one translation or edition.

3. Divisive and Uncharitable

   • Such views often cause church splits, unnecessary division, and harsh polemics, as Jack Sin rightly observes.

---

🧠 CONCLUSION

Jack Sin offers a balanced and thoughtful critique of extreme positions such as KJV-onlyism and Perfect TR advocacy. His defense of the Byzantine tradition, though overstated at times, is careful not to dogmatize. He upholds:

• Providential preservation of Scripture (not perfection in one edition)

• Respect for the KJV without idolizing it

• Unity and charity over theological aggression

Where he falters is in prematurely labeling Alexandrian texts as "inferior" without engaging the evidence. However, his appeal for honesty, humility, and biblical fidelity is commendable.

🔎 Summary:
❌ KJV-onlyism and Perfect TR are historically inaccurate and theologically ungrounded.
✅ God's Word is preserved through the faithful transmission of all sound manuscripts, not frozen in one translation or edition.
✔ Jack Sin’s position reflects a more Reformed, careful bibliology — one that allows for scholarly integrity and pastoral unity.

A conclusion and highlight the issues with KJV-only and Perfect TR

 Let’s carefully examine both the preface to the 1611 KJV and the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) to determine whether they support KJV-onlyism or the doctrine of a Perfect Textus Receptus (TR). We’ll then draw a conclusion and highlight the issues with KJV-only and Perfect TR proponents.

The KJV translators did not teach or support KJV-onlyism or the idea of a Perfect TR. They embraced translation as a process and valued multiple versions and manuscripts. They believed all faithful translations convey the Word of God.

The Westminster Confession affirms that God preserved His Word in the original Hebrew and Greek, not in any one printed edition or translation. It explicitly promotes the use of translations, but does not elevate the KJV or any TR edition as perfect or exclusive.

What’s wrong with KJV-Only and Perfect TR teachings?

These modern teachings misrepresent both history and theology.

🔻 a. KJV-Onlyism problems:

• Elevates one English translation above the original languages.

• Claims the KJV is perfect, final, and inspired, which the KJV translators explicitly denied.

• Leads to division in the church, rejecting good modern translations like ESV, NASB, NIV.

🔻 b. Perfect TR problems:

• The TR has multiple editions (Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, Elzevir), and they differ in hundreds of places.

• The KJV itself sometimes departs from all TR editions (e.g., Acts 13:33, Revelation 16:5).

• The TR is not based on the earliest or most complete manuscripts (e.g., no early Alexandrian evidence).

🔻 c. Doctrinally flawed:

• No Scripture teaches that God would preserve His Word in one specific printed Greek edition or in one English translation.

• The biblical doctrine of preservation is corporate and providential, not mechanical or perfectly frozen in one version.

---

🧠 Final Conclusion

Source	View on KJV-only	View on Perfect TR
KJV Preface (1611)	❌ Rejected	❌ Rejected
Westminster Confession (1646)	❌ Rejected	❌ Rejected
KJV-only/Perfect TR Proponents	✅ Promote it	✅ Promote it

The original KJV translators and the Westminster divines both reject the ideas of KJV-onlyism and a Perfect TR. They believed in the authority of Scripture in the original languages, the legitimacy of translation, and the continual refinement of biblical scholarship. Modern KJV-only and Perfect TR teachings are historically unfaithful, theologically misguided, and unnecessarily divisive.

 

 

The preface to the 1611 King James Version (KJV)

The preface to the 1611 King James Version (KJV), titled “The Translators to the Reader,” offers important insight into the translators' mindset and intentions. When we read this document carefully (such as at Together We Teach or Bible Researcher), we find that the KJV translators did not promote KJV-onlyism or the doctrine of a Perfect Textus Receptus (TR).

Let’s break it down.

---

🔍 1. Did the KJV translators promote KJV-Onlyism?

Absolutely not. Here are reasons why:

a. They saw their translation as one among many good ones

“We do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English… containeth the word of God.”

• The translators explicitly affirmed the value of other translations, even calling earlier versions like the Geneva Bible and the Bishops’ Bible “the Word of God.”

• They believed translations could be improved and that no single version should be elevated as the perfect or final one.

b. They saw Bible translation as a continual process

“Nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, and the later thoughts are thought to be the wiser.”

• This shows they did not consider the KJV as the final perfect form of Scripture. Instead, they welcomed ongoing refinement and revision.

---

📜 2. Did the KJV translators believe in a Perfect TR?

No. In fact:

a. They used multiple sources

• The translators did not rely solely on any one edition of the TR. They consulted:

  • Erasmus’ editions

  • Stephanus’ editions

  • Beza’s editions

  • The Latin Vulgate

  • The Septuagint

  • Syriac and other early versions

• They cross-checked manuscripts and versions critically, not dogmatically. They clearly did not believe in one perfect Greek or Hebrew text preserved without any variant.

b. They acknowledged textual uncertainty

“It is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, than to strive about those things that are uncertain.”

• This shows they did not treat any manuscript tradition as absolutely perfect or unquestionable.

---

✅ 3. What conclusions can we make from the KJV Preface?

• The KJV translators valued transparency, accuracy, and improvement in translation.

• They rejected the idea that one version, such as their own, should be treated as final or infallible.

• They believed that all faithful translations are the Word of God, not just the KJV.

So, the KJV translators themselves would reject the modern “KJV-only” movement, which insists the KJV is perfect, exclusive, and divinely preserved above all others.

---

❌ 4. Are KJV-Onlyism and Perfect TR teachings wrong?

Yes. They are unscriptural, historically inaccurate, and inconsistent with the translators' own views.

a. Scripturally flawed

• No verse teaches a specific version or edition (like the KJV or TR) is perfectly preserved to the exclusion of all others.

• God's Word is preserved in the totality of the manuscripts, not a single printed edition.

b. Historically inaccurate

• The TR has multiple versions (Erasmus 1516–1535, Stephanus 1550, Beza 1598, Elzevir 1633, etc.), and they differ.

• The KJV itself does not always follow the TR exactly; it sometimes follows the Latin Vulgate or even uses its own translation choices.

c. Doctrinally dangerous

• KJV-onlyism creates division in the Church, idolizes a translation, and rejects the usefulness of other good translations like ESV, NASB, or NIV.

• It replaces the doctrine of inspiration and preservation in the original languages with an unbiblical doctrine of translation perfection.

---

📖 Biblical View of Scripture Preservation

• Psalm 119:89 – “Forever, O Lord, your word is firmly fixed in the heavens.”
  → God’s Word is preserved in heaven and faithfully transmitted on earth through careful copying and study.

• 2 Timothy 3:16–17 – “All Scripture is God-breathed…”
  → Paul refers to the Scriptures Timothy had, which were copies — not originals or perfect editions.

• Luke 1:1–4 – Luke acknowledges many written accounts and a careful investigation.
  → This shows a non-dogmatic, evidence-based approach to textual transmission and writing.

---

✅ Final Conclusion:

The 1611 KJV Preface disproves KJV-onlyism and Perfect TR beliefs.

The translators saw their work as part of a larger process of faithful translation, not the final word. KJV-only and Perfect TR doctrines are modern inventions that misrepresent both the original translators and the history of the Bible. They should be rejected in favor of a more biblical, historical, and faithful understanding of God's Word and its transmission.

The King James Version (KJV) 1611 preface, "The Translators to the Reader"

The King James Version (KJV) 1611 preface, "The Translators to the Reader," does not promote a "KJV-only" stance or the idea of a "Perfect TR" (Textus Receptus). Instead, it indicates the translators' views align with the following:

Value of Previous Translations: The translators acknowledged and built upon "the labours... of many worthy men who went before us," seeing their work as a refinement rather than a complete replacement of existing English translations.

God's Word in Imperfect Translations: They explicitly stated that "the very meanest translation of the Bible in English... containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God," comparing it to a king's speech that remains his speech even when translated into different languages. They also admitted that "some imperfections and blemishes may be noted" in any translation.

Authority of Original Texts: The translators regarded the "Hebrew text of the Olde Testament, the Greeke of the New" as the authoritative sources, referring to them as "the two golden pipes, or rather conduits." They affirmed that the ultimate credit for the Old Testament rests with Hebrew volumes and the New with the Greek tongue.

Benefit of Translation Diversity: The preface suggests that "diversity of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures." They also included marginal notes for "diversity of signification and sense... where the text is no so clear."

In conclusion, the preface of the KJV 1611 demonstrates that the translators valued prior efforts, recognized the inherent imperfections in human translation, and emphasized the authority of the original Hebrew and Greek texts. They did not advocate for an exclusive use of their translation or claim its absolute perfection, but rather saw it as a continuous effort to make the Scriptures accessible and understandable.

Original KJV 1611 Preface can be found at http://www.bible-researcher.com/kjvpref.html and http://www.togetherweteach.com/TCB/kjvpreface.htm

MODERN ENGLISH VERSION: PREFACE TO THE READER

 PREFACE TO THE READER

In January 1604, King James I convened the Hampton Court Conference at the Hampton Court Palace. Meeting with King James I were two parties representing the Church of England. One party comprised the Archbishop of Canterbury, John Whitgift, and eight bishops who represented the episcopacy, supported by eight deans and one archdeacon. The second party comprised several Anglicans who were moderate Puritans led by John Rainolds, who was the president of Corpus Christi College, Oxford. The conference comprised three meetings over a period of three days.

The conference was called in response to a series of requests for reform set down in the Millenary Petition by the Puritans, a document that contained the signatures of one thousand Puritan ministers. The petition detailed complaints about the terms absolution and confirmation, water baptism administered by women rather than by ministers, excommunication for “trifles and twelvepenny matters” and ecclesiastical discipline administered by governmental authority, and various other issues.

King James I persuaded the bishops that only ministers should administer baptisms. He also abolished excommunication for “trifles and twelvepenny matters,” though he maintained that bishops should not be the sole administers of ecclesiastical discipline and that the trial policies of the commissaries’ court should be reviewed by the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice. The King alleviated many of the Puritans’ concerns and brought much peace between the two parties.

Trouble mounted for the Puritans when Archbishop John Whitgift died soon after the conference. Richard Bancroft was appointed to the See of Canterbury, and due to the King’s concerns, the Puritan ministers were expected to adhere to each of the Thirty-Nine Articles that upheld the hierarchical nature of the Church of England, which the Puritans sought to abolish.

But the major outcome of the conference was that King James I commissioned a new translation of the Holy Bible into the English vernacular, which became the predecessor to the Modern English Version. The translation was to be pleasing both to the episcopacy and to the moderate Puritans who emphasized that man should be able to study the Holy Bible, not only with the help of the ministers but also privately. The translation became known as the Authorized Version because only this translation would be authorized to be read in the Church of England once it replaced portions of the Great Bible inserted in the 1662 edition of the Book of Common Prayer. In some parts of the world it is known as the King James Version. The translation enabled King James I to broaden his support in the Church and among the populace. It demonstrated his moderate and inclusive approach to concerns in the Church.

King James I gave certain instructions to the translators: The new translation would contain no marginal notes, it would conform to the ecclesiology of the Church of England, the translation of certain words should reflect old ecclesiastical words such as “church” and were not to be translated as “congregation,” and the new translation would reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and traditional beliefs about ordained clergy.

He also required the Church to use the Bishop’s Bible as the primary guide for the translation and retain the familiar names of the biblical characters. However, for additional textual support, he permitted the Church to use the Tyndale Bible, the Coverdale Bible, Matthew’s Bible, the Great Bible, and the Geneva Bible. This instruction is the basis for the statement in the flyleaf of the Authorized Version: “translated out of the original tongues, and with the former translations diligently compared and revised, by His Majesty’s special command.” William Tyndale’s translation from the Greek text, now known as the Textus Receptus, comprises eighty percent of the King James Version New Testament. The King James Version Old Testament is based on the Jacob ben Hayyim edition of the Masoretic Text.

Forty-seven scholars represented the Church of England, both Puritans and High Churchmen, including the Anglican scholar Sir Henry Savile, who was not a clergyman. They formed six committees: two at the University of Oxford, two at the University of Cambridge, and two at the Collegiate Church of St. Peter at Westminster, popularly known as Westminster Abbey. The King’s printer printed forty unbound copies of the 1602 Bishop’s Bible for the committees. This meant that the scholars could record their agreed-upon changes in the margins for the printer to insert into the text. The committees were assigned various sections of Scriptures. They then compared their drafts and revised them until they achieved consistency in the translation.

The Anglican clergy working on the King James Version stated their purpose: not to make a new translation, but to make a good one better. They also wanted to make the Bible more known and accessible to the people. Thus they produced the King James Version in 1611.

Later, the University of Oxford produced a standard text of the King James Version, known as the 1769 Oxford Update and edited by Dr. Benjamin Blayney. Dr. Blayney standardized the punctuation and spelling to update the King James Version. The 1769 Oxford Update is the edition commonly used today.

The King James Version has been the standard version for Protestants throughout the English-speaking world for over four hundred years now. Its flowing language, prose rhythm, and powerful and majestic style made it a literary classic, with many of its phrases and expressions embedded in contemporary English.

Today, realizing the need to update the King James Version for the twenty-first century, forty-seven scholars serving as professors, or chaplains to the Armed Forces of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and to the United States Armed Forces, comprising the Committee on Bible Translation under the leadership of the senior editorial advisor Dr. Stanley M. Horton and the chief editor Dr. James F. Linzey, have joined forces to produce a more updated edition of the King James Version called the Modern English Version, which is based on a modern English vernacular.

The Modern English Version is a translation of the Textus Receptus and the Jacob ben Hayyim edition of the Masoretic Text, using the King James Version as the base manuscript. The Committee on Bible Translation adhered to the principle of formal equivalence, the meaning of which is to be as literal as proper English syntax and grammar will allow. At times it is impossible to translate every word or thought from Greek into English with proper syntax or a modern English vernacular. In such instances, it is important to realize certain words may go untranslated. For example, the Semitism in Matthew 11:4 transliterated as, “kai apokritheis Ho Iesous eipen autois,” is translated in the King James Version as “Jesus answered and said unto them.” This is not an effective rendition in the modern English vernacular due to the redundant speech, nor is it translated literally in the King James Version. So, to translate the Greek into the modern English vernacular, the phrase is translated as “Jesus answered them.” Additionally, the original translators of the King James Version did not translate the Greek “Ho,” translated as “the,” nor did they translate “apokritheis” literally as “ ‘answering.” Their goal was to use proper English syntax in the modern English vernacular of their day. Yet, by leaving certain terms untranslated in this update, it may appear that a Greek text other than the Textus Receptus may have been used. Such is not the case. A different English rendering is being used to re-translate the Textus Receptus while updating the King James Version manuscript.

When using the Textus Receptus as the base text for a contemporary English translation, the translators cannot use archaic, non-standard, purely literalistic English, nor fail to use what is known today about linguistics and ancient literary and cultural understandings in contemporary English translations. The original translators of the King James Version had this same approach for their own cultural and linguistic setting.

The original motive for creating this translation was to provide an update by military chaplains for the troops so they could understand the King James Version better. This project grew larger than anticipated in the search for academically qualified scholars when the chaplains “enlisted” the help of those who were not chaplains to get the job done, and when an unexpected publishing opportunity was offered. The target audience grew from the military to the entire English-speaking world. The translators began their work on June 2, 2005; they completed the New Testament on October 25, 2011, and the Old Testament on May 28, 2014.

The forty-seven American and English translators, being in great Christian unity and cooperation, who have a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ and who have formed an interdenominational translation committee, represent churches such as the Baptist Union of Great Britain, Charismatic Episcopal Church, Central Church of the Nazarene, Church of Christ, Church of England, Church of God, Elim Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, Free Methodist Church of North America, General Council of the Assemblies of God, International Church of the Foursquare Gospel, Methodist Church of Great Britain, Methodist Episcopal Church, Presbyterian Church of America, Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, Southern Baptist Convention, United Church of Christ, United Methodist Church, and the United Reformed Church. The translators represent a cross section of the English-speaking Church. So it is their prayer that the Modern English Version will please the entire English-speaking world.

As professors or graduates of some of the world’s leading colleges, seminaries, and universities, they represent institutions such as the Assemblies of God Theological Seminary, the College of William and Mary, Evangel University, Fuller Theological Seminary, Geneva College, Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, Harvard University, Hebrew Union College, Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, Oklahoma Baptist University, Oral Roberts University, the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies, Pentecostal Theological Seminary, Princeton Theological Seminary, Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Saint Leo University, the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Stanford University, the University of Notre Dame, Vanguard University of Southern California, Westminster Seminary California, Westminster Theological Seminary, and Yale University. The translators are devoted to making a good translation better and ensuring that the Modern English Version is an accurate and responsible update of the King James Version.

The work of translating Scripture has always been an important part of Christian missions. Due to the work of missionary Bible translators, the complete Bible is available in over four hundred languages today. Missionaries normally have not used ancient Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic texts in translation work. Instead, they usually have relied on the King James Version. In like manner, the Modern English Version is useful to continue translation work on the mission field. The Modern English Version is a translator’s Bible for missions work to provide the Word of God to all English-speaking people and the entire world.

Compare the original Tyndale Translation with the updates of the following passage:

  For when the worlde thorow wysdome knew not God in ye wysdome of God: it pleased God thorow folisshnes of preachinge to save them yt beleve (1 Co 1:21, Tyndale Translation, 1534).

  For after that, in the wisedom of God, the world by wisedome knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishnesse of preaching, to saue them that beleeue (1 Co 1:21, KJV, 1611).

  For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe (1 Co 1:21, KJV, 1769).

  For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe (1 Co 1:21, NKJV, 1982).

  For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe (1 Co 1:21, MEV, 2014).

The clergymen and scholars comprising the Committee on Bible Translation offer up to God the Modern English Version, the inspired Word of God, in the spirit of praise and gratitude, for the purpose of making disciples and teaching all nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

The Committee on Bible Translation