All right, let's begin our session with a word of prayer. Our gracious Heavenly Father, we give our thanks for the goodness, the grace that we know in the Lord Jesus Christ. We're thankful, Lord, for the revelation that you've given to us of yourself, of your Son, of your Spirit in the Word of God. We pray that as we come together in this session to consider the great heritage that we have in the Authorized Version, the great gift that we've known for these many years, that you would give us an increased love for your Word, increased devotion to the God of the Word, and that we would rejoice as we consider the good providence of God that has brought us to where we are even today. So bless our meditations, our considerations. We ask in Jesus' name. Amen. Well, as you know, this year marks the 400th anniversary of the first edition of the King James Version. We thought it would be good to have a 500th celebration as well, but most of you will not be here for that great event, so we're going to reflect on it here in the 400th anniversary. But from the inception To this anniversary, the King James Version testifies to the unfailing providence of God in preserving his word and in providing a vehicle for disseminating that word to the entire English-speaking world. The influence of the King James Version is incalculable. It helped shape the very language into which it was translated. In fact, it became the principal primer for learning. For many years, to read the Bible was the chief reason for learning to read. And although the incentive to literacy is now more secular than sacred, familiarity with the language of the King James Version is still an important component in any literary education. Its mark on the English language is immeasurable in terms of its use in classic literature, and idioms that are so commonly used in everyday speech. In addition, and most significantly, the King James Version served the advance of Christ's kingdom wherever English was spoken and read. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. And for centuries, for English speakers, the King James Version was the word that was heard. Although aspects of the English language have changed over these 400 years, causing many today to regard the AV as a venerated but irrelevant relic, the value and the influence and the accuracy and the beauty and the understandability of the King James Version remain. Notwithstanding its old age, there is no good reason to disregard it or to relegate it to the past. So in this anniversary year, reflecting on the history, the influence, and the reliability of the Authorized Version is in order. Its tradition is rich, its textual basis is verifiably sure, and its translation is accurate. In every way, the Authorized Version, the King James Version, is an outstanding translation of the scripture worthy of continued use as well as historic veneration. And as we consider this topic in this address, I want to look at it from three different perspectives. I want to consider first of all something of the tradition that we have in the King James Version, then we'll look at the text from which it was translated, and then the translation techniques, the translation style. accuracy of the translation. Let me say something first of all then concerning the tradition. As is so often the case regarding the workings of divine providence, events and circumstances affirm God's control in using obstacles and opposition to accomplish his purpose in such a way that all glory is his. And the history of the English Bible, culminating in the publication of the King James Version, is checkered with human hindrances and divine superintendence. The translators of the King James Version stood on the shoulders of those who, often in peril of their lives, labored to bring God's Word to public domain from the secrecy and the seclusion of Romish control. The Word of God fueled the Reformation, and as the fires of Reformation spread, so did the want for the Scriptures. Without controversy, the work of William Tyndale laid the foundation upon which others built, including the translators of the King James Bible. Charged with heresy and warned not to preach in public, Tyndale was driven by his desire to see the Bible translated. into English so that every man could read God's word for himself. In response to a priest attacking his doctrine, Tyndale uttered those now famous words, if God spare my life before long, I shall cause a plow boy to know the scriptures better than you do. God did not spare his life long enough to see his prophecy fulfilled. But the Lord did spare him long enough to set in motion the means whereby his desire was fulfilled exceedingly, abundantly more than he could ever have dreamed. His translation influenced the Colgerdale Bible, the Matthew Bible, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Bishop's Bible, and the King James Bible. It is commonly calculated that 90% of Tyndale's Bible has been preserved in the authorized version. With the widespread acceptance and use of the King James Version, Tyndale's prediction was fulfilled way beyond the field of any given plowboy to every place on the planet where English is spoken or read. a work that was begun under the threat of human persecution, that's the human hindrance, prospered, being preserved and blessed by God. And there's the evidence we'll see of divine superintendence. And although each of the English Bibles, antecedent to the Authorized Version, has a story that is interesting in itself and worthy of generating praise to God's good providence in making his word accessible, the production of the King James Bible is a testimony to the way God uses the hostility of men to accomplish his purpose. If not a matter of overturning outright hostility, it certainly illustrates God's turning the heart of a king to achieve an end not in the mind of the King himself. In many ways, King James was an unlikely character to be associated with a Bible that is so singularly blessed by God. The son of Mary, Queen of Scots, James was awkward as a youth and not particularly regal as an adult. But regardless of his less than commanding appearance and demeanor, He followed his mother's rival, Queen Elizabeth, to the throne of England. He was behind his back, of course, but it was often heard around England that King Elizabeth was going to be followed by Queen James. However, what he lacked in regal bearing, he made up for in intellectual accomplishment. He was well-trained in the classics and even had hands-on experience in biblical studies. including translation. The relationship between church and state was a pressing issue from the beginning of his monarchy. At the beginning of his reign, a group of Puritan ministers presented him with a petition requesting that certain concerns about the church be resolved. After a delay caused by a deadly epidemic in the country, the Hampton Court Conference convened in 1604 to address the concerns. For the most part, the conference failed to resolve any of the issues that had generated its calling. But on the last day, John Reynolds, a most despised man, as we'll see, by the king, made an unexpected proposal. Reynolds was a Puritan. He was a Hebrew scholar. He was the president of Corpus Christi's College at Oxford. and I say not particularly liked by the king. But he proposed that a translation of the scripture be made that would be acceptable to all Protestants. Some summarily dismissed the suggestion because there were already multiple versions available and some remarkably good. Surprisingly, James was favorable to the proposal and gave his moral but not his financial support to the project. But he did so with a couple of caveats that give some insight as to the reason for his support. James had a deep disdain for the Geneva Bible, not so much because of the translation but because of the notes in that Bible that he interpreted to be subversive to the monarchy and to the state church. So consequently he sanctioned a project for translating the Bible so long as there would be no notes and nothing that would promote Puritan and Calvinistic doctrine. So ironically, the king's hatred of doctrines that now we hold to be very dear led to the translation of a Bible that we now cherish. What an example this is, I say, of God's turning the heart of a king to accomplish his purpose. The operation of divine providence ruled the entire project. Without that divine superintendence, the work would never have been completed. The planned procedure, humanly speaking, did not give much prospect for success because it was going to be a committee project. Whereas earlier English versions were the works of individuals, often laboring in secrecy in peril of their own lives, This was going to be a collaborative effort of 47 scholars and churchmen divided into six groups, two at Oxford, two at Cambridge, and two at Westminster. And the chance of any two scholars agreeing on anything is slim. And you multiply that slim chance by the number of scholars working within each group, and then factor into that that each group had to approve the work of the other. And the possibility of finishing this was not likely. Generally, assigning a project committee marks its certain death. And those of you here that are Presbyterians know what that means. Signing something to a committee is the last time you'll ever see it. Or you'll see it forever and ever and ever. That was an aside. But if you're Presbyterian, you know what I'm talking about. I say generally assigning a project to a committee marks its certain death, and that we have a King James Version at all witnesses to the good providence of God. Without disputation, the King James Version is the most remarkable work ever accomplished by committee. And notwithstanding the official sanction and the amazing circumstances associated with the production of this new English version, The King James Bible did not receive immediate or widespread acceptance. Particularly, the Geneva Bible, with its strongly Calvinistic and anti-monarchal comments, caused it to remain the popular choice among the Puritans. Significantly, it was the Geneva Bible that was packed by the pilgrims on the Mayflower, and it was the first English version to reach North America. But before long, the King James Version, though never officially authorized by the throne. And that's something that I think we need to take note of. We often refer to this as the authorized version. But the fact of the matter, it was never officially authorized by the throne. It became popularly authorized by its use both by the clergy and by the people. But from that time, once it gained that general acceptance. The King James Version has been the standard text of the English Bible, and its history and tradition cannot be separated from the history of the Church in the English-speaking community throughout the world. The King James Version has enjoyed that rich tradition until relatively recently when its language and text have been questioned by a new generation of scholars and churchmen. And many, while recognizing the significant history of the King James Version, contend that it has no future. The translation that has done so much in shaping and influencing the English language and its literature is now regarded as being archaic, antiquated, and inadequate for communicating to the contemporary English-speaking community. I reject this assessment and argue that there is no good reason to abandon the use of this version that owns such a celebrated heritage and tradition. I must reluctantly admit that the plethora of modern English versions, some produced by liberal critics, some by evangelicals, has busted the monopoly owned by the authorized version for centuries. But I do not believe that it will ever be dethroned as the standard English Bible to which all others will be compared and by which all others will be evaluated. Whereas modern versions seek to use contemporary language to give expression to God's Word, the King James Version alone had and has the kind of weight that has affected the language itself. Expressions and idioms abound in current usage and are employed by those who would be clueless regarding their origin. Feet of clay, reaping the whirlwind, scapegoat, thorn in the flesh, labor of love, my brother's keeper, a lamb to the slaughter, a fly in the ointment, powers that be, salt of the earth, sour grapes, a law unto themselves, falling flat in one's face, seeing eye to eye, a broken heart, a drop in a bucket, the root of the matter, are just a few of these very common idioms that come into our language. And I say they come to mind really without much thought. And the list could go on and on. It's hard to determine its range of influence objectively. But there is enough evidence to suggest that the accusations against its readability are exaggerated. Undeniably, some of the vocabulary and syntax patterns are archaic. It is the nature of language that it evolves over time, so that's not surprising. And 400 years is ample time for semantic shifts to occur and for grammatical composition to change. But these changes are neither severe nor incomprehensible and serve to aid the church, particularly in the liturgy of public worship. Interestingly, the translators intentionally rejected some of the contemporary idioms of their day to produce a Bible with a sound of dignity particularly for its public reading. And if that were a concern then, how much more is it a concern now when so much of the world and so much of human mentality and practice has infiltrated into the sphere of worship? How much more important is it to have, as part of our public reading of the scripture, a Bible that promotes and contributes to that kind of dignity. All those pressures, say the Authorized Version, helps us to maintain a distinction and a dignity and a reverence that directs our hearts and minds to the majesty and the uniqueness of God. The beauty and the elegance and the cadence of the King James Version, not to speak of its translation accuracy, creates a dignity and contributes to our perceiving the matchlessness of God's Word and to our worshiping the Lord in the beauty of holiness. So whether in ministerial reading or in congregational responsive reading, the King James Version is peerless in fostering a spirit of reverence before the Word of God. The supposed difficulty in understanding the language of the KJV can be remedied, and I think remedied quite easily by habitual exposure to it. Understanding anything requires some degree of familiarity with a specialized jargon. To someone unfamiliar with baseball, The expression, the batter drew a walk, would be incomprehensible. Also in baseball lingo, for a pitcher to be jeered by the fans for throwing balls when throwing a ball was his job would not make any sense. But it doesn't take much exposure to baseball to figure out what's going on. For someone my age to listen to conversations between those ridiculously younger talking about computer technology or techniques is confusing. But if I listen long enough, I can figure out what it means to blog even if I don't know the derivation of the word. And I know also that I don't like them. I think they're a curse, but that's the subject of a different paper. And I say so it's the case with biblical jargon. It requires a familiarity with the Bible if there is going to be understanding. But this is not a unique phenomenon caused by the age of the King James Version. The Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, created a biblical jargon, if I can use that expression. The Septuagint created a biblical jargon that would be understandable to those that knew the Bible, but would be completely misunderstood by those that did not. Very often the Greek translators would infuse a Greek word with Hebrew significance from that Hebrew word. And I say those that knew the language, those that knew the context of the scripture would now read that Greek word and understand the biblical context and see the Hebrew significance of that rather than the secular Greek notion. And I say that happened. Those that did not know the Bible would have a very difficult time understanding a great deal of the Septuagint. But those that knew the Scripture, those that knew the language of the Scripture, had no problem taking that now Greek Old Testament and understanding it properly. And if we give the authorized version a chance, I don't think it takes much exposure to figure out that wit means to know. that prevent means to proceed, that quick means alive, or conversation means behavior. Granted, learning the language of the KJV requires thought, but that is never a bad thing when it comes to understanding and reading the Word of God. I submit that it is better to retain a translation that has influenced culture positively, as has the King James Version, than to dumb down a translation to reflect the culture. Even more significant than cultural or literary influence is the contribution the AV has made to the sober worship of the Lord. The KJV remains, I believe, the best liturgical text to meet the needs of the sanctuary. And I say, let the tradition continue. Let me speak now concerning the text. And at this point, I must be very general. The issues of textual criticism can be very complex. The issues of textual criticism can be very detailed and complicated. And I'm not going to get into all of the science, all of the details of the different textual theories. But I do want to put this within the perspective of the text making sure that we understand the nature and significance of inspiration as it relates to the text and to the translation of that text. So I say some general things here then concerning the text from which the A.V. was translated. In evaluating any version of scripture, the text from which it is translated is a crucial factor. In the providence of God, the Hebrew and the Greek Testaments used by the translators of the King James Version have proven to be most accurate and verifiably reliable text available both then and now. The Masoretic Texts printed in the Rabbinic edition of Daniel Baumgard was the basis of the Old Testament. And the Greek text Abiza, anachronistically designated as the Textus Receptus, or the Received Text, was the basis of the New Testament. I'll have more to say about that in a moment. We often hear that the authorized version was translated from the Received Text. Technically, that's not true. That designation Received Text, or Textus Receptus, was not employed for 20 plus years after the translation. But it is that we take that term and anachronistically apply it to that text of Biza that was used by the A.V. translators. But these public editions did not just fall from heaven into the hands of the translators. They represent a long history of transmission from the original inspired manuscripts through multiple copies and finally to the printed text. And all along the way, God guarded and ensured the preservation of his word. This divine preservation is necessary and the logical corollary to divine inspiration. Fundamental to confidence in scripture as the word of God, whether in the texts of the original languages or in the texts of the versions, is the fact that God inspired his word. Divine inspiration, and this is the point that I want to emphasize, divine inspiration involves both a process and a product, and we can't confuse the two. Divine inspiration, I repeat, involves both a process and a product. Divine inspiration as a process I believe is what Peter is referring to in 2 Peter chapter 1 in that classic statement that we all know, knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. The focus of Peter's comment here is not upon hermeneutics, the word interpretation there does not refer to hermeneutics, but rather refers to origin. He is saying that no scripture is of any private origination. Man did not come up with this. This is revelation. And these holy men were born along, they were moved by the Holy Spirit. That is the process of inspiration. It's historic. Moses, the first writer of scripture, inspired by God. The prophets, the writing prophets, the writing wise men, the writing poets, the apostles in the New Testament. Each of these men with their own abilities and their own background and their own characteristics and their own education. were men that were controlled and born along, moved by the Spirit of God as they penned the very words of God. That is the process of inspiration. That process is historic. That process is now in the past. Paul's description of inspiration in 2 Timothy chapter 3 that we all know, I believe describes the product of that supernatural process of inspiration. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, truly furnished unto all good works. So God used men as his instruments of communication, but the words communicated were the very words of God. God breathed out. God breathed out those words in that supernatural, in that supernatural spiritual exercise of inspiration, what they wrote, the breathed out Word of God. I cannot explain the mechanics of inspiration, but I can't deny it. It's a miraculous, supernatural work of God. But the process of inspiration is past and finished. I say a supernatural operation of God's Spirit limited to those men, beginning with Moses, ending with John, that God selected to be his instruments. The process of inspiration ceased at the close of the canon. This is a vital truth for those of us that are cessationists. For as long as there is inspiration, there is the open door for continuing revelation. The product of inspiration, the infallible, inerrant corpus of truth, the divinely breathed out words, is the starting point for the progression of preservation that leads to the Bible we possess. Inspiration a process, supernatural process, but it resulted in a product that is the Word of God. Now whereas inspiration involved an extraordinary, supernatural work of God. Preservation involves the operation of God's providence, His ordinary work, but nonetheless His work. Inspiration guarantees the preservation and the recognition of both the canon and the text. Books are not canonical because the church recognized them as such. The church recognized books as being canonical because they were. I'm not going to digress here into the issue of canonicity. We speak of canon, we're talking about the rule. We use that term to refer to those books that you have in your Bible. How do we know that is the Word of God? How do we know that's the canon of Scripture? Inspiration, my contention is this, that inspiration demands canonicity. Inspiration demands canonicity, and that canonicity then demands preservation. And books are canonical immediately upon their inspiration. Books are not canonical because there was some church council that said, oh, I vote for this book. Books are canonical immediately upon their inspiration, and church councils and whatever else ruled and governed by the providence of God, maybe they took votes, but understand what I'm saying, those votes were rigged by divine providence to ensure that the books that we have that have been recognized indeed are those inspired books. We understand that in regard to the canon. But likewise the text of scripture has been preserved because of its inspiration. The church has not determined the text, but it has been the means through which God has protected his word and ensured its perpetuation. Just like Israel, the Old Testament church, we learn in Romans chapter 9 verse 4, received the law, the covenants, they became the safeguard, they became the means by which that was preserved. So although thousands of years separate us from the past process of inspiration, in the providence of God we have a massive amount of evidence that assures the recognition of the actual words breathed out by the Holy Spirit. God's Word, I'm going to play upon tense here, God's Word was inspired in terms of process. God's Word is inspired in terms of product. We do not possess the actual documents written by the human authors of Scripture. But we do possess thousands of witnesses to the original text. Manuscripts, that is actual Greek Hebrew manuscripts, ancient versions, Versions are translations of a text. All right, make sure we understand our jargon here. When we speak of manuscripts of a Greek New Testament, I'm talking about actual Greek documents, handwritten Hebrew manuscripts. A version is a translation of that into a different language. We talk about the King James Version, right? It's a translation. We talk about editions. Editions are published. So some of the terminology perhaps that we need to be familiar with. So I say although we don't possess the actual documents that Moses wrote, or Paul wrote, or Peter wrote, in the providence of God we do possess thousands and thousands of witnesses to those texts, both in manuscripts, in versions, and also in patristic writing. Now how that evidence is interpreted is crucial. My principal reason for retaining the use of the King James Version after all of these years is the text from which it is translated. I believe that the extant evidence justifies the conclusion that the Greek edition printed text used by the King James Version represents the best text tradition preserved in the majority of witnesses to the text of the New Testament. Its predecessors used the same basic text, but with the exception of the New King James Version, its successors have used a different textual basis. So right across the board, all of this plethora of English versions that are hitting the market over the last years and seemingly more frequently even now, with the exception of the New King James Version, All of them are based in the New Testament upon a different text tradition than we have in the Authorized Version. And my contention is that that text represented in the translation of the Authorized Version is that which is most verifiably sure. It's the only text that remains that to me is the best text. Now that's not surprising since it represents the text perpetuated by the Church to whom God had entrusted his word. Now, confessedly, my conclusion rests on my opinion as to how to account for the evidence. Others who believe in inspiration and preservation as dogmatically as I have a different opinion as to how and where God preserved his word. I do not accuse those who don't have my view of not believing in inspiration. I do not accuse those who do not have my view of not believing in the authority of the Bible. There are some that do, and that embarrasses me, and it does more harm to the good that we're trying to accomplish in what we're trying to say here about the Authorized Version. There are those that disagree with me, but I live before God with my conscience, and what I'm arguing. Evaluating their theory can wait for another day. Our concern is to celebrate the authorized version. The principal difference of opinion concerns the New Testament text. The history and the transmission of the Old Testament text is interesting and important, but not as controversial as that of the New Testament. Virtually all regard the Masoretic text of the Old Testament to be authoritative, and it is the text that is used even by most of the modern translations. The New Testament text is another story. The AB translators used the Greek edition of Biza, but there was a long history of transmission before the Greek New Testament was published and printed. As late as AD 200, Tertullian wrote that the originals of some of the New Testament letters were still located in the churches to whom they were written, which implies that there were already copies of those letters elsewhere. In fact, we have portions of the New Testament dating to Tertullian's day, about 200, and one fragment from about 70 years earlier. On the one hand, that's amazing. But on the other hand, it's not. For the desire for the dissemination of the word accompanied the spread of the church. But until the invention of the printing press in the 15th century, every new manuscript had to be a hand copy of another. And notwithstanding how tedious that process, it produced thousands and thousands of Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in the Greek-speaking world. And for many years, that Greek-speaking world was the world of the New Testament and presumably the Bible spread wherever the church was. However, in time, Latin replaced Greek in the West, and that led to Latin translations culminating in Jerome's Vulgate in A.D. 404. The Latin version in the West meant practically that there was little reason to keep copying Greek manuscripts. Greek, however, remained the text in the Eastern Church And consequently, Greek manuscripts continued to proliferate in what became the Byzantine Empire. It is not surprising, therefore, that the majority of extant Greek manuscripts come from these locations, where the Greek-speaking church continued the preservation of the word in its originally given form. There have been some manuscripts discovered that date earlier than some of those from the Byzantine Empire. And some of those have readings that differ significantly from the church-based and church-used and church-preserved text. But discovery is not preservation. Understand what I'm saying there. Discovery is not preservation. I'm arguing that inspiration demands preservation. Just because something has been found in a preserved form, and we can now date it to 400 AD or so, but it has been completely out of circulation and out of use for the entire history of the church. That is not what theologically we mean by preservation. It's been preserved in the dirt, as it were, but that theologically is not preservation, so I'm saying discovery does not equate to preservation. But we often hear this, this is the best manuscript. And why is it the best manuscript? Because it's the earliest manuscript. The logic there has some serious flaws, but I'm not going to get into all of that at this time, except to say preservation suggests continuity. There is a continuity of the tradition. genuine readings, therefore, can be traced throughout the history of the Church. For centuries, the West, due in part to Rome's elevation of the Vulgate to untouchable status, had neither interest in nor access to the Greek New Testament. But the providence of God changed that. The Renaissance generated the interest and the rise and the dominance of Islam afforded the access. Studying the originals behind the classics was an earmark of the Renaissance, and that study included the scriptures. Hebrew and Greek scholars began to proliferate, and the spread of Islam in the East caused the churchmen there to migrate to the West, taking the scriptures with them. So providentially, the Greek text that had prevailed from the early Church was the text that entered Europe at the time when God was about to initiate the Reformation. That epic movement that was going to direct the course of the Church from that time on. In addition, The providence of God put in place a mechanism that made hand copying obsolete and opened the way for the effusive spreading of His Word, both in the original languages and in translation. The printing press served, well, the purpose of God in advancing the Reformation. It also gave birth to a new business, publication. And publishers knew the importance of being the first to press in order to secure the advantage in the marketplace. In the early 16th century, the race was on to publish the first Greek New Testament. The forerunner appeared to be Ximenes from Spain with the Complotensian polyglot. A polyglot is a version, a page with multiple languages, polyglot, many tongues. So there was the Hebrew text, the Aramaic, the Latin, and the Greek. It was printed in 1514, but was not published until 1522. Forbin, a printer in Basel, was aware of the polyglot and was determined to beat it to publication. He approached Erasmus, a learned Greek scholar, and commissioned him to prepare a text for publication. Erasmus agreed, and using the few manuscripts kept in the library at Basel, he won the race to publication in 1516. The edition went through various printings and edits until standardized by the French print printer Robert Stephanus in 1546. Then Calvin's successor, Beezer, produced a Greek testament that was essentially the same as that of Stephanus and became the standard Greek testament used by Protestants, including the translators of the authorized version. It was not until the edition published in 1633 by the Elzeber brothers that the expression Textus Receptus was used. Included in the introduction were these words, therefore you have the text that is now received by all. That designation then attached itself anachronistically to the earlier versions, earlier editions. And I say in many ways that was just a publication blurb. It's like having maybe on the fly leaf of a book written New York Times bestseller. This is the text received by all. Come on, buy this. Buy this. And I thought about putting that in some of my books, but you may take it serious and say, what's the use? I'm not going to buy that one. Everybody else has it. But I say it anachronistically. It was put on then attached to even the earlier editions. Legitimately so, because essentially the text was exactly the same. From a purely human perspective, the protection of the Greek Testament, production of the Greek Testament was a successful business venture. But God ruled over the entire process. The few manuscripts available to Erasmus, and there are only just a half a dozen or so manuscripts that Erasmus had, but here I say is the working of the providence of God. Those few manuscripts represented the text tradition that had prevailed from the early church and has been preserved in what we now know to be the vast majority of witnesses to the inspired text of the New Testament. When compared to the majority of the extant Greek manuscripts, the received text agrees 99% of the time. And I say what a testament this is to the providence of God in preserving his word. The few manuscripts available for use in the 16th century to produce the edition used in the 17th century to translate the King James Version just happen to reflect the text tradition that is verifiably sure. This is a good and important reason, I believe, for retaining the use of the A.V. Ultimately, the merit of any translation depends on the text from which it is translated. I am not in this venue, as I have said, to address the technicalities of textual criticism, except to emphasize the importance of widespread and unbroken tradition in determining superiority of readings, and that the received text agrees with the majority text in the majority of places is significant. It represents the Greek text that was preserved through the Greek-speaking church for centuries. It is the basis of the English and the French and the Dutch and the German translations so vital in the Reformation churches. And all of this ecclesiastical recognition, to me, is hard to ignore. The textual foundation of the King James Version is verifiably sure. And I say something finally about the translation itself. The beauty of language is that the message communicated in one language can be communicated in another. Language, like everything else, is subject to divine providence, and this has significant implications regarding the scriptures. Although the biblical writers did not write in English, we can assuredly affirm that our English Bible is the Word of God. Indeed, the translators of the A.V. affirmed, you'll find this in the translators to the reader section, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English containeth the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God. The words are not the same, but the message expressed in the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words of the Old Testament and New Testament can be conveyed in English and in any other tongue. God breathed out every Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek word in the scripture. But the message he revealed through those words is not so intrinsically subsumed in those words to prevent the message from being expressed and understood with words of another language. So important is the message of scripture. that they are to be translated, our Confession of Faith, the Westminster Confession says, they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come. I suppose there's a sense in which myself as a Hebrew teacher would love to be able to tell people, you know, unless you know Hebrew, you'll never understand the Word of God. So take my class. But that's not true. It's just not true. The nature of language is that there is nothing that can be said in one language that cannot be said with equal clarity and with the same sense and the same intent in any other language. The words will be different. You know, God did not inspire Moses to write in the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. Moses did not say that. Moses said, But I can take what Moses said, and I can render that in the English language, any other language, to convey exactly the same sense. Inspiration, a process, but it results in a product that then is repeatable. a product that is translatable in any other language. And equally important to the need for translation is the manner of translation. Given the magnitude of the message, it's imperative that the message of the original and the message of the translation are the same. Translating accurately and faithfully requires the translator be proficient in both the original and target languages. The six committees engaged in the project commissioned by King James were comprised of competent scholars in biblical languages and men most capable of crafting the English language. The translators operated under a set of 15 rules designed to ensure uniformity and to achieve that mutual approval. The rules detailed the procedures to follow in the translation process and created safeguards to guarantee the agreement and the accuracy and the acceptability. The number of required hoops seemed to doom the project from the beginning, but contrary to expectation, it worked well to produce an English Bible that became the standard to which all others will be compared. The first rule governing the committees was that they were to use the Bishop's Bible for the basis of their revision. deviating from it only when necessary. Rule 14 allowed them to use other translations in the evaluation, and rule 14 consistently trumped rule number one. As I say, the Tyndale version more than any other became the version that influenced the translators of the authorized version. Without knowledge, I must quickly skip some points here, but I think we can get the drift, that without knowledge of all the issues of differing translation philosophies and techniques that are currently prevalent and are part of academic disciplines and discussions, the translators of the authorized version used methods that can be evaluated and nonetheless labeled by current criteria. I argue that the KJV is in the category of what is sometimes referred to as complete equivalency. Simply stated, this means the translation is as literal as possible, giving due regard to the words, the grammar, the figures of speech, etc. of the original, yet as free as necessary, ensuring that the message intended by the original is not obscure. For instance, by using italics to identify words in the translation that are not in the original. I think they indicate to us, number one, their desire to preserve the form of the original, not deviating from that original, but yet at the same time making it readable for the translator. So as free as necessary, but as literal as possible. Even the use of the archaic second-person pronouns, thee, thou, that more than anything else, when people talk to me about the AB, point that out as being the archaic and irrelevant. We don't talk that way. Well, no, we don't talk that way anymore. We don't. And that's fine. That's fine. But even the use of the these and the thous, while they are archaic, nonetheless are able to do something that the modern English versions are incapable of doing. The second person pronoun that we use, you, is either singular or plural. I can't distinguish by seeing that pronoun. But I can determine whether thee, thou, or ye is singular or plural. And the Greek text and the Hebrew text makes that distinction. And so by using that supposedly archaic form, we are able in the translation to communicate something in the English language that if you didn't have the Hebrew or Greek before you, you wouldn't know. So don't let the archaic sound of it bother you. Take that as a study help. And there are passages that I could multiply here where knowing whether it's singular or plural indeed is very significant. So we take that as an aid. Giving the readers of the translation the same opportunity of understanding and response as the readers of the original should be the goal of translation and is the mark of a good one. I think that's why, too, from time to time they put alternate translations in the margins. Apparently they couldn't agree, and so, well, let's put one in the margin. And I will confess to you, there are some that they put in the margin that I wish they would have put in the text. But they're reflecting, again, that there were difficulties, and they're going to be honest, and they want the reader to have the same response in interpreting as the hearer of the original. So the merit of any translation is determined by how well it achieves the purpose of translation, conveying the message recorded in one language into another. A good version will translate without explaining, maintain the original's content and intent, retain interpretation issues, and permit an equivalence of response between the original and the target audience. It will be accurate in regard to lexical and grammatical fidelity. It will be sensitive to and reflect the various styles of the biblical writers. In addition to the faithfulness to the original, it must be readable, both in terms of private devotion, study, and public worship. And if these are the marks of a good translation, then indisputably, the King James Version is a good translation. It has served its purpose well for 400 years. It continues to serve its purpose well. The publication of the King James Version in 1611 was a landmark, leaving its mark for 400 years on literature, on speech, on culture, religion, and most significantly, in the hearts of millions. It has earned its place as the most influential book ever printed. And in this anniversary year, venerating it is appropriate. It is old, but it's not outdated. I'm finished. My time has gone past. So thank you for coming. I trust this was profitable. And I say we have much to be thankful for in the heritage that God has given to us.