REFORMATION BIBLES (COMPARISONS)

This study will help you discern some of the issues between Reformation Bibles. I've also attached the pdf at the bottom.

COMPARING REFORMATION BIBLES

By Reginald Jacob Block

• Wycliffe’s Bible 1382

• Tyndale Bible 1525

• Coverdale Bible 1535

• Matthew Bible 1537

• Great Bible 1539

• Geneva Bible 1560

• Bishop’s Bible 1568

• AKJB 1611

EIGHT LEADING REFORMATION BIBLES

WYCLIFFE BIBLE 1382

It was not necessarily the exclusive work of John Wycliffe, but seems Nicholas of Hereford, John Purvey and John Trevisa had a hand. They worked primarily from the Latin Vulgate. There were two versions of the Wycliffe Bible, one for the less learned and another for the clergy. They fall into the category of Middle English. Wycliffe was a Catholic clergyman and scholar, whose views eventually got him excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church; he was declared a heretic and his body exhumed from the grave, burned and his ashes tossed in the River Swift.

TYNDALE BIBLE 1525

Written in Early Modern English, it is considered the first English translation (though not complete) taken directly from the Hebrew and Greek, though it leaned on the Latin Vulgate to some degree. However, it was never completed. The Coverdale Bible is regarded by some the completion of Tyndale’s Bible. William Tyndale was executed in 1536. Various revised versions were printed in subsequent years; and, it is the foundation of the Matthew Bible, created by John Rogers.

COVERDALE BIBLE 1535

This was the first complete Modern English translation Bible. Later re-published in 1537, it was given an official royal license. It is based largely on Tyndale’s translation and German Bibles, as he was not a Hebrew or Greek scholar.

MATTHEW BIBLE 1537

It was created and published by John Rogers under the pseudonym Thomas Matthew. It used much of Tyndale’s New Testament and as much of the Old Testament as he was able to translate before his death. It appears to be the work of William Tyndale, Miles Coverdale and John Rogers. Rogers was martyred by Mary I.

GREAT BIBLE 1539

It was translated and compiled by Miles Coverdale, using Tyndale’s New Testament translation, and Old Testament books he had translated. Some of Coverdale’s work was translated from Latin and German translations, not from original Hebrew and Greek. He was one man with limited resources and limited time. He was commissioned by Oliver Cromwell under Henry VIII. It went through six revisions between 1540 & 1541.

GENEVA BIBLE 1539

It was overseen by William Whittingham in collaboration with Miles Coverdale, Christopher Goodman, Anthony Gilby, Thomas Sampson and William Cole. Whittingham was responsible for the New Testament, and Gilby, the Old. The translation was not considered complete until 1557 and further revised in 1560.

THE BISHOPS BIBLE 1568

The Bishops Bible was published under the authority of the Church of England, and significantly revised and republished in 1572. It was spearheaded by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Matthew Parker and translated by various members of the bishopric. No one supervised the work, and Parker was too busy, so there are significant inconsistencies throughout.

1611 AUTHORIZED KINGS JAMES BIBLE 1611

It was directly commissioned by King James, King of England, and translated by 47 of the kingdom’s best scholars. They had no real time constraints or financial limitations, apart from being expeditious and thorough, taking whatever time necessary to translate and review each other’s work through various committees. King James, realizing the gravity of the work, put the entire resources of the British throne behind it. The translators, though fully aware of what came before, and not ignorant of the good and the bad, endeavored to produce a better Bible, translating from base manuscripts, primarily Textus Receptus and Masoretic Texts. This is very different than all English language Bibles preceding, as they were, in many regards, hybrids; and, translations made by only a handful of scholars, and sometimes, as in the case of Coverdale, not the best Hebrew and Greek scholars.

It has been said that those that came before were persecuted to a greater degree than the translators of the 1611 AKJB, and, in the case of some, martyred for their faith and for translating the Bible into English. For that reason some regard Bibles produced by martyrs somehow superior; however that is mistaken, and though the 47 translators did not appear to face threats on their lives, King James did; case in point the Jesuit treason plot; their strategy was cut the head off (King James) and the translation would stop. Thus, time and again they attempted to murder King James, to the degree that King James slept with guards on all doors and windows of his room and one on either side of him in his great bed. But, it was not meant to be; and, we see the hand of God preserving King James and ensuring the translation was completed.

It is, indeed, the crowning jewel of Reformation Bibles, the previous Bibles paving the road, but not able for one reason or another, to produce a thorough translation void of dross. Thus, we have the 1611 Authorized King James Bible that, through its superior force of scholarship, manpower, authority and finance was able to ensure the final product is without error.

COMPARISONS

GENESIS 3:5

Wycliffe 1382

Ye shall be as Gods

Tyndale 1525

Ye shall be as God

Coverdale 1535

Ye shall be as God

Matthew 1537

…as God

Great Bible 1539

ye shalbe euen as goddes

Geneva Bible 1560

Ye shall be as gods

Bishops Bible 1568

ye shalbe eue as gods

King James Bible 1611

Ye shall bee as Gods

Speaking of the devil, Jesus said, “…there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his owne: for he is a liar, and the father of it.” (John 8:44)

Which of the above Reformation Bibles has the devil lying?

Only the Wycliffe and the 1611 AKJB get it right. The devil told Eve she would be as Gods, capital “G,” plural. This is a lie; for, the devil tells Eve she will be like God Almighty and there will be more than one God Almighty, thus the plural. Both Adam and Eve could become Gods Almighty. This is the lie.

Apart from the Wycliffe and the 1611 AKJB, all other Reformation Bibles have the devil telling the truth. This is the same lie that the devil tells today, and it has been readily received by the New Age Movement. It’s the notion that “you are God and I am God.” Thus, the multiplicity of equal God Almighties.

GENESIS 31:24

Wycliffe 1382

speke not ony thing sharpli ayens Jacob

Tyndale 1525

speake not to Iacob oughte saue good

Coverdale 1535

speake nothinge to Iacob but good

Matthew 1537

speake not to Iacob ought saue good

Great Bible 1539

speake not to Iacob ought saue good

Geneva Bible 1560

speake not to Iaakob ought saue good

Bishops Bible 1568

speake not to Iacob ought saue good

King James Bible 1611

speake not to Iacob either good or bad

Which rendering is most faithful to the original Hebrew text?

The Jewish Publication Society of America Hebrew Bible taken from the Masoretic Text renders Genesis 31:24 as follows, “Take heed to thyself that thou speak not to Jacob either good or bad.”

The following is quoted from the translation by Mechon Mamre, a respected Hebrew scholar and teacher. (https://mechon-mamre.org/index.htm)

Masoretic Hebrew Text

כד  וַיָּבֹא אֱלֹהִים אֶל-לָבָן הָאֲרַמִּי, בַּחֲלֹם הַלָּיְלָה; וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ, הִשָּׁמֶר לְךָ פֶּן-תְּדַבֵּר עִם-יַעֲקֹב--מִטּוֹב עַד-רָע.

English Translation

“24 And God came to Laban the Aramean in a dream of the night, and said unto him: “take heed to thyself that thou speak not to Jacob either good or bad.” (1611 AKJB)

All parallel translations (Hebrew to English) that I have found, render Genesis 31:24, as found above. Furthermore, it appears that Jewish scholars of the Torah agree this is the correct translation. Thus, of all the Reformation Bibles only the 1611 AKJB  gets it right.

Are the words “good” and “bad” in the original Masoretic Text?

The English to Hebrew online translator renders “bad” as follows:

רַע

The English to Hebrew online translator renders “good” as follows:

טוֹב

This is consistent with the Masoretic Text above, last line, where both “bad” and “good” are found in the text, respective of grammatical concerns. I have highlighted the Hebrew words below.

עִם-יַעֲקֹב--מִטּוֹב עַד-רָע.

Why is it important that this text is correctly translated?

1. If a Bible purports to be the word of God, then it should be accurate. And, all Reformation Bibles claim their Old Testament is translated from Masoretic Texts.

2. God came to Laban in a dream, and Laban knew it was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; thus, he was motivated to obey God. If God told him only to speak good to Jacob (as per most Reformation Bibles), then Laban disobeyed, because he simply presented the facts, neither speaking good or bad to Jacob. However, if God told Laban to speak neither good or bad to Jacob, then Laban obeyed God (according to the 1611 AKJB); for the facts are neither good or bad.

The Problem

All Reformation Bibles except the 1611 AKJB have Laban disobeying God. Thus, all except the 1611 AKJB bear false witness against Laban.

Exodus 20:16 prohibits bearing false witness, “Thou shalt not beare false witnes against thy neighbour.” (1611 AKJB)

RUTH 3:15

Wycliffe 1382

sche bar, and entried in to the citee (she entered into the city)

Tyndale 1525

she gat her into the city

Coverdale 1535

she wente in to the cite

Matthew 1537

she gat her into the cytye

Great Bible 1539

she gatt her into the cytie

Geneva Bible 1560

she went into the citie

Bishops Bible 1568

she gat her into the citie

King James Bible 1611

he went into the citie

Did he go into the city, or did she go?

“15 Also he said, Bring the vaile that thou hast vpon thee, and holde it. And when she helde it, he measured sixe measures of barley, and laide it on her: and he went into the citie.” (1611 AKJB)

Did he (Boaz) go to “the citie,” or did she (Ruth) go to the city? Only one of these pronouns is correct.

The only Reformation Bible that gets the pronoun right is the 1611 AKJB. All others use the pronoun “she,” as do most modern Bibles.

Before proving from context that it should read “he,” (Boaz) went to “the citie,” let us consult scholars who insist that the masculine form of the pronoun is meant in the Hebrew texts, and therefore the pronoun “he” is correct. For example, Albert Barnes, John Gill, Keil & Delitzsch, Thomas Coke, Whedon, Peter Pett, George Haydock, E.W. Bullinger and Ellicott say that the correct pronoun is “he.” Thus, we may with reasonable certainty conclude that the 1611 AKJB translated the pronoun “he” correctly, and most other Bibles do not when they change “he” to “her/she.”

Also, from context, we know that early in the morning Ruth takes leave of Boaz and goes to Naomi and tells her what happened. Naomi, in verse 18, tells Ruth that Boaz has urgency and will finish the matter by the end of the day, referring to his role as kinsman-redeemer. Because of this, it is reasonable to suggest that “he” goes immediately to “the citie,” as in verse 15, to expedite the matter, as it is within the city that Boaz would take the matter before the elders and the first-in-line kinsman-redeemer who had first right of refusal.

Also, consistent with this, we find Boaz in the city in chapter 4, verse 1-2.  It reads, “Then went Boaz vp to the gate” (gate of the city), “…and hee tooke ten men of the Elders of the citie…” As kinsman redeemer, Boaz is a picture of Christ, and Naomi, a picture of the church. The city Boaz goes to is Bethlehem, thus Boaz comes out of Bethlehem, foreshadowing the Messiah who will also come out of Bethlehem. “And, behold, Boaz came from Bethlehem…” (Ruth 2:4), and, Ruth 1:19 & 22, “So they (Ruth & Naomi) two went vntill they came to Bethlehem…and they (Ruth & Naomi) came to Bethlehem in the beginning of barley haruest.” Everything about the book of Ruth is centered on Bethlehem: Boaz, the kinsman redeemer; Ruth, a type of the church; and the fields of Boaz, a type of the harvest of souls – all testify and foreshadow the coming Messiah.

Ruth 4:12 testifies of Judah who is also a kinsman redeemer and a picture of Christ. Judah redeems Tamar, and earlier in Egypt, in place of Benjamin, he offers himself to Joseph, “…let thy seruant abide in stead of the lad, a bondman to my lord, and let the lad goe vp with his brethren” (Genesis 44:33). Thus, when the corrupt Bibles change the pronoun in the phrase “he went into the citie” (1611 AKJB) to “she went,” the internal witness and correlation between the kinsman redeemer (Boaz, a type of Christ) and Jesus is broken.

Ruth 4:11 “…and do thou worthily in Ephratah, and bee famous in Bethlehem.”

Micah 5:2 “But thou, Beth-leem Ephratah, though thou bee little among the thousands of Iudah, yet out of thee shall he come foorth vnto mee, that is to be ruler in Israel: whose goings foorth haue bene from of old, from euerlasting.”

The above two verses establish the importance of Bethlehem and that Messiah shall come out of Bethlehem. Thus, Boaz as a type of Christ goes to the city, Bethlehem, and from there, redeems Ruth, a type of the church. He must go to the city that he might come out of it, just as the 1611 AKJB declares.

MATTHEW 5:28

Wycliffe 1382

seeth a womman

Tyndale 1525

looketh on a wyfe

Coverdale 1535

loketh on a wife

Matthew 1537

loketh on a wife

Great Bible 1539

another mans wyfe

Geneva Bible 1560

looketh on a woman

Bishops Bible 1568

loketh on a woman

King James Bible 1611

looketh on a woman

Jesus said “…That whosoeueuer looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath committed adulterie with her already in his heart.” (1611 AKJB)

Many Reformation Bibles say it is adultery only if the woman is someone’s wife. Does this make sense? Hardly! If a man looks upon any woman with lust, except his own wife, it is adultery. “Wife” is fraught with problems, as it is not always possible to know if a female is a wife or unmarried. What is one to do, get verification before lusting as not to sin? This makes a mockery of the scripture. Contextually, “woman” is correct and presents no problems of interpretation or verification of marital status.

Textus Receptus rendering, and primary definition according to George Ricker Berry’s Interlinear:

γυνή, αικός, ἡ is woman; its secondary is “wife.” All leading Bible translations, though problematic in other areas, use the primary meaning, “woman.”

Thus, we can be certain that contextually, grammatically and doctrinally “woman” is correct and “wife” is incorrect.

EZEKIEL 24:7 5

Wycliffe 1382

he schedde not it out on erthe

Tyndale 1525

(uncertain)

Coverdale 1535

she poured it, and not vpon the grounde

Matthew 1537

poured it, and not vpon the grounde

Great Bible 1539

she powred it, & not vpon the grounde

Geneva Bible 1560

powred it not vpon on the ground

Bishops Bible 1568

she powred it: and not vpon the grounde

King James Bible 1611

she powred it vpon the ground

Did she or did she not pour it on the ground?

“For her blood is in the middest of her: she set it vpon the toppe of a rocke, she powred it vpon the ground to couer it with dust. 8. That it might cause furie to come vp to take vengeance: I have set her blood vpon the top of a rocke, that it should not be couered.” (1611 AKJB)

Why does the 1611 AKJB say she poured it on the ground? Why is it correct?

These verses are part of a parable God gave to Ezekiel, “…vtter a parable to the rebellious house” (Ezekiel 24:3). The parable, by way of metaphor, portrays Israel’s apostasy, rebellion, egregious sins, and punishment by God’s agent, Babylon.

“She” in verse 7 refers to Israel. The “blood” refers to her sins. And, the “dust” represents her attempt to cover her sins. Thus she sets the pot of blood (her sins) upon “a rocke” then pours the blood on the ground, attempting to cover it with the dust of the ground. Conversely, in verse 8, God says he will expose her sins upon “a rocke” and not hide them. They will be made plain for all to see then judgment will come. Israel will be exposed for her heinous crimes and sins. Note that verses 7 & 8 both say “a rocke;” these need not be the same “rocke,” and, in fact, the context suggests that they are two different rocks. Yet scholars and casual readers often assume they are the same “rocke.”  Also, the 1611 places no comma after the word “ground,” in verse 7, as the intended meaning is that she poured her sins on the ground to cover them with dust, to hide them. Her purpose in pouring the blood on the ground is clearly stated. She is in rebellion and believes her sins can be hidden from God and man.

Her pouring the blood or sin on the ground and covering it with dust, is also a reference to Israel’s corrupted understanding of the sacrifice of animals to cover sin. At no time in the Old Testament does God intend the spilling of sacrificial animal blood to mean the erasing of sins, but rather a covering and remembrance of them unto the coming of the Messiah who would “take away their sins”  Yet, rebellious Israel in Ezekiel 24:7 pours her sins to the ground to attempt to hide them under the dust. She places them first on “a rocke,” not “the Rocke.” If the text read, “the Rocke,” it would mean she recognized her sin and the need for a Savior, who is “the Rocke.” So here she mocks God’s true provision for forgiveness of sin and their “taking away” by the Lamb of God who would one day pay the ultimate price. God in verse 8 answers her blasphemy, also setting her sin upon “a rocke,” but not “the Rocke,” as she is in rebellion. And, upon a carnal rock, they remain exposed as God proceeds to judge and punish her.

Most modern Bibles try to harmonize verses 7 & 8, as though both refer to the same rock. They say, in verse 7, that she did not pour the blood to the ground and cover it in dust. This is incorrect as it contradicts the premises and facts of the parable. Leaving the blood in the pot symbolizes the opposite of what God intended in these passages, and not attempting to cover or hide her sins destroys the contrast established by the juxtaposition of verses 7 & 8; in the ESV, NASB, NIV, NKJV & NLT, among others. She thinks to contain her wickedness, as though she has none (v.7), while God, says he will expose it (v.8).

Ezekiel 24:7 correlates and is witnessed in Jeremiah 13:26, when God says that when a people’s sins, Israel in this case, become so egregious and foul and the people are rebellious and unrepentant, he will expose them. And try as they might to cover them in dust, he will put them in the open for all to see. The prophet Jeremiah wrote, “Therefore will I discouer thy skirts vpon thy face, that that thy shame may appeare,”(Jeremiah 13:26). In other words, God will expose her and lift her covering that her private things may be made public. And Jesus said in Luke 12:2, “For there is nothing couered, that shall not be reuealed; neither hid, that shall not be knowen.” Though Israel pours her sin on the ground and cover it with dust (Ezekiel 24:7), it will be to no avail. God will place it on a “rocke,” for all to see.

EZEKIEL 28:14

Wycliffe 1382

Thou were cherub

Tyndale 1525

(uncertain)

Coverdale 1535

Thou art a fayre Cherub

Matthew 1537

Thou arte a fayre Cherub

Great Bible 1539

Thou art a fayre Cherub

Geneva Bible 1560

Thou art the anointed Cherub

Bishops Bible 1568

Thou art an annoynted Cherub

King James Bible 1611

Thou art the annointed Cherub

Is Lucifer still the anointed Cherub, or was he stripped of his dignity?

“14 Thou art the anointed cherub that couereth: and I haue set thee so; thou was vpon the holy mounaine of God; thou hast walked vp and downe in the middest of the stones of fire.” (1611 AKJB)

Is Lucifer no longer a heavenly dignitary? Has he been demoted and his power diminished? Ezekiel 28:14 must agree with Jude 1:9, in which the archangel Michael would not contend with him, nor would he bring “against him railing accusations.” This indicates that the devil is still the “anointed cherub,” and only God may rebuke him.

Scripture cautions not to speak ill of dignities, specifically referring to Lucifer (but not at the exclusion of earthly dignitaries) in 2 Peter 2:10 & Jude 1:8-9, respectively, “…they are not afraide to speake euill of dignities” & “8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speake euill of dignities. 9 Yet Michael the Archangel, when contending with the deuill, he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.”

Of the Reformation Bibles, only the Wycliffe Bible uses the past tense, “were,” inferring that Lucifer is no longer the anointed Cherub, but has been demoted.  The present tense “art” is correct because it provides reason for the Angels not to rail against Lucifer or accuse him; railing means, to call names and degrade, nor are they to accuse him, but only the Lord may do that.

DANIEL 3:25

Wycliffe 1382

(uncertain)

Tyndale 1525

(uncertain)

Coverdale 1535

the fourth is like an angel

Matthew 1537

the fourthe is lyke an angell

Great Bible 1539

the fourth is lyke the sonne of God

Geneva Bible 1560

the fourth is like the sonne of God

Bishops Bible 1568

the fourth is like the sonne of God

King James Bible 1611

the fourth is like the sonne of God

Should the text be rendered “like an angel,” or “like the sonne of God?”

“25 He answered and said, Loe, I see foure men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they haue no hurt, and the forme of the fourth is like the sonne of God.” (1611 AKJB)

The certainty with which the king speaks in the 1611 AKJV rendering implies that he sees something extraordinary that distinguishes the fourth person from a mere angel, or created being. Whereas the many other translations give the fourth person no unique status, rather they infer he could be any one of multitudes of heavenly beings, “a son of the gods.” As per, many modern Bibles.

When the Son of God appears in the Old Testament, Daniel 3:25, it confirms his pre-incarnate existence and proves verses like John 1:1 that proclaim his uncreated nature and his Godhood. This further supports the idea that Jesus, elsewhere in the 1611 AKJB is identified as God, became flesh and dwelt among us, not that he came into existence at birth; rather, as other scriptures prove, Jesus the Son of God derives his being from himself, not from an external source.For example, rather than claiming existence, Jesus says in John 8:58, Before Abraham was I am, taking on a title of God Almighty and, “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among vs…” John 1:14. “In the beginning was the Word, & the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1

Thus, Jesus is not subject to time and space. Thus, when correlated with Daniel 3:25, there can be no other conclusion than Jesus is not merely “a son of the gods” (NIV), created like Lucifer, he is God, uncreated and eternal.

Modern Bible references to the fourth person in the fire, “a son of the gods,” implies that whoever that fourth person “is,” he does not necessarily have being in and of himself, but exists or, for that matter, can cease to exist by the power of God. While we know the Son of God, Jesus cannot exist (by the pure etymology of the word exist) or cease to exist, rather He be(s), or HE AM. Or as Jesus said, “I AM,” when he referenced Mosesʼ burning bush question, “14…what shall I say vnto them?  14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: And he said, Thus shalt thou say vnto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me vnto you.” Exodus 3:13-14. Jesus quoted Godʼs answer to Abraham in Exodus 3:13- 14.

In many instances other verses, like Daniel 3:25, that might have provided clarity for the “ego eimi,” or the pre-incarnate Deity of Christ, are corrupted, changed of removed from many modern Bibles

Most Christians who have seriously studied their Bibles already know that the fourth person in the furnace is not one of many gods and they mentally make that correction when reading modern Bible translations; they know he is The Uncreated Divine Being, The Son of God and the I Am. Yet, many who use modern translations are unaware that the the rendering, “a son of the gods,” is consistent with the Gnostic notion that Jesus is a divinity in the same sense as Lucifer, but not God Almighty. This should raise red flags particularly since many modern Bibles openly state that they are based primarily on Alexandrian codices (Nestle-Aland), texts of Gnostic origins.

Of the Reformation Bibles, Coverdale and Matthew’s incorrectly translate Daniel 3:25, failing to understand the doctrinal significance of rendering it, “sonne of God,” as explained previously. Is the rendering “like an angel” patently incorrect? No, but it provides an incomplete understanding of the pre-incarnate nature of Christ. Though Christ in some sense may appear as an angel, he is not one; thus the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Bishop’s Bible and the 1611 AKJB are more correct than other Reformation Bibles.

MATTHEW 15:27

Wycliffe 1382

(uncertain)

Tyndale 1525

truthe Lorde

Coverdale 1535

trueth LORDE

Matthew 1537

trueth LORDE

Great Bible 1539

trueth LORDE

Geneva Bible 1560

Trueth, Lord

Bishops Bible 1568

trueth Lorde

King James Bible 1611

Trueth Lord

“27 And she said, Trueth Lord: yet the dogs eate of the crummes which fall from their masters table.” (1611 AKJB)

Is “Trueth Lord” (capital, no comma) correct? Or should he read “truth, Lord” (no capital, comma) or “truth Lord” (no capital no comma? Which is correct doctrine and why?

The 1611 AKJB places no comma between “Trueth” and “Lord;” rather, it establishes “Trueth Lord” as a title for Jesus. The woman speaking acknowledges Jesus as the “Trueth Lord,” not just someone making true statements. Meanwhile, other Bibles confuse the matter when they read, “truth, Lord.” The 1611 AKJB gives the woman and the reader every reason to worship Jesus, because only God is the Lord of Truth, or “Trueth Lord.”

These verses in the 1611 AKJB can also be correlated, and are internally witnessed, when Jesus says, “I am the Way, the Trueth, and the Life” (John 14:6). All three claims rendered with capitals in the 1611 AKJB, denote proper titles for Jesus. Conversely, all compromised Bibles use lower case letters, thereby destroying the internal witness to Matthew 15:27.

The 1611 AKJB establishes that there is only one “Trueth Lord,” or “Lord of Truth,” and, that is Jesus Christ. When the woman calls him “Trueth Lord,” she declares the Divinity of Jesus. Then verse Matthew 15:25 makes perfect sense, “Then came she, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, helpe me.” Thus, the statement Jesus makes in verse 28 lines up, “O woman, great is thy faith: be it vnto thee euen as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very houre.”

The Geneva Bible is more correct than the other Reformation Bibles, with the exception of the 1611 AKJB. It capitalizes Trueth and Lord; however, it errs putting a comma between the two words, as it no longer renders “Trueth Lord” as a proper name for Jesus.

The Tyndale Bible, the Coverdale Bible,  the Matthew Bible, the Great Bible and the Bishop’s Bible fail to capitalize Trueth, removing an essential understanding of the nature of Christ, “the Way, the Trueth and the Life,” all proper Names for Christ and, comprising a composite title for God.

LUKE 2:22

Wycliffe 1382

the purgacioun (the purification)

Tyndale 1525

their purificacio

Coverdale 1535

their purificacion

Matthew 1537

their puryfycacion

Great Bible 1539

their purificacion

Geneva Bible 1560

her purification

Bishops Bible 1568

her purification

King James Bible 1611

her purification

Did the whole family require purification, Jesus included, or just Mary and perhaps Joseph?

“22 And when the dayes of her purification according to the law of Moses, were accomplished they brought him to Hierusalem, to present him to the Lord,” (1611 AKJB)

While the 1611 AKJB specifically states that Maryʼs purification is required by the Law of Moses, some Bibles say their/the purification rites, meaning the entire family, Jesus included. Are we to believe that Jesus was unclean in the Levitical sense and needed to sacrifice an animal to atone for the sin of uncleanness?

Given the Alexandrian influence over many Bibles, itʼs not surprising that some would infer that Jesus was unclean, after all the Gnostics believed that all creation was evil, and as a created being, so was Jesus. Conversely, the 1611 AKJB is very careful to let the reader know that it is Mary who needed purification. The Wycliffe, the Tyndale, the Coverdale, the Matthew and the Great Bible all incorrectly translate this verse, using the pronoun, “their,” making Jesus unclean, which some might regard as blasphemous. To avoid this the text must read, “her purification.”

LUKE 2:33

Wycliffe 1382

his fadir and his modir

Tyndale 1525

his father and mother

Coverdale 1535

his father and mother

Matthew 1537

his father and mother

Great Bible 1539

his father and mother

Geneva Bible 1560

Ioseph and his mother

Bishops Bible 1568

Ioseph and his mother

King James Bible 1611

Ioseph and his mother

The 1611 AKJB is careful never to lead the reader to believe that Joseph is the father of Jesus. While certain verses in many other Bibles make a case for human father-ship of Jesus. For example, in Luke 2:33 & 43 they speak of Jesusʼ “father and mother,” referring to Joseph and Mary, while the 1611 AKJB is careful to not call Joseph Jesusʼ father, as that would deny that Jesus is begotten of God the Father. However, some of the Reformation Bibles make Joseph the father of Jesus.

Luke 2:43 in the 1611 AKJB  says, “Ioseph and his mother,” making the distinction that Joseph is not the father of Jesus. Conversely, Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew and the Great Bible incorrectly make Joseph the father of Jesus.

One might argue that parent need not mean “one that begets;” however, that denies the etymology (history and origin) and intended meaning of the word. Webster’s 1973, for example says,

“(ME, fr. MF, fr. L parent, parens, fr. prp of parere to give birth to) 1: one that begets or brings forth offspring 2. a: an animal or plant that is regarded in relation to its offspring b: the material or source from which something is derived.”

And, “The Oxford Dictionary of Etymology” 1983, edited by C.T. Onions, provides a similar meaning, also tracing “parent” back in history to parentes and parere – to bring forth, to give birth to.

We can emphatically conclude that the 1611 avoids the word, “parent,” as its primary and intended meaning is, “one who begets.”  Its use in Luke 2:43 (corrupt Bibles) would argue that Joseph begat Jesus, which is not true.

It’s interesting to note that the Geneva, the Bishops and the 1611 AKJB came after the other Reformation Bibles cited above, and the translators, being fully aware of what came before, were careful not to make the same error in this passage.

ACTS 2:38

Wycliffe 1382

Do ye penaunce…be baptised…in to remissioun of youre synnes

Tyndale 1525

repent and be baptysed…for the remission of sinnes

Coverdale 1535

amede youre selues and…be baptiysed, for the remyssion of synnes

Matthew 1537

repent and be baptysed…for the remission of sinnes

Great Bible 1539

repent of your synnes…be baptysed for the remission of synnes

Geneva Bible 1560

amend your liues…be baptised…for remission of sinnes

Bishops Bible 1568

repent…be baptized…for remission of sinnes

King James Bible 1611

Repent, and be baptized euery one of you in the Name of Iesus Christ, for the remission of sinnes, and ye shal recieue the gift of the holy Ghost.”

All Reformation Bibles, except the 1611 AKJB, teach the Roman Catholic doctrine of salvation (remission of sins) by works; that is behavior modification. This is understandable, as the translators of such were not far removed from Roman Catholic influences, many having previously been priests of Rome.

Below is the correct rendering.

“38 Then Peter said vnto them, Repent, and be baptized euery one of you in the Name Iesus Christ, for the remission of sinnes, and ye shal receiue the gift of the holy Ghost.” (1611 AKJB)

The 1611 AKJB has a comma after “Repent” and one after “Iesus Christ.” This is correct as it turns the phrase “and be baptized euery one of you in the Name of Iesus Christ,” into a parenthetical clause, which is an independent thought. Conversely, when the commas are removed and the rendering changed, the doctrine of salvation is compromised. Thus, without the proper commas, this verse teaches repentance and baptism for forgiveness of sins, and not just turning to Christ for salvation.

The 1611 AKJB, because of the parenthetical clause, renders the meaning, “…Repent for the remission of sinnes…” This is the intended meaning of the verse, as it agrees with the biblical doctrine of salvation by faith alone.

BEGINNING OF STATEMENT OR THOUGHT

“… Repent,

PARENTHETICAL CLAUSE: INTERRUPTS STATEMENT

“…and be baptized euery one of you in the Name Iesus Christ,

CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT OR THOUGHT

(Repent,) “…for the remission of sinnes, and ye shal receiue the gift of the holy Ghost.” (It means repent; that is turn from self to Christ.)

Thus, the doctrine of salvation by faith and faith alone, not by works of righteousness. (Titus 3:5)

ADDRESSING A FEW MISGUIDED YOUTUBE VIDEOS

1 PETER 1:13

Wycliffe 1382

For which thing be ye gird the leendis of youre soule, sobre, perfit, and hope ye in to the ilke grace that is profrid to you bi the schewyng of Jhesu Crist

Tyndale 1525

Wherfore gyrde vp ye loynes of youre myndes be sober and trust perfectly on the grace yt is brought vnto you by the declaringe of Iesus Christ

Coverdale 1535

Wherfore gyrde op the loynes off youre mynde, be sober, and trust perfectly on the grace that is brought vnto you, by the declarynge of Iesus Christ

Matthew 1537

Wherfore gyrde vp the loynes of youre myndes, be sober, and trust perfectelye on the grace that is broughte vnto you, by the declarynge of Iesus Christ,

Great Bible 1539

Whefore gyrde vp the loynes of youre mynde, be sober, & trust perfectly on the grace that is brought vnto you (by declaryng of Iesus Chryst)

Geneva Bible 1560

Wherefore, girde vp the Ioynes of your minde: bee sober, and trust perfectly on that grace that is brought vnto you, in the reuelation of Iesus Christ,

Bishops Bible 1568

Whefore girde vp the loynes of your mynde, be sober, and trust perfectly on the grace that is brought vnto you, by the reuelation of Iesus Christe

King James Bible 1611

Wherefore gird vp he loynes of your minde, bee sober, and hope to the end, for the grace that is to bee brought vnto you at the reuelation of Iesus Christ:”

None of the above translations from the Textus Receptus can be said to be patently incorrect; however, some are incomplete. All understand the nature of grace; that is not just one grace of God, but many. Yet, the grace spoken of in all Reformation Bibles cited above, is the grace of the revelation or declaration of Christ. There are several declarations: 1. Declaring his name before men, that men might be saved; 2. Declaring that Jesus is come in the flesh (that is the declaration of faith) and, 3, declaring the hope of his revelation at his second coming.

This text is specific to the second coming of Christ, referred to as the “blessed hope.” Titus wrote “Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God, and our Sauoiur Iesus Christ,” (Titus 2:13) The 1611 AKJB says, “hope to the end,” meaning do not lose faith, keep the faith until the end, always believing that Jesus is coming; and, the hope we cling to is the resurrection of Saints. Jesus said, “But he that shall endure vnto the end, the same shall be saued.”(Matthew 24:13), meaning we are saved by faith; if we stop believing, then we have not faith and have not endured to the end. And, Paul wrote to Timothy, “I haue fought a good fight, I haue finished my course, I haue kept the faith.”  (2 Timothy 4:7)

Thus, the 1611 AKJB provides a more complete understanding of the original Greek Text (which we will examine shortly), stating that because we know Christ is coming, we believe it with all our heart (“trust perfectly”), and we hold that belief until the end (that is when Christ returns); at that time, we will experience the grace of resurrection, having already received the grace of salvation and kept the faith to the end. At no time are we saved by works, but our works secured by Christ in the girded “loynes of your mynde” (that is not given to a reprobate mind; deleterious thoughts manifest in wicked deeds) and remaining sober in doctrine, but also refraining from excessive wine and other such beverages.

The 1611 KJB presents the correct and complete understanding of this verse: walk circumspectly and soberly, keep the faith (hope) that you might partake in the grace of the revelation of Christ, which is his second coming and the resurrection of Saints.

Conversely, the Matthew Bible is remiss in this understanding when it removes “hope to the end,” for, hope to the end is keeping the faith until the second coming of Christ. This is when believers realize the fulness of God’s grace, being made immortal.

Let us examine the verse in the Textus Receptus (TR) and discern its correct translation. Below is Beza’s 1598 rendering which is consistent with other Reformation renderings and based on that of Stephanus, and faithful to Erasmus’s rendering.

It translates to English as follows:

διο            αναζωσαμενοι τας οσφυας της      διανοιας

Wherefore gird up         the  loins     to the    mind

υμων     νηφοντες  τελειως  ελπισατε    επι τη

of your    be sober     end         and hope    for  the

φερομενην                υμιν         χαριν    εν αποκαλυψει

that is to be brought  unto you    grace    at  revelation

ιησου     χριστου

of Jesus Christ

The Matthew Bible and others gloss over the Greek word, “τελειως” which pertains to bringing something to its completion, ending and perfection. This is a necessary understanding of 1 Peter 1:13, as it refers to believers enduring in the faith and being made perfect at the second coming of Christ. Having consulted Beza’s TR and indirectly Erasmus and Stephanus, I saw fit to examine the Alexandrian rendering, as per UBS and Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, D-Stuttgart, which overall are different than the TR in many places, but here the text is rendered the same, requiring the word, “τελειως,” which agrees with the TR and with the 1611 AKJB translation, but not the Matthew Bible or certain other Reformation Bibles. Thus, no argument can be made against the 1611 rendering of 1 Peter 1:13 from either Greek textual source.

EXODUS 10:1-2

Wycliffe 1382

signes

Tyndale 1525

pagiantes wich I huae played in Egipte

Coverdale 1535

what I haue done

Matthew 1537

the pageantes which I haue played in Egypt

Great Bible 1539

what things I haue done in Egipte

Geneva Bible 1560

what things I haue done in Egypt

Bishops Bible 1568

what things I have done in Egypt

King James Bible 1611

what things I haue wrought in Egypt

Pageant seems an unlikely translation from Hebrew to English, as the word “תחרות” is not found in the Masoretic Text; furthermore, God’s miracles before Pharaoh were not for amusement or entertainment (pageantry), but to establish God’s power and authority through Moses and Aaron. Also, we notice that as we approach the 17th century, translators of the Great Bible 1539 and onward avoid the word “pageant.” The word “pageant” may be a more colorful and titillating word, but it is not supported in the original text.

CONCLUSION

Although all Reformation Bibles are good Bibles, some have problems due to rushing to complete, lack of expertise, questionable authority and inadequate financing by which to ensure work was thoroughly reviewed and revised when necessary. The only Bible that excels in all these areas is the 1611 AKJB; and, unlike the other Reformation Bibles, it did not need to be reworked and revised; but, was complete in its first printing in 1611.

Need we be reminded of Tyndale’s last words before they strangled him to death?

“Lord, open the king of England’s eyes.”

And, indeed, this prayer was answered in King James, whose eyes were opened; and thanks to our God who answers prayer and the faithfulness of King James, we have the 1611 Authorized King James Bible.