The translators said,
Quote:
|
If we will be sons of the truth, we must consider what it speaketh, and trample upon our own credit, yea, and upon other men’s too, if either be any way an hinderance to it.
|
If there was any problem with the former Protestant English Bibles, those of the truth would rather humble themselves and get them right, rather than to stubbornly stay with an error. Now we know that the text form of the early Protestant Bibles was not always correct, nor the translation always the best, but by the thorough King James Bible method (54 men appointed to check and recheck, a seventh company, ratification, etc.) we know that these men went for truth rather than to stay with something which required correcting.
And as the Romanists also corrected their Vulgate, how is it that the King James Bible translators could not correct the Protestant English Bible? And if they did, why suddenly in the later portion of the 1800s, was it so "vile" (in the eyes of a few) that it had to be replaced?
We know that the truth clearly and utterly came through without hindrance from 1611, and that the widest possible Protestant testimony can be given in favour of this.
Whereas the modern versions, in their chopping and changing, in their constant and never ending alterations, are never without hindrance, and they never consent to one truth.