Who are Israelites, to whom pertain … the giving of the law.

Romans 9:4 ɴᴋᴊᴠ

Israel was a nation and a people who were under the Law of God. It was given to them by God through Moses, who was their mediator, as well as through angelic mediation (Gal. 3:19; Ex. 19–20; 34:1–9). This was a privilege only they had. Other nations had their laws and national constitutions, but they were man-made. Not so for Israel! The apostle Paul mentioned this privilege earlier in the Epistle to the Romans when he wrote, “What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God” (Rom. 3:1–2). The “oracles of God” were the Old Testament Scriptures, and in particular, the books of Moses: the Law. Israel had an advantage over other nations in that they had written, inspired communications from the living God, a wonderful privilege. These oracles showed them how to conduct their nation and order their personal lives.

But herein lay the problem: “the carnal mind,” or the flesh, “is not subject to the law of God” (8:7). In fact, one of the purposes of the law was to show man that he is a sinner (4:15; 5:20; 7:7, 13; Gal. 3:19–24). Israel was the “test case” to prove this. Their history revealed continual insubjection to God’s law. Righteousness could not come through the law (Rom. 10:4), only through faith in God’s provision of grace in Christ.

This is important to understand because some teach we are under the law. It is said, “We are not under law for justification but are for sanctification.” However, we have died to the law and spiritual fruit comes, not through the law or legalism, but through the Spirit of God (6:14; 7:6; 2 Cor. 3:18). May we ever appreciate what Christ—who died under the curse of the law—has wrought for us who believe! Amen.

Brian Reynolds


https://gbv-online.org/calendar/773/date/2026-08-12

Who are Israelites, to whom pertain … the covenants.

Romans 9:4 ɴᴋᴊᴠ

The subject of “covenants” can be somewhat obscure or mysterious for us who are gentile Christians. We read about them in the Bible, but because they concern the nation of Israel and their ancestors, we do not think too much about the topic. This is understandable. Even the apostle Paul told the Ephesian Christians to remember they were “once Gentiles in the flesh … and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world” (Eph. 2:11–12). The covenants concerned Israel and not us “strangers.”

When we read the Old Testament we find there was the Abrahamic covenant, the Mosaic covenant, the Davidic covenant, and the priestly covenant. The reason God made so many covenants with Israel was because they were a nation set apart for God for a special purpose. No other nation had such a privilege and responsibility of having such covenants with God!

The greatest covenant of all, which God will make with Israel, is the New Covenant; it was predicted by Jeremiah (Jer. 31:31–40). The fulfillment of this will be with “Israel and Judah” in the future. It will be established upon the finished work of Christ, its basis being His precious blood that was shed: “He is the Mediator of the New Covenant” (Heb. 9:15). As Christians we are intimately associated with this blessed Mediator as His co-heirs (Rom. 8:17)!

Though the New Covenant is not made with us, it is of vital importance to us. Its spiritual blessing of salvation has come to us. Thus the Lord Jesus said, “This cup is the New Covenant in My blood” (1 Cor. 11:25). We remember Him and what He accomplished for us in shedding that precious blood—a blessed privilege for us on this Lord’s Day!

Brian Reynolds


https://gbv-online.org/calendar/773/date/2026-08-02

Who are Israelites, to whom pertain … the glory.

Romans 9:4 ɴᴋᴊᴠ

Of the eight privileges which pertain to Israel listed in Romans 9:4–5, the appearance of God’s glory among them wonderfully distinguished them as unique among the nations.

The “glory of the Lord” appeared many times in the course of Israel’s history. It appeared to Abraham, the father of the nation; Moses desired to see it when on Sinai, and saw it again with Elijah two thousand years later (Ex. 33:18; Mt. 17:1); it appeared to Isaiah when Uzziah died; Ezekiel saw it when it was departing from the disobedient nation; and Haggai predicted its return.

In fact the glory of God had not only appeared to individuals on various occasions throughout their history, but for long periods of time it actually dwelt among them. The term sometimes used to describe this glory is, “the Shekinah.” This is a Hebrew word which means “dwelling”—or “settling,” “resting.” This is because the glory represented the fact that God’s presence was dwelling among them. When Moses finished constructing the tabernacle, the glory, appearing as a cloud, filled it and “rested above it.” The glory was so great at the time that Moses could not enter the tabernacle (Ex. 40:34–35). This was repeated when Solomon finished the temple with the same result (2 Chr. 5:13–14). In this aspect, these two Old Testament constructions are both types of the Church, which is also called a temple, the “dwelling place of God in the Spirit” (Eph. 2:21–22). Paul wrote to the Christians in Colosse, revealing a wonderful mystery: “Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Col. 1:27). Thus the glory is our hope too, but in a much higher way than Israel!

Brian Reynolds


With Him we love, in spotless white,
In glory we shall shine;His blissful presence our delight
In love and joy divine.


J. G. Deck


https://gbv-online.org/calendar/773/date/2026-07-24

Who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption.

Romans 9:4 ɴᴋᴊᴠ

There are Christians who teach that God is finished with the nation of Israel, that the promise concerning their future blessing in the kingdom is now being fulfilled in the Church. Simply stated, their position is that God has no further plans for Israel. In his Epistle to the Romans, Paul writes a whole section (Rom. 9–11) to show that God still has a plan for His earthly people, concluding that “the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (11:29). God will not go back on the promises made to them.

In our verse today Paul gives the first of eight ancient, holy privileges unique to Israel, showing their special place in the purposes of God. The first privilege Paul mentions may sound familiar to us Christians: it is “the adoption.” What is the meaning of the term? The word means “sonship,” or “adoption as sons.” The same word is used for us in some of Paul’s Epistles (Gal. 4:5; Eph. 1:5). However, we must be very careful here. Although the word “adoption” is the same word used in connection with believers today, they are not the same thing. With Israel, the term is used in a lower sense. As a nation they had a special relationship with God: “Israel is My son, My firstborn” (Ex. 4:22). As a Father, He had formed them and called them (Isa. 64:8). Their beginning was unlike any other nation in the world. We, however, who have received the adoption, or sonship, have the “Spirit of His Son” in our hearts, crying out, “Abba Father!” (Gal. 4:6). Israel of old did not possess this, even genuine saints among them. This is our privilege today!

Brian Reynolds


Abba, Father, thus we call Thee,
(Hallowed name!) from day to day.
’Tis Thy children’s right to know Thee,None but children, Abba say.


R. Hawker


https://gbv-online.org/calendar/773/date/2026-07-14

For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh.

Romans 9:3 ɴᴋᴊᴠ

In the first eight chapters of his monumental Epistle of Romans, Paul unfolds his doctrine of “no difference.” Paul convincingly argues that there is no difference between Jew and Gentile: both were sinners and both are saved in the same way (Rom. 3:22–23).

However, this truth raised a question for his Jewish readers: if there is no difference between us and the Gentiles, what becomes of all the promises made to our fathers? Some of these promises gave profound predictions concerning the future of their nation. In fact, because of Paul’s teaching, many of his countrymen were rejecting the gospel, and calling him a traitor and a deceiver.

Thus Paul gives his answer to these questions in chapters 9–11. In today’s verse, he opens with a statement of his deep love for the nation: “For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren.” Like Moses before him, Paul would be willing to be cursed by God if it would save his people (Ex. 32:32). His love for them could not be doubted.

In Romans 9:4–5, Paul recounts eight privileges unique to the people of Israel: (1) the adoption; (2) the glory; (3) the covenants; (4) the law; (5) the service of God; (6) the promises; (7) the fathers; (8) and the birth of Christ! There was “no difference” when it came to salvation, but their history and calling were unique and blessed with many holy privileges!

It is important to know that despite their present unbelief, Israel is still “beloved” (Rom. 11:28–29). There is a virulent antisemitism in the world which should never be found among Christians—we are to bless and pray for the Jewish people (Gen. 12:3; Ps. 122:6). The very salvation we possess came through them. May they come to know that salvation! With this in mind, let us explore each of these eight privileges.

Brian Reynolds


https://gbv-online.org/calendar/773/date/2026-07-03

God's creation = 100 /evolution = 0
I thought I would do something different today. So often atheists say there are no “real” scientists who support young earth creation or a global flood.

That simply isn’t true.

Here is a partial list of real scientists and their credentials from CMI's website. And yes, this is only a partial list.

We are not claiming numbers equal truth. But sometimes a little pushback is needed so people can see reality for what it is and understand that this claim just doesn’t hold up.

Dr Paul Ackerman, Assistant Professor of Psychology, Wichita State University.
Dr E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr James Allan, Genetics
Dr John Ashton, Chemistry, Food technology
Dr Steve Austin, Geology
Dr S.E. Aw（胡瑞永; Pinyin Hú Ruìyǒng,) Biochemistry
Dr Geoff Barnard, Immunology
Dr Don Batten, Plant physiology
Dr Donald Baumann, Solid State Physics, Professor of Biology and Chemistry, Cedarville University
Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr Élizabeth Beauchesne Biomedical Sciences.
Dr Jerry Bergman, Psychology, Human Biology/Physiology
Dr Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr Markus Blietz, Astrophysicist
Dr Raymond G. Bohlin, Biology
Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Dr Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr David Boylan, Chemical Engineering
Dr Bernard Brandstater, Anesthesiology
Prof. Stuart Burgess, Engineering and Biomimetics, Professor of Design & Nature, Head of Department, Mechanical Engineering, University of Bristol (UK)
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr Ben Carson, Professor and chief of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins University. He has 51 honorary doctorates, including from Yale and Columbia Universities.
Dr Robert W. Carter, Marine Biology
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr Ainsley Chalmers, Biochemist, medical researcher
Dr Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr Xidong Chen, Solid State Physics, Assistant Professor of Physics, Cedarville University
Dr Donald Chittick, Physical Chemistry
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
Dr Harold Coffin, Paleontology
Dr Bob Compton, DVM, PhD
Dr Matthew Cserhati, Molecular Biology
Dr Ken Cumming, Biology
Dr Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemistry
Dr Chris Darnbrough, Biochemistry
Dr Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
Dr Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics
Dr Geoff Downes, Plant Physiology
Dr Ted Driggers, Operations research
Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research (more than 80 research papers)
Dr André Eggen, Genetics
Dr Leroy Eimers, Atmospheric Science, Professor of Physics and Mathematics, Cedarville University
Dr Dudley Eirich, Molecular biologist
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Dr Dennis Flentge, Physical Chemistry, Professor of Chemistry and Chair of the Department of Science and Mathematics, Cedarville University
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr Kenneth W. Funk, Organic Chemistry; biologically active peptide synthesis.
Dr Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr Roger G. Gallop, P.G., Geology
Dr Robert Gentry, Physics
Dr Maciej Giertych, Genetics
Dr Werner Gitt, Information Science
Dr Steven Gollmer, Atmospheric Science, Professor of Physics, Cedarville University
Dr D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
Dr Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemistry
Dr Donald Hamann, Food Science
Dr Barry Harker, Philosophy
Dr Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physics, Electromagnetics
Dr John Hartnett, Physics and Cosmology
Dr Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
Dr Joe Havel, Botanist, Silviculture, Ecophysiology
Dr George Hawke, Environmental Science
Dr Steven Hayes, Nuclear Science
Dr Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botany
Dr Larry Helmick, Organic Chemistry, Professor of Chemistry, Cedarville University
Dr Harold R. Henry, Engineering
Dr Dewey Hodges, Professor of Aerospace Engineering
Dr Joseph Henson, Entomology
Dr Jonathan Henry, Chemical Engineering, Astronomy
Dr Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacology
Dr Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
Dr Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
Dr George F. Howe, Botany
Dr Neil Huber, Physical Anthropology
Dr Russell Humphreys, Physics
Dr James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
Dr G. Charles Jackson, Science Education
Dr Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
Prof. George T. Javor, Biochemistry
Dr Pierre Jerlström, Molecular Biology
Dr Arthur Jones, Biology
Dr Raymond Jones, Agricultural Science
Dr Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logic, Formal Logic
Dr Dean Kenyon, Biology
Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
Dr David King, Astronomy.
Dr John W. Klotz, Biology
Dr Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
Dr Felix Konotey-Ahulu, Physician, leading expert on sickle-cell anemia
Dr Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Dr John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
Dr Johan Kruger, Zoology
Dr Wolfgang Kuhn, biology researcher and lecturer
Dr Heather Kuruvilla, Plant Physiology, Senior Professor of Biology, Cedarville University
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
Dr Barry Lawrence, Nuclear Engineering
Dr Matti Leisola, Biochemistry (esp. of enzymes), D.Sc. in biotechnology, Dean, Faculty of Chemical and Materials Sciences, Aalta University, Finland
Dr John G. Leslie, biochemistry, molecular biology, medicine, biblical archaeology
Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biology, Genetics
Dr Jean Lightner, Agriculture, Veterinary science
Dr Peter Line, Neuroscience
Dr Jason Lisle, Astrophysics
Dr Raúl E López, Meteorology
Dr Alan Love, Chemistry
Dr Gloria Luciani-Torres, Molecular Oncology Researcher (Cancer Biology)
Dr Heinz Lycklama, Nuclear physics and Information Technology
Dr Ian Macreadie, Molecular Biology and Microbiology
Dr John Marcus, Molecular Biology
Dr George Marshall, Opthalmology researcher
Dr James Mason, Nuclear physics
Dr Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemistry
Dr Mark McClain, Inorganic Chemistry, Associate Professor of Chemistry, Cedarville University
Dr John McEwan, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
Dr David Menton, Anatomy
Dr Angela Meyer, Plant Physiology
Dr John Meyer, Physiology
Dr Victor Meyer, Entomology, environmental science
Dr Douglas Miller, Professor of Chemistry, Cedarville University
Dr Robert T. Mitchell, Internal Medicine (specialist)
Dr Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
Dr Gina Mohammed, Plant physiology
Dr John N. Moore, Science Education
Dr John D. Morris, Geology
Dr Len Morris, Physiology
Dr Graeme Mortimer, Geology
Dr Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
Dr Ron Neller, fluvial geomorphology
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr Eric Norman, Biomedical science
Dr David Oderberg, Philosophy
Professor Douglas Oliver, Professor of Biology
Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
Dr Charles Pallaghy, Botany
Dr Gary E. Parker, Biology, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr Terry Phipps, Professor of Biology, Cedarville University
Dr Jules H. Poirier, Aeronautics, Electronics
Dr Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
Dr Graeme Quick, Engineering, former Principle Research Scientist with CSIRO (Australia)
Dr Dan Reynolds, Organic Chemistry
Dr Chad Rodekohr, Engineering, Physics
Dr Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
Dr David Rodda, PhD, Population Genetics
Dr David Rosevear, Chemistry
Dr Marcus Ross, Paleontology
Dr Ariel A. Roth, Biology
Dr Ronald G. Samec, Astronomy
Dr John Sanford, Plant science / genetics
Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemistry / spectroscopy
Dr Joachim Scheven Paleontology
Dr Ian Scott, Education
Dr Saami Shaibani, Forensic Physics
Dr Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
Dr Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
Dr Emil Silvestru, Geology/karstology
Dr Roger Simpson, Engineering
Dr Horace D. (‘Skip’) Skipper, Professor Emeritus Soil microbiology, College of Agriculture, Forestry and Life Sciences, Clemson University, SC, USA
Dr E. Norbert Smith, Zoology
Dr Andrew Snelling, Geology
Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
Dr Timothy G. Standish, Biology
Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
Dr Esther Su (苏绯云，Pinyin Sū Fēiyún), Biochemistry
Dr Dennis Sullivan, Biology, surgery, chemistry, Professor of Biology, Cedarville University
Dr Greg Tate, Plant Pathology
Dr Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
Dr Larry Thaete, Molecular and Cellular Biology and Pathobiology
Dr Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
Dr Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
Dr Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
Dr S.H. ‘Wally’ Tow (Tow Siang Hwa), retired chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Singapore (d. 8 March 2019).
Dr Royal Truman, Organic Chemistry
Dr Brandon van der Ventel, Nuclear scientist
Dr Gerald Van Dyke, Ph.D. and Professor Emeritus in Botany, North Carolina State University
Dr Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoology
Dr Joachim Vetter, Biology
Dr Erich Vorpagel, Biochemistry, Molecular Biology; computational protein function.
Dr Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineering and Geology
Dr Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineering
Dr Keith Wanser, Physics
Dr Noel Weeks, Ancient Near-East History (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
Dr Carl Werner, Biologist
Dr A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
Dr John Whitmore, Geology/Paleontology
Dr Kurt Wise, Paleontology
Dr Bryant Wood, Archaeology
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
Dr Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr Patrick Young, Chemistry and Materials Science
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
Dr Daiqing Yuan, Theoretical Physics
Dr Henry Zuill, Biology

The Authorized King James Version of 1611
1769 Edition, Red-Letter, w/Chapter Headings, Translator's Notes v1.3

The version which was destined to put the crown on nearly a century of labor, and, after extinguishing by its excellence all rivals, to print an indelible mark on English religion and English literature, came into being almost by accident. It arose out of the Hampton Court Conference, held by James I in 1604, with the object of arriving at a settlement between the Puritan and Anglican elements in the Church; but it was not one of the prime or original subjects of the conference. In the corse of discussion, Dr. Reynolds, president of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, the leader of the moderate Puritan party, referred to the imperfections and disagreements of the existing translations; and the suggestion of a new version, to be prepared by the best scholars in the country, was warmly taken up by the king. The conference, as a whole, was a failure; but James did not allow the idea of the revision to drop. He took an active part in the preparation of instructions for the work, and to him appears to be due the credit of two features which went far to secure its success. He suggested that the translation should be committed in the first instance to the universities (subject to subsequent review by the bishops and the Privy Council, which practically came to nothing), and thereby secured the services of the best scholars in the country, working in cooperation; and (on the suggestion of the bishop of London) he laid down that no marginal notes should be added, which preserved the new version from being the organ of any one party in the Church.
https://tamilbookshelf.in/bible/#bible?v=KJV&book=Genesis&ch=1

The Authorized King James Version of 1611
1769 Edition, Red-Letter, w/Chapter Headings, Translator's Notes v1.3

The version which was destined to put the crown on nearly a century of labor, and, after extinguishing by its excellence all rivals, to print an indelible mark on English religion and English literature, came into being almost by accident. It arose out of the Hampton Court Conference, held by James I in 1604, with the object of arriving at a settlement between the Puritan and Anglican elements in the Church; but it was not one of the prime or original subjects of the conference. In the corse of discussion, Dr. Reynolds, president of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, the leader of the moderate Puritan party, referred to the imperfections and disagreements of the existing translations; and the suggestion of a new version, to be prepared by the best scholars in the country, was warmly taken up by the king. The conference, as a whole, was a failure; but James did not allow the idea of the revision to drop. He took an active part in the preparation of instructions for the work, and to him appears to be due the credit of two features which went far to secure its success. He suggested that the translation should be committed in the first instance to the universities (subject to subsequent review by the bishops and the Privy Council, which practically came to nothing), and thereby secured the services of the best scholars in the country, working in cooperation; and (on the suggestion of the bishop of London) he laid down that no marginal notes should be added, which preserved the new version from being the organ of any one party in the Church.

Ultimately it was arranged that six companies of translators should be formed, two at Westminster, two at Oxford, and two at Cambridge. The companies varied in strength from 7 to 10 members, the total (though there is some little doubt with regard to a few names) being 47. The Westminster companies undertook Genesis to 2 Kings and the Epistles, the Oxford companies the Prophets and the Gospels, Acts, and Apocalypse, and the Cambridge companies 1 Chronicles to Ecclesiastes and the Apocrypha. A series of rules was drawn up for their guidance. The Bishop's Bible was to be taken as the basis. The old ecclesiastical terms were to be kept. No marginal notes were to be affixed, except for the explanation of Hebrew or Greek words. Marginal references, on the contrary, were to be supplied. As each company finished a book, it was to send it to the other companies for their consideration. Suggestions were to be invited from the clergy generally, and opinions requested on passages of special difficulty from any learned man in the land. "These translations to be used when they agree better with the text than the Bishops' Bible, namely, Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's (i.e. the Great Bible), Geneva." The translators claim further to have consulted all the available versions and commentaries in other languages, and to have repeatedly revised their own work, without grudging the time which it required. The time occupied by the whole work is stated by themselves as two years and three-quarters. The several companies appear to have begun their labors about the end of 1607, and to have taken two years in completing their several shares. A final revision, occupying nine months, was then made by a smaller body, consisting of two representatives from each company, after which it was seen through the press by Dr. Miles Smith and Bishop Bilson; and in 1611 the new version, printed by R. Barker, the king's printer, was given to the world in a large folio volume (the largest of all the series of English Bibles) of black letter type. The details of its issue are obscure. There were at least two issues in 1611, set up independently, known respectively as the "He" and "She" Bibles, from their divergence in the translation of the last words of Ruth 3:15; and bibliographers have differed as to their priority, though the general opinion is in favor of the former. 1 Some copies have a wood-block, others an engraved title-page, with different designs. The title-page was followed by the dedication to King James, which still stands in our ordinary copies of the Authorized Version, and this by the translators' preface (believed to have been written by Dr. Miles Smith), which is habitually omitted. (It is printed in the present King's Printers' Variorum Bible, and is interesting and valuable both as an example of the learning of the age and for its description of the translators' labors.) For the rest, the contents and arrangement of the Authorized Version are too well known to every reader to need description.

Nor is it necessary to dwell at length on the characteristics of the translation. Not only was it superior to all its predecessors, but its excellence was so marked that no further revision was attempted for over 250 years. Its success must be attributed to the fact which differentiated it from its predecessors, namely, that it was not the work of a single scholar (like Tyndale's, Coverdale's, and Matthew's Bibles), or of a small group (like the Geneva and Douai Bibles), or of a large number of men working independently with little supervision (like the Bishops' Bible), but was produced by the collaboration of a carefully selected band of scholars, working with ample time and with full and repeated revision. Nevertheless, it was not a new translation. It owed much to its predecessors. The translators themselves say, in their preface: "We never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, ... but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark." The description is very just. The foundations of the Authorized Version were laid by Tyndale, and a great part of his work continued through every revision. Each succeeding version added something to the original stock, Coverdale (in his own and the Great Bible) and the Genevan scholars contributing the largest share; and the crown was set upon the whole by the skilled labor of the Jacobean divines, making free use of the materials accumulated by others, and happily inspired by the gift of style which was the noblest literary achievement of the age in which they lived. A sense of the solemnity of their subject saved them from the extravagances and conceits which sometimes mar that style; and, as a result, they produced a work which, from the merely literary point of view, is the finest example of Jacobean prose, and has influenced incalculably the whole subsequent course of English literature. On the character and spiritual history of the nation it has left an even deeper mark, to which many writers have borne eloquent testimony; and if England has been, and is, a Bible-reading and Bible-loving country, it is in no small measure due to her possession of a version so nobly executed as the Authorized Version.

The history of the Authorized Version after 1611 can be briefly sketched. In spite of the name by which it is commonly known, and in spite of the statement on both title-pages of 1611 that it was "appointed to be read in churches," there is no evidence that it was ever officially authorized either by the Crown or by Convocation. Its authorization seems to have been tacit and gradual. The Bishops' Bible, hitherto the official version, ceased to be reprinted, and the Authorized Version no doubt gradually replaced it in churches as occasion arose. In domestic use its fortunes were for a time more doubtful, and for two generations it existed concurrently with the Geneva Bible; but before the century was out its predominance was assured. The first quarto and octavo editions were issued in 1612; and thenceforth editions were so numerous that it is useless to refer to any except a few of them. The early editions were not very correctly printed. In 1638 an attempt to secure a correct text was made by a small group of Cambridge scholars. In 1633 the first edition printed in Scotland was published. In 1701 Bishop Lloyd superintended the printing of an edition at Oxford, in which Archbishop Ussher's dates for Scripture chronology were printed in the margin, where they henceforth remained. In 1717 a fine edition, printed by Baskett at Oxford, earned bibliographical notoriety as "The Vinegar Bible" from a misprint in the headline over Luke 20. 2 In 1762 a carefully revised edition was published at Cambridge under the editorship of Dr. T. Paris, and a similar edition, superintended by Dr. B. Blayney, appeared at Oxford in 1769. These two editions, in which the text was carefully revised, the spelling modernized, the punctuation corrected, and considerable alteration made in the marginal notes, formed the standard for subsequent reprints of the Authorized Version, which differ in a number of details, small in importance but fairly numerous in the aggregate, from the original text of 1611. One other detail remains to be mentioned. In 1666 appeared the first edition of the Authorized Version from which the Apocrypha was omitted. It had previously been omitted from some editions of the Geneva Bible, from 1599 onwards. The Nonconformists took much objection to it, and in 1664 the Long Parliament forbade the reading of lessons from it in public; but the lectionary of the English Church always included lessons from it. The example of omission was followed in many editions subsequently. The first edition printed in America (apart from a surreptitious edition of 1752), in 1782, is without it. In 1826 the British and Foreign Bible Society, which has been one of the principal agents in the circulation of the Scriptures throughout the world, decided never in the future to print or circulate copies containing the Apocrypha; and this decision has been carried into effect ever since.



Frederic G. Kenyon (excerpt)
https://tamilbookshelf.in/bible/#bible?v=KJV&book=Genesis&ch=1