The Waldensian Bible was translated into many different languages, not only the King James Version in English.

If Ellen White stated that they only used the Textus Receptus, then I missed it. Where was that?

In spite of his great influence and authority over the translation, the finished work of the KJV translators did not satisfy Bancroft. This proud Archbishop had to make some changes in the translation before it was even published. Paine noted that Miles Smith, final Editor of the KJV with Thomas Bilson, "protested that after he and Bilson had finished, Bishop Bancroft made fourteen more changes" (MEN BEHIND THE KJV, p. 128).

Henry Jessey, a Baptist pastor in the early 1600's, complained about the KJV for its bent favoring "episcopacy," and said that Bancroft, "who was supervisor of the present translation, altered it in fourteen places to make it speak the language of prelacy" (Williams, Common English Version, p. 53). "Prelacy" refers to a system of church government by Prelates such as Archbishops and Bishops set over more than one local church.

Were these fourteen changes directly inspired or approved by God? Are they the "verbally inspired Word of God, preserved through all ages since the Apostles?" One reason to question these fourteen changes is that the changes were certainly made to support episcoplian church government views of the Church of England. The changes were also in violation of some of the translation rules for the KJV. In addition, expressed opposition by some of the KJV translators to these changes indicate that these changes were viewed wrong by these translators.

You completely ignore the final results in you eagerness to protect the integrity of the Greek text:

I am not claiming any Bible is perfect, but at least the ones of the Majority Text were done with careful and good intent with great integrity for a holy work, which cannot be said for those of the Minority Text at any level.

Johann,

Your citation makes no mention of what "fourteen changes" were made. You have only added questions to the mix here, not answers. As one who works with other translators, I can attest to the fact that every translator tends to view his or her own work as superior to that of other translators. It's just part of the nature of the work.

I have two dear friends, for example, who are involved with translating the writings of Mrs. White. Both are longtime Adventists, and both are good translators who have dedicated themselves to the work. Some years back, they each sent a copy of some of their translations to the other for editing/final check. Instead of validating each other, however, they each ended up nearly completely retranslating the other's work--putting red ink almost everywhere on it! It may easily be said that translators have as many ways of translating as there are personalities--we each have our own way of saying things.

I think it quite possible that those "fourteen changes" were of a similar nature. Even if they were something more unfaithful to the text, they could never match the errors of the modern versions which have come in from corrupted manuscripts.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Johann,

I've read your posts. I don't see anywhere in them that identifies the changes. Only a categorical "topic" for them seems to be supplied. Help me here...am I missing something?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

That's another blurry sort of response, I suppose. Please let us all know what the fourteen changes were so that we can evaluate them.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.