In my study at home I have more than a hundred different versions and editions of the Bible. Some of the more recent ones are even paperback! Yet my collection is far from complete.

No one seems to know exactly how many English translations have appeared. I have a list of at least two hundred of the New Testament. There are many more of individual New Testament books. Unfortunately, there are far fewer translations of the Old.

Some sincere Bible students find it rather disconcerting that there should be so many different versions of the Scriptures. And almost every year sees the publication of yet another.

Can all these translations and revisions rightfully claim to be the Word of God? Can they all be trusted?

Visitors to my study often ask, "Which translation do you like best? Which one do you consider the most authentic?"

Naturally the most authentic Bible is the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek–so far as it has been possible to recover the original wording from the manuscripts and other sources.

But few people have the time to study the Biblical languages. Nor is it necessary that they should.

For this we owe eternal gratitude to the many noble scholars who through the centuries have taken upon themselves the task of translating the Bible into the languages of the world.

Some books of the Bible have been translated into more than a thousand languages other than our own. Can all these translations claim to be the Word of God? Or have only the English-speaking people been favored with the true Bible?

When people in Turkey, in Ethiopia, in Iceland, in Korea read their Bibles in their native tongues, are they reading the Word of God as much as we are when we open one of the English-language versions?

They surely are. There is only one Bible, but it exists in many languages.

One of the most interesting accounts of the work of translating the Bible into the languages of earth was published in 1952. It was written by the secretary for versions of the American Bible Society, Eugene A. Nida. He titled his book God's Word in Man's Language.

Dr. Nida describes his work of assisting missionaries in the translation of the Bible into the languages of the people they have gone out to serve. Frequently they run into extraordinary difficulties in representing the Biblical ideas in languages that have no equivalent idioms. Sometimes very interesting modifications have to be made.

He cites for example the words of Jesus, "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock." Revelation 3:20. According to the custom in one part of the world, only a thief would knock. A friend would announce his presence by calling. Thus the memorable phrase has been suitably altered–but the essential meaning is still the same.

After many years of experience Dr. Nida can still say that though there are innumerable translations, they are all the Word of God–but in man's language.

In no other language have there appeared so many different translations and revisions as in English.

The first complete English Bible was the work of Wycliffe and his followers. It appeared in England in 1382.

In those days the original languages of the Bible were not known in the West. In fact, Greek was first taught at Oxford University in the same year that Columbus made his great discovery, 1492! Consequently, Wycliffe had to base his translation on the Latin Vulgate, already a translation itself.

Printing had not yet been invented, either. So the entire Bible was written out by hand.

Wycliffe has been called "The Morning Star of the Reformation" and not without due cause. He knew that the people of England must have the Bible in their own common language if they were to learn the truth for themselves.

The idea that mere laymen should have free access to the Scriptures was considered highly dangerous by the church authorities, and Wycliffe was bitterly opposed in his work. Nevertheless, he proceeded with the translation, regardless of the great personal risk. He died of a stroke, but after his death the authorities ordered his body exhumed and burned.

More than a century passed before the appearance of another English Bible.

In 1525–again in the face of violent opposition–William Tyndale produced his remarkably accurate modern-speech New Testament. This time it was translated from the Greek. It was a very attractive publication. The text was arranged in paragraphs. There were no verse divisions, for these had not yet been invented

Tyndale did not live to complete his work on the Old Testament, most of which he translated while in prison. While he was a refugee in Europe, copies of Tyndale's New Testament were publicly burned as fast as they arrived back in England. Finally he was arrested, strangled, and burned at the stake.

Of the estimated 18,000 copies of Tyndale's New Testament printed between 1525 and 1528 only two remain today–so determined were the efforts to stamp out his "heretical" version. Fortunately, as much as ninety percent of Tyndale's wonderful work has been preserved in the wording of the King James Bible.

Meanwhile, in 1522 Luther published his excellent German New Testament, followed by the Old Testament in 1534. He faced the same opposition that seems to greet any important new version of the Bible.

To illustrate the bigotry that so often seems to produce such opposition to new Bible translations, here is the criticism that Tyndale's enemy Cochlaeus leveled against Luther's Bible.

"The New Testament translated by Luther into his native tongue is in truth the food of death, the fuel of sin, the veil of malice, the pretext of false liberty, the protection of disobedience, the corruption of discipline, the depravity of morals, the termination of concord, the death of honesty, the wellspring of vices, the disease of virtues, the instigation of rebellion, the milk of pride, the nourishment of contempt, the death of peace, the destruction of charity, the enemy of unity, the murder of truth!"

If this sounds unbelievable, just recall the intemperate language that greeted the American Revised Standard Version in 1952.

Even before Tyndale was executed, the religious climate of England was beginning to change. Other versions began to appear at short intervals. Coverdale's in 1535, Rogers' in 1537.

In 1539 there was published the first "authorized" English Bible. It was called the Great Bible, in view of its considerable size. Since it was substantially a revision of Tyndale, perhaps it should be known as the first authorized English revision.

Other versions continued to appear during the sixteenth century. After 1557 they all contained verse divisions.

'These 7,959 little verse paragraphs were arranged by a man named Stephanus during a horseback journey from Paris to Lyons. Some unfortunate divisions would suggest that at least some of the work may have been done on the horse!

Take for example Revelation 20:55. "But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection." The unfortunate arrangement of these two sentences in the same verse would suggested that the first resurrection is of the wicked and occurs at the end of the millennium!

But one need never be tied to the verse divisions. They have no authority in themselves, and they should cause no difficulty to the reader who is careful to study the whole context.

The same is true of the chapter divisions. These were probably introduced about 1228 by Stephen Langton, a teacher in the University of Paris and later archbishop of Canterbury.

One of the most notable sixteenth century Bibles was the Geneva Version of 1560. It was prepared by the Calvinist refugees from England who had fled to Geneva during the reign of Mary. This is the version known as "the Breeches Bible." For where the King James Version reports that Adam and Eve sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves "aprons," the Geneva Bible describes the garments as "breeches."

This was a very popular version and offered strong competition to the later King James Version. It was much smaller and less expensive. Besides, it contained some most interesting Protestant notes about Roman Catholics.

Eight years later, in 1568, came the second authorized revised version. It was called the Bishops' Bible, since so many church dignitaries had a part in the work. Their revision became the chief basis of the King James Version.

At about this time it was becoming a matter of concern to the Roman Catholic Church that so many of the faithful were making use of Protestant versions. This led to the publication of the first Roman Catholic English Bible, the New Testament in 1582, the Old in 1610.

The work was done in the cities of Rheims and Douay, hence this Bible is known as the Rheims-Douay Version, or sometimes just the Douay Version. Since it was translated from the official Bible of the Roman Church, the Latin Vulgate, the Rheims-Douay was actually a translation of a translation. Nevertheless, it was a faithful version.

Sometimes one hears stories about serious changes made in the Catholic bible. These are not true. The Ten Commandments, for example, may be quoted in abbreviated form in the catechism, but they are given in full in Exodus 20.

Equally unfounded charges of corruption were leveled by the Douay translators against the Bible versions they sought to replace. They denounced them as "false translations" and accused their makers of "corrupting both the letter and the sense by false translation, adding, detracting, altering, transposing, pointing and all other guileful means, specially where it serveth for the advantage of their private opinions."

It was the expressed hope of the Douay editors that their more trustworthy version would lead the faithful to "lay away at least such their impure versions as hitherto you have been forced to occupy."

That the version should be readable and easy to understand was not a concern of the Rheims-Douay committee, as they freely admit. Where, for example, the King James Version refers to "things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth," the 1582 Rheims offers "the celestials, terrestrials, and infernals." Philippians 2:10.

Where Paul speaks of Jesus "emptying Himself," the Rheims translates, "He exinanited Himself." Philippians 2:7.

As might be expected, following so closely on the heels of the Geneva Bible with its outspoken notes, the Douay replied in kind and at length in the margin.

Actually all these sixteenth century Bibles were faithfully accurate translations. But most of them were blighted by the inclusion of very interesting but rather inflammatory doctrinal notes.

Tyndale, for example, observed in the margin opposite the story of the golden calf, "The Pope's bull slayeth more than Aaron's calf." This was hardly calculated to abate the fierce opposition he was already experiencing.

In a 1549 printing of the 1537 Rogers Bible, I discovered a remarkable note. Opposite Peter's instruction that wives should be in subjection to their husbands, the margin adds: "He dwelleth with his wife according to knowledge, that taketh her as a necessary helper and not as a bond servant or a bond slave. And if she be not obedient and helpful unto him endeavoreth to beat the fear of God into her head, that thereby she may be compelled to learn her duty and do it."

What if the 1549 Rogers Bible had become our common version today!

In the Geneva Bible there is a note for Revelation 13:18 explaining that 666, the number of beast, obviously refers to the papacy.

In the margin of the Rheims-Douay appears an extended reply to the effect that while it could readily be shown that the number refers to Martin Luther, the translators would not deign to do him this honor, since he was but a forerunner of the antichrist.

Then came 1604. Under the sponsorship of King James, plans were laid for the preparation of a third official revised version.

The king had commanded that "one principle good one" be prepared, a version "not justly to be excepted against." It was to be based on the best of its predecessors, especially the Bishops' Bible, and it was to contain no doctrinal notes.

Thus was produced in 1611 the famous King James Version, by far the most influential of all the versions of the English Bible. It is frequently referred to as "the Authorized Version." Actually, no record of its authorization has ever been found. And since it was a revision rather than a new translation, perhaps the most precise name would be "the King James Revised Version."

How different was that first edition from our modern printings! It was of immense size, weighing more than twenty pounds. Imagine taking a copy with you to church! The spelling and punctuation look very old-fashioned to us now. Next time you see a candy store quaintly named "Ye Olde Sweete Shoppe," remind yourself that the original King James Version was in that style.

There were no dates in the center column. Archbishop Ussher had not yet developed his chronology.

There were far fewer words in italics and fewer cross references in the margin. Most of the ones we have today were added later. The chapter summaries and column headings are also different now.

For many years the King James Bible contained the books of the Apocrypha. All English Bibles, whether Protestant or Catholic, used to include these extra books. The only difference was that Protestant versions followed Luther's bold innovation of grouping these books together between the Testaments, whereas Catholic Bibles left them scattered among the other books as traditionally placed in the ancient Greek Septuagint.

In the front of the 1611 edition there were many pages of material no longer included–genealogies, calendars, "An almanacke for XXXIX yeers," "Proper Lessons to bee read ... on the Sundayes throughout the yeere," et cetera.

One section begins, "These to be observed for Holy dayes, and none other. That is to say: All Sundayes in the yeere.

The original King James Version specifically enjoined the keeping of Sunday.

A most important change in modern editions of the 1611 version is the dropping of the preface, a very enlightening document. Goodspeed tried for years to have the omission corrected, but without success. This preface tells a surprising story of strong opposition to the King James Version when it first appeared.

One might naturally suppose that the people of England were waiting with keen anticipation for the appearance of this important revision. But even before publication the committee was under heavy criticism for presuming to revise the English Bible at all.

The Bishops' Bible of 1568 (the second authorized version) and the Geneva Bible of 1560 had by now become widely accepted in Britain. The possibility that the familiar wording of these established versions might be modified in the 1611 revision was viewed with widespread alarm.

Many years later, it is said, the Pilgrim Fathers refused to allow a copy of the King James Version on board the Mayflower because they considered it a newfangled translation. The Geneva Bible was their official version.

In an effort to allay suspicion, the King James committee appointed Miles Smith, one of their number and later Bishop of Gloucester, to write a suitable preface in explanation and defense of their new version. He entitled the document "The Translators to the Reader."

"Zeal to promote the common good," he began, "whether it be by devising any thing our selves, or revising that which hath been laboured by others, deserveth certainly much respect and esteeme, but yet findeth but cold intertainment in the world....

"For he that medleth with mens Religion in any part, medleth with their custome, nay with their freehold, and though they find no content in that which they have, yet they cannot abide to heare of altering....

"Many mens mouths have bene open a good while (and yet are not stopped) with speeches about the Translation so long in hand...: and aske what may be the reason, what the necessitie of the employment: Hath the Church bene deceived, say they, all this while?... Was their Translation good before? Why doe they now mend it? Was it not good? Why then was it obtruded to the people?

Even though the King James translators were under a measure of public condemnation themselves, they spoke only with great respect of the Bible versions which had appeared before their time.

"We are so farre off from condemning any of their labours that traveiled before us in this kinde, either in this land or beyond the sea, either in King Henries time, or King Edwards ... or Queene Elizabeths of ever-renouned memorie, that we acknowledge them to have bene raised up of God, for the building and furnishing of his Church, and that they deserve to be had of us and of posterity in everlasting remembrance.... Therefore blessed be they, and most honoured be their name, that breake the ice, and give the onset upon that which helpeth forward to the saving of souls. Now what can bee more available thereto, than to deliver Gods booke unto Gods people in a tongue which they can understand? ... Yet for all that, as nothing is begun and perficted at the same time, and the latter thoughts are thought to be wiser: so, if we building upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labours, doe endeavour to make that better which they left so good; no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us; they, we perswade our selves, if they were alive, would thank us."

But such appreciation was not immediately forthcoming from the British public. The appearance of another revision only brought confusion to many of the unlearned. How could these different translations all claim to be the Word of God?

To this the King James Committee replied with great skill and wisdom:

"Wee do not deny, nay wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession... containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the Kings Speech, which hee uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian and Latine, is still the Kings Speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expresly for sense every where.... No cause therefore why the word translated should bee denied to be the word, or forbidden to be currant, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it."

Everyone would do well to share this generous regard for other versions. Indeed it is a strange paradox to see a defender of the King James Version making disparaging remarks about other translations. This was not the attitude of the 1611 committee.

The King James revisers were grateful for all the versions that had preceded them. Their only goal was to keep the English Bible up to date.

How they would rejoice to see the versions of our day! How attractively they are printed, how easy they are to read, how inexpensive they are to buy!

A copy of the excellent 1966 Today's English Version of the New Testament can be bought for only a few cents. The 1611 King James Version cost a fortune.

It is true that not all versions are translated "so fitly for phrase, nor so expresly for sense, everywhere." It is possible to find "imperfections and blemishes" in every one of them.

But as the King James scholars also observed in their preface, the kingdom of God is not words and syllables. The truth about God remains eternally the same, in spite of the inadequacy of human language to describe Him.

The very contrast between the greatness of God and the limitations of human speech makes variety in Biblical translation highly desirable–in fact, essential.

Hats off to the King James translators!

Their version now looks rather quaint. But their understanding of the purpose of God's Word is as modern as today.

You can trust translations published by such men.

–A Graham Maxwell, excerpt from You Can Trust the Bible © 1967, Pacific Press Publishing Association.