What God Preserving His Word in the Lineage of the King James Bible Looks Like.

[Alan Gross]

From a wonderful article titled, "Why I am a King James Only".
Why I Am King James Only

So, that's his title, but I believe he is really saying that since it is the only one left that is the least bit reliable, he used it ""Only".

Do we really need to assume he is a Ruckmanite, just because he used that wording, and are we sure we know what he means when he says that?

I believe that all he is saying, is the reason we find Modern Bibles Only proponents viciously attacking KJV Superiority folks and why they always find it to too easy as an instant default position to lump all people who prefer the King James Version, and automatically consider themselves to be justifiably rejecting them, dismissing them as nutcases and cult members, who worship the Bible Book of books, instead of God.

So, are we SURE we know what he is saying, when using the words, "King James Only"?

I believe he is saying exactly what Modern Version Only proponents hate the most and it has nothing to do with being a Peter Ruckman KJVO cult follower, or of his list of very silly, unreasonable, absurd, and ludicrous, Godless assertions.*

Is he just saying this?: this man simply rejects all Modern Versions, out of hand, as having had their underlying original texts switched out and changed to astoundingly inferior, incomplete, contradictory texts that are insufficient to satisfy the average sound Confession of Faith, such as the 1689 Baptist Confession.
...

So, this typical Christian, who prefers the KIng James Version, has simply developed a disgust for all of the Modern Versions and apart from referencing them to determine their prolific shortcomings, he has No Use for Any of Them.

That is all he and many people mean by KJVO, and not to be professing any Ruckmanites craziness, and is the very thing that Modern Version Only advocates find personally to be utterly rejecting, with their response often being to paint anyone that opposes their preferences, as being Heretics, more or less.

Their biased opinions are shortsighted, unlearned, and boring.

So, this good man, shows no signs of being a Ruckmanite KJVO wacko, but only that he has come to the conclusion that there really isn't any of the Modern Versions that qualify, to be considered for him to use as a Christian.

At the time he wrote the article, he unfortunately entitled it with the inflammatory words, "Why I am a King James Only".

When all he may be saying is, "Boy, I sure hate all the Modern Versions, compared to the King James, for a thousand, or maybe for thousands of reasons".

Is that better? Is that better understood?

Or, has he already been thoughtlessly condemned by you?

Excerpts:

"What I want to show in this section is how God preserved His Word in the lineage of the King James Bible.

"For us to see if the King James Bible is the preserved word of God, we must check verses which were used in antiquity against today’s King James Bible.

"Before we do that, I want to clarify two terms which always seem to become intertwined and confused, they are inspiration and preservation.

"Inspiration is when the authors penned the Holy Scriptures in the original writings under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

"Preservation is when those very words were copied and recopied for future generations.

"English translations are not inspired in the same way the original manuscripts were.

"What we have in the King James Bible today is the preserved Word of God and we will see how well preserved it is in the following examples."

Alan's Note: this is one example that shows us what God's Word looks like, from the standpoint of God's Words having been faithfully and consistently Preserved, as God Promised He would accomplish.

2 Timothy 4:7

(Today’s King James Bible)

"I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith:"

(1611 KJV) I haue fought a good fight, I haue finished my course, I haue kept the faith.
(1568 Bishop’s Bible) I haue fought a good fyght, I haue fulfylled my course, I haue kept ye faith.
(Geneva 1560) I haue fought a good fight, and haue finished my course: I haue kept the faith.
1549 Matthews) I have fought a good fight, and have fulfilled my course, and have kept the faith.
(1540 Great Bible) I haue fought a good fyght, I haue fullylled my course, I haue kept the fayth
(1535 Coverdale) I haue fought a good fighte, I haue fullylled my course, I haue kepte the faith
(1526 Tyndale) I have fought a good fight and have fulfilled my course and have kept the fayth.

Do you see the continuity in the transmission of 2 Timothy 4:7 from 1526 to 2008.

That means in 482 years there has been no variations in this verse simply because it is the preserved Word of God.

In fact, Let us go back even further into history to show the preservation of God’s Word is in the King James and not the modern c_________t versions.

Alan's Note: this example, in contrast, plainly demonstrates the abject failure and inexcusable Discontinuation of Preservation, prevalent and prolific throughout the entirety, of all Modern Bible versions.

Romans 16:24

2008 KJV - "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen"

Pre-350 A.D. Gothic - ansts fraujins unsaris lesuis Xristaus mjb ahmin izwaramma. Amen.

(NIV) Omitted
(NASV) [The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.]
(THE MESSAGE) Omitted
(AMP) The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ (the Messiah) be with you all. Amen (so be it).
(NLT) Omitted
(ESV) Omitted
(CEV) Omitted - Replaces verse 24 with 23
(HCSB) [The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all.]
(NCV) Omitted
(RSV) Omitted
(NAB-Roman Catholic) Omitted
(NWT-Jehovah’s Witness) Omitted

"Notice this verse was in the pre-350 A.D. Gothic version of the Bible but is omitted or bracketed in the modern versions.

"Once again we are plainly shown that the true Word of God has been preserved in the King James Bible. 2008-350 = 1658 years of preservation."

*Most believers who prefer the King James Version, as Superior to any and all Modern Bibles, (get used to it) do NOT espouse any of the (KJVO) beliefs of Ruckman that:

the KJV is doubly inspired;

the KJV is advanced revelation;

the English KJV is as or more inspired than the original language Scriptures;

the KJV can be used to correct the original language Scriptures;

there is no need whatsoever to study the Biblical languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek due to an "inspired" English translation;

the KJV cannot be improved on ...

the KJV is the only Bible that has gospel or salvific content;

those who do not use the KJV are condemned to hell; and

all non-English speaking believers must learn English to know the Truth.

To the KJV Superiority proponents, these are all just so many huge ridiculous lies.

 

[Logos1560]

Alan's Note: this is one example that shows us what God's Word looks like, from the standpoint of God's Words having been faithfully and consistently Preserved, as God Promised He would accomplish.

That means in 482 years there has been no variations in this verse simply because it is the preserved Word of God.

Do you use the fallacy of composition as you seem to attempt to take two claimed examples and from it derive a broad-sweeping absolute generalization that would not be always true?

In the KJV-only view's line of preservation, there are many variations and differences including some significant ones.

It is a verifiable fact that the 1611 KJV does not preserve each and every original-language word of Scripture. How can it truthfully be claimed that the KJV preserves original-language words of Scripture for which it gives no English word/rendering? The makers of the KJV themselves in their marginal notes gave some examples of the many original-language words of Scripture for which the KJV has no English word/rendering in its verses.

Present-day post-1900 editions of the KJV do not even preserve every English word that was in the 1611 edition of the KJV, and they add over 160 whole words that were not found in the 1611 edition.

Many examples of differences and variations in the KJV-only view's pure stream of Bibles could be given that would demonstrate any broad-sweeping absolute generalization to be incorrect.

Acts 14:23
ordained them elders by election in every congregation (Tyndale's, 1537 Matthew's, 1539 Great, 1539 Taverner's)
ordained them elders by election thru all the congregations (1535 Coverdale's)
ordained them elders by election in every church (1557 Whittingham's, 1560 Geneva, 1568 Bishops)

ordained to them priests in every church (1582 Rheims)

ordained them elders in every church (1611 KJV)

1 Kings 16:12 [1611 margin—“Heb. by the hand of”]
by the hand of Jehu the Prophet [1560 Geneva Bible; 1602 Bishops’ Bible]

by Jehu the prophet [1611 KJV]

1 Kings 17:16 [1611 margin—“Heb. by the hand of”]
by the hand of Elia [1540 Great Bible]
by the hand of Eliah [1560 Geneva Bible]
by the hand of Elias [1602 Bishops’ Bible]

by Elijah [1611 KJV]


Job 30:29
I was the brother of dragons, and the fellow of ostriches (Wycliffe's)
I am a companion of dragons and a fellow of ostriches (1535 Coverdale's, 1537 Matthew's, 1539 Great, 1539 Taverner)
I am a brother to the dragons, and a companion to the ostriches (1560 Geneva) “straussen” [ostriches] (Luther’s German)

I am a brother to dragons, and a companion to owls (KJV) ["Or, ostriches" 1611 KJV]

 

[Logos1560]

The Great Bible (the first authorized version of the Church of England and authorized by King Henry VIII) is part of the lineage of the KJV.

In several likely additions from the Latin Vulgate including three whole verses in Psalm 14 (between verses 4 and 5), an edition of the Great Bible in 1540 has over one hundred eighty words in the book of Psalms that are not found in the KJV (check and compare Ps. 13:6, 14:1, 17:9, 18:6, 19:14, 20:9, 29:1, 33:10, 38:16, 48:4, 55:23, 65:1, 73:13, 73:28, 85:8, 92:13, 95:7, 108:1, 111:10, 115:9, 118:2, 120:7, 132:4, 134:2, 136:26, 147:8, 148:5). An edition of the Great Bible has over one hundred fifty words in the book of Proverbs that are not found in the KJV (check and compare Prov. 4:27, 6:12, 12:11, 13:13, 15:5, 15:27, 16:6, 18:22). Because of possible additions from the Latin Vulgate, an edition of the Great Bible also has over one hundred words in one New Testament book (Acts) which are not found in the KJV (check and compare Acts 4:25, 4:27, 5:15, 13:30, 14:7, 15:34c, 15:41c, 18:4, 23:24c, 24:17). These textual differences (pertinent facts), involving over 400 words, were found in a reprint of one of the 1540 editions of a Great Bible so they may not be in every one of the varying editions of the Great Bible. Thus, the Great Bible, the first authorized Bible in English, would likely have hundreds of more words than the 1611 KJV.

Were these significant textual differences in this 1540 edition of the Great Bible (likely most from the Latin Vulgate) changes towards more purity or changes for the worse?

Was someone involved with the English Bibles on the KJV-only view’s good line adding to or subtracting from the word of God?

If the Latin manuscripts have signification in determining the text of Scripture as Edward Hills and David Cloud asserted in order to try to defend some readings followed in the KJV that are found in no known Greek NT manuscripts, why would these readings based on the Latin be removed?

 

[Logos1560]

Did Erasmus’ Greek manuscripts have any of the readings that he added to his Greek text by translating from an edition of the Latin Vulgate of Jerome?

Are textual differences involving whole verses or entire clauses in the varying editions of the printed Textus Receptus very slight, minor, meaningless, and insignificant?

The Greek NT manuscripts that underlie the varying TR editions differ in whether or not they include the following whole verses: Mark 11:26, Luke 17:36, Acts 8:37, 1 John 5:7. Scrivener maintained that Acts 15:34 is omitted by several manuscripts including over fifty cursives and that “Erasmus inserted it in his editions from the margin of Codex 4” (Introduction, Vol. II, p. 373).

Some other significant differences in TR editions are found involving clauses and phrases at Mark 15:3c, John 8:6c, John 8:9b, John 8:59c, John 19:38c, James 4:6b, 1 John 2:23b, Revelation 5:11b, Revelation 18:23a, and Revelation 21:26.

In the 1550 Greek text edition by Stephanus, over 2,000 differences are indicated in the textual marginal notes from only fifteen Greek manuscripts and the printed Complutensian edition.

Edward F. Hills maintained that the Textus Receptus editions of Erasmus and Stephanus and the “majority of the Greek manuscripts” have their purification at Luke 2:22 (KJV Defended, p. 221). Many of the Greek NT manuscripts that underlie the TR editions and several TR editions have the reading his father at Luke 2:33. In the case of Luke 10:22, an edition of Stephanus has a reading [“and turning to his disciples he said”] followed in the 1560 Geneva Bible that Backus reported where Beza “remarks that the phrase appears in many ancient MSS” although he omits it from his text (Reformed Roots, p. 85). Edward F. Hills declared that “Erasmus, Stephanus 1 2 3 omit this verse [Luke 17:36] with the majority of Greek manuscripts” (Believing Bible Study, p. 208). At the beginning of John 14:1, Erasmus’ text has a reading (“And he said unto his disciples”) that is not found in Beza. Concerning 1 Timothy 1:4, Edward F. Hills asserted that Stephanus and “majority of Greek manuscripts” read dispensation of God while Erasmus, Beza, and KJV read godly edifying (KJV Defended, p. 222). At Hebrews 9:1, Edward F. Hill claimed that Stephanus “reads first tabernacle, with the majority of the Greek manuscripts,” and that the KJV “omits tabernacle and regards covenant as implied” (Believing Bible Study, p. 209).

One reading followed in the KJV at Revelation 17:8 (and yet is, instead of, and shall come) is said by Edward F. Hills to be an “uncorrected printer’s error in Erasmus” (p. 83). Edward F. Hills wrote: “Here the reading kaiper estin (and yet is) seems to be a misprint for kai paresti (and is at hand), which is the reading of Code 1r, the manuscript Erasmus used in Revelation” (KJV Defended, p. 202). Jan Krans referred to this reading at Revelation 17:8 as “one of the Erasamian blunders” (Beyond what is Written, p. 54, footnote 6). Concerning Revelation 22:19, Doug Kutilek claimed: “All Greek manuscripts read ‘tree of life;’ not a single one reads ‘book of life’” (Erasmus, His Greek Text, p. 3).

 

[Logos1560]

"What I want to show in this section is how God preserved His Word in the lineage of the King James Bible.

According to the first rule for the making of the KJV, the KJV is officially a revision of the Bishops' Bible. Does this author show how God preserved His word in the Bishops' Bible, which is very important in the lineage of the KJV?

John Eadie noted: “The Bishops’ Bible has co-existing in it two peculiarities directly opposed to each other. It strives often to give the translation with a quaint literality, and yet it does not scruple to interject numerous explanatory words and clauses” (English Bible, Vol. II, p. 95). Glenn Conjurske pointed out: “One evident blemish of the Bishops’ Bible lies in its frequent flat and unnecessary additions in brackets” (Olde Paths, March, 1996, p. 57; Bible Version, p. 225). Blackford Condit maintained that “the text of the Bishops’ Bible is weakened still more by the introduction of explanatory words and phrases; a seeming attempt to expound as well as translate the original text” (History, p. 286). Concerning the Bishops‘ Bible, Scrivener asserted that “it is one of the most considerable faults of this not very successful version, that its authors assumed a liberty of running into paraphrase” (Authorized Edition, p. 62 [bold type added]).

Some of the additions may have first been added in the Great Bible or another earlier English Bible. The Bishops’ Bible has the added words “in companies” at Genesis 14:15. It added: “shall he bear out“ (Lev. 4:11), “of the altar“ (Num. 18:9), “Ye shall number the people“ (Num. 26:4), “That is to wit“ (Num. 31:43), and “as upon an horse“ (Deut. 32:26) Some other example additions include the following: “otherwise called“ (Jud. 8:35), “so shall my house be, but not“ (2 Sam. 23:4), “as namely” (1 Kings 6:29), “that is to wit” (1 Kings 9:10), “offence which Solomon hath committed“ (1 Kings 11:39), “with your cry” (1 Kings 18:27), “that came in his way” (1 Kings 20:20), “in the ceremonies“ (2 Kings 17:8), “I beseech thee” (2 Kings 19:16), “O thou king of Assyria“ (2 Kings 19:21), “even so deal with me“ (2 Chron. 2:3), and “shall this building be“ (2 Chron. 2:6). At the end of Job 9:24, it added: “that can shew the contrary.“ It added “to God” at Job 35:14. In the middle of Psalm 139:20, this addition is found: “thou art O God.“ At the end of Isaiah 1:7, it added: “in the time of war.“ After the word “replenish” at Isaiah 2:6, it added “with evils,“ and it added “the wicked ones of” before “the earth” at the end of Isaiah 2:19 and 2:21. In the middle of Isaiah 3:14, this addition is found: “and shall say to them.“ These words are found in a different size type at the end of Isaiah 3:18: “after the fashion of the moon.“ In the middle of Isaiah 8:19, these additional words are found: “then make them this answer.“ At the beginning of Jeremiah 4:22, it added: “Nevertheless, this shall come upon them.“ At Jeremiah 28:9, it has this addition: “if God hath sent them in very deed.“ It added “when ye had gotten the victory” at the end of Jeremiah 50:11. At the end of Jeremiah 50:28, it added “yea, a voice of them that cry against Babylon.“ At Ezekiel 28:14, it added this phrase: “in this dignity.“ The words “their sacrifices” were added at the end of Ezekiel 40:41. At Ezekiel 45:2, the Bishops’ Bible has the following two additions in a different size type: “in length” and “in breadth.” This chapter has another addition [“a portion shall be” (45:7)]. At the beginning of Daniel 7:20, six words were added [“I desired …to know the truth”]. After “Loruhamah” in Hosea 1:6, it added: “that is, not obtaining mercy.“ Likewise, it added after “Loammi” in Hosea 1:9: “that is, not my people.“

Would Bradley, Riplinger, and other KJV-only advocates consider the Bishops' Bible's addition at John 18:13 ["And Annas sent Christ bound unto Caiaphas the high priest"] to be a faithful, pure, or perfect translation? At John 18:22, the Bishops' Bible has the rendering "smote Jesus with a rod." The Bishops’ Bible inserted “the fishers” at Matthew 13:48. At Matthew 26:30, the Bishops’ began as follows: "when they had praised God." After “preparing” at John 19:31, it inserted “of the Sabboth.“ It added "of the synagogue" in italics or a different size type at Matthew 9:18 and 9:23, "of God" at Matthew 26:64, "of the gospel" at Mark 2:2, “from the region which is“ at Mark 3:8, “at his feet“ at Mark 3:11 and Luke 8:47, “And said“ at Mark 10:7, “of God“ at Mark 14:62, “of the city“ at Mark 15:43, “unto them“ at Luke 8:10, “of their sins” at Luke 10:13, “at the doors“ at Luke 14:35, “and no man gave unto him“ at Luke 16:21, “the means“ at John 5:16, “the means“ at John 6:57, “as though he heard them not” at John 8:6, “on high“ at John 8:28, “unto you“ at John 16:15, “any question“ at John 16:30, “unto them“ at Acts 2:41, “unto him“ at Acts 8:37, “one Scripture with another“ at Acts 9:22, “that is“ at Acts 15:22, “that is to say“ at Acts 15:29, “of the Lord“ at Acts 19:9, “that is to say“ at Acts 28:25, “the inheritance given“ at Romans 4:16, “election“ at Romans 9:16, “I mean“ at Romans 9:24, “nations“ at Romans 11:32, “not only before God, but also“ at Romans 12:17, "I did not mean" at 1 Corinthians 5:10, and “the shedding of“ at Hebrews 12:4. At the end of 1 Corinthians 9:25, it added “to obtain” before “an incorruptible” and “crown” after it. At the end of Revelation 9:11, it added “that is to say, a destroyer.“

Scrivener wrote: “In some places, they [referring to the interpolations or additions from the Latin Vulgate found in the Great Bible] are retained” in the Bishops’ Bible (Supplement, p. 96). John Eadie asserted: “While the interpolations from the Vulgate found in the Great Bible are often abandoned, some are allowed to remain” (English Bible, Vol. II, p. 97). For example, at Luke 16:21, the Bishops’ Bible kept the following added words in the Great Bible: “and no man gave unto him.” The Bishops’ Bible kept added words [“all the whole”] at John 12:19 from the Great Bible. Likewise, the added words [“not only before God, but also”] in the Great Bible at Romans 12:17 are retained in the Bishops’ Bible. Scrivener maintained that “unto them” at Matthew 26:15 is “wrongly added by Cranmer’s [Great], Bishops, [and] AV from the [Latin] Vulgate (p. 299).

Does a more detailed examination of facts or particulars from the Bishops’ Bible demonstrate that it is “the textual twin” of the KJV as Gail Riplinger claimed?

 

[Baptist4life]

Piper said: ↑
..... Why do people think they can cut and paste long detailed arguments and think anyone will read them?

I don't know, you'll have to ask Logos why he does it.

Piper, this thread is a prime example of Logos for ya. He apparently believes someone will actually take the time to read through all that copy and paste.

 

[Logos1560]

Perhaps the opening post in this thread is a prime example to what Piper actually referred to since he clearly referred to long posts made by KJV-only advocates. That long copied and pasted opening KJV-only post made claims that were not true.

Perhaps Baptist4life opposes the presenting of verifiable facts that demonstrate and prove that those claims were not true.

 

[Baptist4life]

No, what I oppose are really strange, obsessed people, who have no lives other than the KJVO issue, and you are at the top of that list! Your obsession is just plain creepy. I worry about you, I seriously do.

 

[Alan Gross]

Alan's Note: this is one example that shows us what God's Word looks like, from the standpoint of God's Words having been faithfully and consistently Preserved, as God Promised He would accomplish.

Just using the first examples from hundreds in the New Testament,
here is A.) the consistency of the versions in the line of Preservation:

Matthew 1:25

(KJV) And knew her not
till she had brought forth her firstborn son:
and he called his name JESUS.

(1611 KJV) And knewe her not,
till shee had brought forth her first borne sonne,
and he called his name Iesus.

(1587 Geneva Bible) But he knew her not,
til she had broght forth her first borne sonne, & he called his name Iesus.

(1526 Tyndale) and knewe her not tyll
she had brought forth hir fyrst sonne and called hys name Iesus.

And B.) The consistency of the change from the Preserved text,
contained in all modern bibles;

(1901 ASV) and knew her not till she had brought forth a son:
and he called his name JESUS.

(CEB) But he didn’t have sexual relations with her
until she gave birth to a son. Joseph called him Jesus.

(CEV) But they did not sleep together before her baby was born.
Then Joseph named him Jesus.

(ERV) But Joseph did not have sexual relations with her
until her son was born. And he named him Jesus.

(ESV) but knew her not until she had given birth to a son.
And he called his name Jesus.

(GNB) But he had no sexual relations with her
before she gave birth to her son. And Joseph named him Jesus.

(HCSB) but did not know her intimately
until she gave birth to a son. And he named Him Jesus.

(NASB) But he had no union with her
until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

(NIV) But he had no union with her
until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

(RSV) but knew her not
until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus.

(NRSV) but had no marital relations with her
until she had borne a son; and he named him Jesus.

(NAB-Roman Catholic) He had no relations with her
until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.

(NWT-Jehovah’s Witness) But he had no intercourse with her
until she gave birth to a son; and he called his name Jesus.

then seriously, C.) While the modern bibles are consistent
in making a change from the KJV, this change, among hundreds of others,
now agree more with the NSB Roman Catholic
and The Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation.

What's going on there?

 

[Logos1560]

Just using the first examples from hundreds in the New Testament,
here is A.) the consistency of the versions in the line of Preservation:

What's going on there?

What's going on with your inconsistent, partial examples that ignore and avoid all the actual inconsistencies and significant differences in the versions in the claimed line of preservation. You dodge and ignore the examples that contradict your claims. You fail to correct the incorrect claims in the article that you copied. You have not proven complete consistency in the versions in the line of preservation. The versions in the line of preservation do not lead to a modern KJV-only view.

Many examples could be given where the KJV borrowed renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament, making it different from all the versions in the line of preservation.

Many pages of examples could be given where the NKJV agrees with accurate renderings in the 1560 Geneva Bible while the KJV is the one which differs.

 

[Logos1560]

Is Jerome's Latin Vulgate part of the line of preservation since it affected some of the textual criticism decisions and translation decisions involved in the making of the KJV? The Church of England makers of the KJV borrowed many renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament, which was translated from an edition of Jerome's Latin Vulgate NT.

KJV translator John Bois (1560-1643) was known for his defense of Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. Alexander McClure observed that John Bois had "a double share" in the translation of the KJV--first in the Cambridge company that translated the Apocrypha and then on the Cambridge company that translated 1 Chronicles to Song of Solomon (KJV Translators, p. 203). Gustavus Paine pointed out that Bois also "played an important part in the final revision of the entire Bible" (Men Behind the KJV, p. 61).

The reference work The Dictionary of National Biography noted that Bois wrote a manuscript that "consists of brief critical notes, in which the renderings of the Vulgate are in the main defended, but Bois frequently proposes more exact translations of his own, both Latin and English" (p. 775). Austin Allibone quoted Orme as writing the following about John Bois: "his defences of the Latin Vulgate are often ingenious and important" (Critical Dictionary of English Literature, p. 233). John McClintock confirmed that Bois' only published work was "a vindication of the Vulgate version of the New Testament" (Cyclopaedia, I, p. 869). This manuscript written at the request of Bishop Andrewes would be published in 1655 and was entitled The Collatio Veteris Interpretis cum Beza. Nicholas Hardy noted that “Andrewes was the patron who commissioned the work” of John Bois—“a defense of the Vulgate version of the New Testament against the revisions of modern Latin translations from Erasmus to Beza” (Feingold, Labourers, p. 309). Scrivener observed: “Adopting the Vulgate Latin as his standard, he [Bois] compares it with the revisions of Erasmus, Piscator, Beza, and occasionally of one or two others” for the first five books of the New Testament (Supplement, I, p. 72). Scrivener added: “Beza is the chief, I might almost say, the sole object of Bois’s attack” (p. 72). Scrivener maintained that “the great end of the Collatio is to vindicate the rendering of the old version [the Latin Vulgate]“ (p. 72). Scrivener asserted that “this irrational desire of maintaining the integrity of the version [the Latin Vulgate] against the sense of the original disfigures every page of his book” (p. 73).

John Bois is said to have been one of the editors of the 1638 Cambridge standard edition of the KJV along with KJV translator Samuel Ward (1572?-1643), Thomas Goad (1576-1638), and Joseph Mede or Mead (1586-1638).

Ferrell described Bois as "a staunch defender of the traditions retained in the Book of Common Prayer" (Government by Polemic, p. 107).