Legally Blonde, the book by Amanda Brown, has been masterfully adapted as both a major motion picture and a Broadway play. Both adaptations of this story have a similar plot breakdown and many of the same settings. The dramatic production, by necessity, had fewer characters; however all of the main characters essential to the story remained the same in both works. The dramatic work is a musical which allowed it to trade complex settings and scenery with deep emotions. Although the two works were almost identical in length, the musical was more entertaining, while the motion picture allowed for a more complex storyline and more characters.

The plot of Legally Blonde is in classic form. It starts with a short exposition explaining the background of the story and informing us that Elle is about to be engaged. Then during the crisis we find out that she actually gets dumped for a more serious girl. The story climaxes with Elle winning the murder trial and saving the day. It resolves with Callahan getting fired, Warner getting rejected and Elle getting together with Emmett. There are many static, flat characters in this film such as Professor Callahan, the UPS Guy, and Warner Huntington, III. However, there are also several dynamic, flat characters as well including Paulette Bonafonte, who gains self confidence with the help of Elle. There is also Vivian Kensington, who at first is Elle’s foil, but later becomes her friend. Elle, of course, is a round character. She is a static character because she remains true to herself and does not let others force her into their mold. She refuses to trade her morals for a successful job at Callahan’s Firm and keeps the trust of her client against the advice of her legal mentors. Elle was an admired character because she was herself and didn’t change.

The dramatic adaptation of Legally Blonde is a work that interacts with the audience much more profoundly than the film version was able to. This is due mainly to the fact that the Broadway production is a musical with rhyming dialogue between characters and music that sets the emotional stage. The settings of the musical were also critical to the work. For instance, in one scene the sorority sisters are all excited about Elle getting engaged. During this scene each sister sings her line after popping out of a life size window in the two story stage prop. This simple stage setting was critical to portraying the unity and peppiness of the sorority. The stage production did not have the resources or ability to show all of the physical settings of the story, a fact which seemed to be one of the reasons that the plot was different in the play. They did, however, effectively use techniques such as spotlighting and audience redirection to keep the story and settings flowing. The play also uniquely used a purple lighting effect to indicate to the audience that the sorority trio later in the play was in Elle’s imagination rather than physically in the scene.

I believe the greatest connection between Legally Blonde and another work is its relationship to Trifles by Susan Glaspell. Both works have a relatively simplistic plot with a fairly predictable conclusion. More importantly, both seem to be written from a feminist perspective. Legally Blonde has the cliché dumb blonde who turns out to be smarter than the lawyers around her. Trifles is about two unassuming housewives simply at the crime scene because of their husbands. However, it is they, not their husbands, who figure out the crime and save the day while at the same time saving their likeminded counterpart who is in legal trouble (another parallel with Legally Blonde). Both works have the same basic plot: an unlikely girl overcomes the preconceived assumptions about her and figures out the crime before those men around her whose job it is to do so. She then gains the trust and saves the reputation of her counterpart. It is this common theme which leads me to believe that both of these works are from the same feminist perspective. Even though my mindset starting both works was less than optimistic, they both turned out to be entertaining and surprisingly well written.

In conclusion, both the dramatic and film adaptations of Legally Blonde were unexpectedly engaging. The plot, especially of the play, effectively immersed the audience in the story and by the end of the production the audience too was happy for Elle’s victory. Viewing both the Broadway play and the film version of this story allowed for a much deeper understanding of the differences, as well as the strengths and weaknesses, of each venue. This was a very effective way to learn an appreciation for the many forms that a single story may take and see the interpretation that each director seeks to convey to the audience.

In 1892 Charlotte Perkins Gilman wrote The Yellow Wallpaper. It is the story about an unidentified woman, who I presume is named Jane, and her husband John. This fictional story, in classic form, has a plot, a setting, a cast of characters, and a point of view in which the story is told. However, it is the way in which the story is told and the unexpected conclusion of the story that have made it an important piece of 19^th century fiction.

The Yellow Wallpaper portrays a very common view of 19^th century medicine and culture. The conflict of this story is the struggle of Jane against her husband and then later her struggle against the wallpaper itself. As the protagonist of the story, Jane faces the opposition of the first antagonist, her husband. This story is an insight into a time in which mental disease was poorly understood and it was common for those who were sick to just be locked away. This is specifically what has happened to our main character. She has been taken to a house in the woods and virtually locked in a second floor room, which even had bars on the windows. She is looked after by her husband John’s sister, Jennie. The story has a gradual progression toward a climax, as we first hear only a mere mention of the wallpaper in the narrator’s first writing but toward the end of the story we hear only about the wallpaper. The climax of the story is when we discover that the narrator has now completely gone crazy and tears off all the wallpaper so that she can never be put back in her prison. This story begins in medias res, with the story picking up when the narrator has just arrived for a summer stay at a rented home. The plot, however, is dependent upon the setting of the story, without which the story would not be believable.

The setting of this story takes place during the summer in a rented home that John has acquired so that the narrator may rest and get well again. The story takes place about the time in which it was written, in the late 19^th century. The house is a colonial mansion, which our narrator quickly tells us she thinks is haunted. It is in a rural setting surrounded by gardens and woods with “a lovely shaded winding road” leading up to the mansion. The main setting, which the narrator describes, is the room in which she stays. She goes into explicit detail as she carefully describes the yellow wallpaper which consumes more and more of her attention. The wallpaper becomes a moving prison to our main character, while other characters, like John, barely seem to notice its presence.

There are not many characters in this story, but each one plays a vital role in giving the reader insight into the mind of the writer and allowing the reader to come to a deeper understanding of the meaning of the story. Jennie, a flat character and foil of the main character, is the main character’s sister-in-law and is the caretaker of the home. She is the “perfect and enthusiastic housekeeper and hopes for no better profession” who serves as a substitute wife for John’s traditional family view. She is the imprisoned woman who is perfectly fine with her prison, even blaming the narrator’s sickness on her untraditional thinking and writing. John, who is also a flat character, is the main character’s husband and is the archetype of the 19^th century white male. He is a successful “practical physician” who treats his wife more like a patient than he does an equal partner. John is a representative image of the dominant sunlight, which in the story keeps the woman behind strict bars and prevents her from being free or creative. Though the narrator never explicitly tells us her name, the very end of the story says, “’I’ve got out at last,’ said I, ‘in spite of you and Jane. And I’ve pulled off most of the paper, so you can’t put me back!’” This is a clear indication to me that the narrator’s name is Jane, as revealed by the crazy woman (Jane) who now thinks she was the one in the wallpaper. The narrator of the story, Jane, is the main character and is a round character that is fully developed. She is representative of the woman imprisoned, unsatisfied with being merely the submissive housekeeper. Jane is like the less dominant moon, which in the story allows the bars of the wallpaper to move and free the woman in the wallpaper from her daytime prison. We are given an insight into Jane’s mind and opinions through her writings in her journal.

This story is told in first-person narration. However, it is not in traditional story form, but it is constructed as if we are reading the hidden journal of the Jane who is telling, us alone, all her intimate thoughts. This also allows for the time-lapse in which the story skips over weeks at a time allowing the reader to gain an understanding of what is going on without having to read mundane and unimportant details. The chronological order of the journal also lends to it appearing as if it could be an actual journal the audience is reading.

Although The Yellow Wallpaper has all the components of the average fictional story such as plot, a setting, characters, and is even told in a fairly common point of view, the brilliant writing of the story combined with the unique way in which it is presented, make for an exciting story that keeps the reader’s attention. The story is also a deep insight into the author’s world and time revealing her own personal point of view. It is this creative writing, coupled with deep meaning and veiled in captivating writing, which assures this literary work will continue to remain a hallmark of fiction.

Two of America’s greatest writers are considered to be Ralph Waldo Emerson and Edgar Allan Poe. This is because they were able to express different emotions into their writings. Each writer, born and raised in different backgrounds, lived lives that would not mirror each other.

Emerson lived the more religious life, whether it was as a preacher, or leading the movement of transcendentalism; while Poe lived a life of depression haunted by the deaths of his loved ones. Poe lived a very wealthy life, inheriting money from the death of his wife. To understand their views in each other writings, "The Poet" and "The Fall of the House of Usher," it helps to see the perspectives from which each viewed life. Emerson’s idealized Poet and Poe’s Roderick Usher are on opposite sides of the spectrum, but do share some similarities. Emerson’s "The Poet" is a very optimistic view of life and poetry, while Poe’s "The Fall of the House of Usher" is more pessimistic and gloomy. The Poet and Roderick Usher share an appreciation of the arts and their thoughts of whom they represent, yet differ in the Poet’s optimistic views that feed his ego and Usher’s pessimistic look on life.

Roderick Usher suffers from an illness that leaves him extremely weak, yet when his friend visits him, still has enough time to paint and play the guitar. Even with all that surrounds him such as his illness, his sister’s body, and his dilapidated mansion, Usher was still able to enjoy an artistic side. The Poet, as Emerson writes, discusses that creativity needs to be an essential part of a poet’s life. Emerson writes, "Those who are esteemed umpires of taste, are often persons who have acquired some knowledge of admired pictures or sculptures, and have an inclination for whatever is elegant; but if you inquire whether they are beautiful souls, and whether their own acts are like fair pictures, you learn that they are selfish and sensual". In this quote Emerson is pointing out that although these people may have taste, they have no substance. This creativity helps boost the already optimistic Poet that Emerson describes, and seems to be the only light that shines through Roderick Usher’s dark and gloomy life. Poe writes, "We painted and read together –or I listened, as if in a dream, to the wild improvisations of his speaking guitar".

The house of Usher becomes a character of its own as its shabby look takes on the appearance of its master, Roderick Usher. Poe describes Usher as having large, luminous eyes, a molded chin, thin lips and a delicate nose. Usher is weak from his illness, and lives in the mansion that his family has lived in for generations. Since Usher hasn’t left the house in sometime, the mansion begins to rot. Usher’s state of mind makes him think that he is a representative of the house, as it slowly begins to crumble and die. Usher says in describing the house, ". . . an influence which some peculiarities in the mere form and substance of his family mansion, had, by dint of long sufferance, he said, obtained over his spirit – an effect which physique of the gray walls and turrets, and of the dim tarn into which they all looked down, had, at length, brought about upon the morale of his existence". The Poet, as well as Usher, believes that he is representing something – this time, man. Emerson writes, "The breadth of the problem is great, for the poet is representative. He stands among partial men for the complete man, and apprises us not of his wealth, but of the commonwealth". The Poet believes he represents man, and he feels he is what man should be. While the Poet and Usher represent two completely different ideas, they are bonded by that feeling of representing something.

Ralph Waldo Emerson’s "The Poet" expresses a great deal of optimistic behavior to everything life hands him. The Poet believes that the love for truth, good, and beauty are equal and essential to live his life. This optimistic view of life by the Poet is only feeding his ever growing ego. The Poet thinks of himself as a teacher, or in Emerson’s words, a doctor. The Poet may not be a doctor or teacher, and deep down, he has to know that, but to refer to himself as that, is only inflating his self-image. Another ego booster for the Poet is that he says he is able to connect with nature and every artificial thing and bring them together, something that God cannot do. While the Poet is extremely optimistic and has quite the ego, Roderick Usher is very different. Poe writes, "And thus, as a closer and still closer intimacy admitted me more unreservedly into the recesses of his spirit, the more bitterly did I perceive the futility of all attempt at cheering a mind from which darkness, as if an inherent positive quality, poured forth upon all objects of the moral and physical universe, in one unceasing radiation of gloom".

The Poet and Roderick Usher share some similarities and differences but there is no doubt that these two are heading in two directions. The Poet is about the true poet and not about men of poetic talents or of industry and skill meter. Roderick Usher was a defeated man, but he was able to still enjoy a few artistic things. While they could be considered poets on the rise, Emerson’s "The Poet" and Poe’s "The Fall of the House of Usher" showcase some similarities and differences.

Anne Bradstreet accepted the tenets of Puritanism and was a very religious person. Anti-Puritan themes are, however, to be found in her poetry in terms of her religious doubts, and her expression of personal emotions and thoughts. She did not write to preach or teach, as Puritan writers were instructed to, but to express herself. It is this personal expression that forms the basis of the heretical elements in her poetry.

To understand why personal expression may be considered heretical, the society in which Bradstreet lived and wrote must be examined in order to comprehend what kinds of human activities and behaviors were acceptable and how Bradstreet deviated from these behaviors.

Bradstreet was not truly unorthodox in that she did not dissent from accepted beliefs and doctrine. She was a woman of the 17th Century and lived in a male dominated, intensely religious society. She lived within the limitations not only of the beliefs and standards of her society, but of her sex. A woman’s place was definitely in the home in Colonial America. The experiences of women were considered narrow and trivial in comparison with men’s.

Puritanism was more than a religious belief; it was a way of life. Aside from a literal belief in the Bible, Puritans wholly accepted the doctrines of
John Calvin and his stern legalistic theology. The Puritans held that religion should permeate every phase of living. The purpose of life was to do God’s will; everything else was subordinate to this basic doctrine. New England was founded at a time when almost everyone who could read at all, read poetry, and many attempted to write it. Poetry in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, like other manifestations of intellectual life in the 17^th Century, was dominated by religion.

Unlike most young women, Anne Bradstreet was well educated. At age 16 she married Simon Bradstreet, a graduate of Emmanuel College. Two years later, the Bradstreets and Dudleys came to Massachusetts with John Winthrop and other prominent settlers of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Anne’s husband became a magistrate, and later a Governor as did her father.

Soon after arriving in Massachusetts, Anne wrote: "I changed my condition ad was married, and came into this Country, where I found a new world and new manners, at which my heart rose. But after I was convinced it was the way of God".

The Bradstreets had eight children, and Anne was a devoted wife and mother as well as a busy one. From the start, however, she made the time to write poetry. Typically, Anne Bradstreet did not seek to have her poetry published as a male poet would have. Her early poems were published, however, when her brother-in-law, John Woordbridge, took a manuscript of her poems to London and had them printed in 1650. The edition contained many errors, and was the inspiration for a poem on the subject by Bradstreet.

Bradstreet’s poems reveal that she valued herself as a woman, as a wife and mother. She wrote of daily experiences, her love for her children and husband, the beautiful New England landscape, the small pleasures of life and domesticity. Religion was a dominant theme in her work, including her religious doubts. A feminine consciousness can also be found in her work. As she wrote in The Prologue:

I am obnoxious to each carping tongue
Who says my hand a needle better fits,
A poet’s pen all scorn I should thus wrong,
For such despite they cast on female wits:
If what I do prove well, it won’t advance,
They’ll say it’s stol’n, or else it was by chance.

The heretical themes in Bradstreet’s poetry, however, spring from her domestic poems which reveal passionate love for her husband, Simon, maternal devotion and pleasure in worldly goods, and from her religious poems, which reveal her conflicts and doubts.

Many of Bradstreet’s poems reveal that she could not accept in entire submissiveness the sterner aspects of New England Puritanism. The last stanza of her poem on the death of Elizabeth Bradstreet, her grandchild, illustrates this:

By nature trees do rot when they are grown,
And plums and apples thoroughly ripe do fall,
And corn and grass are in their season mown,
And time brings down what is both strong and tall.
But plants new set to be eradicate,
And buds new blown, to have so short a date,
Is by His hand alone that guides nature and fate.

Bradstreet writes with apparent emotion using imagery as an explanation of the situation at hand until it seems that suddenly she realizes that she is perilously close to writing rebelliously against God’s decrees and then pulls herself up at the very end. This seems to not be her true feeling but rather deference to the orthodox doctrine of the day.

For the pioneer Colonists, home was a refuge from the often harsh, new environment. For Anne Bradstreet, the burning of her home (in "Verses upon the Burning of Our House") and belongings in July, 1666 was a great loss for someone so devoted to her family and domestic pleasures. The poem, however, contains no self-pitying elements. Instead, Bradstreet uses the personal loss to reconcile it with her belief in the wisdom of God’s will.

There are two homes referred to in this poem, "my dwelling place," and the "house on high erect, Framed by that mighty Architect." In the poem, Bradstreet states that both homes are God’s.

The first five stanzas of the poem relate the pleasant things – a trunk, a chest, and a table – that the poet enjoyed in her home. The pleasure is evident. In the sixth stanza, the tone changes as the poet accepts the fire as the will of God, acknowledging that earthly objects are vanity, that her wealth on earth had no real meaning, and that real wealth lies with God. The poem ends:

Farewell, my pelf, farewell my store.
The world no longer let me love,
My hope and treasure lies above.

The poem can easily be read in two lights, what the poet should feel, she does feel. Yet, upon re-reading the poem there is a sense of conflict; the expression of domestic pleasures are rooted in genuine feeling. It is these private feelings, and enjoyment of domestic details that give the poem its heretical tone. The doctrine seems to be accepted more intellectually than emotionally.

Anne Bradstreet felt that her love of the pleasant things of life was unchristian. This conflict is clearly presented in "The Flesh and The Spirit". The Spirit is the victor, but the Flesh even though vanquished, reasserted again and again its claims.

Flesh is the unsettled, questioning heart, while Spirit is the settled heart. Flesh and Spirit are personified by two sisters:

One Flesh was called, who had her eye
On worldly wealth and vanity;
The other Spirit, who did rear
Her thoughts unto a higher sphere:

Although Bradstreet presents the correct dogma in her poem, its purpose is not to instruct but, again, to express her personal feelings. It is the personal feelings that provides the heretical aspects.

"To My Dear and Loving Husband" is a passionate love poem that is lovely, human, and simple. It is also free of any religious dogma. For this reason, it may be considered to have the most heretical elements of any of her poems. The poem is universal as it can be read as a modern one, as well as one from early America. It is openly passionate:

If ever two were one, then surely we.
If ever man were loved by wife, then thee;
If ever wife was happy in a man,
Compare with me, ye women, if you can.
I prize thy love more than whole mines of gold,
Or all the riches that the East doth hold.
… My love is such that Rivers cannot quench.

The only reference to religion is to pray the heavens reward her husband, hardly a Puritan prayer.

Anne Bradstreet loved her husband and her children and God with a troubled realization that she fell short of God’s, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart". Anne Bradstreet’s poetry shows a merging of the private life with the religious life, but also a rebellious, inquiring spirit. The heretical themes in her poetry stem from this spirit and her need for self-expression.

One of the reasons the Scarlet Letters has become such a timeless story is because of its use of symbolism and the important role that it plays in the story. Symbolism is the applied use of any iconic representations, which carry particular conventional meanings. Within The Scarlet Letter, Nathaniel Hawthorne incorporates symbolism to expose a deeper meaning in the story. The first and most obvious symbol that Hawthorne displays is the embroidery of the letter "A" given to Hester to wear as a reminder to the town of her adultery. Another symbol is revealed in Chapter XII, when a meteor in the form of a letter "A" lights up the night sky. Also, Hawthorne reveals symbolism in the scaffold, where many of the important plot points take place.

The Letter "A" is the most obvious form of symbolism within The Scarlet Letter. Hawthorne establishes that Hester receives an embroidered letter "A" to mark her as an adulterer. The letter’s meaning shifts as time passes. At first, the "A" is a symbol of shame, but as the story progresses, the shameful "A" becomes her powerful identity. The community started to form a different meaning for the scarlet letter, like ability. In the thirteenth chapter, Hawthorne comes out in the third person and states, "The letter was the symbol of her calling. Such helpfulness was found in her, so much power to do, and power to sympathize, that many people refused to interpret the scarlet A by its original signification. They said that it meant Able; so strong was Hester Prynne, with a woman’s strength." The letter’s meaning clearly changes when the Native Americans come to watch the Election Day pageant, and think the "A"e; marks Hester as a person of importance. The scarlet letter, in conclusion, was ineffective and "had not done its office."

While Dimmesdale stands on the scaffold with Hester and Pearl in Chapter XII, a meteor outlines the letter "A" in the night sky. In response to the meteor sighting, "There stands the minister, with his hand over his heart; and Hester Prynne, with the embroidered letter glimmering on her bosom; and little Pearl, herself as a symbol, and the connecting link between those two." Dimmesdale believes that the "A" in the sky is a message from God telling him to wear a mark of shame just as Hester does. This revelation causes Dimmesdale to place his hand firmly over his heart. The meteor is interpreted differently by the townspeople of the Salem community. The community feels that the "A" in the sky stands for "Angel," and marks Governor Winthrop’s entry into heaven.

The scaffold is a platform where criminals are punished before all the townspeople. In this case, the criminal is Hester Prynne and the crowd has gathered to witness her shame. The first scene at the ominous platform is Hester’s first public appearance with the child and the scarlet letter. Hawthorne implies to the reader that the scaffold symbolizes punishment and public humiliation. The scaffold and scarlet letter’s meanings coincide. The scaffold also outlines Hester’s strength. In the first scaffold scene, Hester lifts her eyes towards the balcony and grows pale and trembles. When Hester is at the third scaffold scene, she is much more comfortable and less ashamed of the "A" on her chest. Finally, the scaffold proves ineffective in its purpose to punish and publicly humiliate Hester.

Hawthorne’s use of symbolism within the Scarlet Letter adds abstract ideas or concepts to seemingly meaningless objects that are found within the story. It is because of its abundant use of symbolism that this story can relate to every reader and why it has become the timeless work that it has.

Benjamin Franklin recounts in his Autobiography that he started an apprenticeship with his brother James in his brother’s printing business. When James gets in trouble with the authorities, James ends Benjamin’s apprenticeship officially (so that Benjamin may take over the newspaper legally) while drawing up secret paper which would continue his apprenticeship as it was before. Later a disagreement arises and Benjamin decides to leave his brother knowing full well that James will not bring up the secret papers for fear of incriminating himself. As Benjamin Franklin tells us, "It was not fair in me to take this Advantage, and this I therefore reckon one of the first Errata of my life". This is the first of many "errata" he recalls in this story of his life.

The word errata is the plural of erratum, a Latin word used primarily in the printing business, with which Benjamin is very familiar. Its definition is an error in printing or writing, especially such an error noted in a list of corrections and bound into a book. This is an excellent use of the word especially when considering it is within the autobiography of such a great writer and publisher. Benjamin is reflecting on his life, with and attempting to help his son learn some of the lessons that took a lifetime for Benjamin Franklin to learn. The term errata especially applies here since the errors of his life are "noted in a list of corrections at the end" in his recollection of it. This exemplifies the main purpose of his beginning his Autobiography in the first place – that he may teach others the many lessons that he has learned over the course of his eventful life by noting his errata.

The King James Version of the Bible is the perfectly preserved and inspired Word of God. Though skeptics roar against this fact, and hurl their fiery darts of criticism, the truth remains: this is the one and only Bible for English speaking people.

Have you ever heard the argument that the King James Version is too hard to be understood or that all the “thee’s” and “thou’s” are just too archaic? Critics of the Bible come up with many different arguments to try to somehow justify their preconceived ideas. For, you see, if there is a Bible, then there must be a God, and if there is a God, then that means we are accountable to that God. We then are responsible to find out Who that God is and what He wants us to do. However, these “competent scholars” know much more than God and therefore have no need of a Bible unless they themselves write it to their own liking. The Bible that convicts them of their sin must go. No Bible equals no God.

Did you know, however, that the English of the King James Version (KJV) is written only on a fifth grade reading level? Surely this is not too hard for “competent scholars” to read – is it? And the whole matter of “thee” and “thou” really isn’t that hard to figure out. “Thee” means “you” and “thou” means “you”. Nevertheless, the matter goes deeper than these petty surface arguments. The real argument is not about the actual words used. The controversy lies in the message.

Why are there no critics saying we need new versions of Shakespeare in the modern vernacular? His work has many of the same archaic words and yet he is lauded as a sheer genius. It is the very archaic language that many English scholars find so intriguing.

Dr. Robert O’Briant states, “The reason Biblical English seems so different is because it is different. The English of the Bible has never been spoken in any society at any time. Just look at its contemporaries in the field of literature, Shakespeare for example. Was his language the same as the language of the KJB 1611? I trow not! The English of the Bible is Biblical English. The translators were not only master of the original languages but also masters of excellent English. God had allowed our language to reach its peak in clarity and conciseness and brought together men who had completely mastered it to bring about a book that so clearly expressed His words that it has been the envy of critics for almost 400 years. There is not one word in the Bible that cannot be defined by a good English dictionary.”[i]

It is not that these men cannot understand, but rather that they don’t want to understand. These “scholars” make their own bible so they may feel justified in living the way that they want.

It is absolutely vital to the church that we have the very words of God. The words in the original text (commonly known as autographs) were not just the thoughts of God, but they were His very words. If God wrote the Bible perfectly in the originals, yet we cannot have those same words in a volume of that book today, then it would seem that God wasted His time in inspiring them in the first place.[ii]

Is God not able to give to us the very words that He wants us to have? Is a miracle too hard for the God of miracles? Was creation too hard for God? Was the virgin birth too hard for God? Was the collection of the 66 books of the Bible written over a period of 1,700 years too hard for God? Was overcoming the human nature of the sinful writers too hard for God? Then is preserving the words those writers penned too hard for God? Inspiration would seem far harder to believe than preservation.

Wilbur Pickering put it well when he said, “If the scriptures have not been preserved then the doctrine of inspiration is purely an academic matter with no relevance today. If we do not have the inspired words, or do not know precisely which they be, then the doctrine of inspiration is inapplicable.”[iii]

The question would then naturally arise, “On which translation does God have his hand, and which of the over 200 English translations are we to choose?” This should be a fairly simple question since all we have to do is find the one that contains every word of God. After all, God promised that He would preserve every word (Matthew 4:4, Psalm 12:6-7, Matthew 5:18). All we have to do is find out what the originals say.

Unfortunately, the originals don’t exist anywhere today, nor have they for a very long time. Scribes were known to destroy old worn out manuscripts (MSS) after they had copied them. (Apparently the early church valued the words of the originals more than the originals themselves!) In fact the original of Genesis has never even touched the original of Revelation, or the original of book of Psalms for that matter. All the original autographs of the Bible have never been compiled together in one book. To say that God’s perfect Word is only in the originals is to say God’s complete revelation to man has never existed anywhere at anytime.

How then are we to find the very Words of God? Well, we can look at history. Dr. Gipp cites three groups of “hard” evidence available today.

First there are copies. Since there are no originals, every record of Scripture will be a copy. Copies are divided into four groups: Miniscules, Majuscules (or Unicals), Lectionaries, and Papyrus fragment.

The second group of Biblical witnesses is the ancient versions. God chose to write the New Testament in Greek, but he did not choose to keep it in Greek only. The early Greek MSS were translated into other languages in order that the true Word of God could be put into the hands of the people in other lands. The Armenian version is referred to as the “Queen of Versions” because of its unusually high number of extant copies (1,244). This is especially significant when considering that the translation, made in 400 A.D., matches the readings in the King James Bible.[iv]

The third group is the early church fathers. These are the men who led the Christians in the first few centuries after the New Testament was completed. We have record of their early sermons, books, and commentaries. They are able to provide us with much information on disputed passages. Many have seen the original autographs.

Dr. Grady adds, “To illustrate the contributing value of the church fathers, the writings of Tettullian, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Origen, and Clement of Alexandria have supplied us with 30,147 Scripture citings alone. When we consider that the great majority of their quotations agree with the Textus Receptus (the text from which the King James Bible was taken) their worth is even more appreciated. However, when it is further discovered that all five men died anywhere between 20-150 years before Aleph and Codex B (the two supposedly “oldest and best” MSS from which all modern versions are taken) were copied, the readings of the King James Bible are established beyond question.”[v]

These three groups combined give us in excess of 5,250 witnesses. About 4,489 of these are Greek MSS.[vi] With this many witnesses it should not be very hard to find the Greek text of the original New Testament autographs. Upon examining these witnesses, it is soon seen that all of them fall into two basic groups, or “texts”. We also find that these two texts consistently disagree with each other concerning the major doctrines fundamental to the Christian faith. These doctrines include the virgin birth of Christ, the blood atonement, Christ’s second coming, the Trinity, and the deity of Christ.

The first of these two groups is the Majority Text (having gotten its name because the majority of the witnesses fall into this category). This text is found to uphold the major fundamental doctrines which the majority of the historic Christian church has supported.

This text culminates in the Textus Receptus or “Received Text”. It is this text which is the basis for the King James Bible.

Dr Grady points out, “Once again, the outstanding feature of the Received Text is its high percentage of agreement among so many thousands of independent witnesses. This agreement is often placed at 90 percent; in other words, 90 percent of all existing manuscripts agree with one another so miraculously that they are able to form their own unique text. In contradiction to such unity, the remaining 10 percent comprises a selection of manuscripts that will both agree with the majority text in many particulars while disagreeing wildly in others. Again, let it be stated that many of these variant readings are also unique to the individual manuscript containing it; where the 10 percent disagree from the majority, these departures also disagree with each other!”[vii]

The second of these two groups we will look at is the Minority Text. This text is found to be untrue concerning the major fundamental doctrines of Christianity. This is also the text used in every translation of the Bible since the Revised Version of 1881.

It is said of the Minority Text (or Wescott and Hort Text), “Its two outstanding trademarks in history are that orthodox Christianity has never used it and that the Roman Catholic Church has militantly (or “bloodily”) supported it.”[viii]

Another piece of this puzzle may be added when we consider the translators of each work. Almost immediately after James I became the king of England, one thousand ministers sent a petition termed the Millenary Petition. The purpose of this petition was to hold a conference to discuss the many alleged abuses in the national church. The Hampton Court Conference was arranged and then held on January 14, 16, and 18 in 1604. A new translation of the Bible was not on the agenda of the king, but it was an indirect result.

James was quoted as saying, “I wish some special pains were taken for a uniform translation which should be done by the best learned men in both Universities, then reviewed by the Bishops, Presented to the Privy Counsel, lastly ratified by Royal authority, to be read in the whole Church, and none other.”

So according to the king’s desire this resolution was made, “That a translation be made of the whole Bible, as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek; and this to be set out and printed, without any marginal notes, and only to be used in all churches of England on time of divine service.” Six months after this proclamation was made the king the appointed 54 of the most learned men he could find to make up the six translation companies that would take on this task. Two of the companies would be at Oxford, two at Cambridge, and two at Westminster. At the time the translation was begun in 1607, only forty-seven men remained. Some had resigned because the issue was too controversial, and a few had died.[ix]

Dr. Grady writes, “The men on the translation committee of the King James Bible were, without dispute, the most learned men of their day and vastly qualified for the job which they undertook. They were overall both academically qualified by their cumulative knowledge and spiritually qualified by their exemplary lives. Among their company was men who, academically, took a months vacation and used the time to learn and master an entirely a foreign language; wrote a Persian dictionary; invented a specialized mathematical ruler; one was an architect; mastered oriental languages; publicly debated in Greek; tutored Queen Elizabeth in Greek and mathematics; and of one it was said, ‘Hebrew he had at his fingers end’.”[x]

These men include men like John Bois, who when he was only five years old, was taught to read Hebrew by his father. By the time he was six, he could not only write the same, but in a fair and elegant manner. At fifteen he was renowned for corresponding with his college superiors in Greek. He was well respected, and renowned for his devoured sixty grammars. He studied on his feet and rested only on his knees.

Another of the translators, Lancelot Andrews, was conversant in 15 languages! Another, Miles Smith, was known as “a very walking library”. Many of these men entered Oxford and Cambridge between the ages of 14-17. Of the forty-seven men thirty-six had their Doctorate in Divinity.

John Spencer had been on the Greek faculty at Corpus Christi College since 19 years of age. John Rainolds was known as “a living library, a third university,” and also as the “most prodigiously seen in all kinds of learning; most excellent in all tongues.”

It should also be noted that these men were not just dry theologians but also accomplished preachers and balanced Christians. They were well respected by the people of their day. Richard Brett was proficient in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Chaldee, Arabic, and several Ethiopian tongues, but mostly known as a faithful friend, a good neighbor, and a diligent preacher.[xi]

In contrast if we look at the lives of the translators of almost all of the modern translations, the exact opposite is true. Not only are they not as well educated or naturally as gifted but the very testimony of their Christian lives is witness to the fact that the Word of God has little or not impact on them. The principles they stand for do not line up with traditional Christian faith. They simply do not live up to the high standards set by this group of 47 scholarly men.

It is plain to see the effects of the two “sides” of Biblical texts. History is the greatest witness of all. God uses the archaic language of the King James Bible to convey His precise meaning and most definitely blessed all those who take Him at His word. This is not only evident by the exemplary lives of the translators (which the translators of all modern versions lack) but also by the test of time. Although it took only seven years to complete, for almost four hundred years it has shined above all other books and any attempts to “improve” it!