Jumpstarter 8 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 8

Bercot says the Reformers (Luther, Tyndale, Calvin) and even the 1611 King James translators carried forward Jerome’s framework and also “fudged” (virgin, Red Sea, replacing Yahweh with Lord/God); what does that do to modern evangelical confidence that our inherited Bible traditions are neutral, purely “textual,” and untouched by institutional agendas?

Another way to ask: Bercot says even the Reformers and the King James translators followed Jerome’s approach and sometimes adjusted translations. How does that affect confidence that our Bible tradition is neutral and not shaped by church goals or pressure?

Direct Answer Bercot’s narrative challenges the idea that our inherited Bible traditions are neutral, showing that translation choices were shaped by inherited stories, church pressures, and the desire to avoid upheaval—so “purely textual” confidence should be more cautious and evidence-based.

Support from Transcript:

He says Reformers “bypassed the Septuagint” and used the Jewish Masoretic text, following Jerome’s framework: “His example was later followed by Tyndale and Calvin.”
He claims “all of the Bibles that came out of the Reformation carried Jerome’s ideas and errors.”
He adds, “every one of them followed Jerome’s example of fudging,” though “not… as blatantly as Jerome.”
He gives specific examples of fudging: keeping “virgin in Isaiah 7,” substituting “God or Lord for Yahweh,” inserting “Red Sea” instead of “Sea of Reeds,” and retaining some Septuagint messianic language.
He says the 1611 KJV introduction repeated Jerome’s falsehoods “almost verbatim,” and by then “Jerome’s original lies had penetrated every single nook and cranny of the Western Church.”

Discussion Follow-ups If even revered translators worked inside inherited assumptions, what practical steps would Bercot say we must take to test those assumptions rather than simply trust them?

Jumpstarter 8 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 8 of 10