In agreement with these views, reformer Francis Turretin (1623-1687) pointed out: "Our teaching is that only the Hebrew of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New have been and are authentic in the sense that all controversies concerning faith and religion, and all versions, are to be tested and examined by them" (Doctrine of Scripture, p. 126). Francis Turretin also declared: "The question is whether the original text, in Hebrew or in Greek, has been so corrupted, either by the carelessness of copyists or by the malice of the Jews and heretics, that it can no longer be held as the judge of controversies and the norm by which all versions without exception are to be judged. The Roman Catholics affirm this; we deny it" (Doctrine of Scripture, pp. 113-114). John Diodati (1576-1649), translator of the 1607 Italian Bible, is translated as writing: “The authentic text of Scripture, and that which is truly God-breathed, consists only of the Hebrew originals in the Old Testament and Greek originals in the New Testament” (Ferrari, Diodati’s Doctrine of Holy Scripture, p. 47). In 1609, Henry Ainsworth wrote: “Only because in this changing or translating, imperfections, wants [lacks], errors may fall in: therefore, the first writings as the prophets and apostles penned them, are to be made the absolute canon, rule, touchstone, whereby all translations are to be tried” (Defence of the Holy Scriptures, p. 47). Dutch reformer and pastor Wilhelmus a Brakel (1635-1711) referred to “the original Hebrew and Greek languages in which holy men moved by the Holy Ghost have written” (The Christian’s Reasonable Service, Vol. I, p. 70). Wilhelmus a Brakel wrote: “Only the aforementioned languages are authentic, having the inherent authority to be both credible and acceptable. It was in these languages that it has pleased the Lord, by the inspiration and direction of the Holy Spirit, to cause His Word to be recorded. All translations into other languages must be verified by means of the original text” (p. 33). Brakel noted: “The original texts are directly inspired by God and originate with God--both as to doctrinal content as well as the words. In translations, however, only the doctrinal content is divinely inspired, not the words” (p. 71). Brakel wrote: “As accurate as a translation may be, it nevertheless is neither authentic nor infallible” (p. 70).
In another testimony to the view of believers in the 1600's, John Owen (1616-1683) contended that the copies of God's Word in the original languages are "the rule, standard, and touchstone of all translations, ancient or modern, by which they are in all things to be examined, tried, corrected, amended; and themselves only by themselves" (Church & the Bible, p. 357). John Owen added: "Translations contain the word of God, and are the word of God, perfectly or imperfectly, according as they express the words, sense, and meaning of those originals. To advance any, all translations concurring, into an equality with the originals,--so to set them by it as to set them up with it on even terms,--much more to propose and use them as means of castigating, amending, altering any thing in them, gathering various lections by them, is to set up an altar of our own by the altar of God, and to make equal the wisdom, care, skill, and diligence of men, with the wisdom, care, and providence of God himself" (Ibid.).
A bill for revising the English translation of the Scriptures in the 1650’s passed by Parliament affirmed this view. John Stoughton cited this bill as stating: “it is our duty to endeavour to have the Bible translated in all places as accurately and as perfectly agreeing with the original Hebrew and Greek as we can attain unto” (Ecclesiastical History of England, II, p. 545). In his 1659 book, Brian Walton, editor of the London Polyglot, wrote: “That neither the Hebrew nor Greek texts of the Old or New Testament are corrupted by heretics or others, but that they remain pure and entire; and that they always were, and still are, the authentic rule in all matters of faith and religion, and that by them all translations are to be tried and examined” (Todd, Memoirs, II, p. 51). John Goodwin (1593-1665) referred to “the fountains themselves (I mean the originals)” (Christian Theology, p. 48).
Joe Early maintained that according to John Smyth (?-1611) and Thomas Helwys “only the original Greek and Hebrew texts were considered to be inspired” (Life and Writings of Thomas Helwys, pp. 21). In his 1654 book, Edward Leigh (1603-1671) wrote: “We hold that the Hebrew for the Old Testament and the Greek for the New is the sincere and authentical writing of God; therefore that all things are to be determined by them; and that the other versions are so far to be approved of, as they agree with these fountains” (System or Body of Divinity, p. 59). Baptist Thomas Granthan (1634-1692) "emphatically asserted the superiority of the original languages to any secondary language for authority in translation" (Bush, Baptists and the Bible, p. 41).
Baptist scholar John Gill (1697-1771) also presented the Baptist view of Bible translation of that period that was in agreement with the view of the early Bible translators and the view in the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith and the 1677 Second London Confession by Baptists. John Gill wrote: “The apostle Paul speaks of himself, and other inspired apostles of the New Testament, Which things, says he, we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Spirit teaches [1Cor 2:13], and it is the writing, or the word of God as written, that is, by inspiration of God [2Tit 3:16]. Fourth, This is to be understood of the Scriptures in the original languages in which they were written and not of translations. Unless it could be thought, that the translators of the Bible into the several languages of the nations into which it has been translated, were under the divine inspiration also in translating, and were directed of God to the use of words they have rendered the original by; but this is not reasonable to suppose.” John Gill added: "To the Bible, in its original languages, is every translation to be brought, and by it to be examined, tried, and judged, and to be corrected and amended; and if this was not the case, we should have no certain and infallible rule to go
by; for it must be either all the translations together, or some one of them; not all of them, because they agree not in all things: not one; for then the contest would be between one nation and another which it should be, whether English, Dutch, French, etc. and could one be agreed upon, it could not be read and understood by all: so the papists, they plead for their vulgate Latin version; which has been decreed authentic by the council of Trent; though it abounds with innumerable errors and mistakes; nay, so far do they carry this affair, that they even assert that the Scriptures, in their originals, ought to submit to, and be corrected by their version; which is absurd and ridiculous" (Body of Divinity, p. 18)
In addition, this fact that the early English Bible translators, Reformers, and other Bible believers in the 1500's and 1600's accepted the preserved Scriptures in the original languages as the standard for trying and evaluating all translations is confirmed by Roman Catholics. Rheims New Testament translator Gregory Martin condemned those who made the Hebrew and Greek the standard: "They admit only the Hebrew in the Old Testament, and the Greek in the New, to be the true and authentical text" (Fulke, A Defense, p. 46). Gregory Martin also noted that the Reformers and early translators "call the Greek verity and the pure fountain, and that text whereby all translations must be tried" (Ibid., p. 43).
The 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith by Presbyterians, the 1658 Savoy Declaration of Faith and Order by Congregationalists, the 1677 Second London Confession by Baptists, and the 1680 Confession of Faith by Congregationalists in New England stated: "The Old Testament in Hebrew . . . and the New Testament in Greek . . . , being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them (Walker, Creeds, p. 369; Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, p. 251; Woods, Report on Congregationalism, p. 95; Dennison, Reformed Confessions, Vol. 4, pp. 236, 460, 534). John Lee also asserted concerning the Church of Scotland: “The doctrine of this National Church is well known to be, ‘That the Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek, being immediately inspired by God, are authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them” (Memorial for the Bible Societies in Scotland, p. 186). The 1647 Westminster Larger Catechism noted that “the holy scriptures are to be translated out of the original into vulgar languages” (Dennison, Reformed Confessions, Vol. 4, p. 340).
The Reformers, the early Bible translators including the KJV translators and translators into other languages, Baptists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and other believers clearly regarded the preserved Scriptures in the original languages as the proper authentic standard and the greater authority for making and trying or evaluating all Bible translations.