1611 vs 1769

There were several editions between 1611 and 1762/1769 which corrected printers errors, punctuation errors, changed type face, and changed grammar and syntax.

The primary purpose of the editions of 1762/1769 were to standardize spelling, punctuation, type face, and, of course, to correct more printers errors which had crept in over the years.

However, all the changes made between 1611 and 1762/1769 cannot be attributed to correction of printers errors.

There are 421 phonetically discernible changes between the editions of 1611 and 1762/1769. By phonetically discernible I mean those changes that you could hear as the bible is being read aloud.

Most of those 421 changes are changes in the form of a word, especially those words using a final "t" to indicate what we would indicate with a final "ed" today. They would include "burnt" being changed to "burned," "lift" being changed to "lifted," etc.

Of the 421 changes which were not changes of mere form, 136 are considered "changes of substance," or changes such as "fourescore yeere" being changed to "eightieth year" as we see in 1 Kings 6:1.

Of those 136 "changes of substance" most of them can be attributed to the correction of printers errors, but there are still about a dozen changes which are more than mere form, and are obviously not correction of printers errors. They would include changing "God" to "LORD" several times in the Old Testament.

These changes are significantly less than some KJV detractors would claim. (I read one web page claiming there were "over 70,000 significant changes" between the 1611 and the 1762/1769 editions! That would be like me claiming there are 3,666,480 changes between the edition of 1611 and the editions of 1762/1769 because the type face changed and that is about how many letters there are in the bible!) However, there are significantly more changes than the average KJVO is willing to admit.

Most KJVO types will try to say the 1611 and the 1762/1769 are identical except for spelling and punctuation changes and the correction of printers errors. That is, in fact, untrue.

 

I often think "perfect" is in the eye of the beholder...

 

Skan - so what you are saying is that the KJV is a really, really, really, really, really good translation that has changed *very little* since 1611.

I agree.

Question for the KJVOs, did believers have a perfect bible before 1638 when most of the corrections were made? You mean they were carrying around Bibles with errors in them? And they were 1611 KJVs?

Jason

 

I'm just being facetious, but if the "jots and tittles" of the 1611 are inspired, where'd they go in 1769? again, I'm simply being facetious. (and trying to show the inconsistencies of some of the KJVO's)

 

Of those 136 "changes of substance" most of them can be attributed to the correction of printers errors, but there are still about a dozen changes which are more than mere form, and are obviously not correction of printers errors.

Can you list them? What proof is there that they weren't printer's errors? I don't see how something like that could be proved.

 

Why are you surprised? You know my pastor and teacher and know he is not KJVO. He encourages us to use several different versions in our studies. He does think bibles based on the Byzantine text are superior to those based on the Alexandrian text, but he still encourages us to check the ASV and NASV, as well as the NKJV, LITV, and MKJV in addition to insisting we have at least a study knowledge of Hebrew and Greek before he will recommend us for any ministry position.

 

Yes, and no. It is a really, really, really, good translation that has changed a lot since 1611 but the bulk of those changes are inconsequential updating of type, punctuation, spelling, and correction of printers errors.

 

two have already been listed in a previous post:

'such as "fourescore yeere" being changed to "eightieth year" as we see in 1 Kings 6:1.'

'changing "God" to "LORD" several times in the Old Testament'

wld u explain either of these as "printer's errors"?

 

I gave you a couple examples, why not look at those?

Changing "my commandments" to "all my commandments" in Deut 5:29 is pretty obviously the correction of the printer's error of leaving out the word "all" in the 1611 edition.

But the same cannot be said for 2 Chron 28:11 and Isa 49:13 where "God" is changed to "the LORD." It is obvious that this is not a printer's error, but a complete change of word. Do they mean substantially the same thing? Sure, but they are different words.

Now look at Num 6:14. The change is from "lambe" to "ram." That cannot be explained as a printer's error. It is a completely different word. Do they mean substantially the same thing? Sure, but they are different words.

Look at Mark 5:6. The change is from "came" to "ran." That cannot be explained as a printer's error. It is a completely different word. Do they mean substantially the same thing? Sure, but they are different words.

Look at Gen 8:13. The change is from "one" to "first." "One" is a cardinal number and "first" is an ordinal number. That cannot be explained as a printer's error. It is a completely different word. Do they mean substantially the same thing? Sure, but they are different words.

 

A few more...

http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/revision.htm

HankD

 

> But the same cannot be said for 2 Chron 28:11 and Isa 49:13 where "God" is changed to "the LORD." It is obvious that this is not a printer's error, but a complete change of word. Do they mean substantially the same thing? Sure, but they are different words.

they're NOT substantially the same. "God" is used in reference to the divine n to kings (as King James himself was wont to point out ); not so "the LORD," which translates Yahweh, the sacred tetragrammaton, the Creator's personal name. when God wanted to relate Himself specially to human beings in the creation account, He switched fr using "God" in Gen. 1 to "the LORD God" in Gen. 2.

> Now look at Num 6:14. The change is from "lambe" to "ram." That cannot be explained as a printer's error. It is a completely different word. Do they mean substantially the same thing? Sure, but they are different words.

right. "lambe" n "ram" r as "substantially the same thing" as "virgin" n "young woman."

> Look at Mark 5:6. The change is from "came" to "ran." That cannot be explained as a printer's error. It is a completely different word. Do they mean substantially the same thing? Sure, but they are different words.

Gospelcom.net Mk 5:6: But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him

i think basically the Bible correctors that came along later discovered that the guy was made to travel in the wrong direction ("came") becos Jesus was actually "afar off."

then again, i'd love to see some Formal Equivalentists come outta the woodwork on this!

> Look at Gen 8:13. The change is from "one" to "first." "One" is a cardinal number and "first" is an ordinal number. That cannot be explained as a printer's error. It is a completely different word. Do they mean substantially the same thing? Sure, but they are different words.

Gospelcom.netKJB Gen 8:13: And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry.

now, surely can see that "one" day of a month--be it the 1st, the 2nd, the 3rd ... or the 30th--is Substantially the Same as the "first" day of the month.

 

A substituted word/phrase meaning substantially the same thing can easily be explained as a printer's error. How? by a typesetter focusing on meaning and not the exact word. That's the sort of thing that could easily slip by a proofreader as well. This doesn't have to be a common occurrence, and in fact can be a very rare occurance and still satisfactorily explain the few errors up you refer to (12) in a large book the size of the KJV.

 

sounds to me like a KJBO naturalistic, mindworshipping canon of textual criticism.

isn't it easier to believe in the supernatural faith-based doctrine of preservation of every jot n tittle ... in the NIV?

 

Walls, you will probably have to buy a 1611 facsimile ($40-$400).

Nelson makes a reprint facsimile in Roman type for about $40.00.

If you want a photographic facsimile in nearly unreadable Gothic font that will run several hundred.

If you want a First Edition (the real thing) that will cost you from $200,000.00 and up.

HankD

 

As I am in the Commonwealth, specifically Richmond, I am very close to Williamsburg. The main road in "Old Williamsburg" is the Duke of Gloucester Street. Bruton Parish Church is on this road, close to the Governor's mansion. If you are ever in Williamsburg, you have to go into this church. Inside you will find an honest-to-goodness Authorised Version that was a gift from the King to the Parish. It is under glass, but very impressive nonetheless. Whereas my AV is a fascimile, this one is the real thing, and a gift from the King!!

Have any of you seen this? Perhaps I can get a digital image for all of you so you can drool as I did!! Imagine what this would be worth.....

 

Is it a 1611 First Year Edition?!

HankD