1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Actual differences in King James Versions

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Phillip, Oct 18, 2004.

Top Posters
Page 1 of 5
  1. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    I thought that I would start this thread to put to rest the fact that a KJVo that claims to be an 'AV1611' and is using the 1769 Oxford edition is true evidence that a word-for-word perfect translation did not exist between 1611 to 1769 (assuming the 1769 is considered by the KJVo to be perfect word-for-word.)

    Let us provide evidence of actual changes and discuss the different versions up through the present.

    I quote from "The Journey from Texts to Translation". In the chapter "The Authorized Version of 1611 and its Revisions"

    "Joohn Wesley revised some twelve thousand changes in 1768. . .

    E.J. Goodspeed estimated that the 1769 written by Dr. Benjamin Blayney, Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford differed in at least seventy-five THOUSAND places from the AV of 1611."

    I reworded this slightly without changing the meaning to shorten it down.

    (My note: Notice that one person made these multiple changes, not a committee.)

    For those of you who claim that these were only spelling changes a few word changes are listed, including, but not limited to:

    Word: mean man
    1611: common man
    Modern: cruel man

    Word: meat
    1611: any kind of food
    Modern: flesh

    Word: peculiar
    1611: that which belongs to one person
    Modern: strange

    Word: wealthy
    1611: happy
    Modern: rich

    Word: passenger
    1611: passer by
    Modern: person being transported on something

    Word: prevent
    1611: to come before
    Modern: to hinder

    This is by no means exhaustive. This shows real word changes in what some KJVo's claim to be a word-for-word accurate translation.

    Now, if anybody would like to discuss, add, etc. go for it. KJVo, you are welcome to present your theory, but don't turn it into personal attacks.

    I would also like to see some of the scriptural WORD changes between 1611 and 1769 Oxford.

    I think maybe we should start calling the KJVo's "Oxfords". [​IMG]
     
    #1 Phillip, Oct 18, 2004
  2. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    I wrote this late last night and many posts have jumped above it. I would like to move it back to the top just this once to see if I can get some input from some scholars who have access to a readable (some of the actual early manuscripts are hard to read because of font and aging) KJV1611. What I am looking for is "word" or "phrase" differences between the 1611 and the later versions. Not spelling differences.
     
    #2 Phillip, Oct 18, 2004
  3. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/revision.htm

    Here is a chart of 400 words/phrases that are changed from the AV1611 through the hundred revisions and editions to about 1850.

    Illustration:
    Now WHICH is inspired/perfect. They are obviously two different meanings. Did one ADD a gift of the Spirit? Did one SUBTRACT a gift of the Spirit?

    You cannot have it both ways. IF 1611 is correct, then the modern KJV is not. IF the modern revision is correct, then the AV1611 is not. They do not mean or teach the same thing.
     
    #3 Dr. Bob, Oct 18, 2004
  4. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you Dr. Bob. My point exactly.

    This moves the discussion away from speculation to facts, since we have both versions available.
     
    #4 Phillip, Oct 18, 2004
  5. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well there you have it folks, we have no perfect word of God. We all are going to Hell! You ask how I can say this. It's simple, if there is one error in the Bible, there must be two, if there are two, there must be three, etc., etc., etc. Whose to say that that error is not in the salvation plan. What if Jesus required water baptism to be saved? What if Jesus name was not really Jesus, but Mohammed? My point here is, how can you be sure of anything in the Bible if evertime someone digs up a mss and it says something different than the Bible you believe it?

    Wait...wait...wait...we do have a perfect word of God. How you ask? By faith.

    The Bible does not need to be rewritten, it needs to be reread and believed.

    God bless,
    RR
     
    #5 RaptureReady, Oct 18, 2004
  6. DeafPosttrib

    DeafPosttrib New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    2,662
    Likes Received:
    0
    If anyone of you doubt about the site that Dr. Bob gaves, about 400 errors from 1611 A.V. comparing with Modern KJV.

    I did looking at 400 errors in 1611 A.V. from that site three years in my own 1611 A.V. with modern KJV. I found surely enough proof there are 400 errors in 1611 A.V. .

    My highly recommend to everyone of you to order 1611 A.V. at any sites or go to Christian bookstore, ask for 1611 A.V.

    And you should looking at 400 errors in 1611 A.V. to comparing with modern KJV yourself.

    I am sure some of you as KJVO would saying there are mistakes because of 'printing'... :rolleyes: I do not buy what KJVO saying. THere is so mMUCH overwhelming proofs in 1611 A.V. have 400 errors, because I do own 1611 A.V. with me in my library. I already check them all in 1611 A.V. comparing with KJV.

    I urge you to look in 1611 A.V. comparing with KJV.

    If you think KJV is 100% perfect without any error. Then what about 1611 A.V.? Does 1611 A.V. is a perfect Bible without error?

    How does we get KJV comes from? It copy come from 1611 A.V. But, I think there are about 13 changes of English Version within nearly 400 years since 'Authorized Version' was translated and printed, to today's King James Version.

    So, we cannot expect have a Bible have 100% perfect and free-error words.

    What IF suppose Jesus Christ not yet come in the next 500 years from now in year 2500 A.D. will 2004 KJV be the much exactly same every words comparing with 2504 KJV? I doubt. I am sure, there will be making changes by bit to bit in progress by generation to genrations... BUT... yet we have the same old doctrines on Jesus Christ, salvation, resurrection, secoming coming, etc.

    So, my point is, KJVOnlyists have to be relax and respect to any Christian who reading different versions, believe the same doctrines as what KJVOnlyists believe.

    Being debate on manuscripts have do nothing with salvation.

    We have look up on Jesus Christ is our author and finish - Hebrews 12:2, because he is our Saviour and also out captian too. Jesus is everything what we need him.

    In Christ
    Rev. 22:20 -Amen!
     
    #6 DeafPosttrib, Oct 18, 2004
  7. DeafPosttrib

    DeafPosttrib New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    2,662
    Likes Received:
    0
    Raptureready,

    I have a question for you, do you have own 1611 A.V. with you at home?

    In Christ
    Rev. 22:20 -Amen!
     
    #7 DeafPosttrib, Oct 18, 2004
  8. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, I do not. I have a 1769 Cambridge and The First Scofield Study Bible, which I believe is a Oxford edition.

    God bless,
    RR
     
    #8 RaptureReady, Oct 18, 2004
  9. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    So, explain something.
    Are you making an argument that the 1611 was 100% perfect?
    Or did it become perfect in 1769?
    What did people do before that?

    DeafPostTrib is correct about the doctrines. We have FAR too many matching manuscripts. In fact, the Bible is the most documented and printed book from ancient times. We have the proof of what it originally said.

    RR, Your argument or statement is not even valid because you are just throwing your hands up and making a general statement that we all know not to be true.

    But, you must say that proof has been provided that many KJVO who say the Bible is 100% accurate from 1611. . . at least this part of their argument is shot down by easily obtainable facts.
     
    #9 Phillip, Oct 18, 2004
  10. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,549
    Likes Received:
    15
    Take a look at the manuscript evidence before you make such a generalization. You cetainly do not speak for me. No translation is perfect but what God gave was. Demonstrate to us how the KJV or most other English Bibles distinguish between first and third class conditional sentences. They don't, but the text of the Bible does. If you were to study translation then you would see the differences between a translation and the original document.

    Again ask your Spanish speaking firends what Como estas and Como esta means. Then report back what you find. The same thing happens with the word for love in the NT. There is a difference beween phileo and agapao.
     
    #10 gb93433, Oct 18, 2004
  11. natters

    natters New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    RaptureReady said "Well there you have it folks, we have no perfect word of God."

    Yes we do. We have many. Textual perfection is not required to have a perfect word of God, it is the doctrine via correct intepretation that matters.

    RaptureReady said "We all are going to Hell! You ask how I can say this. It's simple, if there is one error in the Bible, there must be two, if there are two, there must be three, etc., etc., etc. Whose to say that that error is not in the salvation plan."

    Fallicous logic. If there is one textual error in a phonebook, there must be two, three, etc., etc., etc.? All or nothing? Not so.

    When we have hundreds of Bibles, texts, manuscripts, spanning millennia and thousands of lanugages, and they are all in agreement about the plan of salvation, you can be sure it is correct despite minor textual differences.

    RaptureReady said "My point here is, how can you be sure of anything in the Bible if evertime someone digs up a mss and it says something different than the Bible you believe it?"

    But it doesn't say something different. The overwhelming unity of what they all say is, well, overwhelming.

    I agree. I believe there was a perfect word of God in 1605, by faith, and that the KJV is different from it. I believe that there are many translations that can be called the perfect word of God, by faith.

    BTW, did you get your church's statement of faith yet? Does it contain the extra-Biblical doctrine of saying the KJV is the final authority?
     
    #11 natters, Oct 18, 2004
  12. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Ah, but you missed a salient point. I HAVE a perfect (without error, poor word choice, etc) word of God. I do not have a perfect English translation of the word of God.

    You have made Kirkegaardian leap of faith that the English translation (any - your choice) is going to be perfect. No mispelling. No man-made added words. No translation error.

    God never promised me an English "anything". He promised His Word (at the time in Hebrew/Greek and still today in Hebrew/Greek) to be perfect.

    Vast difference.
     
    #12 Dr. Bob, Oct 18, 2004
  13. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dr. Bob, you know as well as I do that the KJVO are wrong, that the 1611 Bible was not perfect, it didn't become perfect until 1769! :D
     
    #13 Phillip, Oct 18, 2004
  14. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    Please explain to me, how your above examples (which show nothing except to those who desire to and look at this ONLY with critical eyes, rather than with faithful eyes) can in any way, shape or form, compare to this:


    http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/bible_chart.htm


    Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
    #14 michelle, Oct 18, 2004
  15. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    First off, Michelle, you are taking the thread off subject.

    Open your own thread.

    This is against board rules and there have been a lot of questions lately how to handle these interruptions.

    Secondly, the chart you refer to is nebulous at best because much of it is simply different ways to say things, so they claim words are left out.

    Thirdly, you are the one who says the KJV since 1611 has been perfect. By showing you changes, then you have to recant that argument.

    This is the subject we are on and if you want to discuss the other one, as I said before, start your own thread. Stop hijacking our discussions to slam Modern Versions of God's Word.

    You have holes in your theory, so deal with them if you want to respond here, otherwise, don't post.
     
    #15 Phillip, Oct 18, 2004
  16. TC

    TC Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,244
    Likes Received:
    10
    Faith:
    Baptist
    This topic is about differences between different editions of the KJV (i.e, 1611, 1769, ... ). Leave your KJV versus MV stuff out of this one. If you must post this, then start your own thread.
     
    #16 TC, Oct 18, 2004
  17. DeafPosttrib

    DeafPosttrib New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    2,662
    Likes Received:
    0
    Right. Stay on the same track, please.

    In Christ
    Rev. 22:20 -Amen!
     
    #17 DeafPosttrib, Oct 18, 2004
  18. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here is some information concerning the different editions and reasons for them, for those who desire to know the truth.


    I agree with the information in this link because it shares the truth about this issue:

    http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/best.htm


    Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
    #18 michelle, Oct 18, 2004
  19. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are you making an argument that the 1611 was 100% perfect?
    Or did it become perfect in 1769?
    What did people do before that?
    God's word has always been perfect for that particular time.

    We have FAR too many matching manuscripts.Yes we do, they are found in the TR and not the modern mss/version.

    No translation is perfect but what God gave was. Really, I'm sorry your god cannot preserve a perfect translation, but my God can.

    When we have hundreds of Bibles, texts, manuscripts, spanning millennia and thousands of lanugages, and they are all in agreement about the plan of salvation, you can be sure it is correct despite minor textual differences.This I would agree on. Even though the devil has corrupted God's word by using men(W/H and others) to rewrite the Bible, God still preserves the plan of salvation in them. That is why I believe a person can be saved through reading another version beside the KJB. But they miss very important doctrines that Satan, I believe, did to get back at God if you will. Lucifer knows that he cannot win, so he is doing everything possible to keep others down with him.

    BTW, did you get your church's statement of faith yet? Does it contain the extra-Biblical doctrine of saying the KJV is the final authority?I have not forgot, but why post it? I'm sure that it mentions that we believe the KJB is God's inspired, infallible, inerrant word of God.

    God never promised me an English "anything". He promised His Word (at the time in Hebrew/Greek and still today in Hebrew/Greek) to be perfect.How can you say this when you know that we do not have the original writings? We have manuscripts of those writings, but not the originals. No one here has one or even seen one, an original that is. So when you ask for factual proof, no one here can proof anything by the originals. You all talk about the modern versions as if all they did was update the language to make God's word more readible, but they went further than that, they changed, added and even sometimes deleted scripture. If all you were going to do was change the Elizabethian language to modern language, I might be inclined to see your point, but it went beyond that. Even using different mss than the KJB and the TR. Plus using versions fromm men(W/H) who called the TR vile. That is God's word Hort was talking about. He disliked it so much that he wrote his own and we have those today corrupting Bible believers minds that God's word is perfect, but the best we got. The way I see it is this, if you find a verse or a word that you cannot understand, don't say that it isn't God's word, just accept that you do not know everything and believe that it is God's word.

    God bless,
    RR
     
    #19 RaptureReady, Oct 18, 2004
  20. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    I guess you don't like to answer important questions posed to you that you deem are off topic, but then have not a problem to answer or respond to many other things not as importatnt and off topic on a whim. Interesting. Then you claim I am slamming God's words, when the purpose of this very thread seems to be just that.


    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
    #20 michelle, Oct 18, 2004
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 1 of 5
Loading...