an actual 1769 Oxford error

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Logos1560, Apr 5, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    David Sorenson wrote: "The King James Version of the Bible in America at present is in fact the 1769 edition" (TOUCH NOT THE UNCLEAN THING, p. 17). KJV-only author Al Lacy maintained that "the 1769 edition of the 1611 King James Bible is perfect" (CAN I TRUST MY BIBLE, p. 144). KJV-only author Timothy Morton contended that "the 1762 and 1769 [editions] were to update the spelling" and that the 1769 text was "free from any man-made error" (WHICH TRANSLATION, p. 42). Joey Faust maintained that "nothing after 1769 is a true edition" (COMMON MAN'S DEFENSE, p. 43). William Bradley claimed that "the last one in 1769 made no changes in the text, only standardization of spelling, punctuation, and updated typeface" (TO ALL GENERATIONS, p. 71).

    Dave Reese claimed: "If words are changed, it is not the King James Version. It is another Bible" (THE BOOK NO ONE CAN READ, p. 56). Jim Ellis asked: "How could it be a King James Bible if it is different from the King James Bible?" (ONLY TWO BIBLES, p. 17). Attacking the idea that the New Scofield Reference Bible has the same basic text as the KJV, William Grady contended: "A lost man would laugh at the suggestion that a particular text could be promoted as the same text with even one alteration" (FINAL AUTHORITY, p. 311). Charles Perkins wrote: "Personally I cannot find anything ‘Godly’ about changing even one word in the King James Bible" (FLAMING TORCH, April-June, 1998, p. 7). Bill Bradley asked: "Would you allow someone to take your King James Bible and change it in more than 130 places, and still call it a King James Bible?" (Carter, ELEPHANT, p. 142).

    Was the 1769 Oxford KJV edition "free from any man-made error" as claimed by one KJV-only author?
    Is it possible that the present day Oxford text in the Scofield Reference Bible differs from the text in the 1769 Oxford edition in more than 100 places?

    While the actual evidence showed that three so-called Oxford "errors" actually came from earlier standard Cambridge KJV editions, there was an error first introduced into the text of the KJV in the 1769 Oxford edition that may have remained in the Oxford KJV's text for 100 years.

    Does anyone have a guess concerning what this actual Oxford error was?
     
  2. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    The actual error introduced in the text of the KJV by the 1769 Oxford edition was at Exodus 6:21, and this error seems to have remained in Oxford editions for over 100 years. It may have been a printer's error taken from Exodus 6:22.

    Exodus 6:21
    Zithri (1769, 1795, 1810, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1847, 1857, 1868, 1870, 1876 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
    Zichri (present Oxford)
     
  3. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Many followers of the KJVO myth have the motto "What is different is not the same." Apparently, they change their motto to "What is different is the same" when convenient to do so. Sure would be nice if they would make up their minds, wouldn't it? Many KJVO followers don't believe that spelling and grammar changes are changes at all. And even though the KJV has many such changes, these are not changes at all if we are to believe the KJVO myth. These folks need to realize that what is different in the KJV is not the same, and accept the fact that the KJV has been changed! Their "unchanged" myth is based on nothing but error.
     
  4. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    What about the changes the Alexandrian [snipped]have made to the reformation text? Like John 1:18 for instance.Care to splain that one away?

    [ April 20, 2006, 12:41 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]
     
  5. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    John 1:18 (KJV1611):
    No man hath seene God at any time:
    the onely begotten Sonne,
    which is in the bosome of the Father,
    he hath declared him.


    John 1:18 (KJV1769):
    No man hath seen God at any time;
    the only begotten Son,
    which is in the bosom of the Father,
    he hath declared him.

    What does the colon ( : ) mean and what
    does the semi-colon ( ; ) mean?
     
  6. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Are KJV-only posters avoiding discussing this evidence that shows that the 1769 Oxford KJV edition introduced an error into the text of the KJV and that that error seems to have remained in Oxford editions over 100 years?
     
  7. william s. correa

    william s. correa
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Point is that the AV 1611 is translated perfectly as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. the revisions of today have the "Coma" to Aid in revision. Altough we do not speak that way anymore there are Bibles you can trust with your life, derived directly from the AV 1611 that is beeig used today.To "AV" or not to "AV", that is the Question?
     
  8. DesiderioDomini

    DesiderioDomini
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    0
    Which bibles are those, William?

    In those instances where they disagree with the KJV 1611, which are we to "trust"?
     
  9. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Are you using the phrase "moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Pet. 1:21) which describes the original giving and inspiration of the Scriptures to mean
    the same thing as "inspired" or to mean "illuminated or guided by the Holy Spirit?"

    Where do the Scriptures teach that the Church of England translators of the KJV were "moved by the Holy Spirit" or guided by the Holy Spirit in a different way or a different sense that William Tyndale was guided by the Holy Spirit, the translators of the 1560 Geneva Bible were guided by the Holy Spirit, and other believing translators even today can be guided by the Holy Spirit?
     
  10. william s. correa

    william s. correa
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are you using the phrase "moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Pet. 1:21) which describes the original giving and inspiration of the Scriptures to mean
    the same thing as "inspired" or to mean "illuminated or guided by the Holy Spirit?"

    Where do the Scriptures teach that the Church of England translators of the KJV were "moved by the Holy Spirit" or guided by the Holy Spirit in a different way or a different sense that William Tyndale was guided by the Holy Spirit, the translators of the 1560 Geneva Bible were guided by the Holy Spirit, and other believing translators even today can be guided by the Holy Spirit?
    </font>[/QUOTE]I'm sure they can, but why? since God has opened that door which NO man can Shut and shut the door NO man can open. Only God allows His Word to be Translated, and even the translators of 1611 did not know what they were writting in some instances but God put the Words in their hearts, and 400 years later its like "OLD FAITHFUL". I dont question Heritages that have been proven true, therefore there are questions on codex siniticus and codex vaticanus which have 1/3 of Scripture missing which is Vital to the growing Christian. When Man thinks He Knows something God says he really Knows Nothing .
     
  11. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,008
    Likes Received:
    147
    William, the "Original Translation" in Japanese was translated directly from the KJV. Why then is it not perfect? Unless of course you believe in sake ("sah keh"), Japanese rice wine, for your Lord's Supper! :eek:
     
  12. william s. correa

    william s. correa
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well I think maybe the evidence Bible by Ray Comfort may be derived directly from the KJB and KJV that have been revised after 1611. A catholic lady told me that the Jerome Bible was the first but I'm not really beleiving a man made translation which "contains'" the word, so i have to Discredit it aswell, only because no other Translation into English can say,other than the AV 1611, that it IS THE WORD OF GOD. I Love my Bible! It is as curent as tommorows paper! But Priceless! when the AJC is .50!
     
  13. william s. correa

    william s. correa
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good point if indeed it was derived directly from it then praise the Lord and preach out of it! But if it sits on the coffee table and its not beeing used; then God will use someone else!
     
  14. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,008
    Likes Received:
    147
    Good point if indeed it was derived directly from it then praise the Lord and preach out of it! But if it sits on the coffee table and its not beeing used; then God will use someone else! </font>[/QUOTE]It's not even in print and hasn't been for about 85 years. I had to haunt the Yokohama used bookstores for 4 years before I found a NT. It was not only done in extremely difficult classical Japanese, it was a poor enough translation that it had to be revised within 35 years (unfortunately from a critical Greek text and once again into Classical Japanese).

    My point is that, as wonderful as the KJV is, there is no "magic" in it that automatically transfers its goodness to other languages. So then the problem becomes, how do we have a good translation in other languages, not just in English? That is where the Biblical emphasis is, not in an inspired translation.

    We must translate correctly from the original languages to get a good Bible in Japanese, not a secondary language (English). Every linguist on earth, theoretical or practical (I am a practical linguist), knows this. Every professional translator knows it!

    William, please think carefully about this. If you are going to defend the KJV, you MUST deal with how the Bible enters other languages, or you will be forever inconsistent in your position. [​IMG]
     
  15. william s. correa

    william s. correa
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good point if indeed it was derived directly from it then praise the Lord and preach out of it! But if it sits on the coffee table and its not beeing used; then God will use someone else! </font>[/QUOTE]It's not even in print and hasn't been for about 85 years. I had to haunt the Yokohama used bookstores for 4 years before I found a NT. It was not only done in extremely difficult classical Japanese, it was a poor enough translation that it had to be revised within 35 years (unfortunately from a critical Greek text and once again into Classical Japanese).

    My point is that, as wonderful as the KJV is, there is no "magic" in it that automatically transfers its goodness to other languages. So then the problem becomes, how do we have a good translation in other languages, not just in English? That is where the Biblical emphasis is, not in an inspired translation.

    We must translate correctly from the original languages to get a good Bible in Japanese, not a secondary language (English). Every linguist on earth, theoretical or practical (I am a practical linguist), knows this. Every professional translator knows it!

    William, please think carefully about this. If you are going to defend the KJV, you MUST deal with how the Bible enters other languages, or you will be forever inconsistent in your position. [​IMG]
    </font>[/QUOTE]Amen, thats why God has put you there to be his vessel,and to lead the lost to Him. But you have to think about the manuscipts that have 1/3 of the Vital information God has given to Us in English which is Missing. So if we are to live by "Every Word of God" then you "who Speaks English" will need "Every Word of God" now in Japanese they need "Every Word of God " Aswell, so then I beleive with all my heart they can have the same Words we all need! There seems to to be no comas in Japanese, correct? then If I were to translate into Japanese maybe I would use the Antiochian Manuscripts and learn their Languages and Pray and Go from there. Or just pray and try to from the KJB. My Brother and I have had this conversation, but about Spanish and He translates for Charles Stanley in Spanish but I probably would find a Mentor in Japanese Who is saved and where two or three are gathered in His name there will he be! Thanx and God Bless
     
  16. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,008
    Likes Received:
    147
    Check my website, William. I head a project translating a new NT into Japanese from the TR, which is what I prefer. I don't recommend anyone translating into any language from an English translation unless there is no other way. That would be what is called a "double translation," and no matter how hard you try some meaning gets lost or changed as it travels from the originals through one language into a third.

    In the meantime, I have no choice. All missionaries in Japan, even those who are KJVO in the States, simply must use a translation that is based on modern Greek texts, or not have a Bible. This is what I meant when I wrote earlier in this thread, "If you are going to defend the KJV, you MUST deal with how the Bible enters other languages, or you will be forever inconsistent in your position."

    The typical stance of some KJV defender is that all MVs are of the devil. In my case, that then means that all missionaries to Japan--ALL, including those who were KJVO in the homeland--are in trouble, because we MUST use what would be defined as a MV if it were in English. Where does that leave us missionaries????

    A friend of mine on furlough was once told by a pastor that there was a KJV-type Bible in Japanese, because the guy in Florida (we all know who) who writes all those books about the KJV said there was. Therefore according to the pastor, my missionary friend (who used nothing but the KJV in Engllish) was lying. Silliness in the name of Christ and world missions! :rolleyes:
     
  17. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    That would be great! You would have the Japanese TR Bible.
     
  18. william s. correa

    william s. correa
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    0
    Check my website, William. I head a project translating a new NT into Japanese from the TR, which is what I prefer. I don't recommend anyone translating into any language from an English translation unless there is no other way. That would be what is called a "double translation," and no matter how hard you try some meaning gets lost or changed as it travels from the originals through one language into a third.

    In the meantime, I have no choice. All missionaries in Japan, even those who are KJVO in the States, simply must use a translation that is based on modern Greek texts, or not have a Bible. This is what I meant when I wrote earlier in this thread, "If you are going to defend the KJV, you MUST deal with how the Bible enters other languages, or you will be forever inconsistent in your position."

    The typical stance of some KJV defender is that all MVs are of the devil. In my case, that then means that all missionaries to Japan--ALL, including those who were KJVO in the homeland--are in trouble, because we MUST use what would be defined as a MV if it were in English. Where does that leave us missionaries????

    A friend of mine on furlough was once told by a pastor that there was a KJV-type Bible in Japanese, because the guy in Florida (we all know who) who writes all those books about the KJV said there was. Therefore according to the pastor, my missionary friend (who used nothing but the KJV in Engllish) was lying. Silliness in the name of Christ and world missions! :rolleyes:
    </font>[/QUOTE]I'll pray for you and the Japanese lost,aswell as the saved for we are to pray for every man. I'm sure you can Translate " Acts 8:37 " dont leave out the blood, which No man can atone for himself. With out the Blood of Jesus we are all Lost. I'm sure the battle can be won thru prayer and fasting and I will lift up our missionaries to the Lord continually. Stand fast in the Lord and God speed!
     
  19. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    I simply cannot let this stand. This is a slap in the face of every orthodox Christian belief and fundamentalism.

    The Holy Spirit moved the AV1611 translators to give a perfect Bible is against every bit of the doctrine of inspiration I can think of. A person who holds such an UNORTHODOX belief is so sadly warped in doctrine that I cannot believe it would be posted here.

    Maybe on the "Other Religions" forum it would fit, for it is NOT biblical.

    People whine and say they are KJVonly but not lunatic ruckmanite extreme to believe in re-inspiration in English by the Spirit in 1611 by a bunch of paedo-baptizing Anglicans. And here we have an avowed KJVonly who is honest enough to admit belief in that false doctrine.

    Sad. This is a direct attack on the precious Doctrine of Inspiration and I expect a full apology for posting such false teaching on the BB.
     
  20. william s. correa

    william s. correa
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    0
    I simply cannot let this stand. This is a slap in the face of every orthodox Christian belief and fundamentalism.

    The Holy Spirit moved the AV1611 translators to give a perfect Bible is against every bit of the doctrine of inspiration I can think of. A person who holds such an UNORTHODOX belief is so sadly warped in doctrine that I cannot believe it would be posted here.

    Maybe on the "Other Religions" forum it would fit, for it is NOT biblical.

    People whine and say they are KJVonly but not lunatic ruckmanite extreme to believe in re-inspiration in English by the Spirit in 1611 by a bunch of paedo-baptizing Anglicans. And here we have an avowed KJVonly who is honest enough to admit belief in that false doctrine.

    Sad. This is a direct attack on the precious Doctrine of Inspiration and I expect a full apology for posting such false teaching on the BB.
    </font>[/QUOTE]I'll pray about it!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...