An attempt to answer the multi-KJV issue

The currently-used editions of the KJV are certainly different from the AV 1611 in many ways.

"Revised", "corrected", "updated"-It's all just a matter of semantics.

 

Answers to the multi-KJV issue are documented here:

click here --> Ed's Catalogue of KJVO Doubles <-- click here

 

Nothing but a smoke screen in attempts to justify the changes the "oldest and best" and their fruit(NIV,NWT,NAS{B},et al) made to the Protestant texts and their fruit(KJB,Geneva,et al).The four Gospels do not match word for word,does that mean their not correct?

 

You know, everyone talks about the KJB being in old English and that the modern versions try and update that language. My question is, why did they not just do that? Why change and sometimes leave entire verses out?

 

THe fact is, that is done.
But the KJVO, throw out "the MVs that do"
baby with "the MVs that don't" bathwater.

It really bothers me that the New King
James Version (nKJV) of the early 1980s was
built to specifications written in the
late 1970s by the KJVOs of that era.
Yet the KJVOs of the early 2000s distain
the specs of the KJVOs of the early 1980s.
Go figure. My conclusion is that KJVOs
like to gripe and will gripe no matter what
anybody does.

Well here is a MV-user gripe thread:

Ed's Catalogue of KJVO Doubles

 

Actually, the 'MVs" (as many like to call them) are not attempting to update the language, but to provide new translations of the original languages.

Why do they leave out some verses? Because some verses are not in all manuscripts. The King James was translated from a rather unique manuscript(s), and this source material had some things that other families of manuscripts don't. Only problem is that we don't know if these things were omitted from some manuscripts or if they were added to others.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Nice of you to add your own version of things, A-A. You really have a way with words.

Actually, if you were honest with yourself, you would have to admit that anything that is corrected was imperfect to begin with. This holds true with the various 'editions' of the KJV, each with their own corrections.

No, it does not mean that they are incorrect, just written by different people with different viewpoints. But, as I said, the Gospels were written by different people, and at different places, for different reasons, at different times, based on different sources.

What excuses can you offer for multiple 'editions' of corrections on ONE translation? Was each edition written by different people? No, the same basic translation was used in each. How about different places? Yes, but, again, the same translation. Differnet reasons? No, same reason (the Church of England wanted it). Different times? Yes, but the same translation (again). Different sources? NO, the same translation (again, again).

So, A-A, tell me...exactly how did you want to compare the Gospels with the King James? I just don't see it...

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Oops...I guess I got a little too impatient...

 

Askjo:Nothing but a smoke screen in attempts to justify the changes the "oldest and best" and their fruit(NIV,NWT,NAS{B},et al) made to the Protestant texts and their fruit(KJB,Geneva,et al)

Can YOU justify the changes made from the Geneva Bible to the AV 1611? You might start with one of the KJVOs' fave versessalm 12:7. The GB reads, "thou shalt preserve **HIM**...".


.The four Gospels do not match word for word,does that mean their not correct?

Four different writers, four different perspectives, same principles that apply to the various mss-each was written by a different writer, different time, different place. Since I believe all the Gospels are correct, as well as samuel, Kings, & Chronicles, I believe all the known Scriptural mss are correct until someone can prove any of them wrong with empirical evidence.

Rapture Ready:You know, everyone talks about the KJB being in old English and that the modern versions try and update that language. My question is, why did they not just do that?

It HAS been done, but for whatever reason, these editions didn't catch on with the public. One reason was that the publishers did little to promote them.


The commonly-used KJV editions such as the 1769 Blayney's edition is a half-hearted partial update which modernized much of the AV 1611's spelling, while partially updating the English so that it's neither Elizabethan English nor the style current for the late 18th century. (Just compare it with contemporary works!)


Why change and sometimes leave entire verses out?

Because most newer versions are made from different sources than the older Bibles were. No one can prove whether certain verses were omitted in certain verses or added to others.

As for the changes, please see what I wrote above to Askjo.

 

I would be careful and examine everything carefully on AV1611 I know personally they have misinterpeted facts about other Bible versions.

 

What about the NKJV? I am comfortable in saying I believe the KJV unknowingly added some verses in because they did not have near the number of available manuscripts as we have today.

 

The King James translation of the Bible HAS BEEN REVISED since 1769. I have a copy of such a revision. The title page reads:

THE HOLY BIBLE

CONTAINING THE

OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS

TRANSLATED OUT OF THE ORIGINAL TONGUES

BEING THE VERSION SET FORTH IN A.D. 1611

COMPARED WITH THE MOST ANCIENT AUTHORITIES AND REVISED

A.D. 1881-1885

Newly edited by the American Revision Committee

A.D. 1901

__________________________________________________________________

This Bible is, of course, a copy of what is now known as the American Standard Version. Can anyone on this message board prove that this revision of the KJV is inferior in ANY way to the earlier editions? No, they can not. And VERY MUCH evidence has been posted on this message board showing that this revision is superior to ANY of the earlier editions of the KJV.

 

It is not a "revision" of the KJB,but rather the reinstatement of the dark-age Jesuit "bible" of 1582.

 

The new hymnology contains this
hymn for children

Yes, Jesus loves me!
Yes, Jesus loves me!
Yes, Jesus loves me!
Jack Chick tells me so!

 

Taking into account that the Jesuits came into existance after the end of the Dark Ages. I'd say there can't be such a thing as a dark-age Jesuit "bible".

 

But what mss did they use for their "bible"?

 

If you mean the Douay-Rheims, the Latin Vulgate was used which contains the Apocrypha.

Oops, so did the 1611 KJV and OBTW the KJV translators also used the Vulgate in their translation work.

HankD

 

Minoque, although I disagree with Anti-Alexandrian, his dates are, for the most part, correct. The bible he refers to was dated 1582 and the Society of Jesus was founded in 1540 by Ignatius Loyola. The term "dark ages" is, of course, from an historical standpoint, a meaningless term. There is no fixed dates for the beginning and ending of the so-called "dark ages." Some historians insist the "dark ages" ended in the 11th century, others in the 12th century, but many include the 15th century and believe the "dark ages" did not end until the "middle ages" began in the late 15th century. And, of course, the school of thought which brought about the official founding of the Society of Jesus existed for some time prior to 1540.

 

Some would include the outside dates of the Spanish (1478-1834) and Roman (1542-1858) Inquisitions as part of the "dark age" when people were garroted or burned at the stake for heresy.

http://campus.northpark.edu/history/WebChron/WestEurope/SpanInqui.html

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Roman-Inquisition

Then again the last of the "castrati" Allessandro Moreschi died in 1922.

http://www.usrf.org/news/010308-castrati.html


HankD