Are 300 words missing from the KJV?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Logos1560, May 5, 2015.

  1. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    The 1611 KJV, which is the third authorized version of the Church of England, freely edited, reworded, and revised the 1539 Great Bible [the first authorized version of the Church of England and of a king of England], including even omitting words and phrases found in it. The KJV is officially a revision of the Bishops' Bible, and the Bishops' Bible is a revision of the Great Bible. The Great Bible is placed on the KJV-only view's good line or pure stream of Bibles. Some editions of the Bishops' Bible were printed with the book of Psalms as found in the Great Bible instead of its book of Psalms.

    It is a fact that the makers of the KJV added, removed or omitted some words, phrases, and verses found in one of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision. The KJV varies in content and volume in some places with each of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it is a revision.

    At Psalm 1:5, the Great Bible has the phrases "from the face of the earth" not in the KJV.
    At Psalm 2:11, the 1540 edition of the Great Bible has the words "unto him" that are not in the KJV.
    At Psalm 13:6, the 1540 Great Bible has this sentence that is not in the KJV: "Yea I will praise the name of the Lord most high."
    At Psalm 14:2, the Great Bible has the words "no not one" that are not in the KJV.
    In Psalm 14, the Great Bible (also the 1535 Coverdale's Bible) has three additional verses with around sixty words which are not in the KJV.

    The 1540 edition of the Great Bible has these words at Psalm 17:9 [“to take away my soul”] that are not in the KJV.
    At Psalm 20:9, the 1540 Great Bible has the phrase "unto thee" that is not in the KJV.
    At Psalm 24:4, the Great Bible has the words "his neighbor" that are not in the KJV.
    At Psalm 29:1, the 1540 edition of the Great Bible has these words not found in the KJV: 'Bring young rams unto the Lord.'
    At Psalm 33:3, the 1540 Great Bible has the phrase "unto him" that is not in the KJV.
    At the end of Psalm 33:10, the 1540 edition included these words: “and casteth out the counsels of princes“ not in the KJV.
    At Psalm 38:16, the 1540 Great Bible has these words ["even mine enemies"] that are not in the KJV.

    At Psalm 48:4, the 1540 edition of the Great Bible has the phrase "of the earth" that is not in the KJV.
    At the end of Psalm 55:23, the Great Bible has the words "O Lord" that is not in the KJV.
    At Psalm 73:13, the Great Bible has the words "and said" not in the KJV.
    At Psalm 73:28, the 1540 Great Bible has the phrases "in the gates of the daughter Sion" that are not in the KJV.
    At Psalm 85:8, the 1540 Great Bible has the phrase "concerning me" not in the KJV.
    At Psalm 92:13, the 1540 Great Bible has the phrase "of the house" not in the KJV.
    At Psalm 108:1, the 1540 Great Bible has an additional "my heart is ready" that is not in the KJV.
    The 1540 Great Bible added at the end of Psalm 111:10 the following: “Praise the Lord for the returning again of Aggeus and Zachary the prophets.“
    At Psalm 118:2, the Great Bible has these words not in the KJV: "that he is gracious."
    At Psalm 120:7, the 1540 Great Bible has the phrase "unto them" that is not in the KJV.
    These words are found at the end of Psalm 132:4 [“neither the temples of my head to take any rest”] in the 1540 Great Bible, but they are not in the KJV.
    These phrases are found in the 1540 Great Bible at the end of Psalm 134:1 [“even in the courts of the house of our God”], but not in the KJV.
    At the end of Psalm 136, the 1540 Great Bible has the following sentence or verse not in the KJV: “O gave thanks to the Lord of Lords, for his mercy endureth for ever.“
    At Psalm 147:8, the Great Bible has these words not in the KJV: "and herb for the use of man."

    The facts are that the Great Bible has around two hundred words in just the one book of Psalms that are not in the KJV and that were thus in effect removed by the makers of the KJV according to a consistent application of the same-type reasoning that claims other English Bibles omit or remove words found in the KJV.

    In the New Testament book of Acts, the Great Bible has over one hundred words which are not found in the 1611 KJV.

    KJV-only advocates have not named and identified any one specific standard perfect OT Hebrew text and any one specific standard perfect NT Greek text that was used by the makers of the KJV as their sole authority to revise and change the pre-1611 English Bible. The fact is that the makers of the KJV made use of multiple textually-varying sources.

    KJV-only advocates have not presented any consistent, just textual measures that they use in comparing varying original language manuscripts and printed text and in comparing Bible translations. KJV-only advocates evidently use inconsistent, unjust measures in making their claims.
     
  2. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,023
    Likes Received:
    47
    How can the great Bibe/Geneva/ and the Kjv all being perfect and flawless, and yet all of them do not always agree on to what should had been translated?
     
  3. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    Usually posts like this mean someone doesn't understand how translation works. Just saying.
     
  4. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,158
    Likes Received:
    368
    Some of the KJV people would say that the KJV just corrected those errors in the other Bibles. ;)
     
  5. beameup

    beameup
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2011
    Messages:
    915
    Likes Received:
    2
    I wouldn't characterize the KJV as a "revision of the Great Bible".
     
  6. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    On what sound basis do you claim that the KJV was not a revision of several pre-1611 English Bibles which included the Great Bible?

    The KJV was officially a revision of the Bishops' Bible, and the Bishops' Bible was officially a revision of the Great Bible. The Great Bible was the first authorized version of the Church of England, the Bishop's Bible was the second authorized version of the Church of England, and the KJV was the third authorized version of the Church of England. According to the rules given the makers of the KJV, the Great Bible is one of the pre-1611 English Bibles on which the KJV was based or of which the KJV was a revision.

    The KJV is more of a revision of the pre-1611 English Bibles than it is a new, original translation of original language texts.
     
  7. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    It is KJV-only advocates who try to ignore the fact that the KJV is a translation in the same category as other Bible translations.

    The majority of the differences listed between the Great Bible and the KJV could not be classified as translation differences. Most if not all of the listed differences involve textual matters where the makers of the Great Bible followed the Latin Vulgate or Greek LXX instead of the traditional Hebrew Masoretic text.

    In a book entitled Holy David and His Old English Translators Cleared that was printed in 1706, the author had this heading over a list of some of these differences: "Supplements which our translators take from the vulgar Latin, and vulgar Latin chiefly from the Greek translation of the Seventy" (p. 17).

    One inconsistency is the fact that the makers of the KJV would keep some readings introduced from the Latin Vulgate in the New Testament but remove other readings introduced from the same Latin Vulgate".

    This thread also demonstrates and affirms the fact that the KJV was based on textually varying sources.
     
  8. beameup

    beameup
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2011
    Messages:
    915
    Likes Received:
    2
    Totally misquoting and mischaracterizing my statement. :thumbsdown:

    Perhaps you can quote for us the introduction from the KJV where it describes the work.
     
  9. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Good... because it was a revision of the Bishops' Bible. Historic fact.
     
  10. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Many KJVs are missing over 200 words from the TR (that is, up until about 2005) which were present in the 1611 AV. Some KJVs are still printed with these 200+ words --

    http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=47257
     
  11. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Since it is a historical fact that the KJV was a revision of the Bishops' Bible and since it is also a historical fact that the Bishops' Bible was a revision of the Great Bible, does it not follow that the KJV was also in effect a revision of the Great Bible?

    The KJV can properly be said to be a revision of more than one pre-1611 English Bible even though one rule given its makers indicated that it was supposed to be a revision of the Bishops' Bible.

    The KJV is also properly said to be a revision of Tyndale's Bible. Other English Bibles such as Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, Geneva, and Bishops' Bible were also a revision of Tyndale's.
     

Share This Page

Loading...