Featured Are you KJV Only? TR Only? Which versions of these is the ONE?

Hi Brother Greg,

Are there any places in the NT where you think most of the copies of the original Greek were corrupted? If so, where, how, and why?

 

That does make a difference. Your edition would not have those differences that I noted where in the Scofield Reference Bible.

While the newer post-1991 Scofield Study Bible may say that there were no changes or alterations to Scofield's notes in that edition, that edition actually has a slightly different edition of the KJV than the pre-1991 Scofield Reference Bible.

The KJV text of the Scofield Study Bible probably has 50 or more differences from the KJV text of the Scofield Reference Bible. The Scofield Study Bible is actually more like the text of some Cambridge editions than it is the Oxford text in the old Scofield Reference Bible.

 

That may be a common "understanding" and a number of books including KJV-only and a few non-KJV-only will imply that today's KJV is the 1769, but that is not completely accurate.

Most KJV editions today [not all] are based on the 1769 Oxford KJV edition, but they are not identical in English text to the 1769. There would be at least 200 differences, some just spelling matters, over 70 involving the LORD/Lord differences, some due to a claimed 100 errors in the 1769 Oxford edition, etc. There are a few present KJV editions that are based on the 1873 Cambridge edition of Scrivener and thus not on the 1769. There is also the 2005 and 2011 Cambridge editions edited by David Norton that would not be based on the 1769.

The 1769 Oxford and all other KJV editions of which I am aware still had "God" at 2 Samuel 12:22 until the 1829 Oxford edition corrected it to "GOD" since the Hebrew Text that underlies the KJV actually has the Hebrew name for Jehovah. It was also that 1829 Oxford KJV edition that may have been the first to change the 70 places where the 1769 Oxford has "LORD" to "Lord."

At 1 Samuel 2:13, all KJV editions that have apostrophes have "priest's [singular possessive] custom" until the 1873 Cambridge edition corrected it to "priests' [plural possessive] custom." A few present KJV editions such as the ones printed by the American Bible Society and the ones printed for Gideons still have the singular ("priest's custom").

 

I'll stick with the Geneva Bible. It was wrought by the blood of martyrs & didn't need to be "purified 7 times" of its imperfections. The KJV had to be "revised" so many times. I laugh every time a KJVonlyist tries to tell me that they adhere to the KJV1611. They actually believe that while reading from a Bible so many editions removed from the original.

 

I feel dizzy

Logos...after reading all that I have that "glazed over" feeling. Do you know what that "deer in the headlights" look looks like? Well,that's probably what the look on my face is right now. I don't even have any idea how you even REMEMBER that much information....much less have the presence of mind to be able to post it all in coherent fashion. Thirty years ago I might have been able to absorb it....but now...well...only bits and pieces when it is most relevant to me. I still believe what I believe and try to read up on the issues that are relevant as much as possible but I'll never achieve expert status. My bigger desire at this point in my life is to somehow get close enough to my Lord and full enough of His Spirit that I might somehow be of some use to Him for His Glory before it is too late. Frankly, I wasted far too many years NOT doing that....so retaining the finer points of these kind of discussions simply doesn't mean as much to me anymore as it might have at one time. It really doesn't matter what I read here. I love and trust my King James Bible to the exclusion of all others. I don't speak Greek or Hebrew and likely never will here on this earth. When we all get THERE...it won't matter anyway. Frankly,the people I've met that seem to quote or use all the other "bibles" haven't shown or demonstrated to me anything that I feel like I need or have been missing out on. I appreciate your comments and advise (and greater knowledge) in regards to the 1769 edition. I will spend some further time a bit later looking onto it a bit farther. I hope this causes some of those who think that we who hold to our KJV's are "close-minded" to not make such rash generalizations. My course through this life has been a bumpy one and those "bumps" have occurred more IN CHURCH than out and more at the hand of fellow-Christians than not. I can't wait til Heaven!

Peace My Brother:sleeping_2:

Bro.Greg

 

I am King James Bible only and do not apologize for it.

I simply believe that God promised to preserve his word, and I believe he preserved it in the KJB in English. It is that simple for me. Can I prove it? No, and I don't try to, I accept it by faith.

 

Heavenly Father, I lift Humblethinker to you in prayer. You know his heart and what troubles him today. As it be thy will, please touch him and give comfort, guidance, understanding, as his needs may be. Help him walk around any stumbling blocks that may be on his path in this life.

And to help both of us grow in your word and in our faith in Jesus Christ. In His Holy and precious name, I pray. Amen

Humblethinker, I have no desire for you to "eat" your words. That wasn't my intent with my reply nor is it today. Even though it may have come across that way. Probably over reacted as I see similar terms often used in lieu of serious discussion on many blibical positions. As a layman, it grieves me deeply when pastors, for example, resort to calling each other liars, when from appearances, each truly believe what they are saying.

Yes, I'm interested in continuing my 2 year journey. It's probably a journey that will last the rest of my life. Yes, I'd like to hear your story. And, perhaps share more of mine.

 

the 1769 Oxford KJV edition

Some KJV-only authors have suggested that the 1769 Oxford is the last KJV edition and that no changes have been made since then and that it was a perfect edition. Here are some statements by those authors. Timothy Morton contended that "the 1762 and 1769 [editions] were to update the spelling" and that "by 1769 whatever slight textual errors that still remained were removed, and the text was finally free from any man-made error" (Which Translation Should You Trust, p. 42). Charles Barrier asserted that “this [1769] edition is regarded as equal to the edition of 1611, has been used for over 200 years as the standard text for all genuine Authorized King James Version Bibles, and is considered to be free of any spelling, punctuation, capitalization, or grammatical errors” (Looking for the Lamp, p. 26). Al Lacy maintained that "the 1769 edition of the 1611 King James Bible is perfect" (Can I Trust My Bible, p. 144). Joey Faust maintained that "nothing after 1769 is a true edition" (Common Man‘s Defense of KJV-onlyism, p. 43).

I have a printed copy of a KJV printed at Cambridge in 1769, and I have a digital copy of an KJV printed at Oxford in 1769 that was scanned into a database. I once examined a printed copy of a 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV that is in the Library of Congress. I have been examining the two 1769 editions and comparing them to over 200 other KJV editions from 1611 until today. Many that make claims concerning the 1769 Oxford may never have examined an actual 1769 edition and may be making assumptions based on what they have read in other books.

It is a little surprising that authors who do research concerning KJV editions do not come across the various sources that assert that the 1769 Oxford KJV edition had over 100 errors.

Concerning the 1769 Oxford edition, Christopher Anderson observed: “There had not been sufficient vigilance in superintendence, as more than a hundred errors have been detected since” (Annals of the English Bible, II, p. 560). Blackford Condit asserted that Blayney’s 1769 edition “was not entirely free from errors, which were discovered to the number of one hundred sixteen, when it was collated for Eyre and Strahan’s edition of the Bible in 1806” (History of the English Bible, p. 397). Calmet’s Dictionary of the Holy Bible confirmed: “In collating the edition of 1806 with Dr. Blayney’s, not fewer than one hundred and sixteen errors were discovered” (I, p. 312). P. W. Raidabaugh also reported that “not fewer than one hundred and sixteen errors were discovered in collating the edition of 1806 with Dr. Blayney’s” (History of the English Bible, p. 61). T. H. Darlow and H. F. Moule observed that the 1769 edition "contains many misprints, probably more than 'the commonly estimated number of 116‘" (Historical Catalogue of the Printed Editions of Holy Scriptures, I, p. 294). The Cyclopaedia of Literary and Scientific Anecdote edited by William Keddie asserted: “What is in England called the Standard Bible is that printed at Oxford, in 1769, which was superintended by Dr. Blayney; yet it has been ascertained that there are at least one hundred and sixteen errors in it” (p. 189). The Cambridge History of the Bible noted that Blayney’s edition “was indeed erroneous in many places” (Vol. 3, p. 464). David Daniell also asserted that the 1769 Oxford standard KJV edition included “many errors,” and that it repeated “most of Dr. Paris’s errors” (Bible in English, pp. 606, 620). Before a committee of Parliament, Thomson stated: “Dr. Blayney’s edition itself is very incorrect; the errors are both numerous and important” (Reports from Committees, Vol. XXII, p. 42). In an overstatement at least concerning omissions, William Loftie asserted that “Blayney’s folio of 1769” “abounds in omissions and misprints: yet this is still considered a standard edition” (Century of Bibles, p. 21). E. W. Bullinger maintained that the 1762 and 1769 editions "made many emendations of the Text; some of them very needless, and also introduced errors of their own, not always those pertaining to the printer" (Figures of Speech, p. 987). Concerning this 1769 Oxford edition, Lea Wilson asserted: “I find therein many errors of considerable importance, and unwarrantable departures from the text of the first edition” (Bibles, p. 128). John M’Clintock and James Strong wrote concerning Blayney’s edition: “But very soon his errors, one by one, came to light; some were corrected at one press, some at another; just has had been the case before; passages really correct were changed in ignorance, and the upshot of it all was, that in a very few years there was no standard again” (Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. I, p. 563).

 

I will not rebut here and now all the verses cited in the website article "When the NEW King James Bible departs from the underlying Greek text of the King James Bible", but here is one. The very first disputed verse cut-'n-pasted from the website --

Matthew 5:37 “But let your COMMUNICATION be, Yea, Yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh OF EVIL.”

The Greek texts read: ἔστω δὲ ὁ λόγος ὑμῶν ναὶ ναί, οὒ οὔ· τὸ δὲ περισσὸν τούτων ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἐστιν.

Tyndale and the Geneva Bibles agree word for word with the KJB. The NASB agrees with the KJB. However there are several problems with the NKJV. First of all, the NKJV omits the word “communication”, then it adds “and your”, and finally changes the meaning of “of evil” to “from THE EVIL ONE.” "Of evil" is the reading of Tyndale, Geneva, NASB, RSV, and the ESV.

The NKJV reads: “But let your Yes be Yes,(omits “communication”), AND YOUR (added to text) No, No. For whatsoever is more than these is from THE EVIL ONE.” Christ is speaking about the evil that comes from our own hearts, not about Satan. ​

In summary, there seems to be three complaints against the NKJV in this verse by the article's author: 1) that the English translation does not have a corresponding word for the Greek word λόγος; 2) that the English words "and your" do not have corresponding Greek words; and 3) that "the evil one" is an improper English translation for the Greek word πονηροῦ.

To fully answer #1 above, it is necessary to note that the noun λόγος (Strong's #3056) is translated in the KJV over thirty different ways, but the most common English rendering by far in the KJV for λόγος is "word" (218 times of its 330 appearances), but also as "saying" (50 times), "account" (8 times), "speech" (8 times), and "Word" (7 times). There is only one other verse in the KJV where λόγος is rendered into English as "communication" (Ephesians 4:29). But TWICE the KJV itself does not have a corresponding word in its English text for λόγος. To repeat: there are TWO verses in the KJV that the Greek word λόγος goes untranslated. Here is one (Matthew 25:19) --

After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them. (KJV)

μετὰ δὲ χρόνον πολὺν ἔρχεται ὁ κύριος τῶν δούλων ἐκείνων καὶ συναίρει μετ᾽ αὐτῶν λόγον (Greek TR)​

A reader can quickly notice that the KJV verse does not have the usual term "word" or any of the other most common renderings for λόγον (λόγον is merely an inflected form of λόγος; they are the same word). The point is, simply pointing out that a verse does not have a corresponding English word for a particular Greek word does not necessarily prove a fault with the translation. This seems to happen occasionally when rendering all the Greek words would be sound redundant in English, as perhaps Matthew 5:37 ("Yea, yea" and "Nay, nay" are obviously spoken words). The other KJV verse where λόγον is passed over is Acts 18:14 --

And when Paul was now about to open [his] mouth, Gallio said unto the Jews, If it were a matter of wrong or wicked lewdness, O [ye] Jews, reason would that I should bear with you: (KJV)

μέλλοντος δὲ τοῦ Παύλου ἀνοίγειν τὸ στόμα εἶπεν ὁ Γαλλίων πρὸς τοὺς Ἰουδαίους Εἰ μὲν οὖν ἦν ἀδίκημά τι ἢ ῥᾳδιούργημα πονηρόν ὦ Ἰουδαῖοι κατὰ λόγον ἂν ἠνεσχόμην ὑμῶν (Greek TR)​

Did the KJV then depart from the TR in Acts 18:14?

Answering complaint #2 above, it is commonly understood that it is often necessary to add words to complete a proper English translation from Greek that it should be not required to specifically cite many places where the KJV has English words that do not have precise Greek word correspondence. The KJV attempted to display extra words in italics but not all the words supplied by the translators have been consistently so treated. For example in Matthew 5:37, there are 17 Greek words in the verse but there are 18 English words (none italicized). Therefore, which word been added into the KJV? In Acts 18:14 above there are only 29 Greek words but there are 36 words in the KJV. Since two are called out by italics, ought we accuse the KJV of adding five other words surreptitiously? Simply drawing attention to added words does not clearly indicate any improper translation or departure from a specified text.

Answering complaint #3 above, it is necessary to note that the word πονηροῦ is a form of the adjective πονηρός (Strong's #4190) which is most commonly rendered in the KJV as "evil" (51 times of 76 appearances). However, the KJV itself translates πονηρός as "wicked one" SIX times (in Matthew 13:19 & 38; and 1 John 3:13 & 14 , 4:12 , 5:18). There is no danger in admitting that "wicked one" is synonymous with "evil one". It seems very clear that the NKJV is not departing from the TR here, but merely translating differently. Simply pointing out that one translation is different from another does not establish that one is incorrect (of course, the possible exists that both could be wrong). Notice that there was no complaint of the changes from "Yea" to "Yes" or from "Nay" to "No".

We find the NKJV being accused of departing from the TR when in fact the KJV has engaged the same translational practices.

 

Thank you for your reply. Time is short this morning, so don't have time to study, but did want to acknowledge your post.

 

bowing out as gracefully as possible

To Humblethinker,Logos,Oldtimer and any others who have noted my recent posts in this and any other KJV type threads. I am going to bow out of this discussion at this time for several reasons...#1 I am in WAY over my head because it is obvious that I have neither the depth of knowledge or the mental energy required to be relevant to this discussion. I know what I believe in my heart but that does not qualify me to be an apologist or an expert on this topic. I'll stay with my KJV because I feel and believe that I am safe there and that I do have God's Word (as He wants me to have it) in my hand. My #2 reason is that at this time in my life I am going through some trials and difficulties due to being out of work that have raised my current "stress-level" way above normal. I know God will take care of my wife and I but things are nonetheless tense at the moment and it is hard for me to focus on things. I'd appreciate the prayers of each of you that God would lead me and show me the open (or closed) doors that He wants me to go through (or not) and give me the wisdom and discernment to know the difference. I am almost 58 years old and things aren't as easy in the job world as they once were. I want to serve our Lord somehow.
In any case, I will continue reading and following these issues but I simply can't argue the point. It is not for me to do so.The truth is...I simply don't have the time,energy or level of knowledge to be able to do so. I am both impressed (and sometimes frustrated and confused) with the level of knowledge some of you seem to have. I read much but my retention of what I read is questionable. My wife tells me that she is amazed that I can remember as much information as I do about so many different subjects but can't seem to remember things she said to me two days ago. Go figure! I would say that that is frustrating to me as well. Frankly...all that aside...I just wish I could get closer to the Lord,have a better and more consistent prayer life and spend more focused,quality time in His Word,and be a better,more faith and fruitful witness for Him. If those things could EVER be said of me I would be a better man and live a better life. I pray it would and will be so even yet. God Bless All of you.

Bro.Greg

 

So what version did God use before the KJV than?

Why it, and not say the Vulgate?

both the Nasb and Niv "honor' jesus more times then the KJV does, why not use them?

 

I'd like to hear the KJVonly opinion of the Geneva Bible. It exceeds the standards they set for all other versions, including the multiple editions of the KJV.

 

Have you read the Geneva? I don't think most people would prefer it at as an everyday Bible. A comparison would perhaps be like giving up whatever contemporary automobiles for 1930's car models: they still basically have a motor, four tires, and a steering wheel but it would lack almost all comfort, efficiency, and safety features we have come to expect and enjoy.

 

That's as far from an adequate answer as you could have given, and quite ridiculous.

 

In the first post in the thread "KJV-only double standards about the NKJV," I quoted a number of statements by KJV-only authors that give the KJV-only opinion of the Geneva Bible.

 

I want to hear from KJV-onlyists on BB. It is rare for a typical KJV-onlyist to have an understanding of the various translations outside of biased KJV-centric medium. When judged according to stated KJV-only standards, the Geneva Bible stands out as superior to the KJV1611 and all of its revisions.

 

I volunteered a response since the question directed to me (I'm not KJVO). I responded because I wanted to know if you have read the Geneva, a question which you did not answer. I have read the Geneva New Testament.

But now I must ask: Why was my response was "quite ridiculous"? Please provide some objective support for your accusation.

 

I thought the comparison to be ridiculous. I use the Geneva Bible as my primary text & refer to other versions as secondary sources.

 

I am a fan of the Nasb myself, but IF one was to go the route of ole KJVO, than the geneva bible actually would make a stronger case for the 'right bible", for it is in the same family as the KJV, and was seen as being "bible of the reformers"...