Changes made to the Authorized Version

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Thermodynamics, Feb 7, 2009.

  1. Thermodynamics

    Thermodynamics
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2009
    Messages:
    356
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Representative" changes, maybe, but not all, by any stretch, at least as would be seen in the 1612 "Roman" type printing.

    One verse should suffice.
    I'll also add that some actual "changes" of wording are here classified as "spelling" changes, as well, which is inaccurate. I have previously mentioned one such instance, but do not recall exactly where this was, and am not taking the time to look it up, for now.

    For I am now going to bed with lights on to see the path by, for the first time in twelve days. :thumbsup:

    :wavey: :sleep:

    Ed
     
  3. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,973
    Likes Received:
    129
    In the bibliography of the article in the OP, it lists Scrivener's, Cambridge Paragraph Bible [1873].
    Its introduction provides a wealth of information about the history of the Authorized Version

    We are prone to using a web-based edition of the 1611 KJV as a definitive edition;
    Scrivener notes that there were two different 1611 issues, each having a slightly different text.

    The complete list goes on for many pages.

    Rob
     
    #3 Deacon, Feb 8, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 8, 2009
  4. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    That site does list many of the changes, but it may not be all of them. The changes listed are probably those between the 1611 edition and a 1900's Cambridge KJV edition.

    That site does provide evidence that shows that a KJV-only claim that there were only 400 or so changes is incorrect.
     
  5. Thermodynamics

    Thermodynamics
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2009
    Messages:
    356
    Likes Received:
    0
    You and another poster above are correct, these are not all of the revisions. I should not have used the word "all." I was thinking in terms of "all of the types of changes" but my wording implies "each and every change" made.
     
  6. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    KJV-only author D. A. Waite admitted that there are "136 substantial changes" between the 1611 KJV and current KJV plus "285 minor changes of form" (Defending the KJB, p. 244, see also pp. 3-4). In another book, Waite noted that he “found only 421 changes to the ear from the 1611 original compared with the 1917 Old Scofield King James Bible of today” (Fundamentalist Mis-Information on Bible Versions, p. 53, see also pp. 90-93). He indicated that he was sure that if another person did the same comparison that they “would get the same results” (p. 93). In yet another book, Waite observed that in “changes of words as to their sound from the King James Bible of 1611 to the present King James Bible there are only 136 differences” (Central Seminary Refuted on Bible Versions, p. 24). He then indicated that if such small things as a change from “towards” to “toward” are included “you get 413 words in all” (p. 25). Later in this same book, he gives his “only 421 translational changes” count (p. 76), but he also gives a count of “only 435 changes” (p. 116). In his original 1985 booklet, Waite did acknowledge that he “might have missed a place or two throughout the course of the Bible” (AV1611 Compared to Today’s KJV, p. 4). He added that he “tried to record them all” (p. 4). He then referred to “the total translation changes of 421” (p. 4). How accurate and reliable was Waite’s research in comparing these two KJV editions? Should his count be regarded as an almost complete list of all the changes of sound between these two editions? When Waite used the words “total,” “only,” and “in all“ that are quoted above, does that suggest that his count is presented as a complete or incomplete list of all these changes? Waite seemed to recommend to others that they use his count when he wrote: “You tell them about the mere 136 changes of substance plus 285 minor changes of form only. Argue them down” (Defending the KJB, p. 244).


    Some KJV-only authors definitely follow Waite’s counts. Lloyd Streeter repeated Waite’s inaccurate count of only 421 changes (Seventy-five Problems, p. 55). Streeter claimed “there were only 421 phonetic changes” (p. 55). David Cloud likewise quoted or cited Waite’s count of “421 changes”--“136 changes of substance plus 285 minor changes of form” in at least four of his books (Way of Life Encyclopedia, pp. 232, 233; For Love of the Bible, p. 40; Faith, p. 590; Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 136). Cloud commended the “diligent study” and “diligent research” of Waite, and he indicated that Waite should be taken as an example of those who defend the KJV” (Examining “the King James Only Controversy,“ pp. 18-20). Cloud also maintained that Waite “has tallied and categorized every change and has shown us exactly what the differences are” (p. 73). David Sorenson cited Waite’s count of only “136 substantial changes” (Touch Not the Unclean Thing, p. 17). Gail Riplinger also likely cited this count when she maintained that “one might wrongly conclude that the 1611 KJV was different in 136 places from today’s KJV, not realizing that the differences were typographical errors” (In Awe of Thy Word, p. 600).

    Since looking at a booklet with a list of over 2,000 changes, Waite in his newsletter revised his count up to 1095 changes. I do not know if he has yet printed his new count in any of his books.


     

Share This Page

Loading...