Errors in 1611: from printers or translators?

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Logos1560, Oct 23, 2004.

  1. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Where all the renderings in the 1611 edition of the KJV that were changed in later editions "errors" introduced by the printers or were the KJV translators responsible for some of them?

    There were some printing errors in the 1611 edition. For example, the 1611 edition had an extra "the" or a double "the the" rendering at Ezekiel 23:23. At Acts 3:7, the 1611 had "aud" for "and" at its "and immediately" rendering. At Acts 20:26, the 1611 has "co" for "to." Above the "chapter IIII" of Micah, the 1611 has the mistaken heading "Joel."

    How many errors did the printers supposedly introduce into the 1611?

    Did the editors of later KJV editions claim that they only corrected "printing errors?" Has all the evidence been considered to determine the most likely or actual source for some of the renderings of the 1611 that were later changed?
     
  2. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,181
    Likes Received:
    326
    It makes to difference. This is a smokescreen argument set by the KJVO to take our eyes off of their past blunders.

    The KJVO originally claimed that the AV1611 were the "pure" and "perfect" flawless word(s) of God in the English language come down from heaven.

    However unknow to them, spelling, typos and other flaws had already been discovered and the first "Bible correctors" were none other that the KJV translators and Church of England churchmen.

    In addition, two versions of the King James Bible were released in 1611AD. One from Oxford, one from Cambridge which differed from one another.

    When they (KJVO) found out that there were hundreds of differences between the 1611 (Oxford-Cambridge) and the 1769 revision they (actually "he") equivocated and extended the myth to include some kind of refining process in a "furnace".

    As they continually back up and try to unravel and knit back together this convoluted fable they only make matters worse with their absurdities.

    The latest revelation which supposedly straightens all of this out from the Pope of KJVO is: yes there were errors in the AV1611, but they were inspired errors of "advanced revelation".

    We are all waiting for the answer to "which one"?
    Which one (1611-1850) is the real KJV refined in the furnace?

    The KJVO are the ones who brought it down to the "jots" and "tittles" )which BTW do not exist in the AV1611).

    Since things which are different are not the same (we had been told over and over again), then only one of the revisions can qualify as the "pure" and "perfect" Word(s) of God.

    Of course that is using logic and reason which the KJVO claim as useless (unless of course one uses KJVO approved logic).

    No one here hates the KJV and I certainly get no pleasure in revealing the human flaws involed with the KJV translation. All post-apostolic translations of the Word of God are flawed.

    While I partially agree with the more moderate KJVO and do not accept the W&H brand of higher crticism, what cannot be tolerated are the superstitious fables attached to any translation of the Scriptures not just the KJV.

    Similar superstitions developed concerning the Latin Vaulgate.

    These KJVO fables are being peddled at the expense of the brethren and if that were not enough, strife and division follow them wherever they go. Most KJVO are proud of this and wear it as somekind of badge of honor for defending the Word(s) of God (as if He needs our help).

    Fable #1 The Holy Spirit completed the one-and-only NT Scriptures in 1611AD not in 90AD (which transformed Passover into "easter").

    Fable #2 The Holy Spirit inspired the textual errors of the KJV translators awaiting a certain someone to reveal them (Passover/Easter as "advanced revelation".

    Fable # 3 The KJV is not copyrighted.

    Fable # 4 (never mind).

    And many others.

    While many/most KJVO deny following the KJVO number 1 man, they repeat almost word-for-word his arguments supporting these myths not realizing his own equivocations.

    Why do we bother? The KJVO emporer's new clothes have been exposed (pardon the pun).

    They will only rant, rave and throw their holier-than-thou tantrums if you throw wood on the fire.

    HankD

    [ October 23, 2004, 08:57 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]
     
  3. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    I don't think that all the 1611 renderings changed in later editions were the fault of the printers of the 1611.

    As many know, the KJV was officially a revision of the Bishops' Bible. The KJV translators themselves would be responsible for those renderings that they kept from the Bishops' Bible,
    even though they changed or revised many of its other renderings.

    Several of the renderings of the 1611 that were amended in later editions and that have been blamed on the printers seem to have been kept from the Bishops' Bible by the KJV translators themselves. Here are some examples:

    Gen. 23:10
    gates (Bishops', 1611)
    gate (today's KJV in Scofield Reference Bible)

    Gen. 39:16
    her Lord (Bishops')
    her lord (1611)
    his lord (corrected KJV rendering)

    Exod. 21:32
    thirty shekels (Bishops', 1611)
    thirty shekels of silver (corrected KJV)

    Exod. 23:13
    names (Bishops', 1611)
    name (corrected KJV)

    Exod. 26:8
    & the eleven (Bishops')
    and the eleven (1611)
    and the eleven curtains (corrected KJV)

    Lev. 2:4
    cake (Bishops', 1611)
    cakes (corrected KJV)

    Lev. 19:34
    shall be (Bishops', 1611)
    shall be unto you (corrected KJV)

    Lev. 23:20
    priests (Bishops', 1611)
    priest (corrected KJV)

    Num. 4:40
    houses (Bishops', 1611)
    house (corrected KJV)

    Num. 7:31, 7:55
    a silver charger (Bishops')
    one silver charger (1611)
    one silver charger of the weight (corrected KJV)

    Deut. 16:4
    coasts (Bishops', 1611)
    coast (corrected KJV)

    Josh. 12:2
    river of Arnon (Bishops', 1611)
    river Arnon (corrected KJV)

    1 Kings 9:11
    Then Solomon (Bishops')
    then Solomon (1611)
    then king Solomon (corrected KJV)

    2 Kings 11:10c
    that were in the temple (Bishops')
    that were in the Temple (1611)
    that were in the temple of the LORD (corrected KJV)
     
  4. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Interestingly, you also point out by example that the basis for the KJV1611 appears to be the Bishops' Bible.

    Which is considered historically correct by many scholars.
     
  5. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Do holders of a KJV-only view have any consistent evidence to support their claim that all the
    words changes between the 1611 and today's KJV
    was only the correction of "printing errors?"
     
  6. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    They are not that ignorant. We have a thread with list of 400 major word and phrase differences, NOT possible "spelling" or "printers" errors. Totally wrong stuff later corrected (or totally right stuff, later corrupted).

    BTW, they were "iote" and "title" that would not pass away.
     
  7. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    There are some if not many KJV-only advocates
    who claim that all the changes between the 1611 and today's KJV [besides the changes from Gothic
    type to Roman type and changes in spelling] were
    the correcting of printing errors.

    For example, in her new book IN AWE OF THY WORD,
    Gail Riplinger wrote: "When matched against a current KJV 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 brought about during the typesetting of the two 1611 editions" (p. 600).
    She even implied that all the correction of typographical errors was taken care of in the 1629 and 1638 editions and that the 1762 and 1769 editions only involved the standardization of spelling.
     
  8. Ed Edwards

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

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Logos1560: " She [Gail Riplinger in
    IN AWE OF THY WORD] even implied that all
    the correction of typographical errors was
    taken care of in the 1629 and 1638 editions
    and that the 1762 and 1769 editions only
    involved the standardization of spelling.

    In Hebrews 9:5 the "cherubims" over the
    mercy seat of the Ark of the Covenant are
    mentioned in the KJV1769s that I've seen.
    This does not correct the error in the KJV1611
    which also says "Cheribums". I have no
    idea what "Cheribums" are. A Cherub is a
    high order of angels. "Cherub" comes from
    the Hebrew and the plural is "Cherubim".

    The term "cherub" is found 20 places in
    the KJV1769.
    The term "Cherubim" is not found in English
    Dictionaries. Nobody but some KJV Translaters
    knows what it means. Well, oops, The
    Geneva Bible has "Cheribum" also [​IMG]

    The"Cheribum" error in the KJV was
    not corrected in the KJV1873 edition either.
    The nKJV and HCSB both correctly use
    "cheribim" in Hebrews 9:5.
     
  9. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,181
    Likes Received:
    326
    Ruckman has written a Book in which he admits to "errors" in the King James translation such as "Easter" instead of "passover" in Acts 12:4 and "churches" instead of "temples" in Acts 19:37. In fact he has found 200 (to date) of these inspired errors in the KJV.

    These he claims are still inspired words because they are "advanced revelation" (which seems to have an elusive definition).

    His conclusion is the colossal absurdity that the translated text can correct the text from which it was translated.

    I repeat, the spelling error issue is a smoke screen to hide the real issue of "advanced revelation".

    HankD
     
  10. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ruckman is quite a man of integrity to steal the wife of one of his students.

    "In 1959, he was divorced from his wife and subsequently married the wife of one of his students, a matter that has brought personal criticism from some Christian leaders."

    Source http://cnview.com/on_line_resources/ruckmanism_or_wreckmanism.htm

    One thing that could be said about him. He is consistently causing division and strife.
     
  11. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Funny how the only sect DISAVOW LOUDLY Ruckman's filth and infidelity, but STILL HOLD his doctrinal error. Oh, they say they are not "extreme" like Peter, but hold the exact same second (advanced) inspiration.
     
  12. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    The present-day edition of the KJV published by the American Bible Society has "cheribim" instead of "cheribims" at Hebrews 9:5 and other verses. I am not sure what year that their editions first introduced this change.
     
  13. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,181
    Likes Received:
    326
    Interesting Both my 1611 and my 1769 have "cherubims".

    A month or two ago a KJVO BB member went on a rant about how correct "cherubims" is/was.

    HankD
     
  14. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,574
    Likes Received:
    10
    Dr. Bob:Funny how the only sect DISAVOW LOUDLY Ruckman's filth and infidelity, but STILL HOLD his doctrinal error. Oh, they say they are not "extreme" like Peter, but hold the exact same second (advanced) inspiration.

    I believe most KJVOs adhere to the "party line" created by Wilkinson, Ray, and Fuller, and followed up by the numerous later authors, many of whom have added their own material to the mess. However, the old basics are still there, such as their insistence that Psalm 12:7 is about God's preserving His words...IN THE FACE OF THE AV TRANSLATORS' OWN MARGINAL NOTE IN THE 1611!

    Making this worse is the fact that MANY other verses CLEARLY state God has preserved His word. Shoot, we anti-Onlyismists believe likewise, so why do the KJVOs insist on Ps 12:7 as the "preservation" verse, and why do they ARGUE for preservation when we, their opponents, believe likewise? The ONLY logical explanation is that they've swallowed the old KJVO party line which was proven false before many of them were born.

    Ruckman, Riplinger, and other contemporary KJVO authors still follow this old party line. It's the framework for their literature. Basically, it's the same old garbage, mixed in with new garbage, repackaged in a new, more colorful garbage bag.

    If more KJVOs would TAKE THE TIME TO INVESTIGATE THE ORIGIN OF THE KJVO MYTH, THEY'D DROP IT LIKE A HOT POTATO! Its roots are from a known cult official and two dishonest authors. Now, while I'm all for anyone using the KJV only from personal preference, there's simply no basis nor any Scriptural support for the myth that the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible translation. That whole idea is STRICTLY MAN-MADE, and has absolutely NO FOUNDATION IN FACT.

    KJVO, please check out what we've said here!
     
  15. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    This rendering Ruckman defends at Acts 19:37
    was not even the choice of the KJV translators themselves. It is well-documented that Archbishop Richard Bancroft made 14 changes in the
    text of the 1611 that were not approved by the KJV translators themselves. One of these changes involved Acts 19:37.

    In a book recommended by some KJV-only advocates, Alexander McClure noted: "Bancroft, that he might for once stick the name [church] to a material building, would have it applied, in the nineteenth chapter of Acts, to the idols' temples! 'Robbers of churches' are strictly, according to the word in the original, 'temple-robbers'; and particularly in this case, such as might have plundered the great temple of Diana at Ephesus. Let us be thankful that the dictatorial prelate tried his hand no farther at emending the sacred text" (p. 221).
     
  16. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    The third post in this thread lists some examples where the KJV translators kept the rendering of the Bishops' Bible but which later
    editors of the KJV changed, revised, or corrected.
    Clearly, this indicates that the KJV translators
    themselves were the ones responsibility for these renderings that some KJV-only advocates excuse as
    supposed "errors" by the printers.
     
  17. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,181
    Likes Received:
    326
    According to Ruckman, all such "errors" are "advanced revelation", inspired errors if you will.

    Errors inadvertantly made by the translators without their conscious knowledge, the result of having been moved by God to do so.

    "Advanced revelation" waiting for someone to discover them.

    Can you guess who that was?

    HankD
     
  18. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    According to Ruckman, all such "errors" are "advanced revelation", inspired errors if you will.

    HankD
    [/QUOTE]

    If I recall correctly, Ruckman's claims
    of "advanced revelation" all involve renderings that are found in the 1611 edition of the KJV.
    Some of these renderings were also perhaps kept from the Bishops' Bible. I don't think he makes this claim for the supposed correction of "printing errors" made by later editors.
    If Ruckman claimed that these original example renderings in the 1611 were "advanced revelation," it would mean that the later corrections by later editors would be possible "errors" in present KJV editions.
     

Share This Page

Loading...