Hasn't the KJV been updated in thousands of Places?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by TheWinDork, Apr 27, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. TheWinDork

    TheWinDork
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2006
    Messages:
    434
    Likes Received:
    0
    A question that comes up frequently in the Bible Version debate is this: "If you believe that the KJV is the preserved Word of God in English, which edition do you use, seeing that it has been revised many times and in thousands of places?"

    ANSWER:

    I will answer this question under the following five headings:

    1. There were corrections of printing errors, typographical changes,
    and spelling updates.

    These were done by the British publishers of the KJV and can be
    grouped into two time periods.

    There were updates made between 1613 and 1639 for the purpose of
    correcting printing errors. The revisers included Samuel Ward and
    John Bois, two of the original translators. "Some errors of the press
    having crept into the first edition, and others into later reprints,
    King Charles the First, in 1638, had another edition printed at
    Cambridge, which was revised by Dr. Ward and Mr. Bois, two of the
    original Translators who still survived, assisted by Dr. Thomas Goad,
    Mr. Mede, and other learned men" (Alexander McClure, The Translators
    Revived, 1855).

    An update was made between 1762-69 to correct any lingering printing
    errors and to update the spelling, enlarge and standardize the
    italics, and increase the number of cross references and marginal
    notes. The revision was begun in 1762 by Dr. F.S. Paris of Cambridge
    University and completed in 1769 by Dr. Benjamin Blayney of Hertford
    College, Oxford University. "The edition in folio and quarto, revised
    and corrected with very great care by Benjamin Blayney, D.D., under
    the direction of the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford, and the Delegates of
    The Clarendon Press, in 1769" (McClure, The Revision Revised). The
    revision was made by collating the then current editions of Oxford
    and Cambridge with those of 1611 and 1701.

    2. All of the changes were of a minor nature, such as the following:

    ** Printing errors were corrected. This was almost exclusively the
    nature of the corrections made in the 28 years following the first
    printing. Consider some examples:

    Psalm 69:32 -- "seek good" was a printing error in the 1611 that was
    corrected to "seek God" in 1617

    Ecclesiastes 1:5 -- "the place" was a printing error in the 1611 that
    was corrected to "his place" in 1638.

    Matthew 6:3 -- "thy right doeth" was a printing error in the 1611
    that was corrected to "thy right hand doeth" in 1613.

    Consider some famous printing errors that have appeared in printings
    of the King James Bible:

    The Wicked Bible (1631) omitted "not" in "Thou shalt not commit
    adultery" in Exodus 20:14.
    The Printer's Bible (1702) read "printers have persecuted me" instead
    of "princes" in Psalm 119:161
    The Vinegar Bible (1717) read "The Parable of the Vinegar" instead of Vineyard.
    The Ears to Ear Bible (1810) read "who hath ears to ear let him hear"
    in Mat. 14:43.
    The Rebekah's Camel's Bible (1823) read "And Rebekah arose, and her
    camels [should be damsels]" in Gen. 24:61.

    ** The use of italics was more standardized and its use was expanded.

    Spelling and punctuation were updated. For example, old English had
    an "e" after the verb (i.e., feare, blinde, sinne, borne), used an
    "f" for the "s" except at the end of words (alfo instead of also) and
    "u" for the "v" (euil instead of evil). Consider how 1 Corinthians
    14:9 was written in 1611: "So likewise you, except ye vtter by the
    tongue words easie to be vnderstood, how shall it be knowen what is
    spoken? For ye shall speak into the aire." Or Genesis 1:1-2: "In the
    beginning God created the Heauen, and the Earth. And the earth was
    without forme, and voyd, and darkenesse was vpon the face of the
    deepe: and the Spirit of God mooued vpon the face of the waters."

    ** A large number of new marginal notes and cross-references were added.

    3. Donald Waite of Bible for Today compared every word of the 1611
    KJV with a standard KJV in publication today (the 1917 Scofield which
    uses an Oxford text).

    Dr. Waite's study is entitled "KJB of 1611 Compared to the KJB of the
    1917 Old Scofield" (BFT1294) and can be obtained from Bible for
    Today, 900 Park Ave., Collingswood, NJ 08108,
    http://www.biblefortoday.org/. He counted all of the changes that
    could be heard. The largest number of changes were spelling (e.g.,
    "blinde" to "blind"), but as these have no real significance he did
    not count them.

    He found only 421 changes that affect the sound throughout the entire
    791,328 words in the King James Bible. Of these 421, the majority
    (285) are minor changes of form, such as "towards" changed to
    "toward" (14 times), "burnt" changed to "burned" (31 times),
    "amongst" changed to "among" (36 times), "lift up" changed to "lifted
    up" (51 times), and "you" changed to "ye" (82 times). Obviously these
    are not real changes of any translational significance.

    Dr. Waite found ONLY 136 SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES (out of 791,328 words)
    between the original KJV of 1611 and the contemporary Oxford edition.
    Most of these changes were made within 28 years after the original
    publication of the KJV and were the simple correction of printer's
    errors. Following are some of the 136 substantial changes:

    1 Samuel 16:12 -- "requite good" changed to "requite me good"
    Esther 1:8 -- "for the king" changed to "for so the king"
    Isaiah 47:6 -- "the" changed to "thy"
    Isaiah 49:13 -- "God" changed to "Lord"
    Isaiah 57:8 "made a" changed to "made thee a"
    Ezekiel 3:11 -- "the people" changed to "the children of thy people"
    Naham 3:17 -- "the crowned" changed to "thy crowned"
    Acts 8:32 -- "shearer" changed to "his shearer"
    Acts 16:1 -- "which was a Jew" changed to "which was a Jewess"
    1 Peter 2:5 -- "sacrifice" changed to "sacrifices"
    Jude 25 -- "now and ever" changed to "both now and ever"

    Further, there are a few differences between the Oxford and the
    Cambridge corrected editions that can still be found in current
    editions of the KJV. Following is one example:

    Jeremiah 34:16 -- Cambridge has "whom YE had set at liberty" while
    Oxford has "whom HE had set at liberty"

    4. The most thorough study ever done on the various editions of the
    King James Bible was by Frederick Scrivener in the late 19th century.

    He was the author of the Cambridge Paragraph Bible, which was an
    "elaborate attempt to publish a trustworthy text of King James'
    version." It first appeared in 1873 and was republished in 1884
    accompanied by Scrivener's valuable Introduction and Appendices as
    The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611): Its Subsequent
    Reprints and Modern Representatives (Cambridge: University Press,
    1884). One of the Appendices is a "List of original readings of the
    Bible of 1611 examined and arranged" and another is a "List of wrong
    readings of the Bible of 1611 amended in later editions." Scrivener
    also analyzed the KJV's underlying Greek text and tabulated the
    number of times that it varied from the Stephens and the Beza
    editions of the Received Text. A reprint of Scrivener's important
    book is available from Bible for Today. It is also available on CD
    from Sola Scriptura Publishing, 1118 SW Orleans St., Topeka, KS
    66604. http://www.solascripturapublishing.com, [email protected].

    5. What is the significance of these facts?

    First, we see that the KJV has gone through such a strenuous
    purification process that the reader can have complete confidence in
    its accuracy.

    Also, any idea that the KJV was "given by inspiration" is disproved.
    If it were "given by inspiration" in 1611 it would not have needed
    any sort of correction or refinement, because it would have been
    infallible in every detail. Those who teach that the KJV is more than
    an accurate translation, that it is given by inspiration and perfect
    and inerrant in itself and advanced revelation and such must show us
    exactly which edition they are referring to.
     
  2. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Actually, Waite's count is inaccurate. From the same two KJV editions that Waite compared, I have compiled a list of 1800 to 1900 of the same-type changes as those listed by Waite. Waite did not find or list over two-thirds of the actual total changes of sound and around one-half of those he termed "substantial changes."
     
  3. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,805
    Likes Received:
    78
    WinDork,

    Is this your own work - or is it from another source?
     
  4. TheWinDork

    TheWinDork
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2006
    Messages:
    434
    Likes Received:
    0
    It doesn't matter what the original source is, Yes, it is my work, but the infomation was collected from various sources.

    This Board's bias against the Recieved Text and the King James Version of the Bible, God's Preserved Word, has been thoroughly exposed for what it is.

    and with that, I'm outta this section, too much controversy for this ol' soul. I'll stick the humor and current events sections.

    Good Day!

    TheWinDork
     
  5. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    Unless you want to be thrown into jail for plagairism, it matters.

    [​IMG]
     
  6. DesiderioDomini

    DesiderioDomini
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    0
    translation: I dont care how inaccurate my information is, I said it, so leave me alone!

    I'm taking my ball and going home!
     
  7. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,444
    Likes Received:
    44
    DesiderioDomini,
    It is unnecessary and unproductive rhetoric such as this that keeps most KJVO from the debate. I certainly understand TheWinDork's desire to avoid an unfruitful conversation.

    If every bit of evidence if discounted, what is the use of producing any evidence at all. Perhaps Dr. Waite's research and the study done by Logos1560, although similar, is not the exact same study. For him to say, "Actually, Waite's count is inaccurate," is just throwing the evidence back in TheWinDork's face. Perhaps he could have said, "I have done a similar study and here are the results of my research."
     
  8. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    as one of ur fellow KJBO defenders put it, "Things that are different are not the same."

    have u asked Doctor Waite how many "substantial changes" it takes for something to be no longer the same?

    [​IMG]

    n why this sophisticated system of 5 categories? how many categories does the Bible have in Revelation 22:18-19?
     
  9. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    1,169
    Even Don Waite admits there are words that were changed from 1611 to 1769 that cannot be attributed to spelling changes, correction of printer's errors, or other omissions.

    God was changed to LORD in 2 Chron 28:11 and Isaiah 49:13.

    If a modern version did that the KJVOs would be clammoring about the modern versions denying something or other.
     
  10. DesiderioDomini

    DesiderioDomini
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    0
    I respectfully disagree. There was no discussion, no debate. There was no exchange of ideas. One man made an inaccurate claim, one which has been discussed here before, and rather than allow meaningful discussion (I saw nothing resembling malice in Logos' post) he simply ran away at the first sign of disagreement.

    Bob, this post proves that it doesnt matter how nice you are, some just dont want their tradition to be questioned at all. The only evidence which matters is that which supports their position. The OP did exactly what I said: He made his claim, not caring whether it was true or not, and at the first sign of resistance, took his "ball" and went home.

    True evidence, or misleading evidence, such as that above? Shouldnt every peice of misleading or incorrect evidence be discounted? What am I missing here?

    Bob, I dont understand how this is not what Logos did. Yes, he said Waite's study was inaccurate, but he then did just what you asked, and showed some examples from his reserach.

    What is it that you want us to do? Do you really not see a problem with these drive bys? Do you not feel that this is dishonest christian behavior? Those are both serious questions, I would like to know what you think. I am not asking for you to take a side on KJVO here, but merely "is posting misleading evidence then running away the second it is questioned dishonest christian behavior"?

    Thanks!
     
  11. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,444
    Likes Received:
    44
    Every piece of evidence should be given due consideration. There is far too much "this book says this," that is then countered with "this book says that your book is wrong."

    There are points that the KJVO use as defense that has been proven to be inaccurate. There are facts to substantiate the inaccuracies in these. In others, non-KJVO resort to the same strategy and quote men who have nothing but conjecture as evidence.

    Knowingly posting misleading evidence is one thing. To quote a source who may be found to be inaccurate is quite another. If the source is proven to be inaccurate, what answer would you expect to be given? They have no recourse but to leave the debate and go find a reliable source, if one is to be found.
     
  12. DesiderioDomini

    DesiderioDomini
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    0
    I disagree. I like James White, I enjoy his lectures, his book was very informative to me, and his book educated me very well on this issue. However, if an error is shown to me about something he wrote, then I wont just leave and run to find something that will support me. I will renounce the false evidence first. Any honest christian should be expected to do the same. THIS is the question I am asking....not is POSTING false information dishonest, but also RUNNING AWAY after that information is shown to be inaccurate an act of dishonesty? I think it is, I'd like to know what you think.

    Here lies my main problem with the majority of KJVO...MANY of them have never sought out the evidence to see if these author are telling the truth. We saw it here on this board when a KJVO swore up and down that Riplinger did not make a certain false claim, only to later find that his more recent edition had the error removed.

    I am not asking for perfection....just honesty. As much as I know this isnt so, it appears that you are saying that KJVO should be allowed to post false information, and then not be obligated to set the record straight. I would expect such things from faithless men, but I believe we are called to a higher standard of integrity.
     
  13. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    I have Waite's booklet THE AUTHORIZED VERSION 1611 COMPARED TO TODAY'S KING JAMES VERSION, and I used the exact same two editions in my comparison that Waite said that he used and I also used his standard of what he considered as differences to list. Waite wrote: "The particular things that I was looking for were changes affecting the sound" (p. 3 of his booklet).

    In his book entitled FUNDAMENTALIST MIS-INFORMATION ON BIBLE VERSIONS, D. A. Waite indicated that he was sure that if another person did the same comparison that they "would get the same results" (p. 93).

    In his original 1985 booklet, Waite did acknowledge that he "might have missed a place or two throught the course of the Bible" (p. 4).

    How far off does Waite's count need to be to be considered inaccurate?

    In his study and comparison, Waite claimed that he took “these same examples” listed by Scrivener; (CENTRAL SEMINARY REFUTED ON BIBLE VERSIONS, p. 78). David Cloud noted that Waite’s Bible for Today reprinted Scrivener’s book so Waite clearly had access to it (Faith, p. 591).

    David Daniell wrote that “F. H. A. Scrivener listed about fifteen hundred” errors or changes (BIBLE IN ENGLISH: ITS HISTORY AND INFLUENCE, p. 460).

    How does Waite explain the fact that so many of Scrivener’s examples are missing from his list? If Waite did what he wrote, it would be expected that there would be many more changes in his list. Perhaps Waite only assumed that he found all the same examples as Scrivener had. If he actually took all the examples listed by Scrivener, his list should have been much longer.
     
  14. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    If the KJV was absolutely perfect in 1611, then why would God allow "printing errors" to mar perfection? If the thesis of KJVO is true, there would have been no "purification" process. The old KJVO motto "what is different is not the same" apparently applies to other Bible versions, but that motto is changed to "what is different is the same" when it comes to the KJV.
     
  15. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,566
    Likes Received:
    4
    Windork:This Board's bias against the Recieved Text and the King James Version of the Bible, God's Preserved Word, has been thoroughly exposed for what it is.

    I don't know if this gent's KJVO or not, but he repeats the mistake made by many a KJVO...Assuming that we Freedom Readers who are against KJVO are against the KJV itself.

    As for updates...Has anyone compared the text of the AV 1611 with that of the Bishop's Bible or the Geneva Bible?(Footnotes excluded)
     
  16. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    I have not made a complete comparison of the 1611 KJV with the Geneva Bible or the Bishops' Bible, but I have compared many verses in them.
    There are the same-type differences between the earlier English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision and the KJV as there are between the KJV and later English translations of the same underlying texts.

    In comparing the Gospel of Matthew in a modern-spelling edition of the 1537 Matthew's Bible and the present KJV edition in the SCOFIELD REFERENCE BIBLE, I counted over 1,900 differences. This count includes the use of different words, different parts of speech, omissions or additions, etc., but does not include any differences in spelling or punctuation.
     
  17. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    If Waite found only 421 changes that affect the sound out of over 1800 changes that affect the sound, is that an accurate or inaccurate count and listing of all the changes that affect the sound? If Waite found and listed only 25% of the actual number of changes that affect the sound, should that be considered an accurate or inaccurate count?

    Even if he found and listed 50% or even 75% of the total number of changes that affect the sound, would even that be an accurate or inaccurate count?
     
  18. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,444
    Likes Received:
    44
    I do not necessarily think that the scenario you describe is an act of dishonesty. The mere act of "running away" may be a concession, not dishonesty. On the other hand, to continue to produce or defend information shown to be inaccurate would be dishonest, in my opinion.

    I would agree with this statement but add that it applies to a certain degree to the non-KJVO as well.

    I am not saying this at all. To knowingly post false information is unacceptable. To post information that later is revealed to be false is not dishonesty; hopefully it is a learning experience. There is no need for the poster to "set the record straight" if that has already been accomplished by another.
     
  19. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,444
    Likes Received:
    44
    I do not have this booklet, therefore I cannot comment on the specific criteria for which Waite was looking. He and Scrivener may not have had the same standard. Perhaps you can give a few example of the changes that he counted.

    Again, assuming that one uses the same standard and criteria for identifying these changes, one should get the same results as Waite. If not, Waite is indeed in error.

    I would say 1 or 2% error could still be considered accurate.

    We have to be sure that each man used the same standard to identify changes.
     
  20. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Waite’s listing and count does not include the adding of two words at ten verses (Exod. 15:25 [“for them”], Exod. 35:11 [“his boards”], Lev. 19:34 [“unto you”], Lev. 26:23 [“by me”], Deut. 26:1 [“thy God”], 1 Sam. 18:27 [“and went”], Ezek. 46:23 [“row of”], John 7:16 [“and said“], 1 John 5:12 [“of God“], Rev. 1:4 [“which are“]), three words at three verses (Josh. 13:29 [“the children of“], Jud. 1:31 [“of” three times], 2 Kings 11:10 [“of the LORD“]), and six words at one verse (Eccl. 8:17 [“yet he shall not find it”]). Thirty-five more word changes missed by Waite. There are also over 60 verses where later editors added one word that are not included in Waite’s list. There are at least fifteen verses where later editors omitted one word in the 1611 that are not on Waite’s list. Over thirty changes of the number [singular/plural] of words in the 1611 are also not listed. Likely all or almost all of these type changes that Waite listed as "substantial," but that he did not include in his list are found in Scrivener's appendixes in his book THE AUTHORIZED EDITION OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE (1611).
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...