How many errors in 1769 Oxford KJV?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Logos1560, Dec 22, 2006.

  1. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Was the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV perfect and free of all man-made error as some imply?

    Some sources claim that the 1769 Oxford KJV had at least 116 errors.
    For example, 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). 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, p. 61). Darlow and 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 Cambridge History of the Bible noted that Blayney’s edition “was indeed erroneous in many places” (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” in the 1762 Cambridge (Bible in English, pp. 606, 620). 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).

    Has any one ever seen a source that lists the claimed 116 errors in the 1769 Oxford KJV edition?
     
  2. deacon jd

    deacon jd
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    228
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have. You will find it on the very forum on which you are posting and its no just 116 errors its an endless list according to most of the liberals on here. There is no other Bible attacked and railed against on here as much as the KJV. Oh and by the way there are the same amount of errors in the 1769 as there are in the 1611 KJV. None! What is it about the KJV that convicts you so. Is it because its not watered down enough? Are its words as though they pierce your heart? Please allow the Word of God to have its work in you. I'm praying for you.
     
  3. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Deacon jd:I have. You will find it on the very forum on which you are posting and its no just 116 errors its an endless list according to most of the liberals on here. There is no other Bible attacked and railed against on here as much as the KJV.

    I hafta disagree and say it's the NIV.


    Oh and by the way there are the same amount of errors in the 1769 as there are in the 1611 KJV. None!

    Sorry, but some of the errors have been discussed ad-nauseum here. Just turning a blind eye towards them won't make'em go away. FACTS are stubborn things.


    What is it about the KJV that convicts you so.

    It's not so much about the KJV itself as it is about the incorrect doctrine that says the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible version....a doctrine WITHOUT ANY SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT whatsoever.

    Is it because its not watered down enough? Are its words as though they pierce your heart? Please allow the Word of God to have its work in you. I'm praying for you.

    What is it about the KJV that makes you wanna use only a 400-yr-old version that's not in the common language any more?
     
  4. deacon jd

    deacon jd
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    228
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is it because its not watered down enough? Are its words as though they pierce your heart? Please allow the Word of God to have its work in you. I'm praying for you.

    What is it about the KJV that makes you wanna use only a 400-yr-old version that's not in the common language any more?[/QUOTE]

    Sounds like someone else is under a little conviction here. To answer your question about the 400 year old version thats not in common language anymore. If age has anything to do with it then why did Jesus quote from the law that had been written over a millinium before? Funny how no one wanted to post on this thread until I did.
     
  5. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Can you document where the KJV had been railed against or attacked here please? That is forbidden by the rules and as moderator I need to deal with that.

    I do not stand for attacks on the word of God. As a KJV user I am especially aware when it is being attacked. I do by best to monitor this forum, but must have missed these attacks and railings.

    We depend on posters to use the "Report post" button for offensive posts. I would appreciate your help in finding offensive posts that have not been dealt with.
     
    #5 NaasPreacher (C4K), Dec 26, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 26, 2006
  6. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78

    Its underlying manuscripts and the philosophy behind its translation method to start with.
     
  7. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,762
    Likes Received:
    0
    Very Good Point!
     
  8. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    The KJV is not attacked and reilaed agasinst here at BB to the best of my knowledge. "Liberals" only point out the truth that the KJV has errors despite the false claims by some that it is errorless no matter how many differences the various editions may have.
     
  9. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78

    Then lets be real spiritual and quote for the Geneva Bible, the Bishops Bible, Wyclif's Bible, or one of the even older English translations.
     
  10. Ed Edwards

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

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can I be most spiritual of all and quote the Latin Vulgate?
    It is over 1500years old. To bad there aren't very many
    BB members that read latin.
     
  11. grahame

    grahame
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2006
    Messages:
    360
    Likes Received:
    0
    I personally like the KJV. Its words seem to come over with power when I quote it to unbelievers. Most of whom I might add understand what it says. I do use other versions as well. But for devotional reading and quoting I use the KJV. Personal preference and also when dealing with Muslims I find them always asking, "Why so many translations?" So as a rule I always use this version in order to keep some kind of continuity. Also I find that many of the words are more concise in their meanings tham many of the "modern" versions. But as I have mentioned already, this is only my personal preference.
     
  12. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Now for the oppression of the needy, and for the sighs of the poor, I will up, saith the Lord, and will set at liberty him, whom the wicked hath snared. The words of the Lord are pure words, as the silver, tried in a furnace of earth, fined sevenfold. Thou wilt keep them, O Lord: thou wilt preserve him from this generation forever.

    Interesting, when using the Geneva Bible, these verses make sense and not misleading. Preservation of the needy/poor and freedom to him from the snare of the devil.

    Pointing out issues like this is NOT an attack on any version; it is simply indicative of the fallacy of thinking one translation is somehow "without man-made errors".

    If man made it, there are errors!!​
     
  13. Ed Edwards

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

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen, Brother Dr. Bob. Even if we found a perfect Bible
    we would misread something and not perfectly incorporate it
    in our (human) lives. Fortunately God (the one who made the
    rules & the universe) is smarter than then the bible bashers.
    God made it so His Inerrant Written Word shines right through
    the boo-boos that men make.

    Even Blundering Baptist Board (BB) bulletin board (bb)
    members (BBBbbm) can figure out which books
    are Valid Bibles (and which aren't):

    http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=34374&page=9
     
  14. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Read Latin??? I do well to read English, Ed!

    :smilewinkgrin: :tongue3: :laugh:
     
  15. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0


    AMEN!​


    AND AMEN AGAIN!​
     
  16. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Are you claiming that the 1611 edition of the KJV had no printing errors?
    If so, how do you explain the fact that present editions of the KJV are not every word the same as the 1611 edition [except for the reprint editions of the 1611]? Even most KJV-only authors admit that the 1611 edition had some printing errors, and they usually claim that they were all corrected by 1769. However, the information in my first post documented that the 1769 edition also had at some printing errors.
     
  17. grahame

    grahame
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2006
    Messages:
    360
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is that correct? 86.49% voted for the New World Translation? I find that very interesting.
     
  18. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    If your statement is correct, please explain why present KJV editions are not every word the same in text as the 1769 Oxford KJV edition.
     
  19. Ed Edwards

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

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    86.49% voted 'for' the New World Translation being
    INVALID. Hello! that is NOT voting for the NWT but
    voting AGAINST the NWT.

    Three people admitted they got it backwards when
    they voted. Even still, the poll itself is valid.
    A group of people can tell which book is a VALID Bible
    and which is not a valid BIBLE.
     
  20. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    What an annoying concept!

    Ed
     

Share This Page

Loading...