How Many Modifications of KJV1611 to 1769

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Phillip, Nov 15, 2011.

  1. Phillip

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

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have mentioned I am attending a strongly KJVO church with my daughter and the pastor likes to read from Ripplinger and other questionable sources; just on a temporary basis.

    One of his statements the pastor uses often is that "the KJB has to be the perfect Bible because it was modified exactly seven times to the Bible we have today and seven is the perfect number according to God" and "that nothing but spelling was changed". I know there were other minor changes, but how many editions of the KJV were really published before they stopped at the one we now call the KJV that was the Oxford 1769 (I believe)?

    "In order to understand your Bible you have to obtain an early dictionary printed in the early 1800's or late 1700's. With the KJB and this dictionary you have everything you need to read since the KJB is written on a seventh grade level while the NIV (Non-Inspired Version) was written on a college level."

    The pastor uses these statements or statements meaning the same thing everytime he steps into the pulpit for a sermon. Finally, last week he admitted he told his wife to have his KJB buried with him so when he rose again he would be reminded which words were God's true words.

    I am aware this is KJVO at its extreme end and I would like some real information regarding his comments from those of you that know the path of later scriptures better than I do.
     
    #1 Phillip, Nov 15, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 15, 2011
  2. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    today's KJV editions are not the 1769

    Revising of the KJV did not stop with the 1769 Oxford. I know of no edition of the KJV printed today that is 100% identical in its English text to the 1769 Oxford edition. There are 200 to 400 differences between the 1769 Oxford and any of the ten or twenty varying editions of the KJV in print today.

    For one thing, the 1769 Oxford KJV still had a character shaped like f for a long s. Thus, the word sin was printed "fin" and "wise" was printed "wife." Later editors around 1810 had to decide or determine if the "f" was used in thousands of words as a "f" or as a long "s."

    In addition, the 1769 Oxford edition spelled a number of words in two ways, and some of these were corrected in later editions. One example is "fole" (Gen. 49:11) but "foal" (Matt. 21:5). Another example is "scepter" (Gen. 49:10), but "sceptre" in some other verses.

    There were several non-standard English spellings in the 1769 Oxford edition such as "ews" (Gen. 31:38), "falsly" (Gen. 21:23), "yern" (Gen. 43:30), etc.

    There were a number of printing errors in the 1769 Oxford KJV edition. One example "Zithri" at Exodus 6:21 remained in Oxford KJV editions over 100 years until at least 1880 and in Cambridge editions until at least 1872.

    There were also a number of changes in the 1769 Oxford edition that may have been deliberate editing decisions, but later editors changed them back to the rendering of earlier KJV editions.

    The 1769 Oxford edition had "LORD" in around 70 places where later editors changed it to "Lord." These changes were not made until the 1829 Oxford.
     
  3. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Scrivener made a list of some errors in Blayney's quarto edition of 1769 (Authorized Edition, pp. 33-34). For one example, he noted that the 1769 edition had "the earth" instead of "the world" at 1 Corinthians 4:13 (p. 33). The 1769 edition had “coast“ instead of “coasts“ at Judges 19:29, “priest‘s custom“ instead of “priests‘ custom“ at 1 Samuel 2:13, “on the pillars” instead of “on the top of the pillars“ at the end of 2 Chronicles 4:12, “unto me” instead of “under me” at Psalm 18:47, “feared” instead of “fear” at Psalm 60:4, and “part“ instead of “parts“ at Psalm 78:66. It has “about” for “above” at 2 Corinthians 12:2 and “our joy“ for “your joy“ at 1 John 1:4. The 1769 edition had “Heman“ at Genesis 36:22 instead of “Hemam,” “thy progenitors“ at Genesis 49:26 instead of “my progenitors,” “brakedst” at Deuteronomy 10:2 instead of “brakest,” “thy tithe“ at Deuteronomy 12:17 instead of “the tithe,” “thy earth” at Deuteronomy 12:19 instead of “the earth,” “the widow‘s“ at Deuteronomy 24:17 instead of “a widow‘s,” “whom God alone“ at 1 Chronicles 29:1 instead of “whom alone God,” "thy companions" at Job 41:6 instead of "the companions,” “in the presence“ at Psalm 68:2 instead of “at the presence,” “when there were“ at Psalm 105:12 instead of “when they were,” “king of Jerusalem“ at Ecclesiastes 1:1 instead of “king in Jerusalem,” “the latter end“ at Proverbs 19:20 instead of “thy latter end,” “is a brier“ at Micah 7:4 instead of “is as a brier,” “mighty is spoiled“ at Zechariah 11:2 instead of “mighty are spoiled,” “was done” at 2 Corinthians 3:11 instead of “is done,“ “you were inferior” at 2 Corinthians 12:13 instead of “ye were inferior,“ and “the holy apostles” at Ephesians 3:5 instead of “his holy apostles.” The 1762 Cambridge edition had “Heman” at Genesis 36:22 and may be the source of the 1769 Oxford rendering. McClintock maintained that the 1769 edition had “children of Gilead” for “elders of Gilead” at Judges 11:7 and “gates of iron” for “bars of iron” at Psalm 107:16 (Cyclopaedia, I, p. 563). McClintock also claimed that the 1769 edition omitted the following words at Revelation 18:22: “at all in thee, and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more” (Ibid.). Several of the above renderings in the 1769 Oxford edition remained in Oxford editions over 70 years since they can still be found in a 1840 Oxford edition, and one remained over 100 years.
     
  4. JesusFan

    JesusFan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    basic question to that pastor would be this:

    "Which do you consider as being the Word of God for us today? the original languages Greek/Hebrew texts, or the English KJV translation off those texts?"

    www.bible-researcher.com/canon10.html

    Please paste that link and read up on how much 1789 edition changed 1611!
     
  5. Baptist4life

    Baptist4life
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    This guy sounds like a nut. Why are you still attending this church?
     
  6. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    My thoughts exactly. I get the desire for fellowship, but what happens when you present your (correct) case and he labels you, and your family, a heretic and casts you out?
     
  7. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think you already know the answer. You need to get out of there..... yesterday!
     
  8. Phillip

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

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you for the link. The pastor thinks the modern KJV (NOT THE NKJV) the standard KJV purchased off-the-shelf contains the perfect WORDS AND PUNCTUATION AND VERSE AND CHAPTER NUMBERING of God. No reason to look at manuscripts when we have the perfect Words of God already. (No joke. This is the strongest KJVO I have ever met. He brings it up at least every sermon about eight times.) another statement: "Or we can go down the street where they use the Non-Inspired Version and are liberal and may be saved but doubtful because they do not have the true Words of God." He likes to get "Amens" from people after he makes a remark from the Bible and ends the statement with "that's right out of the only true Words of God the KJB." If you say amen to this you are also agreeing to the source statement. I call it intentional deception.

    In answer to your question he argued thirty minutes with a missionary from China why the Chinese Bible was not translated from the KJB and they had a Bible full of errors if it wasn't. (Not the TR--it is never mentioned, but Westcott and Hort; of course were devil worshippers, blah, blah and all modern Bibles come from the pits of hell and Satan's work to destroy our Bible that is the reason his church of about 50 people on Sunday is the only true church in town that hasn't gone to Satan and is now liberal. Of course if they have a drum on their stage they are worshipping Satan with their music. Its legalism at its highest level from the beginning to the end of every sermon. Every usher has to wear a suit, tie and shined shoes even on Wednesday night and the pastor will kick anybody out of the church "he" deems is living in sin based on the level he sets which is not necessarily the same for each person. The sad part is my daughter, her husband and kids have bought into this and he can't even go with me to get a coke unless she can get hold of her husband "the boss" to find out if it is okay with him. If not, he doesn't go regardless of how she feels. It is a cult. Oh, and the old heavy Southern Gospel music is the only correct music to worship God with. Sorry, got started again, but I am working on my kids before I leave to a SBC church that I will pick out after some visiting.
     
  9. Phillip

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

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yep, we've discussed that and I will, but there are other issues preventing that at the moment. I'm old enough not to fall for his (well, I'll be nice here). It takes more than a preacher to change my theology. I want to see the grandkids protected first; since the "rod" is demanded including the methods of using it.
     
  10. Phillip

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

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree. There are circumstances I don't want to go into here. I also have a few friends plus my offspring that I am working on behind the scenes to show the falsehood and the right way would probably be to just leave, but there are other issues I am concerned about that I am watching.
     
  11. Phillip

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

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Excellent information. Thank you Logos1560.
     
  12. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm sure you'll do the right thing. :)
     
  13. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    2,499
    Likes Received:
    454
    Phillip,
    You've talked a lot about this church of yours, but you haven't said whether this KJVO Pastor preaches the Gospel. If all his sermons are just full of this KJVO stuff then you are right to be concerned, but if he is preaching the true word of God then perhaps you should cut him some slack and think that he might be doing some good despite his foibles.

    There are KJVO churches in Britain, but they are a very different species to the one you describe. There are some really great preachers who prefer the KJV but are not as obcesssed as your man seems to be.

    Steve
     
  14. Romans7man

    Romans7man
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2011
    Messages:
    128
    Likes Received:
    0
    I know the kind. I am a KJV only, but I'm not going to beat someone over the head with it. I believe the modern versions have some serious problems and would not stay at a church that preached from any other than the KJV, but I do not think just because someone uses other versions they are going to hell, that is just ignorance in motion. That is about as dumb as saying, all KJVO are going to heaven.
    Just so you know, I too have listened to Gail Riplinger, but I don't believe even she believes none KJB uses are going to hell. She'll just tell them to get a King James Bible.
    I am more in the camp, Is it correct today? Many of the KJ bibles you get from, say, wal-mart or the local christian book store, do have problems . I don't have it in front of me, but you could probably google it, "Is your King James Bible Pure". Many of the printers have taken the liberty to change some of the wording in the ones they print and it will vary from printer to printer. I ordered mine through Gail Riplinger and it is produced by Cambridge University Press in England. It is supposed to be the best, but I'm sure someone has something to say about that.

    As for the change from the church your child and her family goes to, to the SBC, I suppose you have to decide which chains you think are heavier. I go to a SBC, because we have a little more freedom there, but then again some carry their freedom a little too far in the SBC. I would like to go to a church that uses the KJ only, but not with all the phariseism of some of the other baptist churches.
    What it really comes down to is, sound doctrine. I would rather listen to the rants of that preacher than have my children walk in sin thinking all the while they are saved, and on their way to hell.
     
  15. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Steve,the KJVO preacher has glaring faults --not mere foibles! He shouldn't be a minister of the Gospel. If any of the Gospel is preached it sounds as if it's on the backburner compared to his KJVO spiels and anti-NIV rants. No slack should be cut at all. The man needs to counseled by godly ministers and told to get out of the "ministry" he's in.
     
  16. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    'Real' information is available in books by reputable publishers and authors with credentials on the subject; not randomly from the Internet. Even here on the BB there are a lot of good people posting misinformation, half-truths, and making honest mistakes. Having said that, I want everyone to know that I find much of the info here to be trustworthy. Some posters are particularly diligent, like Logos1560 (usually he shows references and page numbers from books).

    I would recommend getting one (or more) of these books: James White's The King James Only Controversy, Dr. James D. Price's King James Onlyism: A New Sect, or D.A. Carson's King The James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism.
     
    #16 franklinmonroe, Nov 15, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 15, 2011
  17. JesusFan

    JesusFan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    that Pastor is NOT leading his flock as Christ would have him...

    very judgemental, bad practices/doctrines, basically his KJVO belief just tip of the Iceburg, as he is NOT preaching/living out Gospel of Grace and freedom in Christ, under bondage of legalism/law!
     
  18. JesusFan

    JesusFan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Books by Dr white/carson BEST ones to read in this area, as BOTH of them do a really good job explaining why though KJV preferred is possible position, the KJVO position is NOT substainable, at least by the Biblical and textual evidences!
     
  19. Phillip

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

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Agree and he will preach the gospel, then wait and see if the person's life changes (he sets the standards to the amount) and they quit sinning to make HIS determination if they are really saved or not--if he thinks they haven't changed enough he has been known to kick them out of the church by telling them they weren't saved in the first place; but, he sets the standards, it is not a church vote. He is so heavy into the legalism that although he preaches against "works" for salvation; he seems to require "works" to prove salvation, which is pretty much the same the way he does it.

    I agree, I do not think he needs to be preaching the gospel because he will preach a basic Baptist doctrine of salvation and turn around and make the person prove it through tithing, whether or not they get a tattoo (after they are saved), listen to secular music (of any kind), listen to "contemporary" rather than Southern Gospel music among many other items on his list including movies and playing cards (even if its "go fish").

    He definitely has problems he passes to his flock who is primarily uneducated as an average; so they have nothing to compare to except the verses he jumps around to during his sermon which usually requires you to jump between the OT and NT and use the same standards that each verse partains to the same people and the same situation to make his point. Of course, this is the way David Koresh sold out a lot of people by knowing the Bible well enough to jump from verse to verse to turn it into any requirement he feels he wants to place on the church members.

    It is interesting that by using only the KJV, he can control the subject matter easier because each verse will be translated and be the same words and it is easy to pull just one document out of context than multiple translations. :thumbsup:
     
  20. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gail Riplinger proposed that "standardization of spelling" was "completed" in 1769 (In Awe of Thy Word, p. 602). Riplinger asserted that “the spelling of the KJV was standardized and made uniform beginning in 1762, by Dr. Thomas Paris of Cambridge, and finally in 1769, by Dr. Benjamin Blayney of Oxford” (p. 601; Hidden History, p. 50).

    Riplinger's claims concerning the 1769 Oxford edition are incorrect. The Cambridge changes did not begin in 1762, but in 1743. Most of the changes found in the 1762 Cambridge edition of the KJV are already in the 1743 Cambridge edition edited by F. S. Parris.

    David Norton wrote: “The long-missing element of careful proof-reading and correction of the text was resumed in this 1743 Bible” (KJB: a Short History, p. 161). Gordon Campbell wrote: “The folio Bible that Parris produced for Cambridge University Press in 1743 was an important edition because of the principles on which it was edited” (Bible: The Story of the KJV 1611-2011, p. 136). Campbell does not even refer to the later 1762 Cambridge edition. David Crystal referred to present KJV editions being derived from “F. S. Parris’s Cambridge edition of 1743” along with the 1769 Oxford (Begat, p. 9). David Norton observed: “Parris shows himself to have been a very perceptive editor, highly attentive to the relationship between the translation and the original, and sensitive to small details of language and punctuation” (KJB, p. 162). Many have been unaware of this important 1743 KJV revision or edition.

    As noted earlier, all standardization of spelling was not completed in 1769.
     

Share This Page

Loading...