Is the 1769 Cambridge KJV edition inerrant?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Logos1560, Jan 1, 2014.

  1. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    In another thread,
    Most present KJV editions are actually based on the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV although they are not identical to it, not on a 1769 Cambridge edition. Some present KJV editions are based on the 1873 Cambridge edition by Scrivener, and at least a couple KJV editions are based on the 2005 Cambridge edition by David Norton.

    While an edition of the KJV printed at Cambridge in 1769 does have some of the new changes, corrections, and revisions introduced in the 1769 Oxford edition, it does not have all of them.

    Because of the fact that a 1769 Cambridge edition of the KJV does not have all the 1769 Oxford renderings, because of the fact that a 1769 Cambridge edition kept some of the 1743-1762 Cambridge renderings not found in the 1769 Oxford, and because of the fact that a 1769 Cambridge edition has some new renderings or possible printing errors not in the 1769 Oxford, it could be concluded that a 1769 Cambridge KJV edition would actually differ more from present KJV editions than a 1769 Oxford.

    The text of D. A. Waite’s The Defined King James Bible is not the “Cambridge 1769 Text” “unaltered” as implied on the title page in its first [1998] and second editions. A later edition printed in 2005 has this same assertion on its title page. An edition with its last copyright date of 2012 still asserted that it is “the Authorized King James Bible unaltered” “Cambridge 1769 Text.“ The word “unaltered” would be a broad-sweeping claim that not even one letter or one word of the “Cambridge 1769 Text” was altered in Waite’s edition. D. A. Waite wrote: “The Cambridge 1769 is a good standard to be used, as we do in our Defined King James Bible” (Critical Answer to James Price’s King James Onlyism, p. 130). Others may have accepted Waite’s claim about his edition being the 1769 Cambridge. For example, Phil Stringer wrote: “I identify completely with the statement by Pastor Robert Barnett (Dean Burgon Society meeting, July, 2010).” Stringer quoted Barnett’s comment about “God’s truth in our 1769 Cambridge edition of the King James Bible” (Messianic Claims of Gail Riplinger, p. 97). Kirk DiVietro claimed that Waite’s DKJB “uses the 1769 revision of the 1611 King James Bible Cambridge edition, which most of us use as the King James Bible” (Cleaning-Up Hazardous Materials, p. 91). Waite’s assertion about the text of the edition of the KJV in his Defined KJB is actually incorrect, and any who believe it have been misled.
     
  2. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    renderings in the 1769 Cambridge

    Here are some examples of characteristic renderings found in the 1743 Cambridge or 1762 Cambridge editions of the KJV, and that are also in the 1769 Cambridge, but are not in the 1769 Oxford.

    Genesis 42:2
    get ye [1762, 1769 Cambridge]
    get you (1769 Oxford)

    Genesis 44:17
    get ye [1762, 1769 Cambridge]
    get you (1769 Oxford)

    Genesis 45:17
    get ye [1762, 1769 Cambridge]
    get you (1769 Oxford)

    Genesis 50:16
    sent messengers [1638, 1762, 1769 Cambridge]
    sent a messenger (1769 Oxford)

    Exodus 23:23
    and the Hivites [1743, 1762, 1769 Cambridge]
    the Hivites (1769 Oxford)

    Exodus 28:20
    enclosings [1638, 1743, 1762, 1769 Cambridge]
    inclosings (1769 Oxford)

    Exodus 30:37
    you [1629, 1638, 1743, 1762, 1769 Cambridge]
    ye (1769 Oxford)

    Exodus 31:10
    clothes [1629, 1638, 1743, 1762, 1769 Cambridge]
    cloths (1769 Oxford)

    Deutonomy 22:3
    any lost things [1743, 1762, 1769 Cambridge]
    any lost thing (1769 Oxford)

    1 Samuel 2:5
    hath borne seven [1762, 1769 Cambridge] {1611 London}
    hath born seven (1769 Oxford)

    Psalm 87:5
    the Highest himself [1638, 1743, 1762, 1769 Cambridge]
    the highest himself (1769 Oxford)

    Matthew 19:29
    eternal life [1743, 1762, 1769 Cambridge]
    everlasting life (1769 Oxford)

    Luke 4:33
    and he cried out [1743, 1762, 1769 Cambridge]
    and cried out (1769 Oxford)

    Acts 7:28
    killedst [1743, 1762, 1769 Cambridge]
    diddest (1769 Oxford)

    Acts 21:25
    from things strangled [1743, 1762, 1769 Cambridge]
    from strangled (1769 Oxford)

    Acts 27:21
    and have gained [1743, 1762, 1769 Cambridge]
    and to have gained (1769 Oxford)

    Acts 28:15
    the Three taverns [1629, 1638, 1743, 1762, 1769 Cambridge]
    The three taverns (1769 Oxford)

    2 Corinthians 8:7
    in utterance [1743, 1762, 1769 Cambridge]
    and utterance (1769 Oxford)

    2 Corinthians 8:7
    in knowledge [1743, 1762, 1769 Cambridge]
    knowledge (1769 Oxford)

    Philippians 4:2
    and I beseech [1743, 1762, 1769 Cambridge]
    and beseech (1769 Oxford)

    James 2:16
    be ye warmed and be ye filled [1743, 1769 Cambridge]
    be ye warmed and be ye filled [1762 Cambridge]
    be ye warmed and be filled (1769 Oxford)
     
  3. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,107
    Likes Received:
    50
    Kind of makes sense that since event he KJVO disagree on which TR text is correct and best, that the version off that would be differering, so NO standard Greek/English text to KJVO!
     
  4. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    A 1769 edition of the KJV printed at Cambridge has some different renderings [some perhaps intentional and some may be printing errors] that are not found in the 1769 Oxford or in present KJV editions.

    Genesis 44:10
    he with him whom [1769 Cambridge]
    he with whom (1769 Oxford)

    Exodus 12:30
    an house [1769 Cambridge]
    a house (1769 Oxford)

    Leviticus 7:30
    unleavened bread [1743, 1769 Cambridge]
    leavened bread (1769 Oxford) [1762 Cambridge]

    Deuteronomy 2:22
    they succeed [1769 Cambridge]
    they succeeded (1769 Oxford)

    Judges 8:27
    became snare [1769 Cambridge]
    became a snare (1769 Oxford)

    1 Samuel 7:10
    thundered a great thunder [1769 Cambridge]
    thundered with a great thunder (1769 Oxford)

    2 Samuel 19:18
    as he came over [1769 Cambridge]
    as he was come over (1769 Oxford)

    2 Samuel 23:3
    ruleth over me [1769 Cambridge]
    ruleth over men (1769 Oxford)

    Job 9:30
    ever so clean [1769 Cambridge]
    never so clean (1769 Oxford)

    Matthew 28:12
    large sums of money [1769 Cambridge]
    large money (1769 Oxford)

    Romans 10:7
    ascend [1769 Cambridge]
    descend (1769 Oxford)
     
  5. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,107
    Likes Received:
    50
    So the KJVO agree that the 1769 Kjv edition corrected and made more perfect the 1611 version then?
     
  6. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Every KJV edition I've ever seen contains the same goofs we've discussed here in other threads.
     
  7. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    around 100 differences in 1769 Cambridge

    There are actually around 90 places where the 1769 Oxford KJV edition has "LORD" [Jehovah] where most present KJV editions [besides The Companion Bible and perhaps a few others] have "Lord" [Adonai].

    See the following verses: [Gen. 18:27, Gen. 18:30, Gen. 18:31, Gen. 18:32, Gen. 20:4, Exod. 15:17, Exod. 34:9, Num. 14:17, Josh. 3:11, Jud. 13:8, 1 Kings 3:10, 1 Kings 22:6, 2 Kings 7:6, 2 Kings 19:23, Neh. 1:11, Neh. 4:14, Neh. 8:10, Job 28:28, Ps. 2:4, Ps. 22:30, Ps. 35:17, Ps. 35:22, Ps. 37:13, Ps. 38:9, Ps. 38:15, Ps. 38:22, Ps. 39:7, Ps. 40:17, Ps. 44:23, Ps. 51:15, Ps. 54:4, Ps. 55:9, Ps. 57:9, Ps. 59:11, Ps. 62:12, Ps. 66:18, Ps. 68:11, Ps. 68:17, Ps. 68:19, Ps. 68:22, Ps. 68:32, Ps. 77:2, Ps. 77:7, Ps. 78:65, Ps. 79:12, Ps. 86:3, Ps. 86:4, Ps. 86:5, Ps. 86:8, Ps. 86:9, Ps. 86:12, Ps. 86:15, Ps. 89:49, Ps. 89:50, Ps. 97:5, Ps. 110:5, Ps. 114:7, Ps. 130:2, Ps. 130:3, Ps. 130:6, Ps. 135:5, Ps. 136:3, Ps. 140:7, Ps. 141:8, Ps. 147:5, Isa. 3:17, Isa. 3:18, Isa. 4:4, Isa. 9:8, Isa. 9:17, Isa. 11:11, Isa. 21:6, Isa. 21:16, Lam. 1:14, Lam. 1:15, Lam. 2:1, Lam. 2:5, Lam. 2:7, Lam. 2:20, Lam. 3:31, Lam. 3:36, Lam. 3:37, Lam. 3:58, Ezek. 18:25, Ezek. 18:29, Zech. 4:14, Zech. 6:5, Zech. 9:4, Mal. 1:14, Mal. 3:1].

    At a couple verses, the 1769 Oxford has “Lord” where present KJV editions have “LORD” [Gen. 30:30, Jer. 7:4]. The 1769 Oxford has “LORD God” where most present KJV editions have “Lord GOD” at some verses [Exod. 23:17, Exod. 34:23, 2 Sam. 7:18, 2 Sam. 7:19, 2 Sam. 7:20, 2 Sam. 7:28, Isa. 56:8]. At Daniel 9:3, the 1769 Oxford has “Lord GOD” instead of “Lord God” that is in most present KJV editions. The 1769 Oxford has “Lord God” at five verses where present KJV editions have “Lord GOD” [Jud. 6:22, Isa. 3:15, Isa. 61:1, Ezek. 16:23, Ezek. 45:9]. The 1769 Oxford has “LORD GOD” at one verse [Amos 6:8].

    The 1769 Oxford still has “God” at 2 Samuel 12:22 instead of “GOD.”

    In most of the above differences, the 1769 Cambridge edition of the KJV would be the same as the 1769 Oxford. In a few places, they would differ. The 1769 Cambridge KJV edition has "LORD" [Jehovah] in at least a couple places where the 1769 Oxford and present KJV's do not.
     
  8. jonathan.borland

    jonathan.borland
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    0
    This thread should be eye-opening to Jordan, showing him the obvious inferiority of the Cambridge edition in a number of places compared to the Oxford edition. He said he believed it was the "inerrant inspired word of God," and so either his belief is wrong or the Cambridge edition is wrong, at least according to his strict explanation of "inerrancy" that he holds everyone else to when discussing Bible versions issues.
     
  9. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,972
    Likes Received:
    129
    Pure are the words the Lord doth speak:
    as silver that is tryde
    in earthen furnace, seven times
    that hath been purifyde.
    Thou shalt them keep, o Lord, thou sha’
    preserve them ev’ry one,
    For evermore in safety from
    this generation.
    Psalm 12:6–7 (Bay Psalmes 1640)

    Logos Bible Software's Blog of March 2006 [LINK] describes the frustration of producing a definitive King James Version for their program.
    They eventually settled upon Scrivener's 1873 Cambridge text.
    The words of the LORD are pure words:
    As silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
    Thou shalt keep them, O LORD,
    Thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
    Psalm 12:6–7 (AV 1873)

    Rob
     
  10. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    In the thread entitled "Can a translation be inspired"
    Are all these same type renderings in most present KJV editions always in agreement with basic, standard English grammar?

    At Genesis 31:38, most if not all present KJV editions have a demonstrative pronoun "this" [singular in number] used with a noun ["years"] that is plural in number. In this case, the 1769 Cambridge edition of the KJV has a demonstrative pronoun "these" [plural in number] in agreement with the plural noun, but "these" is likely not found in your present KJV edition.


    Genesis 31:38 [see Deut. 2:7, 8:2, 8:4--these forty years; Gen. 31:43--these daughters; Gen. 27:36--these two times] [see Luke 15:29, Rom. 15:23--these many years] [see Gen. 41:35]
    These twenty years (1709, 1762, 1770, 1771, 1772, 1773, 1777, 1778, 1783 Oxford) [1769, 1817 Cambridge] (1746 Leipzig) (1791 Thomas) (1810 Boston) (1815 Walpole) (1816 Albany) (1818 Holbrook) (1823, 1827 Smith) (1832 PSE) (1835 Towar) (1854 Harding) (1833 WEB) (1842 Bernard) (1853 Boothroyd) [NKJV]

    This twentie years [1629, 1637, 1638 Cambridge]
    This twenty years (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1743 Cambridge, DKJB]
     
  11. Phillip3

    Phillip3
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2013
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    0
    Inerrant ???

    No, it is not inerrant from a word-for-word perspective. It is the inerrant "word" of God; however.

    If it was it would not use a proper noun for its translation of "Lucifer" which is NOT a preserved word. There is NOT one single Hebrew manuscript that contains it.

    The English dictionary says the definition of the English word for Lucifer is Satan.

    It came from the Latin Vulgate. "Lucifer" is Latin for "the planet Venus" or "morning star".

    The actual translation of ALL the Hebrew manuscripts is......"morning star".

    So, if you use your argument that the "Preserved word verse" applies like this then all of the KJV versions have an error. Unless, of course, you consider the capital letter is just a typo and it should be lower case, Plus, say that the KJV is word for word inerrant in English AND Latin. :laugh:
     
  12. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,107
    Likes Received:
    50
    NO translation can even be 100 % "word for word" from greek/hebrew into the native language, for there are some terms that just do not have same equivalent available!

    Even the literal Nasb has some "dynamic" passages in it.....
     

Share This Page

Loading...