KJV 1611 and 1769

A comparison of the TR and the WH text was done by FHA Scrivener in 1894 and is presently published by Dean Burgon Press. DBS can be accessed from the phone number or the web site below. The title is "Annotated Greek New Testament" and it places all of the changes from the TR to the WH text of 1881 in bold type with a critical apparatus to explain how the differences came about.

Scrivener also published a book called "The Authorized Version of 1611, its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representitives" in which he lists every change in every edition of the KJV from 1611 until 1769. It is also available from the web address below.

D.A. Waite also did a comparison between the 1611 edition and the 1769 edition which he published as "The Authorized Version 1611 Compared To Today's King James Version" and is available from "The Bible For Today" 900 Park Avenue, Collingswood, NJ 08108 (609-854-4452 or online at http://www.biblefortoday.org/ click on WebStore and type in 1294 in the item # space. It sells for $2.50.

In it Dr. Waite shows that there are only 421 translation changes from the 1611 to the 1769 and only 136 of those are changes of substance. The remaining 285 are minor changes such as "burnt" changed to "burned" etc. Of the 136 changes of substance virtually all of them can be attributed to printers errors, etc.

[ August 17, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

Dr. Lowry,
When looking at the differences between the 1611 and the 1769 KJVs, be sure to weigh the evidence. The KJVo argument is that the changes are not significant. Yet when the same standard is applied to changes or variants in the MVs, many KJVos tend to argue that there is no such thing as a minor change.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TomVols:
Dr. Lowry,
When looking at the differences between the 1611 and the 1769 KJVs, be sure to weigh the evidence. The KJVo argument is that the changes are not significant. Yet when the same standard is applied to changes or variants in the MVs, many KJVos tend to argue that there is no such thing as a minor change.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dr. Robert Joyner says this:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Every translation is God’s word in so far as it is translated correctly. Out of the 31,124 verses in the Bible, there are only about 200 or less that are even questioned, regardless of what translation you use or what family of Greek manuscripts you use. This means there are over 30,900 verses that are God’s word. So in any translation you use, the vast majority of it is the word of God. This is why the KJV translators said, “The meanest translation is the word of God.”

The differences between translations has been grossly exaggerated by some. The differences between families of Greek manuscripts have also been magnified and blown out of proportion by Ruckman, Riplinger, Waite, and others. These people make a lot of money appealing to the ignorance of God’s people. The fact is, both the Textus Receptus and the Alexandrian manuscripts set forth every doctrine that God has inspired. There is no important doctrinal difference. It is the same with the different English translations. Peter Ruckman said he had problems with only 152 verses of the New Testament (THE CHRISTIAN’S HANDBOOK OF MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE, page 89).

Some people go to great extremes to magnify the differences between translations and families of Greek manuscripts. These same people go to great extremes to play down the differences in the KJV and the Textus Receptus. In II Timothy chapter two, I counted 55 changes from the 1611 KJV to the 1769 version of the KJV that we use today. If you multiply 55 by 1189, (the number of chapters in the Bible), you can see there are at least 50,000 differences between the original KJV and the one we use today. The KJV Only people scream about the differences between the KJV and the NIV but excuse the changes within the KJV. They say the differences in the five major editions of the KJV were corrections in spelling, words, etc. The changes did not affect doctrine, they say. This is also true of the changes between the KJV and the NIV. However, the KJV Only group magnify the changes in the NIV and minimize the changes in the KJV.

The same is true when it comes to Greek Manuscripts. The KJV Only crowd screams about the differences in the families of manuscripts, but say nothing about the differences in the 18 editions of the Textus Receptus. Yes, there have been 18 different editions of the Textus Receptus with no two alike (some say 30 editions). When they say the Textus Receptus are the only inspired manuscripts, which edition do they mean? Why do the differences in the other manuscripts mean so much, and the differences in the Textus Receptus mean nothing? It sounds like someone is abandoning all logic and is trying to prove a point with no facts or Scripture.

CONCLUSION

When you read the Bible, you can be sure you are reading the word of God. Since God never promised a perfect translation, you may have to occasionally check some detail in the original or compare translations. But this is the exception rather than the rule.

The believer should read his Bible searching for blessings and to see Christ, not searching for flaws. Let the textual scholars work these few problems out. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://www.kjvonly.org/robert/we_can_be_sure.html

 

Chris, as usual, an excellent post.

 

witness D.A. Waite's fightin words, he of the Dean Burgon Society: Please note the copyright restriction on reposting anything from David Cloud's web site.Ed.http://www.biblebelievers.net/BibleVersions/kjckjv1s.htm
"There were ONLY 135 SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES that were different words. The others were only 285 minor changes of form only. Of these 285 minor changes, there are 214 very minor changes such as "towards" for "toward"; "burnt" for "burned"; "amongst" for "among"; "lift" for "lifted"; and "you"; for "ye." These kinds of changes represent 214 out of the 285 minor changes of form only. Now you're talking about only 136 real changes out of 791,328 words. Many people imply that the King James Bible is completely changed from what they had in 1611, that there are THOUSANDS of differences. You tell them about the mere 136 changes of substance plus 285 minor changes of form only. (D.A. Waite, Defending the King James Bible)."


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TomVols:
Dr. Lowry,
. Yet when the same standard is applied to changes or variants in the MVs, many KJVos tend to argue that there is no such thing as a minor change.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[ August 19, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

KJV Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

My feeling is that this passage is the Achilles heel of the KJVO argument.

KJVO advocates claim the 1611 KJV is the Word of God pure and perfect.
Yet they all quote the 1769 version which has several hundred differences compared to the 1611 version, (KJVO devotees claim these differences to be "minor") yet Jesus claims these spelling differences cannot happen.

Which is it, the 1611 or 1769 edition? As far as I have seen, No English Inspirationalist has ever been able to reasonably answer this question because (for instance) "burnt" is different than "burned" by two letters and therefore the KJV1611 and the KJV1769 versions are two different bibles. The fact that the above mentioned words have the same MEANING is inconsequential to Jesus Christ because according to Him, the Word of God (at least the Law - Pentateuch) is inspired down to the individual letters and even the tittles, equivelant to the dot over the "i"s.

In other words even ONE LETTER passing from the law is impossible according to Jesus Christ PLAIN and SIMPLE.

Can anyone (KJVO or otherwise) square Matthew 5:18 with the several hundred "minor" differences between the 1611 and 1769 Versions of the KJV?

HankD

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HankD:
Can anyone (KJVO or otherwise) square Matthew 5:18 with the several hundred "minor" differences between the 1611 and 1769 Versions of the KJV?

HankD<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure: Only the autographa are inspired; we can consider reliable translations as having derivative inspiration as far as they reflect the originals.

The Chicago Statement On Biblical Inerrancy, Part III

Exposition Section E
Transmission and Translation

Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents was inspired and to maintain the need of textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission. The verdict of this science, however, is that the Hebrew and Greek text appears to be amazingly well preserved, so that we are amply justified in affirming, with the Westminster Confession, a singular providence of God in this matter and in declaring that the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free.

Similarly, no translation is or can be perfect, and all translations are an additional step away from the autograph. Yet the verdict of linguistic science is that English-speaking Christians, at least, are exceedingly well served in these days with a host of excellent translations and have no cause for hesitating to conclude that the true Word of God is within their reach. Indeed, in view of the frequent repetition in Scripture of the main matters with which it deals and also of the Holy Spirit's constant witness to and through the Word, no serious translation of Holy Scripture will so destroy its meaning as to render it unable to make its reader wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus (II Tim. 3:15)

 

Thanks for your response Chris.

Anyone else?

I would be interested in a KJVO English Inspirationalist point of view concerning the apparent anomaly between Matthew 5:18 and Jesus claim that not even one letter or particle of a letter would pass from the Law and the several hundred differences found between the 1611 and 1769 editions of the AV.

HankD

 

Hank,

I just find it interesting that the KJV (1611 or 1769) does not contain either a jot or a tittle since they are written in English. Most of the people who hold so desparately to the "perfect preservation" article could not identify either a jot or a tittle on a piece of paper unless they were labeled.

 

Dear stephen,

That graphic is priceless !!



HankD

[ August 20, 2001: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Yes, it is, but it is also a violation of our "no pictures" policy for the BB to conserve band width/hard drive space. Please just post a link to it, then delete it.

 

&gt;&gt;Yes, it is, but it is also a violation of our "no pictures" policy &gt;&gt;

 

Especially since it's against BB policy, I sure hope someone deleted that link showing two guys kissing. I think it was in the "Progressive Clergy of Georgia" topic under Baptist Theology.

 

The URL for the Jot or Tittle graphic is http://www.no-jot-or-tittle.com/images/No%20Jot%20or%20Tittle%20Logo%20Small.gif

 

Brian,
When you see that Jesus is obviously concerned with even the jot and tittle of the law, you see that Jesus must place a high priority on not just the ideas/truths of the text, but even the very WORDS of the text of Scripture. This statement by Jesus is a testament to His own view of inspiration and Jesus' extremely high view of Scripture.

Do you mind if I ask what part of Cincinnati you are from? I was born there and spent a good deal of time there.

[ August 22, 2001: Message edited by: TomVols ]