KJV 1611: version or edition

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by AntennaFarmer, Mar 19, 2008.

  1. AntennaFarmer

    AntennaFarmer
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    Messages:
    606
    Likes Received:
    0
    It seems to me that ofttimes a misunderstood position is falsely labelled as "dishonesty".

    It isn't my intent to pick on EdSutton here. He has merely given me an opportunity to share my point.


    This has been repeated many times on this board. While it makes great debate it is actually based on a mistaken premise. It confuses versions with revisions thereby creating a false dilemma.

    To illustrate my point, here is an example from a "statement of faith" by a KJVO Baptist church:

    "We believe the King James Bible AV 1611 is the word of God and we accept it as the final authority in all matters of faith and practice."

    Somehow that is taken (by some) to mean that the 1769 revision of the KJV would (or should) not be accepted. That, however, is due to the confusion between versions, revisions and editions. The version in vew here is the new translation which occured in 1611. The 1769 edition is a revision of the 1611 version. The text of the commonly used editions are more fully described as "The 1769 revision of the 1611 King James Version".

    The clear intent of the phrase "1611 King James Version" is to distinguish that particular translation (not edition!) from later translations such as the "New King James Version" which is an entirely diffferent translation (version). The word "version" is inclusive of later revisions of that same version.

    So there is no contradiction at all to say that I use the 1611 King James Version and then read from the my 1769-revision-based edition.

    The use of the perjorative "dishonest" above is both uncalled for and wrong. It is based on a faulty understanding of the facts.

    A.F.
     
    #1 AntennaFarmer, Mar 19, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 19, 2008
  2. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Sorry AF, this thread has nothing to do with versions or translations.


    Okay, I reconsidered, if this is the basis for the question in the thread to make it less personal.

    Is the title KJV 1611 an acceptable generic term for all revisions of the King James Version?



    I would say, no. Because though most of the thousands of changes are spelling updatings and such, there are few significant changes, like I John 5v12.
     
    #2 NaasPreacher (C4K), Mar 19, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 19, 2008
  3. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    I agree with Roger. I have two repro AV1611s, & they're somewhat different from my Cambridge Edition KJV & several other KJV copies I have.

    Yes, this topic has been discussed many times, & I'm not gonna bore everyone with the minutiae of it, but lemme remind everyone that the later KJV editiona omit mosta the translators' extratextual material.

    I think it suffices to say that the AV1611 & the later editions of the KJV are QUITE different from one another, & when a church has "King James Bible of 1611" or similar in a doctrinal statement, it's incorrect if it doesn't use the AV1611. Same for the Internet posters who use similar terminology while posting from a 1769.
     
  4. AntennaFarmer

    AntennaFarmer
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    Messages:
    606
    Likes Received:
    0
    C4K, I see your difficulty with my post. My title is misleading. There are two unrelated matters linked only by the quoted statement.

    You take my main point almost as I intended. What I am getting at is that when folks say that they hold to the 1611 KJV (or some such wording) it should be understood that they are following the 1611 King James Version rather than 1611 King James Edition.

    Is 1611 KJV (or KJV 1611) the best way to say it? Maybe not. I wish to address the intent.

    I did check my dictionary. In this context "version" applies to "translation" rather than "revision". The terms version, revision and edition have distinct and specific meanings.

    Corrections such as 1 John 5:12 fall well within the definition of revision.


    A.F.
     
  5. AntennaFarmer

    AntennaFarmer
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    Messages:
    606
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let me be clear. You are reading the statement of faith in a way that was not intended.

    If you think the wording is incorrect then that is fine. I am not trying to get you to accept their statement. I am attempting to explain how that wording was intended. Actually, I think they accurately stated their position. If you consider the intent then there is no contradiction with practice and no dishonesty.


    A.F.
     
  6. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    I don't question their intent and don't consider them dishonest, possibly uninformed at worst.

    I think they could accomplish the same purpose while leaving the date off.
     
  7. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Awww! I'm disappointed! :tear:

    And I was so hoping ... :praying:

    BTW, I'm a big boy, and I can take it.

    'Sides, when one do "pick on EdSutton", it -

    [A.] gives (or should that be "giveth"?) everyone else a break - and

    [B.] saveth C4K the trouble! :laugh: :laugh:

    Ed
     
  8. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    The terms 'version' and 'edition' can (and are) used synonymously. The term 'version' technically means a translation from another language; that is, any 'New Testament' in English is a version of the Greek text. For examples, there are Chinese versions, Spanish versions, Coptic versions, etc. Thus 'version' only identifies the document as being a translation, nothing more. The KJV, TNIV, and NLT are all just English versions.

    An 'edition' is merely any copy from a group published at one time or from a single set of type (ie. the evening 'edition' of a newspaper). 'Editions' that are different in (almost) any detail but carry the same title should be distinguished by date and place of publication, and/or number (ie. 2nd, 8th, etc.). Therefore, 'edition' implies revision; the character of the revision can be discerned by comparison, but the impact of revision may be subjective. This statement is so imprecise as to virtually render it meaningless --
    We believe the King James Bible AV 1611 is the word of God and we accept it as the final authority in all matters of faith and practice.​
     
  9. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    FTR, I do not take this as 'personal', in any way.

    And I agree with the conclusion of C4K, here.

    I would suggest that the designation of "KJV" (as opposed to "KJV 1611") is "an acceptable generic term", generally speaking, because the latter can be a bit misleading, even when (and the uses are generally) unintentional. FTR, I do differentiate between the "casual use" of that "KJV-1611", as opposed to any "agenda-driven use" intent, here.

    #1 - Various designations of "versions", "editions", "revisions" of previous "editions" are invariably external, somewhat arbitrary, and are not always all that clear, at best. Even the designation of KJV, which I use out of 'convention' is slightly, albeit unintentionally misleading. The version was "dedicated" to King James I, but was, unlike say, The New King James Version (NKJV), never named as such, at the time it appeared.

    #2 - The "Authorized Version" (AV) is also a somewhat ubiquitous designation, as well, for the versions/editions ordered by the crown, and known as "The Great Bible" (1539 - by Henry VIII, which version had six revisions and over 30 "editions" thru 1569, and was "ordered to be available to be read in every parish church" by Edward VI in 1547) and the Bishop's Bible (1568 by Elizabeth I, and was revised at least twice, and had over 50 'editions") were "authorized" by the Crown and the Church of England, as well as that of the KJV, and all three were "appointed to be read in the churches". The version we (or at least I) normally refer to, is probably best titled as the King James Version, or KJV, IMO. "AV" would be understood, by most, as well, I think, even though not completely specific, as I have just demonstrated above.

    #3 - [Edited out on my, hopefully, better judgment.]

    #4 - Why not be accurate?? Is that a problem, somehow? Both AntennaFarmer and C4K have shown that the KJVs that most of us generally use, was subject to revision, as in the case of I John 5:12. I quote and cite the KJV, fairly often, myself, and always identify it, as such, when doing. If I go into great detail, I will acknowledge that the edition I cite from is of unknown origin.

    The KJV (as also is the DARBY, WEB, RV, ASV, Williams NT, YLT, and WNT, among others) is in the "public domain" in the USA, and is (or can be), at times, 'revised' from even the 1769. There is no prohibition on such, and hence, I do not always know the source. (Incidentally, one can currently find both the 'Tyndale' and 'Wycliffe' out there, but they are both under copyright of their 'revisers' who have updated spelling, etc.)

    For example, a quick galnce at eBay, this morning, showed what I term a "counterfeit" KJV NT for sale. Further details say that "The New Testament. King James Version. The flyleaf says it is Printed, Bound & published in the United States of America by FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH Milford, Ohio 45150."

    Uh-?? Say what ?? I'm no Einstein, but I am pretty sure that this was never "authorized" by anyone, save that local church, certainly neither the English 'Crown' nor the Anglican church.

    Biblos.com (with well over 100 versions (most of which are in the 'public domain') and over 40 languages available on-line, is a very worthwhile site to check out, IMO. -


    http://biblos.com

    http://bible.cc/

    - even differentiates the "American King James Version" and the "King James Bible" in their on-line texts.

    As usual, I have to apologize for TMI.
    But in summary, let me merely offer that my interest is and was accuracy. Ed Edwards can accurately claim to quote the "1611 AV", or the "1611 KJV", or however he would style the version, for 'he holdeth in his hotte little pawes, a fafcimilie versione of faid text'. I cannot (and do not) make this claim, ever when quoting from the KJV.

    It would be just an inaccurate for me to quote from the NASB (which alone, has ten copyrights, and incidentally has more copyrights than any other single version, and roughly the same number as the English crown has in total, for all its approved versions, from the Great Bible through today) and claim I was quoting from my own NASB of 1968, if in fact, I was quoting from the latest 1995 edition. But it is accurate to cite it as the NASB, which I do also quote from time to time, as well.

    Let me inject here, that I love Bibles and have several version and editions, myself, and look forward to acquiring more. But the "Great Bible" and/or the "Bishop's Bible" are not, and likely never will be among them, for I simply ain't packing around no Bible that is ~ 12" X 18" in size, 4-6" thick, and weighing 30-40#!!

    And let it be said, once again, that I am in no way, "putting down" the KJV, for I do not, and happen to love and admire that version, very much. For most of my Chrisitan life, my "usual Bible" was and has been a KJV. I would give a goodly sum, no questions asked, just to get back my Wide margin, black-letter, New Scofield KJV that someone "borrowed" from my cab, with neither my permission or knowledge, some years ago. I thought a lot of that Bible, which had 25 years worth of irreplacable notes all through it, and I had used for over 25 years, and through most of my days, even back then in Bible College, and had even had rebound, at a cost roughly equal to, if not more than, the purchase price of a new one, some 10 years prior to its disappearance.

    And in fact, since I had to replace my Bible, and had been and was still so partial to the KJV, I went out, and bought me a New one. :)

    Ed

    P.S. Listen up, everyone! I just accidentally found a great site for access to more Bible versions that I even dreamed existed on-line. Check this site out!

    http://rockhay.tripod.com/worship/translat.htm

    Happy searching! :thumbs:

     
    #9 EdSutton, Mar 19, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 19, 2008
  10. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Exactly, :thumbs:

    And on both counts, I'll add.

    You said, in fewer than 30 words the same thing, basically, that I took 500 to say, earlier.

    Ed
     
  11. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Perhaps part of the problem comes from the claims of various KJV-only authors and KJV-only advocates themselves who sometimes claim that the KJV has not been revised. Some imply or claim that the text of the KJV today is the same as the text of the 1611 edition. In addition, some KJV-only advocates suggest that if one change is made it is a different Bible, and imply that it is wrong for a present KJV edition to even update any more of the spelling. See the statements below and in the next post. Therefore, a consistent application of various KJV-only statements and claims could be the reason some point out the seeming inconsistency of saying 1611 KJV when a present day revised edition of the KJV may be meant.

    Peter Ruckman wrote: “The ‘changes’ in the AV text between 1611 and 1883 are changes in commas, semicolons, archaic spellings and Germanic print” (Problem Texts, p. 4). Ruckman wrote: “Any and all revisions were corrections of press errors where the typesetter had not followed the text of 1611. These were revised back into subsequent editions, and then their printer’s errors were corrected until a pure text was arrived at in 1813, which conformed to the original intent of the AV translators” (Differences, p. 13). Laurence Vance also wrote: “Besides the correction of errors of the press made in 1611, the text, punctuation, and italics of the Authorized Version have been refined, modernized, and standardized, but certainly not revised” (King James, His Bible, p. 139). Edward Hills claimed that “aside from printers errors, these [KJV] editions differ from each other only in regard to spelling, punctuation, and, in a few places, italics” (KJV Defended, p. 230). In his tract entitled “Fables and Facts about the KJB,“ James Melton asserted as fact the following statements: “The so-called ‘revisions’ of the King James Bible prior to 1800 were to correct typographical errors, add notes, and omit the Apocrypha from between the Testaments. There were no changes in the actual TEXT of the King James Bible.“ Evangelist William Bradley wrote: "The revisions made to the King James 1611 Bible, one in 1629, one in 1638, one in 1762, and the last one in 1769, made no changes in the text, only standardization of spelling, punctuation, and updated typeface. The text of the Bible has remained unchanged from 1611 till today" (To All Generations, p. 71). Bradley also contended that "the King James Bible printed in 1611 reads the same as the King James Bible printed in 1997" (Purified Seven Times, p. 115). Ed DeVries asserted: "Buy a KJV at any bookstore and compare it to a KJV from 1611 and you will see that EVERY word is the same" (Divinely Inspired, p. 66). Mickey Carter suggested that “the words were never changed” between the 1611 edition and the 1769 edition (Things that are Different, pp. 173-174). D. A. Waite wrote: “The fact of the matter is that the present King James Bible is substantially (almost 100%) identical with the original 1611” (Fundamentalist Mis-Information, p. 53).

    Lloyd Streeter affirmed that "the King James Bible has never been revised," and he added: "It is a ruse to say it has been revised" (75 Problems, p. 54). In addition, Streeter claimed: “The KJV has remained exactly the same for nearly 250 years, and virtually the same for 350 years” (p. 55). DeVries maintained that "none of the 'revisions' of the KJV between 1611 and 1769 resulted in the addition, subtraction, and or replacement of one word" (Divinely Inspired, p. 67). Branson claimed that since 1611, "only typographical errors have been corrected, and a handful of insignificant editing adjustments made" (KJV 1611: Perfect, p. 5). Wally Beebe suggested that the KJV "hasn't changed in hundreds of years" (Church Bus News, April-June, 1997, pp. 2, 13). In an earlier issue of his publication, Beebe wrote: "The early revisions were not revisions at all, but instead were corrections. There were misspellings, typographical errors, type changes (from Gothic to Roman), and many other things that took several years to accomplish before the King James Version was in the beautiful and pure form it is in today" (Apr.-June, 1992, p. 9). David Reagan also stated: "The King James Version of 1611 has not been revised but only corrected" (KJV of 1611, pp. 14-15). Reagan asserted that “the King James Version we have today has not been revised but purified” (p. 18). Reagan maintained that “the changes from the 1611 edition that are admittedly textual are obviously printing errors because of the nature of these changes” (p. 10). Riplinger also claimed: “There have never been any ‘revisions’ of the KJV text” (In Awe, p. 601).


     
  12. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Dave Reese claimed: "If words are changed, it is not the King James Version. It is another Bible" (The Book No One Can Read, p. 56). Jim Ellis asked: “How could it be a King James Bible if it is different from the King James Bible?“ (Only Two Bibles, p. 17). Attacking the idea that the New Scofield Reference Bible has the same basic text as the KJV, William Grady contended: "A lost man would laugh at the suggestion that a particular text could be promoted as the same text with even one alteration" (Final Authority, p. 311). Raymond Blanton wrote: “If man changes one word he has corrupted the Word of God” (Perilous Times, March, 1998, p. 2). Charles Perkins wrote: “Personally I cannot find anything ‘Godly’ about changing even one word in the King James Bible” (Flaming Torch, April-June, 1998, p. 7). Bill Bradley asked: “Would you allow someone to take your King James Bible and change it in more than 130 places, and still call it a King James Bible?“ (Carter, Elephant, p. 142). Len Smith wrote: “Be careful if you go buy a King James Version. The publishers will deceitfully call some of them Authorized Versions without letting you know they’ve changed some of the words, some of the spelling, and some of the capitalization” (Age of Reason, D22, p. 9). Mickey Carter wrote: “Some Bible publishers will print what on the cover reads ‘King James Version,‘ yet without any warning anywhere make changes on the inside” (Things that are Different, p. 90). E. W. Whitten claimed: “If any variance or inconsistency can be found in the truth, or version, the entire article is tainted and no longer has any credibility” (Truth, p. 35). According to a consistent application of the faulty reasoning of some KJV-only advocates in their attacks on the NKJV, MKJV, New Scofield, and KJ21, the 1611 KJV and current KJV's should not both have the same name since there are differences between them.

    According to a consistent application of the above KJV-only claims and reasoning, are the publishers of editions based on the 1769 Oxford edition deceitful for calling their edition that changed some words and changed some spelling and capitalization a KJV? In effect, KJV-only advocates are promoting current KJV's with many more than one hundred thirty alterations from the original 1611 edition of the KJV as being the same text as the 1611. KJV-only advocates often do not apply their own statements and claims consistently. Even D. A. Waite seemed to make an issue out of the updating of spelling in KJV editions. Concerning the Open Bible KJV edition, Waite wrote: “I came to some words that were spelled differently, so I couldn’t make a true comparison. . . . I couldn’t tell if it was a change from the original King James or not. I’m not sure what text they use” (Defending the KJB, p. 231).
     
  13. AntennaFarmer

    AntennaFarmer
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    Messages:
    606
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think yes and no.....

    "Version" does say more than that the document is merely a translation. It says that it is particular translation. The KJV, TNIV and NLT are all English Versions. They are also particular English Versions.

    You are correct that version and edition can be synonyms. In the context of Bible Versions, however, "version" can take on a more specific meaning of "a translation" that does not overlap with "edition".
     
  14. Bro. James

    Bro. James
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    14
    While it may be said the terms version and edition have been used synonymously, this fact has only added to the confusion. Version is translation according to what ever scheme employed. Edition establishes the fact and time of publishing or revision--two more concepts used interchangeably. i.e. , a document can be edited without being revised. Fixing typos and changing theology are not the same concept.

    Making these words similiar in meaning is a real stretch in word etymology.

    Sola Scriptura,

    Selah,

    Bro. James
     
    #14 Bro. James, Mar 20, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 20, 2008

Share This Page

Loading...