KJV editions

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Salty, Feb 11, 2014.

  1. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,126
    Likes Received:
    220
    What are the main differences between the 1611 and 1792 editions - or would it be more approriate to call them translations
     
  2. ktn4eg

    ktn4eg
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,517
    Likes Received:
    1
    Right off hand, I can think of two very notable KJV editions.

    The actual 1611 edition itself included the "Apocrypha" between the OT and the NT. I'm not positive why this was done.

    I've read some sources that contend that this was done to partially appease England's King James I due to the fact that, when he was only known as King James VI of Scotland (r. 1567 - 1625), he hated most every thing that the Scottish "protestant" reformers supported.

    This was, among many reasons, why King James was glad to leave Scotland when the English throne was vacant due to the death of the last Tudor monarch, Queen Elizabeth I in 1603.

    One of the first official acts as King James I of England was to convene the "Hampton Court Conference." Among the more notable accomplishments of this conference was a motion to call for the selection of highly educated scholars of Biblical Hebrew and/or Biblical Greek to produce the 1611 edition of the KJV.

    Since the majority of these men were also high officials in the Church of England, they probably did not want to offend King James I very much since he also was the one person who decided how much money they would be paid every so often.

    Then there was also a KJV edition published in 1631 in which a few of the early printings of it failed to include the word "not" in Exodus 20:14. Thus this commandment read: "Thou shalt commit adultery." (Maybe that was the Bible that President Bill Clinton carried with him!! :smilewinkgrin:)

    I'm sure there are mostly other KJV editions that have other issues in them, but these are two of them I know of.
     
  3. Jordan Kurecki

    Jordan Kurecki
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,452
    Likes Received:
    60
    They are not different translations.

    A lot of the changes are updated spelling and punctuation, There were also many printing errors corrected and such.

    They are definitely not different translations.
     
  4. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,080
    Likes Received:
    49
    1611, 1769. 1894 etc were revisions on the Kjv, as some of those indeed were corrections for 'errors" in prior ones!
     
  5. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    1629 Cambridge edition of the KJV

    John Eadie wrote: “The Cambridge edition of 1629 was revised with some care, and many necessary alterations were made” (English Bible, Vol. II, p. 294). In his introduction to an edition of the KJV, J. W. MacKail wrote: “A systematic revision was carried out in the edition of 1629” (p. v). F. H. A. Scrivener indicated that the 1629 “inaugurated that course of systematic revision of the text” seen also in later editions (Authorized Edition, p. 21). Bradford Taliaferro described the 1629 Cambridge as “an early attempt at correcting the AV” (Encyclopedia, p. 401). David Burke referred to “extensive text revisions” in the 1629 Cambridge (Translation That Openeth, p. xix).

    David Norton maintained that the 1629 Cambridge editors “made more changes to the text than any other set of editors” (Textual History, p. 83). Norton claimed that the 1629 editors “introduced 221 readings” (p. 83). In the 1629 edition, Norton asserted that “overall, 493 changes were made, of which 447 (91%) became standard” (p. 84). In a later book, Norton wrote: “This first Cambridge edition made, by my count, 356 changes to readings and spellings of names which became standard” (KJB: A Short History, p. 142). One possible reason for the difference in count may be that some renderings thought to have been introduced in the 1629 Cambridge may later have been found to have been earlier introduced in some London edition such as the 1616 revision.
     
  6. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    1638 Cambridge edition of the KJV

    David Norton agreed: “The 1638 edition became the standard text for over 100 years” (KJB: a Short History, p. 144). Norton maintained that “the 1638 editors supplied 121 readings and 114 spelling of names that became standard” (Textual History, p. 90). Concerning this edition, the editors of the Christian Remembrancer wrote: “This noble volume is evidently the result of a diligent comparison of the Hebrew with the translation of 1611, many of whose lesser oversights it sets right both in text and in regard to the italic character” (Vol. 52, October, 1866, p. 399). Concerning this 1638 edition, Adam Thomson asserted: “In that edition considerable improvements were made, particularly in the great increase of the words printed in italics, which the absence of corresponding words in the original demanded, as well as various minor alterations” (Report from the Select Committee, March, 1860, p. 42). Thomas Curtis claimed that “Cambridge in 1638, under the primacy of the arbitrary Laud made its various and thousands of alterations (including italics)“ (Southern Presbyterian Review, Vol. 11, 1859, p. 142). T. H. Darlow and H. F. Moule asserted: “This remained the standard text until the publication of Dr. Paris’ Cambridge edition of 1762” (Historical Catalogue, Vol. I, p. 182). Bradford Taliaferro wrote: “This text became the standard until the Paris’ revision of 1762” (Encyclopedia, p. 402). MacGregor maintained that “generally speaking, this revision … was very well done” (Literary History, p. 213). Concerning the 1638, J. R. Dore asserted: “It is probably the best edition of King James’s Version ever published” (Old Bibles, p. 344). Gustavus Paine wrote: “John Bois himself was concerned with such small revisions as late as the Cambridge Revised Edition of 1638” (Men, p. 120). The four editors of the 1638 Cambridge edition included two KJV translators [Samuel Ward and John Bois] along with Thomas Goad and Joseph Mede. Norton observed: “Two of the editors named, Bois and Ward, had been among the original translators, a circumstance that might be taken as giving extra authority to this Cambridge work” (Textual History, p. 90).

    The 1638 Cambridge may have had or introduced some renderings that were perhaps overlooked in 1743, in 1769, or later by someone who may not have known of their very possible connection with two KJV translators [“sent messengers” (Gen. 50:16), “and the Hivites“ (Exod. 23:23), “enclosings“ (Exod. 28:20), “in the dust“ (Job 39:14), “multitude“ (Matt. 9:8), “none“ (John 10:29), “and the truth” (John 14:6), “by the Spirit“ (Gal. 5:18), “sprinkled likewise“ (Heb. 9:21), “Nicolaitanes“ (Rev. 2:6)]. Scrivener asserted: “One of the changes introduced in 1638 it would have been better to have finally adopted, ’and the truth’ with the Greek in John 14:6” (Authorized Edition, p. 23). The editors of the Christian Remembrancer maintained that “and the truth” at John 14:6 “is more close to the Greek” (Vol. 52, October, 1866, p. 402).
     
  7. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    1743 Cambridge edition of the KJV

    In effect, the 1743 Cambridge edition by F. S. Parris replaced the 1638 as a standard that may have been followed by some printers. 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, 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).

    Changes introduced in the 1743 Cambridge can be found in London, Oxford, and Cambridge editions before the 1762 Cambridge edition was printed. A 1747 London KJV edition was likely based mainly on the 1743 Cambridge. Among whatever earlier editions he may have used or compared, F. S. Parris may have consulted the 1660 London edition or have been aware of its editing concerning the use of nominative case “ye.” It was the 1743 Cambridge edition that introduced [perhaps reintroduced from the 1660 London] the nominative case “ye” in over 200 places.

    The 1743 Cambridge also introduced many of the uses of an apostrophe to indicate possession. It seemed to have been the 1743 Cambridge that changed “fet” and “fetcht” to “fetched” and several uses of “burnt” to “burned” along with some other similar changes. In addition, the 1743 Cambridge edition already has a majority of the renderings that could be or are considered to be characteristic of the later 1762 edition [“all lost things“ (Deut. 22:3), “Asa‘s heart” (1 Kings 15:14), “all the business” (1 Chron. 26:30), “whom God alone” (1 Chron. 29:1), “rulers of“ (1 Chron. 29:6), “Charchemish“ (2 Chron. 35:20), “and the gold” (Ezra 7:18), “Mordecai‘s matters” (Esther 3:4), “and he seeth“ (Job 8:17), “and he saveth” (Ps. 107:19), “merchant ships” (Prov. 30:31), “farther” (Eccl. 8:17), “gone to” (Isa. 15:2), “The word that” (Jer. 40:1), “and he kept” (Amos 1:11), “hidden things“ (Obadiah 1:6), “had no root“ (Matt. 13:6), “eternal life“ (Matt. 19:29), “farther“ (Matt. 26:39), “bodies of the saints“ (Matt. 27:52), “farther“ (Mark 1:19), “and he cried out” (Luke 4:33), “lifted” (Luke 16:23), “killedst” (Acts 7:28), “And they wrote” (Acts 15:23), “from things strangled” (Acts 21:25), “and in the prophets” (Acts 24:14), “and have gained” (Acts 27:21), “in utterance” (2 Cor. 8:7), “in knowledge” (2 Cor. 8:7), “those who” (Gal. 2:6), “access“ (Eph. 2:18), “and I beseech” (Phil. 4:2), “our‘s“ (Titus 3:14), “be ye warmed and be ye filled” (James 2:16), “laborers who“ (James 5:4), “inhabitants“ (Rev. 17:2), “on either side” (Rev. 22:2)].
     
  8. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    1762 Cambridge edition of the KJV

    The 1762 Cambridge edition does have a small number of differences, changes, or revisions in its text that were not found in the 1743 edition [“brakedst” (Deut. 10:2), “the widow‘s” (Deut. 24:17), “hath borne“ (1 Sam. 2:5), “priest‘s custom“ (1 Sam. 2:13), “priest‘s offices“ (1 Sam. 2:36), “in a straight” (1 Sam. 13:6), “at Michmash” (1 Sam. 13:11), “road” (1 Sam. 27:10), “And made” (2 Sam. 2:9), “sneezing” (Job 41:18), “counsellor“ (Isa. 3:3), “make ye“ (Isa. 32:11), “lain“ (Jer. 3:2), “Rachel” (Jer. 31:15)]. On the other hand, the 1762 Cambridge does not have a good number of the changes that had already been introduced in the 1743 edition or in other pre-1762 Cambridge editions. For one example, the 1762 edition does not have the apostrophes at a number of verses where they had already been introduced in the 1743 to 1760 Cambridge editions. It may be possible that there was some hurry in getting this 1762 Cambridge folio edition printed before the folio being prepared by rival Cambridge printer John Baskerville.
     
  9. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    1769 Oxford edition of the KJV

    Gordon Campbell maintained that there have “been corrections of more than 100 printing errors in Blayney’s text” (Bible, p. 141). Nevertheless, Campbell suggested that all the mistakes in Blayney’s 1769 Oxford text have not been corrected in most present editions. For example, Campbell wrote: “At least one of the mistakes in the Blayney text identified by Curtis’s group has persisted to the present day, in that the final phrase of Judges 11:19, which in 1611 was correctly given as ‘unto my place,’ was printed in Blayney’s text as ‘into my place’” (Bible, p. 150). Campbell added that “the error has been corrected in the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible” (Ibid.). John McClintock and James Strong also pointed out that in the 1769 Oxford “’unto my place’ is changed to ‘into my place;’ and, so far as there is a difference in the sense, the change is incorrect” (Cyclopaedia, Vol. 1, p. 563).


    In the 1769 Oxford, there were a number of editing inconsistencies, involving several different matters such as spelling, capitalization, use of apostrophes, use of hyphens, use of italics, and use of compound words. An examination of the 1769 Oxford edition revealed that it has a number of non-standard English spellings, including some cases where the same word was spelled two or more different ways. The 1769 Oxford used both “razor” and “rasor.“ It has “sycamore” or “sycamores” at some verses such as Psalm 78:47 and Amos 7:14 but “sycomore“ or “sycomores” at others such as Isaiah 9:17. It used both “scepter” (Gen. 49:10) and “sceptre” (Heb. 1:8). It has “wonderously” at Judges 13:19 but “wondrously” at Joel 2:26. Some examples of the non-standard spellings include “houshold“ (Gen. 18:19), “falsly“ (Gen. 21:23), “ews” (Gen. 31:38), “foles” (Gen. 32:15), “housholds“ (Gen. 43:33), “yern” (Gen. 43:30), “fole” (Gen. 49:11), “waggon” (Num. 7:3), “grashoppers“ (Num. 13:33), “milstone” (Deut. 24:6), “befal” (Deut. 31:17), “befel” (Josh. 2:23), “dunghil” (1 Sam. 2:8), “expresly” (1 Sam. 20:21), “shamelesly“ (2 Sam. 6:20), “falshood” (2 Sam. 18:13), “perversly” (2 Sam. 19:19), “vallies” (1 Kings 20:28), “flotes“ (2 Chron. 2:16), “wholsome” (Prov. 15:4), “grashopper” (Eccl. 12:5), “milstones” (Isa. 47:2). “dunghils“ (Lam. 4:5), “waggons” (Ezek. 23:24), “seeth” (Ezek. 24:5), and “carelesly” (Ezek. 39:6). Over 200 spelling changes have been made since 1769 in many present KJV editions. There are other spellings in the 1769 Oxford that remained in many later KJV editions that could properly be considered inconsistent or non-standard English spelling today.

    In the 1769 Oxford edition checked for this data, in some places the apostrophe was not yet introduced, was introduced incorrectly, or was revised in later editions. Some examples include the following: “three days journey“ (Gen. 30:36), “seven days journey“ (Gen. 31:23) “camels‘ furniture“ (Gen. 31:34), “priest’s custom” (1 Sam. 2:13), “two mules burden” (2 Kings 5:17), and “Mars hill“ (Acts 17:22). It has “wit’s end” at Psalm 107:27 while some KJV editions have “wits’ end.“ David Norton maintained that many present KJV editions have “nine singular possessives that should be plural, seven inherited from Parris, two from Blayney, and another six plural that should be singular from Blayney” (Textual History, p. 109). Some examples of places where there is disagreement about the placement of an apostrophe in KJV editions include the following: Numbers 26:2, 1 Samuel 2:13, 1 Samuel 2:36, 1 Chronicles 7:2, 40, Ezra 2:59, Nehemiah 7:61, Job 6:23, Psalm 6:4, Psalm 31:16, Psalm 44:26, Psalm 107:27, Psalm 140:3, Proverbs 26:3, Ezekiel 22:10, Ezekiel 44:30, Daniel 2:41, Matthew 14:9, Mark 6:26, and Romans 13:5.


    The 1769 Oxford edition clearly has some editing or printing inconsistencies in the use of capital letters. For example, it has “son of David” at Mark 10:47 and other verses but “Son of David” at Matthew 20:30. It has “holy spirit” (Ps. 51:11), “Holy Spirit” (Luke 11:13), and “holy Spirit“ (1 Thess. 4:8). If “Holy” in “Holy Ghost” should be capitalized, why not also the “Holy” in “Holy Spirit”? At the beginning of the first verse of Psalm 108, the 1769 Oxford has “O GOD” while it has “O God” at the beginning of the first verse of other psalms such as 60, 63, 74, and 79. Other possible examples that indicate inconsistency include “most high” (Num. 24:16, Ps. 46:4, Ps. 73:11, Ps. 78:17, Ps. 83:18, Ps. 91:1, Ps. 91:9, Ps. 92:1), “Most High” (Deut. 32:4), “the highest“ (Ps. 87:5), “mighty one of Jacob“ (Isa. 60:16), “LORD, thy redeemer“ (Isa. 44:24), “spirit“ (Ps. 51:11, Joel 2:28, Matt. 4:1, Mark 1:12, Acts 11:12), “LORD“ (Matt. 16:22), “Son of peace“ (Luke 10:6), “the Apostles“ (Luke 17:5), “the Church“ (1 Cor. 15:9), and “the saviour” (1 Tim. 4:10). Since the proper name for God is not merely “High,“ would not the proper capitalization for it be “Most High” whenever it is not used as an adjective? The fact of these inconsistencies may suggest that some other use or non-use of capital letters in the 1769 could be the result of similar inconsistent editing or printing.


    The 1769 Oxford may have some editing or printing inconsistencies in the use or non-use of hyphens or in the presenting of some words as two separate words in some cases but as one compound word in other cases. In places where some KJV editions printed two words separately or where other KJV editions used hyphens to join the two words, the 1769 Oxford often joined the two words into a compound word. Inconsistently, the 1769 Oxford has “threshing floor” at some verses (Gen. 50:10, Num. 15:20, Jer. 51:33) but “threshingfloor“ at other verses (Num. 18:27, 2 Sam. 24:24, 1 Chron. 13:9). It used “dwelling place“ or “dwelling places” at some verses (1 Kings 8:30, 1 Chron. 6:32, Jer. 51:30) but “dwellingplace“ or “dwellingplaces” at other verses (Num. 24:21, Ezek. 6:6). It has “day time” at Numbers 14:14 but “daytime” at Job 24:16 and Psalm 22:2. It used “moth eaten” at Job 13:28 but “motheaten” at James 5:2. Some places where a 1769 Oxford may differ from some or many present KJV editions include “kneading troughs” (Exod. 12:34), “menchildren“ (Exod. 34:23), “seashore“ (1 Sam. 13:5), “stiff necked“ (2 Chron. 30:8), “day spring” (Job 38:12), “loving kindnesses” (Ps. 25:6), “long suffering“ (Ps. 86:15, 1 Tim. 1:16), “two edged” (Ps. 149:6, Prov. 5:4, Rev. 1:16), “house top“ (Prov. 25:24), “stumbling block” (Isa. 57:14, Rom. 14:13, 1 Cor. 1:23, Rev. 2:14), “stumbling blocks” (Jer. 6:21), “loving kindness” (Jer. 9:24), “press-fat” (Haggai 2:16), and “jointheirs” (Rom. 8:17).


    The 1769 Oxford may also have some editing or printing inconsistencies concerning the case of pronouns. In an article entitled “Ye and You in the King James Version,” John S. Kenyon claimed: “In three cases [Gen. 9:7, Gen. 45:8, Job 12:3] nominative you in the text escaped Blayney, and consequently stands in our present day Bibles” (Publication of the Modern Language Association, Vol. XXIX, pp. 459-460). David Norton asserted: “’And you, be ye fruitful’ (Gen. 9:7) escapes him [Blayney], though he does change the one other example of this construction ‘and you, in any wise keep yourselves‘ (Josh. 6:18) to ‘and ye …’” (Textual History, p. 113). Concerning Genesis 45:8, Isaac Nordheimer rendered it: “Ye did not send me hither or it was not ye that sent me hither” (Critical Grammar of the Hebrew Language, p. 264). Nordheimer again commented: “Ye did not send me hither, but God, lit. ye did not send me hither for it was God who sent me” (p. 287). The pronoun at Genesis 45:8 just as at Matthew 10:20 and Mark 13:11 should be in nominative case because a pronoun used as a subject complement after a be verb is put in that case. In his article, John Kenyon maintained that “in the case of turn ye (you), Blayney is less consistent” (Publication, p. 463). Kenyon asked: “Why should he change turn ye (Zech 9:12) to turn you, (since the Hebrew has the reflexive) but leave turn ye in Leviticus 19:4, 2 Kings 17:13, Isaiah 31:6, Jeremiah 25:5, Ezekiel 33:11, Joel 2:12, Zechariah 1:3, 4, from the same Hebrew simple form of the verb?” (Ibid.). Kenyon asserted: “Similarly, Blayney should consistently have changed Jeremiah 49:14 ‘Gather ye together, & come against her, …’ for ye was doubtless intended as a reflexive object. The Hebrew form is reflexive, as it is in 1 Samuel 22:2; 2 Chronicles 20:4, gathered themselves; Ezekiel 39:17, assemble your selves” (p. 464). Kenyon claimed: “It is probable, therefore, that in Jeremiah 49:14 we have an objective ye in our modern Bibles” (Ibid.). The 1560 Geneva Bible has “gather you together” at Jeremiah 49:14.
     
  10. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    1769 Oxford continued

    There are places where the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV has LORD that have been changed to ‘Lord’ in many present KJV editions [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 three verses, the 1769 Oxford has “Lord” where present KJV editions have “LORD” [Gen. 30:30, Deut. 29:23, 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.”

    Besides the over 100 differences involving LORD/Lord and GOD/God and the other matters just mentioned, some places were the 1769 Oxford would differ from most present editions include the following Old Testament examples: “Heman” (Gen. 36:22), “thy progenitors” (Gen. 49:26), “Zithri” (Exod. 6:21), “travel’ (Num. 20:14), “brakedst” (Deut. 10:2), “thy tithe“ (Deut. 12:17), “thy earth” (Deut. 12:19), “the widow’s” (Deut. 24:17), “Beer-sheba, Sheba” (Josh. 19:2), “children of Gilead” (Jud. 11:7), “all the coast” (Jud. 19:29), “in a straight“ (1 Sam. 13:6), “Shimei“ (1 Chron. 6:30), “whom God alone” (1 Chron. 29:1), “on the pillars” (2 Chron. 4:12), “thy companions’ (Job 41:6), “unto me“ (Ps. 18:47), “my foot” (Ps. 31:8), “feared” (Ps. 60:4), “in the presence” (Ps. 68:2), “part“ (Ps. 78:66), “When there were” (Ps. 105:12), “gates of iron” (Ps. 107:16), “the latter end” (Prov. 19:20), “riches, honour” (Prov. 22:4), “king of Jerusalem” (Eccl. 1:1), “gone to” (Isa. 15:2), “travel‘ (Lam. 3:5), “a brier” (Micah 7:4), and “mighty is spoiled” (Zech. 11:2). In the New Testament, examples include “And in the same” (Luke 7:21), “ye enter not” (Luke 11:52), “lifted“ (Luke 16:23), “and the truth” (John 14:6), “Now if do” (Rom. 7:20), “not in unbelief” (Rom. 11:23), “the earth” (1 Cor. 4:13), “was done“ (2 Cor. 3:11), “about” (2 Cor. 12:2), “you were inferior” (2 Cor. 12:13), “those who” (Gal. 2:6), “the holy apostles” (Eph. 3:5), “broidered” (1 Tim. 2:9), “sprinkled likewise” (Heb. 9:21), “our joy” (1 John 1:4), and 17 missing words at Revelation 18:22.

    Scrivener asserted that there are some errors in the use or non-use of italic type in Blayney’s 1769 edition such as “and that” for and that” (1 Kings 17:24), “was” for “was” (1 Chron. 18:16), “hear” for “hear” (Ps. 17:6), “is near” for “is near” (Ps. 75:1), “speak not with” for “speak not with” (Ps. 75:5), and “wise man” for “wise man” (Prov. 9:8), “thirsty man” for “thirsty man” (Isa. 29:8), etc. (Authorized Version, p. 34). Scrivener maintained that putting “man” in italics at Luke 10:30 was “positively false” (p. 80).
     
  11. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,080
    Likes Received:
    49
    So would you agree that these revisions of the 1611 edition were NOT just for spellings, or typesetting issues, but were real corrections made to errors/mistakes within text?
     
  12. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    There were over 140 words added to a typical present KJV edition that are not found in the 1611.

    At one verse (Eccl. 8:17), six words were added. At nine verses, three words are added [Lev. 26:40, Num. 7:31, Num. 7:55, Josh. 13:29, Judges 1:31, 2 Kings 11:10, Ezek. 3:11, 2 Cor. 11:32, 2 Tim. 4:13]. At eighteen verses, two words are added [Exod. 15:25, Exod. 21:32, Exod. 35:11, Lev. 19:34, Lev. 26:23, Deut. 26:1, 1 Sam. 18:27, 2 Chron. 8:16, Ezra 4:10, Ezek. 34:31, Ezek. 46:23, John 7:16, 1 Cor. 15:41, 2 Cor. 9:5, 2 Cor. 9:6, 1 John 5:12, Rev. 1:4, Rev. 5:13]. At over eighty verses, one word is added.

    Over 45 words found in the 1611 are omitted in the present KJV edition if the 21 words omitted at Exodus 14:10 are included in the count.

    Over 60 times the number [plural/singular] of nouns or pronouns is changed.

    Twenty or more times the tense of a verb is changed.

    Sixty, seventy, or more examples would belong to the category “changing a word,“ and Waite himself listed at least that many examples in this category in his own incomplete 421 list in his 1985 booklet (see pp. 20-23). “Than” is a different word than “then,“ which means that there are 483 more word changes that could be counted as being “substantial.” Under that category of “changing a word,“ Waite included a couple examples that could be described as “changing the gender of pronouns” [“he” to “she” (Ruth 3:15, Job 39:30), “her” to “his” (Gen. 39:16), “she“ to “he“ (Song of Solomon 2:7)].

    Under his category described as “changing a case,“ Waite listed only two examples [“who” to “whom” (Acts 21:16) and “him” to “he” (Prov. 6:19)]. There would be other examples of the changing of the case of pronouns [“who” to “whom” (Gen. 24:44. Acts 22:8), “it“ to “its“ (Lev. 25:5)]. If all the changes of “you” to the nominative case “ye” were included in this category, the total number of “substantial changes” would be over 200 more. In twelve places, a nominative case “ye” was changed to a different case “you” [Gen. 19:14, Num. 32:24, Deut. 1:13, Josh. 3:12, Josh. 22:4, Isa. 1:16, Isa. 30:11, Isa. 32:11, Ezek. 11:15, Zech. 6:7, Zech. 9:12].
     
  13. Rhys

    Rhys
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    0
    The KJV, being "newly translated out of the originall tongues, with the former Translations diligently compared and revised," followed Coverdale. Coverdale, having completed Tyndale's Old Testament largely from the German, followed Luther.
     

Share This Page

Loading...