taking liberties with KJV text?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Logos1560, Sep 14, 2007.

  1. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    In an article entitled "Have you seen some of the changes that publishers are making in your King James Bible?" at the web site
    www.localchurchbiblepublishers.com , it is claimed: "Many Bibles that claim to be KJV on the cover are not KJV inside."

    This article claimed: "After you look at the following changes that have been made, you will agree that the serpent has slithered through the doors of a lot of American publishing organizations."

    Is this an example of the extremes to which KJV-only reasoning seems to lead?

    One of the examples in this article was

    Reference
    James 4:13 and other verses like this

    God's word
    to morrow

    Changed to
    tomorrow

    Is this article implying or suggesting that "tomorrow" is not God's word?


    This local church printer is probably not reprinting the 1611 edition of the KJV. Instead, it is probably printing a KJV edition that has hundreds even around 2,000 changes from the 1611 edition. Many of those changes are greater than the few minor changes about which this article complains.
     
  2. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    My dictionary (1982) says 'morrow' is archaic.
    'To_morrow' refers to the next morning.
    'Tomorrow' refers to the day after today (most any of the
    17 uses of day, including the 'day' of
    prophecy - 'the appropriate time') or perchance
    some unspecified future day.

    IMHO In James 4:13 'tomorrow' is the most correct term.

    My electronic KJV1769 Edition says 'tomorrow'
    electronic KJV1611 Edition says 'to morrow'.
    My paper KJV1873 Edition says 'to morrow'.

    My paper NIV, NLT, and NASB (1995 Edition) all
    say 'tomorrow'. Just as I thought, evidence that the
    KJV1769 Edition was the first of the MVs ;)
    I checked the KJV in my Tim LaHaye comentary:
    Prophecy Study Bible. It is like the KJV1769 Edition
    'to morrow'.
     
  3. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    The OP source says:

    Reference: Mark 12:1, Is 63:2
    God's word - winefat
    Changed to - winevat

    Consider Mark 12:1

    My online Geneva Bible says 'winepresse'
    My online KJV1611 Edition says 'wine fat'
    My online KJV1769 Edition says 'wine vat'
    My paper KJV1769 Edition says 'winefat'
    --- (PROPHECY STUDY BIBLE)
    ---This Bible is different from both the KJV1769 and
    ---the KJV1873 (see last post)?? Maybe it isn't a
    ---KJV1769 at all? It sure doesn't say :(

    My paper KJV1783 Edition says 'winefat'

    My 1976 Dictionary doesn't have 'winefat',
    'wine fat', nor 'wine vat'.
    It does have 'wine press' which includes
    in the definition the word 'vat' but NOT 'fat'.

    Interesting, the MVs usually follow the
    Geneva Bible here???
     
  4. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Looking deeper than the surface of what they say is giving everyone a far better and more honest aspect to the article than what you have offered in the one example.
     
  5. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Personally, I've always wondered why any translation, edition, or version that is claimed to be supposedly "perfect" and/or "infallible" would need even a single correction, from the first printing??

    I also wonder why the 1762 Cambridge Edition, or the 1769 Oxford Edition, which both clearly differ from the 1611 Robert Barker Edition, in a number of places, and I'm not referring to Gothic type, or spelling, but real word changes (pace the thread that I will list that was started by C4K, a short time ago) is somehow OK, but other versions and their word changes are supposedly not?

    http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=42271

    (Are you really surprised that no one gave a clear answer to C4K in this thread?)

    And I especially wonder about three other things that annoy me, and all far more than any of the above.

    The first is why is it alright to (now) leave out the entire Apocrypha, if in fact, the KJV (a perfect version, mind you) was first published with it included as Scripture? To my knowledge, (but I could be mistaken, here) there is no disclaimer included in the 1611 versions that the Apocrypha was not really considered as Scripture, but was merely included to satisfy a few people. And in fact, it was still included in the Oxford 1769 edition, according to something I recently read.

    The second, is why it is OK for Christians to even purchase any KJV that is not produced under that authority of the "Crown copyright" that was granted by King James, to begin with, including any and all editions printed in the USA? For that is nothing more or nothing less than stealing, in that it deprives legitimate royalties from Oxford, Cambridge, and Collins and Sons, publishers. As the titular head of the Church of England, under whose auspices the 1611 version was produced, the Sovereign of the United Kingdom has every right to designate who may lawfully produce any version produced by the Anglican church, and receive the resultant royalties.

    Finally, I just found a site that shows at least 30 changes in the OT of the words "LORD" to "Lord", with some of "GOD" to "God", and some of the combinations of the Hebrew names for Deity as rendered in the English, such as a change of "LORD God" (which stands for "YHWH elohim" to "Lord God" (which would stand for "adonai elohim", which according to my (granted, linmited) understanding, I thought never occurs anywhere in the Hebrew text) from the Oxford 1769 edition to current editions. Now either the text has been found to be incorrectly rendered, as refers to the name of God, in these cases (after taking almost 300 years for someone to find this :rolleyes:), or someone took liberties with the text then, or else is taking such liberties now, or someone is, or has been messing around with the name(s) of God.

    And that I find to be the most offensive of all, regardless of what version any one prefers!

    Ed
     
    #5 EdSutton, Sep 14, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 14, 2007
  6. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Under the heading "Doctrinal changes" this article by Local Church Bible Publishers stated: "Check the following verses in your King James Bible to see if they have been tampered with."

    Let's look at four of the listed verses in the 1611 edition of the KJV and a KJV printed by First Word Publishers [First Baptist Church, Milford, Ohio, that has the ministry Bearing Precious Seed]. Does Local Church Bible Publishers print the same KJV text as Bearing Precious Seed does?

    Gen. 41:38
    spirit of God [1611 KJV]
    Spirit of God [KJV printed by a local church]

    1 Samuel 10:10
    spirit of God [1611 KJV]
    Spirit of God [KJV printed by a local church]

    1 Samuel 16:14
    spirit of the LORD [1611 KJV]
    Spirit of the LORD [KJV printed by local church]

    2 Samuel 23:2
    spirit of the LORD [1611 KJV]
    Spirit of the LORD [KJV printed by local church]

    Are some local churches printing editions of the KJV today that tampered with the text of the 1611 edition of the KJV and that supposedly introduced doctrinal changes in the text of the 1611?
     
  7. TC

    TC
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,225
    Likes Received:
    10
  8. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    The KJV was officially a revision of the Bishops' Bible. The translators of the KJV changed "winefat" in the Bishops' Bible to "winepress" at least two times.

    Rev. 14:20 the winefat (Bishops) the winepress (KJV)
    Rev. 19:15 winefat (Bishops) winepress (KJV)

    Do holders of a KJV-only view in effect accept a double standard?
     
  9. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    KJV-only advocates seem to accept [perhaps unknowingly] changes in the text of the KJV made after 1885 in Oxford KJV editions or after 1900 in Cambridge KJV editions, but they reject minor changes in other KJV editions [some or many of which were already found in KJV editions printed in the mid-1800's].
     
  10. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    I once heard a sermon online in which the preacher was preaching against MVs.. and he used this reasoning...

    They spelled Saviour as Savior.... And we all know that 7 is God's perfect number... so when you change to Savior, you spell it using only 6 letters...



    I wish I could remember the preacher.. I clicked on a link from FBC Hammond... but it wasn't Schaap, or Hyles... but another one...

    Has anyone else heard this sermon?
     
  11. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Could it have been Dr. Eric Capaci of Gospel Light Baptist Church in Hot Springs, Arkansas? The sermon may be available on gospellight.com.

    I've seen this ridiculous argument repeated on several KJVO websites. No telling where it orginiated. The Greek word soter (Strong's #4990) is the word translated in British spelling as "Saviour" and American spelling as "Savior" (we can thank Noah Webster for the 6-letter configuration), has only 5 letters. Obviously, other languages may have various different letter counts.
     
  12. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Notice that the two Revelation passages have a different Greek word than the one in Mark 12:1. The Isaiah verse would, of course, have a Hebrew word.
     
  13. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    I think what Americans consider the extra "U" in the word is due to the French influence on the English language . The British , I have heard , are at long last removing the offensive:laugh: "U's" from some of their favourite words . ( Oops , I guess that one will take some more time to amend .) .
     
  14. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Could it be said that: that 'U' should not be found in "Savior", is not as important than that The Savior should be found in you?
     
    #14 franklinmonroe, Sep 15, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 15, 2007
  15. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0

    Amen, Brother Franklinmonroe, my son -- Preach it!
    :thumbs:
     
  16. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    The article to which TC gives the URL is a study in complete stupidity. and I'd say the one to which Logos refers is a ripoff from it and just as stupid.

    On another board, I'm conversing with this cat who claims the 1900 Cambridge Edition of the KJV is *THE* word of God in English. He cites spellings, etc. in the same manner. I think he's fulla baloney, same as I think about Kizziah.

    They both have the same prob...NEITHER of them can prove KJVO is correct in the first place, so their stuff about the correct EDITION is hooey, as it's an extension of something not true to start with. Both he & Kizziah's only "proof" is their SAY-SO.

    I'm so impressed!
     
  17. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do I detect just the faintest trace of a hint of sarcasm in this last sentence of this post?

    FTR, who or what is "Kizziah"?

    Ed
     
  18. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nevermind! :rolleyes:

    Ed
     
  19. charles_creech78

    charles_creech78
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,161
    Likes Received:
    0
    1Jn 5:12

    (ASV) He that hath the Son hath the life; he that hath not the Son of God hath not the life. (Geneva) He that hath that Sonne, hath that life: and he that hath not that Sonne of God, hath not that life. (ISV) The person who has the Son has this life. The person who does not have the Son of God does not have this life. (KJV-1611) Hee that hath the Sonne, hath life; and hee that hath not the Sonne, hath not life. (KJVA) He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. (KJVR) He that hath the Son hath life: and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
    (MKJV) He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. (Webster) He that hath the Son, hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God, hath not life. I found out the bible that I was reading from that says 1611 edition does not match up with the 1611 edition I got off of the internet. The one I got off of the internet has much more to it. It is still missing God in 1 john 5:12. still. There is alot of bibles that have the word God to it so I am going to count that it should of been put there in the 1611 edition. I am sorry for telling everyone that I was getting my stuff from a King James 1611 Edtion. It does say that on the bible. I guess what I am tring to say is someone mest up very bad and I thought I was ready something it was'nt. That is a very good reason we should study. I have learned my leason very fast. God has open my eyes alot this week. I thank him and give him the glory for it. I am sorry to all of you that I have ignorantly ignord. To both brother Eds to Dan E to C4k and to all them that don't come to my humbled mind. I am just a man and hope that you forgive me for my ingnorants. I open my mouth faster then I think. I need to stop and think before I open my mouth. I will study more and am more now in it to learn then to teach. I hope to have peace with all of you and my God bless.
     
    #19 charles_creech78, Sep 26, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 26, 2007
  20. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Certainly, I will accept your forgiveness. AND if I may have offended you with my own words, I likewise ask your forgiveness. I do appreciate, as I've said before, your humble attitude.
    Now that might be something you picked up from me! Bad choice of things to mimic, I'd say. [​IMG]

    Seriously, I doubt that someone who has been around for nearly 5000 posts, as I have; or 13,000 posts as has Ed Edwards; or 18,000 posts, as has C4K going to deliberately mislead you or anyone else. Anyone attempting such, with that number of posts, would surely have been spotted by now, and such would not be tolerated on the BB, as well as they should not be, IMO.

    That is not to say that any or all of us could not be in error on any number of points, but it would be an honest error, IMO. And the best defense against such is exactly what you are doing, namely, in the vein of Acts 17:11 to "search the Scriptures daily, to find out whether these things which are said are so." (My paraphrase.)

    Ed
     
    #20 EdSutton, Sep 26, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 26, 2007

Share This Page

Loading...