Was the 1611 KJV perfect?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Logos1560, Oct 20, 2012.

  1. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    The 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible was used as the starting English text for the making of the KJV. The first rule for the making of the KJV stated: “The ordinary Bible read in the church, commonly called the Bishops’ Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit.”

    Are some errors in the English text of the 1602 Bishops' Bible found in the 1611 edition of the KJV?

    If errors are found in the 1611 edition of the KJV, can it properly be claimed to be perfect? Does this actual preserving of errors from the Bishops' Bible in the 1611 KJV suggest that the 1611 KJV was perfectly preserving the Scriptures in the original languages that were given to the prophets and apostles?

    David Norton observed: “The KJB of 1611 reproduces peculiarities of the Bishops’ Bible, some of which are found only in the 1602 printings” (Textual History of the KJB, p. 35). David Norton also asserted: “That the KJB was printed from an annotated Bishops’ Bible--possibly from Bod1602--is almost certain from the presence of the peculiarities and errors that come directly from the printed 1602 text” (KJB: a Short History, p. 106).

    David Norton claimed: "Small mistakes can go unnoticed for nearly a couple of centuries in spite of the best efforts of translators and editors" (p. 130).

    How is it possible that those errors in the 1602 Bishops' Bible were not noticed by the KJV translators and evidently were not corrected since they are also found in the 1611 edition of the KJV?

    A number of the KJV translators held high positions of authority in the Church of England so that if these errors were supposedly the fault of the 1611 printers some of the KJV translators could have made sure that they were immediately corrected in the second, third, fourth, or fifth editions of the KJV printed in London. The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London had a great deal of authority and control over the printing of books and Bibles in that day.

    Here are examples of those uncorrected errors from the Bishops' Bible that are found in the 1611 edition of the KJV.

    1 Kings 4:10 [Hesed--1560 Geneva, 1568 Bishops; Heseb--1602 Bishops]
    Heseb {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1634, 1640 London}
    Hesod [1773 Cambridge]
    Hesed (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]


    1 Kings 8:61 [Lord our God--1560 Geneva, 1568 Bishops; Lord your God--1602 Bishops] [see 1 Kings 8:59]
    LORD your God {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1640 London} (1843 AFBS)
    LORD our God (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

    1 Kings 11:5 [Ammonites--1560 Geneva, 1568 Bishops; Amorites--1602 Bishops]
    Amorites {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1640 London}
    Ammonites (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

    The Hebrew word at 1 Kings 11:5 is the Hebrew word translated "Ammorities" in the KJV in all other places, and it is not the same Hebrew word that is translated "Amorites" in the KJV in other verses.

    2 Kings 11:10 [house of the Lord--1560 Geneva; the temple--1602 Bishops]
    the Temple {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617 London} (1843 AFBS)
    the temple (1675 Oxford) [1629, 1637, 1817, 2005, 2011 Cambridge] {1640, 1672 London} (1638 Edinburgh) (1816 Albany) (1818 Holbrook) (1827 Smith) (1828 MH) (1832 PSE) (1854 Harding) (2006 PENG)

    the temple of the Lord {1795 London}
    the temple of the LORD (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1638, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

    At 2 Kings 11:10, the preserved Scriptures in the original languages have the Hebrew word that is translated "Jehovah" or "LORD" at other places in the KJV. That name is omitted in the 1602 Bishops' Bible and the 1611 edition of the KJV.


    2 Kings 24:19 [Jehoiakim--1560 Geneva; Joachin--1602 Bishops]
    Jehoiachin [1817 Cambridge] {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1634, 1640 London} (1816 Albany) (1818 Holbrook) (1827 Smith) (1832 PSE) (1843 AFBS) (1854 Harding)
    Jehoiakim (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

    The Hebrew name at 2 Kings 24:19 translated "Jehoiachin" in the 1602 Bishops' and the 1611 KJV is not the Hebrew name translated "Jehoiachin" in other verses in the KJV. The Hebrew name at 2 Kings 24:19 is the same Hebrew name translated "Jehoiakim" at other verses in the KJV.


    Genesis 47:6 [men--1560 Geneva; man--1602 Bishops]
    any man (1675, 1679, 1709, 1715, 1720, 1728, 1747, 1754, 1765 Oxford) [1629, 1637, 1638, 1683 Cambridge] {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1660, 1672, 1684, 1705, 1711, 1735, 1741, 1747, 1750, 1772 London} (1755 Oxon) (1638, 1722, 1756, 1760, 1764, 1766 Edinburgh) (1762 Dublin) (1700 MP) (1782 Aitken) (1843 AFBS)
    any man [1873 Cambridge] (2000, 2002 ZOND) (TPB) (HPB) (2008, 2010, 2011 HEND) (NHPB)
    any men (1768, 1968 Oxford) [1762, 1763B, 2005, 2011 Cambridge] {1759, 1760, 1763, 1764, 1767, 1795 London} (1769 Edinburgh) (1810, 1835 Scott) (EB) (2006 PENG) (2011 PJB) (NCE)
    any men (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1743, 1747, 1768, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]


    At Genesis 47:6, the Hebrew word translated "man" in the 1611 is plural in number. The singular form "man" would also not agree with the later plural pronoun "them" that follows and refers back to it.
     
  2. Oldtimer

    Oldtimer
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2011
    Messages:
    1,934
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is this a quote from your book Unbound Scriptures?

    Just wondering..............
     
  3. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    No. David Norton's book A Textual History of the King James Bible was not printed until 2005, 2 years after my book. One of Norton's other books [The King James Bible: A Short History from Tyndale to Today] that I also quoted in my post was printed in 2011.

    My post is based on research that I did after I had written my earlier book.
     
  4. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    The examples of variations come from my new research in comparing over 200 KJV editions. When that 400 pages of data from KJV editions is made available, it will be entitled: Facts from 400 Years of KJV Editions.
     
  5. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,093
    Likes Received:
    49
    even if it was, the truth is still the truth!

    still amazed that KJVO positions are NOT what the translators themselves saw int heir version, they saw it as being an update of the one by Tynsdale and others, so would NOT see it as being perfect, and that modern versions would come to updaye and correct theirs also!
     
  6. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Many of the goofs in the KJV have been discussed ad nauseam here, so I won't kick a dead horse with them in this post, but let it be said that the KJVO claim for perfection in the KJV is not true.
     
  7. humblethinker

    humblethinker
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,285
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oldtimier, Is there a problem with the book, Unbound Scriptures?

    Edit: Nm Oldtimer... it all makes sense now. It's a great book btw!
     
    #7 humblethinker, Oct 26, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 26, 2012

Share This Page

Loading...