Which KJV edition is 100% accurate?

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Logos1560, Oct 24, 2004.

  1. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    There are at least five or more editions of the KJV presently available with some word differences between them.

    Which KJV edition is supposed to be the 100% accurate or perfect one? On what basis or authority can it be determined which KJV edition is the 100% perfect one?

    Is it the 1611 edition or the 1769 edition that
    made 100's of changes in the 1611? Is it a certain present KJV edition that is not 100% identical to the 1769?

    Some present KJV's have "O LORD" at Nehemiah 1:11
    while others have "O Lord." Some present KJV's have "Joshua" at Acts 7:45 while others have "Jesus." One present KJV edition has "profession of our hope" at Hebrews 10:23 while most have "profession of our faith." Some present KJV editions have "vapour" at Psalm 148:8 while others have "vapours." One present KJV edition has "thy mercy's sake" at Psalm 6:4 while most KJV's have "thy mercies' sake." This is only 5 examples of many that could be given.
     
  2. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,137
    Likes Received:
    320
    Personally while there are differences and they are not word-for-word the same, any KJV Revision/Edition is a trustworthy translation.

    But if forced to answer as to a specific; In my estimation the 1769 Oxford is the most accurate in respect to the source Traditional Texts of the original languages.

    HankD
     
  3. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    I use the 1769 (Scofield uses it) but think the AV1611 Edition 1 is, by nature of the question asked, is accurate to the AV1611 Edition 1. Duh.

    Any other revision or edition must be compared to AV1611 Edition 1. They cannot be compared to any other standard.

    IF Av1611 Edition 1 was 100% accurate, then any other must be 100% identical or it is NOT 100% accurate.
     
  4. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    While most present KJV's may be based on the 1769 edition, they are not 100% identical to it. The 1769 edition has been said to have had at least 116 misprints. The 1769 edition had "the earth" instead of "the world" at 1 Corinthians 4:13.
    The 1769 edition has "thy companions" instead of "the companions" at Job 41:6 and "about" for "above" at 2 Corinthians 12:2. The 1769 edition has "the LORD" at Psalm 2:4 instead of "the Lord," "O LORD" at Psalm 44:23 instead of
    "O Lord," and "O LORD" at Nehemiah 1:11 instead of
    "O Lord."
     
  5. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    You will not get an answer from the KJVo crowd. They can't answer it.

    They cannot also explain what Dr. Bob said. If the AV1611 was 100% word-for-word accurate as some KJVo say here, then there had to be a 100% accurate English Bible before this because of the "preserved for all generations, theory". If so, it would be word-for-word of the KJV. So, why translate. The Geneva was not it, because it is not 100% word-for-word perfect. So, therefore, either the "Perfect wording preservation is wrong, or someone lost a Bible in History." :D
     
  6. JesusInFirstPlace

    JesusInFirstPlace
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    593
    Likes Received:
    0
    What's with the nitpicking over the silly spelling changes in the KJV Bible, when I bet whatever Bible you use has entirely different meanings of words, changes things, summarizes, leaves verses out, etc.???
     
  7. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    There are some who claim that the KJV is the very words of God and much more than just a translation. So they are given an opportunity to prove themselves rather than just make opinionated statements slamming the other translations. What I see so far is nothing more than silence by them.
     
  8. JesusInFirstPlace

    JesusInFirstPlace
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    593
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just to point out- this entire thread has been open for roughly 10 hours, and it is Sunday. most people are busy at church on Sunday, so give them a chance to get their opinions out! They're baptists, so I'm sure that they will get talking before too long!!!
     
  9. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    No problem, but your earlier statement is clearly wrong.

    The changes are not simple spelling changes. If we were to look at spelling changes only we would have "thousands"; we are looking at 400 changes and/or mistakes. For those who claim to use the AV1611, they have no idea what it contains.

    Besides, I collect old Bibles and every single large Bible I have printed from the 1700's to the 1850's KJV have the apocrypha. The translators considered this as scripture, the way it is placed inside the Bible.

    See the front page of each on my website at
    http://www.baptist-church.org/example.pdf

    If you wish, we can show you these errors. There are more errors in the KJV1611 and Oxford edition than there are between the Oxford and the ESV. Word changes are not mistakes as long as they mean the same thing. ;)
     
  10. JesusInFirstPlace

    JesusInFirstPlace
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    593
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ok, so they aren't just spelling differences. But I still maintain my opinion that there are word changes in some versions that do not mean the same thing.
     
  11. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    First of all you need to define exactly what version. There are bad versions out there.

    Secondly, why don't you give us some specifics?

    What are you comparing the "word changes" to, the Greek/Hebrew or the King James?

    Another good discussion apparently going the way of the KJVo. :confused:
     
  12. JesusInFirstPlace

    JesusInFirstPlace
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    593
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ok, I'm sorry, but I didn't mean to get wrapped up in a debate! I was just pointing out that the different KJVs are no more different than every other version on the planet! I don't know Greek or Hebrew, so I could only compare different English Bibles to eachother.

    I don't know specifics, seeing as how I don't have all the different Bibles. I just know that one of my friends has like all of the modern versions, including like teen study Bibles and stuff. And those verses, though similar, weren't the same as the KJV ones that I had learned. For example, "Let no man despise thy youth, but be thou an example of the believers in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity." In every Bible she had, the list of things was a little different. Some of the things were missing, they were rearranged, just changed.

    But like I said, I didn't set out to be in a versions debate!
     
  13. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,137
    Likes Received:
    320
    Exactly.

    Some here do have formal and/or self taught training in these disciplines. So if you make statements concerning the Greek/Hebrew they will be challenged. However IMO you have made a wise choice in comparing several English translations as did the KJV translators who said that a proliferation of translations was a good thing and useful in seeing the "sense of the Scriptures".

    The English language is dynamic. Not only does the King James 17th century (although somewhat modernised in the later editions) have vocabulary (meaning/spelling of words) differences but grammar (rules of speech) differences and syntax (rules of word order) differences with 21st century English which can cause confusion and unintentionally mislead the reader, especially the "unchurched".

    Well, this is a "Baptist DEBATE Forum".

    HankD
     
  14. JesusInFirstPlace

    JesusInFirstPlace
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    593
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well excuse me for skimming the recent posts (where it doesn't say DEBATE), and inserting my opinion. I thought that was legal, but I guess not! Don't worry- I won't interrupt your little debate anymore!
     
  15. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,137
    Likes Received:
    320
    No need to apologize but please go to the top of the page and see what it says:
    The expilicit purpose of this forum is for debates. I just wanted to remind you of that and the fact that if you ruffle feathers (like using inflammatory words such as "nitpicking"), you will have yours ruffled in return. Nothing personal.

    Sometimes in the discourse of a debate people appear to be rude. While often they are indeed being rude (I am guilty), often they are not, but simply following the rules of engagement and rebuttal returning kind with like kind.

    HankD
     
  16. AVL1984

    AVL1984
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    6,932
    Likes Received:
    3
    JesusInTheFirstPlace, your attitude doesn't sound much like he is. :( You're the one who came here making the inflammatory remarks. :eek: What did you think you were going to get in return? Applause? :rolleyes:
     
  17. Trotter

    Trotter
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is NO edition, revision, version, make, or model of the KJV that is 100% accurate. Nor is there any other English translation that can claim to be 100% accurate (add to that French, German, Spanish, etc).

    Does that mean that we do not have the pure word of God? Absolutely not! (God forbid for you KJVO's out there).

    English is a very different language from those used to write the bible, so there cannot be 100% accuracy between them. Nor do we know which manuscript(s) are 100% accurate.

    God has preserved His word. He just chose not to do it in the way the KJVO crowd wants.

    In Christ,
    Trotter
     
  18. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen, Trotter, Amen!!!! Preach it.

    Unlike the posts that support KJVOism, I can find nothing in your statement that contradicts scripture!!! Go get 'em!!!
     
  19. JesusInFirstPlace

    JesusInFirstPlace
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    593
    Likes Received:
    0
    K, guys, I know that I said that I would stay out of the debate forum, but I just wanted to say that I am sorry. I was particualarily snippish earlier, and when I reread what was written I realize that nothing anyone else said deserved the wrath of a 17-year-old girl! So, I am really sorry....forgive me??? {anxiously awaiting response}
     
  20. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    JesusInFirstPlace, unfortunately you are wasting your time if you think you will get anything except scorn if you stand by the KJV.

    I no longer even respond to these silly questions that the MV lovers live by.

    I am convinced that God has blessed the KJV beyond any other English translation, and that is good enough for me. If you continue to view this forum you will see exactly what I am talking about.
     

Share This Page

Loading...