Why it is important 4 KJO to have KJ1611

Yes on Ed.

I've bought many old editions of Bibles because I wanted our church members to be able to see them, hold them, look at them. But they don't even ask about them. It's not a study for many.

 

The main reason one should have an AV1611 or accurate repro is for the extratextual material inserted by the translators. Now while genuine AV1611s are scarce and very pricey, there are some accurate repros out there. For example the one published by Hendrickson Publishing Co. is accurate in every word, so I am told by those who have access to genuine AV1611s, except that the font of the text is Roman insteada Gothic as the originals are.

The AV1611 yanks the rug from under many of the KJVO claims. If more of the KJVOs who use "1611", etc. in their handles would actually CLOSELY READ a 1611, ALL of it, including the translators' marginal notes & preface, there wouldn't be nearly as many KJVOs!

KJVO aside, it's a valuable study tool for any English-using bible student.

 

AMEN to your entire post.And I would hope that KJVOs would particularly notice the "Or" in the alternate readings.A huge dose of honesty would really help persuade a KJVO'er to abandon their lost cause.

 

My experience with a motorcar stuck in a muddy rut is if we continue to spin the tyres we bury the motorcar deeper in the mud. I have found this is what happens with KJVO'ers. They continue to spin their ideas and just get deeper in that rut.

This good information, I fear, will fall on deaf ears.

Cheers,

Jim

 

"Uh- 'scuse me!

Aside from some printer typos, there was not any bad spelling in the 1611 KJV, that I'm aware of.

The fact that in 2009, one does not usually spell in the manner of the 15 & 1600s, does not make that poor spelling, by any means.


And I assure you, that had you and I attempted to spell in the 15 & 1600s, as we do today, we would have been the ones deemed as having poor spelling.

Wherfore diddeft thov saye this?"

Signed, Language Cop

 

No,not necessarily.Since there was no uniformity of spelling a 21st century person's spelling would have been understood.The average Joseph spelled the same word a variety of ways.William Shakespeare spelled the same words several different ways in the same paragraph!The word we spell "it" had multiple spellings as I recall.

 

Um, no, this is most probably not a typo. What this 1611 reading in I Jn. 5:12 is/was, is the exact, identical rendering as was found in the Rheims NT (1582), here, down to the last letter. The D-R has had the spelling updated, here, as have the KJV's, but not the text, for the D-R still reads, in this manner. I believe it may also be the rendering found in the underlying TR1598 of Beza, as well, but am not absolutely sure on this one. Dr. Beza was not above some "minor editing" for stylistic purposes, to "'improve' the meter" as has pointed out previously, by someone, although I do not remember whom. This reading has never been supported by any other version or text, to my knowledge, save these, and the D-R has this reading, to this day. The VULG never had it, then or now, FTR.

Both Drs. Paris (1762) and Blayney (1769) correctly recognized the fact that the reading, as found in 1611, was incorrect, and intentionally changed it back to read just as the BISH, GEN, and TYN had always read.

The 1769 did not "add" the words "of God"; the 1611 KJV, just as the 1582 "Rheims", had "removed" them. The 1762 and 1769 simply properly "restored" them, just as already had the MACE of 1725, and the WES of 1755 .

And it is either "complete and willful ignorance" or "intentional deception" (You may take your pick, here.), to proclaim the 1769 does not have any "alternative readings" as well, unless the Bible you are proclaiming to be a 1769 contains the Apocrypha, for the 1769 Bible, just as all English versions and editions that preceede it, do in fact, contain the Apocrypha. I consider the elimination of 10 complete books, and parts of others, as just slightly more than any books as slightly more than any "typo". One will not find an English Bible that did not contain it, until well into the 1800s, in one of those allegedly "non-official" edits, such as the one of Dr. Scrivener in the 1873 Cambridge Paragraph Bible, which happened to be an "official edit", as well.

What is not any "official edit", is any of the multiple 'pirated' American 'counterfeit' editions that have appeared for more than two hundred years, which are entirely permitted and allowable under USA copyright law. Hence, although they are entirely "legal" in this realm, they are still not "genuine" by any means.

FTR, they way to avoid any arguments over this, is to not make any unsupportable statement(s), in the first place. Should work most every time!

Ed

 

Post deleted - I responded before reading further. The subject was alredy brought up in a later post. Oops! My bad!

 

Amen, Brother Jim1999! Preach it!

 

I have yet to read a legitimate modern Bible translation that modifies the message God preserved for us. With the exception of "bibles" like the New World Translation (Jehovah's Witnesses), the Joseph Smith Translation aka the Inspired Version (Mormons) and the Clear Word Translation (Seventh Day Adventists) which were "translated" so errant groups can have "scripture" that agrees with their errant teachings, and odd "bibles" like the Cotton Patch Version and the Klingon Version which were published for no apparent reason except to make a few bucks, the modern Bible translations teach the virgin birth of Christ, His deity, His sinless life, His cruel death, His burial in the tomb, His glorious and victorious resurrection from the grave, His current position in heaven, His eventual return and the priesthood of the believer - at least, all of the modern translations I've read. None of them teach "another gospel" that differs from basic Christian doctrine. How would a legitimate modern Bible translation modify anything so that it isn't the word of God?

The term "bible" is derived from the Greek biblos ("a written book, a roll, a scroll" - Strong's 976) and biblion ("a small book, a scroll, a written document" - Strong's 975). In this sense, anyone can publish a "bible" meaning a book, but only those who intend to publish God's message to us can publish THE Bible.

 

You quoted both Samuel Owen and myself.I'm not sure who you were directing your question to.I had mentioned Noah Webster's Common Version of 1833.It was a lightly retouched 1769.That's what I meant by the word "modified".You can modify a translation like the ESV modifies ever-so-lightly the 1971 RSV.

How in the world you could possibly interpret that I meant Bible translations modify texts to the extent that they are no longer the Word of God?! Talk about drawing wrong conclusions!

 

Excellent point. I think that happens with anything that is challenged and found false. The person must be humble to admit their wrong and allow himself to be challenged.

 

Is the KJV1611 edition the same as any KJV1611? All the bibles around several years ago seemed to be just KJV1611. Is the Bibles different because of later KJV1611 editions being printed? I don't know what you all are talking about.

 

Ray, I doubt that you have ever seen a true 1611 KJV. And, if you did you, unless you are an expert in old english, could not read it. Most KJV's today are modifications of the 1611 KJV. Sort of puts a little hitch in the KJV only argument.

 

I have from

http:// www.e-sword.com/

three parallel bibles (you can pick any three you want, I chose these):
1. Geneva Bible (1599 or some say 1587?)
2. KJV1611 Edition
3. KJV1769 Edition with Strongs numbers

Verses can be compared together real easy (I marked some to make it easier to see differences):

Rth 3:15

(GB) Also he sayd, Bring the sheete that thou hast vpon thee, and holde it. And when she helde it, he measured sixe measures of barly, and layde them on her, and she went into the citie.

(KJV1769+ Edition) Also he said,559 Bring3051 the veil4304
that834 thou hast upon5921 thee, and hold270 it.
And when she held270 it, he measured4058 six8337
measures of barley,8184 and laid7896 it on5921 her:
and she went into935 the city.5892

(KJV-1611 Edition) Also he said, Bring the vaile that thou hast vpon thee, and holde it. And when she helde it, he measured sixe measures of barley, and laide it on her: and he went into the citie.

Some people define:

KJV1611AV as any KJV which is the Authorized Version. I read three such Bibles everyday in private and public devotions:

1. KJV1611 Edition, with translator margin notes
2. KJV1769 Edition? without translator footnotes nor margin notes
3. KJV1873 Edition with translator footnoes

 

You are right about the KJV1611 older version, I have never seen one. I do not find the version I have read all my life has been easy to read. I know there are several different bibles available and each person can make their own choice of the one they find easily for them, so I guess you have answered my question.
Thanks

 

The actual 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV printed in 1769 still had alternative readings. Have you seen an actual KJV edition printed in 1769?

The 1762 Cambridge edition of the KJV added 15 more textual marginal notes to those found in the 1611. The 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV is said to have added at least one more, and it still had those found in the 1611. KJV defender Edward F. Hills also confirmed that 37 of the KJV’s N. T. marginal notes give variant readings (KJV Defended, p. 216). Hills also acknowledged that 16 more textual N. T. marginal notes were added in the 1700’s (Believing Bible Study, p. 206). John Eadie also affirmed that the KJV’s N. T. has “thirty-five such textual notes,” and he listed them (English Bible, II, p. 212).

 

The Oxford KJV edition in the Scofield Reference Bible is not 100% identical in text to the 1769 Oxford KJV edition. Changes were introduced into its text as late as 1885.

KJV-only author D. A. Waite admitted that there are "136 substantial changes" between the 1611 KJV and current KJV plus "285 minor changes of form" (Defending the KJB, p. 244, see also pp. 3-4). In another book, Waite noted that he “found only 421 changes to the ear from the 1611 original compared with the 1917 Old Scofield King James Bible of today” (Fundamentalist Mis-Information on Bible Versions, p. 53, see also pp. 90-93). He indicated that he was sure that if another person did the same comparison that they “would get the same results” (p. 93). In yet another book, Waite observed that in “changes of words as to their sound from the King James Bible of 1611 to the present King James Bible there are only 136 differences” (Central Seminary Refuted on Bible Versions, p. 24). He then indicated that if such small things as a change from “towards” to “toward” are included “you get 413 words in all” (p. 25). Later in this same book, he gives his “only 421 translational changes” count (p. 76), but he also gives a count of “only 435 changes” (p. 116). In his original 1985 booklet, Waite did acknowledge that he “might have missed a place or two throughout the course of the Bible” (AV1611 Compared to Today’s KJV, p. 4). He added that he “tried to record them all” (p. 4). He then referred to “the total translation changes of 421” (p. 4). How accurate and reliable was Waite’s research in comparing these two KJV editions? Should his count be regarded as an almost complete list of all the changes of sound between these two editions? When Waite used the words “total,” “only,” and “in all“ that are quoted above, does that suggest that his count is presented as a complete or incomplete list of all these changes? Waite seemed to recommend to others that they use his count when he wrote: “You tell them about the mere 136 changes of substance plus 285 minor changes of form only. Argue them down” (Defending the KJB, p. 244).


How accurate is this count of 421 changes and this count of only 136 substantial changes? Waite counted the adding of three words at six different verses (Lev. 26:40, Num. 7:31, 7:55, Ezek. 3:11, 2 Cor. 11:32, 2 Tim. 4:13) as being only one change each and the adding of two words at other verses (Exod. 21:32, Ezek. 34:31) also as one change each (AV1611 Compared to Today‘s KJV, pp. 7, 9, 12, 13). Thus, the adding of twenty-two words is listed and counted as being only eight changes. Can twenty-two actual word changes be accurately listed as only eight? Waite did count the adding of two words at 2 Corinthians 9:6 and at Revelation 5:13 as two changes each (pp. 12-14), which sets a precedent for also counting the above examples as more than one change each. Furthermore, Waite’s listing and count does not include the adding of two words at ten other verses (Exod. 15:25 [“for them”], Exod. 35:11 [“his boards”], Lev. 19:34 [“unto you”], Lev. 26:23 [“by me”], Deut. 26:1 [“thy God”], 1 Sam. 18:27 [“and went”], Ezek. 46:23 [“row of”], John 7:16 [“and said“], 1 John 5:12 [“of God“], Rev. 1:4 [“which are“]), three words at three other verses (Josh. 13:29 [“the children of“], Jud. 1:31 [“of” three times], 2 Kings 11:10 [“of the LORD“]), and six words at one verse (Eccl. 8:17 [“yet he shall not find it”]). Thirty-five more word changes missed by Waite. There are also over 60 verses where later editors added one word that are not included in Waite’s list. There are at least fifteen verses where later editors omitted one word in the 1611 that are not on Waite’s list. Over thirty changes of the number [singular/plural] of words in the 1611 are also not listed. Several other changes like those Waite listed as “substantial” are also not included.

 

There were a number of changes introduced into Cambridge and Oxford KJV editions in the 1800's. The information below only deals with the last changes in the late 1800's.

Oxford KJV editions printed at the University Press for the British and Foreign Bible Society in 1870, 1876, 1880, and 1885 indicate that the present Oxford edition in the Scofield Reference Bible was likely made from an Oxford edition printed after 1885. The 1870, 1876, and 1880 Oxford editions still had the error introduced in the 1769 Oxford edition at Exodus 6:21 [“Zithri”] while it had been corrected in the 1885 Oxford edition. The 1870, 1876, and 1880 have “ax” for “axe” (1 Sam. 13:20) while the 1885 has “axe.” All four editions [1870, 1876, 1880, 1885] have “enquire“ for “inquire“ (Gen. 24:57), “shoulderpieces“ [one word] for “shoulder pieces“ [two words] (Exod. 28:7, 25), “travel” for “travail” (Num. 20:14), “ax” for “axe” (Deut. 19:5, 20:19), “all lost thing” for “all lost things” (Deut. 22:3), “ax“ for “axe“ (Jud. 9:48), “priest’s custom” for “priests’ custom” (1 Sam. 2:13), “hasted” for “hastened” (1 Sam. 17:48), “ax“ for “axe“ (1 Kings 6:7), “the LORD” for “the Lord” (1 Kings 8:56), “ax head“ for “axe head“ (2 Kings 6:5), “ax“ for “axe“ (Isa. 10:15), “sope“ for “soap“ (Jer. 2:22), “ax“ for “axe“ (Jer. 10:3), “battle ax“ for “battle axe“ (Jer. 51:20), “travel” for “travail” (Lam. 3:5), “ancles” for “ankles” (Ezek. 47:3), “fullers’ sope” for “fullers’ soap” (Mal. 3:2), “ax” for “axe” (Matt. 3:10), “ancle” for “ankle” (Acts 3:7), “the spirit“ for “the Spirit“ (Acts 11:12, 28), “enquired“ for “inquired“ (1 Pet. 1:10), “spirit“ for “Spirit“ (1 John 5:8), and “Spirit of life“ for “spirit of life“ (Rev. 11:11). The evidence from these four Oxford editions demonstrates that over twenty alterations were introduced into Oxford editions after 1885. An examination of an old edition of Strong’s Concordance that is based on the 1886 Oxford edition of the KJV also confirms that some alterations had not yet been made in the Oxford text. Thus, the 1886 Oxford KJV edition being used as a standard text in Strong’s Concordance for around 100 years differed from the later Oxford KJV edition being used as a standard in the Scofield Reference Bible. The 1870, 1880, and 1885 Oxford editions have “scull” (Jud. 9:53) while the 1876 and present Oxford have “skull.”

While the majority of these alterations involve only minor spelling changes, this evidence confirms again that all the updating was not finished by 1769 as some KJV-only authors imply. The capitalization alterations involve doctrinally important nouns that refer to God when capitalized. One alteration involves a change in a name of God [LORD--Jehovah versus Lord--Adonai]. It seems to be deliberate that the first use of “enquire” and the last use of “enquired” were updated while the other over eighty uses in between were not. While the 1611 KJV has “hasted” several times, only one of these uses was changed to “hastened” after 1885. Does this evidence suggest that the present Oxford edition is actually a more recent edition than the 1873 Cambridge edition? Is the present Oxford standard edition no longer a “true edition” according to some KJV-only reasoning since it has alterations made after 1885? On what consistent basis can some updating be accepted after 1769 and even after 1885 while other similar updating that may originate before 1885 is rejected? Should some of the inconsistencies in the editing of KJV editions have been corrected at the time these alterations were made?

 

Marginal notes not counted, as no textual changes. Almost every time any Bible is reprinted, someone has added some more notes.

I might have said it better the 1769 version, has no retranslations that differ from the 1611 version. Spelling=Yes, Notes=Yes, Some corrections=Yes, but no translational differences.