1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Word differences: 1611 vs. newer KJVs

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by BrianT, Aug 29, 2003.

  1. Orvie

    Orvie New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2001
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    0
    HB-"Riplinger's review is correct. You guys are blinded by the devil's spirit."
    Orv-"Was she correct when she claimed inspiration for her gobleygook? I declare publicly she has violated Rev 22:18-19.Will you defend her rank heresy of claiming God authored her 'book'? (along w/ her) Who is blinded by the "devil's spirit"? She is maximum arrogant."
    HB-"Stop putting down God's word and pick it up."
    Orv-"translation:'stop telling the truth about the KJV:kjb; and read the Pickled in English Version...sorry, HB, but your defintion of God's Word is foreign to the Scriptures. For the umpteenth time, show one verse that says that God's Word is only found for the English speaking world in the KJV:kjb,if you can't, you have a man made doctrine, a myth. Someone said, "put up, or shut up" :eek: no conjecture, please.
     
  2. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm sure the Lord laid on her heart the truth.
    Does it do you good to call God's word names?
    For the umpteenth time, there is no verse that says God's Word is only found for the English speaking world in the KJB. Why must you guys need a verse for everything? I guess since there's not a verse for smoking pot, you do it. Quit looking for a verse and start looking for God's inerrant, infallible, and altogether authoritative Word, therefore the supreme and final authority in all things (II Tim. 3:16-67; II Peter 1:21; Rev. 22:18-19). Question, what is your final authority?
     
  3. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    HomeBound: " ... start looking for God's inerrant,
    infallible, and altogether authoritative Word ... "

    Already found the Written Word of God:
    in the KJV1611,
    in the KJV1769,
    in the NIV,
    in the NASB,
    in the NLT,
    etc.

    Also found the TRUTH: the Living Word
    of God: Messiah Jesus.
     
  4. BrianT

    BrianT New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not everything. Only that which is being promoted as doctrine. That's what "Bible believers" are supposed to do - get *doctrine* only from scripture.
     
  5. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    If this is what you believe then so be it. I however believe in only one, the King James Bible.
     
  6. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not everything. Only that which is being promoted as doctrine. That's what "Bible believers" are supposed to do - get *doctrine* only from scripture. </font>[/QUOTE]And like I said, there is no verse. Do you use this method for everything or just here, trying to stump the Bible believer?
     
  7. Orvie

    Orvie New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2001
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    0
    HB-you asked, "What is your final authority?" This is why I continue calling the belief in KJVO:kjbo, as 'pickling" it in the KJV;kjb, I did intend to call any version, including the AV a name, sorry about that. I simply meant that some believe in the KJV;kjb as the final authority, they have pickled it in the KJV;kjb. To answer your question, I find my final authority in the very same place the translators of the AV found it between 1604-1611, the Originals, and the former translations diligently compared and revised. If the Originals were good enough for the AV translators, they're good enough for me. ;)
     
  8. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    But you/we do not have those originals.
     
  9. tinytim

    tinytim <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    If this is what you believe then so be it. I however believe in only one, the King James Bible. </font>[/QUOTE]And for the umphteenth time, Which KJV?
    1611,
    1769,
    1873,

    Which one is the one God preserved?
    Prove it by Scripture.

    This is what you KJVOs use against us Bible believers. Now you answer the Questions.

    If you say "all of them"
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    YOU ARE CORRECT. (ding,ding,ding)

    Now apply that same principle you just learned to the other versions.

    Be careful though, when you do you'll come out of the KJVO sect.


    Remember things different can't be the same.
    or can they? hmmph
     
  10. Precepts

    Precepts New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then you're a hypocrite to say the AV 1611 KJB is not good enough for you
     
  11. Precepts

    Precepts New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    If this is what you believe then so be it. I however believe in only one, the King James Bible. </font>[/QUOTE]And for the umphteenth time, Which KJV?
    1611,
    1769,
    1873,

    Which one is the one God preserved?
    Prove it by Scripture.

    This is what you KJVOs use against us Bible believers. Now you answer the Questions.

    If you say "all of them"
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    YOU ARE CORRECT. (ding,ding,ding)

    Now apply that same principle you just learned to the other versions.

    Be careful though, when you do you'll come out of the KJVO sect.


    Remember things different can't be the same.
    or can they? hmmph
    </font>[/QUOTE]Tiny, do you believe in eternal security?

    Since the Bible declares eternal security and it is held by the power of God, don't you reckon He can secure His Word in the Bible to the English speaking people?

    You don't? You prove you don't by including Ed's 1873 "version" calling it a KJV. You throw off on the Bible by accusing the 1769 KJB having multiple "differences" than found in the 1611, that is a false accusation at best. No thought changes are made between the two. the 1769, I prefer the Cambridge 1762,is only updated in spelling, punctuation, and typos. Also it is in the Roman type and the 1611 is in the Germane type .

    Just show me one change in thought in the KJB, I can show you many changes in thought in mv's from the KJB and even each other.
     
  12. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,535
    Likes Received:
    21
    If KJOism was based upon even supposed facts, by proving the supposed facts to be incorrect, it would be very easy for any one of us to prove KJOism to be a false doctrine. The truth is, however, that KJOism is not based on supposed facts, but rather it is based on a conviction. We find the exact same thing in Mormonism. Their belief that the book of Mormon is genuine is not based on any supposed facts, but upon a conviction that they call a burning in the bosom. Although people in both of these sects will argue for their sect by posting “facts,” the reality that the “facts” are not true is not an issue for them. The only issue for them is there conviction that they are right and that we are wrong. The presentation of facts, no matter how many and how sound, will not change their mind in the slightest. The only reason I post facts that disprove KJOism is that some people reading these threads have not yet been brainwashed by these sects and are still looking for true answers. For a while, I still thought that there may be hope for Precepts, but I now know that there is not, at least not in the human realm.
     
  13. Will J. Kinney

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    759
    Likes Received:
    8
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Ye Olde Printing errors ( again)

    What About Those Printing Errors in the 1611 Holy Bible?

    Pastor David F. Reagan has written an excellent article about The Myth of Early Revisions of the Authorized King James Holy Bible. In his article he discusses the conditions of the printing process in 1611, and shows how the so called revisions are actually only examples of updating the spelling of words and the correction of minor printing errors.

    His article can be seen here - http://www.learnthebible.org/Myth%20of%20Early%20Revisions.htm

    Pastor Reagan rightly says: "We need to establish one thing from the out-set. The authority for our preserved English text is not found in any human work. The authority for our preserved and infallible English text is in God! Printers may foul up at times and humans will still make plenty of errors, but God in His power and mercy will preserve His text despite the weaknesses of fallible man."

    Dr. Donald Waite also has written a booklet titled The Authorized Version 1611 Compared to Today's King James Version. In this booklet Dr. Waite discusses the "thousands of changes", and he clearly shows that the vast majority of the changes have to do with changing the printing type from Gothic print to Roman, and updating the spelling of such words as Sonne to Son, and sinne to sin, seede to seed and blesse to bless.

    There are also a number of minor printing errors such as omitting or duplicating a word, or mispelling a simple word. These are things like "the shearer" to "his shearer" (Acts 8:32); "sacrifice" to "sacrifices" (1 Peter 2:5) ; and "made a" to "made thee a" (Isaiah 57:8).

    In his book, Dr. Waite lists the words that had been changed if you could HEAR the difference. You cannot hear the difference between "sonne" and "son"; "weepe" and "weep"; "owne" and "own".

    First, the facts... The King James Bible contains 791,328 words. Since the first King James Bible rolled off the press in 1611 to the King James Bible you buy off the shelf today, there have been - are you ready - there have been a grand total of 421 word changes! That's it!

    From 1611 until now, the King James Bible has undergone a grand total of 421 word changes, amounting to only five one-hundredths of a percent of the text! But that's not all. It gets better.

    Out of the 421 total changes amounting to only five one-hundredths of a percent, the following should be noted -

    TOWARDS has been changed to TOWARD 14 times.

    BURNT has been changed to BURNED 31 times.

    AMONGST has been changed to AMONG 36 times.

    LIFT has been changed to LIFTED 51 times.

    YOU has been changed to YE 82 times.

    Out of a grand total of 421 changes from 1611 to the present, almost 300 of the 421 are of this exact nature!

    We see that 214 of the 421 changes of the changes are from 5 simple words. Towards was changed to toward (14 times); Burnt changed to burned (31 times); Amongst to among (36 times); Lift changed to lifted (51 times); and You was changed to Ye (82 times). As you can see, the text itself was not changed and the meaning is exactly the same in both cases, but Mr. Waite included these among the 421 "translational changes". Of these 421 changes in form, 136 of them are, according to Dr. Waite, "substantial".

    Of these 136 examples 46 are changing the letter Y, which used to be employed at times in place of "the". So where the 1611 said "Y", the change now reads "the". Another change not usually mentioned is that the original 1611 would use the ampersand, or the "&" sign, but that was later changed to the common word "and".

    Of the remaining 90 "substantial changes" all of them are simple printing errors of the nature I mentioned previously. Other examples among these remaining 90 changes are: "thy people" to "the children of thy people" in Ezekiel 3:11 (easily a printing error of skipping three words); "wayes" to "ways" 2 Kings 22:2; "wee shall" to "for we shall" Romans 14:10. All of these are easily explained as minor printing errors; the text itself has never changed.

    The biggest printing error occured in Exodus 14:10 "and...afraid" where 21 words were accidently omitted due most likely to the printer's eyes having skipped from one "and" to the next "and".

    At a Bible club I belong to, one Christian brought up two examples he thought were textual changes rather than spelling errors. He said to me: "Brother Kinney, if you will continue to look at Dr. Waite's excellent booklet you will notice on page 20, item numbers 0144 and 0177 where "GOD" was changed to "LORD" twice. (Once in 2 Chronicles 28:11, and again in Isaiah 49:13) On page 21, item number 0067 where "LAMBE" was changed to "RAM." (Numbers 6:14) I am sure you do not dismiss those as corrections of printer's errors. They are actual word changes. How do you address those actual word changes in view of your position on the perfect nature of the KJV?"

    To which I answered: "These two examples are really quite easy to explain. I believe they are simple printing errors. The words God, Lord, GOD, LORD, are found with what a printer might consider monotonous regularity throughout those passages. It would have been quite easy for a tired and weary printer to skip over or misread the word God and put Lord instead, or vice versa. The fact is that out of the thousands of times the words "Lord, LORD, God, and GOD" occur in the Old Testament, only twice did this easily explained printing error occur."

    "As for the second example, the verse in question - Numbers 6:14- actually contains three printing errors. I will highlight the printing errors in capital letters. Also notice the old style spelling of some words, which later were updated, and which the critics love to number among their "thousands of changes". In the reprint of the original 1611 Bible, put out by Thomas Nelson Publishers, it reads: "And he shall offer his OFFRING unto the LORD, one hee lambe of the first yeere without blemish, for a burnt offering, OFFERING, and one ewe lambe of the first yeere without blemish, for a sinne offering, and one LAMBE without blemish for peace offerings."

    You will notice here the three printing errors in this one verse. The printer mispelled offering once as "offring", he also repeated the word "offering, offering", and instead of reading "lamb", "lamb" and "ram", he accidentally printed "lamb, lamb, lamb". The word "lamb" occurs twice already in Numbers 6:14, and the third time the original 1611 misprinted the word "lamb" for "ram", which is in the Hebrew and in the present day KJB editions. This mistake would have been quite easy to do for the printer who was hand setting the type. He most likely saw the word "lamb" twice already and mistook "ram", which shares both the "a" and the "m", with the word "lamb".

    As you can see, there is no deliberate change in the text or meaning from 1611 to the present. To compare these extremely minor changes in spelling and accidental printing errors of no real significance, to the wholesale changes in both text, meaning and translation that occurs in the modern versions is totally unjustified. There is no reasonable comparison at all.

    Throughout the history of Bible printing there have been some rather humorous examples of errors that have occurred. It should also be noted that there have been printing errors, even with today's advanced technology, in the NASB, NKJV, and NIV as well. Here are a few of the printing errors that have occurred in various King James Bible editions.

    A 1631 edition became known as the “Wicked Bible” because the seventh commandment read, “thou shalt commit adultery.” The printer was fined 300 pounds.

    The printer of the "Fool Bible" had to pay 3,000 pounds for this mistake in Psalm 14:1: “The fool hath said in his heart there is a God.”

            In 1653, there was a misprint in I Corinthians 6:9 that read, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of God” and one in Romans 6:13 that read, “"Neither yield ye your members as instruments of righteousness unto sin." This Bible became known as “the Unrighteous Bible.”

    In 1716, the “Sin On Bible” commanded, “Go, and sin on more” in John 8:11.

    In 1717, there was a misprint in a heading for the “parable of the vineyard,” which called it the "Parable of the vinegar." This Bible was called “the Vinegar Bible.”

            In 1801, Jude 16 stated, "these are murderers" instead of “murmurers”, and Mark 7:27 stated, “let the children first be killed” instead of “filled.” This Bible was nicknamed “the Murderers Bible.”

            In 1820, Jesus says, "Who hath ears to ear, let him hear" in Matthew 13:43, and this was called “the Ears to Ear" Bible.

    In 1823, Genesis 24:61 states "Rebekah arose, and her camels", instead of "her damsels," in “Rebekah’s Camels Bible.”

    The cause for all of these defects may be found in “the Printers' Bible” (1702), which states in Psalm 119:161, "printers have persecuted me" (instead of “princes.” have persecuted me). If ever there was a misprint that carried a lot of legitimate meaning, this is it. "Printers have persecuted me."

    The whole "Printing Error" complaint the biblical relativists bring up, is really a non issue. What I mean by this is that if every single copy of the King James Bible that has ever come off the presses read exactly the same with no minor printing errors found in any of them, it still would not change their opinion that the KJB is not the inspired, inerrant word of God. It is brought up as a smokescreen; not as a serious issue concerning the ultimate truth of Scripture and its preservation.

    I know of people who studied the issue of 1 John 5:7 and considered the historical, textual and grammatical evidence for it being the true, God inspired Scripture. They became convinced it should be in the Bible, and they became a King James Bible believer.

    Likewise I know of another person who compared the meaning of Revelation 19:8 in the KJB and the NKJV, and since he was well grounded in sound doctrine, he became a KJB believer and rejected the NKJV. But these decisions had to do with the truth of Scripture, not minor mistakes in the printing process.

    Most people who reject the KJB as being the inerrant, preserved words of God in English, do so for other reasons than printing errors. They have done so because they went to a seminary where they were taught that no Bible in any language and no text, be it Hebrew or Greek, is the inspired words of God. Or they visited some anti-KJV only website where they were told something like: "The KJV is not based on the best texts", "God forbid" is wrong, or "1 John 5:7 does not belong in the Bible." They most likely assumed that all KJB Bibles read the same since the very beginning; it wasn't till later they learned of the minor printing errors and now they toss this up as a smokescreen. Like I said, if someone is convinced the KJB is not the inspired word of God, no matter if all copies in its long history read exactly the same, his mind would not be changed by this fact. It is a non-issue of no importance.

    If one adopts the view that printing errors negate any Bible version or Hebrew or Greek text , from being valid or true, then you end up with no inspired, inerrant Bible anywhere on this earth. That too is carrying the argument to its logical conclusion. Guess who wants you to think this way?

    Another member at one of the internet Bible clubs brought up this very common objection. He asked: "Why did God guide the hands and minds of the KJV tranlators to produce a perfect Bible, only to have it corrupted by printers? I'll await your answer."

    To which I answered: Hi..., excellent question. Here is what I believe about this. The production of the KJB mirrors exactly what happened in the case of the originals and all good copies of the correct texts.

    God inspired the originals. Scribes then copied these originals into other manuscripts but all of the correct line of good copies introduced "printing errors", inversion of word order, slight omissions, and such like. God's word was not lost but needed some degree of purification as a result of the human element.

    God has preserved His inerrant words Providentially, not miraculously. He did not keep every copyist from making "printing errors", but He guided in such a way as to purify the text and bring it back to its original state.

    It seems you would have to admit that the stated purpose of modern scholarship is to accomplish this same end. They believe they need to examine the evidence, purge the texts of errors and false readings, and try to restore the texts to their original state.

    Yet their results are exceedingly flawed, and some even admit it is hopeless. Witness the textual differences between the ESV, the NASB, and the NIV. Literally hundreds of words from the texts themselves are different between the ESV and the NASB.

    The scholars today, all of whom have the same training and access to the same information, all come up with very different conclusions, and the various, conflicting bible versions reflect these differences.

    My belief is that God has kept His promises to preserve His inerrant words, and He has already providentially guided certain chosen men through this same "scholarly process" to select both the correct texts and the correct meaning for those texts. Afterall, only God really knows which readings are His and which are not.

    The KJB believer first looks to God and His promises to preserve His words, and believes that God has done what He said He would do.

    The "No Bible is Inspired" group, or the biblical relativist, seems to think that he and his buddies are capable "restoring" what God never lost, and denies that God has already preserved His words in the King James Bible, or any other bible.

    This is the fundamental difference in our approach to the doctines of inspiration and preservation. We KJB believers are convinced God has done what He said He would do. The Bible of the Month Club member thinks it is still an ongoing process and his results are getting more scattered and divergent as time goes by. The Nestle-Aland, UBS Greek texts, upon which most modern versions are based, continue to change every few years, and the modern versions have introduced hundreds of variations into the Old Testament Scriptures. They often reject the Hebrew readings in favor of the alleged pre-Christian Septuagint, Syriac, Samaritan Pentateuch, or Vulgate texts. Just look at the differences between the KJB, NASB, and the ESV in this regard.

    The "Probably Close Enuf" side ends up with no inspired, complete, inerrant, sure words of God, and maximun uncertainty. = "Yea, hath God said...?"

    The King James Bible believer is convinced he has the inerrant words of God and enjoys maximum certainty and rest in the fulfilled promises of Almighty God. = "Thus saith the LORD".

    The King James Bible we have today is the same as the one in 1611. Even the American Bible Society, which promotes and publishes most modern versions, wrote, "The English Bible, as left by the translators (of 1611), has come down to us unaltered in respect to its text..." They further stated, "With the exception of typographical errors and changes required by the progress of orthography in the English language, the text of our present Bibles remains unchanged, and without variation from the original copy as left by the translators" (Committee on Versions to the Board of Managers, American Bible Society, 1852).

    I hope this helps you to better understand the nature of the so called "thousands of changes" that have occured in the King James Bible since 1611 to the present.

    Will Kinney
     
  14. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Precepts: "Just show me one change in thought in the KJB,
    I can show you many changes in thought in mv's
    from the KJB and even each other."

    Nobody can show you a change in thought in the KJB.
    You will not see it because you have assumed (i.e.
    considered as axiomatic) that there is no change in
    thought. Yet most KJVOs will NOT SEE (i.e. are
    blind to) that i assume (or construe as axiomatic)
    that there is no difference in meaning, as soon
    as we understand what is being said).

    Precepts: "Tiny, do you believe in eternal security?"

    Some KJVOs believe the KJB teaches eternal security,
    some KJVOs believe in free will (i.e. a person
    of their own volition can get "unsaved".

    All the great variances in doctrine can be "proved"
    from the KJB. The premillinnialists and a-millinnialists
    alike can be KJBO. Unitarians and trinitarians can
    both come from th KJBO camp.

    Sorry to tell you Bro. but the variation in
    understanding of people is very much greater than
    the variation of translation.

    [​IMG]
     
  15. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry Brother Will, you need to get
    real. The MV users will buy your printer
    error story. It is the KJBOs who will not
    buy it. The MV users assume (consider
    as axiomatic) that any variation in version
    understanding is a result of confusion
    by the understander, not by the God that
    brought both versions into being.
    It is the KJBOs that make the false assumption
    that they are inerrant in thier understanding
    of the Bible. This raises them above GOod.

    But this is just one of the many
    double standards that KJBOs have.

    [​IMG]
     
  16. Orvie

    Orvie New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2001
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    0
    But, we have the very meaning of the Originals. BTW, the "Original" KJV no longer exists, i.e. the first one off the press. How do you know that you have the "real, genuine" KJV? If you say it's by faith, we say the same thing, as far as reliable BV's based on the Originals.
     
  17. Orvie

    Orvie New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2001
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then you're a hypocrite to say the AV 1611 KJB is not good enough for you </font>[/QUOTE]Again you've demonstrated your reasoning to be unreasonable. Precepts, you should stop putting the cart before the horse. The KJV;kjb came from the Originals....so, pay very close attention: In the year 2004 we too can have Bible Versions based on the same thing, the Originals. Was that clear enough this time? :rolleyes:
     
  18. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Homebound:And like I said, there is no verse. Do you use this method for everything or just here, trying to stump the Bible believer?

    It's not about trying to "stump" anyone-it's about rejecting a man-made false doctrine that has no Scriptural support whatsoever, either empirically or by implication. If people continue to adopt such non-Scriptural doctrines, the real meanings of the Scriptures could become lost to them.
     
  19. Precepts

    Precepts New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ed: "All the great variances in doctrine can be "proved"
    from the KJB. The premillinnialists and a-millinnialists
    alike can be KJBO. Unitarians and trinitarians can
    both come from th KJBO camp."

    The same can come from any version, but when the Word is in context that only True Doctrine can be determined. Your statement is irrelevent except that the world is full of variations in doctrine. One thing of note since the induction of mv's, the church has just about forgotten how to live holy. Liberal mv's promote liberal lifestyles.
     
  20. Precepts

    Precepts New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    I see you accuse that, but I have NEVER seen anyone guilty of it. Yall label me KJVO, but I know the printer errors are there, today some are even intentional by cvertainBible publishers that put the title of KJV on their books
     
Loading...