• 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!

The KJV recently turned 400 years old

L

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
ICHTHUS said:
What we do have is the 1769 edition, published by the Oxford University Press. .
Click to expand...

The actual 1769 edition of the KJV printed by Oxford had "LORD" [Jehovah] in around 90 places where most present KJV editions have "Lord" [Adonai] [Gen. 18:27, Gen. 18:30, Gen. 18:31, Gen. 18:32, Gen. 20:4, Exod. 15:17, Exod. 34:9, Num. 14:17, Josh. 3:11, Jud. 13:8, 1 Kings 3:10, 1 Kings 22:6, 2 Kings 7:6, 2 Kings 19:23, Neh. 1:11, Neh. 4:14, Neh. 8:10, Job 28:28, Ps. 2:4, Ps. 22:30, Ps. 35:17, Ps. 35:22, Ps. 37:13, Ps. 38:9, Ps. 38:15, Ps. 38:22, Ps. 39:7, Ps. 40:17, Ps. 44:23, Ps. 51:15, Ps. 54:4, Ps. 55:9, Ps. 57:9, Ps. 59:11, Ps. 62:12, Ps. 66:18, Ps. 68:11, Ps. 68:17, Ps. 68:19, Ps. 68:22, Ps. 68:32, Ps. 77:2, Ps. 77:7, Ps. 78:65, Ps. 79:12, Ps. 86:3, Ps. 86:4, Ps. 86:5, Ps. 86:8, Ps. 86:9, Ps. 86:12, Ps. 86:15, Ps. 89:49, Ps. 89:50, Ps. 97:5, Ps. 110:5, Ps. 114:7, Ps. 130:2, Ps. 130:3, Ps. 130:6, Ps. 135:5, Ps. 136:3, Ps. 140:7, Ps. 141:8, Ps. 147:5, Isa. 3:17, Isa. 3:18, Isa. 4:4, Isa. 9:8, Isa. 9:17, Isa. 11:11, Isa. 21:6, Isa. 21:16, Lam. 1:14, Lam. 1:15, Lam. 2:1, Lam. 2:5, Lam. 2:7, Lam. 2:20, Lam. 3:31, Lam. 3:36, Lam. 3:37, Lam. 3:58, Ezek. 18:25, Ezek. 18:29, Zech. 4:14, Zech. 6:5, Zech. 9:4, Mal. 1:14, Mal. 3:1].

At four verses, the 1769 Oxford has “Lord” where present KJV editions have “LORD” [Gen. 30:30, Deut. 29:23, Jud. 2:23, Jer. 7:4]. The 1769 Oxford has “LORD God” where most present KJV editions have “Lord GOD” at some verses [Exod. 23:17, Exod. 34:23, 2 Sam. 7:18, 2 Sam. 7:19, 2 Sam. 7:20, 2 Sam. 7:28, Isa. 56:8]. At Daniel 9:3, the 1769 Oxford has “Lord GOD” instead of “Lord God” that is in most present KJV editions. The 1769 Oxford has “Lord God” at seven verses where present KJV editions have “Lord GOD” [Jud. 6:22, Isa. 3:15, Isa. 61:1, Ezek. 16:23, Ezek. 23:35, Ezek. 32:11, Ezek. 45:9]. The 1769 Oxford has “LORD GOD” at one verse [Amos 6:8].

The 1769 Oxford still has “God” at 2 Samuel 12:22 as the 1611 had instead of “GOD.” This correction to the 1611 edition and the 1769 edition was not made until the 1829 Oxford.
 
L

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
ICHTHUS said:
the 1769 edition, published by the Oxford University Press. This edition included a number of corrections mainly for better English understanding of the text.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you are unaware of the fact that along with the corrections, the 1769 Oxford edition also introduced a set of new errors into KJV editions. One of the new errors in the 1769 remained in Oxford and Cambridge editions of the KJV as long as 100 years before it was finally corrected.

T. H. Darlow and H. F. Moule observed that the 1769 edition "contains many misprints, probably more than 'the commonly estimated number of 116‘" (Historical Catalogue of the Printed Editions of Holy Scriptures, I, p. 294). The Cyclopaedia of Literary and Scientific Anecdote edited by William Keddie asserted: “What is in England called the Standard Bible is that printed at Oxford, in 1769, which was superintended by Dr. Blayney; yet it has been ascertained that there are at least one hundred and sixteen errors in it” (p. 189). The Cambridge History of the Bible noted that Blayney’s edition “was indeed erroneous in many places” (Vol. 3, p. 464). David Daniell also asserted that the 1769 Oxford standard KJV edition included “many errors,” and that it repeated “most of Dr. Paris’s errors” (Bible in English, pp. 606, 620). Before a committee of Parliament, Thomson stated: “Dr. Blayney’s edition itself is very incorrect; the errors are both numerous and important” (Reports from Committees, Vol. XXII, p. 42). In an overstatement at least concerning omissions, William Loftie asserted that “Blayney’s folio of 1769” “abounds in omissions and misprints: yet this is still considered a standard edition” (Century of Bibles, p. 21). E. W. Bullinger maintained that the 1762 and 1769 editions "made many emendations of the Text; some of them very needless, and also introduced errors of their own, not always those pertaining to the printer" (Figures of Speech, p. 987). Concerning this 1769 Oxford edition, Lea Wilson asserted: “I find therein many errors of considerable importance, and unwarrantable departures from the text of the first edition” (Bibles, p. 128). John M’Clintock and James Strong asserted concerning Blayney’s edition: “But very soon his errors, one by one, came to light; some were corrected at one press, some at another; just has had been the case before; passages really correct were changed in ignorance, and the upshot of it all was, that in a very few years there was no standard again” (Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. I, p. 563).
 
L

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
TCassidy said:
My 1769 Oxford reads "Lord" (אדני - Adonai).
Click to expand...

Are you referring to a present Oxford KJV edition or to an actual Oxford edition printed in 1769?

In which of the actual references that I listed do you say that an actual KJV edition printed at Oxford in 1769 has "Lord"? In some of the verses, both may have been used, but there would also be the exact same one where a 1769 edition has "LORD" while a present Oxford would have "Lord."

[Gen. 18:27, Gen. 18:30, Gen. 18:31, Gen. 18:32, Gen. 20:4, Exod. 15:17, Exod. 34:9, Num. 14:17, Josh. 3:11, Jud. 13:8, 1 Kings 3:10, 1 Kings 22:6, 2 Kings 7:6, 2 Kings 19:23, Neh. 1:11, Neh. 4:14, Neh. 8:10, Job 28:28, Ps. 2:4, Ps. 22:30, Ps. 35:17, Ps. 35:22, Ps. 37:13, Ps. 38:9, Ps. 38:15, Ps. 38:22, Ps. 39:7, Ps. 40:17, Ps. 44:23, Ps. 51:15, Ps. 54:4, Ps. 55:9, Ps. 57:9, Ps. 59:11, Ps. 62:12, Ps. 66:18, Ps. 68:11, Ps. 68:17, Ps. 68:19, Ps. 68:22, Ps. 68:32, Ps. 77:2, Ps. 77:7, Ps. 78:65, Ps. 79:12, Ps. 86:3, Ps. 86:4, Ps. 86:5, Ps. 86:8, Ps. 86:9, Ps. 86:12, Ps. 86:15, Ps. 89:49, Ps. 89:50, Ps. 97:5, Ps. 110:5, Ps. 114:7, Ps. 130:2, Ps. 130:3, Ps. 130:6, Ps. 135:5, Ps. 136:3, Ps. 140:7, Ps. 141:8, Ps. 147:5, Isa. 3:17, Isa. 3:18, Isa. 4:4, Isa. 9:8, Isa. 9:17, Isa. 11:11, Isa. 21:6, Isa. 21:16, Lam. 1:14, Lam. 1:15, Lam. 2:1, Lam. 2:5, Lam. 2:7, Lam. 2:20, Lam. 3:31, Lam. 3:36, Lam. 3:37, Lam. 3:58, Ezek. 18:25, Ezek. 18:29, Zech. 4:14, Zech. 6:5, Zech. 9:4, Mal. 1:14, Mal. 3:1].
 
Last edited:
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Logos1560 said:
I have actually compared the 1611 edition with present KJV editions so I do not consider your opinion to be correct.

There were actual errors in the 1611 edition that have been corrected in later editions. The makers of the 1611 left the name of the wrong king "Jehoiachin" in the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible uncorrected in the 1611 while later KJV editions correct it to "Jehoiakim." Another error in the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible at 1 Kings 11:5 ["Amorities"], giving the name of the wrong group of people, was left uncorrected in the 1611 edition, but it was corrected in the 1629 Cambridge.

There are over 140 whole words that have been added in many present KJV editions that were not in the 1611 edition. Not even including all the words in the Apocrypha, over 45 words found in the 1611 edition are omitted in typical present KJV editions.

When compared to the 1611, over 60 times the number [singular/plural] of nouns, pronouns, or verb is changed.
Click to expand...
Why would a "perfect" translation need to have any correction to it?
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Baptist Brother said:
Correcting a simple mistake, on the level of a typo, is not the same thing as revising the translation. Modern translations rethink the meaning of Greek (or Hebrew) words, and then they revise their translations by again rethinking the meaning of Greek words words. Modern translations are dictated by the winds of politics, not the bedrock of truth.

When the new NIV came out and changed he meanings of countless verses, they weren't correcting mistakes in the original NIV. They wanted to change what the Bible says.
Click to expand...
Good modern versions also hve access to much greater an superior tools to use than the 1611 team had! Such as Lexicons, Grammars, dictionaries, sources etc!
 
B

Bro. James

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
KJV translators, mostly of the Anglican persuasion, did not receive God breathed information as did those who penned the original autographs, which were not available--still are not available. There are lots of copies of copies which come from two different schools--one seriously corrupted, a fact that is readily apparent. The Received Text came from the better of the two schools.

All textual criticisms, not withstanding, praise God we have an English translation at all. Faith comes by hearing, hearing The Word of God.

What is really curious is what happened to the early English translators: they were hounded and killed, their works burned, by the religious powers that be--Why?

Interesting: the new testament church on the Mayflower(1620) had Geneva Bibles.

The Word does not return void--even in Swahili.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Bro. James said:
KJV translators, mostly of the Anglican persuasion, did not receive God breathed information as did those who penned the original autographs, which were not available--still are not available. There are lots of copies of copies which come from two different schools--one seriously corrupted, a fact that is readily apparent. The Received Text came from the better of the two schools.

All textual criticisms, not withstanding, praise God we have an English translation at all. Faith comes by hearing, hearing The Word of God.

What is really curious is what happened to the early English translators: they were hounded and killed, their works burned, by the religious powers that be--Why?

Interesting: the new testament church on the Mayflower(1620) had Geneva Bibles.

The Word does not return void--even in Swahili.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James
Click to expand...
How do we nee the received texts were the better ones though?
 
B

Bro. James

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yeshua1 said:
Even though they might not have been in the originals?
Click to expand...
.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To be sure there were over zealous scribes before and after the canon. And some have injected their own theology, which is easy enough to spot. If you have a hundred scribes and ninety five copied the same thing, five did not, there is a preponderance of evidence that the ninety five got it right.

Jewish scribes would throw away a page with one error. Everything had to be just so. There is evidence that some of the existing NT manuscripts were actually copied from trashed documents. Now what?

God said what He meant, meant what He said and we are without excuse. Faith still comes by hearing--hearing The Word of God.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James
 
B

Bro. James

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Rippon said:
Another misinformed poster who likes to trash Tischendorf.
Click to expand...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good morning Rip,

And the clerics and bureaucrats are still in control. Fear not, the rich and famous are making a comeback. Allah is coming back too. Now what?

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James
 
L

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Genesis 18:27
LORD (1679, 1720, 1769, 1770, 1771, 1772, 1773, 1776, 1777, 1778, 1782, 1783, 1784, 1787, 1788, 1791, 1792, 1795, 1795e, 1798, 1799, 1800, 1803, 1804, 1808, 1810, 1812, 1816, 1819 Oxford) [1648, 1756, 1760, 1761, 1765, 1767, 1768, 1773, 1775, 1778, 1783, 1790, 1792, 1794, 1795, 1800, 1812, 1816, 1817, 1822, 1824, 2005, 2011 Cambridge] {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1626, 1630, 1631, 1633, 1634, 1640, 1644, 1650, 1652, 1655, 1657, 1684, 1772, 1813, 1814, 1819, 1820, 1824 London} (1712, 1715, 1764, 1787, 1791, 1793, 1796, 1802, 1806, 1810, 1820, 1827, 1834, 1842, 1843, 1855, 1858 Edinburgh) (1722, 1741, 1762, 1782, 1801, 1809 Dublin) (1645 Dutch) (1696, 1700 MP) (1776 Pasham) (1784 Pigunet) (1785 Wilson) (1790, 1804, 1808, 1828, 1833 MH) (1791, 1816 Collins) (1791, 1841 Thomas) (1796 Bowyer) (1802, 1813, 1815 Carey) (1803 Etheridge) (1804 Gower) (1807, 1813 Johnson) (1809, 1810, 1813, 1818, 1826, 1828, 1836 Boston) (1810, 1823, 1832, 1835, 1839 Scott) (1810, 1814 Woodward) (1811 Hewlett) (1815 Walpole) (1816 Albany) (1816, 1832, 1836, 1844, 1848 Hartford) (1816 Mercein) (1818 Holbrook) (Clarke) (1818, 1819, 1827, 1829, 1831, 1843 ABS) (1821, 1831, 1859 Brown) (1823, 1827 Smith) (1824, 1826 Bagster) (1832 PSE) (1832 Wilbur) (1835 Jenks) (1836 Stebbing) (1839, 1845, 1854, 1857, 1876 Harding) (1840 Roby) (1843, 1850, 1856 AFBS) (1843 Robinson) (1846 Portland) (1848 IFB) (1853 Butler) (1855 Perry) (1857 More) (1873 Cooke) (1876 Porter) (1924, 1958 Hertel) (1942 UBBH) (1956 Collins) (1965, 1968 Royal) (1970 TN) (1975 Open) (1976 BH) (CSB) (RRB) (LASB) (CB) (1987 PSI) (2003 EB) (JVIPB) (Dake‘s) (2006 PENG) (2006 PP) (2010 BRO) (2011 AMP) (2011 PJB) (2015, 2016 Barbour) (2015 KAPPA) (1828 Alexander) (1833 WEB)

Lord (1675, 1715, 1747, 1754, 1768 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1638, 1743, 1762, 1769 Cambridge, CCR, DKJB] {1634, 1672, 1703, 1711, 1750, 1760, 1763, 1767 London}
 
R

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Bro. James said:
There are lots of copies of copies which come from two different schools--one seriously corrupted, a fact that is readily apparent.
Click to expand...
You are a master of misinformation BJ.
The Received Text came from the better of the two schools.
Click to expand...
In your opinion. What about the frequency of places in which it differs from the standard Byzantine text?
 
R

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Bro. James said:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good morning Rip,

And the clerics and bureaucrats are still in control. Fear not, the rich and famous are making a comeback. Allah is coming back too. Now what?

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James
Click to expand...
Your reply had absolutely nothing to do with my post. That's your M.O.
 
L

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Baptist Brother said:
Modern versions also have a basket full of heathens and liberals helping out.
Click to expand...
Do you apply the exact same standards of doctrinal soundness to all Bible translators including the KJV translators?

Can you provide sound evidence that shows that the Church of England makers of the KJV were more sound in doctrine than the NKJV translators?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top