Featured KJV-only failures to correct errors

I did not claim that the KJV translators followed "for certain" the 1582 Rheims in all the examples in my list. I clearly noted that they were "likely" examples, and I had noted that there may be other possible sources for some of them.

There are scholars who evidently may see a pattern and think that the KJV translators often made use of the Rheims in their revising of the Bishops' Bible instead of seeking earlier possible sources.

Ward Allen maintained that "the Rheims New Testament furnished to the Synoptic Gospels and Epistles in the A. V. as many revised readings as any other version" (Translating the N. T. Epistles, p. xxv).

Ward Allen and Edward Jacobs claimed that the KJV translators "in revising the text of the synoptic Gospels in the Bishops' Bible, owe about one-fourth of their revisions, each, to the Genevan and Rheims New Testaments" (Coming of the King James Gospels, p. 29).

 

D. A. Waite and David Cloud also use inconsistent, unjust measures/standards in their allegations and attacks on English Bible translations such as the NKJV which are based on the same original-language texts as the KJV.

 

The Rheims New Testament was printed first in 1582 while the Douay Old Testament was not printed until 1609-1610, when printed together making the Douay-Rheims.

 

What I noted was that David Cloud was unwilling even to read and examine the facts and evidence provided for him. David Cloud could easily have compared my list to the 1611 edition and a present KJV to see if the differences were there.

D. A. Waite may have looked at it, but he dismissed or avoided half of it. So far as I know, D. A. Waite has not printed a new list with the 1095 differences between the 1611 and a present KJV so that others can see whether he used consistent, just measures in dismissing almost another one thousand differences I listed between the two. He likely still sells his booklet with the old list of only 421 differences.

When other fundamentalists wrote a book critical of KJV-only claims, D. A. Waite would (in a few months) write hastily a short book in response. Several years ago D. A. Waite obtained a copy of my book, but he never printed a response or reply to it. I wonder if he realized that he could not soundly answer it without exposing his inconsistent attempt to be KJV-only and not-KJV-only at the same time.

 

Here is another example.

The title pages of D. A. Waite's The Defined King James Bible claim that it has "the Cambridge 1769 Text" "unaltered," but that would not be factually true. The word “unaltered” would seem to be a broad-sweeping claim that not even one letter or one word of the “Cambridge 1769 Text” was altered in Waite’s edition.

D. A. Waite wrote: “The Cambridge 1769 is a good standard to be used, as we do in our Defined King James Bible” (Critical Answer to James Price’s King James Onlyism, p. 130).

According to my examination of over 400 editions of the KJV including a KJV edition printed by Cambridge in 1769, there would be well over 400 alterations or differences between an actual edition printed at Cambridge in 1769 and the edition in Waite’s Defined KJB. I mailed Waite a copy of my book with facts from KJV editions.

The KJV edition in Waite’s Defined KJB would actually be based more on the 1769 Oxford than on a 1769 Cambridge since the 1769 Cambridge did not have all the changes introduced in the 1769 Oxford that are followed or found in Waite’s edition. The text of the KJV edition printed at Cambridge in 1769 still has the three so-called Oxford errors (2 Chron. 33:19, Jer. 34:16, Nahum 3:16). A KJV edition printed by Cambridge in 1769 kept or followed several of the renderings which characterized the 1743 or 1762 Cambridge KJV editions and which are not found in most present KJV editions including Waite's edition.

Perhaps D. A. Waite has never actually seen and examined an edition of the KJV that was printed at Cambridge in 1769, and assumed something that is not true.

The title page of several editions of the DKJB could be properly asserted to have misinformed its readers.