Featured When do we have enough?

Many assume or think that they use the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV, but they actually do not.
Several KJV-only authors have claimed that today's KJV is the 1769, but they have not compared their present KJV edition to an actual 1769 Oxford edition. There would be as many as 400 differences between the 1769 and a typical post-1900 KJV edition.

Most post-1900 present KJV editions were based on the 1769, but they are not identical to it.
Changes continued to be made after 1769; some not until 1873 or even after 1900. A few post-1900 editions are based on the 1873 Cambridge instead of on the 1769. There is also the 2005 and 2011 Cambridge editions by David Norton that are not based on the 1769.

 

In the 1600's, 1700's, and early 1800's, printers may have unintentionally introduced a new difference or variation in the KJV text every time that they printed it. Post-1611 printers or editors also sometimes introduced some intentional corrections, changes, or revisions. If one change or difference in an edition was considered a revision, the KJV has been revised thousands of times. Usually several new differences were introduced.

After the invention of stereotype printing in the 1800's, some KJV editions were printed exactly the same for a number of years until the stereotype plates wore out or were so worn that some letters were not printing. Different publishers with different stereotype plates still printed editions with some differences. In addition, whenever the type was set to make new stereotype plates, some differences could be unintentionally introduced and some new editing or spelling changes could be introduced.

The text of the KJV has definitely been revised over seven times. The KJV could be considered to have been revised dozens of times in its hundreds of varying editions.

 

That promotional material by the publisher was misleading at best and inaccurate especially in its "fifth" claim. What is mean by a "major revision" is not defined.

It would have been more accurate to assert that the NKJV is a revision of the KJV in the same sense as the KJV is a revision of the pre-1611 English Bibles.

 

The KJV could be said to have went through multiple revisions within a short period of time [for example from 1611 until 1638]. The king's printer in London printed multiple varying editions of the KJV including some that are considered revisions such as the 1616 edition. Some of those revisions were to correct printing errors but sometimes other changes were made. Then there is the 1629 Cambridge revision and the 1638 Cambridge revision.

 

There are two main issues. The chosen Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek textual readings. And how it is to be translated into our English. I currently I use a KJV [1769? are not all the same] and of the modern versions, as of now, might only recomend the NKJV.

 

When will there be enough English bible translations? When there are no more translators. Given the huge amount of alternate translations for many, many words/phrases in the old languages, every translator who starts from scratch will make a new version.

 

Most people may assume or think that they use the 1769, but that does not mean that their assumption is correct.

Not including over 200 differences in spelling and around 100 differences in LORD/Lord or GOD/God, some places where the 1769 Oxford would differ from most present editions include the following Old Testament examples: “Heman” (Gen. 36:22), “thy progenitors” (Gen. 49:26), “Zithri” (Exod. 6:21), “travel’ (Num. 20:14), “brakedst” (Deut. 10:2), “thy tithe“ (Deut. 12:17), “thy earth” (Deut. 12:19), “the widow’s” (Deut. 24:17), “Beer-sheba, Sheba” (Josh. 19:2), “children of Gilead” (Jud. 11:7), “all the coast” (Jud. 19:29), “in a straight“ (1 Sam. 13:6), “Shimei“ (1 Chron. 6:30), “whom God alone” (1 Chron. 29:1), “on the pillars” (2 Chron. 4:12), “thy companions’ (Job 41:6), “unto me“ (Ps. 18:47), “my foot” (Ps. 31:8), “feared” (Ps. 60:4), “in the presence” (Ps. 68:2), “part“ (Ps. 78:66), “When there were” (Ps. 105:12), “gates of iron” (Ps. 107:16), “the latter end” (Prov. 19:20), “riches, honour” (Prov. 22:4), “king of Jerusalem” (Eccl. 1:1), “gone to” (Isa. 15:2), “travel‘ (Lam. 3:5), “a brier” (Micah 7:4), and “mighty is spoiled” (Zech. 11:2). In the New Testament, examples include “And in the same” (Luke 7:21), “ye enter not” (Luke 11:52), “lifted“ (Luke 16:23), “and the truth” (John 14:6), “the names” (Acts 1:15), “Now if do” (Rom. 7:20), “not in unbelief” (Rom. 11:23), “the earth” (1 Cor. 4:13), “was done“ (2 Cor. 3:11), “about” (2 Cor. 12:2), “you were inferior” (2 Cor. 12:13), “those who” (Gal. 2:6), “the holy apostles” (Eph. 3:5), “broidered” (1 Tim. 2:9), “sprinkled likewise” (Heb. 9:21), “our joy” (1 John 1:4), and several missing words at Revelation 18:22. Several of these renderings were introduced in the 1769 Oxford while some were kept from earlier KJV editions. For example, “king of Jerusalem” (Eccl. 1:1) was in the standard 1629 and 1638 Cambridge editions while “and the truth” (John 14:6) was in the 1638 Cambridge. Some of them may have been intentional editing decisions while others may have been unintentionally introduced by the typesetters/printers.

Simon Wong asserted: “Blayney assumed wrongly that the translators of the 1611 New Testament had worked from the 1550 Robert Stephanus (or Estienne) edition of the Textus Receptus tradition, whereas it was from the later editions of Beza (most likely that of 1598). Accordingly, the correct standard text mistakenly ‘corrects’ about a dozen readings where Beza and Stephanus differ” (Bible Translator, Vol. 62, January, 2011, p. 7). One textual reading where Beza and Stephanus differ is at 1 John 1:4, which may indicate that Blayney could have intentionally altered the KJV’s text at this verse to match the 1550 Stephanus text. Concerning the italics in the 1769, Jack Countryman also reported or quoted from some source the following: “Unfortunately, Blayney assumed that the translators of the 1611 New Testament had worked from the 1550 Stephanus edition of the Textus Receptus, rather than from the later editions of Beza; accordingly the current standard text mistakenly ‘corrects’ around a dozen readings where Beza and Stephanus differ” (Treasure of God‘s Word, p. 75). James D. Price maintained that “there have been a few alterations in later revisions of the AV that no longer follow the text followed by the 1611 translators” (King James Onlyism, p. 544). For possible examples of textually-based changes in use or non-use of italics in different KJV editions, see and compare Mark 8:14, Mark 9:42, John 8:6, Acts 1:4, Acts 26:3, Acts 26:18, 1 Corinthians 14:10, Hebrews 12:24, 1 John 3:16, 1 Peter 5:13, 2 Peter 2:18, Revelation 11:14, Revelation 19:14, and Revelation 19:18 in the 1611 to later editions. Some of these textually-based changes may have been made before 1769. Concerning one of those places, James D. Price noted: “The following is a place where the AV has words in italics that are actually in Scrivener’s TR: 2 Peter 2:18: the word ‘through’ was erroneously italicized in 1769 as though the word is not in the Greek text” (King James Onlyism, p. 544). Scrivener also indicated that the Greek word was in the text of Beza at this verse and that “through was not italicized before 1769” (Authorized Version, p. 254). In 1833, Thomas Curtis asserted: “Dr. Blayney and his coadjutors also employ them [italics] to express their doubts of the authenticity of particular readings--see John 8:6 where they thus, in a sense, discard the whole clause, ‘as though he heard them not’” (Existing Monopoly, p. 59). Edward F. Hills claimed: “At John 8:6, the King James translators followed the Bishops’ Bible in adding the clause, as though He heard them not” (KJV Defended, p. 221). Hills maintained that this clause is found “in the Complutensian, and in the first two editions of Stephanus. After 1769, it was placed in italics in the King James Version” (Ibid.). Concerning 1 Corinthians 14:10, Scrivener asserted: “Of them is placed in the type representing italics in the Bishops’ Bible and in ours of 1611, in deference to Beza” (Authorized Edition, p. 251) while later editors removed the italics. Charles Hodge contended that “to alter these italics is, therefore, to alter the version” (Princeton Review, July, 1857, p. 513). Hodge may raise a valid point concerning changing italics based on using a different edition of the original language text than that actually followed by the KJV translators themselves. However, Hodge’s point would not be valid in relationship to attempts to make the italics consistent to the actual rules or principles that the KJV translators themselves stated and used. Is the fact that Benjamin Blayney based his editing and revising of the KJV’s NT on the 1550 Stephanus edition avoided and ignored by KJV-only advocates? In 1769, did Blayney in effect change the underlying Greek text for the KJV’s NT in a few places?

 

Which was my point. First, it is "promotional" material, not a historical record. Second, what is "major" and what is a "revision" are not defined. This could also be said of your and others' use of revisions and editions regarding the KJV. How are they defined? Finally, in keeping with the original topic, how do the revisions and the kind they are over 400 years compare to the revisions and the kind that are discussed in the OP? Are they apples to apples, or apples to oranges? (For example, the NIV committee, if I remember correctly, is kept intact to continue to revise it on a regular basis.)

 

As I read through these posts, the scriptures below came to mind.
I’m afraid we have way to many versions. Years ago, our ancestors didn't have so many versions available with all the various resources we have today. They also didn’t have the worldly knowledge and education that we have today. But, they could rightly divide the Word of truth. Instead of fussing with others about the meaning of scripture, they studied and prayed for the Holy Ghost to give them the wisdom to divide the word line upon line and precept upon precept. Many versions and resources available on the internet have been used by Satan to deceive people and divide people. We know God is not the author of confusion. If the Spirit doesn’t open up the Word, it is a closed book to the natural man.

Acts 8:26-39 KJVS
[26] And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert. [27] And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship, [28] Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet. [29] Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. [30] And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? [31] And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. [32] The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: [33] In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. [34] And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? [35] Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. [36] And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? [37] And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. [38] And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. [39] And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

 

Tyndale's Prefaces

W.T. to the Reader
When I had translated the New Testament, I added a pistle unto the latter end, in which I desired them that were learned to amend if ought were found amiss. But our malicious and wily hypocrites which are so stubborn and hardhearted in their wicked abominations that it is not possible for them to amend anything at all (as we see by daily experience when their both livings and doings are rebuked with the truth) say, some of them, that it is impossible to translate the scripture into English, some that it is not lawful for the lay people to have it in their mother tongue, some that it would make them all heretics — as it would no doubt from many things which they of long time have falsely taught, and that is the whole cause wherefore they forbid it, though they other cloaks pretend. And some, or rather every one, say that it would make them rise against the King, whom they themselves (unto their damnation) never yet obeyed. And lest the temporal rulers should see their falsehood, if the scripture came to light, causeth them so to lie.

And as for my translation in which they affirm unto the lay people (as I have
heard say) to be I wot not how many thousand heresies, so that it cannot be mended or corrected, they have yet taken so great pain to examine it, and to compare it unto that they would fain have it and to their own imaginations and juggling terms, and to have somewhat to rail at, and under that cloak to blaspheme the truth, that they might with as little labor (as I suppose) have translated the most part of the Bible. For they which in times past were wont to look on no more scripture than they found in their Duns or such like devilish doctrine, have yet now so narrowly looked on my translation, that there is not so much as one "i" therein, if it lack a tittle over his head, but they have noted it, and number it unto the ignorant people for an heresy. Finally in this they be all agreed, to drive you from the knowledge of the scripture, and that ye shall not have the text thereof in the mother tongue, and to keep the world still in darkness, to the intent they might sit in the consciences of the people, through vain superstition and false doctrine, to satisfy their filthy lusts, their proud ambition, and unsatiable covetousness, and to exalt their own honor above King and Emperor, yea, and above God himself

A thousand books had they lever [i.e. rather] to be put forth against their abominable doings and doctrine, than that the scripture should come to light. For as long as they may keep that down, they will so darken the right way with the mist of their sophistry, and so tangle them that either rebuke or despise their abominations with arguments of philosophy and with wordly [worldly?] similitudes and apparent reasons of natural wisdom. And with wresting the scripture unto their own purpose clean contrary unto the process, order, and meaning of the text, and so delude them in descanting upon it with allegories, and amaze them expounding it in many senses before the unlearned lay people (when it hath but one simple literal sense whose light the owls cannot abide), that though thou feel in thine heart and art sure how that all is false that they say, yet couldest thou not solve their subtle riddles.

Which thing only moved me to translate the New Testament. Because I had perceived by experience, how that it was impossible to stablish the lay people in

any truth, except the scripture were plainly laid before their eyes in their mother tongue, that they might see the process, order, and meaning of the text. For else whatsoever truth is taught them, these enemies of all truth quench it again, partly with the smoke of their bottomless pit whereof thou readest Apocalypse 9 — that is, with apparent reasons of sophistry and traditions of their own making, founded without ground of scripture — and partly in juggling with the text, expounding it in such a sense as is impossible to gather of the text, if thou see the process, order and meaning thereof.

And even in the Bishop of London's house I intended to have done it. For when I was so turmoiled in the country where I was that I could no longer there dwell (the process whereof were too long here to rehearse), I this wise thought in myself: this I suffer because the priests of the country be unlearned, as God it knoweth there are a full ignorant sort which have seen no more Latin than that they read in their portesses and missals, which yet many of them can scarcely read (except it be Albertus's De secretis mulierum, in which yet, though they be
A
never so sorrily learned, they pore day and night and make notes therein and all to teach the midwives as they say, and Lindwood, a book of constitutions to gather tithes, mortuaries, offerings, customs, and other pillage, which they call, not theirs, but God's part and the duty of holy church, to discharge their consciences withal — for they are bound that they shall not diminish, but increase all things unto the utmost of their powers), and therefore (because they are thus unlearned, thought I) when they come together to the alehouse, which is their preaching place, they affirm that my sayings are heresy. And besides that they add to of their own heads which I never spake, as the manner is to prolong the tale to shorten the time withal, and accuse me secretly to the Chancellor and other Bishop's officers. And indeed when I came before the Chancellor, he threatened me grievously, and reviled me and rated me as though I had been a dog, and laid to my charge whereof there could be none accuser brought forth (as their manner is not to bring forth the accuser), and yet all the priests of the country were that same day there. As I this thought, the Bishop of London came to my

remembrance, whom Erasmus (whose tongue maketh of little gnats great elephants and lifteth up above the stars whosoever giveth him a little exhibition) praiseth exceedingly among other in his annotations on the New Testament for his great learning. Then thought I, if I might come to this man's service, I were happy. And so I gat me to London, and through acquaintance of my master came to Sir Harry Gilford the King's Grace's Controller, and brought him an oration of Isocrates which I had translated out of Greek into English, and desired him to speak unto my lord of London for me, which he also did as he showed me, and willed me to write a pistle to my lord, and to go to him myself which I also did, and delivered my pistle to a servant of his own, one William Hebilthwayte, a man of mine old acquaintance. But God which knoweth what is within hypocrites saw that I was beguiled, and that that counsel was not the next way unto my purpose. And therefore he gat me no favor in my lord's sight.

Tyndale's Prefaces

 

I have presented my explanation of the meaning of edition and revision before. The terms edition and revision can be properly used as synonyms. I even provided quotations where KJV-only authors such as David Cloud referred to the KJV as "an edition" of Tyndale's and as "a revision" of Tyndale's, showing this use of the terms as synonyms.

If the next edition is a printing of the earlier edition with no new editing or revising, then it would not be a revision. If the next edition has some new editing and changes, then it can properly be referred to as a revision or a new edition. Correction of errors in a previous edition or other editing changes makes the next edition a new different edition and a revision. With changes or revisions it is no longer identically the same as the previous edition. If it is a different edition with corrections and other new editing, it can also be referred as a revision.

 

Good, thanks for repeating it.

Which continues to show various standards of the uses of the words in various contexts.

I have no particular disagreement with your definitions. However, in this topic under discussion, I think we can and should understand that there is a difference -- when comparing Bibles, any Bibles -- of the difference in correcting typographical errors, updating spellings, punctuation, etc., and an edition that actually makes changes in the translation of words or phrases.

 

Hopefully not in the language my son heard by DI in marine boot camp though, gave a new meaning tp "speaking in tongues"

 

My Navy DI didn't cuss a bit nor raise his voice. He said he was too intelligent to cuss, & led by example. For instance, when taking us on a jog with full field packs, he would run around the whole crew, wearing a full pack himself. But he always impressed on us that in a fight, we'd react how we trained, & that it's best to let the enemy die for his country, letting them build statues in his memory, & that we weren't sailors till he said so.

 

Consider the NASB 95 versus the NASB 20. Some problems were corrected and other problems were created. The correction of problems should not characterized as peddling God's word for profit. And the creation of problems, such as changing "he" into "they" to appease public pressure, should be seen as a deliberate corruption of the text.

 

Yes, I also read from the KJV and NKJV. I would consider the NKJV the latest revision in the KJV tradition since it follows the Textus Receptus. My church also uses the NKJV, which I consider the best of the modern translations. The ESV is good as well although it follows the critical text.

 

Think that the Lsb might be the very best Modern version once gets fully published!

 

Genesis 3:16, '". . . Your desire shall be contrary to[fn] your husband,
but he shall rule over you.” . . .'

 

I am curious about the LSB. I’m not too fond of the NASB so I’m not sure I will like it, but I’ll certainly give it a glimpse.

 

What was what you had an issue with the NASB? For me John 1:18 at first, then later other references.