Actual differences in King James Versions

I have always been told that the KJV versions were corrected because of typos. Were there any other reasons for the changes?

 

michelle said "You have made it quite clear in your own statement that your position comes from everything but the scriptures themselves. Where in the scriptures themselves, does your position come from, that lead you to believe that all those versions are the pure words of God and in relation to my initial question that you answered?"

Psalm 12, John 5, Mark 4, Acts 8, and others. I won't copy/paste them all, I'm sure you're able to look them up yourself. Those passages are why it is the historic Baptist position, the KJV translators' position, and the historic Christianity's position.

That's also why I can accept any edition of the KJV despite the differences between them.

 

And don't forget, "All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God..."

 

gb93433
"Were there any other reasons for the changes?"
"
Translation errors, or what 18th century revisors perceived to be translation errors.
Only a few, but they are there.
I think both dr. Bob and brother Ed among others can name some practical examples.

 

Since by innuendo I have been calumniated and have been demanded of vindication I will say the following:

The "pure" words of God can only be found in the those original language documents which have been preserved down through the ages and are now in the collective repository of the Church, the pillar and ground of the truth.

This has always been my view expressed here on the BB and in fact is the very view of the KJV translators themselves.

Some people demand of God that which He has not promised. Indeed, He has promised to preserve His Word, every jot and tittle which Hebrew particles can only be found in those Traditional Texts of the Scriptures in the keeping of the Church and not in any non-Semitic translation.

Nowhere to be found in the Scriptures is a promise to preserve the Scriptures in the English language and in particular 17th century English which we are told by some, corrects the original languages given to the prophets and apostles an argumentum ad absurdum of the highest order.

The KJV translators (and those CofE who followed them) themselves admitting the imperfection (blemishes) of their work and proving the validity of this admission by correcting the text over the several centuries.

Also agreeing in this particular case with the KJV translators, one needs not one but a variety of English translations in order that one might get “the sense” of the Scriptures.

I have asked the question which no one seems willing to answer.

I will give my answer as to the “pure” words of God. None of the above as they are translations.

The “pure” words of God are found in the Traditional Texts, the Masora (Ben Chayyim) and the Textus Receptus (Scrivener). I accept these by conviction of faith as the pure and perfect preserved Word of God which I can “hold in my hands”. As to the fact that English is my native language, I used my resources and disciplined myself as a steward to both formally and through ongoing self education learn and maintain these languages ("wherein God was pleased to speak to his Church by the Prophets and Apostles")for the betterment of both myself and the Church.

However it is my estimation that the AV 1769 Oxford is the most accurate for the period and time in which it was given by translation and refinement. For today I would point people to the use of modern English Bibles in this order; the NKJV, NASB and the NIV using the Traditional Text translation as the primary source.

I know that this answer does not fit well with many but my ultimate responsibility is to the Lord Himself to whom I will one day give an account and in that I have the perfect peace which passes understanding as to my position.

HankD

 

quote:RR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But they miss very important doctrines that Satan,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ScottJ:
Name one.

He is one.

Matthew 1:25 But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. (NIV)

Do you see something missing, here it is in the KJB
Matthew 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

The NIV and some others left out firstborn which would indicate that Jesus was not the firstborn of Mary. There goes the doctrine of the virgin birth. If all they were going to do was update the language of the KJB, they totally missed it here.

God bless,
RR

 

NIV Matthew 1:23 "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" {23 Isaiah 7:14} --which means, "God with us."

NIV Luke 1
26 In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee,
27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary.
28 The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you."
29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be.
30 But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God.
31 You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus.
32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David,
33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."
34 "How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"
35 The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called {35 Or So the child to be born will be called holy,} the Son of God.

HankD

 

I knew that was what you were going to say. But I'm not talking about Luke, I'm talking about Matthew.

 

Apparently, you missed Matthew 1:23 (the first verse he quoted) It says:

NIV Matthew 1:23 "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" {23 Isaiah 7:14} --which means, "God with us."

 

Rapture using your argument of a missing word in translation we can bring a similar charge against the KJV comparing it with a translation that includes it.

For example:

KJV Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

RSV Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for every one.

Every Greek mss has “little while” showing that the kenosis (emptying-lowering) of Jesus Christ was temporary. And the cults have taken opportunity with this mistranslation.

The JW’s in this case have preferred the KJV in their door-to-door endeavors because it appears to say that Jesus is/was a created being “made lower then the angels”.

Every translation has these weaknesses. Don’t “throw the baby out with the bath water”

HankD

 

Mt. 1:25, "But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. NIV

Isn't a virgin a woman who has never had a child. Certainly her first child would be the first born. So what's the big deal?

So let's compare it to the KJV

"And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS."

You would have to understand the Jewish meaning of knew to get a full understanding of the KJV. In America know does not mean the same thing now as it did when the NT was written.

Actually having no union with her is a better translation than not knowing her. Even though knowing is more literal. Translation is an attempt to bridge the gap from one time period to another and from one culture to another. To bridge that gap from the first century to now is done better with the words having no union rather than not knowing. He did know her but not in a physical intimate way.

Personally I think the NASU has done a better stronger job of preserving the idea that she was a virgin, "but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus."

The NASU clearly states she was a virgin.

 

If the JW's or some liberal group taught that Mary was not a virgin when Jesus was born, and translated the verse to say that Joseph didn't "know" Mary until Jesus was born instead of didn't have "conjugal relations" with her, wouldn't we condemn that as a despicable lie? Why is it acceptable to use misleading translations in one translation, but not in another? Is the subjective intent of the translators what matters, or whether the English word used accurately expresses to modern English readers the meaning of the text being translated?

"Many stood up against the King James Version. Dr. Hugh Boughton, a distinguished scholar recognized by John Lightfoot, said "The late Bible...was sent to me to censure: which bred in me a sadness that will grieve me while I breathe, it is ill done. Tell His Majesty that I had rather be rent in pieces with wild horses, than any such translation by my consent should be urged upon poor churches...The new edition crosseth me. I require it to be burnt." Even John Lightfoot, in 1629, objected to the Apocrypha being placed in the canon. The King James Version went through fifteen printings in the first three years. It seems many disagreed with its translation and the committees were forced to revise it over and over again. The first major revision being some months after the 1609 version and the authorized version (1611) came two years after.

 

KJV Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

RSV Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for every one.

When you talk about JWs using it to say that Jesus was created, the RSV also says, "made lower than the angels." So your own version says the same thing, BUT...

The KJB says that he was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death. Since man is the only soul that dies, it makes since to make Jesus lower than the angels, but still highier than man, why, for the suffering of death.

 

My point is that "to know" does not accurately convey what a virgin is in today's language. When soembody asks if you know another person do you respond by saying he or she is a virgin or you know them implying you have had a physical intimate relationship with them? Of course not!

I can assure you that you do not speak and write in King James language. What you wrote was not in 1611 language or style. You may read the KJV but then turn around and speak to someone in the language they use every day. Why? By being inconsistent isn't that hypocritical?

 

But Hank, does it really matter what the originals say? If the KJV says that Jesus is lower than the angels, and all the MVs disagree, doesn't that mean that the MVs are changing the doctrine? Shouldn't we believe that Jesus is lower than the angels?

 

No it doesn't and you apparently missed the word while which the KJV omits:

KJV Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

RSV Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for every one.

who was made a little lower than the angels is very different than
who for a little while was made lower than the angels

RR, The RSV says "for a little while", the KJV does not limit it to “a little while” read the text again.

Also the NASB got it right
NASB Hebrews 2:9 But we do see Him who has been made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.

This difference also changes the full meaning of the passage significantly. The RSV and the NASB are the accurate translations of this passage while the KJV is the one which is flawed.

If you remember you tried to belittle the NIV because it omitted a word in translation. Now when I have show you that the KJV does it also (and we can look at others if you wish) you have been put on the defensive as you have done to others.

HankD

 

Is He presently lower than the angels? Not according to the KJV in Hebrews 2:9, it is not mentioned that He was lowered for a lttle while. As far as this English passage in the KJV, He is still lower that the angels which is not what the original language mss say.

We have been reminded several times over the years that we are to live by every Word of God which proceeds out of His mouth.

What about here in Hebrews 2:9?

Why does this apply to the NIV but not the KJV?

HankD

 

RR, The RSV says "for a little while", the KJV does not limit it to “a little while” read the text again.

Limit is not what we are talking about. Both say "made" which the JWs use to say Jesus was created.