A question that comes up frequently in the Bible Version debate is this: "If you believe that the KJV is the preserved Word of God in English, which edition do you use, seeing that it has been revised many times and in thousands of places?"
ANSWER:
I will answer this question under the following five headings:
1. There were corrections of printing errors, typographical changes,
and spelling updates.
These were done by the British publishers of the KJV and can be
grouped into two time periods.
There were updates made between 1613 and 1639 for the purpose of
correcting printing errors. The revisers included Samuel Ward and
John Bois, two of the original translators. "Some errors of the press
having crept into the first edition, and others into later reprints,
King Charles the First, in 1638, had another edition printed at
Cambridge, which was revised by Dr. Ward and Mr. Bois, two of the
original Translators who still survived, assisted by Dr. Thomas Goad,
Mr. Mede, and other learned men" (Alexander McClure, The Translators
Revived, 1855).
An update was made between 1762-69 to correct any lingering printing
errors and to update the spelling, enlarge and standardize the
italics, and increase the number of cross references and marginal
notes. The revision was begun in 1762 by Dr. F.S. Paris of Cambridge
University and completed in 1769 by Dr. Benjamin Blayney of Hertford
College, Oxford University. "The edition in folio and quarto, revised
and corrected with very great care by Benjamin Blayney, D.D., under
the direction of the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford, and the Delegates of
The Clarendon Press, in 1769" (McClure, The Revision Revised). The
revision was made by collating the then current editions of Oxford
and Cambridge with those of 1611 and 1701.
2. All of the changes were of a minor nature, such as the following:
** Printing errors were corrected. This was almost exclusively the
nature of the corrections made in the 28 years following the first
printing. Consider some examples:
Psalm 69:32 -- "seek good" was a printing error in the 1611 that was
corrected to "seek God" in 1617
Ecclesiastes 1:5 -- "the place" was a printing error in the 1611 that
was corrected to "his place" in 1638.
Matthew 6:3 -- "thy right doeth" was a printing error in the 1611
that was corrected to "thy right hand doeth" in 1613.
Consider some famous printing errors that have appeared in printings
of the King James Bible:
The Wicked Bible (1631) omitted "not" in "Thou shalt not commit
adultery" in Exodus 20:14.
The Printer's Bible (1702) read "printers have persecuted me" instead
of "princes" in Psalm 119:161
The Vinegar Bible (1717) read "The Parable of the Vinegar" instead of Vineyard.
The Ears to Ear Bible (1810) read "who hath ears to ear let him hear"
in Mat. 14:43.
The Rebekah's Camel's Bible (1823) read "And Rebekah arose, and her
camels [should be damsels]" in Gen. 24:61.
** The use of italics was more standardized and its use was expanded.
Spelling and punctuation were updated. For example, old English had
an "e" after the verb (i.e., feare, blinde, sinne, borne), used an
"f" for the "s" except at the end of words (alfo instead of also) and
"u" for the "v" (euil instead of evil). Consider how 1 Corinthians
14:9 was written in 1611: "So likewise you, except ye vtter by the
tongue words easie to be vnderstood, how shall it be knowen what is
spoken? For ye shall speak into the aire." Or Genesis 1:1-2: "In the
beginning God created the Heauen, and the Earth. And the earth was
without forme, and voyd, and darkenesse was vpon the face of the
deepe: and the Spirit of God mooued vpon the face of the waters."
** A large number of new marginal notes and cross-references were added.
3. Donald Waite of Bible for Today compared every word of the 1611
KJV with a standard KJV in publication today (the 1917 Scofield which
uses an Oxford text).
Dr. Waite's study is entitled "KJB of 1611 Compared to the KJB of the
1917 Old Scofield" (BFT1294) and can be obtained from Bible for
Today, 900 Park Ave., Collingswood, NJ 08108,
http://www.biblefortoday.org/. He counted all of the changes that
could be heard. The largest number of changes were spelling (e.g.,
"blinde" to "blind"), but as these have no real significance he did
not count them.
He found only 421 changes that affect the sound throughout the entire
791,328 words in the King James Bible. Of these 421, the majority
(285) are minor changes of form, such as "towards" changed to
"toward" (14 times), "burnt" changed to "burned" (31 times),
"amongst" changed to "among" (36 times), "lift up" changed to "lifted
up" (51 times), and "you" changed to "ye" (82 times). Obviously these
are not real changes of any translational significance.
Dr. Waite found ONLY 136 SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES (out of 791,328 words)
between the original KJV of 1611 and the contemporary Oxford edition.
Most of these changes were made within 28 years after the original
publication of the KJV and were the simple correction of printer's
errors. Following are some of the 136 substantial changes:
1 Samuel 16:12 -- "requite good" changed to "requite me good"
Esther 1:8 -- "for the king" changed to "for so the king"
Isaiah 47:6 -- "the" changed to "thy"
Isaiah 49:13 -- "God" changed to "Lord"
Isaiah 57:8 "made a" changed to "made thee a"
Ezekiel 3:11 -- "the people" changed to "the children of thy people"
Naham 3:17 -- "the crowned" changed to "thy crowned"
Acts 8:32 -- "shearer" changed to "his shearer"
Acts 16:1 -- "which was a Jew" changed to "which was a Jewess"
1 Peter 2:5 -- "sacrifice" changed to "sacrifices"
Jude 25 -- "now and ever" changed to "both now and ever"
Further, there are a few differences between the Oxford and the
Cambridge corrected editions that can still be found in current
editions of the KJV. Following is one example:
Jeremiah 34:16 -- Cambridge has "whom YE had set at liberty" while
Oxford has "whom HE had set at liberty"
4. The most thorough study ever done on the various editions of the
King James Bible was by Frederick Scrivener in the late 19th century.
He was the author of the Cambridge Paragraph Bible, which was an
"elaborate attempt to publish a trustworthy text of King James'
version." It first appeared in 1873 and was republished in 1884
accompanied by Scrivener's valuable Introduction and Appendices as
The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611): Its Subsequent
Reprints and Modern Representatives (Cambridge: University Press,
1884). One of the Appendices is a "List of original readings of the
Bible of 1611 examined and arranged" and another is a "List of wrong
readings of the Bible of 1611 amended in later editions." Scrivener
also analyzed the KJV's underlying Greek text and tabulated the
number of times that it varied from the Stephens and the Beza
editions of the Received Text. A reprint of Scrivener's important
book is available from Bible for Today. It is also available on CD
from Sola Scriptura Publishing, 1118 SW Orleans St., Topeka, KS
66604. http://www.solascripturapublishing.com, mlangley1@cox.net.
5. What is the significance of these facts?
First, we see that the KJV has gone through such a strenuous
purification process that the reader can have complete confidence in
its accuracy.
Also, any idea that the KJV was "given by inspiration" is disproved.
If it were "given by inspiration" in 1611 it would not have needed
any sort of correction or refinement, because it would have been
infallible in every detail. Those who teach that the KJV is more than
an accurate translation, that it is given by inspiration and perfect
and inerrant in itself and advanced revelation and such must show us
exactly which edition they are referring to.
Hasn't the KJV been updated in thousands of Places?
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by TheWinDork, Apr 27, 2006.
Page 1 of 3
-
-
-
WinDork,
Is this your own work - or is it from another source? -
It doesn't matter what the original source is, Yes, it is my work, but the infomation was collected from various sources.
This Board's bias against the Recieved Text and the King James Version of the Bible, God's Preserved Word, has been thoroughly exposed for what it is.
and with that, I'm outta this section, too much controversy for this ol' soul. I'll stick the humor and current events sections.
Good Day!
TheWinDork -
-
I'm taking my ball and going home! -
Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member
DesiderioDomini,
It is unnecessary and unproductive rhetoric such as this that keeps most KJVO from the debate. I certainly understand TheWinDork's desire to avoid an unfruitful conversation.
If every bit of evidence if discounted, what is the use of producing any evidence at all. Perhaps Dr. Waite's research and the study done by Logos1560, although similar, is not the exact same study. For him to say, "Actually, Waite's count is inaccurate," is just throwing the evidence back in TheWinDork's face. Perhaps he could have said, "I have done a similar study and here are the results of my research." -
have u asked Doctor Waite how many "substantial changes" it takes for something to be no longer the same?
n why this sophisticated system of 5 categories? how many categories does the Bible have in Revelation 22:18-19? -
Even Don Waite admits there are words that were changed from 1611 to 1769 that cannot be attributed to spelling changes, correction of printer's errors, or other omissions.
God was changed to LORD in 2 Chron 28:11 and Isaiah 49:13.
If a modern version did that the KJVOs would be clammoring about the modern versions denying something or other. -
Bob, this post proves that it doesnt matter how nice you are, some just dont want their tradition to be questioned at all. The only evidence which matters is that which supports their position. The OP did exactly what I said: He made his claim, not caring whether it was true or not, and at the first sign of resistance, took his "ball" and went home.
What is it that you want us to do? Do you really not see a problem with these drive bys? Do you not feel that this is dishonest christian behavior? Those are both serious questions, I would like to know what you think. I am not asking for you to take a side on KJVO here, but merely "is posting misleading evidence then running away the second it is questioned dishonest christian behavior"?
Thanks! -
Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member
There are points that the KJVO use as defense that has been proven to be inaccurate. There are facts to substantiate the inaccuracies in these. In others, non-KJVO resort to the same strategy and quote men who have nothing but conjecture as evidence.
-
Here lies my main problem with the majority of KJVO...MANY of them have never sought out the evidence to see if these author are telling the truth. We saw it here on this board when a KJVO swore up and down that Riplinger did not make a certain false claim, only to later find that his more recent edition had the error removed.
I am not asking for perfection....just honesty. As much as I know this isnt so, it appears that you are saying that KJVO should be allowed to post false information, and then not be obligated to set the record straight. I would expect such things from faithless men, but I believe we are called to a higher standard of integrity. -
In his book entitled FUNDAMENTALIST MIS-INFORMATION ON BIBLE VERSIONS, D. A. Waite indicated that he was sure that if another person did the same comparison that they "would get the same results" (p. 93).
In his original 1985 booklet, Waite did acknowledge that he "might have missed a place or two throught the course of the Bible" (p. 4).
How far off does Waite's count need to be to be considered inaccurate?
In his study and comparison, Waite claimed that he took “these same examples” listed by Scrivener; (CENTRAL SEMINARY REFUTED ON BIBLE VERSIONS, p. 78). David Cloud noted that Waite’s Bible for Today reprinted Scrivener’s book so Waite clearly had access to it (Faith, p. 591).
David Daniell wrote that “F. H. A. Scrivener listed about fifteen hundred” errors or changes (BIBLE IN ENGLISH: ITS HISTORY AND INFLUENCE, p. 460).
How does Waite explain the fact that so many of Scrivener’s examples are missing from his list? If Waite did what he wrote, it would be expected that there would be many more changes in his list. Perhaps Waite only assumed that he found all the same examples as Scrivener had. If he actually took all the examples listed by Scrivener, his list should have been much longer. -
-
Windork:This Board's bias against the Recieved Text and the King James Version of the Bible, God's Preserved Word, has been thoroughly exposed for what it is.
I don't know if this gent's KJVO or not, but he repeats the mistake made by many a KJVO...Assuming that we Freedom Readers who are against KJVO are against the KJV itself.
As for updates...Has anyone compared the text of the AV 1611 with that of the Bishop's Bible or the Geneva Bible?(Footnotes excluded) -
There are the same-type differences between the earlier English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision and the KJV as there are between the KJV and later English translations of the same underlying texts.
In comparing the Gospel of Matthew in a modern-spelling edition of the 1537 Matthew's Bible and the present KJV edition in the SCOFIELD REFERENCE BIBLE, I counted over 1,900 differences. This count includes the use of different words, different parts of speech, omissions or additions, etc., but does not include any differences in spelling or punctuation. -
Even if he found and listed 50% or even 75% of the total number of changes that affect the sound, would even that be an accurate or inaccurate count? -
Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member
-
Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member
-
Page 1 of 3