Was the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV perfect and free of all man-made error as some imply?
Some sources claim that the 1769 Oxford KJV had at least 116 errors.
For example, Blackford Condit asserted that Blayney’s 1769 edition “was not entirely free from errors, which were discovered to the number of one hundred sixteen, when it was collated for Eyre and Strahan’s edition of the Bible in 1806” (History of the English Bible, p. 397). Calmet’s Dictionary of the Holy Bible confirmed: “In collating the edition of 1806 with Dr. Blayney’s, not fewer than one hundred and sixteen errors were discovered” (I, p. 312). Raidabaugh also reported that “not fewer than one hundred and sixteen errors were discovered in collating the edition of 1806 with Dr. Blayney’s” (History, p. 61). Darlow and 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 Cambridge History of the Bible noted that Blayney’s edition “was indeed erroneous in many places” (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” in the 1762 Cambridge (Bible in English, pp. 606, 620). 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).
Has any one ever seen a source that lists the claimed 116 errors in the 1769 Oxford KJV edition?
How many errors in 1769 Oxford KJV?
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Logos1560, Dec 22, 2006.
Page 1 of 2
-
-
-
Deacon jd:I have. You will find it on the very forum on which you are posting and its no just 116 errors its an endless list according to most of the liberals on here. There is no other Bible attacked and railed against on here as much as the KJV.
I hafta disagree and say it's the NIV.
Oh and by the way there are the same amount of errors in the 1769 as there are in the 1611 KJV. None!
Sorry, but some of the errors have been discussed ad-nauseum here. Just turning a blind eye towards them won't make'em go away. FACTS are stubborn things.
What is it about the KJV that convicts you so.
It's not so much about the KJV itself as it is about the incorrect doctrine that says the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible version....a doctrine WITHOUT ANY SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT whatsoever.
Is it because its not watered down enough? Are its words as though they pierce your heart? Please allow the Word of God to have its work in you. I'm praying for you.
What is it about the KJV that makes you wanna use only a 400-yr-old version that's not in the common language any more? -
Is it because its not watered down enough? Are its words as though they pierce your heart? Please allow the Word of God to have its work in you. I'm praying for you.
What is it about the KJV that makes you wanna use only a 400-yr-old version that's not in the common language any more?[/QUOTE]
Sounds like someone else is under a little conviction here. To answer your question about the 400 year old version thats not in common language anymore. If age has anything to do with it then why did Jesus quote from the law that had been written over a millinium before? Funny how no one wanted to post on this thread until I did. -
I do not stand for attacks on the word of God. As a KJV user I am especially aware when it is being attacked. I do by best to monitor this forum, but must have missed these attacks and railings.
We depend on posters to use the "Report post" button for offensive posts. I would appreciate your help in finding offensive posts that have not been dealt with. -
Its underlying manuscripts and the philosophy behind its translation method to start with. -
-
-
Then lets be real spiritual and quote for the Geneva Bible, the Bishops Bible, Wyclif's Bible, or one of the even older English translations. -
It is over 1500years old. To bad there aren't very many
BB members that read latin. -
I personally like the KJV. Its words seem to come over with power when I quote it to unbelievers. Most of whom I might add understand what it says. I do use other versions as well. But for devotional reading and quoting I use the KJV. Personal preference and also when dealing with Muslims I find them always asking, "Why so many translations?" So as a rule I always use this version in order to keep some kind of continuity. Also I find that many of the words are more concise in their meanings tham many of the "modern" versions. But as I have mentioned already, this is only my personal preference.
-
Now for the oppression of the needy, and for the sighs of the poor, I will up, saith the Lord, and will set at liberty him, whom the wicked hath snared. The words of the Lord are pure words, as the silver, tried in a furnace of earth, fined sevenfold. Thou wilt keep them, O Lord: thou wilt preserve him from this generation forever.
Interesting, when using the Geneva Bible, these verses make sense and not misleading. Preservation of the needy/poor and freedom to him from the snare of the devil.
Pointing out issues like this is NOT an attack on any version; it is simply indicative of the fallacy of thinking one translation is somehow "without man-made errors".
If man made it, there are errors!! -
Amen, Brother Dr. Bob. Even if we found a perfect Bible
we would misread something and not perfectly incorporate it
in our (human) lives. Fortunately God (the one who made the
rules & the universe) is smarter than then the bible bashers.
God made it so His Inerrant Written Word shines right through
the boo-boos that men make.
Even Blundering Baptist Board (BB) bulletin board (bb)
members (BBBbbm) can figure out which books
are Valid Bibles (and which aren't):
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=34374&page=9 -
Read Latin??? I do well to read English, Ed!
:smilewinkgrin: :tongue3: :laugh: -
AMEN!
-
If so, how do you explain the fact that present editions of the KJV are not every word the same as the 1611 edition [except for the reprint editions of the 1611]? Even most KJV-only authors admit that the 1611 edition had some printing errors, and they usually claim that they were all corrected by 1769. However, the information in my first post documented that the 1769 edition also had at some printing errors. -
-
-
INVALID. Hello! that is NOT voting for the NWT but
voting AGAINST the NWT.
Three people admitted they got it backwards when
they voted. Even still, the poll itself is valid.
A group of people can tell which book is a VALID Bible
and which is not a valid BIBLE. -
Ed
Page 1 of 2