How Many Revisions of the AV1611?

You answered your own question when you listed the Oxford and Cambridge editions. The KJV has many editions but no revisions.

A common question posed to those who use the KJV is, "Which King James do you use, the 1611 or the 1629 or perhaps the 1769?" This is an honest question, but it needs to be pointed out that these are three different editions of the KJV not revisions.

Consider the following thoughts from Dr. David F. Reagan on this subject. Much of the information from Dr. Reagan is taken from a book by F.H.A. Scrivener called The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives. Dr. Scrivener was not a King James Bible believer, and therefore his material is not biased toward the Authorized Version.

Dr. Reagan writes, "The authority for our preserved English text is not found in any human work. The authority for our preserved and infallible English text is in God! Printers may foul up at times and humans will still make plenty of errors, but God in His power and mercy will preserve His text despite the weaknesses of fallible man.

Although the printing press had been invented in 1450 by Johann Gutenburg in Germany (161 years before the 1611 printing), the equipment used by the printer had changed very little. Printing was still very slow and difficult. Because of this difficulty and also because the 1611 printers had no earlier editions from which to profit, the very first edition of the King James version had a number of printing errors. They were simple, obvious printing errors of the sort that can still be found at times in recent editions even with all of the advantages of modern printing. These errors do not render a Bible useless, but they should be corrected in later editions.

The first two so-called major revisions of the King James Bible occurred within 27 years of the original printing. The 1629 edition of the Bible printed in Cambridge is said to have been the first revision. A revision it was not, but simply a careful correction of earlier printing errors.

Not only was this edition completed just eighteen years after the translation, but two of the men who participated in this printing, Dr. Samuel Ward and John Bois, had worked on the original translation of the King James Version. Who better to correct early errors than two who had worked on the original translation!

Only nine years later and in Cambridge again, another edition came out which is supposed to have been the second major revision. Both Ward and Bois were still alive, but it is not known if they participated at this time. But even Scrivener, who as you remember worked on the English Revised Version of 1881, admitted that the Cambridge printers had simply reinstated words and clauses overlooked by the 1611 printers and amended manifest errors.

72% of the approximately 400 textual corrections in the KJV were completed by the time of the 1638 Cambridge edition, only 27 years after the original printing!

Just as the first two so-called revisions were actually two stages of one process--the purification of early printing errors--so the last two so-called revisions were two stages in another process--the standardization of the spelling. These two editions were only seven years apart (1762 and 1769) with the second one completing what the first had started.

We now come to the question of actual textual differences between our present editions and that of 1611. There are some differences between the two, but they are not the changes of a revision. They are instead the correction of early printing errors. That this is a fact may be seen in three things: (1) the character of the changes, (2) the frequency of the changes throughout the Bible, and (3) the time the changes were made.

The changes from the 1611 edition that are admittedly textual are obviously printing errors because of the nature of these changes. They are not textual changes made to alter the reading. In the first printing, words were sometimes inverted. Sometimes a plural was written as singular or vice versa. At times a word was miswritten for one that was similar. A few times a word or even a phrase was omitted. The omissions were obvious and did not have the doctrinal implications of those found in modern translations.

F.H.A. Scrivener, in the appendix of his book, lists the variations between the 1611 edition of the KJV and later printings. A sampling of these corrections is given below. In order to be objective, the samples give the first textual correction on consecutive left-hand pages of Scrivener's book. The 1611 reading is given first; then the present reading; and finally, the date the correction was first made.

1 this thing--this thing also (1638)

2 shalt have remained--ye shall have remained (1762)

3 Achzib, nor Helbath, nor Aphik--of Achzib, nor of Helbath, nor of Aphik (1762)

4 requite good--requite me good (1629)

5 this book of the Covenant--the book of this covenant (1629)

6 chief rulers--chief ruler (1629)

7 And Parbar--At Parbar (1638)

8 For this cause--And for this cause (1638)

9 For the king had appointed--for so the king had appointed (1629)

10 Seek good--seek God (1617)

11 The cormorant--But the cormorant (1629)

12 returned--turned (1769)

13 a fiery furnace--a burning fiery furnace (1638)

14 The crowned--Thy crowned (1629)

15 thy right doeth--thy right hand doeth (1613)

16 the wayes side--the way side (1743)

17 which was a Jew--which was a Jewess (1629)

18 the city--the city of the Damascenes (1629)

19 now and ever--both now and ever (1638)

20 which was of our father's--which was our fathers (1616)

Before your eyes are 5% of the textual changes made in the King James Version in 375 years. Even if they were not corrections of previous errors, they would be of no comparison to modern alterations. But they are corrections of printing errors, and therefore no comparison is at all possible.

Look at the list for yourself and you will find only one that has serious doctrinal implications. In fact, in an examination of Scrivener's entire appendix, it is the only variation found by this author that could be accused of being doctrinal. I am referring to Psalm 69:32 where the 1611 edition has "seek good" when the Bible should have read "seek God." Yet, even with this error, two points demonstrate that this was indeed a printing error.

First, the similarity of the words "good" and "God" in spelling shows how easily a weary typesetter could misread the proof and put the wrong word in the text. Second, this error was so obvious that it was caught and corrected in the year 1617, only six years after the original printing and well before the first so-called revision. The myth that there are several major revisions to the 1611 KJV should be getting clearer.

The great majority of the 400 corrections were made within a few years of the original printing. Take, for example, our earlier sampling. Of the twenty corrections listed, one was made in 1613, one in 1616, one in 1617, eight in 1629, five in 1638, one in 1743, two in 1762, and one in 1769. That means that 16 out of 20 corrections, or 80%, were made within twenty-seven years of the 1611 printing.

That is hardly the long drawn out series of revisions the scholars would have you to believe. In another study made by examining every other page of Scrivener's appendix in detail, 72% of the textual corrections were made by 1638. There is no "revision" issue.

The character of the textual changes is that of obvious errors. The frequency of the textual changes is sparse, occurring only once per three chapters. The chronology of the textual changes is early with about three fourths of them occurring within twenty-seven years of the first printing. All of these details establish the fact that there were no true revisions in the sense of updating the language or correcting translation errors. There were only editions which corrected early typographical errors.

Our source of authority for the exact wording of the 1611 Authorized Version is not in the existing copies of the first printing. Our source of authority for the exact wording of our English Bible is in the preserving power of Almighty God. Just as God did not leave us the original autographs to fight and squabble over, so He did not see fit to leave us the proof copy of the translation. Our authority is in the hand of God as always."

 

"Things which are different are not the same"

OR "a rose by any other name".

One degree of difference is all it takes to qualify as "not the same".

Jesus brought it down to spelling as well as glosses "jots and tittles" whether scribal gloss or typographical error.

I believe the MV supporters want this same standard to apply to the KJ Bible as well as the MVs.

Deuteronomy 25
13 Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights, a great and a small.
14 Thou shalt not have in thine house divers measures, a great and a small.
15 But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure shalt thou have: that thy days may be lengthened in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

HankD

 

Bob, the KJV has been changed many different times. People have posted so much about this. That isn't a new EDITION as you want to say. You have been presented the evidence and you want to keep putting that KJVO propaganda on here. That is not very honest in dealing with facts. I am extremely disappointed.

You might be receiving a lot of pressure to not admit what we know to be true, I don't know. However, it is worth not being part of an association, or fellowship, or any other group to stand for the truth.

 

I disagree;PastorBob done a fine job in presenting the FACTS.

Don't sweat the small stuff!!! Time heals all

I don't think anybody is "pressuring" PastorBob at all .

At last,somthing we can both agree on!! Stop trying to lure PastorBob into an dogfight

 

No dogfight is necessary. I already know what the truth is.

Time and time again, revisions, changes, word order, and other things have been presented only to have the typical KJVO cover his ears and go na na na na, I can't hear you.

I do not laugh anymore. It is tragic that satan has so many people blinded.

Dr. Bob, to answer your question, I know of at least 14 CHANGES in the non-inspired KJV.

 

Hmmm, so later editions of the KJV came out to correct previous errors. So what's wrong with coming out with editions of the Bible today, that correct errors found in previous editions?

 

I strongly disagree. The KJV has been corrected many different times. The corrections are described above.

Just a bit judgmental on this one aren't you?

I doubt if either one of us has lost any sleep over our disagreements.

The only group I am in is the one that has studied the issue and has arrived at a conclusion based on the facts as we see them. If you have arrived at a different conclusion, then you have access to facts that I am unaware of or you interpret the same facts differently. Either way, I'm not disappointd in you.

 

I strongly disagree. The KJV has been corrected many different times. </font>[/QUOTE]A correction is no change at all, huh? First time I've come across that concept.

 

I strongly disagree. The KJV has been corrected many different times. </font>[/QUOTE]A correction is no change at all, huh? First time I've come across that concept. </font>[/QUOTE]Anything is possible in the arguments of the KJVO. Words stop having meaning. A correction is not a change? Classic.

 

This all begs the question that if these several editions of the KJV are not corrections, then what about the NASB? Was it merely corrected? What about the NIV?

 

To answer Dr. Bob's question, I have read that there were anywhere form 6 to 9 revisions of the KJV. Let me find the source. Gives me something else to do as I get ready to go under the knife

 

I am finding this exchange very interesting and frustrating. A couple of thoughts:

1). Don't forget some of the latest revisions of the KJV: 1873 Scrivner's KJV (inserts paragraph marks) - in fact, the KJV Study Bible that has been published by Zondervan uses this text. Also, lets not forget the 1975 update that Nelson did, which the KJV Nelson Study Bible uses.

2). What is it with the emotionalism regarding these revisions in the KJV? I don't see that same type of emotionalism with other versions: Do people who use the NIV get upset because it has been updated at least once? Do people who use the NASB get upset that it has been updated (pretty drastically in 1995)? Maybe some do, but I don't see anybody walking around telling me that the 1978 NIV is better than the 1984 NIV or that the 1971 NASB is better than the 1995 NASB. I personally am not losing sleep over any of these changes/revisions/corrections -- pick your word, they all mean the same thing.

I am just as guilty as everybody else, but I firmly believe that we are violating 2 Tim. 2:23 and Titus 3:9 with these banterings. Sorry to vent here (now I am getting emotional about this!), but these endless ramblings about the KJV is ridiculous. What exactly is the goal on this message board? The KJV Only folks are not going to convince the MV users and the MV users are not going to convince the KJV Only folks. Why do we keep riding this endless merry-go-round of fruitless discussions? Yes, I know, I don't have to read these messages.

Brethren, lets take inventory and see what our priorities are, I know I am.

God bless,
Michael

 

correction (ke-rèk´shen) noun
1. The act or process of correcting.
2. Something offered or substituted for a mistake or fault : made corrections in the report.
3. a. Punishment intended to rehabilitate or improve. b. corrections. The treatment of offenders through a system of penal incarceration, rehabilitation, probation, and parole, or the administrative system by which these are effectuated.
4. An amount or quantity added or subtracted in order to correct.

change (chânj) verb
changed, changing, changes verb, transitive
1. a. To cause to be different : change the spelling of a word. b. To give a completely different form or appearance to ; transform: changed the yard into a garden.
2. To give and receive reciprocally; interchange: change places.
3. To exchange for or replace with another.

Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

When comparing various editions of the KJV, they have been corrected. When comparing the MV's to the KJV they have been changed.

 

Originally posted by Pastor/Bob:
change (chânj) verb
changed, changing, changes verb, transitive
1. a. To cause to be different : change the spelling of a word.

Is causing to be different not exactly what you are contending?

Something offered or substituted for a mistake or fault

Yes or No -- Does the fact that the KJV needed 'corrections' prove that it has no protection from imperfection?

When comparing various editions of the KJV, they have been corrected. When comparing the MV's to the KJV they have been changed.

The KJV has been corrected and changed. MV's are not KJV's; they are new translations; so your last statement has no relevance.

 

Actually, this is not true. There have been more than one person come here staunchly KJVO, been exposed to proofs against their error, and changed their mind.

It is not fruitless to participate in a process to keep the Word of God available to more people in a language the understand.

 

I agree with Scott here about the debate. I personally have had a few people during my brief time on the BB who were struggling with MVs that e-mailed me saying they have decided to firm-up their position for the KJB based on my posts. The problem with the MV view is that they have completely deluded themselves to believe they follow an "intelligent faith", a faith based on "tangible facts". My experience on the BB has strengthened my stand for the KJB. It has demonstrated time and time again here that MVs favor scholarly fact over spiritual discernment. Since spiritual discernment on issues is very difficult to convey today, just as it was in the days of Noah and Jesus, argumentation some times is fruitless, but still necessary. As Jesus put it to the scholars and theologians of His time "you can discern the face of the sky, but not the signs of the times". The Pharisees are marked by a literal scholarly interpretation of the facts based on human wisdom. This flawed approach to understanding God and His workings and will is renounced repeatedly in the NT. Yet amazingly, all the Pharisees did not die out 2000 years ago. There will always be those that look at a deficient set of facts and proclaim what God can or can’t do, at least until His return. A Bible God has used powerfully for nearly 400 years is to be replaced with versions based on a completely destabilized Greek NT??? A Greek NT that changed almost 10,000 words when it was originally introduced???? A Greek NT that has been revised 28 times in 100 years???? Boy, you want to talk about faith, it takes faith to be an MVr. Of course these are facts too aren’t they. Facts MVrs are unconcerned about and conveniently disregard. No, the facts are arrayed on both sides. The only decisive factor in this issue is spiritual discernment. Either you have it or you do not. Plain and simple.

[ May 24, 2003, 10:18 AM: Message edited by: Faith, Fact & Feeling ]

 

There are two very important issues concerning KJVO which are also very important to expose as error for all Christendom.

1) That the very English words (not the Greek or Hebrew underlying them) of the KJV are the inspired and perfect Word of God.

2) Therefore the Church of England is of necessity the Apostolic Church.

My spiritual discernment says that the Traditional original language Texts of the Bible are the inspired Word of God.

It is never fruitless to repeatedly expose heresy especially when it comes agressively banging on the door calling those within apostates.

HankD

 

I apologize for not clairifying myself better in my previous post. What I classify as "fruitless discussion" is when we have to deal with people twisting the meaning of english words to meet their particular viewpoint. How convenient! As long as the rules keep changing (in this case, the warping of the definition of what a change verses a correction verses a revision is), then the discussion will be fruitless.

You are correct in pointing out that many KJVO have come here, seen the facts and switched positions. I was one of them a year ago. For this, I am greatful to the folks on the BB for opening my eyes and delivering me from that bondage.