1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Is there only one KJV?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Logos1560, Mar 25, 2020.

  1. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    4,215
    Likes Received:
    135
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I have honestly checked into the matter, and I find that the actual facts from many varying editions of the KJV conflict with your unsupported opinion. I have compared the original 1611 edition of the KJV with a post-1900 Oxford edition of the KJV. I have compared the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV with a post-1900 Cambridge edition of the KJV. I have compared the 1769 Cambridge edition of the KJV with the edition of the KJV in Waite's Defined KJB. I have compared over 2000 places in over 500 editions of the KJV. I have identified and listed many actual differences in KJV editions. I have written over 800 pages, presenting data and facts concerning editions of the KJV.

    Perhaps you are the one who may be uninformed or misinformed about editions of the KJV.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    4,215
    Likes Received:
    135
    Faith:
    Baptist
    KJV-only advocate D. A. Waite has claimed that there are 136 substantial changes made to the 1611 edition of the KJV.
    Waite’s count of “only 136” changes that he termed “substantial changes” was inaccurate. Waite claimed that “only 136 of these [changes to the ear] were of any consequence” (Fundamentalist Mis-Information, p. 53).

    When his inaccurate 421 count of changes to the 1611 involving sound was revised up to 1095, why was the inaccurate 136 count also not revised? Out of the additional 674 changes that Waite now acknowledged in his new count of 1095, were there none that would be considered to belong to the categories that Waite himself identified as substantial? In his 1985 booklet, Waite himself had listed and identified the following categories as substantial or changes of substance: “adding a word,” “omitting a word,” “changing a tense,” “changing a word,” “changing number [plural/singular],” and “changing a case” (AV1611 Compared, pp. 4-5, 20-23). Clearly and justly, some of the changes that Waite had not listed in 1985 belonged to those categories of changes of substance.

    There were over 170 whole words added to the 1611 edition in later editions of the KJV. Over 45 whole words found in the 1611 edition are omitted in the post-1900 KJV edition in the Scofield Reference Bible if the 21 words omitted at Exodus 14:10 are included in the count.

    Over 65 times the number [singular/plural] of nouns or pronouns is changed from what it was in the 1611 edition. Twenty or more times the tense of a verb is changed.
    Sixty, seventy, or more changes would belong to the category of changing a word. Under his category of substantial changes described as “changing the case,” Waite listed the examples of “who” to “whom” at Acts 21:16 and “him” to “he” at Proverbs 6:19 (pp. 21, 22). Other examples of changing the case of pronouns would be “who” to “whom” at Genesis 24:44, Psalm 69:26, Acts 22:8, and Hebrews 7:4 and the changing of “it” to “its” at Leviticus 25:5. If all the changes of “you” to the nominative case “ye” were included in this category of changing the case of pronouns, it would add over 200 to the count of substantial changes. David Norton noted that in “Parris and Blayney’s modifications to the text I noted that ‘ye’ was usually the subject form, ‘you’ the object” (Textual History of the KJB, p. 143). In several places, a nominative case “ye” in the 1611 edition is changed to a different case “you” (Gen. 19:14, Num. 32:24, Deut. 1:13, Deut. 1:40, Josh. 3:12, Josh. 22:4, Isa. 1:16, Isa. 30:11, Isa. 32:11, Jer. 49:3, Ezek. 11:15, Zech. 6:7, Zech. 9:12). “Than” is a different word than “then” so that these 483 changes could be counted in the substantial category of “changing a word.” If all the changes that would justly belong in the categories that Waite himself listed and described as “substantial” are counted, that total count would be over 400 [not only 136].

    In appendix A in his book, James D. Price provided “a list containing over 600 changes that have some degree of significance” (King James Onlyism, pp. 425-446). That list includes some categories that do not involve sound, but it does not include the category of differences in italics. After being presented with sound verifiable evidence, why was this inaccurate count of 136 not revised or corrected?

    The 1611 KJV edition itself provides clear, verifiable evidence that refutes some misleading and inaccurate KJV-only claims about KJV editions including the claim that there is only one KJV.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  3. xlsdraw

    xlsdraw Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2017
    Messages:
    233
    Likes Received:
    57
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I.....ect......
     
  4. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    4,215
    Likes Received:
    135
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Perhaps you try to divert from dealing with the facts concerning the actual differences in KJV editions.

    The KJV-only poster had asked and challenged whether a person has honestly checked into the matter of whether there is only one KJV. Thus, it was sound and proper to point out how the matter had been honestly checked out. That required the use of the personal pronoun "I".

    The focus of this thread concerns actual verifiable facts concerning KJV editions.
     
    #4 Logos1560, Mar 26, 2020
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2020
    • Agree Agree x 2
  5. davidtaylorjr

    davidtaylorjr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2019
    Messages:
    4,338
    Likes Received:
    997
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Anyone who claims there is only one KJV or that the KJV has NEVER been changed is woefully ignorant on the subject and is part of the reason that people who are KJVO (not talking about KJV preferred) are viewed as cult-like.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    4,215
    Likes Received:
    135
    Faith:
    Baptist
    KJV-only author Dave Reese claimed: "If words are changed, it is not the King James Version. It is another Bible" (The Book No One Can Read, p. 56).

    Attacking the idea that the New Scofield Reference Bible has the same basic text as the KJV, William Grady contended: "A lost man would laugh at the suggestion that a particular text could be promoted as the same text with even one alteration" (Final Authority, p. 311).

    Kelly Gallagher claimed: “Any true Christian would throw away a bible if ONE WORD was taken away or added to it” (The Perfect Bible, p. 58).

    David W. Norris asserted: “Bearing in mind that every single word carries with it the authority of the whole book and were one word missing the Bible would be incomplete and imperfect, we ought not to be surprised that subtracting of even a single word put in place by God or adding a word of our own incurs a penalty of eternal loss” (The Big Picture, pp. 260-261).

    KJV-only author Al Lacy contended: “If it has even ONE error, it is NOT the Word of TRUTH! You cannot trust it” (Can I Trust, p. 99).

    KJV-only author Raymond Blanton claimed: “If we cannot believe every word in it [the KJV], we cannot believe one word in it” (The Perilous Times, November, 1999, p. 5).

    Jack Hyles asserted: “Do you mean if there is just one word wrong in the Bible, you have to throw everything else away?’ That’s exactly what I mean” (Need for an Every-Word Bible, p. 39).

    Charles Perkins wrote: "Personally I cannot find anything ‘Godly’ about changing even one word in the King James Bible" (Flaming Torch, April-June, 1998, p. 7).

    David Norris contended that “even revising or changing it [the A.V.] in any way will have the same effect” as “debasing the currency,” and he added: “It is robbery” (Big Picture, p. 230).

    Bill Bradley asked: "Would you allow someone to take your King James Bible and change it in more than 130 places, and still call it a King James Bible?" (Mickey Carter, Elephant, p. 142).
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  7. Reynolds

    Reynolds Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2014
    Messages:
    7,997
    Likes Received:
    1,385
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Please dont let your FACTS spoil good fantasy.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  8. davidtaylorjr

    davidtaylorjr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2019
    Messages:
    4,338
    Likes Received:
    997
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Like I said, cult-like.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    4,215
    Likes Received:
    135
    Faith:
    Baptist
    KJV-only author D. A. Waite declared: “There are hundreds of differences in the various editions of the King James Bible” (A Warning on Gail Riplinger’s, p. 26).

    In 1857, Charles Hodge acknowledged that “the English version appears in different forms in different editions“ and that “no such universally recognized standard edition existed” (Princeton Review, July, 1857, pp. 509, 510).

    In 1883, Jacob I. Mombert asserted “that strictly speaking, there is really no standard edition of the Authorized Version, and that all editions are widely different from the text of the original editions” (Hand-book of the English Versions, p. 364).

    Edwin W. Rice also maintained that we have “no standard edition of the ‘Authorized Version’ of the English Bible” (Our Sixty-Six Sacred Books, p. 18).

    In 2010, Gordon Campbell wrote: “There was no master text from which all subsequent editions descended” (Bible, p. 3). Campbell added: “The absence of an agreed master text gave licence to a long tradition of corrections” (Ibid.).

    James D. Price observed that “it is known that the various editions of the King James Version differ from one another, from decade to decade, and from edition to edition, even to the present day” (King James Onlyism, p. 122). Price maintained that “the current editions of the King James Version differ significantly from the 1611 in words, phrases, and, at times, in meaning” (p. 103). Price also noted that “current editions of the King James Version differ in hundreds of places” (p 419).

    Adam Nicolson asserted: “The curious fact is that no one such thing as ‘The King James Bible’--agreed, consistent and whole--has ever existed” (God’s Secretaries, p. 226).

    Rodney Decker observed: “There are several different editions in circulation today--all identified simply as the ‘King James Version’” (The English Bible, p. 4).

    In his article “Concise History of the KJV” in the 2011 KJV Devotional Bible, John R. Kohlenberger III noted: “Of the several electronic [KJV] texts this writer has compared book-by-book, no two are the same” (p. x).
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  10. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    4,215
    Likes Received:
    135
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Here is an example list of the differences between the original 1611 "He" edition of the KJV and a post-1900 Oxford edition of the KJV in the book of Ecclesiastes.

    Six whole words not found in the 1611 edition of the KJV were added in Ecclesiastes 8:17 in the 1629 Cambridge edition.

    The chart format did not remain when posted. The first example is from the 1611 edition while the next words are from a post-1900 edition.

    1044 +Eccl. 1:5 the place
    his place

    1045 Eccl. 1:13 travel
    travail

    1046 Eccl. 1:16 then all they
    than all they

    Eccl. 2:8 gate
    gat

    1047 Eccl. 2:9 then all than all

    1048 Eccl. 2:16 more then more than

    1049 +Eccl. 2:16 shall be forgotten
    shall all be forgotten

    1050 Eccl. 2:24 then that he than that he

    1051 Eccl. 2:25 then I than I

    1052 Eccl. 3:7 rent rend

    Eccl. 3:7 sow sew

    1053 Eccl. 3:18 my heart mine heart

    Eccl. 3:19 preheminence preeminence

    1054 Eccl. 3:22 then that a man than that a man

    1055 Eccl. 4:2 then the living than the living

    1056 Eccl. 4:3 then both they than both they

    1057 Eccl. 4:6 then both the hands than both the hands

    1058 Eccl. 4:6 travel travail

    1059 Eccl. 4:8 travel travail

    1060 Eccl. 4:9 then one than one

    1061 Eccl. 4:13 then an old than an old

    1062 Eccl. 5:1 then to give than to give

    1063 Eccl. 5:5 then that thou than that thou

    1064 Eccl. 5:8 then the highest than the highest

    1065 Eccl. 5:8 then they than they

    1066 Eccl. 5:14 travel travail

    1067 Eccl. 6:3 then he than he

    1068 Eccl. 6:5 then the other than the other

    1069 Eccl. 6:8 then the fool than the fool

    1070 Eccl. 6:9 then the wandering than the wandering

    1071 Eccl. 6:10 then he than he

    1072 Eccl. 7:1 then precious than precious

    1073 Eccl. 7:1 then the day than the day

    1074 Eccl. 7:2 then to go than to go

    1075 Eccl. 7:3 then laughter than laughter

    1076 Eccl. 7:5 then for a man than for a man

    1077 Eccl. 7:8 then the beginning than the beginning

    1078 Eccl. 7:8 then the proud than the proud

    1079 Eccl. 7:10 then these than these

    1080 Eccl. 7:19 then ten mighty men than ten mighty men

    Eccl. 7:25 aud to know and to know

    1081 Eccl. 7:26 then death than death

    1082 Eccl. 8:15 then to eat than to eat

    1083-1088 +Eccl. 8:17 out
    out, yet he shall not find it

    1089 +Eccl. 8:17 yea further yea farther

    1090 Eccl. 9:4 then a dead lion than a dead lion

    1091 Eccl. 9:16 then strength than strength

    1092 Eccl. 9:17 then the cry than the cry

    1093 Eccl. 9:18 then weapons than weapons

    Eccl. 10:12 gratious gracious

    Eccl. 11:2 noc not

    1094 Eccl. 11:7 thing is it thing it is

    1095 Eccl. 12:14 ever secret every secret
     
    #10 Logos1560, Mar 27, 2020
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2020
    • Informative Informative x 1
  11. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    41,001
    Likes Received:
    1,940
    Faith:
    Baptist
    They have failure to comprehend that only the Originals inspired by God are what they claim for the Kjv!
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    41,001
    Likes Received:
    1,940
    Faith:
    Baptist
    So really the ONLY kjv that can claim that would be the 1611, as all other editions afterwards had revisions of some type or another!
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    41,001
    Likes Received:
    1,940
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Which is the rel bible then?
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
Loading...