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!

the Oxford KJV "errors"?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Logos1560, Oct 13, 2005.

  1. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,295
    Likes Received:
    14
    Faith:
    Baptist
    KJV-only author D. A. Waite wrote: "I have found at least 3 errors in the Oxford edition of the KJB" (FOES OF THE KJB REFUTED, p. 117).

    Waite wrote: "In Jeremiah 34:16 the Oxford University Press King James Version is wrong, false, and in error" (FOES, p. 66). KJV-only author David Daniels wrote that the Oxford printers "mistakenly printed 'whom he' instead of the correct 'whom ye'" (ANSWERS TO YOUR BIBLE VERSION QUESTIONS, p. 127). Concerning this same verse, Thomas Holland claimed that "the error was limited to the editions published by Oxford or those based on the Oxford edition" (CROWNED WITH GLORY, p. 101). He identified it as "a printing error found in some current editions" (p. 100).

    Waite maintained that the rendering "sins" at 2 Chronicles 33:19 is "an error in the Oxford editions" (FOES, p. 66). David Daniels also referred to "sins" as "the Oxford error" (ANSWERS, p. 130). Concerning "sins," Daniels claimed: "Cambridge University Press did not make the printing error. And all Cambridge-type texts have the correct readings" (p. 129).

    Are these statements by KJV-only authors accurate or true? Was Oxford's press or printer the one responsible for introducing this renderings into the text of the KJV? How do these "errors" affect the view of the KJV-only poster who claimed that the 1769 Oxford KJV is the correct one?
     
  2. jw

    jw New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2005
    Messages:
    276
    Likes Received:
    0
    To the KJVO errors aren't errors. If you show them an error in whatever version of the KJV they claim to be the correct one it is actually an "improvement".

    Heh, this just came to mind:

    If a modern version changes anything they are damned for "adding to or taking away from Scripture" but every time the KJV "improved" on the Bible by changing it it was the divine inspiration of God.
     
  3. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,499
    Likes Received:
    7
    God is perfect. But an improved KJV is what? How does one get more perfect than perfect? Sounds like the Centrum advertisement mentioning more complete.
     
  4. jw

    jw New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2005
    Messages:
    276
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm gonna rock their world with my new "mostest complete" viatmin [​IMG]
     
  5. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,499
    Likes Received:
    7
    The Calvinist would say it was ordained by God.
     
  6. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    18,246
    Likes Received:
    779
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Let me second-guess the KJVO.

    Combine the two KJVO doctrine of the Word of God going through a seven-fold purification and the doctrine of "advanced revelation" and there is the solution you seek.

    It was God working behind the scenes to "inspire" the 1769 KJB Oxford Edition, the final revelation of God.

    BTW, I do not jest. I am simply predicting their response.

    HankD
     
  7. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is kind of a pattern found in the typical KJVO response, isn't there?
     
  8. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,295
    Likes Received:
    14
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Is D. A. Waite (with all his impressive education or credentials) right or wrong in his claims about the "errors" in the Oxford KJV edition?

    If it is acceptable for a leading KJV-only author such as D. A. Waite to label a certain rendering in a KJV edition an "error," by what consistent reasoning is it wrong for others to do the same?
     
  9. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,463
    Likes Received:
    45
    You still haven't told us what an M.R.E is? I don't know if Waite's education or credentials are all that impressive yet.
     
  10. TCassidy

    TCassidy Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,398
    Likes Received:
    2,218
    Faith:
    Baptist
    D. A. Waite, received a B.A. (Bachelor of Arts) in classical Greek and Latin from the University of Michigan in 1948, a Th.M. (Master of Theology), with high honors, in New Testament Greek Literature and Exegesis from Dallas Theological Seminary in 1952, an M.A. (Master of Arts) in Speech from Southern Methodist University in 1953, a Th.D. (Doctor of Theology), with honors, in Bible Exposition from Dallas Theological Seminary in 1955, and a Ph.D. in Speech from Purdue University in 1961.

    That is pretty impressive. Some of his conclusions are less so. [​IMG]
     
  11. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,499
    Likes Received:
    7
    Sounds like Mormonism.
     
  12. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,295
    Likes Received:
    14
    Faith:
    Baptist
     
  13. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,295
    Likes Received:
    14
    Faith:
    Baptist
    This may be a surprise for some, but the claims or statements by the KJV-only authors that maintained that the renderings "whom he" (Jer. 34:16) and "sins" (2 Chron. 33:19) were the "Oxford errors" or were the fault of the Oxford printers are not confirmed by the evidence.

    While it is true that these renderings are found in some Oxford KJV editions, they were not first introduced into the text of the KJV by the Oxford printers.

    In his book AUTHORIZED EDITION OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE (1611) [that was reprinted at least once by D. A. Waite's Bible for Today], F. H. Scrivener pointed out that the rendering "whom he" was introduced into the text of the KJV in the 1629 and 1638 Cambridge editions (p. 225). Two of the KJV translators were among the editors of one of these Cambridge editions. Whether the editors or the printers introduced this rendering in 1629 may not be known. Did two KJV translators that edited these editions make sure that this rendering in Jeremiah was corrected or did they possibly accept it?

    In addition, Scrivener indicated that the rendering "sins" was first introduced into the text of the KJV by the 1762 Cambridge edition (p. 222).

    I am not sure if the 1769 Oxford KJV followed the 1762 Cambridge edition and had "sins" at 2 Chronicles 33:19 since the 1804 Oxford KJV edition still has "sin" at this verse.

    Thus, these two so-called "Oxford errors" were actually introduced into the text of the KJV by
    Cambridge editions [whether by the printers or editors]. Thus, later editors of the Oxford KJV editions were simply keeping the rendering of standard Cambridge editions. The evidence does not suggest that the Oxford printers were the ones who introduced these renderings.
     
  14. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,580
    Likes Received:
    90
    Faith:
    Baptist
    So if my Oxford (I have a 1769 Oxford text, Scofield Reference KJV) is IN ERROR, then it is NOT perfect.

    I am befuddled. Why would a leader of the only sect introduce "evidence" (poor at best) that the KJV is in error??

    And again, if the 1611AV was "perfect" as in every word exactly the inspired choice etc, why the thousands of changes and revisions?

    I always look in the mirror at myself and tell the bride "You just can't improve on perfection!" [​IMG]
     
  15. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,295
    Likes Received:
    14
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Would the "perfect, infallible, pure, and eternal" edition of the KJV have the so-called "Oxford errors?"
     
  16. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,295
    Likes Received:
    14
    Faith:
    Baptist
    After being given the proper information about the KJV-only claims concerning the "Oxford errors," do KJV-only advocates accept the actual
    evidence and correct their claims?
     
  17. DesiderioDomini

    DesiderioDomini New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    0
    Logos, do you know the clinical definition of the word "Insane"?

    In technical terms, insane means "doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result."

    I am afraid you are in danger of becoming insane.
     
  18. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,295
    Likes Received:
    14
    Faith:
    Baptist
    [inflammatory comments snipped]

    [ December 31, 2005, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]
     
  19. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,295
    Likes Received:
    14
    Faith:
    Baptist
    For the benefit of the KJV-only poster who recently claimed that the Cambridge edition of the KJV is more accurate than the Oxford, please check the earlier posts on this thread which shows that the so-called "Oxford errors" were actually first introduced into the text of the KJV by Cambridge standard editions.
     
  20. MatthewHenry

    MatthewHenry New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    209
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's also a Meal Ready to Eat!

    (But only if you're in the Armed Forces)

    [​IMG] [​IMG] ;) :cool:
     
Loading...