Word differences: 1611 vs. newer KJVs

timothy: Btw, all the differences look like printer's errors to me. No big deal. I assume the vast majority were found before the second printing.

Pastor Larry: Then you need to look closer. There are a great number of these errors that are not printer's errors. They are actual additions and deletions.

You have not supplied any proof of that.

I found the following into on David Cloud's site (quoting D.A. Waite):

There are only 421 changes affecting the sound throughout the entire Old and New Testaments. Do you know how many words there are in the King James Bible? There are 791,328 words. Out of that total, there are only 421 words in the 1611 King James Bible which have a different sound from the words of the King James Bible we have today. Of these 421 changes, 285 are minor changes of "form" only. There are only 136 changes of "substance," such as an added "of" or "and." Some examples of minor changes are as follows: I can hear the difference and so can you between "towards" and "toward." So, if I could hear it, I put it down. Fourteen times that happened. I could hear the difference between "burnt" and "burned" 31 times, so I put that down. As long as you could hear the difference, I recorded it as a change in this list of 421 changes. For instance, "amongst" and "among." There were 36 of those changes. "Lift up" instead of "lifted up" was used 51 times. "You" was changed to "ye" 82 times. You can see that these are extremely minor changes. This totals up to 214 of these kind of minor changes. There were 71 other minor changes which total 285 changes of form only. In summary, then, I found there were 285 changes of FORM ONLY, and only 136 changes of SUBSTANCE, making a total of 421 changes in all to the ear. This research is available as B.F.T. #1294.

http://www.wayoflife.org/otimothy/tl020003.htm

136 changes of substance out of 791,328 words. That's 0.017% of the text. This error rate seems consistent with what one would expect due to human error in the typesetting and printing process.

 

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:

If God superintended the KJV as he did the autographa, then the KJV would be like the autographa ... with no errors whatsoever.

I don't think God providentially watches over all printings of the KJV.

Your admission of printer's errors (while an inadequate explanation) reveals that you have compromised the doctrine of Scripture by affirming that an inspired Scripture can have errors while being inerrant.

When did I affirm that?

This is what we mean when we say that the doctrine KJVOs teach does not match up with the doctrine God revealed.

Which doctrine would that be?

 

The proof has been supplied over and over again, time after time.

Both of these men are demonstrable liars and therefore poor sources. But be that as it may, notice how he admits 421 changes. That is a lot of changes for "perfect."

And very inconsistent with God. Yet the errors that have been listed here are real errors and real changes. That is problemmatic. YOu have no way of knowing why those errors are there. You call them "printer's errors" because of your position. I call them plain old errors.

So which ones did he watch over to make them errorless and which ones have errors and are therefore not hte word of God? On what scriptural basis do you know?

Above, when you admitted that the KJV has errors in it.

The doctrine of SCripture that teaches it is errorless.

 

timothy 1769: You have not supplied any proof of that.

Pastor Larry: The proof has been supplied over and over again, time after time.

No proof has been presented that any of these discrepancies are deliberate changes away from the 1611 translation. N.B. 1611 translation not 1611 printing.

timothy: I found the following info on David Cloud's site

Pastor Larry: Both of these men are demonstrable liars and therefore poor sources.

Demonstrate it then. I find the idea that they are two devils deliberately misleading the masses to be ridiculous. IMO David Cloud and D.A. Waite are men of integrity. If they're not, I'd certainly like to know about it.

Pastor Larry: But be that as it may, notice how he admits 421 changes. That is a lot of changes for "perfect."

Do you believe that all printers are infallible? I certainly don't.

timothy: 136 changes of substance out of 791,328 words. That's 0.017% of the text. This error rate seems consistent with what one would expect due to human error in the typesetting and printing process.

Larry: And very inconsistent with God. Yet the errors that have been listed here are real errors and real changes.

Yes, real errors in printing. N.B printing not translation. Anyone who runs a printing shop does not become infallible the moment he decides to print a Bible.

Pastor Larry: That is problemmatic.

Not really.

Pastor Larry: YOu have no way of knowing why those errors are there. You call them "printer's errors" because of your position. I call them plain old errors.

because of your position.

timothy: I don't think God providentially watches over all printings of the KJV.

Larry: So which ones did he watch over to make them errorless and which ones have errors and are therefore not hte word of God? On what scriptural basis do you know?

I have no idea, but:

Matthew 24:35
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Mark 13:31
Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

Luke 21:33
Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

Matthew 5:18
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Matthew 28:20
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

and even

Psalms 12:6
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

timothy: When did I affirm that?

Pastor Larry: Above, when you admitted that the KJV has errors in it.

I'm not aware of any errors in the King James translation, thank God. It's a faithful and true version of the inspired Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek scriptures providentially preserved in the Masoretic Tanach and New Testament Textus Receptus.

There can be, and are, errors in various printed editions. Thankfully, such errors appear to be extremely unimportant.

Timothy: Which doctrine would that be?

Pastor Larry: The doctrine of SCripture that teaches it is errorless.

I believe the TR and Masoretic texts to be errorless. I believe the 1611 King James translation to be errorless. I do not believe that every KJV ever printed is errorless. Things that are different are not the same.

[ September 24, 2003, 04:42 PM: Message edited by: timothy 1769 ]

 

That is a distinction without a difference. The translation is found only in the printing. You are really desperate to try this one.

I have many times. REad their attempts at the KJVO issue. That alone qualifies them as false teachers. In addition, I have pointed out numerous deliberate errors in Cloud's writing many times on this board. In addition, I have correspondence between Cloud and a fundamental pastor where Cloud viciously and deliberately misrepresents this man and refuses to correct and offer an apology. That is a total lack of integrity on his part. He has demonstrated he is not so much interested in the truth as he is in furthering his own position.

No, but God is. His Word has no errors in it. That alone shows the fallacy of the KJVO position.

So you believe that the KJV is the perfect word of God but you have no idea which one??? Come on now. What in teh world ...

God's word has not passed away. But your KJV has not one jot or one tittle in it. This verse is not about translations of Scripture. You are misusing it.

AGain, nothing about translations so it is irrelevant here.

Nothing about translations. You now have three strikes. You have not one verse of Scripture that supports your position.

\It is a faithful translation but it does have errors. That is clear for all to see.

Thankfully so ... except for that pesky "wicked Bible."

The TR is the worst possible choice of Greek texts. It has numerous problems in it. The MT also has some problems.

Which KJV is the errorless one??? Please tell us which one it is and how you know this.

 

I have worked in printing all my adult life. Printers make mistakes but printers are far more accurate than translators or hand copyists. Even manual type setting has less margin for error than translating words from ancient Greek into English.

 

The KJV translators claimed their word choices for their own. Are you now declaring them part of the Godhead?

The scripture says God's words not those of the KJV translators.

 

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/kjvdefendersmauro.htm

On this page of Cloud's website, he attributes the following to Dr. James B Williams, the general editor for "From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man":

Fortunately, I have a copy of the book.

After discussing briefly discussing Ruckman, Riplinger, et. al and the source of KJVOnlyism, Dr. Williams states, "The healing of this cancerous sore appears impossible."

Dr. Williams lists the five groups within KJVOnlyism forwarded by James White: KJV preferred, KJV/TR superior, TR only, KJV inspired translation, and KJV advanced revelation. He then quotes in a negative connotation "The King James Discreditors". After shining the light on both, Dr. Williams states, "The extremes have produced a deplorable condition in Fundamentalism at a time when the religious confusion and apostasy in Protestantism demands unity among Bible believers."

Cloud obviously had access to the book. He changed the quotes to suit his purpose of demonizing Dr. Williams. He LIED.

This quote is accurate. However, in the following sentence Williams says, "In general these are devout, sincere, well-meaning men who in their efforts to uphold the testimony of an inspired, inerrant, infallible Bible have followed others who have been misguided in their positions."

This statement is followed by the example of Gail Riplinger.

Cloud follows on by accusing Williams of being mean-spirited and divisive. It is only due to Cloud's deceptive treatment of Williams words that he is able to support this claim.

BTW, the article claims Philip Mauro as a KJV defender with the insenuation that he was KJVO. Cloud cites and quotes selectively from Mauro's "Which Bible". This book is available on line if you search for it. It is a comparison of the RV and AV. He does not deny that the KJV needs updating and correction. He simply rejects the means for the task employed by the RV translators.

Cloud engaged in subtle deception regarding Mauro as well.

 

timothy 1769 said:

You have not supplied any proof of that. [of changes between the 1611 and present-day KJV being intentional word changes and not just printers' errors]

I suppose that when the printers of the 1769 edition added the words "of the Damascenes" to 2 Cor. 11:39, it must have been an accident. The type font tipped over into the row of type. Fortunately, the type that fell into the frame just happened to form an intellligible sentence, so the printer never noticed.

D'oh!

 

Interesting. The list is actually mine, and the website that is using it has not cited *its* source.

Perhaps they are printers errors. Or perhaps they are deliberate changes introduced into the text of the 1611 KJV. We don't know for sure, and *can't* know for sure, because the "originals" (i.e., translators' proofs which were sent to the royal printer) are lost. So we have no way of knowing which KJV is correct one.

 

Duplicate post

[ September 25, 2003, 07:18 AM: Message edited by: Archangel7 ]

 

How many "changes of substance" does it take for something that is "pure" and "perfect" to be made "impure" and "imperfect?" More than 136? Or just one?

 

How many "changes of substance" does it take for something that is "pure" and "perfect" to be made "impure" and "imperfect?" More than 136? Or just one? </font>[/QUOTE]Due to the
double standard, the answer to your question
is "Yes": more than 136 for the KJV,
just one for any other.
It really confuses them doubles that
there is a volume called the NEW KING JAMES
VERSION which really isn't KJV so they fuss
about the symbol on front

 

It's true, I'm pretty stupid, but I can still see how "of the Damascenes" could have accidentally been left out of the first printing.

 

Timothy, Have you taken time to check out my answer to your request for proof of Cloud's deception?

 

How many "changes of substance" does it take for something that is "pure" and "perfect" to be made "impure" and "imperfect?" More than 136? Or just one? </font>[/QUOTE]One. But you misunderstand my position, I think each change was likely a correction of an earlier printer's mistake, adding to the purity of the printed editions. The 1611 translation itself was, and is, pure.

 

Yes Scott, thanks for taking the time to type all of that. Regarding the first part of your post, I think I'll have to order the book myself to see if the quote is fair. At this point I would just be comparing your summary of the contents to Cloud's (though yours does provide much more detail).

Corncering the gentelman described in the second part, I think Cloud's quote from him adequately describes his position by the inclusion of the last sentence which most KJVO advocates would not agree with.

 

What is the difference between that 1611 translation and its printed editions and how do you tell the difference? You assert one is perfect and the other is not. By what standard do you know which is which? And how do you know which is perfect?

 

How many "changes of substance" does it take for something that is "pure" and "perfect" to be made "impure" and "imperfect?" More than 136? Or just one? </font>[/QUOTE]Due to the
double standard, the answer to your question
is "Yes": more than 136 for the KJV,
just one for any other.
It really confuses them doubles that
there is a volume called the NEW KING JAMES
VERSION which really isn't KJV so they fuss
about the symbol on front </font>[/QUOTE]Brother Ed,

First you kiss me and now this! Ed, betrayest thou the son of Cloud with a kiss?!?

Please read above for my actual answer.

And yes, we KJVO are easily confused because we are so very very stupid. So please have pity on your weak brethern and apply your superior MV intellect to the following puzzle:

1 Peter 3


Submission to Husbands


Serving and Suffering for God's Glory
1 Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, 2when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear. 3Do not let your adornment be merely outward--arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel-- 4rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God. 5For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, 6as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror.

What is the textual basis for adding "merely" above to the Word of God? I'm so confused by the contradiction it introduces!

1 Timothy 2
9in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing,

Should women wear gold or not? The only thing my mind of limited intelligence can come up with in that the NKJV translation must have been tainted by some evil force (shudder). Either feminism or that strange spooky symbol on the front cover.

 

The thing is, Cloud uses the statement as proof of William's being mean-spirited while the following sentence mitigates against such a conclusion.

BTW, Here is a link to Philip Mauro's book that Cloud references. He is harsh on the RV and favorable to the AV. However, he comes well short of claiming any sort of perfection for the KJV or its underlying text.

http://www.preteristarchive.com/MauroArchive/m-which.html

Notably, Mauro once accepted the RV. His path away from it seems to have roughly paralleled his drift away from Pre-trib/Pre-mil and to preterism. Of course Cloud doesn't mention this since it would impeach Mauro's credibility in the eyes of many of Cloud's readers.

http://www.preteristarchive.com/StudyArchive/m/mauro-philip_lawyer.html

Interesting that Cloud was willing to resurrect a 30 year old false charge against John MacArthur (who uses MV's) but ignores an issue of real substance when seeking support for KJVOnlyism.