Do KJVO See ONLY 1611 Version as "real?"

They consider it "the perfectly preserved Word of God" to the exclusion of all others.

I'm a big advocate of KJ, but I don't elevate it to that level as I use Strong's numbering system to do word research.

 

While most KJV-only advocates use the term "1611 KJV," they do not actually advocate use of the 1611 edition.

A number of KJV-only authors have maintained that today's KJV is the 1769 edition and that was the final edition.

A few KJV-only advocates say any edition of the KJV is good.

One KJV-only advocate promotes an edition of the KJV printed by Cambridge in the 1900's as the so-called "Pure Cambridge Edition," and he claims that other editions of the KJV have some "impure" renderings.

 

any edition of KJV claims

Peter Ruckman wrote: “We recommend any edition of the AV (with any number of variations from any other edition)” (Bible Believers’ Bulletin, Sept., 1985, p. 3). In this same article, Ruckman commented: “In our group, we hold that ANY edition of the AV is reliable” (p. 2). In this article, Ruckman’s only stated exception from being an edition of the AV was the NKJV. Again concerning the KJV, Ruckman claimed that “any edition will do just fine” (Unknown Bible, pp. 1, 86). Ruckman referred to “any edition in any century” of the KJV (How to Teach the “Original” Greek, p. 119). Edward F. Hills also maintained that “any one of them [KJV editions] may be used by a Bible-believing Christian” (KJV Defended, p. 230).

 

KJV-only claims about the 1769 KJV

David Sorenson wrote: "The King James Version of the Bible in America at present is in fact the 1769 edition" (Touch Not the Unclean Thing, p. 17). Sorenson claimed: “The King James Bible commonly used today is the 1769 edition, edited by Benjamin Blayney” (God’s Perfect Book, p. 138). Sorenson asserted: “The King James Bible which we use today is in fact the 1769 edition edited by Benjamin Blayney” (Sword of the Lord, April 29, 2011, p. 10). D. A. Waite referred to “the 1769 edition of the King James Bible that we use today” (Critical Answer to Michael, p. 55). Alan O’Reilly maintained that “the AV1611 of today is Dr. Blayney’s edition, published 1769” (O Biblios, p. 35). Kirk DiVietro claimed that “the text we now use was done in 1769” (Cleaning-Up Hazardous Materials, p. 7). Steven J. White wrote: “The King James Bible we use today underwent spelling changes in A.D. 1769” (White’s Dictionary, Vol. Two, p. 73). David Cloud wrote that "an update was made between 1762-69 to correct any lingering printing errors and to update the spelling" (Faith vs. the Modern Bible Versions, p. 589). Douglas Stauffer asserted: "The two editions primarily dedicated to standardizing spelling were completed only seven years apart, in 1762 and 1769 respectively. The 1769 edition merely continued the process of spelling standardization begun in the 1762 edition" (One Book Stands Alone, p. 348). Robert Sargent claimed that "the present spelling and punctuation was produced in the 1762 (Cambridge) and 1769 (Oxford) editions” and that “the spelling was standardized to its modern form in the 1762 and 1769 editions" (English Bible, p. 227, 229). Gail Riplinger proposed that "standardization of spelling" was "completed" in 1769 (In Awe of Thy Word, p. 602). Riplinger asserted that “the spelling of the KJV was standardized and made uniform beginning in 1762, by Dr. Thomas Paris of Cambridge, and finally in 1769, by Dr. Benjamin Blayney of Oxford” (p. 601; Hidden History, p. 50). M. H. Tabb claimed “the process of correcting spelling was begun in the 1762 edition” and “that process was completed with the 1769 edition, the edition we now use” (Inspiration and Preservation, p. 274). Timothy Morton contended that "the 1762 and 1769 [editions] were to update the spelling" and that "by 1769 whatever slight textual errors that still remained were removed, and the text was finally free from any man-made error" (Which Translation Should You Trust, p. 42). Charles Barrier asserted that “this [1769] edition is regarded as equal to the edition of 1611, has been used for over 200 years as the standard text for all genuine Authorized King James Version Bibles, and is considered to be free of any spelling, punctuation, capitalization, or grammatical errors” (Looking for the Lamp, p. 26).


Al Lacy maintained that "the 1769 edition of the 1611 King James Bible is perfect" (Can I Trust My Bible, p. 144). Joey Faust maintained that "nothing after 1769 is a true edition" (Common Man‘s Defense of KJV-onlyism, p. 43). Hugo Schonhaar wrote: “The final two editions of the 1611 King James Bible took place in 1762 and 1769” (Woods, King’s Bible, p. 277). James Melton also claimed that “in 1762 and 1769 the two final editions of the KJV were published” (Fighting Back, p. 29). David Sorenson wrote: “The 1762 and 1769 final editions involved spelling changes and even some word changes, which became necessary as the English language stabilized and spelling rules were established” (God’s Perfect Book, p. 137). William Bradley claimed that "the last one in 1769 made no changes in the text, only standardization of spelling, punctuation, and updated typeface" (To All Generations, p. 71). Dennis Anderson claimed: “We know it [referring to the 1611 KJV] has gone through four revisions to correct misspelled words, the last one in 1769” (Flaming Torch, Summer, 1995, p. 6). M. H. Tabb contended that “the seventh and final edition was in 1769, the ‘purified text’ at last” (Inspiration, p. 272). Michael Bates referred to “the final, fifth publication (1769)” of the KJV (Inspiration, p. 324). Lloyd Streeter claimed that the perfection of the KJV "should be looked upon as a winnowing or refining process extending from Tyndale through 1769" (Seventy-five Problems, p. 104). Streeter asserted that God used "those who corrected printing and spelling errors between 1611 and 1769" (p. 104). Peter Ruckman asserted that “this edition [referring to the 1769 Oxford edition by Blayney] has been regarded as the standard copy for 200 years” (Bible Believers’ Bulletin, July, 1981, p. 4). Ruckman maintained that “the main object” of Blayney’s edition was “to restore the text of the English Bible to its original purity and that this was successfully accomplished” (Differences in the KJV Editions, p. 11). William P. Grady referred to “Blayney’s standard-setting 1769 Oxford edition” and “Blayney’s watershed Oxford standard” (Given by Inspiration, pp. 275, 276). Charles Keen wrote: “The last revision, done in 1769, became known as the Oxford ’Standard’ Edition and is the edition used by most who use the Authorized Version today” (Unpublished Word, Winter, 2008, p. 21). David Sorenson asserted: “The KJV went through a series of editions culminating in the Blayney edition of 1769” (God’s Perfect Book, p. 205).

 

Usually, they try to pass all the changes as being either spelling updates or corrections of printing errors. They would try to imply that the translators were not responsible for any of the errors in the 1611 edition.

 

A good friend of mine showed me their church's website and they stated that they only recognized the AV 1611 Bible.

I wonder if the preacher ever actually has seen a 1611 KJV bible or a facsimile version of it? It would be hard to read and then he'd have to 'splain the Apocrypha and why he's NOT preaching from it.

 

I will give you an example of the pastor I know who is extremely KJVO. In his church's belief statement it states the 1611 KJB is the Only Word of God we have today and this includes other languages including Greek and Hebrew.

When the Bible marked 1611 which was missing the Apocrypha was printed on the birthday of 2011 and marketed as a cheap Bible he bought one for everybody in the church and told them the only differences were in spelling and there were no other mistakes, including punctuation, and grammar. Of course, the church only has about 80 members so most are either old or very young and the few that are impressionable are not very well educated. So, I doubt anybody actually compared the Bible. I gave my copy away since it did not contain all of the books of the true 1611 version and therefore meant nothing to me from a historical point of view and since I have newer translations which I trust better.

On the church emblem it has a big KJB 1611 which arcs across the top of it.

He asked a missionary why the Chinese Bible he used in China was translated from the Greek and Hebrew and therefore in error since it wasn't translated from the KJB. The missionary was very polite and tried to explain that they wanted to use older manuscripts and the pastor explained to him that the KJB has corrected all the manuscripts and if they don't perfectly match the KJB (including punctuation--get that) that it was inaccurate since the KJB is God's Bible To the World and we English speaking people are very lucky to have God decide to Use English as the Language in which to translate his correct Words.

He uses other items such as a verse that says something about things that come from a king are good and therefore the King James Bible has to be good.

He claims there were seven updates to the 1611 just to correct spelling and since seven is God's perfect number it shows that the version we now have is perfect.

He quotes Ripplinger a lot on New Age Bibles and therefore says the NKJV is nothing more than another New Age Bible and he calls the NIV the Non-Inspired Version which is straight from Satan along with the NASB and all the other Satanic Bibles.

He has a lot of extra things he quotes such as adding the numbers of years up to come up with special numbers, etc.

Oh, and the NKJV logo stands for Six Six Six if you hand it out to the church with three copies each with a six marked in red ink.

Of course this isn't the only thing, he gets off on all sorts of scriptures and distorts them to say what he wants by reading one scripture in the OT and one in the NT and back and forth. There is very little comprehensive scripture reading. I used to think he really knew his Bible until I looked at his notes and noticed that he uses books from the Bible college in Arkansas he went to with the same beliefs and simply copies the scriptures down in his sermon outlines. Also, the louder the better. When young preachers come to preach he grades them on how loud and dramatic they make their sermon rather than content. The only reason I add this is so you can see where all of this is coming from.

 

In my opinion, those who advocate a KJV-only view do not hold a consistent view of preservation that is true both before and after 1611. Therefore, they cannot actually give a consistent and proper answer to your question. If they acknowledge or accept the preserved Scriptures in the original languages from which the KJV was translated as the proper standard and greater authority for the making and trying of all translations before 1611, it would suggest that they would still be that standard for trying or evaluating translations including the KJV today.

Later editors of KJV editions made use of original language texts in their making corrections to the 1611 edition.

 

That is my question and he beats around the bush on that one saying we had it in the form of the Textus Receptus which was correct all along.

 

Take a look at Biblicaltraining.org and take the course that has the history of the Bible. It is only about four classes and comes down in MP3 at no cost. The professor does an excellent job at explaining how the modern versions are put together and why certain manuscripts are used rather than others. As he says, there are no theological changes between the CT and the BT.

He did mention one church was looking for a pew Bible and one of their questions was which one had the most "Christology". Which has absolutely nothing to do with the correct text because there is plenty in both.

A lot of fundamental churches are accepting the NKJV because they are KJV preferred but not KJVO. The church I attend has KJV as the first line of their belief statement is the perfect Word of God. I noticed two visitors with NIV's last week. I want to see if they continue to come because there isn't a service that he preaches without saying "That's from the KJB the perfect Words Of God."

I still have people ask me why I'm still there. It has to do with family members and the size of the area and nothing I can live with the KJV since I know pretty much all of the pastor's weaknesses that I just ignore. I will wind up going back to an SBC church soon. I am going through family problems myself and that is an issue because I have a protective order against my wife. There, now its out in the open. :BangHead:

 

Another excuse he uses for KJVO is a verse in the OT that nothing good comes from Egypt even though in the NT Jesus went and then came from Egypt and Moses came from Egypt, etc. He has all sorts of excuses for his belief.

 

Sometimes KJV-only advocates may suggest that, but other times KJV-only advocates have admitted that the Textus Receptus has some New Testament readings that are not found in the Greek manuscript evidence.

Timothy Morton, a KJV-only advocate, admitted: "The King James Version is NOT a word for word translation of the Textus Receptus or of the Majority Text. It is based on the Textus Receptus, but it also has a few readings from other sources" (Which Translation Should You Trust, p. 45). Samuel Gipp, a KJV-only advocate, acknowledged: "You're going to find places where the King James Bible doesn't agree with even the Textus Receptus" (Ankerberg, Which English Translation, p. 1). Len Smith, a KJV-only author, wrote: “The King James is not a faithful, accurate, scholarly translation of the Textus Receptus or of any manuscript on earth” (Age of Reason, D22, p. 7). He also commented: “The real reason we know that the Authorized King James Version did not come from the Textus Receptus is because the King James does not agree with any manuscript in the Textus Receptus. In fact, the KJV has readings in it that do not appear in any manuscript in any family on earth” (p. 3). William Grady wrote: “The King James Bible is an eclectic text, which means that it was produced from a variety of underlying sources” (Given by Inspiration, p. 44). Grady asserted: “Sometimes they [the KJV translators] bypassed the Greek altogether in favor of a Latin text” (Ibid.).


In his publication Olde Paths and Ancient Landmarks, Glenn Conjurske demonstrated that "the King James Version does not always follow the same Greek text as the Reformers and early English versions used" (Feb., 1994, p. 37). In the preface of the first edition of their Greek N. T., Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont wrote: "Neither the early English translations nor the early printed Greek New Testaments reflected a perfect agreement with the predominant Byzantine/Majority Textform" (New Testament in the Original Greek, p. xvii). James White observed: "The TR differs in a number of places from the standard Greek text found in Greek Orthodox circles, which itself is more similar to the 'Majority Text'" (King James Only Controversy, p. 6). W. Edward Glenny noted: The TR has several Greek readings which did not exist before 1516 when Erasmus put them in the Bible, and it also differs from the Majority Text over 1800 times" (Bible Version Debate, p. 51). In the fourth edition of his book edited by Edward Miller, Scrivener pointed out that some portions of Erasmus's "self-made version" that are found "in no one known Greek manuscript whatever still cleave to our received text" (Plain Introduction, II, p. 184). John Reumann also maintained that Erasmus “at places actually inserted Greek words found in no Greek manuscripts, translating them himself on the basis of the Latin” (Romance, p. 85). Donald Brake also affirmed that “several of his [Erasmus’s] renderings do not appear in any known Greek manuscript” (Visual History, p. 93). R. B. Ouellette acknowledged that “there are some readings not found in existing Greek manuscripts” (More Sure Word, p. 148). Concerning the Textus Receptus, Bruce Metzger asserted that “in a dozen passages its reading is supported by no known Greek witness” (Text of the N. T., p. 106).

 

The KJV translators likely had available more than one printed edition of the Greek New Testament text although they are considered to have followed mainly the 1598 Beza edition.

Since the KJV is actually more of a revision of the pre-1611 English Bibles than an original new translation, it may be that a number of the places where the KJV differs from the 1598 Beza was simply because the KJV translators followed an earlier English Bible translated from a different edition of the Textus Receptus in those places. Picking and choosing renderings from earlier English Bibles translated from different editions of the Textus Receptus may give the appearance that the KJV translators were picking and choosing different TR editions to translate.

KJV defender Edward Hills asserted that the KJV "agrees with Beza against Stephanus 113 times, with Stephanus against Beza 59 times, and 80 times with Erasmus, or the Complutensian, or the Latin Vulgate against Beza and Stephanus" (KJV Defended, p. 220; see also Scrivener, Authorized Edition, p. 60). D. A. Waite pointed out that Scrivener found about 190 places where the KJV translators departed from the 1598 edition of Beza (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 71). James D. Price cited F. H. A. Scrivener as noting that the KJV translators followed the Complutensian Polyglot against Stephanus and Beza nineteen times and followed the Latin Vulgate against all the Greek editions of the Textus Receptus three times (Textual Emendations in the Authorized Version, p. 4). Kirk DiVietro, a KJV-only advocate, claimed: "The fact that the King James translators left the Beza text and the Stephanus text for other readings in about 25 places shows that they did not consider Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus, or any other printed text the final authority" (Anything But the KJB, p. 23). Hills acknowledged: "Sometimes the King James translators forsook the printed Greek text and united with the earlier English versions in following the Latin Vulgate" (Believing Bible Study, p. 207). Kutilek observed: "In at least 60 places, the KJV translators abandoned all then-existing printed editions of the Greek New Testament, choosing instead to follow precisely the reading in the Latin Vulgate version" (Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus, p. 4).

 

http://www.leviticus11.com/1599gb.htm