Featured Baptist churches that claim to use the "King James Bible AV 1611"

Ok. Like I said, I had just recently read it. Didn't know whether it was true or not. I know next to nothing about copyright laws.

 

Waite's DKJB is not 1769 Cambridge

The text of D. A. Waite’s The Defined King James Bible is not the “Cambridge 1769 Text” “unaltered” as claimed on the title page in its first [1998] and second editions. A later edition printed in 2005 still has this same assertion on its title page. The word “unaltered” would be a broad-sweeping claim that not even one letter or one word of the “Cambridge 1769 Text” was altered in Waite’s edition. D. A. Waite wrote: “The Cambridge 1769 is a good standard to be used, as we do in our Defined King James Bible” (Critical Answer to James Price’s King James Onlyism, p. 130). Others may have accepted Waite’s claim about his edition being the 1769 Cambridge. For example, Phil Stringer wrote: “I identify completely with the statement by Pastor Robert Barnett (Dean Burgon Society meeting, July, 2010).” Stringer quoted Barnett’s comment about “God’s truth in our 1769 Cambridge edition of the King James Bible” (Messianic Claims of Gail Riplinger, p. 97). Kirk DiVietro claimed that Waite’s DKJB “uses the 1769 revision of the 1611 King James Bible Cambridge edition, which most of us use as the King James Bible” (Cleaning-Up Hazardous Materials, p. 91). Waite’s assertion about the text of the edition of the KJV in his Defined KJB is actually incorrect.

I have a copy of an actual KJV edition printed at Cambridge in 1769. There would be well over 400 alterations or differences between an actual edition printed at Cambridge in 1769 and the edition in Waite’s Defined KJB.

The KJV edition in Waite's Defined KJB is a Cambridge-based edition, but it is not unaltered from the 1769. Waite likely merely assumed that it was without actually examining a 1769 Cambridge edition.

The KJV edition printed at Cambridge in 1769 does not actually have all the changes introduced in the 1769 Oxford that present Cambridge editions follow. This 1769 Cambridge has the renderings introduced in the 1743-1762 Cambridge editions that were not followed in the 1769 Oxford.

In agreement with the 1762 Cambridge edition, the 1769 Cambridge edition of the KJV has "killedst" at Acts 7:28 instead of "diddest."

The 1769 Cambridge edition of the KJV has "from things strangled" at Acts 21:25 instead of "from strangled."

 

Agreed...!

RL..I also have read "Not A Fan" and found it good but I confess I did cross-check some of his MV references just because I didn't like their wording. Kyle comes from a "Church of Christ" background so some of their theology has problems...we always have to be "on guard" for error...no matter who we read from. That said though..I agree...good book...very useful and compelling.

As to Bro.Cloud....I agree and I have more than a few of his resources,the best of which is his latest edition ot the "Way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible and Christianity"(5th Edition) It is a very useful study tool and well worth the purchase price. (my wife got it for me for Christmas) However, as a relatively new arrival on the BB you will find that Bro.Cloud and his work are not held in particularly high esteem in here. Don't let it bug you. Friction always creates sparks...doesn't mean it is always bad. For that record...I am currently a memeber of an SBC church (gasp!:laugh and I like Bro.Cloud. I don't agree with ANYBODY 100 % of the time on anything. You have to have an objective mind!

Bro.Greg

 

I wasn't directly quoting you. No need to get upset.

 

Not upset. I suppose I sounded defensive though. Sorry.

I guess I am used to seeing so many people on here misquote others, build a straw-man, then burn him to the ground...

 

Yeah...maybe so...but.....!

Well....yes..maybe so but we certainly can't ascribe any credit or evidence that I know of to the MV's and their proponents for ANY real revival or ANY return towards Biblical Orthodoxy either.(please correct me if I am wrong) What we are seeing in our day is an accelerating downward spiral into ever-increasing apostasy.

Bro.Greg

 

probably MORE people have come to jesus this past 25 years who read the NIV than the KJV version at the time that the Lord converted them!

How did THAT happen?

 

Educate me PLEASE...

Someone please correct me if I am wrong...but...I have always understood or heard that for a new "copyright" to be granted on something (in this case Bible Versions) that there was a certain percentage of changes or differences in the wordings of the text that had to be recognized, demonstrated, or observed as compared to the previous editions before said copyright would be granted. Is that true? Any copyright experts out there?

Bro.Greg

 

Not directed at me I know, but I can't help but point out that you ought to capitalize the name of our Lord.

Also, the fact that you say "Probably" shows that this is your opinion with no evidence behind it.

Now, question - what was the Bible used in the Great Awakenings?
I am NOT saying that God can only use the KJV for revival... that would be absurd. But to say that the NIV has caused more people to come to Christ than the KJB is...suspect at best.

 

Just was saying in the USA alone, would be a safe bet that the NIV has been used by the Lord as His witnessing toll more so any other version past 25 years... And I like the Nasb best!

 

What it says....

With all that said I will stand by my recommendation not ONLY of "The Defined King James Bible"...but also Dr. Waite and his ministry and its available resources. Will you find perfection there....NO..certainly not....but you will find there a mindset of reverence and trust in the Word of God and the God of the Word. The Defined KJV they offer is a wonderful tool and also contains many useful resources that won't gouge a huge chunk out of even some of the most challenged budgets. It is apparent that they aren't, as others seem to be, trying to get rich off their resource material. I commend them for that highly. Mine is a 2009 edition and I love it. I just need to read and use it more. I only wish I had gotten the "medium" sized one instead of the "Large" one. It would be more easily "carryable". For the record..in reference to Logos OP, the title page in this one says: The Authorized King James Bible Unaltered, Large Print, with Uncommon Words Defined and right below that...in very small type it says:Cambridge 1769 Text
It is a very good bible....I wish I could afford to give everybody one....but alas...it is usually true that we only highly value those things that we must sacrifice for. Besides..pray for me...I'm currently unemployed and in a job hunt. )(that is also why I'm currently able to spend some time posting in here) Bless ya'll!

Bro.Greg:type:

 

Again I say we cannot blame the MV's for this. Many, many countries use Scriptures translated from the "wrong" (non Textus-Receptus) manuscripts and God has blessed those who use those Scriptures.

Speaking of revivals, three of the ten greatest revivals (according to Elmer Towns) occurred BEFORE there was ever a translation called the King James Version. The great Welsh revival of 1904 did not use the KJV. And it was over 100 years AFTER the printing of the KJV that the "First Great Awakening" occurred. So again I believe that evidence is lacking for crediting the KJV specifically for those events.

On that basis, in order to be fair, we would need to give the NIV or the ESV 100 years to see their real fruit.

The more likely basis of the problem is that we have many more hearers than doers of the Word.:tear:

 

I have found no solid evidence that supports that KJV-only claim. If there was such a rule, why would the supposed certain percentage of required changes not be stated? How could the rule or requirement be followed without any specific percentage being known?

KJV-only advocates who make such a claim seem to have taken the derivative copyright law that concerned an author's revision of his own work or someone else's revision of that book and asserted that it supposedly applies to translations from original language texts in other languages that may not even be under copyright.

Translation is not the same thing as a person revising his own earlier book in the same language or even someone else revising it.

 

inconsistently applied point

I do not think that an inconsistently applied point or a point based on divers measures, divers weights, or double standards is valid. Is it really unscriptural to translate this word as "Sir" when addressed to a certain man who owned a vineyard?

Would Gail Riplinger and other KJV-only advocates condemn the KJV translators for translating this same Greek word as "Sir" when actually addressed to Jesus at John 4:11, 15, 19, 49?

At Revelation 7:14, the earlier pre-1611 English Bibles had "Lord" while the KJV revised it to "Sir."

Several of the early English Bibles such as Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, and Whittingham’s have the rendering "Sir" at Matthew 18:26.

At Joshua 5:14, there is the case of an appearance of God or the Lord Jesus Christ as a man [captain of the host of the LORD], and He receives worship from Joshua, but "Lord" is not capitalized in most present editions of the KJV although it was in many pre-1769 ones. It is capitalized in the 1560 Geneva Bible and in the NKJV.

Joshua 5:14 [my Lord--1560 Geneva, NKJV] [see Gen. 19:18]
my LORD (1679, 1771, 1772, 1773, 1778, 1783, 1788 Oxford) [1765 Cambridge] {1684, 1705 London} (1769 Edinburgh)
my Lord (1675, 1715, 1720, 1728, 1747, 1754, 1758, 1765, 1774, 1777 Oxford) [1629, 1638, 1683, 1743, 1747, 1756, 1760, 1767 Cambridge] {1611, 1614, 1616, 1634, 1640, 1660, 1672, 1711, 1735, 1741, 1747, 1750, 1767, 1795, 1879 London} (1638, 1722, 1766, 1787, 1791, 1793, 1842, 1858 Edinburgh) (1866 Glasgow) (1762 Dublin) (1782 Aitken) (CB) (1910 Collins)

my lord (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1762, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB] {1760 London}

 

Sigh......!

Logos....I wasn't making that inquiry to start any argument....I was simply trying to find out if anybody was well-versed enough in the matter of copyright law to know what criteria is necessary for a new version to be granted a copyright (since men seem so determined to CONTROL publication of the Word of God via copyrighting). I will give my opinion on one thing though....I don't think ANY MAN or group of men(or women) have ANY (God-given) right whatsoever to "bind" the publication of a book that is supposed to be God's Word under the "copyright" laws of man. I don't believe that I ought to have to obtain the permission of ANY MAN to reprint or reproduce "The Word Of God" either in whole or in part. God never granted any man that right or directed any man to exact that requirement. In our day....the "love of money" has driven men to much evil and corruption.:BangHead: In my humble opinion!:saint:

Bro.Greg

 

God never denied man that right either. I have no problem with copyrights. In fact I like the idea - anyone could print anything today and call it a 'King James Bible' without any legal repercussions.

 

The KJV had what amounted to the copyright of that day. The copyright of that day existed more for the benefit of printers or publishers than for the authors or translators. John Tebbel wrote: “There had been a copyright of sorts in England from 1518” (History of Book Publishing, p. 46).


James Paterson pointed out: “The Crown and the patentees of the Crown have sometimes set up rights more or less amounting to a perpetual copyright, and sometimes resembling a monopoly” (Liberty of the Press, p. 282). Paterson maintained that “courts have expressed confused views as to the origin of these exceptional rights” (Ibid.). These rights are sometimes referred to as “the prerogative copyrights of the Crown of England.” Walter Copinger noted that judges “have given it as their opinion, that the prerogative is founded on the circumstance of the translation of the Bible having been actually paid for by King James, and its having thus became the property of the Crown” (Law of Copyright, pp. 262-263). Likewise, John Shortt pointed out that “Lord Mansfield regarded it as a mere right of property founded on the purchase of the translation by the King in the time of James I” (The Law, p. 48). George Curtis wrote: “Sir William Blackstone says, that the claim of the king to the exclusive printing of the English Bible rests upon the two grounds of original purchase, and of his being the head of the Church. Lord Mansfield held it to be a mere right of property, the king having bought the translation. The translation which the king was supposed to have bought, or to have had printed at his own expense, was that executed in the reign and under the superintendence of King James I” (Treatise on the Law of Copyright, pp. 117-118).


Robert Sargent, a KJV-only advocate, noted that Robert Barker paid 3,500 pounds for the copyright of the KJV and that Barker's firm held the rights to print the KJV until 1709 (English Bible: Manuscript Evidence, p. 226). The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church also pointed out that Robert Barker bought the final manuscript of the KJV (now lost) for 3,500 pounds, "which included the copyright" (p. 135). W. H. T. Wrede noted that Cantrell Legge, printer at Cambridge, attempted to print the 1611 KJV in 1614, but Robert Baker “claimed the sole right of Bible printing under his Patent” and prevented him from printing it (Short History, pp. 5-6). Allister McGrath observed that "Barker was obliged to hand over the copyright to Bonham Norton in 1617 as financial security" and only regained control of it in 1629 (In The Beginning, p. 199). Barker would end up in prison for debt. Christopher Anderson quoted William Ball as writing in 1651 the following: “I conceive the sole printing of the Bible and Testament with power of restraint in others, to be of right the propriety of one Matthew Barker, citizen and stationer of London, in regard that his father paid for the amended or corrected Translation of the Bible 3500 [pounds]: by reason whereof the translated copy did of right belong to him and his assignees” (Annals, II, p. 384).

 

Bible printing and copyright

During a period of England’s history of around forty years (from 1536 until 1575 or 1576), “the printing of the Sacred Scriptures in England had been common to all printers--that is, to any printer who applied and secured a license for the edition” (Anderson, Annals of the English Bible, II, p. 345).

In a complaint about a patent of privilege as “her printer of the English tongue” that was granted to Thomas Wilkes by Queen Elizabeth, the printers and members of the Stationers’ Company maintained that the printing of the Scriptures had not been regarded before “as in any sense or degree attached to the office or title of the King’s or Queen’s printer” (Ibid.). Christopher Barker, one of the printers who had complained about this patent, purchased with a great sum an exclusive patent from Thomas Wilkes in 1577 whose terms included printing rights to “all Bibles and Testaments, in the English language, of whatever translation, with notes, or without them” (pp. 346-348). After Wilkes got into trouble and ended up in prison around 1587, Christopher Barker obtained a patent directly from Queen Elizabeth in 1589: one that included a longer privilege and that included his son Robert (pp. 349-350). De Hamel affirmed that “in 1589, Queen Elizabeth had granted an exclusive patent for the publishing of Bibles in English to Christopher Barker” (The Book, p. 248).

Anderson contended that “no other nation in Europe had so treated its vernacular Bible. There never was any monopoly of the Sacred Scriptures, as to printing them, in Germany, similar to that in England; no patents from the beginning, to compare with British policy” (Annals, p. 572). Anderson asserted that “it should be found that all these Bible Patents have taken their rise from what was once distinctly understood and pronounced to be illegal” (p. 620). In 1841, William Savage wrote: “England is the only Protestant country in Europe where the printing of Bibles is a monopoly” (Dictionary on the Art of Printing, p. 49).

 

Gregory Perry Sr:

Jesus Himself is showing that He is NOT limited to just one edition of His word in a given language.

The "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie" has been discussed ad nauseam here, and has been shown incorrect by the Hebrew itself, as well as the AV 1611 itself, which has this marginal note for the 2nd "them" in V7-" Heb. him,I. euery one of them." And they, & all the other verses U cite are found in every valid Bible version. Therefore, they must apply to every version in which they're found.

In other words, U really have NO Scriptural support for the KJVO doctrine.

The PRESERVATION is perfect, but not necessarily the TRANSLATION. After all, a translation is God's perfect word handled by imperfect men. We have also discussed some of the goofs in the KJV and other translations at great length here.

While I disagree in the pre-eminence of English, I DO agree that GOD is causing His word to be readily available to more and more people, hence, the large number of translations in English and in over 2400 other languages and dialects.

 

Gregory Perry Sr:

So do I. That's why I use multiple translations...to give the HOLY SPIRIT more material to work with in my soul. He does not force Himself on anyone.

Given the multiple English meanings of many, MANY Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek words, multiple translations are necessary to help learn the minutiae of God'e word. The more the HOLY SPIRIT has to work with in one's mind, the more He will teach it.

Yes, I do, and I'm not limited to the opinions of just one set of 400-yr. old translators. GOD has made a whole range of English trandlations available, old and new.

That's where some knowledge of the ancient Scriptural mss. comes in handy, to spot goofs or corruptions in a translation. We do the same with the KJV and other translations when someone claims they're perfect.You admit to using Strong's Concordance yourself, and from this U should spot some goofs in the KJV.

Yes, a "safety" brought about by a lack of a broad overview of Scripture and being confined to the views and opinions of a set of translators who are long-gone. It's a "safety of ignorance". (Not "stupidity".) It's almost as not asking one's doctor if one has cancer, a false comfort.

God wants us to STUDY His word, to work with the Holy Spirit to learn it and APPLY it. And limiting one's knowledge of it is not the way.

But why not stick with "simplicity' in our OWN English? Why place yourself in the position of having to take the time to "interpret" Elizabethan English when witnessing? How many of your audience knows that in the KJV, "conversation" means 'lifestyle', "study" often means 'work diligently', "target" is a type of shield, "let" sometimes means 'hinder', etc. ec. So, if 'simplicity was REALLY your friend, you would present God's word in your audience's best language, which in the USA, is MODERN English?

And again, you actually have NO Scriptural support for KJVO. God did NOT retire in 1611; He still superintends His word TODAY, making it available in OUR language, as well as keeping the older translations, and the ancient Scriptural mss, readily available as well.