Featured How important is the KJB?

some Great Bible/KJV differences

According to a consistent application of the reasoning that claims all earlier English Bibles were basically the same, some could assert that most present English Bibles are also basically the same as the KJV. Evidently there are many more differences between the KJV and the earlier English Bibles than you know of.


In Psalm 14, the Great Bible (also the 1535 Coverdale's Bible) has three additional verses which are not in the KJV. These three verses from the Latin Vulgate are also in the Douay-Rheims Bible [numbered Psalm 13 in Douay-Rheims].

The 1540 Great Bible added words found in the Septuagint at Psalm 17:9 [“to take away my soul”]. At the end of Psalm 33:10, the 1540 edition included this extra phrase: “and casteth out the counsels of princes.“ The 1540 Great Bible added at the end of Psalm 111 the following: “Praise the Lord for the returning again of Aggeus and Zachary the prophets.“ At the end of Psalm 136, the 1540 Great Bible has the following addition or verse not in the KJV: “O gave thanks to the Lord of Lords, for his mercy endureth for ever.“ An addition is also found in the 1540 Great Bible at the end of Psalm 134:1 [“even in the courts of the house of our God”]. Another addition is found at the end of Psalm 132:4 [“neither the temples of my head to take any rest”]. In just these few examples out of the seventy claimed additions, the Great Bible already has over one hundred words in Psalms that are not in the KJV. Gerald Hammond maintained: "Of all the books of the [English] Bible, the Psalter is the least in touch with the original text. This is a matter of familiarity--in the Authorized Version's case it is familiarity with the Great Bible version in the Book of Common Prayer" (Making of the English Bible, p. 86).


The Great Bible has some other additions in the Old Testament not found in the KJV. At the end of Proverbs 12:11, the 1540 edition of the Great Bible has the following: “who so hath pleasure to continue at the wine, leaveth dishonour in his own dwelling.” After Proverbs 13:13, the 1540 Great Bible added the following sentence: “A deceitful son shall have no good: but a discreet servant shall do full well, and his way shall prosper.” After Proverbs 15:5, the following is found in the 1540 Great Bible: “Where righteousness is plentiful, there is very great power, but the imaginations of the ungodly shall be rooted out.” After Proverbs 15:27, it has this addition: “Through mercy and faith are sins purged, and through the fear of the Lord doth every one eschew evil.”

 

I would say that the KJV translators made just as many "strategic" changes to the texts of their time as the MV's have today. And I can live with that. The Word of God is not bound by man's traditions, man's unbelief, or man's mistranslations.

 

Deity of Christ

Your accusation is false. Most modern English Bibles teach the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ.

In a number of verses, modern English Bibles that you misrepresent state or teach the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ more clearly than the KJV does.

Several early English Bibles and many modern translations clearly, precisely, and accurately identify Jesus Christ as "our God and Saviour" at 2 Peter 1:1. William Tyndale in 1534 and John Rogers in 1537 translated the last part of this verse as "righteousness that cometh of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ." The Great, Whittingham's, Geneva, Bishops', Haak’s 1657 English translation of the Dutch Bible, Wesley's, 1842 Baptist or Bernard's, NKJV, Majority Text Interlinear, and many other translations render it "righteousness of our God and Saviour [or Savior] Jesus Christ."
Surprisingly, the 1611 edition of the KJV has a comma after God at 2 Peter 1:1 [God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ], and that comma seems to have remained in most KJV editions printed up to the 1769 Oxford edition.

Likewise, at Titus 2:13, the NKJV, the MKJV, and several other translations read "our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,” more clearly presenting the deity of Christ.

At Romans 9:5, the early English Bibles and many other translations translate the verse clearly to indicate that Christ is "God over all." A note in the Geneva Bible stated concerning Romans 9:5: "A most manifest testimony of the Godhead and divinity of Christ."

At John 8:58, Wesley’s N. T., the 1971 KJII, 1973 NASB, NKJV, MKJV, GLT, and Wuest's translation capitalize "I AM" to make sure the reader knows that Christ was claiming here to be God. Do these translations more clearly indicate a connection between this verse and Exodus 3:14 than does the KJV?

 

strategic changes made in the KJV

Were "strategic" changes made in the KJV when changes were made to the pre-1611 English Bibles in order to favor the Episcopal church government views of the Church of England?

One place where the 1611 KJV indicates bias for Episcopal church government is in Acts 14:23 where either the KJV translators, Bancroft, or another prelate omitted the words "by election" found in Tyndale's New Testament, Coverdale's Bible, Matthew's Bible, Great Bible, Taverner's Bible, Jugge’s New Testament, Whittingham’s New Testament, Geneva Bible, and Bishops' Bible ("ordained them elders by election").

Henry Dexter noted: “So Acts 14:23 retained in the English versions, until the hand of Episcopal authority struck it out, the recognition of the action of the membership of the churches in the choice of their elders” (Hand-Book, p. 15, footnote 1). In his 1648 sermon entitled “Truth and Love,“ Thomas Hill asserted that Acts 14:23 was one of the fourteen places altered “to make them speak the language of the Church of England” (Six Sermons, p. 24). In 1733, John Currie wrote: “It was not the fault of our translators that the Version of this verse was altered, but it was done by some prelates afterward” (Full Vindication, p. 65). James Lillie maintained that “this [Acts 14:23] is a key-text on the subject of church-government” (Bishops, p. 18). In an article entitled “Did King James and his translators tamper with the truth of God as delivered by William Tyndale” in the Baptist Magazine for 1871 as edited by W. G. Lewis, the author asserted: “This all-important text [Acts 14:23] was mutilated and corrupted by James’s revisers, by leaving out the two words ’by election;’ and by changing congregation into church; thus representing the act as exclusively that of Paul and Barnabas, and as Whitgift and Bancroft said they were successors of the Apostles, they turned the text into a justification of their lordship over the congregations, besides leading the people to believe that the congregations of the Apostles were the same as the churches of the bishops” (p. 582). This article maintained “that James and his hierarchy committed a foul crime against God and man in their daring forgery on this text [Acts 14:23]” (p. 583). This article connected the change with the Church of England’s doctrine of apostolic succession.

On the fourth page of the preface to his 1641 book, Edward Barber referred to “the great wrong done in putting out some Scripture, as in Acts 14:23, where election is left out, by which means people are kept from knowing” (Small Treatise, p. iv). Concerning Acts 14:23 in his 1647 book, William Bartlett wrote: “The original reads it otherwise than the Translation [the KJV]: the Translation reads it ordained, but the Greek word is cheirotoneesantes, that is, they chose elders by the lifting up of the hands of the people, which is different from ordination, as coronation is from the election of a king” (Ichnographia, p. 36). In his 1659 book, Baptist William Jeffery (1616-1693) referred to Acts 14:23 and then stated: “where the word election is left out in the new translation, but it is in the old, and cannot be denied to be in the Greek” (Whole Faith, p. 98). In a sermon preached in 1776, David Somerville maintained that the translation or rendering in the KJV at Acts 14:23 “is unjust” (Miller, Biographical, p. 246). Edward Hiscox quoted Matthew Tindale as follows:

We read only of the Apostles constituting elders by
the suffrages of the people, Acts 14:23, which is
the genuine signification of the Greek word,
cheirotoneesantes, so it is accordingly interpreted
by Erasmus, Beza, Diodoti, and those who translated
the Swiss, French, Italian, Belgic, and even English
Bibles, till the Episcopal correction, which leaves out,
the words, 'by election' (Principles and Practices for
Baptist Churches, p. 351).


In his Annotations, John Diodoti translated his own Italian Bible into English at Acts 14:23 as “when they had by common votes ordained.” James Harrington rendered Diodati’s Bible as “When they had ordained them in every church by the common votes” (Prerogative, Two, p. 78). James Corcoran translated Diodati’s rendering as “ordained elders for them by general suffrage” (American Catholic Quarterly Review, 1880, Vol. 5, p. 710). Riplinger maintained that “the Italian Diodati” was a “pure” edition of the Bible (Hazardous, p. 646). The Dutch Annotations as translated into English by Theodore Haak in 1657 presented the first part of the text of Acts 14:23 as follows: "And when they in every church with lifting up of hands had chosen them elders." In 1657, Harrington translated the words in the Dutch Bible appointed by the Synod of Dort as “When in each church by the holding up of hands they had elected presbyters” (Prerogative, Two, p. 78). In an article in The Baptist Magazine for 1871, the author or editor W. G. Lewis asserted that they translated literally the 1637 Dutch Version at Acts 14:23 as follows: “And when they had chosen elders for them in every congregation with uplifted hands” (p. 584). Edwin Hall wrote that “the ancient French version reads, ‘And after having by common suffrages ordained elders’” (Puritans, p. 305). Francis Turretin maintained that our French version of the Scriptures “understands cheirotonian of a creation by votes or election” (Institutes, III, p. 229). Perhaps that French version was the revision of Robert Oliventanus’ version that was made by Theodore Beza. Henry Baird noted that “Beza found time to give a careful and final revision to the French version of the Bible in common use among Protestants” (Theodore Beza, p. 330). Baird wrote: “Thus was developed the famous ’Bible of the Pastors and Professors of Geneva,’ which, from 1588 on to almost our own times, has passed through a multitude of editions and exercised a vast influence on successive generations of readers” (Ibid.). Harrington presented the rendering of the Swiss Bible of Zurich as follows: “When they had created them elders by suffrages in every congregation” (Prerogative, Two, p. 77). Along with the Latin New Testaments of Erasmus and Beza, the Italian, Dutch, French, and Swiss Bibles agreed with the pre-1611 English Bibles at Acts 14:23.

 

Can ANY transaltion actually avoid mistakes? the very best ones still will have things not 100 % accurate, as at times there is really no way to fully translate into another language what the original manuscripts taught, is there?

 

Acts 7:59

Concerning Acts 7:59 in his commentary, J. A. Alexander maintained that “upon God is introduced by the Geneva version and King James’s, no doubt with a good design, but with a very bad effect, that of separating Stephen’s invocation from its object, and obscuring, if not utterly concealing, a strong proof of the divinity of Christ” (pp. 311-312). Alexander added: “Calling upon God and saying Lord Jesus may have been intended by the translators to identify these objects in the strongest manner; but besides the impropriety of such interpolations, even for such a purpose, the actual impression is most probably the contrary, to wit, that there are two distinct acts here recorded, that of calling upon God, and that of saying Lord Jesus, whereas these acts are spoken of as one and the same, in the Greek and in several of the older versions” (p. 312).

Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, Great, and Bishop’s Bibles have the rendering “calling on and saying, Lord Jesus” at Acts 7:59. The 1842 revision of the KJV by Baptists has “calling, and saying, Lord Jesus.“ Is this difference between some of the pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV acceptable to you?

The Companion Bible [KJV] has a note at this verse that affirmed that “there is no Ellipsis [omission] of the word God” after “calling upon” (p. 1594). Barnes’ Notes asserted that “the word God is not in the original and should not have been in the translation” (p. 428). In Jamieson’s Commentary, David Brown commented: “A most unhappy supplement of our translators is this word ‘God’ here--as if, while addressing the Son, he was really calling not upon Him, but upon the Father. The sense is perfectly clear without any supplement at all” (Vol. 3, p. 47).

A. T. Robertson observed that Stephen “was calling upon the Lord Jesus and making direct prayer to him as ‘Lord Jesus’” (Word Pictures, III, p. 99). Alexander wrote: “This prayer of Stephen is not only a direct imitation of our Lord’s upon the cross (Luke 23:46), but a further proof that he addressed him as a divine person, since he here asks of the Son precisely what the Son there asks of the Father” (p. 312).

 

Despite the attempts of those of the KJVO position to state otherise, BOTH the NASB/NIV express more clearly the Deity of Christ even more so than the KJV did!

 

I wonder what one they used to read in the early church where about 98% could not read.

 

They "used" (read) the letters that the apostles wrote and then copied them and sent them to other churches to be read.

What makes you think "98%" of the early church couldn't read? Apparently Paul thought they could considering he sent them a lot of letters containing detailed instructions.

 

It is not what I think. It is what history has taught. Enough of them could read to have read the letters to the rest. In some cases only one percent could read and in other cases 10% could read but the average was around 2%.

 

Illiteracy was a fact of life for the masses in those days and often was the dividing line between the "clergy" and the "laity". There was no public education as we know it today.

 

And the Queen James Bible is "almost exactly" the same as the KJV; but obviously "almost exactly" can still allow for great differences.

It has been adequately shown here that the Geneva and other early English Bibles were quite difference than the KJV. The next step for you would have been to do research that would either confirm or refute what has been presented in good faith to you. The fact that you continue to persist with your unsupported assertion that they were "almost exactly" the same without doing followup investigation proves you are still unwilling to learn.

 

Could you point out some of those dishonest motives?

 

You have not demonstrated that the Church of England translators of the KJV were any more honest than the translators of other English Bibles.

Are you unaware of the evidence of Episcopal bias in the translating in the 1611 KJV? Believers in the 1600's such as some Congregationalists, Baptists, and others pointed out that the KJV translators had made some changes to the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the 1560 Geneva Bible to make some verses favor Episcopal church government and to take away verses used to support congregational church government or presbyterian church government.

Are you using divers measures or weights in your accusations concerning the supposed motives of other translations?

 

Would you accuse the KJV translators of unbelief?

In their preface to the 1611, the KJV translators asserted that translations can be considered the word of God even though there are some blemishes and imperfections in the setting forth of them. The KJV translators also indicated that translations which would include their own could not be perfect because they were not made by the same process of inspiration as the Scriptures given directly to the prophets and apostles.

Would you claim that the statements in the preface to the 1611 were a "cop-out"?

 

That "cop-out", as you called it, has been the creed of evangelical and fundamental scholars for many years pre-dating the KJV.