Featured Myth of no need of revision

In the article that serves as the basis of another thread, James W. Knox wrote: "My purpose today is to appeal to those who are convinced our English Bible stands without error and bears no need of revision."

How could anyone who knows about the history of our English Bible make such a faulty claim as suggesting that the English Bible bears no need of revision?

The KJV is not exclusively our English Bible as Knox seems to assume. An English Bible [actually several different English Bibles] existed before 1611.

The entire history of our English Bible is a history of revision. The 1560 Geneva Bible was our English Bible before the KJV ever existed. Later editions of the Geneva Bible introduced revisions to the 1560 Geneva Bible. Later English Bibles such as the KJV also made revisions to our English Bible.

It is a fact that the KJV is a revision of earlier English Bibles.

It is also a fact that later editions of the KJV made revisions to the 1611 edition.

It is also a fact that later editions of the KJV have made revision to the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV.

Revisions to the KJV have been made up to the 1900's, and editions making revisions were printed after that. For one example, there is a 2011 Cambridge edition of the KJV edited by David Norton that has revisions.

Some if not all the present twenty to thirty or more varying editions of the KJV definitely still need revision to make them in agreement with the one of those varying editions that has the more correct rendering in the many places where they differ.

Where is the sound evidence for claiming that the varying present editions of the KJV need no revision?

 

Wycliffe's Bible

You show yourself to be uninformed or misinformed. The 1380's Wycliffe's Bible was translated from the Latin Vulgate. Wycliffe's Bible had a number of textual differences from the KJV.

The rendering "penance" is found other times in Wycliffe's (Matt. 3:2, 21:29; 21:32; Mark 6:12; Luke 5:32; 13:3, 5; 15:7, etc.). Do KJV-only advocates agree with the rendering "priests" instead of "elders" in Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5 in Wycliffe's Bible? At Matthew 3:6, Wycliffe's Bible has "and they were christened of him in Jordan." It read "Jesus christened" at Luke 3:21 and “christened“ at Acts 18:8. The rendering "sacrament" can be found in Wycliffe's Bible at Ephesians 1:9, 3:3, 3:9, 5:32; Colossians 1:27, 1 Timothy 3:16, and Revelation 1:20 and 17:7. It has “deacon” (Luke 10:32) instead of “Levite” and “bishops” (John 7:45, 11:47, 18:3) instead of “chief priests.“ Wycliffe’s has “Christ” (1 Sam. 2:10, 2 Sam. 23:1, Ps. 2:2) where the KJV has “anointed” and “Jesus” (Hab. 3:18) where the KJV has “salvation.“ Wycliffe's has "maiden" instead of "virgin" at Luke 1:27 and “old women in holy habit“ at Titus 2:3 instead of “aged women.” Wycliffe's Bible has the rendering "Calvary" from the Latin Vulgate's Calvariae at Matthew 27:33 and Mark 15:22 where the KJV does not. Wycliffe's Bible has “Isaiah the prophet“ (Mark 1:2), “fruit of light“ (Eph. 5:9), "dread of Christ" (Eph. 5:21), and “eagle“ (Rev. 8:13). The 1395 edition of Wyclife’s has “five thousand” at 1 Kings 4:32 where the KJV has “a thousand and five.“ At 2 Kings 14:17, the 1395 edition of Wycliffe’s has “five and twenty years” where the KJV has “fifteen years.“ Clearly, many words or renderings in the Wycliffe's Bible are different from those in the KJV.


Wycliffe’s Bible omitted “for thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever“ (Matt. 6:13), "Jesus saith unto them" (Matt. 13:51), "wherein the Son of man cometh" (Matt. 25:13), “spoken by Daniel the prophet“ (Mark 13:14), “But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work“ (Rom. 11:6), and “and in your spirit, which are God‘s“ (1 Cor. 6:10). It added: "taught them of the kingdom of God" (Matt. 21:17), "and he shall increase" (Luke 19:26), “and he saith to his disciples” (John 13:38 or 14:1), “of Jesus“ (Acts 16:7), and “after the purpose of God‘s grace“ (Rom. 4:5). At Matthew 24:41, this addition is in Wycliffe's: "twain in one bed, the one shall be taken and the other left." The following was added at John 7:28: "I know him, and if I shall say for I know him not, I shall be like to you, a liar." At Acts 14:7, there is this addition: “and all the multitude was moved together in the teaching of them.“ At Acts 15:41, it added: “commanding to keep the hests of apostles and elder men.“ Wycliffe’s has this addition at Acts 18:4: “putting among the name of the Lord Jesus.“ At 2 John 11, it added: "Lo, I before said to you that ye be not confounded in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ." At Revelation 9:11, it added the following: “And by Latin he has the name Exterminans, that is, a destroyer.“ Other differences (additions and omissions) in Wycliffe's could be given. For example, there are additions in the 1395 edition of Wycliffe’s at Proverbs 4:27, 6:11, and 15:5.


Both the early edition of Wycliffe’s Bible and the later edition also have some additions that seem to be explanations of words used in the text. Glenn Conjurske observed: “The glosses in the early version are very plentiful, and most of them are simply definitions or explanations of words” (Olde Paths, Oct., 1994, p. 228). A few examples from the later edition are here offered as evidence. After “delium” at Genesis 2:12, the 1395 Wycliffe Bible added: “that is, a tree of spicerie.” At Exodus 17:13, the 1395 Wycliffe Bible has the following rendering with explanation in the text: “in the mouth of sword, that is, by the sharpness of the sword.” At the end of Numbers 21:3 after “Hormah,“ several words were added in the later Wycliffe’s [“that is, cursing, either hanging up”]. After “great” at Deuteronomy 4:7, the 1395 Wycliffe Bible has this addition: “not in number either in bodily quantity, but in dignity.”


In addition, Wycliffe's Bible also had a great deal of English that would be considered archaic and not understandable by most present English readers.

 

Disagreeing with a modern, man-made KJV-only theory has nothing to do with Westcott and Hort. Your assertions improperly misrepresent the actual views of believers who disagree with the use of fallacies and divers measures that are evident in a KJV-only theory. Your so-called "real issue" is a bogus false claim.

Are you perhaps trying to win favor for your opinions by attempting to misrepresent and smear believers who may disagree with your unproven declarations by improperly associating them with Westcott, Hort, Obama, and liberals? That seems to be a typical improper, carnal KJV-only tactic.

You have provided no sound evidence that shows that English-speaking believers universally accepted the KJV as being perfect. Many English-speaking believers continued to use their loved and accepted Geneva Bible long after 1611. There were believers in the 1600's that pointed out evidence of Episcopal bias and errors in the KJV. A push for a new English translation or a revision of the KJV occurred way back in the 1650's, but it ended with the restoration of the monarchy and the Act of Uniformity. The lack of religious freedom and a state church were factors in making the KJV [the third authorized version of the Church of England] the only availble English translation for many to read for years.

The KJV was accepted as being a translation of God's Word in the same sense and way that the pre-1611 English Bibles were accepted as God's Word. Some of the pre-1611 English Bibles were even reprinted in the 1700's and 1800's. Many English-speaking believers also accepted later English Bibles such as Wesley's [Wesley's New Testament was printed as early as 1755] as being the word of God in the same way that they would claim for the KJV. Wesley's Bible was said to be popular in America. There was a 1842 revision of the KJV by Baptists and other believers that was reprinted several years. Young's Literal Translation dates back as early as 1862. The American Bible Union Version had its New Testament printed as early as 1866. It seems that KJV-only advocates try to rewrite history in order to excuse holding a modern KJV-only theory.

 

Any claims that attempt to imply that there has been no revision to the 1611 are demonstrably incorrect, as any honest examination of the facts would reveal.

The 1828 Webster's Dictionary defined revision as "the act of reviewing; review; re-examination for correction; as the revision of a book." Roget's Thesaurus listed "revision" and "correction" as synonyms. Rodale’s Synonym Finder gave “revised or new edition” as a synonym for “revision“ (p. 1036).

If the text of the 1611 edition needed to be corrected, changed, or improved, it was revised. The word "revision" can be accurately used concerning later editions of the KJV.

In his “Editor’s Introduction” to The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible, David Norton observed that the 1769 KJV text and that of later editions “is not the translators’ text but has many readings changed according to the judgements of editors who had made it into a revised version: not a heavily revised version, but still a revised version” (p. viii). David Lawton asserted that “the copies of the King James Bible that we now possess are very different from the original production” (Faith, p. 78). Glenn Conjurske pointed out: “The King James Version itself has been subjected to a number of minor revisions since 1611” (Olde Paths, April, 1993, p. 85). William Paul claimed that the 1769 “Oxford Standard Edition” became “popularly known as “Blayney’s Revision of the King James Version (Oxford, 1769)” (English Language Bible, p. 32).

More changes have been made to the 1611 edition of the KJV than just the changing of spelling and the correction of printing errors. It has not been proven that all the errors in the 1611 edition were the fault of the printers. The 1611 KJV even kept some errors from the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible. The KJV translators may have overlooked those errors or at least they failed to make sure that the printers corrected them.

Below are two examples of those errors kept from the 1602 Bishops' Bible that were found in the 1611 KJV.

1 Kings 11:5 [Ammonites--1560 Geneva, 1568 Bishops; Amorites--1602 Bishops]
Amorites {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1634, 1640, 1644 London}
Ammonites (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

2 Kings 11:10 [house of the Lord--1560 Geneva; the temple--1602 Bishops]
the Temple {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1634 London} (1843 AFBS)
the temple (1675 Oxford) [1629, 1637, 1817, 2005, 2011 Cambridge] {1640, 1644, 1672 London} (1638 Edinburgh) (1816 Albany) (1816 Collins) (1818 Holbrook) (1827 Smith) (1828 MH) (1832 PSE) (1854 Harding) (2006 PENG)
the temple of the Lord {1795 London} (1897 Mackail)
the temple of the LORD (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1638, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

 

historical evidence from 1600's

Was the KJV universally accepted in the 1650's? Was Westcott and Hort supposedly somehow responsible for this call for a revision or a new translation in the 1650's?

The House of Commons Journal of January, 11, 1653, recorded that it be “resolved, that Mr. Scott do bring in a Bill for a New Translation of the Bible out of the original languages and that he present the names of persons fit to be employed in that service to the House, for their consideration.” B. R. White confirmed that Jessey throughout the 1650’s was engaged in “producing a new translation of the Bible with a committee including, among others, John Owen and John Row” (Knox, Reformation, p. 141). Price indicated that [Brian] Walton was also on this committee (Ancestery, p. 280). The Dictionary of National Biography noted that an order in council (1652) appointed Jessey “one of nine (including [Ralph] Cudworth and [John] Owen) whose approval was required to sanction the publication of any new translation of the Bible” (X, p. 808). This same source confirmed that John Owen “was placed on the commission for licensing translations of the Bible” (XIV, p. 1318).

This source also pointed out that in 1656-7, Ralph Cudworth “considered with a committee of the House of Commons a proposed revision of the translation of the Bible” (V, p. 271). From a draft of a bill for revising the English translation, John Stoughton listed the following men who were to “search and observe wherein the last translation appears to be wronged by the Prelates, or printers, or others”: “John Owen, Ralph Cudworth, Mr. Jenkins, William Greenhill, Samuel Slater, William Cowper, Henry Jessey, Ralph Venninge, and John Row” (Ecclesiastical History of England, II, p. 545). Stoughton cited the bill as appointing Dr. Thomas Goodwin, Dr. [Anthony] Tuckney, and Mr. Joseph Caryl as supervisors of the revision (p. 545).

Ira Price observed that “the reasons that lay back of the bill were in part errors, mainly printers’, and some in translation, and also the so-called prelatical language of the version” (Ancestry, p. 280). Henry Barker noted that “the errors of the Authorized Version, through careless editing and proof-reading, but still more what was called its ‘mistranslations’ and its ‘prelatic language’ contributed toward the movement” (English Bible, p. 187). H. W. Hoare wrote: “In part they were influenced by the fact that many blunders had already come to light in the printing, and that the new edition was accused in certain quarters both of numerous mistranslations and also of “speaking the prelatic language’” (Evolution, p. 275). The Cambridge History of the Bible indicated that this committee often meet at the home of Bulstrode Whitelocke, who had been assigned care of this project (pp. 363-364). Whitelocke wrote: “This committee often met at my house, and had the most learned men in the oriental tongues to consult with in this great business, and divers excellent and learned observations of some mistakes in the translations of the Bible in English (Memorials, IV, p. 284).

The Calender of State Papers, Domestic Series, 1652-1653 as edited by Mary Green noted: “Statement that Dr. Hill declared in his sermon, and has since published, that when the Bible had been translated by the translators appointed, the New Testament was looked over by some prelates he could name, to bring it to speak prelatical language, and that he was informed by a great observer, that in 14 places, whereof he instanced five or six, it was corrupted by them. The like testimony was given by some other ancient and godly preachers who lived in those times, and some appearance hereof may yet be seen in a part of that very copy of those translations” (p. 73). John Eadie pointed out that the report of these 14 changes became part of the preamble of a bill in Parliament around 1657 (English Bible, II, p. 272). Eadie cited that preamble as noting that “the like testimony of these prelates” making those changes was “given by some other ancient and godly preachers also, who lived in those times” (Ibid.). Eadie also reported the preamble affirmed that “some appearance hereof may yet be seen in part of that very copy of these translators” (Ibid.). That important evidence asserts that some who examined the copy of the text prepared by the KJV translators for the printers saw evidence of the changes made by a prelate or prelates in that copy before it was lost or destroyed [perhaps around 1660 in the London fire].

 

Can you name or identify any 100% perfect preserved original language manuscripts or printed original language texts that existed in 1611 and which were used by the KJV translators?

Where do the Scriptures teach that God kept all copiers from making any errors when copying the Scriptures and kept all translators from making any errors when translating?

Do you contradict what the Scriptures teach and show partiality to one exclusive group of Church of England scholars in 1611?

 

You can choose to close your eyes to the truth. If you read the historical facts and truth in my responses to Stilllearning's improper comments, you might have to retract your praise for them. Perhaps it is easier to avoid the truth so you can cling your KJV-only opinions.

KJV-only advocates can not or will not present any consistent, sound, scriptural case for a KJV-only view.