many varying KJV's; Which KJV?

[Logos1560]

Is there one KJV or many varying KJV editions? Could all these actual existing different editions be claimed to be perfect or inerrant?

The Scriptures given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles were given long before 1611. Since the proper standard and authority for the Scriptures existed before 1611, what is that proper greater authority that can be used to evaluate the many varying editions of the KJV? Do any of the present editions of the KJV have any errors in them?

Can an inerrant Bible have errors even if made by printers and still be properly called "inerrant"? To claim that an inerrant book may have some errors such as typographical or printing errors would be to assert that inerrant and errant may be one and the same. If language such as the word "inerrant" can be legitimately interpreted in this way to include misprints, nothing could ever be proved or disproved. To make words include the opposite of what they really mean is to empty words of all meaning.

There is no one edition of the KJV that is followed 100% as the standard by all or even most present publishers of the KJV. In 1857, Charles Hodge acknowledged that “the English version appears in different forms in different editions“ and that “no such universally recognized standard edition existed” (Princeton Review, July, 1857, pp. 509, 510). In 1883, Jacob I. Mombert asserted “that strictly speaking, there is really no standard edition of the Authorized Version, and that all editions are widely different from the text of the original editions” (Hand-book of the English Versions, p. 364). Edwin W. Rice also maintained that we have “no standard edition of the ‘Authorized Version’ of the English Bible” (Our Sixty-Six Sacred Books, p. 18). In 2010, Gordon Campbell wrote: “There was no master text from which all subsequent editions descended” (Bible, p. 3). Campbell added: “The absence of an agreed master text gave licence to a long tradition of corrections” (Ibid.). James D. Price observed that “it is known that the various editions of the King James Version differ from one another, from decade to decade, and from edition to edition, even to the present day” (King James Onlyism, p. 122). Price noted that “current editions of the King James Version differ in hundreds of places” (p 419). Adam Nicolson asserted: “The curious fact is that no one such thing as ‘The King James Bible’--agreed, consistent and whole--has ever existed” (God’s Secretaries, p. 226). Rodney Decker observed: “There are several different editions in circulation today--all identified simply as the ‘King James Version’” (The English Bible, p. 4). Jack Lewis asserted: “The KJV text continues to evolve in details, some intentional and some accidental” (Burke, Translation, p. 113).

Those who claim to defend the KJV are often uninformed about all the actual differences and variations in present editions of it.

In 2011, Cambridge University Press was evidently printing at least five varying editions of the KJV. Those five editions are the Concord edition, the Pitt Minion edition, the Standard Text Edition or Emerald edition, the Transetto Text edition, and the 2011 edition of the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible edited by David Norton. Examples of actual differences between these five editions could be given. These five present editions also differ from many earlier Cambridge editions such as the 1629 edition, the 1638 edition. the 1743 edition, the 1762 edition, the 1817 edition, the 1873 edition.

 

[Winman]

Actually, I am quite aware that not all King James Bibles are exactly the same.

Here is a list compiled by a fellow called BibleProtector, I am sure you are familiar with him.

http://www.bibleprotector.com/editions.htm

Now, anybody can plainly see that almost every single one of these differences is a spelling difference. I personally do not care if my KJB spells "chestnut" or "chesnut". This is straining at a gnat.

This is a joke, there were over 3000 differences between the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus in the four gospels alone. Entire passages and verses are missing.

The Critical Text has nearly 3000 less words in the original Greek than the Received Text.

And you worry about the spelling of chestnut? :laugh:

 

[Logos1560]

In the thread entitled "Final Authority and Final Canonization"

The original autographs do not exist.

You have no idea what the original autographs said, and neither does Logos1560. Therefore you have no idea whether the King James is inerrant or not, because you cannot compare them. FACT.

Winman, does a consistent application of your own words and reasoning assert that you have no idea whether one of the present varying editions of the KJV is inerrant or not since you cannot compare any of them to the original text of the KJV translators that they prepared for the printers?

Winman, are you saying that you have no idea whether the KJV is inerrant or not without the original text of the KJV translators and without the original autographs of the prophets and apostles?

Does any KJV-only advocate or any person of earth have the actual entire original text [whether a handwritten manuscript or a printed annotated 1602 Bishops' Bible with the changes made by the translators] that the KJV translators prepared for the printers?

If KJV-only advocates do not accept every word in the original 1611 edition of the KJV, does it mean that they do not believe one word of it or that they cannot claim to believe that the 1611 KJV is inerrant?

Since KJV-only advocates wish to assume or speculate that all the errors in the 1611 edition were supposedly the fault of the printers, could those printers in 1611 have made unintentional changes to the work of the KJV translators that later editors did not notice or did not correct? Since KJV-only advocates show partiality to one group of Church of England scholars in 1611 and claim that their translating work was perfect, they suggest that they need to be able to show that the text of the KJV matches 100% the actual text that the KJV translators prepared for the printers. Otherwise, are KJV-only advocates only speculating or assuming that a present KJV supposedly represents 100% the translating decisions of the KJV translators?

If KJV-only advocates claim that other believers cannot accept the original language texts of Scripture because they do not have the original autographs, are they not at the same times asserting that they cannot properly accept and defend the text of the KJV without the original "autographs" prepared by the KJV translators themselves?

 

[Logos1560]

I personally do not care if my KJB spells "chestnut" or "chesnut". This is straining at a gnat.

This is a joke,

And you worry about the spelling of chestnut? :laugh:

Do your comments in effect seem to mock at or make light of the concept of jot and tittle preservation of the Scriptures?

Are you in effect suggesting that God does not care about spelling or that God is not concerned about every jot and tittle of the Scriptures?

Do you advocate some type of "meaning" or dynamic equilvancy preservation instead of exact word preservation?

 

[jonathan.borland]

They're not all spelling differences. This is a great point by Logos because it's precisely the same argument used by KJVOs. Even if there is one real difference then, according to them, it's NOT the perfect word of God. So, Winman, which KJV edition do you consider perfect to the letter?

 

[Oldtimer]

Actually, I am quite aware that not all King James Bibles are exactly the same.

Winman, is it worth the effort?

Most of those using sticks to prod an animal, just to hear him respond, know just where to poke for the best results. Most feel secure standing behind a fence or just out of reach of the chain.

Today, especially, TODAY, our thoughts turn toward our Risen Saviour. Worship Him. Give Him praise. Acknowledge His sacrifice to the very core of our being.

Is He looking down on us with a smile of approval? Or, does He have a tear in His eye? Members of His Church squabbling over jots and tittles. Both sides, using arguements that they know either can't be proved or are immaterial just to poke through the fence one more time. Often spending hours pouring over preferred versions of scriptures and commentary just to find the right stick to do the poking.

And remembering, that despite the abuse God's word is taking, His WORD lives!

Further, remembering God's promise, as well.

Amos 8:11 KJB Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord:

Winman is it worth it? To every other poster in this thread, and the scores like it, is it worth it?

Yes, I'm preaching to myself, as well, this morn.

Do we bring honor and glory to His Name above All Names?

I can't speak for anyone else. I just know that I have :tear: of regret.

 

[Winman]

They're not all spelling differences. This is a great point by Logos because it's precisely the same argument used by KJVOs. Even if there is one real difference then, according to them, it's NOT the perfect word of God. So, Winman, which KJV edition do you consider perfect to the letter?

The only example I saw where there would be a difference in meaning was Jeremiah 34:16 where one version said "he" others said "ye". This is an obvious typo that is still in circulation. All KJVOs admit there are many KJBs with typos in them.

But the fact that this author has spotted and identified these errors shows that a inerrant standard exists. You folks cannot seem to grasp this. I am saying the KJB as translated was inerrant, not that all printings of the KJB are inerrant.

As far as which is perfect, I would probably rely on the word of KJB scholars and go with the Pure Cambridge. But I would have no problem using another version with minor spelling differences. Spelling "chestnut" or "chesnut" does not change the meaning of a verse of scripture. It is the same word, just different spelling.

Winman, is it worth the effort?

Sometimes I wonder. But I think it is obvious to those who read that the criticism against the KJB amounts to nit-picking. These guys complain about the spelling of a word, and completely overlook the THOUSANDS of differences between the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, over 3000 in the four gospels alone. These were not minor spelling differences, whole passages, verses, and words are different or completely omitted. As for the Critical Text used for the MVs, it has nearly 3000 less words in the original Greek than the Received Text used for the KJB.

So, folks can see which text is truly corrupt and which is not. These guys think everybody is a fanatic to disprove the KJB like they are. Most folks are far more fair and reasonable than that.

I am not going to worry about little spelling differences anyway. :tongue3:

 

[HankD]

The only example I saw where there would be a difference in meaning was Jeremiah 34:16 where one version said "he" others said "ye". This is an obvious typo that is still in circulation. All KJVOs admit there are many KJBs with typos in them.

But the fact that this author has spotted and identified these errors shows that a inerrant standard exists. You folks cannot seem to grasp this. I am saying the KJB as translated was inerrant, not that all printings of the KJB are inerrant.

As far as which is perfect, I would probably rely on the word of KJB scholars and go with the Pure Cambridge. But I would have no problem using another version with minor spelling differences. Spelling "chestnut" or "chesnut" does not change the meaning of a verse of scripture. It is the same word, just different spelling.



Sometimes I wonder. But I think it is obvious to those who read that the criticism against the KJB amounts to nit-picking. These guys complain about the spelling of a word, and completely overlook the THOUSANDS of differences between the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, over 3000 in the four gospels alone. These were not minor spelling differences, whole passages, verses, and words are different or completely omitted. As for the Critical Text used for the MVs, it has nearly 3000 less words in the original Greek than the Received Text used for the KJB.

So, folks can see which text is truly corrupt and which is not. These guys think everybody is a fanatic to disprove the KJB like they are. Most folks are far more fair and reasonable than that.

I am not going to worry about little spelling differences anyway. :tongue3:

There are more than "little" spelling errors, there are differences in number, gender and other grammatical matters (verb conjugation, prounoun choice, etc).

God is incapable of the smallest error.

Everyone of the differences are due to man.

And how does one know which of the Cambridge editions is "pure"?

It is because of opinion.

In another thread it was shown that there is controvery among the KJVO camp concerning this matter.

We all need to face reality.

Would it really matter if we had the originals?

Yes, perhaps with some issues like 1 John 5:7 (which, by faith, I consider apostolic).

We have the original Constitution and look at the differences of opinion about what it says.

HankD

 

[Winman]

There are more than "little" spelling errors, there are differences in number, gender and other grammatical matters (verb conjugation, prounoun choice, etc).

God is incapable of the smallest error.

Everyone of the differences are due to man.

And how does one know which of the Cambridge editions is "pure"?

It is because of opinion.

In another thread it was shown that there is controvery among the KJVO camp concerning this matter.

We all need to face reality.

Would it really matter if we had the originals?

Yes, perhaps with some issues like 1 John 5:7 (which, by faith, I consider apostolic).

We have the original Constitution and look at the differences of opinion about what it says.

HankD

Would you care to show the examples you are speaking of? I do not think you are speaking of differences between one KJB vs. another (such as the Cambridge vs. the Oxford), but you are speaking of "seeming" errors or contradictions in the KJB such as whether king Jehoiachin was eight or eighteen when he took power addressed in another thread.

I showed three possible answers, just because something "appears" to be an error does not prove that it is.

Is that what you are speaking of? Please show exactly what you are speaking of.

 

[HankD]

Would you care to show the examples you are speaking of? I do not think you are speaking of differences between one KJB vs. another (such as the Cambridge vs. the Oxford), but you are speaking of "seeming" errors or contradictions in the KJB such as whether king Jehoiachin was eight or eighteen when he took power addressed in another thread.

I showed three possible answers, just because something "appears" to be an error does not prove that it is.

Is that what you are speaking of? Please show exactly what you are speaking of.

winman if you want to do it yourself or if someone wants to volunteer there are many old threads on the BB where we (those on the BB at that time) went over them which show many of them. However I'll do a scan myself but probably not today.

HankD

 

[HankD]

winman if you want to do it yourself or if someone wants to volunteer there are many old threads on the BB where we (those on the BB at that time) went over them which show many of them. However I'll do a scan myself but probably not today.

HankD

OK I gave it a quick shot and found this (among others) from Logos1560 :

05-01-2009, 05:19 PM
As for the current KJV editions these two (Oxford 1769 & Cambridge 1762 is correct) would be more reliable than any since.

All spelling updating in KJV editions was not finished by 1769. The 1762 Cambridge edition, a 1769 Cambridge edition, the 1769 Oxford edition, and even later Oxford editions printed in 1795, 1799, 1804, and even as late as 1810 still have a character shaped like “f” for long “s” in many words. A few examples of the use of this character in the 1795 Oxford KJV edition: “fin” (Ps. 32:5), “fee” (Ps. 34:12), “chafe” (Ps. 35:5), “wife” (Ps. 36:3), “flay” (Ps. 37:14), “feed” (Ps. 37:26), “fore” (Ps. 38:2), “foul” (Ps. 42:1), and “fake” (Ps. 44:26). The spelling of other words was also changed or updated after 1769, some after 1840, and some even after 1885. The change in several words may have been made after 1804 [“befel“ to “befell“ (2 Sam. 15:12), “Judea” to “Judaea” (Matt. 2:1), “Lebbeus” to “Lebbaeus” (Matt. 10:3), “Arimathea” to “Arimathaea” (Matt. 27:57), “Idumea” to “Idumaea” (Mark 3:8), “Alpheus” to “Alphaeus” (Mark 3:18), “Thaddeus” to “Thaddaeus” (Mark 3:18), “Bartimeus” to “Bartimaeus” (Mark 10:46), “Cesar’s” to “Caesar’s” (Mark 12:17), “vail” to “veil” (Mark 15:38), etc.] although some present KJV editions have gone back to the earlier spelling in same cases. Some words were changed after 1840 in Oxford editions [“houfhold” or “houshold” to “household” (Gen. 18:19), “houfholds” or “housholds” to “households” (Gen. 42:33), “houfholder” or “housholder” to “householder” (Matt. 13:27), “broidered” to “broided” (1 Tim. 2:9), “injoined” to “enjoined” (Heb. 9:20), etc.]. A few spelling changes were made after 1880 in Oxford editions: [“enquire” to “inquire” (Gen. 24:57), “ax” to “axe” (Deut. 19:5), “ancles” to “ankles” (Ezek. 47:3), “sope“ to “soap“ (Mal. 3:2), “ancle” to “ankle” (Acts 3:7), “enquired” to “inquired” (1 Pet. 1:10), etc.].

KJV editions in the late 1700’s and early 1800’s also had some spelling changes or updates that are not found in all present KJV editions. The 1762 Cambridge edition already had “Rachel” instead of “Rahel” (Jer. 31:15). Some other examples can be found in a KJV edition printed at Oxford in 1804 [“plucked” for “pluckt” (Gen. 8:11), “fetched” for “fetcht” (Gen. 18:7), “stripped” for “stript” (Gen. 37:23), “rye” for “rie” (Exod. 9:32), and “crook-backed” for “crookbackt” (Lev. 21:20), etc.]. Oxford editions printed in 1795 and 1810 had “Nineveh” for “Nineve” (Luke 11:32). An Oxford edition printed in 1795 had “brazen” for “brasen” (1 Kings 14:27).


Present Oxford KJV editions are not every word the same in text as the standard 1769 Oxford edition. The 1769 Oxford had a few renderings from the 1762 Cambridge that are not in present editions [Gen. 36:22, Deut. 10:2, 1 Sam. 2:13]. The 1769 Oxford edition had “LORD” [Jehovah] at several verses where present Oxford editions have “Lord.” Most of these changes of “LORD” to “Lord” were not introduced until after 1828. The standard 1769 Oxford edition had several other renderings that are not found in present Oxford editions [“thy progenitors” instead of “my progenitors” (Gen. 49:26), “Zithri“ instead of “Zichri“ (Exod. 6:21), “Beer-sheba, Sheba” instead of “Beer-sheba, and Sheba” (Josh. 19:2), “children of Gilead” instead of “elders of Gilead” (Jud. 11:7), “coast” instead of “coasts” (Jud. 19:29), “hasted” instead of “hastened” (1 Sam. 17:48), “on the pillars” instead of “on the top of the pillars” (2 Chron. 4:12), “thy companions” instead of “the companions” (Job 41:6), “unto me” instead of “under me” (Ps. 18:47), “feared” instead of “fear” (Ps. 60:4), “part” instead of “parts” (Ps. 78:66), “gates of iron” instead of “bars of iron” (Ps. 107:16), “mighty is spoiled“ instead of “mighty are spoiled“ (Zech. 11:2), “Now if do” instead of “Now if I do” (Rom. 7:20), “not in unbelief” instead of “not still in unbelief” (Rom. 11:23), “the earth” instead of “the world” (1 Cor. 4:13), “about” instead of “above” (2 Cor. 12:2), “you were inferior” instead of “ye were inferior” (2 Cor. 12:13), and “our joy” instead of “your joy” (1 John 1:4). Several of these 1769 renderings remained in Oxford editions over 70 years since they can still be found in a 1840 Oxford edition. At least one (Exod. 6:21) remained over 100 years since it is still in a 1872 Cambridge edition, a 1880 Oxford edition, and in many Oxford editions between 1769 and 1880. Oxford editions printed in 1795, 1799, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840, 1847, 1850, 1857, 1859, 1868, 1870, 1876, 1880, and 1885 have “travel” instead of “travail” at Numbers 20:14 and Lamentations 3:5. Oxford editions printed in 1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, and 1828 have “the holy apostles” instead of “his holy apostles” (Eph. 3:5). Other differences could be given.

HankD

 

[Winman]

OK I gave it a quick shot and found this (among others) from Logos1560 :



HankD

Hank, those are basically the very changes I gave a link for earlier. Those are differences, but they are not errors. Whether you spell "chestnut" or "chesnut" you have the same thing,- a chestnut! It is simply a different spelling. The English spell "colour", Americans spell "color", but neither word is wrong, they are just different ways of spelling the same word.

Most of the changes made in the King James were to update spelling which had been "standardized". A variation in spelling is no error whatsoever. Why can't folks understand this?

Slight textual changes are not necessarily errors either. A verse might have said, "Son", and was later translated "Son of God". Is "Son" an error? No, it is not an error whatsoever, but "Son of God" is more precise. But neither are errors. There have been a few changes of this nature made.

These are the types of changes folks who try to find fault with the KJB point out. They are desperate, these are not errors at all.

This is absurd, the Critical Text is a total mess. Even those who support it admit there were thousands of differences between the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. These were not minor spelling or textual changes, entire passages of scripture are missing, many verses, and words. To overlook this and nit-pick on whether “Idumea” or “Idumaea” is correct is ridiculous.

Pure desperation.

 

[JimmyH]

I have weakness for fine Bibles so I have quite a few in nice bindings. I've got Oxfords, Cambridge, Nelson Signature among others. From what David Norton said most current AV translations are the 1769 Blaney edition with some differences between the Oxford and Cambridge versions.

When David Norton edited the Cambridge Paragraph BIble by Scrivner, coming out as the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible, I found my daily reading Bible. My first Bible was a Scofield Reference Bible (Oxford) and that is the Bible I got saved by/with. I have read John MacArthur say that he also first got saved with the Scofield and still uses it. Not for the notes, but for the text.

Anyhow, it is God's Holy Word in any of those editions AFAIC. Now we see through a glass darkly but the day will come when we will know all things.

 

[Logos1560]

present KJV's not identical to 1769 Oxford

From what David Norton said most current AV translations are the 1769 Blaney edition with some differences between the Oxford and Cambridge versions.

While most current KJV editions are based on the 1769 Blayney's Oxford edition, they are not 100% identical to it. There would be over 200 differences between the 1769 Blayney's and a supposed typical present Oxford edition or a supposed typical present Cambridge edition.

There are actually around 90 places where the 1769 Oxford edition has "LORD" [suggesting the Hebrew name translated Jehovah in a few verses in the KJV is in the Hebrew text] but where in most present KJV editions have "Lord" [suggesting that the Hebrew name Adonai is in the Hebrew text] [besides The Companion Bible and perhaps a few others] [Gen. 18:27, Gen. 18:30, Gen. 18:31, Gen. 18:32, Gen. 20:4, Exod. 15:17, Exod. 34:9, Num. 14:17, Josh. 3:11, Jud. 13:8, 1 Kings 3:10, 1 Kings 22:6, 2 Kings 7:6, 2 Kings 19:23, Neh. 1:11, Neh. 4:14, Neh. 8:10, Job 28:28, Ps. 2:4, Ps. 22:30, Ps. 35:17, Ps. 35:22, Ps. 37:13, Ps. 38:9, Ps. 38:15, Ps. 38:22, Ps. 39:7, Ps. 40:17, Ps. 44:23, Ps. 51:15, Ps. 54:4, Ps. 55:9, Ps. 57:9, Ps. 59:11, Ps. 62:12, Ps. 66:18, Ps. 68:11, Ps. 68:17, Ps. 68:19, Ps. 68:22, Ps. 68:32, Ps. 77:2, Ps. 77:7, Ps. 78:65, Ps. 79:12, Ps. 86:3, Ps. 86:4, Ps. 86:5, Ps. 86:8, Ps. 86:9, Ps. 86:12, Ps. 86:15, Ps. 89:49, Ps. 89:50, Ps. 97:5, Ps. 110:5, Ps. 114:7, Ps. 130:2, Ps. 130:3, Ps. 130:6, Ps. 135:5, Ps. 136:3, Ps. 140:7, Ps. 141:8, Ps. 147:5, Isa. 3:17, Isa. 3:18, Isa. 4:4, Isa. 9:8, Isa. 9:17, Isa. 11:11, Isa. 21:6, Isa. 21:16, Lam. 1:14, Lam. 1:15, Lam. 2:1, Lam. 2:5, Lam. 2:7, Lam. 2:20, Lam. 3:31, Lam. 3:36, Lam. 3:37, Lam. 3:58, Ezek. 18:25, Ezek. 18:29, Zech. 4:14, Zech. 6:5, Zech. 9:4, Mal. 1:14, Mal. 3:1]. At a couple verses, the 1769 Oxford has “Lord” where present KJV editions have “LORD” [Gen. 30:30, Jer. 7:4]. The 1769 Oxford has “LORD God” where most present KJV editions have “Lord GOD” at some verses [Exod. 23:17, Exod. 34:23, 2 Sam. 7:18, 2 Sam. 7:19, 2 Sam. 7:20, 2 Sam. 7:28, Isa. 56:8]. At Daniel 9:3, the 1769 Oxford has “Lord GOD” instead of “Lord God” that is in most present KJV editions. The 1769 Oxford has “Lord God” at three verses where present KJV editions have “Lord GOD” [Jud. 6:22, Isa. 61:1, Ezek. 45:9]. The 1769 Oxford has “LORD GOD” at one verse [Amos 6:8]. The 1769 Oxford still has “God” at 2 Samuel 12:22 instead of “GOD.”

Besides the LORD/Lord and GOD/God differences, some places were the 1769 Oxford would differ from most present editions include the following Old Testament examples: “three days journey“ (Gen. 30:36), “seven days journey“ (Gen. 31:23) “camels‘ furniture“ (Gen. 31:34), “Heman” (Gen. 36:22), “thy progenitors” (Gen. 49:26), “Zithri” (Exod. 6:21), “travel’ (Num. 20:14), “brakedst” (Deut. 10:2), “thy tithe“ (Deut. 12:17), “thy earth” (Deut. 12:19), “the widow’s” (Deut. 24:17), “Beer-sheba, Sheba” (Josh. 19:2), “children of Gilead” (Jud. 11:7), “all the coast” (Jud. 19:29), “priest’s custom” (1 Sam. 2:13), “two mules burden” (2 Kings 5:17), “Shimei“ (1 Chron. 6:30), “whom God alone” (1 Chron. 29:1), “on the pillars” (2 Chron. 4:12), “thy companions’ (Job 41:6), “unto me“ (Ps. 18:47), “my foot” (Ps. 31:8), “feared” (Ps. 60:4), “in the presence” (Ps. 68:2), “part“ (Ps. 78:66), “When there were” (Ps. 105:12), “gates of iron” (Ps. 107:16), “the latter end” (Prov. 19:20), “riches, honour” (Prov. 22:4), “king of Jerusalem” (Eccl. 1:1), “gone to” (Isa. 15:2), “travel‘ (Lam. 3:5), “a brier” (Micah 7:4), and “mighty is spoiled” (Zech. 11:2). In the New Testament, examples include “And in the same” (Luke 7:21), “ye enter not” (Luke 11:52), “the Apostles“ (Luke 17:5), “and the truth” (John 14:6), “Now if do” (Rom. 7:20), “not in unbelief” (Rom. 11:23), “the earth” (1 Cor. 4:13), “the Church“ (1 Cor. 15:9), “was done“ (2 Cor. 3:11), “about” (2 Cor. 12:2), “you were inferior” (2 Cor. 12:13), “those who” (Gal. 2:6), “the holy apostles” (Eph. 3:5), “broidered” (1 Tim. 2:9), “sprinkled likewise” (Heb. 9:21), “our joy” (1 John 1:4), and 17 missing words at Revelation 18:22.

In addition, there are probably one hundred or more places where the 1769 Oxford edition has some non-standard English spellings such as "houshold," "housholds," "falsly," "befal," etc. that were changed in later KJV editions.

 

[Logos1560]

I am saying the KJB as translated was inerrant, not that all printings of the KJB are inerrant.

Your assertion would seem to contradict your own claims posted on page 1 of this thread as was quoted from one of your posts.

According to a consistent application of your own assertion against yours, you have no way to demonstrate that the KJV is inerrant or which KJV edition is supposedly 100% in agreement with the intended text of the KJV translators since you cannot compare any of them to that original text that the KJV translators themselves prepared for the printers since it was lost or was perhaps destroyed in a London fire.

Do you really know with 100% objective certainty what the KJV translators put in their text or what changes or errors the printers may have introduced? According to your own earlier comments, do you only assume or speculate that all the errors in the 1611 edition were the fault of the printers and do you only assume that the KJV translators could have made no errors in translating since you cannot compare the 1611 English text to the lost work that the KJV translators had prepared for the printers?

Winman, what makes your subjective opinion the determiner or standard of truth?

 

[Logos1560]

A variation in spelling is no error whatsoever.

Slight textual changes are not necessarily errors either. .

Are you trying to suggest or claim that some "textual changes" would supposedly be consistent with 100% exact word preservation and inerrancy and even 100% jot and title preservation and inerrancy?

Winman, do you claim "word" preservation or "meaning" preservation for the KJV?

Six words were added to the 1611 edition at one verse (Eccl. 8:17), three words were added to the 1611 edition at several verses (Lev. 26:40, Num. 7:31, Num. 7:55, Josh. 13:29, 2 Kings 11:10, Ezek. 3:11, 2 Cor. 11:32, 2 Tim. 4:13), two words were added to other verses, and one word was added to over 60 verses. There are also verses where later editions omit one word found in the 1611 edition. There are also verses where the number [singular vs. plural] of words was changed.

KJV defender D. A. Waite claimed that there are "136 substantial changes" between the 1611 KJV and a current KJV, and he did not include many of the same type examples as those he counted as substantial changes.

 

[HankD]

Hank, those are basically the very changes I gave a link for earlier. Those are differences, but they are not errors. Whether you spell "chestnut" or "chesnut" you have the same thing,- a chestnut! It is simply a different spelling. The English spell "colour", Americans spell "color", but neither word is wrong, they are just different ways of spelling the same word.

Most of the changes made in the King James were to update spelling which had been "standardized". A variation in spelling is no error whatsoever. Why can't folks understand this?

Slight textual changes are not necessarily errors either. A verse might have said, "Son", and was later translated "Son of God". Is "Son" an error? No, it is not an error whatsoever, but "Son of God" is more precise. But neither are errors. There have been a few changes of this nature made.

These are the types of changes folks who try to find fault with the KJB point out. They are desperate, these are not errors at all.

This is absurd, the Critical Text is a total mess. Even those who support it admit there were thousands of differences between the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. These were not minor spelling or textual changes, entire passages of scripture are missing, many verses, and words. To overlook this and nit-pick on whether “Idumea” or “Idumaea” is correct is ridiculous.

Pure desperation.

Many of the differences between the several AV publications are much more significant than you have stated as has been shown.

e.g (1769 Oxford) “gates of iron” instead of “bars of iron” (1762 Cambridge Ps. 107:16).

How is the presentation of facts equal to "Pure desperation" especially in light of Jesus statement concerning every jot and title of the scripture.

So, which would you choose above? No matter which you choose according to "origins" it must be based upon the original handwritten document by the King James scholars to be absolutely decisive.

Actually, I applaud the Church of England for their historical and scrupulous search for the true renderings of the text. It is one thing that they did which we can all applaud.

Personally, I go back to the original language manuscripts of the Traditional Text which predated Wescott and Hort's text which leaned heavily upon Alexandrinus and Vaticanus (Alexandrian texts). Their text was the forerunner to the Critical Text of which John Burgon raised such a fuss (and IMO he did well).

HankD

 

[Logos1560]

These are the types of changes folks who try to find fault with the KJB point out. They are desperate, these are not errors at all.

Pure desperation.

Are you desperate to take the attention away from the fact that even the smallest variations would be a serious problem for those who try to argue or imply that "jot and tittle" preservation leads to a KJV-only theory?

You are trying to misrepresent and distort the facts. Spelling variations have not been pointed out as evidence of errors in the KJV.

It is an established fact that there were errors in the 1611 edition of the KJV, some of them kept from the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible.

Is avoiding the KJV-only burden of proof and failing to present any sound, scriptural case for your KJV-only opinions a sign of "pure desperation"?

 

[Winman]

Many of the differences between the several AV publications are much more significant than you have stated as has been shown.

e.g (1769 Oxford) “gates of iron” instead of “bars of iron” (1762 Cambridge Ps. 107:16).

Yes, but one is correct, isn't it? The Cambridge that says "bars of iron" is correct. And how do they know this? Because they had an inerrant standard to compare all printings against.

No one denies that many printings contain errors. That does not make the King James "translation" error. Why can't you distinguish between the translation and many various printings?

is the presentation of facts equal to "Pure desperation" especially in light of Jesus statement concerning every jot and title of the scripture.

That doesn't mean a translation has to be jot and tittle, in fact, that is impossible, we do not have jots and tittles in English. But the tanslation can be accurate and inerrant. You can include textual differences and still have accuracy.

So, which would you choose above? No matter which you choose according to "origins" it must be based upon the original handwritten document by the King James scholars to be absolutely decisive.

I believe the verse above should say "bars", but I do not believe "gates" would necessarily be an error. I do not know the original Greek, the correct translation might be bars, but it might also be gates. A gate has bars.

Actually, I applaud the Church of England for their historical and scrupulous search for the true renderings of the text. It is one thing that they did which we can all applaud.

Well, that is not what others do, they nit-pick the KJB to death while overlooking serious problems in the Critical Text.

Personally, I go back to the original language manuscripts of the Traditional Text which predated Wescott and Hort's text which leaned heavily upon Alexandrinus and Vaticanus (Alexandrian texts). Their text was the forerunner to the Critical Text of which John Burgon raised such a fuss (and IMO he did well).

HankD

I would disagree, I believe the Critical Text was a mess and no way is the preserved word of God. There is no comparison between the Critical and Received texts.

 

[Logos1560]

The Cambridge that says

And how do they know this? Because they had an inerrant standard to compare all printings against.

.

What inerrant standard greater in authority than the printed editions did Cambridge have to compare all printings against?

The 1611 edition was not an inerrant standard to use for comparing all printings.

Cambridge kept changing its standard edition through the years: the 1629 Cambridge standard edition, then the 1638 Cambridge standard edition, then the 1743 Cambridge edition, then the 1762 Cambridge edition, then the 1805-1817 Cambridge edition, the 1873 Cambridge edition.

Cambridge adopted the 1769 Oxford standard for a number of years, then abandoned it with its 1805-1817 edition, then adopted a revised version of the 1769 Oxford standard again, then later abandoned it again with the 1873 Cambridge edition of Scrivener.

How do all these varying standard Cambridge editions of the KJV demonstrate that Cambridge had an inerrant standard to compare all printings against? Are you not thinking clearly and consistently?