Featured The KJV recently turned 400 years old

None of the modern translations will be around 400 years. None of them will be around even a tenth of that time (and still be widely used). The KJV is quality to last.

 

Has the KJV actually lasted uncorrected, unchanged, and unrevised in the many varying present KJV editions [besides 1611 reprint editions]?

 

There have been practically no changes, other than style, in the KJV since the original edition. Thank you for asking.

 

Who would THAT be?

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

 

She doesn't look a day over 350.

 

I have actually compared the 1611 edition with present KJV editions so I do not consider your opinion to be correct.

There were actual errors in the 1611 edition that have been corrected in later editions. The makers of the 1611 left the name of the wrong king "Jehoiachin" in the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible uncorrected in the 1611 while later KJV editions correct it to "Jehoiakim." Another error in the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible at 1 Kings 11:5 ["Amorities"], giving the name of the wrong group of people, was left uncorrected in the 1611 edition, but it was corrected in the 1629 Cambridge.

There are over 140 whole words that have been added in many present KJV editions that were not in the 1611 edition. Not even including all the words in the Apocrypha, over 45 words found in the 1611 edition are omitted in typical present KJV editions.

When compared to the 1611, over 60 times the number [singular/plural] of nouns, pronouns, or verb is changed.

 

So? This April 10th will be the birthday of the Geneva Bible.

457 years old! (And more accurate than its fellow English Bibles!)

Actually the Great Bible was printed in 1539 - making it 478 years old.

 

Correcting a simple mistake, on the level of a typo, is not the same thing as revising the translation. Modern translations rethink the meaning of Greek (or Hebrew) words, and then they revise their translations by again rethinking the meaning of Greek words words. Modern translations are dictated by the winds of politics, not the bedrock of truth.

When the new NIV came out and changed he meanings of countless verses, they weren't correcting mistakes in the original NIV. They wanted to change what the Bible says.

 

BB:


You are saying absolutely false things. But I challenge you to back up your reckless charges in a thread of your own. This thread is about another subject.

 

Making corrections to a translation such as the KJV is revising it. You also ignore all the other changes and revisions that were made to the 1611 edition of the KJV.

If it was such as simple mistake as you claimed, why did the KJV translators fail to notice the error in the 1602 Bishops' Bible or fail to make sure that it corrected in the 1611? If they noticed this error in the 1611, they also failed to correct it in KJV editions for over ten years?

 

You can read the Bible and stumble over a word while reading it, that doesn't make the Bible any less the word of God. Same with putting the KJV down on paper.

 

Actually, the original King James Version of 1611 is hardly used today. What we do have is the 1769 edition, published by the Oxford University Press. This edition included a number of corrections mainly for better English understanding of the text.

 

Far more important will be 2026, the 500th anniversary of Tyndale's New Testament.

 

None of today's thirty or more varying KJV editions are identical to the 1769 Oxford edition.

All the updating and revising of the KJV was not finished by 1769. As many as 400 changes have been made to the 1769 Oxford edition text in typical present KJV editions.