Featured The KJV recently turned 400 years old

The actual 1769 edition of the KJV printed by Oxford had "LORD" [Jehovah] in around 90 places where most present KJV editions have "Lord" [Adonai] [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 four verses, the 1769 Oxford has “Lord” where present KJV editions have “LORD” [Gen. 30:30, Deut. 29:23, Jud. 2:23, 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 seven verses where present KJV editions have “Lord GOD” [Jud. 6:22, Isa. 3:15, Isa. 61:1, Ezek. 16:23, Ezek. 23:35, Ezek. 32:11, 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 as the 1611 had instead of “GOD.” This correction to the 1611 edition and the 1769 edition was not made until the 1829 Oxford.

 

Perhaps you are unaware of the fact that along with the corrections, the 1769 Oxford edition also introduced a set of new errors into KJV editions. One of the new errors in the 1769 remained in Oxford and Cambridge editions of the KJV as long as 100 years before it was finally corrected.

T. H. Darlow and H. F. Moule observed that the 1769 edition "contains many misprints, probably more than 'the commonly estimated number of 116‘" (Historical Catalogue of the Printed Editions of Holy Scriptures, I, p. 294). The Cyclopaedia of Literary and Scientific Anecdote edited by William Keddie asserted: “What is in England called the Standard Bible is that printed at Oxford, in 1769, which was superintended by Dr. Blayney; yet it has been ascertained that there are at least one hundred and sixteen errors in it” (p. 189). The Cambridge History of the Bible noted that Blayney’s edition “was indeed erroneous in many places” (Vol. 3, p. 464). David Daniell also asserted that the 1769 Oxford standard KJV edition included “many errors,” and that it repeated “most of Dr. Paris’s errors” (Bible in English, pp. 606, 620). Before a committee of Parliament, Thomson stated: “Dr. Blayney’s edition itself is very incorrect; the errors are both numerous and important” (Reports from Committees, Vol. XXII, p. 42). In an overstatement at least concerning omissions, William Loftie asserted that “Blayney’s folio of 1769” “abounds in omissions and misprints: yet this is still considered a standard edition” (Century of Bibles, p. 21). E. W. Bullinger maintained that the 1762 and 1769 editions "made many emendations of the Text; some of them very needless, and also introduced errors of their own, not always those pertaining to the printer" (Figures of Speech, p. 987). Concerning this 1769 Oxford edition, Lea Wilson asserted: “I find therein many errors of considerable importance, and unwarrantable departures from the text of the first edition” (Bibles, p. 128). John M’Clintock and James Strong asserted concerning Blayney’s edition: “But very soon his errors, one by one, came to light; some were corrected at one press, some at another; just has had been the case before; passages really correct were changed in ignorance, and the upshot of it all was, that in a very few years there was no standard again” (Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. I, p. 563).

 

Are you referring to a present Oxford KJV edition or to an actual Oxford edition printed in 1769?

In which of the actual references that I listed do you say that an actual KJV edition printed at Oxford in 1769 has "Lord"? In some of the verses, both may have been used, but there would also be the exact same one where a 1769 edition has "LORD" while a present Oxford would have "Lord."

[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].

 

Why would a "perfect" translation need to have any correction to it?

 

Good modern versions also hve access to much greater an superior tools to use than the 1611 team had! Such as Lexicons, Grammars, dictionaries, sources etc!

 

The Vulgate is how old now?

 

KJV translators, mostly of the Anglican persuasion, did not receive God breathed information as did those who penned the original autographs, which were not available--still are not available. There are lots of copies of copies which come from two different schools--one seriously corrupted, a fact that is readily apparent. The Received Text came from the better of the two schools.

All textual criticisms, not withstanding, praise God we have an English translation at all. Faith comes by hearing, hearing The Word of God.

What is really curious is what happened to the early English translators: they were hounded and killed, their works burned, by the religious powers that be--Why?

Interesting: the new testament church on the Mayflower(1620) had Geneva Bibles.

The Word does not return void--even in Swahili.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

How do we nee the received texts were the better ones though?

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistency of jots and tittles.

Bro. James

 

Even though they might not have been in the originals?

 

.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To be sure there were over zealous scribes before and after the canon. And some have injected their own theology, which is easy enough to spot. If you have a hundred scribes and ninety five copied the same thing, five did not, there is a preponderance of evidence that the ninety five got it right.

Jewish scribes would throw away a page with one error. Everything had to be just so. There is evidence that some of the existing NT manuscripts were actually copied from trashed documents. Now what?

God said what He meant, meant what He said and we are without excuse. Faith still comes by hearing--hearing The Word of God.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

Another misinformed poster who likes to trash Tischendorf.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good morning Rip,

And the clerics and bureaucrats are still in control. Fear not, the rich and famous are making a comeback. Allah is coming back too. Now what?

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

At least he did not state the ole Alexandrian corrupted text monks edition!

 

Genesis 18:27
LORD (1679, 1720, 1769, 1770, 1771, 1772, 1773, 1776, 1777, 1778, 1782, 1783, 1784, 1787, 1788, 1791, 1792, 1795, 1795e, 1798, 1799, 1800, 1803, 1804, 1808, 1810, 1812, 1816, 1819 Oxford) [1648, 1756, 1760, 1761, 1765, 1767, 1768, 1773, 1775, 1778, 1783, 1790, 1792, 1794, 1795, 1800, 1812, 1816, 1817, 1822, 1824, 2005, 2011 Cambridge] {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1626, 1630, 1631, 1633, 1634, 1640, 1644, 1650, 1652, 1655, 1657, 1684, 1772, 1813, 1814, 1819, 1820, 1824 London} (1712, 1715, 1764, 1787, 1791, 1793, 1796, 1802, 1806, 1810, 1820, 1827, 1834, 1842, 1843, 1855, 1858 Edinburgh) (1722, 1741, 1762, 1782, 1801, 1809 Dublin) (1645 Dutch) (1696, 1700 MP) (1776 Pasham) (1784 Pigunet) (1785 Wilson) (1790, 1804, 1808, 1828, 1833 MH) (1791, 1816 Collins) (1791, 1841 Thomas) (1796 Bowyer) (1802, 1813, 1815 Carey) (1803 Etheridge) (1804 Gower) (1807, 1813 Johnson) (1809, 1810, 1813, 1818, 1826, 1828, 1836 Boston) (1810, 1823, 1832, 1835, 1839 Scott) (1810, 1814 Woodward) (1811 Hewlett) (1815 Walpole) (1816 Albany) (1816, 1832, 1836, 1844, 1848 Hartford) (1816 Mercein) (1818 Holbrook) (Clarke) (1818, 1819, 1827, 1829, 1831, 1843 ABS) (1821, 1831, 1859 Brown) (1823, 1827 Smith) (1824, 1826 Bagster) (1832 PSE) (1832 Wilbur) (1835 Jenks) (1836 Stebbing) (1839, 1845, 1854, 1857, 1876 Harding) (1840 Roby) (1843, 1850, 1856 AFBS) (1843 Robinson) (1846 Portland) (1848 IFB) (1853 Butler) (1855 Perry) (1857 More) (1873 Cooke) (1876 Porter) (1924, 1958 Hertel) (1942 UBBH) (1956 Collins) (1965, 1968 Royal) (1970 TN) (1975 Open) (1976 BH) (CSB) (RRB) (LASB) (CB) (1987 PSI) (2003 EB) (JVIPB) (Dake‘s) (2006 PENG) (2006 PP) (2010 BRO) (2011 AMP) (2011 PJB) (2015, 2016 Barbour) (2015 KAPPA) (1828 Alexander) (1833 WEB)

Lord (1675, 1715, 1747, 1754, 1768 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1638, 1743, 1762, 1769 Cambridge, CCR, DKJB] {1634, 1672, 1703, 1711, 1750, 1760, 1763, 1767 London}

 

You are a master of misinformation BJ.

In your opinion. What about the frequency of places in which it differs from the standard Byzantine text?

 

Your reply had absolutely nothing to do with my post. That's your M.O.

 

Modern versions also have a basket full of heathens and liberals helping out.

 

Do you apply the exact same standards of doctrinal soundness to all Bible translators including the KJV translators?

Can you provide sound evidence that shows that the Church of England makers of the KJV were more sound in doctrine than the NKJV translators?