Did no one make changes to the KJV for 250 years?

[Logos1560]

My preference for the AV isn't based on readability...it's based on what I believe to be accuracy, a 250 year period where no one messed with it, and the fact that it reads almost the same as the ones that came before it. I can point to it, and say, "that is God's word in the English."

What is the 250 year period of time in which you claim that no one messed with or made any changes to the KJV? Are you possibly referring to a period from 1769 until the present?

Have you ever examined an actual KJV edition printed at Oxford in 1769?

 

[Dave G]

I concede.
The floor is yours.



Good day to you, sir.

 

[Logos1560]

The floor is yours.

I asked you a question to see if I understood correctly what you meant by your statement.

I know that a number of KJV-only authors have claimed that today's KJV is the 1769 edition, and some suggest that all errors were removed from the text of the KJV by 1769.

Here are a few example claims made by KJV-only authors.

Timothy Morton contended that "the 1762 and 1769 [editions] were to update the spelling" and that "by 1769 whatever slight textual errors that still remained were removed, and the text was finally free from any man-made error" (Which Translation Should You Trust, p. 42). Morton claimed: “Not one change made in any of the editions of the Authorized Version was to update the language or correct a (supposed) mistranslation” (p. 44). Timothy Morton asserted: “In 1769 the current edition of the King James Bible was published which updated the spelling and removed the last of the ‘typos’” (From the Original Texts, p. 9). Ed DeVries claimed: “None of the ‘revisions’ of the KJV between 1611 and 1769 resulted in the addition, subtraction, and or replacement of one word” (Divinely Inspired, p. 67). Charles A. Barrier maintained that “this [1769] edition is regarded as equal to the edition of 1611, has been used for over 200 years as the standard text for all genuine Authorized King James Version Bibles, and is considered to be free of any spelling, punctuation, capitalization, or grammatical errors” (Looking for the Lamp, p. 26).

Some evidently make claims concerning the 1769 KJV edition without having examined a copy of it.

Today's twenty to thirty varying editions of the KJV are not 100% identical to the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV, and the 1769 edition was not free from any man-made errors. The 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV is said to have had over 100 errors.

All spelling in the KJV was not updated by 1769 since additional spelling updates were made after 1769.

 

[Logos1560]

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).

 

[Logos1560]

In the 1769 Oxford, there were a number of editing inconsistencies, involving several different matters such as spelling, capitalization, use of apostrophes, use of hyphens, use of italics, and use of compound words.

An examination of the 1769 Oxford edition revealed that it has a number of inconsistent and non-standard English spellings, including some cases where the same word was spelled two or more different ways. The 1769 Oxford used both “razor” (Num. 6:5) and “rasor“ (Jud. 16:17, 1 Sam. 1:11, Ps. 52:2, Ezek. 5:1). It has “sycamore” or “sycamores” at some verses such as 1 Kings 10:27, Psalm 78:47, and Amos 7:14 but “sycomore“ or “sycomores” at others such as Isaiah 9:17. It used both “scepter” (Gen. 49:10) and “sceptre” (Heb. 1:8). The 1769 Oxford has both “vallies” and “valleys” along with both “flotes” and “floats.” It has the spelling “yern” but the spelling “yearned” for the past tense. The 1769 Oxford has “ax” at Matthew 3:10 and “axe” at Luke 3:9. It has “wonderously” at Judges 13:19 but “wondrously” at Joel 2:26. The 1769 has “heavy loaden” at Isaiah 46:1 but “heavy laden” at Matthew 11:28. It has “hungred” (Matt. 4:2) and “hungered” (Luke 4:2).

Some examples of inconsistent or non-standard spellings in the 1769 Oxford include “houshold“ (Gen. 18:19), “falsly“ (Gen. 21:23), “ews” (Gen. 31:38), “foles” (Gen. 32:15), “housholds“ (Gen. 43:33), “yern” (Gen. 43:30), “fole” (Gen. 49:11), “lothe” (Exod. 7:18), “waggon” (Num. 7:3), “grashoppers“ (Num. 13:33), “travel“ (Num. 20:14), “milstone” (Deut. 24:6), “befal” (Deut. 31:17), “befel” (Josh. 2:23), “dunghil” (1 Sam. 2:8), “expresly” (1 Sam. 20:21), “bad” (1 Sam. 24:10) “shamelesly“ (2 Sam. 6:20), “falshood” (2 Sam. 18:13), “perversly” (2 Sam. 19:19), “vallies” (1 Kings 20:28), “flotes“ (2 Chron. 2:16), “loath“ (Job 7:16), “noisom“ (Ps. 91:3), “wholsome” (Prov. 15:4), “grashopper” (Eccl. 12:5), “milstones” (Isa. 47:2), “sope“ (Jer. 2:22), “dunghils“ (Lam. 4:5), “waggons” (Ezek. 23:24), “seeth” (Ezek. 24:5), and “carelesly” (Ezek. 39:6). Over 200 spelling changes have been made since 1769 in many present KJV editions. The 1769 Oxford still has the spelling “Judea” in its New Testament instead of the spelling “Judaea” in many later KJV editions, which alone makes for 43 changes. There are other spellings in the 1769 Oxford that remained in many later KJV editions that could properly be considered inconsistent or non-standard English spelling today.

 

[Logos1560]

Perhaps the most common variation in the Old Testament in this data collected from many KJV editions is that between “Lord” and “LORD.” Since a few editions of the KJV in the 1800's have mostly used “Lord” except possibly when it was the first word of a psalm or of a chapter, there could be over 5,000 variations from where “LORD” was used in other editions. Thomas Curtis maintained that “alterations then introduced by the King’s printer” in some London KJV editions “in printing those various Divine names, which are designated by the term Lord” would “involve upwards of 6,500 errors” (Existing Monopoly, pp. 3-4, 11).

Concerning these LORD/Lord variations, Sir Robert H. Inglis, member of Parliament for Oxford University, stated the following in 1837: “In the year 1832, a gentleman of the University, of competent knowledge in the Hebrew language, was engaged to examine all passages in the Hebrew Bible (I believe by Vander Hooght) in which the word ’Lord’ occurs, and to mark those which in the original signified ’Jehovah,’ and the University standard has been corrected by this marked edition” (Reports from Committees, Vol. XIII, p. 48). Did this unidentified person know exactly which edition of the Hebrew Bible that the KJV translators followed so that the same exact edition was used? The statement by Inglis indicated that an edition of the Hebrew text printed by Vander Hooght at Amsterdam (likely the 1705 one) was used instead of any actual edition used by the KJV translators. Was this person aware of other evidence or reasons as to why the 1611, the 1769, or other KJV editions may have had “LORD” in some cases? Is the Hebrew word that would underlie “LORD” in the 1769 Oxford KJV the exact, same Hebrew word as that would underlie “Lord” in many present KJV editions? Did this person in effect make any textual changes to the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV?

The data collected from KJV editions shows that there are actually around 90 places where the change from "LORD" to "Lord" has been made from the 1769 Oxford edition in most present KJV editions [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 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 instead of “GOD.”

The above information listed around 100 differences between the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV and most present KJV editions.

 

[Yeshua1]

I concede.
The floor is yours.



Good day to you, sir.

I believe that Zondervan at one time used the 1894 Schrivener text as basis for its Kjv version.

 

[Logos1560]

Any claim that no one messed with or made changes to the KJV for 250 years would be factually incorrect.

Several editors/printers made changes in their KJV editions after 1769.

There have been several revised editions of the KJV printed since 1769.

The 1873 Cambridge edition by Scrivener is one of them.

 

[Yeshua1]

Any claim that no one messed with or made changes to the KJV for 250 years would be factually incorrect.

Several editors/printers made changes in their KJV editions after 1769.

There have been several revised editions of the KJV printed since 1769.

The 1873 Cambridge edition by Scrivener is one of them.

Has there ever benn one accepted TR/KJV text than?

 

[Dave G]

I asked you a question to see if I understood correctly what you meant by your statement.

No changes other than revisions for spelling and a few other incidentals.
If you count the printing problems, there have been many "changes".

Again, the floor is yours.

 

[Logos1560]

No changes other than revisions for spelling and a few other incidentals.

Have you ever examined an actual KJV edition printed in Oxford in 1769?

The differences between LORD [indicating one Hebrew name for God a few times translated Jehovah] and Lord [indicating a different Hebrew name Adonai] could be considered more important than just an incidental.

Besides the over 100 differences involving LORD/Lord and GOD/God and a few other matters, some places were the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV would differ from most present editions of the KJV include the following Old Testament examples: “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), “in a straight“ (1 Sam. 13:6), “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), “lifted“ (Luke 16:23), “and the truth” (John 14:6), “the names” (Acts 1:15), “Now if do” (Rom. 7:20), “not in unbelief” (Rom. 11:23), “the earth” (1 Cor. 4:13), “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 several missing words at Revelation 18:22.

Some of these differences may be the fault of the printer, but some of them were evidently intentional editing changes made by Benjamin Blayney. Someone evidently shared some of the planned editing changes in the Oxford with someone at Cambridge since a KJV edition printed at Cambridge in 1769 has some of the same ones.

 

[Logos1560]

Someone made changes or messed with the 1769 text in a Cambridge KJV edition in the 1800's.

At some point likely in the early 1800‘s, Cambridge departed from that Oxford standard [especially in its 1816 and 1817 editions] before later returning to a revised edition of it. David Norton indicated that the text in this 1817 Cambridge edition “goes back at least as far as 1805” (Textual History, pp. 125-126). Norton noted: “It is an eclectic combination of old and new work that is most interesting for the number of 1611 readings it restores” (p. 126). Norton also pointed out that “in places some of Blayney’s readings appear” (p. 126). In another book, David Norton wrote: “On occasions a great deal of work was done on the text with no fanfare at all. By 1805, for instance, Cambridge had revised its text, restoring a number of 1611 readings, but it is not clear what principles lay behind this work, nor who did it” (KJB: A Short History, pp. 173-174). A KJV that Cambridge published for the British and Foreign Bible Society and identified as being printed in 1812 has this same text.

The text of a KJV edition printed in Albany, New York, in 1816 and of a KJV edition printed in New York by Collins and Company in 1816 provide additional evidence that this text goes back before 1817. Someone took some time and effort in the editing and making of the text that served as the basis for this 1805/1817 Cambridge edition. Evidently, three or more earlier KJV editions were compared and consulted in its making. For the period that Cambridge printed this stereotype edition [likely from 1805 until 1818 or 1819], it served as a Cambridge standard. This KJV text served as a Cambridge standard for a longer period [14 years] than the earlier 1629 Cambridge edition had been [9 years]. This is a Cambridge standard edition and revision overlooked or ignored by KJV-only authors. Facts from a KJV edition in John Brown’s Self-Interpreting Bible printed in London in 1821 show that it followed much of the same KJV text as that in this 1805/1817 Cambridge edition. Facts from some American editions of the KJV (such as Phinney’s Stereotype Edition, Holbrook’s Stereotype edition, and Harding’s Fine Edition) indicate that they have been influenced by the same KJV text that was the basis for this 1805/1817 Cambridge edition. A KJV edition printed in 1827 in New York by Daniel Smith and stereotyped by J. Howe and a KJV edition printed in 1835 in Philadelphia by Alexander Toward also may have been influenced by it. These KJV editions in the early 1800’s would suggest that the 1769 Oxford edition was not firmly established as the standard or was not yet known or recognized as the standard by all printers of the KJV. In addition, this 1805/1817 Cambridge edition may also have had some influence on the later 1873 and 2005 Cambridge editions.

 

[Dave G]

Have you ever examined an actual KJV edition printed in Oxford in 1769?

No, but I have examined a Bishop's Bible circa 1602 and it reads very close to the copy of the 1611 AV that I also compared.

I respect your research.

I just happen to disagree with you that I cannot trust the AV to be the word of God in English...at least that is what you seem to be saying.

 

[Logos1560]

A KJV edition overlooked or ignored by many KJV-only advocates is the 1873 edition by Scrivener.

KJV defender Edward Hills noted: "In the 19th century the most important edition of the King James Version was the Cambridge Paragraph Bible (1873), with F. H. A. Scrivener as its editor" (KJV Defended, p. 217). David Norton indicated that Scrivener was “more conservative” as an editor than Blayney (Textual History, p. 124). He described this edition by Scrivener as “by far the most substantial and responsible work on the text after the work of the translators themselves” (p. 122). W. F. Moulton maintained that "the Cambridge Paragraph Bible, edited by Dr. Scrivener, is the classic edition of the Authorised Version, and is a monument of minute accuracy and unsparing labour" (History of the English Bible, p. 211). Dean John Burgon wrote: “English readers are reminded that Dr. Scrivener’s is the only classical edition of the English Bible” (Revision Revised, p. 238 note). In its review of this 1873 Cambridge edition in 1878, The London Quarterly Review stated: “The true restorers are critics like Dr. Scrivener, who set themselves to remove modern additions and bring out the original fabric in its ancient form and outline. Such a work demands high qualifications of learning, judgment, and discriminative skill, as well as great care and labour; and of all these the present work furnishes conspicuous proof” (Vol. 49, p. 451). In 1885, P. W. Raidabaugh wrote: “The most accurate edition, in all respects, of the Authorized Version ever published is the one issued from the Cambridge Press in 1873, under the editorship of the Rev. F. H. Scrivener” (History, p. 62). In 1912, John Brown asserted that Scrivener’s 1873 edition “has ever since been regarded, as for correctness, the standard text of the Authorised Version” (History, p. 111). William Mounce maintained that this 1873 edition is “the best English KJV text” (Greek for the Rest of Us, p. 169). Donald Brake wrote: “Scrivener’s edition was the most accurate of all the Authorized Bibles” (Visual History, p. 215). Henry Barker wrote: “The best modern critical edition of the Authorized Version of 1611 is Dr. Scrivener’s Cambridge Edition of 1873” (English Bible, p. 187). The introduction of the 2001 Strongest Strong's Concordance identified it as "the best modern edition of KJV" (p. x). This introduction noted that "Scrivener was commissioned by Cambridge University Press to create a standardized edition of the KJV to eliminate all of the errors and inconsistencies that had crept into the text" (p. x).

In a footnote, Norton noted that this 1873 edition “was used as the text for the finely-printed Doves Press limited edition of 1905” (Textual History, p. 123). Edwin Rumball-Petre described the 1903-1905 Doves Press Bible edited by Scrivener as “one of the typographical masterpieces of all time” (Rare Bibles, p. 24). The text of this 1873 KJV edition was also used as the text in The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges that was printed in the early 1900‘s. In his history of Bible printing at Cambridge, W. H. T. Wrede suggested that Scrivener’s edition “remains the standard of the Authorised Version text at Cambridge” to his present day (Short History, p. 18). In his 1902 Book of Psalms, A. F. Kirkpatrick referred to Scrivener’s as “the standard edition of the A.V. from which the text in this edition is taken” (p. lxi). Jack Lewis maintained that “Blayney’s [1769] edition became the standard edition until the publication of the Cambridge Paragraph Bible, edited by Scrivener in 1873” (English Bible, p. 39). The New Testament of this 1873 KJV was printed in The New Testament Octapla in the 1960's. This entire 1873 edition is reprinted in the 2002 Zondervan KJV Study Bible so it is again available. KJV-only author David Daniels recommended “the KJV Study Bible by Zondervan” (Answers, p. 130). In a 2000 Zondervan KJV edition, John Kohlenberger III wrote: “In The KJV Gift and Award Bible, Zondervan conforms its setting of the King James or Authorized Version to its most highly regarded edition: the Cambridge Paragraph Bible of 1873, edited by F. H. A. Scrivener” (p. vii). Therefore, since 2000, some other Zondervan KJV editions are also based on this 1873 edition with a few spelling updates such as “more” instead of ‘moe.“ Some KJV editions printed by Hendrickson Publishers are also based on this 1873 edition. Such an edition printed in 2008 was identified as “fifth printing Hendrickson Publishers Edition.“ This Hendrickson edition is printed in verse form instead of paragraph form. This 1873 KJV edition is also used as the basis for the new Strongest Strong's Concordance.

 

[Logos1560]

This 1873 and present KJV edition has "strain out" at Matthew 23:24 instead of "strain at." It has "profession of our hope" at Hebrews 10:23 instead of "profession of our faith." At John 10:25, this 1873 edition has "ye believe not" in agreement with several of the earlier English Bibles while most present KJV's have "ye believed not." At Acts 25:23, it has "were entered" in agreement with several earlier English Bibles while most KJV's have "was entered" following the Bishops' Bible. This 1873 edition has "thy mercy's sake" (Psalm 6:4, 31:16, 44:26) for the Oxford edition's "thy mercies' sake," “fathers‘ house“ for “father‘s house“ (1 Chron. 7:2, Ezra 2:59, Neh. 7:61), “heart’s lust” for “hearts’ lust” (Ps. 81:12), “Adder‘s poison“ for “adders‘ poison“ (Ps. 140:3), “fools‘ back” for “fool‘s back“ (Prov. 26:3), “merchant’s ships” for “merchants’ ships” (Prov. 31:14), “priests‘” for “priest’s” (Ezek. 44:30), “potter’s clay” for “potters’ clay” (Dan. 2:41), and “oaths’ sake” for “oath’s sake” (Matt. 14:9, Mark 6:26). From the second 1611 “She” edition, it has “possession“ for “possessions“ (Gen. 47:27), “ye shall“ for “shall ye“ (Lev. 18:30), “thou shalt“ for “shalt thou“ (Num. 10:2), “the valleys“ for “valleys“ (Deut. 8:7), “it is true“ for “it be true“ (Deut. 17:4), “she rose“ for “she arose“ (1 Kings 3:20), “bondman“ for “bondmen“ (1 Kings 9:22), “maidens“ for “maids“ (Job 19:15), “thine hand“ for “thy hand“ (Isa. 64:8), “mine hands” for “my hands” (Isa. 65:2), “mine hand” for “my hand” (Jer. 25:15, Ezek. 6:14), “with the sword“ for “by the sword“ (Ezek. 31:18), “in pieces“ for “to pieces“ (Dan. 2:34), and “they be drunken“ for “they are drunken“ (Nahum 1:10).

The text of this KJV edition is more in agreement with the 1611 “he” edition than are most other present KJV editions. Scrivener presented a list of the places in his 1873 edition that he restored 1611 readings (Authorized Edition, pp. 215-237). The Old Testament of this edition has “you“ for “ye“ (Gen. 9:4), “Girgashite“ for “Girgasite“ (Gen. 10:16), “towards“ for “toward“ (Gen. 15:5), “this thing“ for “this thing also“ (Gen. 19:21), “lift“ for “lifted“ (Gen. 22:4), “amongst“ for “among“ (Gen. 23:10), “to him“ for “unto him“ (Gen. 25:33), “Philistims“ for “Philistines“ (Gen. 26:1), "hand” for “hands” (Gen. 39:1), “spirit” for “Spirit” (Gen. 41:38), “drunk“ for “drank“ (Gen. 43:34), “Haste you“ for “Haste ye“ (Gen. 45:9), “And you“ for “And ye“ (Gen. 45:13), “any man” for “any men” (Gen. 47:6), “you did“ for “ye did“ (Exod. 10:11), “consecrations“ for “consecration“ (Exod. 29:26), “clothes“ for “cloths“ (Exod. 31:10), “stript“ for “stripped“ (Exod. 33:6), “manner fat“ for “manner of fat“ (Lev. 7:23), “nor scales“ for “and scales“ (Lev. 11:10), “were“ for “are“ (Lev. 25:23), “river side“ for “river‘s side“ (Num. 24:6), “begun“ for “began“ (Num. 25:1), “thy hand“ for “thine hand“ (Deut. 2:24), “thy heart“ for “thine heart“ (Deut. 15:7), “thy oil“ for “thine oil“ (Deut. 18:4), “all lost thing“ for “all lost things“ (Deut. 22:3), “noondays“ for “noonday“ (Deut. 28:29), “even the Lord” for “of the Lord” (Josh. 3:11), “or Sheba“ for “and Sheba“ (Josh. 19:2), “spirit” for “Spirit” (Jud. 3:10), “a hammer“ for “an hammer“ (Jud. 4:21), “he went” for “she went” (Ruth 3:15), “girt“ for “girded“ (1 Sam. 2:4), “my heart“ for “mine heart“ (1 Sam. 2:35), “in the fields” for “in the field” (1 Sam. 20:5), “wrapt“ for “wrapped“ (1 Sam. 21:9), “rose“ for “arose“ (1 Sam. 24:8), “a hill“ for “an hill“ (1 Sam. 26:13), “thy word“ for “thy words“ (1 Kings 3:12), “the LORD“ for “the Lord“ (1 Kings 8:56), “flotes“ for “floats“ (1 Kings 5:9), “son” for “sons” (1 Kings 13:11), “leese“ for “lose“ (1 Kings 18:5), “a horse “ for “an horse“ (1 Kings 20:20), “neesed“ for “sneezed“ (2 Kings 4:35), “kab“ for “cab“ (2 Kings 6:25), “to give to him“ for “to give him“ (2 Kings 8:19), “Geshan“ for “Gesham“ (1 Chron. 2:47), “Shimron“ for “Shimrom“ (1 Chron. 7:2), “men of might” for “valiant men of might” (1 Chron. 7:5), “son“ for “sons“ (1 Chron. 7:35), “Michah“ for “Micah“ (1 Chron. 23:20), “and laid” for “and they laid” (2 Chron. 29:23), “sin“ for “sins“ (2 Chron. 33:19), “and gold” for “and the gold” (Ezra 7:18), “built“ for “builded“ (Neh. 3:1), “cruddled“ for “curdled“ (Job 10:10), “sent“ for “scent“ (Job 14:9), “flying” for “fleeing” (Job 30:3), “the LORD“ for “the Lord“ (Ps. 2:4), “whiles” for “while” (Ps. 49:18), “holy Spirit“ for “holy spirit“ (Ps. 51:11), “Zion“ for “Sion“ (Ps. 65:1), “stablish“ for “establish“ (Ps. 89:4), “snare” for “snares” (Ps. 141:9), “vapour” for “vapors” (Ps. 148:8), “beareth“ for “bear“ (Song of Solomon 4:2), “mixt“ for “mixed“ (Isa. 1:22), “Get you” for “Get you” (Isa. 30:11), “burnt“ for “burned“ (Jer. 1:16), “nor daughters” for “or daughters” (Jer. 16:2), “sith“ for “since“ (Jer. 23:38), “afterwards” for “afterward” (Jer. 34:11), “word which“ for “word that“ (Jer. 40:1), “utter court” for “outer court” (Ezek. 10:5), “cropt“ for “cropped“ (Ezek. 17:4), “And the word” for “The word” (Ezek. 18:1), “ebeny“ for “ebony“ (Ezek. 27:15), “astrologians“ for “astrologers“ (Dan. 2:27), “a whirlwind” for “the whirlwind” (Hos. 13:3), “ript“ for “ripped“ (Hos. 13:16), “Kerioth“ for “Kirioth“ (Amos 2:2), “flieth” for “fleeth” (Nah. 3:16), and “Lord GOD“ for “LORD God“ (Hab. 3:19).

In the New Testament, this 1873 and present KJV edition has “but will” for “but he will” (Matt. 3:12), “Spirit“ for “spirit“ (Matt. 4:1), “a hungred“ for “an hungred“ (Matt. 4:2), “out the devils“ for “out devils“ (Matt. 9:34), “Is this“ for “Is not this“ (Matt. 12:23), “had not root” for “had no root” (Matt. 13:6), “a hymn“ for “an hymn“ (Matt. 26:30), “ought“ for “owed“ (Luke 7:41), “he said“ for “he had said“ (Luke 8:8), “to my Lord“ for “unto my Lord“ (Luke 20:42), “They say” for “They said” (John 11:34), “Canaan“ for “Chanaan“ (Acts 7:11, 13:19), “house“ for “housetop“ (Acts 10:9), “law of the husband“ for “law of her husband“ (Rom. 7:2), “approved to death” for “appointed to death” (1 Cor. 4:9), “hand“ for “hands“ (2 Cor. 5:1), “think you“ for “think ye“ (2 Cor. 12:19), “passed“ for “past“ (Eph. 2:11), “shamefastness” for “shamefacedness” (1 Tim. 2:9), “or by our epistle“ for “or our epistle“ (1 Thess. 2:15), “which doeth“ for “that doeth“ (1 John 2:29), “precious stone” for “precious stones” (Rev. 17:4), “sailers“ for “sailors“ (Rev. 18:17), “dipt” for “dipped” (Rev. 19:13), and several others. Do all these differences or alterations mean that KJV-only advocates do or do not accept this edition as having the same text? If they condemn the restoration of several 1611 readings, are they also in effect condemning the 1611 edition for having them? Is this 1873 edition acceptable and reliable? Some renderings accepted in other present KJV editions may have come from this 1873 edition. Since this KJV edition is presently available, it demonstrates that there are a large number of variations between present KJV editions.

 

[Dave G]

* Bows out *

No more posts from me, good sir.
I can see that you are well-versed on your research, and I wish you all the best.


May God bless you greatly.

 

[Logos1560]

I just happen to disagree with you that I cannot trust the AV to be the word of God in English...at least that is what you seem to be saying.

That is not what I have said.

The KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense that the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the 1560 Geneva Bible are and in the same sense that post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV are.

There have been some editing inconsistencies, imperfections, or errors introduced by men in editions of the KJV, but overall the KJV is a good translation in the same sense as the Geneva Bible is a good translation or that the NKJV is a good translation.

I have compared the 1611 KJV in many places with the text of the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible, and there are some significant differences.

 

[Logos1560]

No, but I have examined a Bishop's Bible circa 1602 and it reads very close to the copy of the 1611 AV that I also compared.

The text of the 1602 Bishops' Bible would be very close to the 1611 KJV in the same sense as the text of the KJV is very close to the NKJV.

Glenn Conjurske pointed out: “One evident blemish of the Bishops’ Bible lies in its frequent flat and unnecessary additions in brackets [or italics]” (Olde Paths, March, 1996, p. 57). Blackford Condit maintained that “the text of the Bishops’ Bible is weakened still more by the introduction of explanatory words and phrases; a seeming attempt to expound as well as translate the original text” (History, p. 286). Concerning the Bishops‘ Bible, Scrivener asserted that “it is one of the most considerable faults of this not very successful version, that its authors assumed a liberty of running into paraphrase” (Authorized Edition, p. 62).

The Bishops’ Bible added the words “in companies” at Genesis 14:15. It added: “shall he bear out“ (Lev. 4:11), “of the altar“ (Num. 18:9), “Ye shall number the people“ (Num. 26:4), “That is to wit“ (Num. 31:43), and “as upon an horse“ (Deut. 32:26) Some other example additions include the following: “otherwise called“ (Jud. 8:35), “so shall my house be, but not“ (2 Sam. 23:4), “as namely” (1 Kings 6:29), “that is to wit” (1 Kings 9:10), “offence which Solomon hath committed“ (1 Kings 11:39), “with your cry” (1 Kings 18:27), “that came in his way” (1 Kings 20:20), “in the ceremonies“ (2 Kings 17:8), “I beseech thee” (2 Kings 19:16), “O thou king of Assyria“ (2 Kings 19:21), “even so deal with me“ (2 Chron. 2:3), and “shall this building be“ (2 Chron. 2:6). At the end of Job 9:24, it added: “that can shew the contrary.“ It added “to God” at Job 35:14. In the middle of Psalm 139:20, this addition is found: “thou art O God.“ At the end of Isaiah 1:7, it added: “in the time of war.“ After the word “replenish” at Isaiah 2:6, it added “with evils,“ and it added “the wicked ones of” before “the earth” at the end of Isaiah 2:19 and 2:21. In the middle of Isaiah 3:14, this addition is found: “and shall say to them.“ These words are found in a different size type at the end of Isaiah 3:18: “after the fashion of the moon.“ In the middle of Isaiah 8:19, these additional words are found: “then make them this answer.“ At the beginning of Jeremiah 4:22, it added: “Nevertheless, this shall come upon them.“ At Jeremiah 28:9, it has this addition: “if God hath sent them in very deed.“ It added “when ye had gotten the victory” at the end of Jeremiah 50:11. At the end of Jeremiah 50:28, it added “yea, a voice of them that cry against Babylon.“ At Ezekiel 28:14, it added this phrase: “in this dignity.“ The words “their sacrifices” were added at the end of Ezekiel 40:41. At Ezekiel 45:2, the Bishops’ Bible has the following two additions in a different size type: “in length” and “in breadth.” This chapter has another addition [“a portion shall be” (45:7)]. At the beginning of Daniel 7:20, six words were added [“I desired …to know the truth”]. After “Loruhamah” in Hosea 1:6, it added: “that is, not obtaining mercy.“ Likewise, it added after “Loammi” in Hosea 1:9: “that is, not my people.“ More Old Testament examples could be given.

More such examples of additions are also found in its New Testament. Would Bradley, Riplinger, and other KJV-only advocates consider the Bishops' Bible's addition at John 18:13 ["And Annas sent Christ bound unto Caiaphas the high priest"] to be a faithful or perfect translation? At John 18:22, the Bishops' Bible has the rendering "smote Jesus with a rod." The Bishops’ Bible inserted “the fishers” at Matthew 13:48. At Matthew 26:30, the Bishops’ began as follows: "when they had praised God." After “preparing” at John 19:31, it inserted “of the Sabboth.“ It added "of the synagogue" in italics or a different size type at Matthew 9:18 and 9:23, "of God" at Matthew 26:64, "of the gospel" at Mark 2:2, “from the region which is“ at Mark 3:8, “at his feet“ at Mark 3:11 and Luke 8:47, “And said“ at Mark 10:7, “of God“ at Mark 14:62, “of the city“ at Mark 15:43, “unto them“ at Luke 8:10, “of their sins” at Luke 10:13, “at the doors“ at Luke 14:35, “and no man gave unto him“ at Luke 16:21, “the means“ at John 5:16, “the means“ at John 6:57, “as though he heard them not” at John 8:6, “on high“ at John 8:28, “unto you“ at John 16:15, “any question“ at John 16:30, “unto them“ at Acts 2:41, “unto him“ at Acts 8:37, “one Scripture with another“ at Acts 9:22, “that is“ at Acts 15:22, “that is to say“ at Acts 15:29, “of the Lord“ at Acts 19:9, “that is to say“ at Acts 28:25, “the inheritance given“ at Romans 4:16, “election“ at Romans 9:16, “I mean“ at Romans 9:24, “nations“ at Romans 11:32, “not only before God, but also“ at Romans 12:17, "I did not mean" at 1 Corinthians 5:10, and “the shedding of“ at Hebrews 12:4. At the end of 1 Corinthians 9:25, it added “to obtain” before “an incorruptible” and “crown” after it. At the end of Revelation 9:11, it added “that is to say, a destroyer.“

 

[Yeshua1]

No, but I have examined a Bishop's Bible circa 1602 and it reads very close to the copy of the 1611 AV that I also compared.

I respect your research.

I just happen to disagree with you that I cannot trust the AV to be the word of God in English...at least that is what you seem to be saying.

He is NOY saying that at all, he and the rest of us here are just sayimg that while the Kjv is indeed the word of God to us in a n English translations, its not the only one from God.
That is a common fallacy I have seen, as the KJVO will many times state that I see the Kjv as a bad version, just because I do not agee with it being theonly one!

 

[HankD]

Apart from the originals everything man touches becomes prone to error.

If one is looking to assign blame it is our fault not God's.

James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.