Does "the Holy Bible" refer solely and exclusively to the KJV?

[Logos1560]

One recent poster repeated used the name "the Holy Bible" without identifying clearly to what he referred. Reading his posts would suggest that he likely used it solely and exclusively for the 1611 KJV.

Does the name "the Holy Bible" always refer to only or solely the KJV?
Does the KJV have sole and exclusive rights to this name "the Holy Bible"?
Was the name "the Holy Bible" used for any other English translation before 1611?

The 1611 KJV was both a revision of earlier English translations (Tyndale's to Bishops') and a translation of the printed original-language text editions of Scripture.

The 1560 Geneva Bible had the following title on its title page:

The Bible and Holy Scriptures contained in the Old and New Testament, translated according to the Hebrew and Greek.

The 1568 Bishops' Bible had the following on its title page:

The Holy Bible, containing the Old Testament and the New
Authorised and appointed to be read in churches.

The 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible, which is the edition prepared by the printers of the 1611 KJV and given to the KJV translators as the starting point in English for their work, had the following on its title page:

The Holy Bible, containing the Old Testament and the New
Authorised and appointed to be read in churches

Thus, the 1611 KJV was not the first to have this title or name the Holy Bible. The 1611 KJV merely kept this name from the title page of the Bishops' Bible, even though the Church of England makers of the KJV made hundreds and thousands of changes to the text of the Bishops' Bible.

Some editions of the KJV were printed with the title The Holy Bible containing the Old Testament and New while other editions were printed with the title The Holy Bible containing the Old and New Testaments.

The 1833 Webster's Bible had the following on its title page:

The Holy Bible containing the Old and New Testaments in the common version with amendments to the language by Noah Webster.

In 1842, an English Bible had the following on its title page:

The Holy Bible, being the English Version of the Old and New Testament, made by order of King James I,
carefully revised and amended by several Biblical scholars.
Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1842.

In 1901, the American Standard Version was published with this title:

The Holy Bible containing the Old and New Testaments translated out of the original tongues.

A. D. 1901
Standard Edition
New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1901.

Based on actual facts, use of the general name "the Holy Bible" would not actually identify accurately which English Bible translation is being mentioned.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Which one is the holy bible?

1611 or 1769? Or any KJV updated in between?

Oxford or Cambridge?

 

[Rob_BW]

Seems a bit Anglocentric.

 

[Logos1560]

Which one is the holy bible?

The absolutely perfect one "the Holy Bible" is the one given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles.

Imperfect men introduced a number of variations and differences whether unintentionally or intentionally or both in their copying of the original-language Scriptures. Because of the small percentage of variations, different textual critics have compiled and produced printed original-language text editions with some differences. Some differences in Bible translations is because of the variations in their underlying original-language texts, but the larger percentage of differences is because of difference in translation decisions.

The one the Holy Bible has been translated into many languages including in English..

A number of histories of our English Bible treat the varying pre-1611 English Bibles and the 1611 KJV as being one English Bible and a number of them include post-1611 English Bibles as also being the same basic English Bible.

In a broad general sense, some refer to "our English Bible" including more than one English translation in their meaning since the term is especially used to include the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision.

If the focus is on differences, there are many English Bible translations.

In a broad general sense, there is one KJV although it has actually been printed in many varying editions from 1611 until today. There may be as many as 100 or more varying editions with one or more differences.

If the focus is on differences, there is not one completely identical KJV text that has remained exactly the same in all KJV editions from 1611 until today. The varying KJV editions in the 1600's had differences with the varying KJV editions printed in the 1700's. The varying KJV editions in the 1700's had differences with the varying KJV editions printed in the 1800's.

In a broad general sense, there is a Cambridge edition of the KJV. In 2011, Cambridge printed at least five or six editions that had variations or differences with each other. What many today refer to as the Cambridge is actually a post-1900 Cambridge edition in which some 1873 Cambridge editing decisions by Scrivener were adopted. The pre-1873 Cambridge edition text was more like the Oxford editions of the 1800's. Today's KJV editions are not 100% identical in text to the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV.

 

[Logos1560]

Oxford or Cambridge?

There have been varying standard Cambridge editions of the KJV such as the 1629 Cambridge, the 1638 Cambridge, the 1743 Cambridge, the 1762 Cambridge, the 1805/1817 Cambridge, the 1873 Cambridge.
In a number of cases, it was actually a standard Cambridge edition that introduced or standardized a rendering that would be characterized as being an Oxford rendering after 1900.

What seems usually or generally referred to as an Oxford edition of the KJV and as an Cambridge edition of the KJV would be post-1900 editions.

These two editions are considered different based on only three to ten main variations (Josh. 19:2, 2 Chron. 33:19, Ps. 107:27, Ps. 148:8, Jer. 34:16, Nahum 3:16, Matthew 26:39, and Mark 1:19) with the underlined four being the main ones. There could also be as many as twenty spelling differences of some proper names between a typical 1900's Oxford KJV edition, which follows 1769 Oxford spellings of these names, and a typical 1900's Cambridge edition, which may follow Scrivener's 1873 Cambridge editions, which returned to 1611 spellings. It was also the 1873 Cambridge, which reintroduced the renderings in the verses I mentioned that are considered typical of Cambridge 1900's editions while 1800's Cambridge KJV editions typically had the same renderings as 1800's Oxford KJV editions.

Joshua 19:2
Beer-sheba, Sheba (1769 Oxford then 1787 to 1831) (1769 Cambridge to 1833 excluding 1805/1817)

Beer-sheba, or Sheba (Oxford Classic) (1611 London) (1817, 1873 Cambridge and post-1900 Cambridge]

Beer-sheba, and Sheba (1675 Oxford to 1768, 1770 to 1784, and many post-1900) (1629, 1638, 1743, 1762 Cambridge)

 

[Logos1560]

In my research of KJV editions, I have found that publishers/printers have not always been consistent in printing a certain edition. The same publisher may print KJV editions that have differences with each other.

A post-1900 Cambridge Concord edition of the KJV typically has some differences with a post-1900 Cambridge Pitt Minion edition of the KJV. I have seen a Pitt Minion edition of the KJV that seems to have the Cambridge Concord text.

Here are the places I have found where a Concord edition may typically differs from a Pitt Minion edition.

Exodus 23:23
and the Hivites [Pitt Minion]
the Hivites [Concord]

2 Samuel 15:12 [also at Romans 11:34]
counseller [Pitt Minion]
counsellor [Concord]

1 Chronicles 2:55
Hammath [Pitt Minion]
Hemath [Concord]

1 Chronicles 13:5
Hamath [Pitt Minion]
Hemath [Concord]

Ezra 7:14
counsellers [Pitt Minion]
counsellors [Concord]

Amos 6:14
Hamath [Pitt Minion]
Hemath [Concord]

Acts 3:7
ancle [Pitt Minion]
ankle [Concord]

Acts 11:12
the spirit [Pitt Minion]
the Spirit [Concord]

Acts 11:28
the spirit [Pitt Minion]
the Spirit [Concord]

Acts 19:39
iniquire [Pitt Minion]
enquire [Concord]

 

[Logos1560]

Does the name "the Holy Bible" always refer to only or solely the KJV?

The correct answer according to the actual facts is no.

Does the KJV have sole and exclusive rights to this name "the Holy Bible"?

The correct answer according to the facts is no.

Was the name "the Holy Bible" used for any other English translation before 1611?

The correct answer according to the facts is yes.

The name "the Holy Bible" was also used for other English Bible translations after 1611.

 

[Forever Settled]

The correct answer

Asking yourself questions......then answering them yourself ????

YOU are your own final authority.

ROFLOL

 

[Yeshua1]

The absolutely perfect one "the Holy Bible" is the one given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles.

Imperfect men introduced a number of variations and differences whether unintentionally or intentionally or both in their copying of the original-language Scriptures. Because of the small percentage of variations, different textual critics have compiled and produced printed original-language text editions with some differences. Some differences in Bible translations is because of the variations in their underlying original-language texts, but the larger percentage of differences is because of difference in translation decisions.

The one the Holy Bible has been translated into many languages including in English..

A number of histories of our English Bible treat the varying pre-1611 English Bibles and the 1611 KJV as being one English Bible and a number of them include post-1611 English Bibles as also being the same basic English Bible.

In a broad general sense, some refer to "our English Bible" including more than one English translation in their meaning since the term is especially used to include the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision.

If the focus is on differences, there are many English Bible translations.

In a broad general sense, there is one KJV although it has actually been printed in many varying editions from 1611 until today. There may be as many as 100 or more varying editions with one or more differences.

If the focus is on differences, there is not one completely identical KJV text that has remained exactly the same in all KJV editions from 1611 until today. The varying KJV editions in the 1600's had differences with the varying KJV editions printed in the 1700's. The varying KJV editions in the 1700's had differences with the varying KJV editions printed in the 1800's.

In a broad general sense, there is a Cambridge edition of the KJV. In 2011, Cambridge printed at least five or six editions that had variations or differences with each other. What many today refer to as the Cambridge is actually a post-1900 Cambridge edition in which some 1873 Cambridge editing decisions by Scrivener were adopted. The pre-1873 Cambridge edition text was more like the Oxford editions of the 1800's. Today's KJV editions are not 100% identical in text to the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV.

Have there been any Kjv version that used the 1984 Greek Text as its base?

 

[Yeshua1]

Asking yourself questions......then answering them yourself ????

YOU are your own final authority.

ROFLOL

He is right on in this area though!

 

[Forever Settled]

He is right on in this area though!

Said the groupie.

 

[Logos1560]

The Holy Bible a.k.a. King James Bible 1611

Did you finally admit what you mean by your vague, inconsistent use of "the Holy Bible"?

Your selective use of the words for only the KJV is not in agreement with the actual facts. In contradiction to the wisdom from God above, do you show partiality to one exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611?

 

[Yeshua1]

Said the groupie.

No, as Logos1560 knows more than you do in this area!

 

[Logos1560]

Asking yourself questions......then answering them yourself ????

KJV-only advocates will not answer questions that would expose their inconsistent, unsound KJV-only reasoning. Actual facts provided the answers to the questions.

YOU are your own final authority.

Your statement is not true. I have not made that claim. You improperly try to put words in my mouth or in my mind that are not my claim.

God is the final authority.

The Scriptures given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles and preserved by God are the proper standard and greater authority for the making and trying of Bible translations.

I also accept the proper derived or secondary authority of Bible translations.

 

[Logos1560]

Is it interesting that KJV-only posters may rate some posts that state the truth as funny?

Is that a possible way to avoid dealing with the truth or to avoid discussing the truth?

 

[Logos1560]

Why not tell us your tear jerking story of the sacrifices you made in order to be a Critic God’s word .

Since I am not a critic of God's word given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles, your question would be invalid.

I am practicing and applying scriptural truths when I affirm that errors introduced by men are not the words of God and that words added by men are not the words of God. I would also be agreeing with the KJV translators and their practice of correcting what they considered to be errors in Bible translations.

Readers can see how you do not apply the same exact measures/standards to the Church of England makers of the KJV that you inconsistently attempt to apply to other Bible translators.

Perhaps you show that you do not practice what you preach since you may be a critic of God's word when translated into present-day standard English such as in the NKJV.

2 Timothy 3:7
7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Does this verse actually describe KJV-only advocates who choose not to come to the knowledge of the truth that would refute their human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning?

When some KJV-only advocates come to the knowledge of the truth, they give up their erroneous KJV-only reasoning and become former KJV-only advocates.

 

[Dave G]

Said the groupie.

Please, gentlemen.
Let's be kind?
Both "sides" are sniping, from my perspective.

FS,
Let's remember our Lord's command to be gentle to all and to have our speech seasoned with salt for the purposes of building one another up ( Colossians 4:6, Ephesians 4:29 ), and not to tear one another down.


We all know the arguments about this issue...

Some feel that all the English translations are "God's word", even though when carefully compared, there are pieces missing ( or "added", depending on one's view ) or even changed between popular translations.
Some feel, as I do, that the fox has been let into the hen house, and needs to be shot forthwith.
But there's no easy way to do it without the risk of hitting the hens.

The question has been posed:

Does "the Bible" refer exclusively to the AV?
Until I'm convinced that there is a new, "best" translation in the English, then to me it does.
...which is why I'm mostly alone in my fellowship with professing believers.

Until someone can hand me an English translation that is completely faithful and accurate to the TR ( and by extension the "Majority Text" ), I will always suspect the devil's hand in it.
Does it have to be a "KJV"?
No.

But if I see things missing, changed or added when compared to my trusty AV, I'm going to set it back on the table, call it "corrupt" and distance myself far from it.



Finally:

What I wouldn't give to go back 200 years to when there was only one popular and widespread English translation in America, the British isles and the rest of the English-speaking world...at least in the "Protestant" churches.
One could pick up "the Bible", and no one would argue which one was God's word, because for the most part, there were no others around.
One could walk into any Baptist church in the land, ask for a Bible, and one would get handed an AV.
One could walk into a Baptist church, hear the preaching of God's word, and there wasn't any doubt which "Bible" was being preached from.



Oh, for the days.
But those days are long gone, and I look for His coming very soon.
To me, it's a sign of the times.


Keep an eye on Jerusalem, my brothers and sisters...the next event is very near.

 

[Logos1560]

Until someone can hand me an English translation that is completely faithful and accurate to the TR ( and by extension the "Majority Text" ), I will always suspect the devil's hand in it.
Does it have to be a "KJV"?
No.
.

The KJV itself is not completely faithful and accurate to any one edition of the Textus Receptus available to the KJV translators.

Overall, the NKJV is just as faithful and accurate to the TR as the KJV is.

In at least places, the NKJV is more faithful and accurate to the TR than the KJV is.

 

[Logos1560]

What I wouldn't give to go back 200 years to when there was only one popular and widespread English translation in America, the British isles and the rest of the English-speaking world...at least in the "Protestant" churches.

Back 200 years, Wesley's Bible may have been found in a number of churches in America, especially Methodist churches. Wesley's New Testament was first printed in 1755 with a whole Bible printed later.

Peter Ruckman claimed as fact that the Received Text "is the text of Martin Luther's translation, John Wesley's translation, and also every translation that God used on the mission field from 1600 to 1901" (Bible Babel, p. 72). By his own statement, Ruckman in effect stated that the 1755 Wesley's New Testament belongs on his good tree. In his "Biblical line" in his book Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, Ruckman included "the evangelistic preaching of Wesley" (p. 172). Ruckman wrote: “Wesley’s life and preaching were ruled by one Book, even though he translated some of his own” (History of N. T. Church, II, p. 26). Laurence Vance, another KJV-only advocate, claimed that Wesley's translation "was based on the Authorized Version" (Brief History, p. 39). William Grady also commended Wesley when he asked: "How do today's scholars compare to men like John Wesley" (Final Authority, p. 175). Stauffer maintained that "John Wesley understood the value of the scriptures" (One Book Stands, p. 271). Morton observed: "John Wesley (1703-1791), the greater founder of Methodism, preached nearly 42,000 sermons and led tens of thousands to Christ" (Which Translation, p. 47). Bob Bevington wrote that “John Wesley knew the value of holy Scripture” (Bible Broadcaster, March, 2002, p. 2).

David Daniell pointed out that Wesley’s translation “was extremely popular in the USA” (Bible in English, p. 536). Chamberlin noted that the first American edition of Wesley’s N. T. was printed in Philadelphia in 1791 (Catalogue, p. 538). He listed some other American editions as being printed in 1806, 1812, 1818, 1839, 1844, and he indicated that there were “many other” editions (p. 539).

 

[Logos1560]

What I wouldn't give to go back 200 years to when there was only one popular and widespread English translation in America, the British isles and the rest of the English-speaking world...at least in the "Protestant" churches.
One could pick up "the Bible", and no one would argue which one was God's word, because for the most part, there were no others around.
One could walk into any Baptist church in the land, ask for a Bible, and one would get handed an AV.
One could walk into a Baptist church, hear the preaching of God's word, and there wasn't any doubt which "Bible" was being preached from.

Back around 200 years ago, the "Baptist" Bible may have been handed to some who walked into a Baptist church or may have been preached from some pulpit.

An edition of the KJV "carefully revised and amended by several Biblical scholars" was published in Philadelphia by J. B. Lippincott in 1842. The Biblical scholars included some Baptists such as David Bernard and A. C. Kendrick. In the preface, David Bernard wrote: “In the present work, nothing beyond a careful revision of the version of King James has been attempted; followed by such corrections as the interests of truth and the original text seemed to require.“ The 1842 edition also has a preface to the New Testament that was written by A. C. Kendrick that indicates that he was the editor of at least its N. T. The sixth edition published by a different publisher in 1847 had the title "Baptist Bible" on its binding.

In some cases, the 1866 American Bible Union Version may have been preached from.