Featured Fables or Fiction concerning editions of the KJV

Thanks for this example of misleading KJV-only fiction. The subjective bias of this KJV-only author kept him from being objective and consistent.

This author claims that the changes in many varying KJV editions are not the changes of a revision when he merely proves that they are. The corrections of errors would make a later edition a revision. A different varying corrected edition can be accurately referred to as a revision. It is clearly not a myth to state the truth that there have been revisions of the 1611 edition of the KJV.

The 1828 Webster's Dictionary defined revision as "the act of reviewing; review; re-examination for correction; as the revision of a book." Roget's Thesaurus listed "revision" and "correction" as synonyms. Roget’s Pocket Thesaurus listed “revise,” “edit,” and “make corrections” as synonyms (p. 189). Rodale’s Synonym Finder gave “revised or new edition” as a synonym for “revision” (p. 1036). At its entry for edit, The New Roget’s Thesaurus in Dictionary Form listed “revise, correct” as synonyms (p. 166). Since the terms edit and revise or edition and revision can be used as synonyms as indicated in standard reference works, they could sometimes be interchangeable.

There have been more than four revisions or editions of the KJV.

Of course, this KJV-only author avoids the more important matter and fact that the 1611 edition of the KJV itself is a significant, major revision of more than one pre-1611 English Bible. A fairer, more objective comparison of revisions between the KJV and the NKJV would be to compare them to revisions between the pre-1611 English Bibles and the 1611 KJV.

Bible translations should actually be compared to the standard and greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages instead of to each other.

It could be considered misleading and deceitful to pull a bait and switch from the thousands of significant, major revisions between the pre-1611 English Bibles and the 1611 KJV to the less significant, more minor revisions within the varying editions/revisions of the KJV.

This author also does not prove his assumption and claim that all the corrections made to the 1611 edition involve printing errors to be true.
In his “Editor’s Introduction” to The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible, David Norton observed that the 1769 KJV text and that of later editions “is not the translators’ text but has many readings changed according to the judgements of editors who had made it into a revised version: not a heavily revised version, but still a revised version” (p. viii). David Norton observed: “Typically the textual changes deal with perceived inaccuracies in the work of the translators rather than printer’s errors” (Textual History of the KJB, p. 86). David Norton noted: “The editors test the text against the original languages and make changes where they judge that the translators were loose in their treatment of the originals” (Ibid.). David Norton observed that “a great deal of work—including a complete examination of the KJB against the original languages—went into the first Cambridge edition of 1629” (pp. 82-83).

Even some KJV-only advocates have used the term revision concerning the later revised editions of the KJV. KJV defender Laurence Vance wrote: “The first systematic ‘revision’ of the Authorized Version was the first Cambridge folio edition of 1629” (King James His Bible, p. 64). Robert Sargent, a KJV-only advocate, acknowledged: "The early editions of the King James Version did contain errors, and these were gradually weeded out through subsequent revisions, as other changes were made" (English Bible, p. 228). KJV-only author David Cloud referred to 1638 as “the date of the last formal revision” of the KJV (For Love of the Bible, p. 65). KJV defender Everett Fowler claimed: “Minor revisions in wording were made in 1629 and 1638, and in the 1760’s work done in Cambridge and Oxford resulted in a revision of the text which included much modernization of spelling, punctuation, and expression” (Evaluating Versions, p. 6).

 

One clear example of a 1611 edition rendering and error that has not been demonstrated to be the fault of the printer or to be a typographical error would be at 1 Corinthians 12:28.

According to Thomas Hill’s 1648 sermon, one of the reported 14 changes made by a prelate or prelates to the text prepared by the KJV translators involved 1 Corinthians 12:28 (Six Sermons, p. 25). Since the 1611 edition’s rendering “helps in governments” is said to be introduced intentionally by a prelate or prelates, it cannot soundly be assumed to be the fault of the printer. “Helpers, governours” was the rendering of Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s, Matthew’s, Great, Whittingham’s, Geneva, and Bishops’ Bibles at this verse. The 1557 Whittingham’s and 1560 Geneva Bible have a marginal note for helpers: “As Deacons” and a marginal note for governors: “As Elders.” The 1599 edition of the Geneva Bible and a 1672 edition of the KJV have the following marginal note for helpers or helps: “the offices of deacons” and this marginal note for governours or governments: “He setteth forth the order of elders, which were the maintainers of the churches discipline.“ Concerning this verse, Paul Baynes (1573-1617) wrote: “The helps God hath put in his Church respect the calling of deacons” (Diocesan’s Trial, p. 72). Augustus Strong referred to “helps” as “indicating the duties of deacons” (Systematic Theology, p. 917). At this verse, the 1657 English translation of the 1637 Dutch Bible has these notes: “helps [that is, who take care of and help the poor and sick] governments, [that is, they that are appointed to keep the Church in good order, and to guide them, which are the elders, Rom. 12:8, 1 Tim. 5:17].”

Benjamin Hanbury quoted the following from the preface to the reader in the Just Defence of the Petition for Reformation that was printed in 1618: “1 Corinthians 12:28 is translated, both by the Genevan and former Church translation [Bishops’] ‘helpers, governors,‘ but the new translators, herein worse than the Rhemists, translate it ‘helps in governments;‘ foisting into the text this preposition ‘in.‘ Why? They cannot abide elders to assist the minister in governing Christ’s Church. So their churchwardens are but the prelates’ promoters” (Historical Memorials, I, p. 131). In his exposition of Ezekiel, William Greenhill (1598-1671) asserted that 1 Corinthians 12:28 “is faulty in this place, reading those words thus, ‘helps in government,‘ which was done to countenance all the assistants prelates had in their government” (p. 551). In his 1648 sermon, Thomas Hill maintained that helps in governments “is a most horrible prodigious violence to the Greek words; for they are both the accusative case, helps; there are elders; governments, there are deacons; now to obscure these, you must put it, helps in governments” (Six Sermons, p. 25).

In his 1593 book advocating that prelatic or Episcopal church government is apostolic, Bishop Thomas Bilson, who would be co-editor of the 1611 edition with Miles Smith, acknowledged that some use 1 Corinthians 12:28 as one verse that they cite for Presbyterian church government. Thomas Bilson wrote: “There remained yet one place where governors are named amongst ecclesiastical officers, and that is 1 Corinthians 12” (Perpetual Government, p. 197). Thomas Bilson wrote: “Why should they not be lay elders or judges of manners? Because I find no such any where else mentioned, and here none proved. Governors there were, or rather governments” (p. 199). Bilson claimed that “Chrysostom maketh ‘helps’ and governments’ all one” (p. 212). In 1641, George Gillespie maintained that “Chrysostom, expounding this place, doth not take helps and governments to be all one, as Bilson hath boldly, but falsely averred” (Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland, p. 19). The 1611 edition of the KJV does exactly what Bishop Thomas Bilson suggested by connecting the words “helps” and “governments” with “in.” David Norton pointed out: “1611, uniquely and apparently without justification from the Greek, reads ‘helps in governments” (Textual History, p. 34). Was this change deliberately and purposely introduced in order to attempt to take away a verse that had been used by those who advocated Presbyterian church government, making it a change with doctrinal implications? Did Bishop Bilson or other prelates take advantage of their positions of authority to attempt to undermine or obscure a favorite text used to support Presbyterian church government? What truth of the original demanded that this doctrinal change be introduced into the 1611 edition? In 1641, Scottish reformer George Gillespie wrote: “We cannot enough admire how the authors of our new English translation were bold to turn it thus, ’helps in government,’ so to make one of two, and to elude our argument” (Assertion, p. 19). Andrew Edgar suggested that George Gillespie “recognized in these words a covert attack on the constitution of the Church of Scotland” (Bibles of England, p. 299, footnote 1). In 1646, George Gillespie wrote: “Whereas he [Mr. Hussey] thinks, helps, governments, to belong both to one thing, there was some such thing once foisted into the English Bibles; antilepsis kubernesis was read thus, helps in governments: but afterwards, the prelates themselves were ashamed of it, and so printed according to the Greek distinctly, helps, governments” (Aaron’s Rod, p. 103).

Could the 1611 edition’s reading/rendering at 1 Corinthians 12:28 be considered to contain a change purposefully inserted into the text for doctrinal reasons?

Did Bishop Bilson not only have motive to support what he claimed in his 1593 book but also opportunity and authority to review and revise the translators' work according to the plan for its making?

Was the underlying textual authority of the 1611 for this deliberate reading and rendering [supposedly Chrysostom] at 1 Corinthians 12:28 in the 1611 edition kept unchanged in the 1629 Cambridge edition or was a textual change made to the 1611 edition in 1629?

Would a textual change to the 1611 edition at 1 Corinthians 12:28 not be an authorized textual change “because the team that did the work was disbanded” in 1610 (McElroy, Which Bible, pp. 217, 176)?

 

KJV-only advocates are the ones trying to throw in a red herring or trying to pull a bait and switch from the thousands of significant, major revisions between the pre-1611 English Bibles and the 1611 KJV to the less significant, more minor revisions within the varying editions/revisions of the KJV.

There are significant, major revisions involving whole verses, whole clauses and phrases, and many whole words between the pre-1611 English Bibles and the 1611 KJV.

As I clearly and soundly pointed out: A fairer, more objective comparison of revisions between the KJV and the NKJV would be to compare them to revisions between the pre-1611 English Bibles and the 1611 KJV, not to the less significant, more minor revisions within the 100 and more varying editions/revisions of the KJV.

 

Your final answer is wrong. There have been revisions of the 1611 edition of the KJV regardless of your vain efforts to deny the truth.

The over 2,000 changes including a good number of corrections to the 1611 edition of the KJV are enough to warrant the use of the accurate term revision for the different revised editions.

In his 1985 booklet, leading KJV-only author D. A. Waite himself had listed and identified the following categories as substantial or changes of substance: “adding a word,” “omitting a word,” “changing a tense,” “changing a word,” “changing number [plural/singular],” and “changing a case” (AV1611 Compared, pp. 4-5, 20-23).

In his unreliable 1985 research, D. A. Waite had listed only 36 examples for his category of adding a word.

According to more careful research, there were over 180 whole words not found in the 1611 edition that are added in a typical, post-1900 KJV edition. At one verse (Eccl. 8:17), six whole words are added to the 1611. At nine verses (Lev. 26:40, Num. 7:31, Num. 7:55, Josh. 13:29, Jud. 1:31, 2 Kings 11:10, Ezek. 3:11, 2 Cor. 11:32, 2 Tim. 4:13), three whole words are added. In at least seventeen verses, two whole words are added (Exod. 15:25, Exod. 21:32, Exod. 35:11, Lev. 10:34, Lev. 26:23, Deut. 26:1, 1 Sam. 18:27, Ezra 4:11, Ezek. 34:31, John 7:16, 1 Cor. 14:15, 1 Cor. 15:41, 2 Cor. 9:5, 2 Cor. 9:6, 1 John 5:12, Rev. 1:4, Rev. 5:13). At over one hundred twenty verses, one whole word is added to the 1611 (Gen. 19:21, Gen. 22:7, Gen. 36:14, Exod. 26:8, Exod. 34:25, Lev. 7:23, Lev. 11:3, Lev. 14:54, Lev. 18:3, Lev. 20:11, Num. 9:13, Num. 20:5, Deut. 4:25, Deut. 4:32, Deut. 5:29, Deut. 9:10, Deut. 20:7, Deut. 24:10, etc.).

 

Thanks for posting information that contradicts the KJV-only myth of no revision of the 1611 edition of the KJV.

 

Glenn Conjurske maintained that the work of Benjamin Blayney was “carried out haphazardly and inconsistently” (Bible Version, p. 62). The 1769 Oxford edition was not free from all man-made errors as some KJV-only authors have claimed or assumed. Post-1900 or present forms of the KJV are not preserved exactly and completely the same as the 1769 edition. Concerning this edition, Christopher Anderson observed: “There had not been sufficient vigilance in superintendence, as more than a hundred errors have been detected since” (Annals of the English Bible, II, p. 560). Adam Thomson claimed: “Dr. Blayney’s edition itself is very incorrect; the errors are both numerous and important” (Report from the Select Committee, March, 1860, p. 42). Blackford Condit asserted that Blayney’s 1769 edition “was not entirely free from errors, which were discovered to the number of one hundred sixteen, when it was collated for Eyre and Strahan’s edition of the Bible in 1806” (History of the English Bible, p. 397). Likewise, Calmet’s Dictionary of the Holy Bible confirmed: “In collating the edition of 1806 with Dr. Blayney’s, not fewer than one hundred and sixteen errors were discovered” (I, p. 312). P. W. Raidabaugh also reported that “not fewer than one hundred and sixteen errors were discovered in collating the edition of 1806 with Dr. Blayney’s” (History of the English Bible, p. 61).

A careful examination of a 1769 Oxford edition revealed that it has several 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 “razor” (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” and both “scroll” and “scrowl.” 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 to 300 spelling changes have been made since 1769 in many post-1900 KJV editions. The 1769 Oxford still has the spelling “Judea” in its New Testament instead of the spelling “Judaea” in many later KJV editions. There are other spellings in the 1769 Oxford that remained in many later KJV editions that could properly be considered inconsistent, non-modern, or non-standard English spelling today.

In some places in the 1769 Oxford edition, the apostrophe was not yet introduced, was introduced incorrectly, or was revised in later editions. Some examples include the following: “three days journey“ (Gen. 30:36), “seven days journey“ (Gen. 31:23) “camels‘ furniture“ (Gen. 31:34), “priest’s custom” (1 Sam. 2:13), “two mules burden” (2 Kings 5:17), “three years famine” (1 Chron. 21:12), and “Mars hill“ (Acts 17:22). The 1769 Oxford has “wit’s end” at Psalm 107:27 while some present KJV editions have “wits’ end.“ David Norton maintained that many present KJV editions have “nine singular possessives that should be plural, seven inherited from Parris, two from Blayney, and another six plural that should be singular from Blayney” (Textual History, p. 109). Some examples of places where there is disagreement about the placement of an apostrophe in KJV editions include the following: Numbers 26:2, 1 Samuel 2:13, 1 Samuel 2:36, 1 Chronicles 7:2, 1 Chronicles 7:40, Ezra 2:59, Nehemiah 7:61, Job 6:23, Psalm 6:4, Psalm 31:16, Psalm 44:26, Psalm 107:27, Psalm 140:3, Proverbs 26:3, Ezekiel 22:10, Ezekiel 44:30, Daniel 2:41, Matthew 14:9, Matthew 15:27, Mark 6:26, and Romans 13:5.

The 1769 Oxford edition clearly has some editing or printing inconsistencies in the use of capital letters. For example, it has “son of David” at Mark 10:47 and other verses but “Son of David” at Matthew 20:30. It has “holy spirit” (Ps. 51:11), “Holy Spirit” (Luke 11:13), and “holy Spirit“ (1 Thess. 4:8). If “Holy” in “Holy Ghost” should be capitalized, why not also “Holy” in “Holy Spirit”? At the beginning of the first verse of Psalm 108, the 1769 Oxford has “O GOD” while it has “O God” at the beginning of the first verse of other psalms such as 60, 63, 74, and 79. It has “Mighty God” one time (Jer. 32:18) but “mighty God” eight times. Other possible examples that indicate inconsistency include “most high” (Num. 24:16, Ps. 46:4, Ps. 73:11, Ps. 78:17, Ps. 83:18, Ps. 91:1, Ps. 91:9, Ps. 92:1), “Most High” (Deut. 32:8), “the highest“ (Ps. 87:5), “mighty one of Jacob“ (Isa. 60:16), “LORD, thy redeemer“ (Isa. 44:24), “spirit“ (Ps. 51:11, Joel 2:28, Matt. 4:1, Mark 1:12, Acts 11:12), “LORD“ (Matt. 16:22), “Herod the Tetrarch” (Luke 9:7), “Son of peace“ (Luke 10:6), “the Apostles“ (Luke 17:5), “the Church“ (1 Cor. 15:9), and “the saviour” (1 Tim. 4:10). Since the proper name for God would not be merely “High,“ would not the proper capitalization for it be “Most High” whenever it is used as a noun and not as an adjective? Would not “Most High” be equal or comparable to “Highest” (Ps. 18:13)? The fact of these inconsistencies may suggest that some other use or non-use of capital letters in the 1769 could be the result of similar inconsistent editing or printing.

Around 100 differences involving LORD/Lord and GOD/God can be found between the 1769 Oxford and most post-1900 KJV editions.

Other places where the 1769 Oxford would differ from most post-1900 KJV editions 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. Several of these renderings were introduced in the 1769 Oxford while some were kept from earlier KJV editions. For example, “king of Jerusalem” (Eccl. 1:1) was in the standard 1629 and 1638 Cambridge editions while “and the truth” (John 14:6) was in the 1638 Cambridge. Some of them may have been intentional editing decisions while others may have been unintentionally introduced by the typesetters/printers. “Zithri” (Exod. 6:21) was likely introduced into the 1769 by a typesetter looking at the last word of the next verse (Exod. 6:22). While introduced by a typesetter, this error of fact [the name of the wrong person] remained uncorrected in most Oxford and Cambridge editions of the KJV for over 100 years until corrected in the 1873 Cambridge edition.

 

During what years do you claim that the KJV was the only Bible circulating among English-speaking people?

The Geneva Bible was still circulating among some English-speaking people until 1660 and even later. KJV-only author William Bradley wrote: "The Geneva Bible was the Bible of the people, the Bible of the persecuted Christians and martyrs of the faith, the Bible of choice among English-speaking people for over one hundred years, from its initial printing in 1560, fifty years before the King James Bible, until the 1660‘s" (Purified Seven Times, p. 87).

Dale S. Kuehne maintained that the Geneva Bible “continued to be the Bible of Calvinists in both England and America into the 1700’s” (Kries, Piety and Humanity, p. 214). L. C. Vass noted that “like a Scotchman, he [George Durant] brought his Geneva Bible with him” to North Carolina in 1662 (History of the Presbyterian Church in New Bern, p. 11). David Norton cited where Thomas Ward in 1688 indicated that Bibles printed in 1562, 1577, and 1579 [editions of the Geneva Bible] were still “in many men’s hands” (History of the English Bible as Literature, p. 39). In a footnote, Norton pointed out that “sixteenth-century Geneva Bibles with eighteenth-century inscriptions are quite common” (p. 39, footnote 3). He gave the example of one Geneva Bible in a New Zealand library that “contains signatures, comments and records that date from 1696 to 1877.” Alec Gilmore observed that there is some evidence that a 1610 edition of the Geneva Bible “was still being used in Aberdeenshire as late as 1674” (Dictionary, p. 84). John Brown noted that “as late as the close of the 18th century a Genevan Bible was still in use in the church of Crail in Fifeshire” (History of the English Bible, p. 84).

David Daniell noted that the Geneva-Tomson-Junius edition was reprinted in 1776 with Matthew Parker’s preface to the Bishops’ and that the Geneva Bible without the Apocrypha was again reprinted in 1778 (Bible in English, p. 621). T. H. Darlow and H. F. Moule listed a 1776 “reprint of the Geneva Bible, with Tomson’s revised New Testament and Junius’ Revelation” and referred to “a similar reprint of 1778” (Historical Catalogue of the Printed Editions, I, p. 301). Donald Brake affirmed that editions of the Geneva Bible were printed in 1776 and 1778 (Visual History of the English Bible, p. 160). In 1841, Samuel Bagster reprinted the 1557 Geneva or Whittingham’s New Testament in The English Hexapla. In 1842, a facsimile reprint of the 1557 Genevan New Testament was printed for Samuel Bagster.

An edition of John Wesley's English New Testament translation was first printed in 1755. David Daniell pointed out that John Wesley’s English Bible translation “was extremely popular in the USA” (Bible in English, p. 536). William 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).

 

Your opinion is incorrect. The actual facts concerning the over 2,000 changes made to the 1611 edition of the KJV are not a dead issue.

The actual facts about variations and differences in more than twenty varying editions of the KJV in use today is not a dead issue. Some KJV-only advocates have claimed that many of the present editions of the KJV are "counterfeit."

Concerning the Open Bible edition of the KJV, Dave Reese claimed: "If words are changed, it is not the King James Version. It is another Bible" (The Book No One Can Read, p. 56). Concerning the New Scofield, Dave Reese asserted: “If words are changed, it is not the same text” (p. 53). Jim Ellis asked: "How could it be a King James Bible if it is different from the King James Bible?" (Only Two Bibles, p. 17). Attacking the idea that the New Scofield Reference Bible has the same basic text as the KJV, William Grady contended: "A lost man would laugh at the suggestion that a particular text could be promoted as the same text with even one alteration" (Final Authority, p. 311). Kelly Gallagher claimed: “Any true Christian would throw away a bible if ONE WORD was taken away or added to it” (The Perfect Bible, p. 58). David W. Norris asserted: “Bearing in mind that every single word carries with it the authority of the whole book and were one word missing the Bible would be incomplete and imperfect, we ought not to be surprised that subtracting of even a single word put in place by God or adding a word of our own incurs a penalty of eternal loss” (The Big Picture, pp. 260-261). Al Lacy contended: “If it [a Bible translation] has even ONE error, it is NOT the Word of TRUTH! You cannot trust it” (Can I Trust, p. 99). Al Lacy asserted: “If we do not have a perfect translation, we do not HAVE the Scriptures” (p. 101). Sam Gipp maintained that the KJV “only needs one mistake to cease to be the perfect, inspired word of God” (Is Our English Bible, p. 73). Raymond Blanton claimed: “If I cannot believe every word in the King James Version I cannot believe one word in it” (The Perilous Times, August, 1993, p. 13) and again he claimed: “If we cannot believe every word in it [the KJV], we cannot believe one word in it” (November, 1999, p. 5). Jack Hyles asserted: “Do you mean if there is just one word wrong in the Bible, you have to throw everything else away?’ That’s exactly what I mean” (Need for an Every-Word Bible, p. 39). Charles Perkins wrote: "Personally I cannot find anything ‘Godly’ about changing even one word in the King James Bible" (Flaming Torch, April-June, 1998, p. 7). In 1980, John C. Phillips asserted: “There is no need to revise, update, correct, better explain, or change in any way, the present King James Bible” (King James Contender, Nov.-Dec., 1980, p. 2). Len Smith wrote: “Be careful if you go buy a King James Version. The publishers will deceitfully call some of them Authorized Versions without letting you know they’ve changed some of the words, some of the spelling, and some of the capitalization” (Age of Reason, D22, p. 9). Len Smith even asserted: “If the old spelling of throughly has been modernized to thoroughly it’s because some fool dared to go through the word of God and mess with it” (Ibid.). Mickey Carter wrote: “Some Bible publishers will print what on the cover reads ‘King James Version,‘ yet without any warning anywhere make changes on the inside” (Things that are Different, p. 90). Concerning the Open Bible edition of the KJV, D. A. Waite wrote: “I came to some words that were spelled differently so I couldn’t make a true comparison” (Defending the KJB, p. 231). E. W. Whitten claimed: “If any variance or inconsistency can be found in the truth, or version, the entire article is tainted and no longer has any credibility” (Truth, p. 35). David Norris contended that “even revising or changing it [the A.V.] in any way will have the same effect” as “debasing the currency,” and he added: “It is robbery” (Big Picture, p. 230). Terence McLean asserted: “If you would change one word (Easter), you are on the slippery slope to total infidelity toward God’s words” (History of Your Bible, p. 12). Bill Bradley asked: "Would you allow someone to take your King James Bible and change it in more than 130 places, and still call it a King James Bible?" (Mickey Carter, Elephant, p. 142). As a chapter heading, David Daniels claimed: “A few tiny changes make a big difference” (51 Reasons, p. 143). Roy Branson asserted: “The author does not believe anyone has ever improved upon the wording of the KJV in any instance, nor that it can be improved upon” (KJV 1611, p. 96).

A consistent, just application of these assertions by KJV-only authors would condemn the 2,000 changes made to the 1611 edition and would condemn the varying KJV editions in use today. Present post-1900 KJV editions have been changed in more than 130 places, and they are still called the KJV.

According to more careful research, there were over 180 whole words not found in the 1611 edition that are added in a typical, post-1900 KJV edition.

 

I accurately use the word "revision" according to its real meaning while some try to deny the truth that there have been many revisions of the 1611 edition of the KJV. There are many revised editions of the KJV.

 

KJV-only advocates are the ones trying to throw in a red herring or trying to pull a bait and switch from the thousands of significant, major revisions between the pre-1611 English Bibles and the 1611 KJV to the less significant, more minor revisions within the varying editions/revisions of the KJV.

My statement states the truth, and your response does not refute it.

There are not two different uses or meanings of the word revision in my sentence. There is one accurate use of the term revision with a sound, accurate use of adjectives. The two adjectives have a different meaning in that sentence, but the word revision is used with the same meaning. A minor revision is still a revision according to a sound definition of the term. A major revision is also still a revision. I did not define the word revision to mean "whole verses, whole clauses and phrases, and whole words" as you incorrectly suggested. It is the adjective major that indicates that kind of revisions. Even the so-called minor revisions in KJV editions involve whole words since over 180 whole words not found in the 1611 edition are added and some whole words found in the 1611 edition are omitted in post-1900 editions.

David Cloud referred to the Geneva Bible as "an edition of the Tyndale" and the KJV as "another edition of Tyndale" (Rome and the Bible, p. 106; Faith, p. 510; Glorious History of the KJB, p. 102). David Cloud also referred to the KJV as “a revision of the Tyndale Bible” (Faith, p. 577). He also noted: "Our Authorized English Bible is a direct descendant of Tyndale's faithful Version" (O Timothy, Vol. 14, Issue 5, 1997, p. 10). Robert Sargent referred to the Geneva Bible as the "third revision of Tyndale's Bible" and to the Bishops' Bible as the "fourth revision of Tyndale's Bible" (English Bible, pp. 197, 198). Edward F. Hills affirmed that the 1611 KJV "is mainly a revision of the Bishops' Bible, which in turn was a slightly revised edition of Tyndale's Bible" (KJV Defended, p. 215).

Just as the KJV can accurately be referred to as a revision of Tyndale's, or of the Geneva Bible, or of the Bishops' Bible, the NKJV can likewise be accurately referred to as a revision of the KJV.

 

The truth that is stated in Psalm 12:6 is the fact that "the words of the LORD are pure words," meaning 100% absolutely and wholly pure. Pure used in the particular context of describing the quality of the words of the LORD given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles would clearly be asserting 100% absolute, complete purity or perfection with no mixture of any impurities at all.

After the assertion of fact, then an illustration, simile, or comparison is given [as] to confirm that truth, not to contradict it by suggesting that there were some impurities in the pure words given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles. Thus, the phrase "purified seven times" (Ps. 12:6) actually stated clearly concerning silver on earth is used to illustrate and affirm that the words of the LORD are 100% wholly, absolutely, completely, and perfectly pure when given by inspiration of God. This phrase about the refining or purification of silver obviously and clearly would not contradict the earlier assertion or statement of fact. That phrase does not indicate or assert that the words of the LORD are mostly pure, partially pure, or almost pure with a few impurities, defects, faults, corruptions, errors, or contaminants mixed in so that they needed to go through a gradual improvement or refining process of seven purifications in seven translations in different languages, in seven English translations, or in seven editions of the KJV.

In the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary, some words or phrases used to define the word pure include the following: “Unmixed,” “clear,” “free from mixture,” “separate from all heterogeneous or extraneous matter,” “real, true,” “incorrupt,” and “absolute, that and that only unconnected with anything else.” The unabridged Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary included the following in its definitions for pure: “free from defects; perfect, faultless,” and “free from anything that adulterates, taints, impairs, etc.; unmixed; clear” (p. 1463).

Words of the LORD asserted to be wholly and completely pure in the positive or absolute degree could not be made purer; therefore, they would not have any defects or impurities that need to be removed during a claimed refinement or purification process. Thus, the quality of being absolutely or completely pure and completely free from all impurities that is asserted concerning the words of the LORD could not be increased. Nothing can be asserted to be purer than what is already 100% absolutely pure according to the meaning of pure used in this context concerning the words of the LORD. Pure in the positive degree would simply make a true assertion concerning what is described as being pure, and it does not compare it to other things. Pure is clearly not used in a comparative degree concerning the 100% absolutely and completely pure and perfect words of the LORD. Every word of God is pure (Prov. 30:6). The commandment of the LORD is pure (Ps. 19:8). The law or the word of the LORD is perfect (Ps. 19:7). Pure words of the LORD would have the very same absolute, complete purity as very pure words (Ps. 119:140). The use of “very” would emphasize the fact of absolute purity, but it could not increase the purity of words that are already 100% wholly and absolutely pure.

The subjective, private interpretations or misinterpretations suggesting a purification process or refining process based on Psalm 12:6 could be considered an example of eisegesis, reading into a verse ideas that were not actually stated in it.

Psalm 12:6 does not assert that the interpretation/translation decisions in the 1611 KJV are absolutely pure and perfect.

 

The words of the Lord that are pure words are the same words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles. Psalm 12:6 does not teach that any words added by men and that any errors introduced by men are pure words of God.

Psalm 12:6 does not assert that the interpretation/translation decisions in the 1611 KJV are absolutely pure and perfect.
My statement is true. Stating the truth was not a negative attack on the KJV. In their 1611 preface, the KJV translators in effect acknowledged the same thing so they would not consider my statement to be a negative attack on the KJV.

Writing for all the translators, Miles Smith noted: “If anything be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected, and the truth set in place.” Miles Smith observed: “No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the sun, where apostles or apostolike men, that is, men indued with an extraordinary measure of God’s Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand? The Romanists therefore in refusing to hear, and daring to burn the word translated, did no less then despite the Spirit of grace, from whom originally it proceeded, and whose sense and meaning, as well as man’s weakness would enable, it did express.”