The KJB VS the usual suspects

The KJV is NOT PERFECT ! i, & others, have pointed out a few of its goofs & booboos which you can't refute.

The NKJV, NASV, & ESV, among others, are more-perfect than the KJV, & they're in OUR English.

Now, can you refute the "Easter" goof in Acts 12:4, seeing as how EASTER DIDN'T EXIST when Luke wrote "Acts", & he was plainly writing about PASSOVER, as he showed in Acts 12:3, using the same word JESUS used for 'passover ' ?

And how about Rev. 16:5, where the KJV ADDS to God's word, in violation of His command to NOT add to it ? The words "and shalt be" are NOT found in that verse in any known ancient ms. of Rev.

All it takes is ONE GOOF OR BOOBOO to not be perfect, & the KJV has MANY.

 

Sir, please stop making misstatements. With your education, you should know better. I have NEVER said I disbelieve the KJV. I HAVE said I rarely use it, as most to whom I witness don't fully understand its archaic language.

Your failure to respond to the PLAIN GOOFS we pointed out in the KJV shows you're in thrall to the MAN-MADE KJVO myth, which is clearly derived from a CULT OFFICIAL'S book, as well as being factually incorrect, with not one quark of SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT.

Your failure to respond, in typical KJVO fashion, casts mucho doubt upon your KJVO myth.

As for my perfect Bible, NO translation is perfect, as they're products of God's perfect word being handled by imperfect men, but the NKJV, NASV, or ESV is perfect for my intended uses, as are older versions I read for study purposes.

Now, let's see your attempts to justify your saying the KJV is perfect, in the face of some of its proven goofs that you cannot refute.

 

The wrong texts found in the KJV are well know.

You refuse to admit any of the many more readings that are not God's word in the non-KJV bibles. Sad.

 

Yes, God is not the author of the confusion in the many inconsistencies and double standards in human KJV-only reasoning.

God is not the author of the confusion that would result from the KJV-only use of fallacies as KJV-only reasoning in effect attempts to suggest that God would approve of KJV-only assumptions based on fallacies even though God is the God of truth.

Do KJV-only advocates assume by the fallacy of begging the question that the KJV is a perfect translation since they clearly have not proven their opinion to be true?

If some unidentified post-1900 edition of the KJV is claimed to be perfect, the editions of the KJV before 1900 would have to be imperfect in those places where they differ from it.

 

The argument in this thread is about whether the KJV is perfect or not. Clearly, it's not. NO Bible translation is technically absolutely-perfect, but the discussion here is about the KJV, not others.

 

And I agree with salty in asking Dr. A which KJV edition is perfect, in his opinion. The AV 1611? The 1769 Blayney's ? The Oxford Edition? The Cambridge Edition?

All it takes is one word spelled differently to make 2 editions different. Only one can be perfect. The slightest deviation is imperfect. So, which edition is perfect, and by what standards?

 

There are many varying editions or revisions of the KJV, including likely over twenty present varying editions of the KJV. There are even at least two new varying editions published by different publishers that introduced two new sets of variations when some printers switched to printing a computer-based text of the KJV beginning around the 1980's.

I know of no publisher that prints a post-1900 edition of the KJV that is 100% identical to the 1769 Oxford edition except for the 2017 reprint of that edition by the Bible Museum. There would be around 400 differences between the 1769 Oxford edition and most typical post-1900 KJV editions.

 

No, you are wrong because it was because of "other" textual readings and translations which caused the back lash of KJOnlyism. RSV, and what followed. The ASV had some acceptance. Of course this is not the whole story.
KJOnlyism never made sense to me. 1 John 5:7 issue bothered me a whole lot. Was the longer reading God's word or not?

The issue is of variant readings and translatiions. One is the word of God or neither of two. It is not a KJV all or nothing. I have come to the conclusion, at this time, the KJV is still the best. Of the popular modern translations the NKJV.

 

There is not one Cambridge text that has remained the same in all editions of the KJV that are printed at Cambridge. The Cambridge editions of the KJV in the 1800's differed from what many assume to be "the Cambridge edition" based on one post-1900 Cambridge edition.

Post-1900 or present Cambridge KJV editions follow the 1873 Cambridge correction “Zichri” at Exodus 6:21 of the 1769 Oxford error [“Zithri”] and the 1873 Cambridge correction at 1 Samuel 2:13 [“priests’ custom”] since the Hebrew noun translated priests here was plural in number. In addition, most post-1900 Cambridge editions may also be following the 1873 edition in departing from over twenty spellings of proper names in the 1769 Oxford to return to 1611 spellings reintroduced in the 1873 Cambridge by Scrivener. Those spellings of proper names likely include the following: “Sabtecha” (Gen. 10:7), “Abida” (Gen. 25:4), “Zerah” (Gen. 46:12), “Adoni-zedek” (Josh. 10:1), “Jahazah” (Josh. 13:18), “Hapharaim” (Josh. 19:19), “Malchi-shua” (1 Sam. 31:2), “Shammua” (2 Sam. 5:14), “Shimea” (2 Sam. 21:21), “Naharai” (2 Sam. 23:37), “Ezer” (1 Chron. 1:38), “Geshan” (1 Chron. 2:47), “Achsah” (1 Chron. 2:49), “Salchah” (1 Chron. 5:11). “Shimron” (1 Chron. 7:2), “Shemida” (1 Chron. 7:19), “Jehoshua” (1 Chron. 7:27), “Michah” (1 Chron. 23:20), “Jeshua” (1 Chron. 24:11), “Ephraim” (2 Chron. 13:19), “Ezion-geber” (2 Chron. 20:36), “Carchemish” (2 Chron. 35:20), “Mispar” (Ezra 2:2), “Asnappar” (Ezra 4:10), “Geba” (Neh. 7:30), “Kerioth” (Amos 2:2), and “Nicolaitans” (Rev. 2:6, 15). It may also be from the 1873 Cambridge (or from Scrivener’s book with information from a collation of several KJV editions) that post-1900 Cambridge editions adopted most of the following renderings: “all his sin” (2 Chronicles 33:19), “whom ye” (Jeremiah 34:16), “flieth away” (Nahum 3:16), “Beer-sheba, or Sheba” (Joshua 19:2), “vapour” (Psalm 148:8), “wits’ end” (Psalm 107:27), “travail” (Numbers 20:14), “travail” (Lamentations 3:5), “Spirit” (Matthew 4:1), “Spirit” (Mark 1:12), “further” (Matthew 26:39), “further” (Mark 1:19), “further” (Ecclesiastes 8:17), “wondrously” (Jud. 13:19), “floats” (2 Chron. 2:16), “clifts” (Job 30:6), and “chrysolite” (Rev. 21:20). Instead of only three renderings, there could be over thirty renderings/spellings that may be regarded to be characteristic of post-1900 Cambridge editions, especially the Cambridge Concord and Pitt Minion editions. David Norton suggested that “by 1931 Cambridge had changed these to the current spellings, and the current text was finished” (Textual History of the KJB, p. 126).

Gail Riplinger asserted: “Authentic KJVs have been printed by Cambridge University Press for hundreds of years” (In Awe, p. 473). D. A. Waite claimed: “The Cambridge University Press, for instance, has not altered the Authorized King James Bible and has kept it intact. It is a fixed phenomenon” (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 141). Waite probably means to claim that Cambridge has not altered the KJV since 1769 since Cambridge did alter and revise the KJV in 1629, in 1638, in 1743, and in 1762. Waite’s assertion or statement is simply not true. It can be clearly demonstrated that post-1900 Cambridge editions are not unaltered since 1769. Even since 1900, there is not one Cambridge KJV text that is a fixed phenomenon in all post-1900 Cambridge editions.

In 2011, Cambridge University Press was evidently printing at least six varying editions of the KJV. Those six editions are the Concord edition, the Pitt Minion edition, the Standard Text Edition or Emerald edition, the 2011 Clarion edition, the 2011 Transetto Text edition, and the 2011 edition of the 2005 New Cambridge Paragraph Bible edited by David Norton. Examples of actual differences between these six editions can be found in the data presented in the book Facts from 400 Years of KJV Editions. These six present editions also differ from many earlier Cambridge editions including the 1629, 1638, 1743, 1762, 1769 Cambridge, 1817 Cambridge, and 1873 Cambridge. The 2011 Clarion edition is in paragraph style and in a single-column format, and its text differs in a few places from that in some other Cambridge editions [see Josh. 4:5, 2 Sam. 18:29, Ezra 4:10, Ps. 46:1, Ps. 67:1, Ps. 90:1, Acts 11:12, Acts 11:28]. Cambridge also prints another edition, the Cambridge 2011 Cameo Reference edition [whose text is said on its box to date from the 1920’s], but its text seems to be basically the same as that in the Pitt Minion edition. This new 2011 Cameo edition agreed with a 2011 Pitt Minion reduced edition in several places where a Pitt Minion may differ from a Concord edition [Exodus 23:23, 2 Samuel 15:12, 1 Chronicles 2:55, 1 Chronicles 13:5, Ezra 7:14, Amos 6:14, Acts 3:7, Acts 11:12, Acts 11:28, Acts 19:39, Romans 11:34, 1 Peter 1:10]. This 2011 Cameo edition did agree with a Concord in at least one place where it differs from a Pitt Minion by having “housetops” [one word] instead of “house tops” [two words] (2 Kings 19:26). The 2011 Transetto Text edition, which has its binding at the top of the text, has some differences from a Concord or Pitt Minion edition [see Gen. 6:5, Exod. 33:9, Lev. 21:20, Lev. 24:11, Lev. 24:16, Deut. 2:11, Deut. 33:12, Josh. 24:11, 1 Sam. 31:2, 2 Chron. 13:19, Ezra 2:26, Ps. 2:4, Ps. 19:1, Ps. 97:5, Eccl. 8:17, Isa. 44:24, Isa. 59:17, Dan. 1:2, Dan. 6:23, Mal. 1:14, Matt. 20:30, Mark 10:47, Acts 11:12, 1 Cor. 16:22]. The Cambridge Standard Text edition or Emerald edition, which may have the KJV text inherited or taken over from the king’s printer in London, would have a greater number of differences from a Concord or Pitt Minion edition. The 2011 New Cambridge Paragraph Bible by David Norton would have the most differences when compared to the other five 2011 Cambridge editions. Hundreds [perhaps around a thousand] of the differences between this 2011 edition by Norton and other 2011 Cambridge editions would be in places where Norton’s edition goes back to 1611 renderings. The updating of spelling of many words in Norton’s edition may affect the sound over 1,700 times. The 2011 New Cambridge Paragraph Bible used “a” instead of “an” before several words starting with h (over 300 differences). It also used “thy” and “my” when used as adjectives instead of “thine” and “mine” (over 1100 differences). Thus, this edition could have as many as 4000 variations or differences.

 

As I said, it only takes one minute change to not be perfect, even such a change as "Saviour" (British) to "Savior" (American). Thus, I wonder which edition Dr. A finds perfect, & by what standards does he declare it so.

 

The TR text overall is behind all the editions of the KJV and are in general better than most of the popular modern versions. That is what I mean by best.

There are some translation issues too. As an example , the NKJV, Colossians 1:15, follows the NIV. Which underminds Colossians 1:18 with Revelation 1:5 and Revelation 3:14 true meaning. Our incarnated Creator became part of His creation when He became man and the beginnin of His new creation in His bodily resurrection.

Now as for the thee, thou, thy and thine, gives us in old English the singular pronouns The ye, you and your are plural. One does not need to look up the Greek or Hebrew.

 

...or Southern, Yankee, Cali, Midwest, or, in my case, Appalachian !

 

KJVO state that he ONLY authorized for use the Kjv, correct?

 

Do you support churches that used the Niv as the common bible then, as that kept them unified!