KJBible Quest!

what a great post! i think this puts paid on KJBOs' claims that their more than 136 known Substantial Changes among the KJB revisions are merely "printing" errors.

first they say there are Substantial changes, then they say those were merely printing errors, but there's so far one can go on a lie.

 

but there's so far one can go on a lie[Fsih]

"Though a lie be swift, truth overtakes it."

 

Brian said:the 1611's "Lord" (John 15:30) to "lord."... I don't mean to be nit picky but that verse is not in my Bible... John Chapter 15 only has 27 verses... I think my KJVs all 8 printings are sufficent... I just picked this verse at random and didn't go thru all the ones mentioned and look what I found an error... From one who was pointing them out Rick Norris... I can see Mr. Norris face now ... Brother Glen

 

but printers' errors don't count, right?

 

Forever settled in heaven said:

... Whatever you say... he he he!... Thought I would make you all squirm just a little ... Nice post Brian ... Just think if there is one error there are bound to be others ... Brother Glen

[ July 25, 2002, 04:59 AM: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]

 

I believe it's possible for the Bible to have printing errors but it dosn't have other errors. The verses don't contradict themselves, and all the books agree with each other, even though Malachi, and Matthew have 4000 years between them. Now how can all the writters agree with each other when they were born at diffrent times? Simple. God inspired them.
We aren't discusing weither or not the KJV has errors in the litteral translation, were are discusing the PRINTING/PUBLISHING errors.
Prehaps it's my fault that this conversation started. I posted the question on the Nelson Bible, because I was searching for an answer. But dosn't the Bible say:"Study to shew thyself aproved unto God a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."
That's what I want to do. To study and learn more. To understand better.
I'm not questioning the KJV and wheither or not it is the truth. I don't doubt it. I KNOW IT'S THE TRUTH! {see my post having to do with faith} and I don't doubt God's word. I'm just questioning the PUBLISHERS. That's what Robin and others are doing.
When we have a question, we should prayerfully search out the answers.
I don't doubt the KJV's inerrency, or infallability, and that's not in question. We are simply studing to find answers.
In our Saviour,
Abby

 

"printers errors"

Hmm, what's the difference between a "printer error" and a "scribal error".

Nothing, in both cases a human being chose the wrong letter or word to use in the sentence.

When you think about it, the printer is the modern scribe.

Now, I have heard that the original master copy of the translation which the KJV scholars produced has been lost, so the KJVO are in the same boat as those who believe in the inspration of the "original" autographs. You have only differing (things different are not the same) copies (Cambridge, Oxford, 1611,1769,etc) of the original which no longer exists with arguments based on the text to prove which was the "original" original.

Just a thought.

HankD

[ July 25, 2002, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

A few hundred years

 

There are still Hebrew scribes working today

HankD

 

I just cut-and-paste, it's just a typo. Don't let a single typo cause you to dismiss rest of the comparisons, or the point that it makes.

 

Yes. Yes. Yes. I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to agree with you.

My concern for you is that you will conclude that one is the Word of God and the other isn't since "things that are different are not the same." My point is that all of these versions of the KJV are the Word of God. It is the agreement with what the originals said that make it the Word, not the way it is said.

 

There are also *word* changes, that was the point of my post a few posts back. You have to take those word changes into account, even when only focusing on the "edition" issue. Also, don't simply dismiss things like spelling and punctuation: two identical sets of words with different puctuation can result in different meanings.

And here somebody told me the English language was at its peak in 1611.

Brian

[ August 01, 2002, 05:41 PM: Message edited by: BrianT ]

 

You ain't finding out anything that a whole heap of researchers ain't already found out. But you are the one who emphatically stated "Things different are not the same." The differences in fonts, spellings, punctuations, et al-- in addition to some word changes-- are differences. This clearly proves there was no special divine guidance seeing the entire process of the KJV from translation to readership, since God is not incapable of keeping the spelling, lettering and typesetting and punctuation-- "every jot and tittle (Matthew 5:18)," per se-- perfect and unchanging as He is (Malachi 3:6).

 

Farmer's Wife,

Allow me to recommend a couple of good books to help you deal with the issue of changes in the KJV from the 1611 to the edition most of us use today, the 1762/1769.

The first, and most exhaustive, is "The Authorized Version of 1611, Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representitives" by Dr. Frederic Scrivener. This book lists every change from 1611 in every edition through the 1769 edition.

The second is "The Authorized Version 1611 Compared To Today's King James Version" by Dr. Don Waite. This book compares the 1611 edition to the 1769 edition and lists 421 changes. Of that number only 136 were considered by the author to be "changes of substance." This would eliminate such changes as "towards" being changed to "toward" and "burnt" being changed to "burned." Of the remaining 136 "changes of substance" all but nine of them can be dismissed as correction of printer's errors and other typos. However, that still leaves 9 changes of substance which cannot be dismissed as mere printer's errors. However, each of those changes uses a synonym which does no violence to the text. (For examples see 2 Chron 28:11 and Isa 49:13 where "God" in the 1611 is changed to "LORD" in the 1769 and Num 6:14 where "lambe" is changed to "ram.")

 

DocCas,

I know your post was to Farmers wife but I just wanted to thank you for the book recommendations. I look forward to reading them when I find them.

Thanks again for taking the time to post the information!

 

The changes I noted are found in the current Oxford, which was used in the comparison, but they are also found in the Cambridge. There are slight differences between the Oxford and Cambridge editions, but those changes are so minor they need not be considered in a discussion such as this.

By the way, both books can be purchased from http://www.biblefortoday.org/