1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

the Oxford KJV "errors"?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Logos1560, Oct 13, 2005.

Top Posters
Page 3 of 3
  1. Petrel

    Petrel New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,408
    Likes Received:
    0
    Maybe we should borrow from "The Sound of Music" and change it to "they fleetly flee, they fly." :rolleyes:

    Considering the comparison to locusts probably "fly" is better. It seems that's what everyone else uses.
     
    #41 Petrel, Apr 4, 2006
  2. PeterAV

    PeterAV New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2005
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    0
    *******
    2 Chron.33:19
    Are you saying that it read."..and all his sin and his sins,"...?
    Or "...all his sins"... in the place of "..all his sin"...?
    I know that errors like that did get restored back to the original exemplar.

    My Oxford and my Cambridge both read "..and all his sin,and his trespass,..."
    *******
    Jer.34:16
    "..whom he.." is now "...whom ye.."
    Yet another reading restored back to the exemplar.
    Both my Oxford and my Cambridge read "...whom ye...".
    *******
    Nah.3:16
    "..fleeth..." is returned also to "...flieth..".
    Both my Oxford and my Cambridge read ...'flieth..".
    *******
    All of these corrections are genuine corrections.
    Just please don't compare these genuine corrections as the same ball park as the "purposeful" corruptions that happen in the new versions.

    It is good you said so-called Oxford errors.
    Just mere typo errors from the publishers and Orthography is all.
    Even if you were to add all the typo errors from 1611 and 2006 and the such like,you would get some twenty thousand changes.But none of these changes are horrible and demonic as some would have us believe.
    None of the changes were intentional changes from the received text.

    PeterAV
    Holy Bible
    There is only one.
     
    #42 PeterAV, Apr 4, 2006
  3. DeclareHim

    DeclareHim New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,062
    Likes Received:
    0
    It still amazes me that the one version God chose to inspire and contain His perfect Word has so many printing errors. My ESV doesn't have any printing errors. Just the KJV. Even today most printings of the KJV still have typo's and different readings why? God could inspire the translators of the good ol 1611 but couldn't keep the pinting press from making a mistake. :rolleyes:
     
    #43 DeclareHim, Apr 5, 2006
  4. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen to that. The KJV is the most accurate translation for English-speaking people available today.
     
    #44 Askjo, Apr 5, 2006
  5. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    PeterAV, I have 2 KJV Bibles: Oxford and Cambridge. They disagree each other on these verses. The 1769 Cambridge KJV is more accurate over the Oxford KJV.
     
    #45 Askjo, Apr 5, 2006
  6. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,602
    Likes Received:
    464
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Is your Oxford KJV edition the New Pilgrim Bible?

    The Pilgrim Edition of the KJV was edited by E. Schuyler English and printed by Oxford University Press in 1948, 1952.

    The NEW PILGRIM BIBLE: KJV Student Edition
    based on the earlier 1948 edition and listing that same editor was reprinted and updated by Oxford University in 2002 with consulting editors Jerry L. Rockwell and Douglas D. Stauffer.

    Douglas Stauffer is the author of the KJV-only book entitled ONE BOOK STANDS ALONE: THE KEY TO BELIEVING THE BIBLE. Jerry Rockwell was an associate or assistant editor at THE SWORD OF THE LORD.

    In the new introduction, I did not notice nor read that any changes were being introduced into the text of the Oxford edition used in the 1948 edition of the Pilgrim Bible. Nevertheless, changes were introduced by someone into the text.
    Most if not all the changes seem to have come from the present-day Cambridge edition of the KJV.

    Josh. 19:2
    and Sheba (1948 Pilgrim edition)
    or Sheba (2002 Pilgrim edition)

    2 Chron. 33:19
    sins (1948)
    sins (2002)

    Ps. 148:8
    vapours (1948)
    vapour (2002)

    Jer. 34:16
    whom ye (1948)
    whom he (2002)

    Nahum 3:16
    fleeth (1948)
    flieth (2002)

    If some words were going to be updated and changed, why were not the other updated spellings or words from the present Cambridge edition not included? Should this Oxford KJV edition be considered an almost Cambridge KJV edition?
     
    #46 Logos1560, Apr 5, 2006
  7. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,602
    Likes Received:
    464
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Askjo, do you actually have an original copy of an edition of the KJV printed at Cambridge in 1769 or do you have D. A. Waite's DEFINED KING JAMES BIBLE that he incorrectly claimed was the "Cambridge 1769 Text?"

    F. H. A. Scrivener noted that the 1762 Cambridge edition had “killedst” for “diddest” at Acts 7:28 (AUTHORIZED EDITION OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE, p. 32). The 1762 Cambridge has a second ye at James 2:16 [“be ye warmed and be ye filled”]. I was told by a person who had a Cambridge edition printed in 1769 that the 1769 Cambridge edition still had the same two renderings from the 1762.

    I have obtained an actual Cambridge edition that was printed in 1790. There are actually several differences in text between it and the text in Waite's DEFINED KJB.
     
    #47 Logos1560, Apr 5, 2006
  8. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have many KJV Bibles. I have 2 Nelson KJV Bibles, one 1769 (Defined) Cambridge KJV and other KJV Bibles. I learned that the Oxford KJV and the Cambridge KJV are very slight different according to one source. I checked 2 Nelson KJV Bibles and found that they disagree each other upon a few verses. I thought that ALL KJV Bibles are SAME, but they are not. I researched on why they are different. I realized the KJV was revised 4 times: From 1611 to 1769; 1769 was 4th revision of KJV.

    Click the link: THE FOUR SO-CALLED REVISIONS OF THE 1611 KJV
     
    #48 Askjo, Apr 5, 2006
  9. william s. correa

    william s. correa New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is this that W/H channel again oops, Click
     
    #49 william s. correa, Apr 15, 2006
  10. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,396
    Likes Received:
    672
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Askjo, the person who wrote the material for the link you posted is of rather dubious veracity, as he's a "party-line" KJVO.
     
    #50 robycop3, Apr 17, 2006
  11. william s. correa

    william s. correa New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    0
    The AV 1611 is the Word of God and is inerrant. the Oxford pinting job was the best and still Champions over All other translation in the english language, ever. Therefore No other will do. The truth came out and will be defended. "If if's and and's were pots and pans" as my dear mother says,we wouldn't be argueing with the Only true Word of God; we all need to be singig off of the same page. We are only tuning up before the concerto!
     
    #51 william s. correa, May 1, 2006
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 3 of 3
Loading...