They Dare Call This Science!

Printing errors and Ruth 3:15


Ruth 3:15 he or she?

Frequently those who claim the King James Bible is riddled with errors and has changed in thousands and thousands of places since it first came out in 1611, bring up Ruth 3:15 as an example of contradiction and confusion.

This supposed error is one of Doug Kutilek's favorites. He has no final authority but his own mind and he seems to take great delight in pointing out alleged errors in the KJB. Mr. Kutilek says:
"It should be unnecessary to say much about variations which have always existed among various printings and editions of the KJV. They do exist, and have from the beginning (the two editions printed in 1611 differ in over 2,000 places, perhaps the most famous being "he" or "she" at Ruth 3:15)."

An excellent study of these "thousands of changes" showing that the vast majority of them were changes in spelling, as Sonne to Son, and yeeres to years, can be found at this site.

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvupdt.html


Mr. Reagan, who wrote this excellent article, points out that the changes other than spelling were cases of printing errors. Here is a list of the first 15 of such printing errors that were soon corrected. However the actual underlying Hebrew and Greek texts used in translating the King James Bible have never changed.

1 this thing--this thing also (1638)

2 shalt have remained--ye shall have remained (1762)

3 Achzib, nor Helbath, nor Aphik--of Achzib, nor of Helbath, nor of Aphik (1762)

4 requite good--requite me good (1629)

5 this book of the Covenant--the book of this covenant (1629)

6 chief rulers--chief ruler (1629)

7 And Parbar--At Parbar (1638)

8 For this cause--And for this cause (1638)

9 For the king had appointed--for so the king had appointed (1629)

10 Seek good--seek God (1617)

11 The cormorant--But the cormorant (1629)

12 returned--turned (1769)

13 a fiery furnace--a burning fiery furnace (1638)

14 The crowned--Thy crowned (1629)

15 thy right doeth--thy right hand doeth (1613)

Now, to address the example Mr. Kutilek gives in Ruth 3:15. The Cambridge edition, which I use, says: "Also he said, Bring the vail that thou hast upon thee, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her: and SHE went into the city."

There was a discrepancy between the edition published in 1611 and the one published in 1613. The verse in question was Ruth 3:15. In the 1611 edition, it read, “he went into the city,” referring to Boaz. In the 1613 edition, it read, “she went into the city,” referring to Ruth. These two editions became known as “the Great He Bible” and “the Great She Bible,” respectively. This printing error was soon discovered and changed back to the original 1611 reading of "she" went into the city.

Mr. Kutilek and those like him have no infallible Bible. They continue to promote the modern versions which differ from one another in both text and meaning in hundreds of verses. The popular NASB, ESV, NKJV, and NIV depart from the texts that underlie the KJB in scores if not hundreds of places that I can specifically point to. The NASB, NIV and ESV often reject the Hebrew Masoretic texts and follow the Greek Septuagint, Syriac, Samaritan Pentateuch, Dead Sea Scrolls or the Vulgate in scores of instances and often not in the same places as the others. Yet this is the confused Bible of the Month club babel that Mr. Kutilek would recommend to overthrow the time tested KJB.

There still continue to be differences among the many more modern versions even in Ruth 3:15.

Those versions that still read: "And HE went into the city" are the NIV, Revised Version, Amerian Standard Version, Darby, Young's, the Jewish 1917 translation and the New Revised Standard Version.

The versions that read: "And SHE went into the city" are the KJB, NKJV, NASB, Revised Standard Version, Geneva bible, 1936 Jewish translation, and the 2001 English Standard Version.

We even get conflicting footnotes in some of these versions. The NKJV which reads SHE, just as the KJB and NASB, has a footnote which says: "Masoretic text reads HE; some Hebrew manuscripts, Syriac, and Vulgate read SHE.

However the NIV, NRSV, both of which still say HE, have footnotes telling us: "Most Hebrew manuscripts read HE, but many Hebrew manuscripts, Vulgate and Syriac read SHE."

Mr. Kutilek is all worked up about little printing error he thinks he has found in the KJB, and he recommends we use the modern versions, yet they all continue to disagree with each other!


That people like Mr. Kutilek have to resort to such petty arguments as this against the King James Bible, only shows how very weak their case is and how desperate they are to find any error at all in God's infallible words.

Throughout the last few hundred years when God has been mightily using the King James Bible far and above any other English version, there have been a series of printing errors, but this in no way detracts from the fact that the text and the spiritual power of the KJB has not changed.

Here are some of the printing errors that have occurred over the centuries. There was the Wicked Bible, or Adulterous bible of 1631 that left out the "not" in Thou shalt not commit adultery; the Ears-to-ear bible of 1810 that said in Matthew 13:43 "who hath ears to ear (hear) let him hear."; the "He bible" of the first edition in Ruth 3:15, which we have been discussing; the Printer's bible of 1702 which read in Psalms 119:161 "Printers have persecuted me" instead of "Princes have persecuted me"; the Rebekah's camels bible of 1823 which read in Genesis 24:61 "And Rebekah arose, and her camels (damsels); and the Vinegar Bible of 1717 Oxford edition which read: The Parable of the Vinegar" instead of " The Parable of the Vineyard."

The American Bible Society, which promotes the Westcott-Hort Greek text and not the Textus Receptus of the King James Bible, wrote, "The English Bible, as left by the translators (of 1611), has come down to us unaltered in respect to its text..." They further stated, "With the exception of typographical errors and changes required by the progress of orthography in the English language, the text of out present Bibles remains unchanged, and without variation from the original copy as left by the translators" (Committee on Versions to the Board of Managers, American Bible Society, 1852).

The examples listed above are just printing errors and they still can be found in some KJB, NKJV, NASB, and NIV editions today even with our modern high-tech presses. Don't let people like Doug Kutilek rob you of God's pure words and convince you we have no infallible Bible we can hold in our hands and believe. Bible relativists and KJB debunkers are only straining at gnats and swallowing camels.

Will Kinney

 

Hi Cline,

"Bro. Will,
I agree with you 100%
I am in college and just finished a study on the Bible, and it is sad how people are blind to the truth.
God Bless,
Cline

Thank you for your comments and enthusiasm for God's pure words as found in the King James Bible. We are all blind to the truth till God has mercy on us and opens our eyes. I have not always been a staunch believer in the KJB and thought much like some others here at this board. But God finally moved upon me to ask if He meant what He said about preserving His words. When it occured to me that He wasn't lying, then I began to examine the evidence.

I was essentially "backed into" the KJB only position. I rightly reasoned that if there was an obvious, proveable error found in any version, then it was disqualified from the list of where God preserved His pure words. One by one they dropped from the list till I was left with only one Book and that obviously is the Authorized King James Bible.

The more I study and pray about this, the more convinced I have become. Not because I am smarter, or more holy, but only by the sovereign grace and mercy of God who chooses the foolish things of this world to confound the wise.

To Him be all the glory and may He be pleased to open more eyes of His people in these last days.

God bless,

Will K

 

Hi Tim,

Will, When you quoted
"In his book, Defending the King James Bible, Dr. Donald Waite writes on pages 41-42: "In 1881, Westcott and Hort published their Greek text that rejected the Textus Receptus in 5,604 places BY MY ACTUAL COUNT (caps mine). This included 9,970 Greek words that were either added, substracted, or changed from the Textus Receptus. This involves, on the average, 15.4 words per page of the Greek New Testament, or a total of 45.9 pages in all. It is 7% of the total of 140,521 words in the Textus Receptus Greek New Testament."


I would like to know if the TR, that Waite compared to the WH text, was the TR that was finished years after the KJV was finished, or did he compare it to one that was printed before 1611? If Will can't answer, does anyone know?


Hi Tim, Dr. Waite was using the TR edition that was back-translated by Scrivener. This is the Trinitarian Bible Society Greek Text.

Also, it is a bit hard to accurately count the word differences between the TR of the KJB and the Nestle text, because the Nestle text keeps on changing.

The published Greek texts before 1611 were about 99.9% identical but there were some differences. There were the texts of Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza. The KJB translators were not bound to any particular reading in any single one of these texts. They also had several other Greek manuscripts available to them as well as several foreign language Bibles.

It is my belief that God providentially guided the KJB translators both as to the correct text and meaning. He sees the end from the beginning and knew this whole battle over an inspired Bible would take place in the last days and that there would be a falling away from the faith before the return of Christ.

God bless,

Will K

 

My Toyota leaks oil....

Brian, I'm sorry to hear you equate your preferred bibles to an old car that drips grime and grease. It's not just your car that has leaky holes in it.

Why not switch to the perfect word of God as found in the KJB? It will get you to your destination in perfect style and a whole lot safer. Also, you won't mess up the roadway or slip on anything while you travel along

Will K