Hasn't the KJV been updated in thousands of Places?

Actually, Waite's count is inaccurate. From the same two KJV editions that Waite compared, I have compiled a list of 1800 to 1900 of the same-type changes as those listed by Waite. Waite did not find or list over two-thirds of the actual total changes of sound and around one-half of those he termed "substantial changes."

 

WinDork,

Is this your own work - or is it from another source?

 

Unless you want to be thrown into jail for plagairism, it matters.

 

translation: I dont care how inaccurate my information is, I said it, so leave me alone!

I'm taking my ball and going home!

 

DesiderioDomini,
It is unnecessary and unproductive rhetoric such as this that keeps most KJVO from the debate. I certainly understand TheWinDork's desire to avoid an unfruitful conversation.

If every bit of evidence if discounted, what is the use of producing any evidence at all. Perhaps Dr. Waite's research and the study done by Logos1560, although similar, is not the exact same study. For him to say, "Actually, Waite's count is inaccurate," is just throwing the evidence back in TheWinDork's face. Perhaps he could have said, "I have done a similar study and here are the results of my research."

 

as one of ur fellow KJBO defenders put it, "Things that are different are not the same."

have u asked Doctor Waite how many "substantial changes" it takes for something to be no longer the same?



n why this sophisticated system of 5 categories? how many categories does the Bible have in Revelation 22:18-19?

 

I respectfully disagree. There was no discussion, no debate. There was no exchange of ideas. One man made an inaccurate claim, one which has been discussed here before, and rather than allow meaningful discussion (I saw nothing resembling malice in Logos' post) he simply ran away at the first sign of disagreement.

Bob, this post proves that it doesnt matter how nice you are, some just dont want their tradition to be questioned at all. The only evidence which matters is that which supports their position. The OP did exactly what I said: He made his claim, not caring whether it was true or not, and at the first sign of resistance, took his "ball" and went home.

True evidence, or misleading evidence, such as that above? Shouldnt every peice of misleading or incorrect evidence be discounted? What am I missing here?

Bob, I dont understand how this is not what Logos did. Yes, he said Waite's study was inaccurate, but he then did just what you asked, and showed some examples from his reserach.

What is it that you want us to do? Do you really not see a problem with these drive bys? Do you not feel that this is dishonest christian behavior? Those are both serious questions, I would like to know what you think. I am not asking for you to take a side on KJVO here, but merely "is posting misleading evidence then running away the second it is questioned dishonest christian behavior"?

Thanks!

 

Every piece of evidence should be given due consideration. There is far too much "this book says this," that is then countered with "this book says that your book is wrong."

There are points that the KJVO use as defense that has been proven to be inaccurate. There are facts to substantiate the inaccuracies in these. In others, non-KJVO resort to the same strategy and quote men who have nothing but conjecture as evidence.

Knowingly posting misleading evidence is one thing. To quote a source who may be found to be inaccurate is quite another. If the source is proven to be inaccurate, what answer would you expect to be given? They have no recourse but to leave the debate and go find a reliable source, if one is to be found.

 

I disagree. I like James White, I enjoy his lectures, his book was very informative to me, and his book educated me very well on this issue. However, if an error is shown to me about something he wrote, then I wont just leave and run to find something that will support me. I will renounce the false evidence first. Any honest christian should be expected to do the same. THIS is the question I am asking....not is POSTING false information dishonest, but also RUNNING AWAY after that information is shown to be inaccurate an act of dishonesty? I think it is, I'd like to know what you think.

Here lies my main problem with the majority of KJVO...MANY of them have never sought out the evidence to see if these author are telling the truth. We saw it here on this board when a KJVO swore up and down that Riplinger did not make a certain false claim, only to later find that his more recent edition had the error removed.

I am not asking for perfection....just honesty. As much as I know this isnt so, it appears that you are saying that KJVO should be allowed to post false information, and then not be obligated to set the record straight. I would expect such things from faithless men, but I believe we are called to a higher standard of integrity.

 

I have Waite's booklet THE AUTHORIZED VERSION 1611 COMPARED TO TODAY'S KING JAMES VERSION, and I used the exact same two editions in my comparison that Waite said that he used and I also used his standard of what he considered as differences to list. Waite wrote: "The particular things that I was looking for were changes affecting the sound" (p. 3 of his booklet).

In his book entitled FUNDAMENTALIST MIS-INFORMATION ON BIBLE VERSIONS, D. A. Waite indicated that he was sure that if another person did the same comparison that they "would get the same results" (p. 93).

In his original 1985 booklet, Waite did acknowledge that he "might have missed a place or two throught the course of the Bible" (p. 4).

How far off does Waite's count need to be to be considered inaccurate?

In his study and comparison, Waite claimed that he took “these same examples” listed by Scrivener; (CENTRAL SEMINARY REFUTED ON BIBLE VERSIONS, p. 78). David Cloud noted that Waite’s Bible for Today reprinted Scrivener’s book so Waite clearly had access to it (Faith, p. 591).

David Daniell wrote that “F. H. A. Scrivener listed about fifteen hundred” errors or changes (BIBLE IN ENGLISH: ITS HISTORY AND INFLUENCE, p. 460).

How does Waite explain the fact that so many of Scrivener’s examples are missing from his list? If Waite did what he wrote, it would be expected that there would be many more changes in his list. Perhaps Waite only assumed that he found all the same examples as Scrivener had. If he actually took all the examples listed by Scrivener, his list should have been much longer.

 

If the KJV was absolutely perfect in 1611, then why would God allow "printing errors" to mar perfection? If the thesis of KJVO is true, there would have been no "purification" process. The old KJVO motto "what is different is not the same" apparently applies to other Bible versions, but that motto is changed to "what is different is the same" when it comes to the KJV.

 

Windork:This Board's bias against the Recieved Text and the King James Version of the Bible, God's Preserved Word, has been thoroughly exposed for what it is.

I don't know if this gent's KJVO or not, but he repeats the mistake made by many a KJVO...Assuming that we Freedom Readers who are against KJVO are against the KJV itself.

As for updates...Has anyone compared the text of the AV 1611 with that of the Bishop's Bible or the Geneva Bible?(Footnotes excluded)

 

I have not made a complete comparison of the 1611 KJV with the Geneva Bible or the Bishops' Bible, but I have compared many verses in them.
There are the same-type differences between the earlier English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision and the KJV as there are between the KJV and later English translations of the same underlying texts.

In comparing the Gospel of Matthew in a modern-spelling edition of the 1537 Matthew's Bible and the present KJV edition in the SCOFIELD REFERENCE BIBLE, I counted over 1,900 differences. This count includes the use of different words, different parts of speech, omissions or additions, etc., but does not include any differences in spelling or punctuation.

 

If Waite found only 421 changes that affect the sound out of over 1800 changes that affect the sound, is that an accurate or inaccurate count and listing of all the changes that affect the sound? If Waite found and listed only 25% of the actual number of changes that affect the sound, should that be considered an accurate or inaccurate count?

Even if he found and listed 50% or even 75% of the total number of changes that affect the sound, would even that be an accurate or inaccurate count?

 

I do not necessarily think that the scenario you describe is an act of dishonesty. The mere act of "running away" may be a concession, not dishonesty. On the other hand, to continue to produce or defend information shown to be inaccurate would be dishonest, in my opinion.

I would agree with this statement but add that it applies to a certain degree to the non-KJVO as well.

I am not saying this at all. To knowingly post false information is unacceptable. To post information that later is revealed to be false is not dishonesty; hopefully it is a learning experience. There is no need for the poster to "set the record straight" if that has already been accomplished by another.

 

I do not have this booklet, therefore I cannot comment on the specific criteria for which Waite was looking. He and Scrivener may not have had the same standard. Perhaps you can give a few example of the changes that he counted.

Again, assuming that one uses the same standard and criteria for identifying these changes, one should get the same results as Waite. If not, Waite is indeed in error.

I would say 1 or 2% error could still be considered accurate.

We have to be sure that each man used the same standard to identify changes.

 

Waite’s listing and count does not include the adding of two words at ten verses (Exod. 15:25 [“for them”], Exod. 35:11 [“his boards”], Lev. 19:34 [“unto you”], Lev. 26:23 [“by me”], Deut. 26:1 [“thy God”], 1 Sam. 18:27 [“and went”], Ezek. 46:23 [“row of”], John 7:16 [“and said“], 1 John 5:12 [“of God“], Rev. 1:4 [“which are“]), three words at three verses (Josh. 13:29 [“the children of“], Jud. 1:31 [“of” three times], 2 Kings 11:10 [“of the LORD“]), and six words at one verse (Eccl. 8:17 [“yet he shall not find it”]). Thirty-five more word changes missed by Waite. There are also over 60 verses where later editors added one word that are not included in Waite’s list. There are at least fifteen verses where later editors omitted one word in the 1611 that are not on Waite’s list. Over thirty changes of the number [singular/plural] of words in the 1611 are also not listed. Likely all or almost all of these type changes that Waite listed as "substantial," but that he did not include in his list are found in Scrivener's appendixes in his book THE AUTHORIZED EDITION OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE (1611).