Conflicting claims concerning the KJV: when was perfect edition made?

[Logos1560]

KJV-only advocates make conflicting or even contradictory claims concerning KJV editions and when the KJV was supposedly made perfect.

Some KJV-only advocates may imply that the KJV was perfect in 1611.

Some KJV-only advocates assert that the KJV was made perfect in 1769.

For example, KJV-only author Timothy Morton contended that "the 1762 and 1769 [editions] were to update the spelling" and that "by 1769 whatever slight textual errors that still remained were removed, and the text was finally free from any man-made error" (Which Translation Should You Trust, p. 42). Morton claimed: “Not one change made in any of the editions of the Authorized Version was to update the language or correct a (supposed) mistranslation” (p. 44). Charles A. Barrier asserted that “this [1769] edition is regarded as equal to the edition of 1611, has been used for over 200 years as the standard text for all genuine Authorized King James Version Bibles, and is considered to be free of any spelling, punctuation, capitalization, or grammatical errors” (Looking for the Lamp, p. 26). Al Lacy maintained that "the 1769 edition of the 1611 King James Bible is perfect" (Can I Trust My Bible, p. 144). Joey Faust maintained that "nothing after 1769 is a true edition" (Common Man‘s Defense of KJV-onlyism, p. 43).

Peter Ruckman seemed to suggest that the KJV was made perfect in 1813.

Peter Ruckman asserted that “this edition [referring to the 1769 Oxford edition by Blayney] has been regarded as the standard copy for 200 years” (Bible Believers’ Bulletin, July, 1981, p. 4). Ruckman wrote: “The standard edition was proofread further in 1806, and in 1813 it was published by Eyre and Strahan and printed by Woodfall” (Differences in KJV Editions, p. 5). Ruckman favorably quoted and thus in effect maintained that “the main object” of Blayney’s edition was “to restore the text of the English Bible to its original purity and that this was successfully accomplished” (p. 11). Ruckman claimed that “their printer’s errors were corrected until a pure text was arrived at in 1813, which conformed to the original intent of the AV translators” (p. 13).

Likely based on another of Ruckman's claims, a different KJV-only author suggested that the KJV was made pefect in 1850.

KJV-only author David W. Daniels asserted: "By 1850 all corrections of printing errors were made (with the exception of two which shall be detailed below)" (Answers to Your Bible Version Questions, p. 126). Daniels was referring to two "errors" that he claimed were introduced by Oxford and that were in Oxford KJV editions [2 Chron. 33:19, Jer. 34:16].

Peter Ruckman referred to “seven revised copies of the AV (1611, 1613, 1644, 1701, 1769, and 1850) that result in a purified Book” (Differences in KJV Editions, pp. 18-19).

____________________________________

Was the KJV perfect in the 1611 edition?

Was the KJV perfect in the 1769 Oxford edition?

Was the KJV perfect in the 1813 London edition [as Ruckman asserted]?

Was the KJV perfect in any edition printed in 1850?

Was the text of the KJV perfect in all editions printed after 1850?

 

[Logos1560]

Peter Ruckman referred to “seven revised copies of the AV (1611, 1613, 1644, 1701, 1769, and 1850) that result in a purified Book” (Differences in KJV Editions, pp. 18-19).

I made a mistake and omitted one of the editions [1664] referred to in Ruckman's statement. Here is the corrected quotation.

Ruckman referred to “seven revised copies of the AV (1611, 1613, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1769, and 1850) that result in a purified Book” (pp. 18-19).

 

[Logos1560]

evidence that 1813 KJV was not perfect

In other threads, I have pointed out some errors found in the 1611 edition of the KJV and some errors found in the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV.

I just recently noticed Ruckman's claim suggesting perfection for the 1813 edition of the KJV so I have not posted any facts concerning that edition.

The 1813 London edition of the KJV referred to by Peter Ruckman in his statements had a new error [likely introduced in the 1806 London edition] at Ezekiel 47:10 ["the fishes shall stand" instead of "the fishers shall stand"].

The 1813 London edition of the KJV still had some errors and differences introduced or kept in the 1769 Oxford edition that were later changed.

The 1813 KJV still had the printing error "Zithri" at Exodus 6:21 that was introduced in the 1769 Oxford instead of "Zichri."

The 1813 KJV still had "thy progenitors" at Genesis 49:26 that was introduced in the 1769 Oxford instead of "my progenitors."

The 1813 KJV still had "travel" at Numbers 20:14 instead of "travail."

The 1813 KJV still had "the widow's" at Deuteronomy 24:17 instead of "a widow's."

The 1813 KJV still had "Beer-sheba, Sheba" at Joshua 19:2 in agreement with the 1769 instead of "Beer-sheba, or Sheba."

The 1813 KJV still had "in a straight" at 1 Samuel 13:6 in agreement with the 1769 instead of "in a strait."

The 1813 KJV still had "Shimei" at 1 Chronicles 6:30 in agreement with the 1769 instead of "Shimea."

The 1813 KJV still had "whom God alone" at 1 Chronicles 29:1 in agreement with the 1769 instead of "whom alone God."

The 1813 KJV still had "on the pillars" at 2 Chronicles 4:12 in agreement with the 1769 instead of "on the top of the pillars."

The 1813 KJV still had "thy companions" at Job 41:6 in agreement with the 1769 instead of "the companions."

The 1813 KJV still had "unto me" at Psalm 18:47 in agreement with the 1769 instead of "under me."

The 1813 KJV still had "my foot" at Psalm 31:8 in agreement with the 1769 instead of "my feet."

The 1813 KJV still had "feared" at Psalm 60:4 in agreement with the 1769 instead of "fear."

The 1813 KJV still had "in the presence" at Psalm 68:2 in agreement with the 1769 instead of "at the presence."

The 1813 KJV still had "part" at Psalm 78:66 in agreement with the 1769 instead of "parts."

There are other such differences.

The 1813 KJV also still had "LORD" in several verses in agreement with the 1769 instead of "Lord" as found in many present KJV editions.

 

[Yeshua1]

In other threads, I have pointed out some errors found in the 1611 edition of the KJV and some errors found in the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV.

I just recently noticed Ruckman's claim suggesting perfection for the 1813 edition of the KJV so I have not posted any facts concerning that edition.

The 1813 London edition of the KJV referred to by Peter Ruckman in his statements had a new error [likely introduced in the 1806 London edition] at Ezekiel 47:10 ["the fishes shall stand" instead of "the fishers shall stand"].

The 1813 London edition of the KJV still had some errors and differences introduced or kept in the 1769 Oxford edition that were later changed.

The 1813 KJV still had the printing error "Zithri" at Exodus 6:21 that was introduced in the 1769 Oxford instead of "Zichri."

The 1813 KJV still had "thy progenitors" at Genesis 49:26 that was introduced in the 1769 Oxford instead of "my progenitors."

The 1813 KJV still had "travel" at Numbers 20:14 instead of "travail."

The 1813 KJV still had "the widow's" at Deuteronomy 24:17 instead of "a widow's."

The 1813 KJV still had "Beer-sheba, Sheba" at Joshua 19:2 in agreement with the 1769 instead of "Beer-sheba, or Sheba."

The 1813 KJV still had "in a straight" at 1 Samuel 13:6 in agreement with the 1769 instead of "in a strait."

The 1813 KJV still had "Shimei" at 1 Chronicles 6:30 in agreement with the 1769 instead of "Shimea."

The 1813 KJV still had "whom God alone" at 1 Chronicles 29:1 in agreement with the 1769 instead of "whom alone God."

The 1813 KJV still had "on the pillars" at 2 Chronicles 4:12 in agreement with the 1769 instead of "on the top of the pillars."

The 1813 KJV still had "thy companions" at Job 41:6 in agreement with the 1769 instead of "the companions."

The 1813 KJV still had "unto me" at Psalm 18:47 in agreement with the 1769 instead of "under me."

The 1813 KJV still had "my foot" at Psalm 31:8 in agreement with the 1769 instead of "my feet."

The 1813 KJV still had "feared" at Psalm 60:4 in agreement with the 1769 instead of "fear."

The 1813 KJV still had "in the presence" at Psalm 68:2 in agreement with the 1769 instead of "at the presence."

The 1813 KJV still had "part" at Psalm 78:66 in agreement with the 1769 instead of "parts."

There are other such differences.

The 1813 KJV also still had "LORD" in several verses in agreement with the 1769 instead of "Lord" as found in many present KJV editions.

Wouldn't the "perfect" edition be the 1611 original version, based upon KJVO position?

I have reead that many consider rthe 1894 Scrivener's version as TR for KJV, and that Zondervan KJV edition was based upon that, so would be best Kjv edition??

 

[Rippon]

Wouldn't the "perfect" edition be the 1611 original version, based upon KJVO position?

I have reead[sic] that many consider rthe [sic]1894 Scrivener's version as TR for KJV, and that Zondervan KJV edition was based upon that, so [sic]would be best Kjv edition??

Why do you continually quote long posts of others? It's a complete waste and lazy on your part.

 

[Yeshua1]

Why do you continually quote long posts of others? It's a complete waste and lazy on your part.

I will try to cut that out!

What about my questions here though?

 

[Rippon]

What about my questions here though?

Sorry,they didn't rise to the level of significance.

 

[robycop3]

Evidently, the technically-perfect edition of the KJV was never made, as every one I've ever read has all the goofs of the early editions in it, such as "Easter" in Acts 12:4, etc. etc.

However, all the KJV editions are perfect for GOD'S INTENDED PURPOSE for each, as are all valid editions of all valid Bible translations.

 

[Revmitchell]

Talk about an obsession. Sheesh

 

[Rippon]

Talk about an obsession. Sheesh

There is nothing wrong in posting facts. Does that upset you?

 

[Baptist4life]

Talk about an obsession. Sheesh

^^^^ He posted fact.............does that upset you? :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Rippon]

^^^^ He posted fact.............does that upset you? :smilewinkgrin:

Good ole' B4L adding his regular drive-by assault. Howyadoin' ?

So,let me ask you something. Do you think that the KJVs of today are significantly different when it comes to italics in the text? a lot more have been added in the current KJVs compared with the original in 1611.

 

[Baptist4life]

If my post was a "drive by", what was yours? At least I put a little "smiley" in mine to show it was in fun.

There is nothing wrong in posting facts. Does that upset you?

As far as the OP, I don't think the KJV's are "significantly" different, no. Different, yes, but not significantly. No more so than all the NIV translations, which are still called NIV's.


I do believe there are people on here that are OBSESSED with it though, so in that regard, I agree with Revmitchell. What he posted was fact. I don't post here too much, but it seems that some of you make this forum, and others like it, your whole life! Sad.

 

[sag38]

This is one of the most compelling arguments against KJVOnlyism. If there is this so called perfect translation then which one is it? Those caught up in this cult like error can't even agree amongst themselves.

 

[robycop3]

Talk about an obsession. Sheesh

Can you prove me incorrect?

 

[Inspector Javert]

Can you prove me incorrect?

Rev. is right....
He is no KJVO, but he recognizes an obsession when he sees one. And your obsession with KJVO borders on the psychotic IMO.

Also...."proving" you incorrect is not possible; at least to your own satisfaction. He could "prove" it un-equivocally to 99.9% of the world's population, but you wouldn't accept it. With your obviously blinding hatred for KJVO....you wouldn't concede that 2+2=4 in base ten if a known KJVO said it.

 

[Logos1560]

Do you think that the KJVs of today are significantly different when it comes to italics in the text? a lot more have been added in the current KJVs compared with the original in 1611.

KJV-only advocates praise the KJV translators for their use of italics [actually they used a different type to indicate added words which was changed to italics in later editions], claiming that proves their honesty.

KJV-only advocates tend to ignore the fact that the KJV translators were very inconsistent in their use of italics [a different type] and that they failed to put all the words that they added in italics.

Yes, later editions of the KJV, including most current KJV's, put many more words in italics that were not in italics in the 1611 edition.

There are current KJV's that have no italics such as the 2005 and 2011 Cambridge editions by David Norton, the KJV edition in the 2011 Prayer Journey Bible, the KJV edition in the 2012 Norton's Critical edition.

 

[Inspector Javert]

KJV-only advocates praise the KJV translators for their use of italics [actually they used a different type to indicate added words which was changed to italics in later editions], claiming that proves their honesty.

KJV-only advocates tend to ignore the fact that the KJV translators were very inconsistent in their use of italics [a different type] and that they failed to put all the words that they added in italics.

Yes, later editions of the KJV, including most current KJV's, put many more words in italics that were not in italics in the 1611 edition.

There are current KJV's that have no italics such as the 2005 and 2011 Cambridge editions by David Norton, the KJV edition in the 2011 Prayer Journey Bible, the KJV edition in the 2012 Norton's Critical edition.

Quite so.....and I would assume that as long as you obsess over non-issues (which you seem to have wasted years of your life to mastering) like mis-prints...italics..."versions of italics", grammatical corrections, spelling corrections, and non-arguments like whether it's a "duck" or a "Welsh Harlequin"...et.al.

Than...you've missed the entire issue completely.

 

[Logos1560]

I don't think the KJV's are "significantly" different,

What is a significant difference to you?

Are you suggesting that there is no significant difference whether a word is in italics or not; thus indicating whether or not it was in the original language texts or not?

Are you suggesting that there is no significant difference in whether a KJV edition has a word that differs in number [singular or plural]?

Are you suggesting that there is no significant difference in whether a different name for God is indicated [LORD--for Jehovah; Lord--for Adonai]?

Do you say that it is insignificant that over 140 words have been added to many present KJV editions that were not found in the 1611 edition?

 

[Logos1560]

Are some perhaps opposed to knowing and learning the facts since they seem to prefer that posters appeal to subjective, emotional feelings and opinions concerning the KJV rather than to sound, objective evidence?