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

[Rippon]

Here's what I believe about "Baptist Board" and the...

Bye,bye HOS.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Bye,bye HOS.

That's always and ever been your goal...simply to silence the voice of those who don't agree with you.

I know how you work.

I know that you would personally burn Servetus at the stake if you could...

and I know that you lust for the opportunity to burn any KJVO too.

I'm right, and you absolutely KNOW IT!!!!
You have a murderous intent in your heart, and it's clear to us all.

 

[Rippon]

That's always and ever been your goal...simply to silence the voice of those who don't agree with you.

I know how you work.

I know that you would personally burn Servetus at the stake if you could...

and I know that you lust for the opportunity to burn any KJVO too.

I'm right, and you absolutely KNOW IT!!!!
You have a murderous intent in your heart, and it's clear to us all.

LOL! You are totally out of it.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Now that is one of the most unChrist-like remarks one could make. Shame on you IJ.
The above is so sinful and infantile of you IJ.

I will gladly wear BOTH of those statements coming from you as a badge of honor.

One can know a truly good man (somewhat) by who his friends are....but, he can know so much MORE by those who hate him.

I wear your hatred for me as a badge of honor.
I do not, in the least desire your respect or approval.

If YOU hate me (and you do)...than I wear your loathing as a badge of honor.

I'll go ahead and mention that I wear C4k's loathing as a badge of honor as well.

 

[Logos1560]

The "TRUTH" of WHAT things?????


You don't get the KJVO argument at all:

Here's the easy one-step, two-step:

2.) The KJV used manuscripts which differ from the manuscripts used by all modern Bible translations.
3.) Those differing manuscripts DO NOT I'll repeat thisDO NOT
say the same things that the manuscripts used by the translators of the KJV do....

4.) If ONE set of manuscripts says ONE thing....and ANOTHER set of manuscripts says ANOTHER....than they are NOT BOTH "EQUAL"...

They DON'T say the same thing...
And if one says one thing, and the other another, than you have two logical possibilities:
a.) One is right and the other is wrong
b.) both are wrong.

Where is the sound evidence that shows that the KJV translators worked from original language manuscripts instead of from printed editions of the original language texts?

Where is the sound evidence that the original language manuscripts on which those printed editions on which the KJV was based all agreed 100%, all saying the exact same thing?

The varying printed editions of the Textus Receptus were based on Greek manuscripts that had also differences and even some copying errors. Those printed editions were based on imperfect and incomplete collations of Greek manuscripts. Some of those differences even involve whole phrases, clauses, and verses. Those Greek manuscripts on which the TR editions were based did not all say the same thing. The 1550 Stephanus edition of the Textus Receptus had marginal notes listing over 2,000 textual differences from just fifteen Greek manuscripts and the printed Greek New Testament text in the Complutensian Polyglot. There is not one set of Greek manuscripts that all say the same thing and that all agree with the underlying text of the KJV. The underlying New Testament text of the KJV includes a number of minority readings and even readings found in no Greek manuscripts [readings added and translated from the Latin Vulgate or reading invented by conjecture as at Revelation 16:5].

KJV-only advocates ignore or dismiss the facts. The KJV translators make use of varying textual sources. In some cases, the KJV translators even consulted and were influenced by textually different sources such as the Latin Vulgate of Jerome, the Greek Septuagint, the Syriac Peshitta. The KJV translators borrowed a number of renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament translated from the Latin Vulgate.

The KJV translators made the same type changes to the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it was a revision as later translators such as the translators of the NKJV made to the KJV.

There are other English translations that were based on the same original language texts as the KJV, making one of your assertions above false.
The 1842 revision of the KJV by Baptists, the NKJV, the Modern KJV by Jay Green, the 1994 21st Century KJV, the KJ2000, and the 1998 Third Millennium Bible were based on the same texts as the KJV.

Arguments for a modern, man-made KJV-only theory depend upon fallacies and upon the use of unscriptural, unrighteous divers measures [double standards].

 

[Mexdeaf]

I know NNE who believes "you're not saved" etc. unless you read the KJV, and I know of ZERO churches that have split over the KJV vs. other versions.

IMHO, this whole thing is "much ado about nothing".

You must not get around much. Entire Baptist groups have split over the issue of the KJV versus other versions. I know- I was a 'victim' of such a split as a missionary.

Since you have never experienced the problems that a false teaching such as KJVO can cause on the mission field for missionaries, I can see why you might think it is "much ado about nothing".

 

[Logos1560]

Logos, roby, and others have posted numerous threads maligning the KJV, which has nothing to do with KJVOism, and, IMHO, is an simply attack on a well loved version of the Word of God.

Where is the sound evidence that backs up your assertion or accusation?

Disagreeing with the opinions or claims of KJV-only advocates is not an attack on the KJV and is not maligning the KJV.

How would providing accurate information about the KJV be an attack on it? Can the truth malign the word of God as you seem to suggest?

Does the use of fallacies [false arguments] by KJV-only advocates malign the truth? Does the posting of inaccurate information and incorrect claims concerning the KJV and other translations by KJV-only advocates actually defend the KJV?

The KJV is an English translation of the Scriptures in the same way that some other English Bibles are. I have maintained that the KJV is the word of God in English in the same way or in the same sense that the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the 1560 Geneva Bible are and in the same way or in the same sense that later English Bibles such as the NKJV are. I advocate the same view of Bible translations as the early English translators including the KJV translators did [that all translations are to be tried or evaluated by the standard and greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages].

Are you suggesting that the KJV translators themselves in effect maligned and attacked their own translation when they indicated in their preface that English translations were the word of God even though some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of them and that no translation could be perfect?

 

[Rippon]

Most have simply said they use the KJV, believe it to be the best, and stated that others may use whatever version they like.

I know MANY , MANY people who use the KJV, have used it all their lives, would probably never use anything else, but have ZERO problems with someone else using whatever version they want.

There are probably a half dozen different versions used by people in my church. We all get along, We all know that we use whatever particular version we use because we, personally, LIKE that version, and let it go at that.

You contradict yourself B4L. You have said many times that the use of various versions is harmful to the church --that it causes confusion. You have frequently said you wished that they would stick with one translation --the KJV. You have often stated that since various translations read differently that they all can't be considered Scripture --that only one can possibly be correct.

Will the real B4L please stand up?

 

[makahiya117]

All KJV Holy Bibles are editions of the 1611 KJV first edition.

Pure KJV texts match the 1611 KJV first edition, word for word.

There were no manuscript revisions of the 1611 KJV until the 1881 RV, only spelling, measurements and punctuation editions.

The human finger prints (typographical errors, spelling errors, missing words, etc.) further document the testaments and covenants (records) between God and man. While the 1769 KJV Holy Bible standardized spelling, corrected printer’s errors and is the select text today, the text of the AV 1611 KJV first edition remains the principal canon authority of Holy Scripture.

 

[Logos1560]

unsupported, incorrect claim

All KJV Holy Bibles are editions of the 1611 KJV first edition.

Pure KJV texts match the 1611 KJV first edition, word for word.

It has been demonstrated at this forum that you are misinformed about editions of the KJV. You merely repeat over and over claims for which you provide no sound evidence.

Besides the reprint editions of the 1611 edition, please name and identify the specific, present KJV editions that "match the 1611 KJV first edition, word for word" as you asserted.

There were over 140 words added to a present KJV edition that are not found in the 1611. At one verse (Eccl. 8:17), six words were added. At nine verses, three words are added [Lev. 26:40, Num. 7:31, Num. 7:55, Josh. 13:29, Judges 1:31, 2 Kings 11:10, Ezek. 3:11, 2 Cor. 11:32, 2 Tim. 4:13]. At eighteen verses, two words are added [Exod. 15:25, Exod. 21:32, Exod. 35:11, Lev. 19:34, Lev. 26:23, Deut. 26:1, 1 Sam. 18:27, 2 Chron. 8:16, Ezra 4:10, Ezek. 34:31, Ezek. 46:23, John 7:16, 1 Cor. 15:41, 2 Cor. 9:5, 2 Cor. 9:6, 1 John 5:12, Rev. 1:4, Rev. 5:13]. At over eighty verses, one word is added.

Over 45 words found in the 1611 are omitted in the present KJV edition if the 21 words omitted at Exodus 14:10 are included in the count.

Over 60 times the number [plural/singular] of nouns or pronouns is changed.

Twenty or more times the tense of a verb is changed.

Sixty, seventy, or more examples would belong to the category “changing a word,“ and Waite himself listed at least that many examples in this category in his own incomplete 421 list in his 1985 booklet (see pp. 20-23). “Than” is a different word than “then,“ which means that there are 483 more word changes that could be counted as being “substantial.” Under that category of “changing a word,“ Waite included a couple examples that could be described as “changing the gender of pronouns” [“he” to “she” (Ruth 3:15, Job 39:30), “her” to “his” (Gen. 39:16), “she“ to “he“ (Song of Solomon 2:7)]. Under his category described as “changing a case,“ Waite listed only two examples [“who” to “whom” (Acts 21:16) and “him” to “he” (Prov. 6:19)]. There would be other examples of the changing of the case of pronouns [“who” to “whom” (Gen. 24:44. Acts 22:8), “it“ to “its“ (Lev. 25:5)]. If all the changes of “you” to the nominative case “ye” were included in this category, the total number of “substantial changes” would be over 200 more. In twelve places, a nominative case “ye” was changed to a different case “you” [Gen. 19:14, Num. 32:24, Deut. 1:13, Josh. 3:12, Josh. 22:4, Isa. 1:16, Isa. 30:11, Isa. 32:11, Ezek. 11:15, Zech. 6:7, Zech. 9:12].

It would seem obvious that anyone who now advocates or defends this “136” substantial changes count has their eyes closed to the truth.

 

[Logos1560]

facts vs KJV-only fiction about the 1769

While the 1769 KJV Holy Bible standardized spelling, corrected printer’s errors and is the select text today

There is no present edition of the KJV that is 100% identical in its English text to the text of the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV or to the 1769 Cambridge edition of the KJV.

The facts are that the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV did not standardize all spelling.

In the 1769 Oxford, there were a number of editing inconsistencies, involving several different matters such as spelling, capitalization, use of apostrophes, use of hyphens, use of italics, and use of compound words.

An examination of the 1769 Oxford edition revealed that it has a number of non-standard English spellings, including some cases where the same word was spelled two or more different ways. The 1769 Oxford used both “razor” and “rasor.“ It has “sycamore” or “sycamores” at some verses such as Psalm 78:47 and Amos 7:14 but “sycomore“ or “sycomores” at others such as Isaiah 9:17. It used both “scepter” (Gen. 49:10) and “sceptre” (Heb. 1:8). It has “wonderously” at Judges 13:19 but “wondrously” at Joel 2:26. Some examples of the non-standard spellings include “houshold“ (Gen. 18:19), “falsly“ (Gen. 21:23), “ews” (Gen. 31:38), “foles” (Gen. 32:15), “housholds“ (Gen. 43:33), “yern” (Gen. 43:30), “fole” (Gen. 49:11), “waggon” (Num. 7:3), “grashoppers“ (Num. 13:33), “milstone” (Deut. 24:6), “befal” (Deut. 31:17), “befel” (Josh. 2:23), “dunghil” (1 Sam. 2:8), “expresly” (1 Sam. 20:21), “shamelesly“ (2 Sam. 6:20), “falshood” (2 Sam. 18:13), “perversly” (2 Sam. 19:19), “vallies” (1 Kings 20:28), “flotes“ (2 Chron. 2:16), “wholsome” (Prov. 15:4), “grashopper” (Eccl. 12:5), “milstones” (Isa. 47:2). “dunghils“ (Lam. 4:5), “waggons” (Ezek. 23:24), “seeth” (Ezek. 24:5), and “carelesly” (Ezek. 39:6). Over 200 spelling changes have been made since 1769 in many present KJV editions. There are other spellings in the 1769 Oxford that remained in many later KJV editions that could properly be considered inconsistent or non-standard English spelling today.

The 1769 edition may have corrected some printers' errors, but it introduced other printers' errors. The 1769 edition is commonly reported to have had over 100 errors in it.

Besides the over 100 differences involving LORD/Lord and GOD/God and a number of other differences, some places were the 1769 Oxford would differ from most present editions include the following Old Testament examples: “Heman” (Gen. 36:22), “thy progenitors” (Gen. 49:26), “Zithri” (Exod. 6:21), “travel’ (Num. 20:14), “brakedst” (Deut. 10:2), “thy tithe“ (Deut. 12:17), “thy earth” (Deut. 12:19), “the widow’s” (Deut. 24:17), “Beer-sheba, Sheba” (Josh. 19:2), “children of Gilead” (Jud. 11:7), “all the coast” (Jud. 19:29), “in a straight“ (1 Sam. 13:6), “Shimei“ (1 Chron. 6:30), “whom God alone” (1 Chron. 29:1), “on the pillars” (2 Chron. 4:12), “thy companions’ (Job 41:6), “unto me“ (Ps. 18:47), “my foot” (Ps. 31:8), “feared” (Ps. 60:4), “in the presence” (Ps. 68:2), “part“ (Ps. 78:66), “When there were” (Ps. 105:12), “gates of iron” (Ps. 107:16), “the latter end” (Prov. 19:20), “riches, honour” (Prov. 22:4), “king of Jerusalem” (Eccl. 1:1), “gone to” (Isa. 15:2), “travel‘ (Lam. 3:5), “a brier” (Micah 7:4), and “mighty is spoiled” (Zech. 11:2). In the New Testament, examples include “And in the same” (Luke 7:21), “ye enter not” (Luke 11:52), “and the truth” (John 14:6), “Now if do” (Rom. 7:20), “not in unbelief” (Rom. 11:23), “the earth” (1 Cor. 4:13), “was done“ (2 Cor. 3:11), “about” (2 Cor. 12:2), “you were inferior” (2 Cor. 12:13), “those who” (Gal. 2:6), “the holy apostles” (Eph. 3:5), “broidered” (1 Tim. 2:9), “sprinkled likewise” (Heb. 9:21), “our joy” (1 John 1:4), and 17 missing words at Revelation 18:22.

 

[Yeshua1]

There is no present edition of the KJV that is 100% identical in its English text to the text of the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV or to the 1769 Cambridge edition of the KJV.

The facts are that the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV did not standardize all spelling.

In the 1769 Oxford, there were a number of editing inconsistencies, involving several different matters such as spelling, capitalization, use of apostrophes, use of hyphens, use of italics, and use of compound words.

An examination of the 1769 Oxford edition revealed that it has a number of non-standard English spellings, including some cases where the same word was spelled two or more different ways. The 1769 Oxford used both “razor” and “rasor.“ It has “sycamore” or “sycamores” at some verses such as Psalm 78:47 and Amos 7:14 but “sycomore“ or “sycomores” at others such as Isaiah 9:17. It used both “scepter” (Gen. 49:10) and “sceptre” (Heb. 1:8). It has “wonderously” at Judges 13:19 but “wondrously” at Joel 2:26. Some examples of the non-standard spellings include “houshold“ (Gen. 18:19), “falsly“ (Gen. 21:23), “ews” (Gen. 31:38), “foles” (Gen. 32:15), “housholds“ (Gen. 43:33), “yern” (Gen. 43:30), “fole” (Gen. 49:11), “waggon” (Num. 7:3), “grashoppers“ (Num. 13:33), “milstone” (Deut. 24:6), “befal” (Deut. 31:17), “befel” (Josh. 2:23), “dunghil” (1 Sam. 2:8), “expresly” (1 Sam. 20:21), “shamelesly“ (2 Sam. 6:20), “falshood” (2 Sam. 18:13), “perversly” (2 Sam. 19:19), “vallies” (1 Kings 20:28), “flotes“ (2 Chron. 2:16), “wholsome” (Prov. 15:4), “grashopper” (Eccl. 12:5), “milstones” (Isa. 47:2). “dunghils“ (Lam. 4:5), “waggons” (Ezek. 23:24), “seeth” (Ezek. 24:5), and “carelesly” (Ezek. 39:6). Over 200 spelling changes have been made since 1769 in many present KJV editions. There are other spellings in the 1769 Oxford that remained in many later KJV editions that could properly be considered inconsistent or non-standard English spelling today.

The 1769 edition may have corrected some printers' errors, but it introduced other printers' errors. The 1769 edition is commonly reported to have had over 100 errors in it.

Besides the over 100 differences involving LORD/Lord and GOD/God and a number of other differences, some places were the 1769 Oxford would differ from most present editions include the following Old Testament examples: “Heman” (Gen. 36:22), “thy progenitors” (Gen. 49:26), “Zithri” (Exod. 6:21), “travel’ (Num. 20:14), “brakedst” (Deut. 10:2), “thy tithe“ (Deut. 12:17), “thy earth” (Deut. 12:19), “the widow’s” (Deut. 24:17), “Beer-sheba, Sheba” (Josh. 19:2), “children of Gilead” (Jud. 11:7), “all the coast” (Jud. 19:29), “in a straight“ (1 Sam. 13:6), “Shimei“ (1 Chron. 6:30), “whom God alone” (1 Chron. 29:1), “on the pillars” (2 Chron. 4:12), “thy companions’ (Job 41:6), “unto me“ (Ps. 18:47), “my foot” (Ps. 31:8), “feared” (Ps. 60:4), “in the presence” (Ps. 68:2), “part“ (Ps. 78:66), “When there were” (Ps. 105:12), “gates of iron” (Ps. 107:16), “the latter end” (Prov. 19:20), “riches, honour” (Prov. 22:4), “king of Jerusalem” (Eccl. 1:1), “gone to” (Isa. 15:2), “travel‘ (Lam. 3:5), “a brier” (Micah 7:4), and “mighty is spoiled” (Zech. 11:2). In the New Testament, examples include “And in the same” (Luke 7:21), “ye enter not” (Luke 11:52), “and the truth” (John 14:6), “Now if do” (Rom. 7:20), “not in unbelief” (Rom. 11:23), “the earth” (1 Cor. 4:13), “was done“ (2 Cor. 3:11), “about” (2 Cor. 12:2), “you were inferior” (2 Cor. 12:13), “those who” (Gal. 2:6), “the holy apostles” (Eph. 3:5), “broidered” (1 Tim. 2:9), “sprinkled likewise” (Heb. 9:21), “our joy” (1 John 1:4), and 17 missing words at Revelation 18:22.

So we can now all agree that there was NO standard Greek text used by the Kjv team, that there were variations even of the TR being used, some borrowing from Vulgate/Tynsdale/Geneva/ eyc, and that there has never really been JUST one standard Kjv version over the yeras to all agree upn?

 

[robycop3]

There hasn't been a perfect edition made that I know of. Every one I've ever seen has the oft-mentioned goofs in Acts 12:4 and 1 Tim. 6:10 among others.

 

[Yeshua1]

There hasn't been a perfect edition made that I know of. Every one I've ever seen has the oft-mentioned goofs in Acts 12:4 and 1 Tim. 6:10 among others.

Like Easter?

the Holy Spirit as an IT?