How is the KJV a Bible translation in any different sense than the NKJV is?

[Dave G]

am KJO and use to often say the same thing. But looking at the NASB and ESV honestly it seems to be saying that Jesus did not consider equality with God to be grasped, because he already is God. You don’t have to grasp at something that you already have.

Granted, that is one way of looking at it.

Still, what about word-for-word carry-over? I realize that in languages there is a certain amount of "dynamic equivalency" in all of them, because not every language has direct words for each word in another...but to make that bad a translation with the same Greek words? I don't think so, and it's because I have seen the TR versus the USB / Nestle-Aland, and seen it in the different revisions. The TR hasn't changed, while the other has changed some 27 times, depending on whether it is USB or Nestle-Aland.

Manuscripts are what scholars have used to develop the two major Greek texts with, and if a certain set of them is used in preference over others, then a different reading will occur in the translations, depending on which Greek text is used by the translation committees.



May God bless you sir.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Granted, that is one way of looking at it.

Still, what about word-for-word carry-over? I realize that in languages there is a certain amount of "dynamic equivalency" in all of them, because not every language has direct words for each word in another...but to make that bad a translation with the same Greek words? I don't think so, and it's because I have seen the TR versus the USB / Nestle-Aland, and seen it in the different revisions. The TR hasn't changed, while the other has changed some 27 times, depending on whether it is USB or Nestle-Aland.

Manuscripts are what scholars have used to develop the two major Greek texts with, and if a certain set of them is used in preference over others, then a different reading will occur in the translations, depending on which Greek text is used by the translation committees.



May God bless you sir.

Here is the TR and the Wescott and Hort text in Philippians 2:6

(Greek NT TR+) ος G3739 R-NSM  εν G1722PREP  μορφη G3444 N-DSF  θεου G2316 N-GSM  υπαρχων G5225 V-PAP-NSM  ουχ G3756PRT-N  αρπαγμον G725 N-ASM  ηγησατο G2233 V-ADI-3S  το G3588 T-ASN  ειναι G1510 V-PAN  ισα G2470 A-NPN  θεω G2316 N-DSM 

(Greek NT WH+) ος G3739 R-NSM  εν G1722PREP  μορφη G3444 N-DSF  θεου G2316 N-GSM  υπαρχων G5225 V-PAP-NSM  ουχ G3756PRT-N  αρπαγμον G725 N-ASM  ηγησατο G2233 V-ADI-3S  το G3588 T-ASN  ειναι G1510 V-PAN  ισα G2470 A-NPN  θεω G2316 N-DSM 

As you can see, they are identical.
Different source texts are only one of the problems and reasons why I reject modern translations.

 

[Dave G]

It pains me to say it, but only the NIV 2011 (being the most recent translation) gets it more or less right.

Ok....but when does the textual criticism and the differing translations stop, and we get down to being able to point at something and say, "Thus saith the Lord"? and it be consistent?

My preference for the AV isn't based on readability...it's based on what I believe to be accuracy, a 250 year period where no one messed with it, and the fact that it reads almost the same as the ones that came before it. I can point to it, and say, "that is God's word in the English."

Many people can't, and I feel bad for them.

Do I think the "KJV" is "inspired"? No. Do I think that it reflects the original inspiration?

YES.

Why? Because of two things...preservation and highly-accurate translation for its time.
I think that God has providentially preserved His words in my language in the AV...for Spanish speakers, the Reina-Valera 1602, for French, the Louis Segond, in German...perhaps Luther's Bible ( with reservations ) and in other languages the TR basis for them.

With that, I will end my comments, gentlefolk, because this subject invariably ends in a draw, no matter which way it goes, IMO.



May God bless you all.

 

[Dave G]

os

Here is the TR and the Wescott and Hort text in Philippians 2:6

One more post, I suppose:

Where did you get that first line? It doesn't look like the TR.

Try this one:

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/phi2.pdf



Now I'll look it up somewhere else:

ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ <----- TR from here: https://www.logosapostolic.org/bibles/textus_receptus/philippians/phps02.htm

ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ, <----- WH from here : http://www.qbible.com/greek-new-testament/philippians/2.html#6

Very interesting.

I'll have to look at this again. Looks to me like a translation error in this passage, when NASB is compared to the KJV.

Different source texts are only one of the problems and reasons why I reject modern translations.

I agree, sir.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

os


One more post, I suppose:

Where did you get that first line? It doesn't look like the TR.

Try this one:

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/phi2.pdf



Now I'll look it up somewhere else:

ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ <----- TR from here: https://www.logosapostolic.org/bibles/textus_receptus/philippians/phps02.htm

ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ, <----- WH from here : http://www.qbible.com/greek-new-testament/philippians/2.html#6

Very interesting.

I'll have to look at this again. Looks to me like a translation error in this passage, when NASB is compared to the KJV.



I agree, sir.

It is the TR available on E-Sword, I believe it is Stephanus TR.

 

[rlvaughn]

There are some variations, but none that I see in verse 6:

5 τοῦτο φρονεῖτε ἐν ὑμῖν ὃ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ,
6 ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ,
7 ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος: καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος
8 ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου, θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ.
Greek Bible, based on Nestle-Aland 26th edition and United Bible Societies, 3rd edition

5 τουτο γαρ φρονεισθω εν υμιν ο και εν χριστω ιησου
6 ος εν μορφη θεου υπαρχων ουχ αρπαγμον ηγησατο το ειναι ισα θεω
7 αλλ εαυτον εκενωσεν μορφην δουλου λαβων εν ομοιωματι ανθρωπων γενομενος
8 και σχηματι ευρεθεις ως ανθρωπος εταπεινωσεν εαυτον γενομενος υπηκοος μεχρι θανατου θανατου δε σταυρου
Stephanos-1550

5 Τοῦτο γὰρ φρονείσθω ἐν ὑμῖν ὃ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ,
6 ὃς ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ,
7 ἀλλ᾽ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσε μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος,
8 καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου, θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ.
Greek New Testament of the Greek Orthodox Church, 1904

 

[Logos1560]

My preference for the AV isn't based on readability...it's based on what I believe to be accuracy, a 250 year period where no one messed with it, and the fact that it reads almost the same as the ones that came before it. I can point to it, and say, "that is God's word in the English."

Are you claiming that no one messed with the KJV since 1769 to get your 250 year period? If so, your claim is incorrect. As many as 400 changes have been made to the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV in present varying KJV editions. Editors/printers continued to make changes to the KJV after 1769.

The KJV "reads almost the same as the ones that came before it" only in the same general overall sense that some present English Bible translations such as the NKJV read almost the same as the KJV.

There are some actual greater, more significant textual differences between the pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV than any KJV-only advocates can claim between the KJV and the NKJV.

There are hundreds and even thousands of differences in translation between the pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Are you claiming that no one messed with the KJV since 1769 to get your 250 year period? If so, your claim is incorrect. As many as 400 changes have been made to the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV in present varying KJV editions. Editors/printers continued to make changes to the KJV after 1769.

The KJV "reads almost the same as the ones that came before it" only in the same general overall sense that some present English Bible translations such as the NKJV read almost the same as the KJV.

There are some actual greater, more significant textual differences between the pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV than any KJV-only advocates can claim between the KJV and the NKJV.

There are hundreds and even thousands of differences in translation between the pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV.

This is hogwash. You cannot possibly compare the differences between the editions of the KJV to the differences between the KJV and the NKJV. Can you actually demonstrate with percentages and numbers that the differences are greater between the different KJV editions than between the KJV and the NKJV. Spelling changes and printing errors do not count BTW.

 

[Logos1560]

My preference for the AV isn't based on readability...it's based on what I believe to be accuracy, a 250 year period where no one messed with it, and the fact that it reads almost the same as the ones that came before it. I can point to it, and say, "that is God's word in the English."

.

This is hogwash. You cannot possibly compare the differences between the editions of the KJV to the differences between the KJV and the NKJV. .

Perhaps you failed to read carefully. The poster to which I replied made two different claims for the KJV in one statement. I accurately addressed both claims. His first of the two claims seemed to concern editions of the KJV for 250 years. My first statements address that claim. The other claim clearly concerned the pre-1611 English Bibles. You failed to distinguish between the two different claims that I answered separately in different statements.

"The ones that came before it--the KJV" would not be editions of the KJV, but they were the pre-1611 English Bibles (Tyndale's to Bishops' Bibles). Thus, I properly and soundly compared the differences between the pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV with the same-type differences between the KJV and the NKJV while acknowledging the fact that there would be greater, more significant textual differences between a pre-1611 English Bible and the KJV than between the KJV and the NKJV.

 

[Yeshua1]

I am KJO and use to often say the same thing. But looking at the NASB and ESV honestly it seems to be saying that Jesus did not consider equality with God to be grasped, because he already is God. You don’t have to grasp at something that you already have. I prefer the KJV because it’s more clear.

For example, Lebron James does not consider professional basketball status as something to be grasped.

The point of how the Nas renders that passage would be that though Jesus was Himself very God of very God, he allowed Himself to become a man and dwell among us, to be a servant of God all the way to the Cross. It is describing his Humilitiy..

 

[Yeshua1]

You've seen the CT versus the TR in the Greek?

I see no real areas where either one compromises the christian faith and doctrines though!

 

[Yeshua1]

To me, a fairly bad attempt at translation then, if the NASB committee ended up with "did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped" ( which means that Jesus thought that equality with God was out of His reach ) instead of " thought it not robbery to be equal with God" ( which means that He thought that it was not stealing from God's glory to consider Himself equal with God ).

Comparing most of the newer English translations, I find the same or a similar rendering of the NASB in nearly all of them, except the NKJV and a very few others )...which makes Jesus out to be a liar and a pretender when compared to passages in the Gospels which clearly show Him as being God in the flesh.


Here's the same passage in the ESV, which I've shortened to just verse 6:

" who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped," ( Philippians 2:6, ESV )


Now let's add some other translations:

" Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;" ( Philippians 2:6, NIV )
" who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be used for His own advantage." ( Philippians 2:6, HSB ( Holman ) )

" who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped," ( Philippians 2:6, RSV )

" who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped. " ( Philippians 2:6, ASV-1901 )



So how it is not a manuscript problem?

You misunderstand the Nas rendering, as it is stating that while Jesus was very God, he was willing to humble Himself and become a man and dwell among us, and to be obedient to even the death upon the Cross!

 

[Yeshua1]

T

It's not a manuscript problem SFAIK. It's a question of how to translate the Greek word harpagmos. It occurs only here (Phil 2:6) in the NT so it has been hard to know how best to translate it. It was known from the verb harpazo that it has to do with robbery,grasping, seizing or holding, hence the different translations. My rather ancient Liddell & Scott Lexicon gives 'robbery.'

Recently, however, some bright chap has analysed all its appearances in Greek literature and shown that it means something held to one's advantage, like a 'get out of jail free' card in Monopoly. It pains me to say it, but only the NIV 2011 (being the most recent translation) gets it more or less right.

As usual, I am open to correction by those whose knowledge of Greek is either better or more up-to-date than mine.

The main english rendering of that passage would be the humility of Jesus, so while he was very God, he was still willingly to give up the glory of heaven, and to become a Human, and to suffer and die on the Cross. I think the Nas got it right here!

 

[Yeshua1]

Granted, that is one way of looking at it.

Still, what about word-for-word carry-over? I realize that in languages there is a certain amount of "dynamic equivalency" in all of them, because not every language has direct words for each word in another...but to make that bad a translation with the same Greek words? I don't think so, and it's because I have seen the TR versus the USB / Nestle-Aland, and seen it in the different revisions. The TR hasn't changed, while the other has changed some 27 times, depending on whether it is USB or Nestle-Aland.

Manuscripts are what scholars have used to develop the two major Greek texts with, and if a certain set of them is used in preference over others, then a different reading will occur in the translations, depending on which Greek text is used by the translation committees.



May God bless you sir.

The purpose of any of the alterings in the newer CT though would be an attempt to get it closer to the originals though, and the truth is, that there are still no areas of major doctrines affected, regardless if we use the TR/MT/CT texts!

 

[Dave G]

The purpose of any of the alterings in the newer CT though would be an attempt to get it closer to the originals though, and the truth is, that there are still no areas of major doctrines affected, regardless if we use the TR/MT/CT texts!

Yes, that's what I keep hearing from the scholars that insist on churning out translations every ( on average ) 5 years from the turn of the last century until now, IMO. I'm not saying you support them or that you are just like them, but they make similar statements in their attempts at "getting closer to the original words of Scripture". Have they? Or are they just spinning their wheels? At some point they're going to have to admit they either cannot, or that what we have is sufficient. But there is something else I see at work in all this...

Question:

Have you ever heard the term, " it's like selling razor blades"?

I've done a fair bit of looking at Gillette's business model over the last century, and it's amazing how many adverts and different ways they came up with, just to appeal to a man's desire to shave his face. As I see it, there's a lot of money to be had stringing us poor Christians along, trying to convince us that we can never know the pure words of God for sure, and then introducing the "newest, best" translation onto the scene for the upcoming Christmas season...or some such marketing technique. I'm not trying to mock, I'm very serious.

Another example:
Micro$oft wants you to upgrade your PC with a new "Windows" operating system every 3 years, and, in my opinion, they try very hard to keep us PC users interested in their upgrades...but I haven't found anything better, at least markedly, than Win7 in the past 30 years...I won't get into the details of the things they've been discovered trying to implement in their attempts to convince users to migrate to the next version. It literally would fill pages.


Where was I going with all this?:

" And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not." ( 2 Peter 2:2-3 )

To me, most of the publishers keep trying to dress things up in different "clothes", and to get us to spend our money on what was already completed 4 centuries ago ( minus revisions for spelling and a few words that have fallen out of use, perhaps ). There are only a few Bible societies today whose non-profit goal is to distribute the word of God...but there are at least 7 major publishing houses that are in the money to sell Christian books...and lots of them. I won't even list them because many of you reading this could name them off the top of your head...one starts with a "Z", another with a "Th" and "N", and still another with a "B".

Let's change tack for a minute...

Want an example of a current translation that has progressed from "old" to new" without much of anything really changing? Check out the RSV to NRSV to ESV evolution...I found it very interesting.
Then there's the NIV, NIV 2000, TNIV, and probably yet another one that I'm not aware of.

My point? "Christian publishing" is big business, and the "Christian bookstores" and online sales are full of all kinds of merchandise that's made to appeal to the believer...when all we really need is a Bible.



To address your statement of no major doctrines being affected, I showed you a passage further back that seems to cast major doubt on the deity of Jesus Christ...and that's only one. There are problems with many translations when compared to the KJV, and they number in the dozens, to start with.

Now, what I'm interested to know, is that since this is true:

" But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. " ( Matthew 4:4 )

Why would I want to see anything affected...not one "jot", not one "tittle"?.
It's all important to me,and if God's word is inspired ( and I know that it is ) then I want as much of it as I can get. The thing is, I believe that I already have it.



May God bless you sir.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Yes, that's what I keep hearing from the scholars that insist on churning out translations every ( on average ) 5 years from the turn of the last century until now, IMO. I'm not saying you support them or that you are just like them, but they make similar statements in their attempts at "getting closer to the original words of Scripture". Have they? Or are they just spinning their wheels? At some point they're going to have to admit they either cannot, or that what we have is sufficient. But there is something else I see at work in all this...

Question:

Have you ever heard the term, " it's like selling razor blades"?

I've done a fair bit of looking at Gillette's business model over the last century, and it's amazing how many adverts and different ways they came up with, just to appeal to a man's desire to shave his face. As I see it, there's a lot of money to be had stringing us poor Christians along, trying to convince us that we can never know the pure words of God for sure, and then introducing the "newest, best" translation onto the scene for the upcoming Christmas season...or some such marketing technique. I'm not trying to mock, I'm very serious.

Another example:
Micro$oft wants you to upgrade your PC with a new "Windows" operating system every 3 years, and, in my opinion, they try very hard to keep us PC users interested in their upgrades...but I haven't found anything better, at least markedly, than Win7 in the past 30 years...I won't get into the details of the things they've been discovered trying to implement in their attempts to convince users to migrate to the next version. It literally would fill pages.


Where was I going with all this?:

" And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not." ( 2 Peter 2:2-3 )

To me, most of the publishers keep trying to dress things up in different "clothes", and to get us to spend our money on what was already completed 4 centuries ago ( minus revisions for spelling and a few words that have fallen out of use, perhaps ). There are only a few Bible societies today whose non-profit goal is to distribute the word of God...but there are at least 7 major publishing houses that are in the money to sell Christian books...and lots of them. I won't even list them because many of you reading this could name them off the top of your head...one starts with a "Z", another with a "Th" and "N", and still another with a "B".

Let's change tack for a minute...

Want an example of a current translation that has progressed from "old" to new" without much of anything really changing? Check out the RSV to NRSV to ESV evolution...I found it very interesting.
Then there's the NIV, NIV 2000, TNIV, and probably yet another one that I'm not aware of.

My point? "Christian publishing" is big business, and the "Christian bookstores" and online sales are full of all kinds of merchandise that's made to appeal to the believer...when all we really need is a Bible.



To address your statement of no major doctrines being affected, I showed you a passage further back that seems to cast major doubt on the deity of Jesus Christ...and that's only one. There are problems with many translations when compared to the KJV, and they number in the dozens, to start with.

Now, what I'm interested to know, is that since this is true:

" But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. " ( Matthew 4:4 )

Why would I want to see anything affected...not one "jot", not one "tittle"?.
It's all important to me,and if God's word is inspired ( and I know that it is ) then I want as much of it as I can get. The thing is, I believe that I already have it.



May God bless you sir.

Truth

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, that's what I keep hearing from the scholars that insist on churning out translations every ( on average ) 5 years from the turn of the last century until now, IMO. I'm not saying you support them or that you are just like them, but they make similar statements in their attempts at "getting closer to the original words of Scripture". Have they? Or are they just spinning their wheels? At some point they're going to have to admit they either cannot, or that what we have is sufficient. But there is something else I see at work in all this...

Question:

Have you ever heard the term, " it's like selling razor blades"?

I've done a fair bit of looking at Gillette's business model over the last century, and it's amazing how many adverts and different ways they came up with, just to appeal to a man's desire to shave his face. As I see it, there's a lot of money to be had stringing us poor Christians along, trying to convince us that we can never know the pure words of God for sure, and then introducing the "newest, best" translation onto the scene for the upcoming Christmas season...or some such marketing technique. I'm not trying to mock, I'm very serious.

Another example:
Micro$oft wants you to upgrade your PC with a new "Windows" operating system every 3 years, and, in my opinion, they try very hard to keep us PC users interested in their upgrades...but I haven't found anything better, at least markedly, than Win7 in the past 30 years...I won't get into the details of the things they've been discovered trying to implement in their attempts to convince users to migrate to the next version. It literally would fill pages.


Where was I going with all this?:

" And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not." ( 2 Peter 2:2-3 )

To me, most of the publishers keep trying to dress things up in different "clothes", and to get us to spend our money on what was already completed 4 centuries ago ( minus revisions for spelling and a few words that have fallen out of use, perhaps ). There are only a few Bible societies today whose non-profit goal is to distribute the word of God...but there are at least 7 major publishing houses that are in the money to sell Christian books...and lots of them. I won't even list them because many of you reading this could name them off the top of your head...one starts with a "Z", another with a "Th" and "N", and still another with a "B".

Let's change tack for a minute...

Want an example of a current translation that has progressed from "old" to new" without much of anything really changing? Check out the RSV to NRSV to ESV evolution...I found it very interesting.
Then there's the NIV, NIV 2000, TNIV, and probably yet another one that I'm not aware of.

My point? "Christian publishing" is big business, and the "Christian bookstores" and online sales are full of all kinds of merchandise that's made to appeal to the believer...when all we really need is a Bible.



To address your statement of no major doctrines being affected, I showed you a passage further back that seems to cast major doubt on the deity of Jesus Christ...and that's only one. There are problems with many translations when compared to the KJV, and they number in the dozens, to start with.

Now, what I'm interested to know, is that since this is true:

" But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. " ( Matthew 4:4 )

Why would I want to see anything affected...not one "jot", not one "tittle"?.
It's all important to me,and if God's word is inspired ( and I know that it is ) then I want as much of it as I can get. The thing is, I believe that I already have it.



May God bless you sir.

There are tooo many modsern english translation, true, but the simple truth is that scholars who are involved in the CT actually believe that they are getting back to the originals each time better when revised.

again,m what would be the critical differences between the TR/MT/CT that would cause any real differences in doctrines?

 

[Yeshua1]

Truth

The modern translations have been greatly used by the lord though!

 

[Logos1560]

The TR hasn't changed

You are mistaken. There were twenty to thirty textually-varying editions of the Textus Receptus made before 1611.

From the first edition edited/compiled by Erasmus, the later TR editions did introduce some changes and differences.

There were also many textual differences including significant ones in the Greek NT manuscripts used in the making of those varying TR editions. Textual criticism was involved in the making of the TR editions. Some readings were added in the TR editions from the textually-corrupt Latin Vulgate and some conjectures were introduced that are found in no known, preserved Greek NT manuscripts.

 

[Logos1560]

Why would I want to see anything affected...not one "jot", not one "tittle"?.
It's all important to me,and if God's word is inspired ( and I know that it is ) then I want as much of it as I can get. The thing is, I believe that I already have it.

Because you believe something it does not mean that it is true. People can believe things that are not true.

The truth is that the 1611 KJV made hundreds and thousands of changes to the pre-1611 English Bible.

The truth is that the present varying KJV editions made thousands of changes to the "jots" and "tittles" of the 1611 edition of the KJV and made at least two thousand changes that would affect the sound or that could be considered different words.

Over 140 words were added to most present KJV editions that were not found in the 1611 edition of the KJV.

The KJV does not match 100% any one of the varying editions of the TR available to the Church of England makers of the KJV.