How Many Revisionsof the AV1611?

Bob, [THIS SITE] mentions what they call four "major" revisions:

David Cloud, in WAS THE 1611 KING JAMES BIBLE DIFFERENT, agrees that there were four revisions:

Gary R. Hudson, in KJV REVISION IS NO "MYTH"!, names six:

A BMATS Special Committee report [CLICK HERE] also names four major revisions:

It appears that it is hard to get the true story, as whichever bias one has appears to influence what one calls a change or even a revision. For example, Cloud quotes Waite that there are 421 changes, while the BMATS report 24,000 differences (from 1611 to 1769). And in [THIS ARTICLE] by Heinz Schmitt, he seems to try to make it appear that there were 12 revisions (but some on his list are merely where marginal references were added!).

I would tend to think that the four major revisions covers most everything, and that if all changes in spelling and punctuation are counted it would be much more likely to be closer to the BMATS' 24,000 than Waite's 421. But I would also think that what could be termed substantial changes would be fairly rare. IOW, something more than correcting a printing error, changing "burnt" to "burned", etc., etc..

[ May 05, 2003, 09:53 PM: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]

 

I spoke with a chap who is into the KJV Only doctrine. It was interesting to see him attempt to explain why God needed to "Filter" His perfect word several times.

 

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. (Psalm 12:6)

 

Are you suggesting that there should be seven versions of the KJV?

 

I only have three different KJVs at the desk
my computer sits upon. I guess i need to
get four more

 

I think everyone has missed the obvious here:

1. KJV
2. RV
3. ASV
4. NASB
5. NIV
6. NKJV
7. NASB95

There you have it: The New American Standard Bible, 95 Update is the purified Word of God. Now all you sinners not using it, need to repent in sackcloth and ashes and start preaching from God's word, just like I do. (In fact, I can put you on my weekly sermon mailing list so you can preach just like I do ).

See how easy exegesis is when you have the right end in mind???

Actually, my point is to show the fallacy of beginning with the end in exegesis. Those who start with the supposition that the KJV is the only word of God find all kinds of creative ways to support. After all, they have to be creative because they can't find it otherwise. We need a healthy revival of solid exegesis of the text so that we let the text speak, rather than making the text say what we want it to.

 

My feeling is that after the original perfect text is written, impurities are introduced when the copies of the originals are made.

Which copies btw were used for the 1611KJV translation.

After the originals perish, the text has to be "purified", cleansed of scribal/printer errors (similar to the KJV translators/revisors did for the English text for over 150 years after its original publication)

How can these copies of the original text in the original language be corrected if the originals have perished?

Periodically compare the extant copies of the original texts and produce a cleansed text.

Will human flesh ever agree on a Traditional or Cleansed Text?

Probably not, but that is not God's problem because He has seen to it that the original text is preserved in the extant copies of the original language mss.

Perhaps if we had a better common spirit among ourselves concerning these matters, the Lord would make it His problem and intervene and we could develope a pure text.

My opinion of course.

HankD