KJBible Quest!

[Farmer's Wife]

Originally posted by tyndale1946:
That is why the KJV is unlike any other translation you have to dig out the Gospel truths. Rule of thumb... "There is never contradiction of scripture"... If you think you have found one look harder the answer is always there hidden in the word of God... That has been my experience of 35 years of study!... Brother Glen

Amen, Brother Glen!

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

Originally posted by BrianT:


"For example, the 1611 KJV has "he came and worshipped" at Mark 5:6 while present KJV's have "he ran and worshipped." The 1611 KJV has "seek good" at Psalm 69:32 while present KJV's have "seek God." The 1611 KJV does not have "of silver" at Exodus 21:32 where present KJV's have it. Following the Latin Vulgate, the 1611 KJV omitted "Amen" at Ephesians 6:24 while present KJV's have it (Textual Emendations in the Authorized Version, p. 6). The 1611 KJV omitted "of God" at 1 John 5:12. While present KJV's have 'godly edifying" at 1 Timothy 1:4, the 1611 KJV had only "edifying." At 2 Chronicles 13:6, the 1611 KJV ended the verse with "his LORD" [Jehovah] while present KJV's have "his lord." At 2 Chronicles 28:11 and Isaiah 49:13, the 1611 KJV has "God" while present KJV's have "LORD." The 1611 has "the LORD" (Deut. 26:1) where present KJV's have "the LORD thy God." It has "the Temple" (2 Kings 11:10c) where others have "the temple of the LORD." Present KJV's change the 1611's "LORD" (Neh. 3:5) to "Lord" and the 1611's "Lord" (John 15:30) to "lord."

The 1611 KJV began Jeremiah 38:16 with this wording "So the king sware" while present KJV's have "So Zedekiah the king sware." Present KJV's add the words
"of the weight" after the word "charger" (Num. 7:31, 55). At 2 Corinthians 11:32, the 1611 KJV has "the city" while present KJV's have "the city of the Damascenes." Present KJV's have "made for them a statue" (Exod. 15:25) while the 1611 does not have "for them." The 1611 KJV has "thee" at 2 Timothy 4:13 while present KJV's have "thee and the books." Present KJV's add to the 1611 after "seek it out" the words "yet he shall not find it" (Eccl. 8:17). Following Beza's Latin translation only, the 1611 KJV has "Jesus Christ" at Romans 3:24 while present KJV's have "Christ Jesus." The 1611 has "prepared Millo" (2 Chron. 32:5) where present KJV's have "repaired Millo." Present KJV's have "holy house" (2 Chron. 3:10) where the 1611 has "holy place." Present KJV's have "one place" (1 Cor. 14:23) where the 1611 has "some place". "

what a great post! i think this puts paid on KJBOs' claims that their more than 136 known Substantial Changes among the KJB revisions are merely "printing" errors.

first they say there are Substantial changes, then they say those were merely printing errors, but there's so far one can go on a lie.

 

[GrannyGumbo]

but there's so far one can go on a lie[Fsih]

"Though a lie be swift, truth overtakes it."

 

[tyndale1946]

Brian said:the 1611's "Lord" (John 15:30) to "lord."... I don't mean to be nit picky but that verse is not in my Bible... John Chapter 15 only has 27 verses... I think my KJVs all 8 printings are sufficent... I just picked this verse at random and didn't go thru all the ones mentioned and look what I found an error... From one who was pointing them out Rick Norris... I can see Mr. Norris face now

... Brother Glen

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

Originally posted by tyndale1946:
look what I found an error...

but printers' errors don't count, right?

 

[tyndale1946]

Forever settled in heaven said:

but printers' errors don't count, right?

... Whatever you say... he he he!... Thought I would make you all squirm just a little

... Nice post Brian ... Just think if there is one error there are bound to be others ... Brother Glen

[ July 25, 2002, 04:59 AM: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]

 

[MissAbbyIFBaptist]

I believe it's possible for the Bible to have printing errors but it dosn't have other errors. The verses don't contradict themselves, and all the books agree with each other, even though Malachi, and Matthew have 4000 years between them. Now how can all the writters agree with each other when they were born at diffrent times? Simple. God inspired them.
We aren't discusing weither or not the KJV has errors in the litteral translation, were are discusing the PRINTING/PUBLISHING errors.
Prehaps it's my fault that this conversation started. I posted the question on the Nelson Bible, because I was searching for an answer. But dosn't the Bible say:"Study to shew thyself aproved unto God a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."
That's what I want to do. To study and learn more. To understand better.
I'm not questioning the KJV and wheither or not it is the truth. I don't doubt it. I KNOW IT'S THE TRUTH! {see my post having to do with faith} and I don't doubt God's word. I'm just questioning the PUBLISHERS. That's what Robin and others are doing.
When we have a question, we should prayerfully search out the answers.
I don't doubt the KJV's inerrency, or infallability, and that's not in question. We are simply studing to find answers.
In our Saviour,
Abby

 

[HankD]

"printers errors"

Hmm, what's the difference between a "printer error" and a "scribal error".

Nothing, in both cases a human being chose the wrong letter or word to use in the sentence.

When you think about it, the printer is the modern scribe.

Now, I have heard that the original master copy of the translation which the KJV scholars produced has been lost, so the KJVO are in the same boat as those who believe in the inspration of the "original" autographs. You have only differing (things different are not the same) copies (Cambridge, Oxford, 1611,1769,etc) of the original which no longer exists with arguments based on the text to prove which was the "original" original.

Just a thought.

HankD

[ July 25, 2002, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

[TomVols]

Hmm, what's the difference between a "printer error" and a "scribal error".

A few hundred years

 

[HankD]

A few hundred years

There are still Hebrew scribes working today

HankD

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by tyndale1946:
Brian said:the 1611's "Lord" (John 15:30) to "lord."... I don't mean to be nit picky but that verse is not in my Bible...

I just cut-and-paste, it's just a typo. Don't let a single typo cause you to dismiss rest of the comparisons, or the point that it makes.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Farmer's Wife:
I'm not trying to prove that the KJBible is the Word of God...because it is, and I 'think'(?) everyone agrees with that anyway!

Yes. Yes. Yes. I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to agree with you.

You see, I've just "discovered" that there are textual (is that the right term?) differences between publishers of the King James Bible. Now, maybe you already knew this and this subject is trivial for you. But, I find it very interesting!

My concern for you is that you will conclude that one is the Word of God and the other isn't since "things that are different are not the same." My point is that all of these versions of the KJV are the Word of God. It is the agreement with what the originals said that make it the Word, not the way it is said.

 

[Farmer's Wife]

The quest continues....I'm still researching. So far, in studying the dates...1617, 1639, 1762, 1769, etc. are *edition* dates...meaning they changed the font, type, spelling and punctuation. The REAL revisions and translations did not start appearing until 1881 when the Revised Version was published. Also, I found something interesting that I had never thought of before...there was no set spelling rules until the mid-to-late 1700's.

It appears that an Oxford editor, Dr. John Fell, took it upon himself to change "whom ye" to "whom he" just like alot of modern day publishers are changing things...here a little and there a little. Here are some of those subtle changes...

http://www.touchet1611.org/KJVSubtleChanges.html

Just thought I'd share some of what I've found so far!

[ August 01, 2002, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: Farmer's Wife ]

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Farmer's Wife:
The quest continues....I'm still researching. So far, in studying the dates...1617, 1639, 1762, 1769, etc. are *edition* dates...meaning they changed the font, type, spelling and punctuation.

There are also *word* changes, that was the point of my post a few posts back. You have to take those word changes into account, even when only focusing on the "edition" issue. Also, don't simply dismiss things like spelling and punctuation: two identical sets of words with different puctuation can result in different meanings.

there was no set spelling rules until the mid-to-late 1700's.

And here somebody told me the English language was at its peak in 1611.

Brian

[ August 01, 2002, 05:41 PM: Message edited by: BrianT ]

 

[ChristianCynic]

You ain't finding out anything that a whole heap of researchers ain't already found out. But you are the one who emphatically stated "Things different are not the same." The differences in fonts, spellings, punctuations, et al-- in addition to some word changes-- are differences. This clearly proves there was no special divine guidance seeing the entire process of the KJV from translation to readership, since God is not incapable of keeping the spelling, lettering and typesetting and punctuation-- "every jot and tittle (Matthew 5:18)," per se-- perfect and unchanging as He is (Malachi 3:6).

 

[DocCas]

Farmer's Wife,

Allow me to recommend a couple of good books to help you deal with the issue of changes in the KJV from the 1611 to the edition most of us use today, the 1762/1769.

The first, and most exhaustive, is "The Authorized Version of 1611, Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representitives" by Dr. Frederic Scrivener. This book lists every change from 1611 in every edition through the 1769 edition.

The second is "The Authorized Version 1611 Compared To Today's King James Version" by Dr. Don Waite. This book compares the 1611 edition to the 1769 edition and lists 421 changes. Of that number only 136 were considered by the author to be "changes of substance." This would eliminate such changes as "towards" being changed to "toward" and "burnt" being changed to "burned." Of the remaining 136 "changes of substance" all but nine of them can be dismissed as correction of printer's errors and other typos. However, that still leaves 9 changes of substance which cannot be dismissed as mere printer's errors. However, each of those changes uses a synonym which does no violence to the text. (For examples see 2 Chron 28:11 and Isa 49:13 where "God" in the 1611 is changed to "LORD" in the 1769 and Num 6:14 where "lambe" is changed to "ram.")

 

[RomOne16]

DocCas,

I know your post was to Farmers wife but I just wanted to thank you for the book recommendations. I look forward to reading them when I find them.

Thanks again for taking the time to post the information!

 

[Farmer's Wife]

Thanks Doc! Someone else had mentioned Scrivener to me. You've just convinced me that I really need to find this book!

This is the kind of info I was wanting for my quest. I'm wondering about those 9 changes (?) you mentioned...do you know if Cambridge made those same changes or was it from the Oxford (or other)publishers?

Cynic, where do you think I've been getting my info from? ...from researchers who have already traveled this road.

I don't think spelling, font, type set changes make one edition different from another...kinda like the "red letter" edition and the "black letter" edition...it's about cosmetics...uh, I mean, aesthetics!

It doesn't change the content one bit.

Anyway, thanks for y'alls input!

I just wanted to let y'all know that I'm still researching! RomOne16, glad to see you're still interested, too!

[ August 02, 2002, 10:29 AM: Message edited by: Farmer's Wife ]

 

[DocCas]

Originally posted by Farmer's Wife:
I'm wondering about those 9 changes (?) you mentioned...do you know if Cambridge made those same changes or was it from the Oxford (or other)publishers?

The changes I noted are found in the current Oxford, which was used in the comparison, but they are also found in the Cambridge. There are slight differences between the Oxford and Cambridge editions, but those changes are so minor they need not be considered in a discussion such as this.

By the way, both books can be purchased from http://www.biblefortoday.org/