Featured KJV-only failures to correct errors

I know of a case where David Cloud did not correct a factual error that he had quoted from D. A. Waite concerning the number of differences which affect the sound between the 1611 edition of the KJV and the Oxford KJV edition in the Scofield Reference Bible.

David Cloud quoted or cited D. A. Waite's factually incorrect count of "421 changes"--"136 changes of substance plus 285 minor changes of form" in at least four of his books (Way of Life Encyclopedia, pp. 232, 233; For Love of the Bible, p. 40; Faith vs. the Modern Bible Version, p. 590; Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 136). David Cloud maintained that Waite "has tallied and categorized every change and has shown us exactly what the differences are" (Examining the King James Only Controversy, p. 73).

I mailed both D. A. Waite and David Cloud a copy of my comparison of the 1611 edition of the KJV and the KJV edition in the Scofield Reference Bible, which listed over 2000 of the same type changes or differences as the ones that Waite listed.

David Cloud would not take the time to examine this evidence, which was provided freely for him.

David Cloud only revised the count of differences after D. A. Waite revised his count up to 1095 changes. Cloud now cites Waite's factually incorrect new count of 1095.

So far as I know, D. A. Waite has not yet published a corrected version of his list of only 421 changes, and he has not explained how he dismissed or disregarded nearly a thousand other changes that were listed for him. David Cloud seems to have blindly accepted Waite's new count without ever examining the longer list mailed to him.

 

Yes, it is evident that David Cloud blindly trusts and repeats Waite's claims without checking the facts for himself. One problem for David Cloud is that Waite is not always a credible source in what he claims.

I did not ask Waite or Cloud to trust what I claimed, but merely encouraged them to check the facts for themselves. They could check a 1611 edition of the KJV themselves and see that the changes/differences I listed are found in a comparison of the 1611 edition with the KJV edition in the Scofield Reference Bible.

 

The actual evidence from KJV editions clearly shows that Waite did not list or tally “every change” as David Cloud had claimed. David Cloud has not corrected his factually incorrect statement about Waite's research.

While they have revised 421 count upwards to 1095, Waite and Cloud have not corrected Waite's 136 factually incorrect count of "substantial changes."

Waite’s count of “only 136” changes that he termed “substantial changes” is inaccurate. There were over 150 words added to the 1611 edition that were not found in it.

If all the changes in the categories that Waite described as “substantial” [adding a word, omitting a word, changing a tense, changing a word, changing number (plural/singular), changing a case] were counted, that total count would be over 400.

The 1611 KJV edition itself provides clear evidence that refutes some KJV-only claims about KJV editions.

 

I used the KJV edition in the original old Scofield Reference Bible, the same exact edition that D. A. Waite used in his comparison.

 

D. A. Waite claimed that in the 1611 that there are only “eleven verses where Greek variants are mentioned” or that “there are just eleven marginal notes in the New Testament that speak of Greek variants or different Greek readings“ (Fundamentalist Distortions, pp. 18, 35).

In one book, David Cloud favorably cited Waite’s count and claimed that the count of 37 variant textual readings in the 1611 KJV’s N. T. is “inflated” (Examining "the King James Only Controversy", p. 81). David Cloud wrote: "Until we do our own study of the KJV marginal notes, we will lean on Dr. Waite's research, because we know him and have more confidence in his figures than the other aforementioned men" (p. 81).
This is another example of how David Cloud is misled or misinformed by relying on D. A. Waite.

However, in another book, David Cloud acknowledged that 104 marginal notes (“37 in the New Testament) offered a variant textual reading” (Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 157). Thus, in this case, he cited the 37 count as accurate and not as inflated.

The 37 count likely comes from Scrivener, and it is not inflated. It could be considered an incomplete count since others have found examples of other textual notes in the 1611 KJV's NT.

 

Yes, what I identified as "substantial changes" are taken from Waite's own comments describing the 136 changes that he himself counted as "substantial" on pp, 20-23 in his booklet The Authorized Version 1611 Compared to Today's King James Version.

 

I also had noted before my list that it indicated "the likely source of the renderings" (p. 29).

 

You do not practice what you assert since you do not answer my questions to you.

Why would there supposedly be a need to incorporate a possible source when it has not been demonstrated that it was the actual source followed by the KJV translators?

The 1582 Rheims may still be the "likely" source for the borrowed rendering just as I noted. You do not prove any factual error in what I noted.

Jerome, are you trying to claim that the KJV translators did not borrow or follow any renderings found in the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament?

 

The factually-based point that the makers of the KJV borrowed some renderings from the 1582 Rheims NT is avoided by many KJV defenders.

The suggestion that the makers of the KJV could have borrowed from another source in a few cited likely examples does not refute the evidence that they did borrow some from the Rheims.

KJV defenders will attack other English Bibles based on accusations that their makers consulted or followed a non-Textus Receptus source while these KJV defenders will not apply their own suggested measure/standard consistently and justly to the use of non-TR sources in the making of the KJV.

 

My actual sound point was that the Church of England makers of the KJV borrowed some renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament. I supported that point was documented evidence. My point has not been demonstrated to be a factual error that needs any correcting.

About 1 Peter 1:20, Ward Allen noted: “The A. V. shows most markedly here the influence of the Rheims Bible, from which it adopts the verb in composition, the reference of the adverbial modifier to the predicate, the verb manifest, and the prepositional phrase for you” (Translating for King James, p. 18). Concerning 1 Peter 4:9, Allen suggested that “this translation in the A. V. joins the first part of the sentence from the Rheims Bible to the final phrase of the Protestant translations” (p. 30). Allen also observed: "At Col. 2:18, he [KJV translator John Bois] explains that the [KJV] translators were relying upon the example of the Rheims Bible" (pp. 10, 62-63). The note of John Bois cited a rendering from the 1582 Rheims [“willing in humility”] and then cited the margin of the Rheims [“willfull, or selfwilled in voluntary religion”] (p. 63). Was the KJV’s rendering “voluntary” borrowed from the margin of the 1582 Rheims? The first-hand testimony of a KJV translator clearly acknowledged or confirmed that the KJV was directly influenced by the 1582 Rheims.

Jerome, are you trying to claim that the KJV translators did not borrow or follow any renderings found in the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament? Are you trying to say my actual point was factually incorrect?

Your posts suggest that you keep trying to mischaracterize and misrepresent my data taken from lists in James Carleton's 1902 book The Part of Rheims in the Making of the English Bible and checked in several reprints of pre-1611 English Bibles and the 1611 KJV.

My list is clearly presented in my booklet as likely examples of renderings that could have been borrowed from the 1582 Rheims. Before my list, I stated: "It may be possible that there was another source for some of them" (Could the 1611 KJV Have Been Better, p. 29).

Usually the KJV translators did not directly say from which source they borrowed a certain rendering so later readers have to examine the evidence the best that they can and then conclude concerning which source is more likely. The earliest possible source may not be the actual source. For example, it is likely that most of the renderings from William Tyndale kept in the KJV were borrowed directly from the 1560 Geneva Bible or the Bishops' Bible instead of directly from an edition of Tyndale.

It is unlikely that the KJV translators had copies of the 1526 edition of Tyndale's New Testament since the Church of England made great effort to burn and destroy them so that only three copies are known to have survived.

 

The same measures/standards should be applied to all writers, but in this case, an invalid comparison is being suggested. Actual factual errors not corrected in KJV-only books would not be the same thing as someone finding a possible different source for what was identified as "likely examples".

My actual assertion and point was that the makers of the KJV borrowed some renderings from the 1582 Rheims NT. That assertion has not been demonstrated to be a factual error.

If Jerome is trying to suggest that finding another possible source for some likely examples is refuting my actual point concerning the borrowing of some renderings from the 1582 Rheims, it could be a case of use of the fallacy of refuting the example.

The first rule for the making of the KJV stated: "The ordinary Bible read in the church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit." Based on this rule, it would be sound to conclude that any rendering in the 1611 identical to those in the Bishops' Bible were kept from it even if there were earlier possible sources for them. The KJV translators did not have to go back and find the earlier possible source for these renderings and follow the first source when they could have merely obeyed their rule and kept the rendering from the Bishops' Bible.

In my opinion, it would be incorrect to argue that the KJV translators had to have followed the earlier possible source instead of making use of a more recent source that may have been more readily available to them.

William Fulke's book with the text of the 1582 Rheims NT printed side by side with an edition of the Bishops' Bible's NT is known to have been in the possession of some of the KJV translators. Since it is said that only 42 copies of the Bishops' Bible were provided to the KJV translators (not enough for every one to have an individual copy), a few of the NT translators could have used Fulke's edition with the Bishops' NT, making the Rheims a readily available source. In his book A Textual History of the KJV, David Norton pointed out that the text of the Bishops' Bible NT in Fulke's book has a unique or different rendering than other editions and that unique rendering may have been followed in the 1611 edition of the KJV. If Norton's assertion is correct, it would demonstrate that a KJV translator did directly use Fulke's Bishops' Bible NT as a source.