Featured Myth of no need of revision

Does your assertion apply to the KJV translators? Did the KJV translators never admit that English-speaking believers before 1611 had a "perfect" Bible? The KJV was a revision of the earlier English Bibles [Tyndale's to Bishops]. Did the KJV translators not consider any of their original language sources [printed editions of the original language texts] to be perfect since they did not follow any one of them 100%? The KJV translators consulted and followed multiple, varying imperfect editions of the original language texts. What do you claim was the perfect Bible before 1611?

According to a consistent application of your own assertion, did the KJV translators want to hammer truth out on “their own anvil” instead of accepting the English Bible read and loved by English-speaking believers of their day[the 1560 Geneva Bible]?

Are you forgetting back then before 1611, the Geneva Bible was "the Bible" accepted, loved, and believed by English-speaking believers?

 

overgeneralizing without the facts

You are evidently uninformed about the actual differences in all of the English Bibles before 1881.

Even in just the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision [Tyndale's to Bishops.], there are most if not all the same type differences between the pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV as there are between the KJV and post-1881 English Bibles. There were differences of whole verses. Some pre-1611 English Bibles did not have two or three verses that are found in the KJV. At least two pre-1611 English Bibles had three whole verses in one Psalm that is not found in the KJV. There are even more differences in either added or missing phrases and clauses. There are differences in meaning of renderings. There are differences in grammatical forms used. There are differences that would involve interpretation or doctrine. If the 1380's Wycliffe's Bible was included, there are even a great number more differences. I have reprint copies of the pre-1611 English Bibles including some editions of Wycliffe's Bible and have done some comparison of them.

There were actually a number of different English Bibles after 1611 and before 1881. There was the 1657 English translation of the 1637 Dutch Bible. I have a reprint copy of it. It would have some of the same textual differences and translational differences as would be found between Luther's German Bible and the KJV.

I mentioned earlier John Wesley's 1755 New Testament. I have a copy of a later edition of Wesley's complete English Bible. There were many differences between Wesley's translation and the KJV. In his introduction to a comparison of Wesley's N. T. to the KJV, Fred Corson wrote: "With a fidelity for the truth, Wesley strove for
accuracy, conciseness, and clarity. The validation
of his scholarship is attested by the fact that in
the revision of the New Testament in 1870 at least
three quarters of his twelve thousand changes
were accepted and incorporated in the new text"
(Wesley's N. T. Compared with the A. V., p. xii).

I also mentioned the 1842 revision of the KJV made by Baptists and other believers. It has a good number of differences with the KJV. I have a copy of this Bible.

There was a 1851 English translation of the Syriac New Testament from the Peshitta made by James Murdock. There are many textual and translational differences between it and the KJV. I have a reprint copy of it.

There was a 1853 English Old Testament by a Jew, Issac Leeser.

There was the 1862 Young's Literal Translation.

There was the 1866 American Bible Union Version that has textual and translational differences if compared to the KJV.

There was the 1808 Thomson's Bible, which had the first English translation of the Greek Septuagint for its Old Testament. Charles Thomson was a signer of the Declaration of Independence and seceretary of the Continental Congress.

Having compared the KJV with the pre-1611 English Bibles and several pre-1881 English Bibles, I find that that your claims above are overgeneralized, misleading, and inaccurate. I could give page after page of the same type differences in those pre-1611 English Bibles and pre-1881 English Bibles that KJV-only advocates would complain about in post-1881 English Bibles.

 

today's KJV is not the 1769

In other words, you seem to be saying that there was no perfect English Bible before 1769. Along with being uninformed about the pre-1611 English Bibles and pre-1881 English Bibles, you are evidently also uninformed about editions of the KJV.

I understand that many sources assert that today's KJV is the 1769 so I realize that you could be misled by them. It would be accurate to say that most [not all] present editions of the KJV are based on the 1769, but it would be inaccurate or incorrect to claim that they are identical to the 1769.

All errors were not removed from the KJV by 1769 as some KJV-only authors have claimed. For example, KJV-only author Timothy Morton contended that "the 1762 and 1769 [editions] were to update the spelling" and that "by 1769 whatever slight textual errors that still remained were removed, and the text was finally free from any man-made error" (Which Translation Should You Trust, p. 42).

While it corrected some errors, the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV actually also introduced some new errors. One error introduced in the 1769 Oxford at Exodus 6:21 remained in Oxford KJV editions over 100 years until at least 1880.

T. H. Darlow and H. F. Moule observed that the 1769 edition "contains many misprints, probably more than 'the commonly estimated number of 116‘" (Historical Catalogue of the Printed Editions of Holy Scriptures, I, p. 294).

I have been examining a KJV edition printed at Oxford in 1769 and have been comparing it to around 300 other editions of the KJV [18 printed in the 1600's, over 70 printed in the 1700's, over 70 printed in the 1800's, and many printed in the 1900's and after 200].

Over 200 changes have been made to the KJV after 1769, some even made after 1880 in Oxford KJV editions and after 1900 in Cambridge KJV editions. There are actually twenty or more varying editions of the KJV in print today.

 

Are you inventing an extreme that may not exist and that you do not show to exist? Which posters here supposedly advocate and support an "any modern version" is OK position?

The fact that many posters disagree with unproven, non-scriptural exclusive only claims for one English Bible [the KJV] does not suggest that they oppose use of the KJV as a translation or that they support an "any modern version is OK" position.

Are you distorting and misrepresenting the actual position of believers who disagree with a KJV-only view?

The KJV is a good overall translation of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages in the same sense or in the same way that the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the Geneva Bible are and that some later English Bibles such as the NKJV are.

 

I do not know that such a position exists since I have not encountered any position that I would consider an "any modern version is OK" position.

While they may be many that would accept many modern versions, I do not know of any that actually claim all modern versions are OK.

For example, many who accept modern versions would reject the New World Translation of Jehovah Witnesses, the Inspired Version by Joseph Smith, etc.

 

As I noted earlier, my disagreement with a KJV-only view has nothing to do with Westcott and Hort. I have not recommended the Greek text of Westcott and Hort or the later Critical Text nor English translations made from them.

Westcott and Hort held the same basic overall Church of England doctrinal views that the translators of the KJV held. Many who would condemn Westcott and Hort for their acceptance of a Church of England doctrine such as baptismal regeneration will say nothing against the KJV translators acceptance of the same Church of England doctrine. There seem to be some double standards or divers measures often used by KJV-only advocates who throw out their accusations against Westcott and Hort.

How many who defend the KJV have ever read the writings of the translators of the KJV? Were the translators of the KJV involved in no questionable activities or practices?

Several of the translators of the KJV were members of the High Commission Court that persecuted people for their beliefs. At least two KJV translators were directly involved in having two men burned at the stake for their beliefs.

Adam Nicolson claimed: "Andrewes [KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes] could happily see a good, God-fearing, straight-living, honest and candid man like Henry Barrow condemned to death; and a debached, self-serving degenerate like Thomson [KJV translator Richard "Dutch] Thomson] elevated to the highest company" (God's Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible, p. 100).

Nicholson noted that Richard Thomson "was known as one of the wittest of all translators of the wildly obscene epigrams written by poet Martial in the Rome over which Nero presided" (p. 100).

Adam Nicolson referred to this KJV translator as "the drunk pornographer Thomson" (p. 192).