1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Which KJV is Preserved?

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Pastor_Bob, Nov 4, 2002.

Top Posters
Page 1 of 3
  1. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    228
    Faith:
    Baptist
    One question that is commonly asked of proponents of the King James Bible is, “Which Authorized Version do you believe is the preserved Word of God?” Some would assert that there are as many as 20,000 errors in the six KJV editions. It is amazing to me that these “errors” are never explained to be primarily lithographical (printing) and orthographical (spelling) in nature.

    “In 1611, the art of printing was an occupation of utmost drudgery. With every character being set by hand, a multitude of typographical mistakes was to be expected. And when the 1613 edition corrected many of these initial misprints, a crop of new ones was accidentally introduced. Sometimes words were inverted. Other times, a plural was written as a singular or vice versa. Occasionally, an entire word or phrase was left out.” Final Authority pg. 168

    The first edition of the KJ Bible was printed in “Gothic” type. In 1612, the “Roman” type style was introduced and soon became the standard for all successive editions. The Gothic “v” looks like the Roman “u” while the Gothic “u” looks like the Roman “v.” The Gothic “j” resembles the Roman “i.” Although the same in the upper case, the Gothic “s” in lower case looks like the Roman “f.” Such changes account for a very significant percentage of the “tens of thousands” of errors in the KJV.

    That the true text of the KJV had remained unaffected throughout these corrective stages was confirmed in a special report to the “Board of Managers” of the American Bible Society in 1852. The official findings of this committee of seven, chaired by Dr. James W. McLane, were as follows:

    “The English Bible as left by the translators has come down to us unaltered in respect to its text…With the exception of typographical errors and changes required by the progress of orthography in the English language, the text of our present Bibles remains unchanged, and without variations from the original copy as left by the translators.”
    Report of the Committee on Versions to the Board of Managers of the American Bible Society pgs 7,11

    [ November 04, 2002, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Bob 63 ]
     
    #1 Pastor_Bob, Nov 4, 2002
  2. BrianT

    BrianT New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    It seems then, that Dr. James W. McLane should have waited a few more years before making that report. In the late 19th century, F.H.A. Scrivener documented approx 400 textual changes between editions of the KJV that are not due to printing issues. See Section 2 at this link.

    I also find it interesting that if the KJV is word-for-word perfect, why did God guide the translators and not the printers? Why make a "perfect" translation if you can't even get it to the people perfectly? Who has the authority to determine where printing errors occurred, how to correct them, and that no others were missed?

    Lastly, the title of this thread is "Which KJV is Preserved?" The key word here is "preserved" - the very definition of the word means that the KJV must be a continuation of something *prior* to it - yet if word differences exist between the KJV and all prior Bibles, what exactly is the KJV "preserving"? In other words, if the main idea in the first post is that if you forget about printing errors, the 1789 edition "preserved" the 1611 edition, what did the 1611 "preserve"?

    [ November 04, 2002, 04:58 PM: Message edited by: BrianT ]
     
    #2 BrianT, Nov 4, 2002
  3. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    228
    Faith:
    Baptist
    "Yet for all that, as nothing is begun and perfected at the same time , and the later thoughts are thought to be the wiser: so, if we building upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labours, do endeavor to make that better which they left so good ; no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us; they, we persuade ourselves, if they were alive, would thank us." Translators to the Reader

    The AV 1611 preserved all reliable English forerunners, all reliable extant manuscripts, and the original autographs themselves.
     
    #3 Pastor_Bob, Nov 4, 2002
  4. BrianT

    BrianT New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ah, I agree. But now we are talking about the type of "preservation" that us non-KJV-only folk believe in. I thought the point of your first post was that all editions of the KJV were "preserved" if you dismiss printing errors, ie. that the "true text...remained unaffected". That is a different kind of preservation than you are talking about now.
     
    #4 BrianT, Nov 4, 2002
  5. Rev. Joshua

    Rev. Joshua <img src=/cjv.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    2,859
    Likes Received:
    0
    By this logic, the NRSV is the logical continuation of that process of perfection. (Incidentally, Jesus was created and perfected at the same time. It seems that those who misuse John 1 to claim that Jesus is the personification of the Bible should likewise believe that their perfect, divinely authored translation was likewise created perfect.)

    Joshua
     
    #5 Rev. Joshua, Nov 4, 2002
  6. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    228
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Brian, I have no idea why our posts do not have the "quote" option. Joshua's does. I thought I might have disabled it in the opening post but I didn't see where. :confused:

    My first post is in answer to a question posted in another thread. The philosophy that "things different are not the same," was asked regarding the multiple revisions of the KJV. This thread is in response to that issue.

    My stand is that the English forerunners and the various revisions of the KJV all stem from a common textual basis. These are not in perfect agreement in that they are bound to the various styles of the translators. Much like the Gospels are synoptic even though they do not say the exact same thing or use the exact same words.

    The MV's however, are based on a totally different textual basis and have no substantial agreement with each other let alone the majority of extant writings.
     
    #6 Pastor_Bob, Nov 4, 2002
  7. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    228
    Faith:
    Baptist
    (Incidentally, Jesus was created and perfected at the same time.
    Joshua    </font>[/QUOTE]Joshua,
    Let me say first that, although I rarely agree with you, I sincerely admire your demeanor and civility when you post. You have been, thus far, a true gentleman. I appreciate that. It is so needed but unfortunately so rare.

    I am going to step out on a limb and say that the translators were referring to man-made creations as not being perfect at their beginning. Certainly we agree that God's creation was and is perfect at its inception.

    Secondly, I trust that you did not intend to imply that Jesus was created like the angels or man were created. John 1 would clearly teach otherwise.
     
    #7 Pastor_Bob, Nov 4, 2002
  8. BrianT

    BrianT New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm using the quote feature all the time without problem.

    Yes, and your point was that the "true text...had remained unaffected" and that the KJV was "unaltered in respect to its text". Yet when we compare the KJV to the "reliable English forerunners [and] all reliable extant manuscripts", the text was NOT "unaffected" and "unaltered". In the context of the original purpose for this thread, this has *everything* to do with "Things that are different are not the same". If both the 1789 KJV and the 1611 KJV are *both* "the word of God" because of the "unaltered" text, ie. they are the "same", then you *cannot* claim previous Bibles were the word of God, without your whole argument about the editions of KJV coming crumbing down.

    So, they "are not in perfect agreement", yet you are saying they *are* the word of God in a thread about "things different are not the same". Do you not see the double standard you are presenting?

    Imagine a tree. The trunk is the "original manuscripts". For the sake of argument, say that off of the trunk two main branches grow, the "TR" branch and the "other" branch. Each of these branches also have sub-branches, and each sub-branch has sub-branches, etc, etc, until we come to individual leaves which are individual translations, nay, even individual editions of translations (this is not a perfect analogy, because translations merge previous branches together, other Bibles have "branched" off the KJV, etc). You say that the editions of the KJV all stem from a common textual basis. This is true, they basically branch off one of the "TR branches". But that "textual basis" is a sub-branch, not a different tree. Modern versions may be on a different branch, but ultimately all branches stem from the *same trunk*. Is only one leaf or one twig the only valid part of the tree? How are leaves on one sub-sub-sub branch a "preservation" of the trunk, and not leaves on a different sub-sub-sub branch???

    Pastor Bob, here's two specific and direct questions:

    1. How much variation in words from the KJV is allowed for a Bible, and have it still be worthy of the label "the word of God"? 0.01%? 0.5%? 1%, 3%, 5%, 15%?

    2. Besides various editions of the KJV, which specific pre- and post-KJV English Bibles are "the word of God"?

    [ November 04, 2002, 08:19 PM: Message edited by: BrianT ]
     
    #8 BrianT, Nov 4, 2002
  9. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    228
    Faith:
    Baptist
    In my opinion, the MV's are twigs and leaves that have been pruned from the main tree and have been gathered in an attempt to produce a "better" tree. Imagine an old twig laying on the ground. A passerby notices it and thinks, "This twig is better than that green sprout because it is older." That would be rejected as being absurd.

    I guess the percentage of variation of words could be great if the words convey the same meaning. The KJV translators answered this question.
    My arguement was never in variance of words but in variance of textual dependence.

    1. Peshitta Bible A.D. 150
    2. Itala Bible A.D. 157
    3. Wycliffe's Bible 1382
    4. Tyndale's 1525
    5. Luther's 1534
    6. Coverdale's 1535
    7. Matthew's 1537
    8. The Great Bible 1539
    9. Stephen's Bible 1550
    10. Geneva 1560
    11. Bishop's 1568
    12. Beza's 1604
    13. KJV 1611

    All of these up to and including the various revisions of the KJV can be considered the Word of God. Each one building upon the other to give us what we now have. Each translation making a good translation better.
    The Word of God went through a purifying process Ps 12:6 "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." The inaccuracies found were corrected without question.

    I am not declaring that the KJV is the same as the Geneva etc. word for word, but I am declaring that they were the Word of God in primitive form that was foundational for the present KJV.
     
    #9 Pastor_Bob, Nov 4, 2002
  10. Japheth

    Japheth Guest

    [[/QUOTE]The Word of God went through a purifying process Ps 12:6 "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." The inaccuracies found were corrected without question.

    I am not declaring that the KJV is the same as the Geneva etc. word for word, but I am declaring that they were the Word of God in primitive form that was foundational for the present KJV.[/QB][/QUOTE]

    Well said Pastor Bob [​IMG]
     
    #10 Japheth, Nov 4, 2002
  11. Zebedee

    Zebedee New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2002
    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    0
    Even D.A. Waite, a kjv only, says there are 147 changes in the kjv from 1611 to the present day. Many kjv onlies try to pass these off as printing errors and speling updates, but some of these changes were made long after the printers manuscript was lost. So, in the end, it is a dishonest attempt to cover up the facts.
     
    #11 Zebedee, Nov 4, 2002
  12. try hard

    try hard New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2001
    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Which kjv is preserved?"

    There is only one: The kjv1769, Oxford edition by the way, 2385th printing. There is only one bible. Things that are Different are not the Same!!! Amen and Amen!
     
    #12 try hard, Nov 4, 2002
  13. BrianT

    BrianT New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. Peshitta Bible A.D. 150
    2. Itala Bible A.D. 157
    3. Wycliffe's Bible 1382
    4. Tyndale's 1525
    5. Luther's 1534
    6. Coverdale's 1535
    7. Matthew's 1537
    8. The Great Bible 1539
    9. Stephen's Bible 1550
    10. Geneva 1560
    11. Bishop's 1568
    12. Beza's 1604
    13. KJV 1611

    All of these up to and including the various revisions of the KJV can be considered the Word of God. Each one building upon the other to give us what we now have.
    </font>[/QUOTE]Thanks for answering the question so specifically! [​IMG] But what about where they differ significantly from the KJV? The Geneva does not have Luke 17:36, Luther's does not have 1 John 5:7, Wycliffe's is a translation of the Vulgate, etc.

    This is an interesting comment. You actually seem to be saying that a Bible does not need to be perfect to be called "the word of God"!

    VERY interesting. Although you seem to be creating more problems than you are solving: Why weren't they found earlier on? Was Psalm 12:6 a lie when Wycliffe translated the Bible, because you seem to be saying that at that time, God's word *wasn't* purified yet. You also seem to be saying that a "perfect" Bible does not need to exist at all for "the word of God" to exist - so if you are admitting that none of the "preservation" verses require neither a "purified" Bible nor a word-for-word perfect translation to exist, then you are admitting that none of those passages tell you that the KJV is perfect - so why should anyone believe that the KJV is the culmination, the perfection, that is neither required nor taught in scripture?
     
    #13 BrianT, Nov 5, 2002
  14. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    228
    Faith:
    Baptist
    147 for the whole Bible isn't bad. That's about 1 difference every 8 pages. This same D.A. Waite made a careful study of the Nestle/Aland 26th Edition Greek New Testament. As you are aware, this text is the present repository of the basic Westcott/Hort text. He found 5,604 alterations.
     
    #14 Pastor_Bob, Nov 5, 2002
  15. Daniel David

    Daniel David New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bob, this is totally unacceptable for the KJVO. What you are implying is that people did not have a perfect Word of God until the KJV perfected it.

    This nullifies ALL of your arguments on preservation. How can you logically remain in your position since you keep contradicting your own position?

    Nevermind, I suppose I already know... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
     
    #15 Daniel David, Nov 5, 2002
  16. Siegfried

    Siegfried Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    689
    Likes Received:
    0
    Still waiting for an answer to this question, KJVO's.

    I'll just take a little nap while I wait for you to spin a yarn on that one.
    [​IMG] [​IMG] . . .
     
    #16 Siegfried, Nov 5, 2002
  17. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    228
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I have no desire to be acceptable for the KJVO. I am stating what I believe based on the information that I have gathered. If my position places me in a certain "camp," so be it. I'm an Independent Baptist. My views are not dependent upon another's.
    Gal 1:10 "For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ."

    I am not implying anything. I am stating clearly that I believe the KJV to be the culmination of the preservation process that God promised us in His Word. The English forerunners were a "work in progress."

    No sir, this is my argument on preservation.
     
    #17 Pastor_Bob, Nov 5, 2002
  18. Daniel David

    Daniel David New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, as of now, I am NKJVO. The preservation process of all of the english Bibles and the 14 KJV Bibles served as the springboard for the now perfect translation, the NKJV.

    I for one take God at his word and do not add to it. I wish the KJV would have gotten it right before so that people could have had a perfect Bible before 1982. However, God in his providence has seen that the NKJV be made for the english speaking world. God foresaw that english would be primary and therefore, the greek and hebrew are not needed.

    I claim Psalm 12:6-7 as the basis for God having a perfect translation for the english people. Finally, since the KJV differs from the NKJV in several places, the KJV was merely a part of the bigger picture.
     
    #18 Daniel David, Nov 5, 2002
  19. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    228
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Praise the Lord! I'm so glad you finally got this settled. Now you can join us in the battle to win over the non-NKJVO crowd.
     
    #19 Pastor_Bob, Nov 5, 2002
  20. Siegfried

    Siegfried Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    689
    Likes Received:
    0
    What gives you the right to declare that the work of preservation was "culminated" in the KJV? The KJV translators certainly never claimed that status for their own translation. Why couldn't the KJV be part of that "work in progress" that leads to some thing better.

    That "something better" just might be something that already exists, but too many have their heads buried in too much 400 year old paper to notice.
     
    #20 Siegfried, Nov 5, 2002
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 1 of 3
Loading...