KJV typo?

[Rebirth In Flames]

I posted this in General Theology and haven’t gotten any responses so far, and then I realized that I should have posted it here where KJV is mostly used! I was studying this morning in my King James bible, and noticed a typo. Opening the Bible to Luke 6:46, the title reads, “Parable of the Two Foundations”, then underneath reads the cross-reference where the same story is told in a different book. It reads, “Luke 7:21-27”, when in fact it’s Matthew 7:21-27, or more accurately Matthew 7:24-27. Do your KJV bibles have this error as well? I know that all bibles have typos in them, and I’m still predominately a KJV believer, but I wanted to check with all of you if the same was true for all 1611 bibles? Thanks.

[Mr.Cheese]

Your bible is not a 1611 bible.

[ksen]

I wouldn't worry too much about typos in the footnotes or cross-references. Now if the text had a typo I'd probably not buy a KJV from that particular publisher again.

Here's an interesting story about a "typo" that made its way into the text:

The Wicked Bible: This King James Version Bible is an unspeakably rare collector’s item. The printers were fined 300 pounds sterling for their terrible typographical error in printing the Ten Commandments, omitting the all-important word “not” and rendering the verse as, “Thou shalt commit adultery”! The lot of 1,000 copies were ordered destroyed, but only a handful escaped destruction, making them the rarest of rare.
http://www.greatsite.com/images/rarebooks/wickedbible.jpg

http://www.greatsite.com/ancient-rare-bibles-books/platinum.html

;)

[PaladinGirl]

I wouldn't worry too much about typos in the footnotes or cross-references. Now if the text had a typo I'd probably not buy a KJV from that particular publisher again.

Here's an interesting story about a "typo" that made its way into the text:

The Wicked Bible: This King James Version Bible is an unspeakably rare collector’s item. The printers were fined 300 pounds sterling for their terrible typographical error in printing the Ten Commandments, omitting the all-important word “not” and rendering the verse as, “Thou shalt commit adultery”! The lot of 1,000 copies were ordered destroyed, but only a handful escaped destruction, making them the rarest of rare.
http://www.greatsite.com/images/rarebooks/wickedbible.jpg

http://www.greatsite.com/ancient-rare-bibles-books/platinum.html

;)

Interesting! :D I prefer the NAB, Douay-Rheims, or my trusty RSV Catholic Edition. ;)

[ps139]

I wouldn't worry too much about typos in the footnotes or cross-references. Now if the text had a typo I'd probably not buy a KJV from that particular publisher again.

Here's an interesting story about a "typo" that made its way into the text:

The Wicked Bible: This King James Version Bible is an unspeakably rare collector’s item. The printers were fined 300 pounds sterling for their terrible typographical error in printing the Ten Commandments, omitting the all-important word “not” and rendering the verse as, “Thou shalt commit adultery”! The lot of 1,000 copies were ordered destroyed, but only a handful escaped destruction, making them the rarest of rare.
http://www.greatsite.com/images/rarebooks/wickedbible.jpg

http://www.greatsite.com/ancient-rare-bibles-books/platinum.html

;)

Wow! Of all possible verses to leave a word out...!!

[twistedsketch]

Many "1611" Bibles are actually a 1769 revision by Benjamin Blayney. It corrects many errors that were found in the 1611. Thomas Nelson publishes an actual 1611 Bible, errors and all.

Source (http://journalofbiblicalstudies.org/Issue1/Articles/Translation_Problems_in_the_KJV_New_Testament.doc)

[ksen]

Wow! Of all possible verses to leave a word out...!!

As you can probably guess, this version was quite popular with the married men. ^_^

[ps139]

Is anyone here KJV only? Don't they think the 1611 version is the only "real" Bible translation into English? (In Virginia, I saw a bumper sticker, "If it ain't King James, it ain't Bible.") How is that view reconciled with these printing errors??? :confused:

[ksen]

Is anyone here KJV only? Don't they think the 1611 version is the only "real" Bible translation into English? (In Virginia, I saw a bumper sticker, "If it ain't King James, it ain't Bible.") How is that view reconciled with these printing errors??? :confused:

I am KJV Only in that I believe it is the best translation from the best manuscripts.

[Velcro]

I have had many Bibles over the years, and Bibles have typos in the text. Bibles, after all, were translated by humans as well as type-set by humans. With the era of computers in publishing, the errors in the text have certainly become fewer, but many remain, to my irritation, in the titles, notes, references, indexes, cyclopedic indexes, etc. My solution to this problem is to buy Bibles with no notes; so far, I have found no Bibles without titles. Unfortunately, we are a "reading people," and when we open our Bibles, we expect them to be full of truth and nothing but the truth, so we often accept even the titles as G-d's Word. They are not, but they lead us astray before we even realize what is happening.

Since I cannot find a Bible without titles, when I find an erring title, I use my trusty "Wite-Out."