Are present KJV editions another Bible?

[Logos1560]

KJV-only author Dave Reese claimed: "If words are changed, it is not the King James Version. It is another Bible" (The Book No One Can Read, p. 56). KJV-only author Jim Ellis asked: “How could it be a King James Bible if it is different from the King James Bible?“ (Only Two Bibles, p. 17). Charles Perkins wrote: “Personally I cannot find anything ‘Godly’ about changing even one word in the King James Bible” (Flaming Torch, April-June, 1998, p. 7). Attacking the idea that the New Scofield Reference Bible has the same basic text as the KJV, William Grady contended: "A lost man would laugh at the suggestion that a particular text could be promoted as the same text with even one alteration" (Final Authority, p. 311). Raymond Blanton wrote: “If man changes one word he has corrupted the Word of God” (Perilous Times, March, 1998, p. 2). Bill Bradley asked: “Would you allow someone to take your King James Bible and change it in more than 130 places, and still call it a King James Bible?“ (Carter, Elephant, p. 142). Len Smith wrote: “Be careful if you go buy a King James Version. The publishers will deceitfully call some of them Authorized Versions without letting you know they’ve changed some of the words, some of the spelling, and some of the capitalization” (Age of Reason, D22, p. 9). Mickey Carter wrote: “Some Bible publishers will print what on the cover reads ‘King James Version,‘ yet without any warning anywhere make changes on the inside” (Things that are Different, p. 90).

According to a consistent application of the statements above by KJV-only authors and according to a consistent application of the claim that things that are different are not the same, are present KJV editions another or different Bible from the 1611 edition of the KJV?

[arunma]

I'm certainly not a believer in KJV-only doctrine (in fact, I consider this doctrine to be absurd to the point that I do not even entertain KJV-only arguments anymore). But I've raised this issue with KJV-only apologists in the past, and they discount the revisions to the King James Bible as insignificant. I don't remember exactly how the logic goes. Nonetheless, they are aware of revisions to the King James, and they believe in KJV-onlyism nonetheless.

Ultimately I think that only time will defeat KJV-onlyism (which is why I only rarely indulge in debates of this nature). Remember that there was also a time when people held to the Aristotlian theory that heavier objects fall faster than light ones. But even when Galileo did his famous experiment on the Tower of Pisa to disprove this archaic belief, there were people who decided to trust Aristotle instead of their own eyes.

[Logos1560]

But I've raised this issue with KJV-only apologists in the past, and they discount the revisions to the King James Bible as insignificant. . Nonetheless, they are aware of revisions to the King James, and they believe in KJV-onlyism nonetheless.

Some KJV-only apologists are aware of some of the revisions or alterations between the 1611 edition of the KJV and today's KJV. At least a few of them seem to deny that there are any such differences. KJV-only author Ed DeVries claimed: "Buy a KJV at any bookstore and compare it to a KJV from 1611 and you will see that EVERY word is the same" (DIVINELY INSPIRED, INERRANTLY PRESERVED, p. 66). KJV-only author William Bradley claimed that "the King James Bible printed in 1611 reads the same as the King James Bible printed in 1997" (PURIFIED SEVEN TIMES, p. 115). KJV-only author Mickey Carter asserted that "the words were never changed" between the 1611 edition and the 1769 edition (THINGS THAT ARE DIFFERENT, pp. 173-174).

Many KJV-only advocates that acknowledge that there are some differences usually repeat D. A. Waite's claim that there are only 421 changes that affect the sound between the 1611 edition and today's Oxford KJV edition. Waite's count is inaccurate since he did not count and list even one-half of the changes.

KJV-only advocates usually claim that all the changes were only the correction of printing errors and the updating of spelling. Those claims are also incorrect.

[arunma]

Some KJV-only apologists are aware of some of the revisions or alterations between the 1611 edition of the KJV and today's KJV. At least a few of them seem to deny that there are any such differences. KJV-only author Ed DeVries claimed: "Buy a KJV at any bookstore and compare it to a KJV from 1611 and you will see that EVERY word is the same" (DIVINELY INSPIRED, INERRANTLY PRESERVED, p. 66). KJV-only author William Bradley claimed that "the King James Bible printed in 1611 reads the same as the King James Bible printed in 1997" (PURIFIED SEVEN TIMES, p. 115). KJV-only author Mickey Carter asserted that "the words were never changed" between the 1611 edition and the 1769 edition (THINGS THAT ARE DIFFERENT, pp. 173-174).

Many KJV-only advocates that acknowledge that there are some differences usually repeat D. A. Waite's claim that there are only 421 changes that affect the sound between the 1611 edition and today's Oxford KJV edition. Waite's count is inaccurate since he did not count and list even one-half of the changes.

KJV-only advocates usually claim that all the changes were only the correction of printing errors and the updating of spelling. Those claims are also incorrect.

I didn't know that some KJV-only apologists make such absurd claims. I suppose this goes to show that some people really will disbelieve their own eyes (and other senses) in order to adhere to certain doctrines.

[Logos1560]

I didn't know that some KJV-only apologists make such absurd claims.

Peter Ruckman wrote: “Any and all revisions were corrections of press errors where the typesetter had not followed the text of 1611. These were revised back into subsequent editions, and then their printer’s errors were corrected until a pure text was arrived at in 1813, which conformed to the original intent of the AV translators” (Differences in the KJV Editions, p. 13). Laurence Vance also wrote: “Besides the correction of errors of the press made in 1611, the text, punctuation, and italics of the Authorized Version have been refined, modernized, and standardized, but certainly not revised” (King James, His Bible, p. 139). Roy Branson claimed that since 1611, "only typographical errors have been corrected, and a handful of insignificant editing adjustments made" (KJV 1611: Perfect, p. 5). Edward F. Hills claimed that “aside from printers errors, these [KJV] editions differ from each other only in regard to spelling, punctuation, and, in a few places, italics” (KJV Defended, p. 230). Concerning a question about revision of the KJV, David Cloud asserted: “There were corrections of printing errors, typographical changes, and spelling updates” (Faith vs. the Modern Bible Versions, p. 588; Bible Version Question/Answer Database, p. 134). Evangelist William Bradley wrote: "The revisions made to the King James 1611 Bible, one in 1629, one in 1638, one in 1762, and the last one in 1769, made no changes in the text, only standardization of spelling, punctuation, and updated typeface. The text of the Bible has remained unchanged from 1611 till today" (To All Generations, p. 71). Ed DeVries maintained that "none of the 'revisions' of the KJV between 1611 and 1769 resulted in the addition, subtraction, and or replacement of one word" (Divinely Inspired, p. 67). Wally Beebe wrote: "The early revisions were not revisions at all, but instead were corrections. There were misspellings, typographical errors, type changes (from Gothic to Roman), and many other things that took several years to accomplish before the King James Version was in the beautiful and pure form it is in today" (Church Bus News, Apr.-June, 1992, p. 9). David Reagan also stated: "The King James Version of 1611 has not been revised but only corrected" (KJV of 1611, pp. 14-15). Reagan maintained that “the changes from the 1611 edition that are admittedly textual are obviously printing errors because of the nature of these changes” (p. 10). Gail Riplinger asserted that “one might wrongly conclude that the 1611 KJV was different in 136 places from today’s KJV, not realizing that the differences were typographical errors” (In Awe of Thy Word, p. 600).

[TwinCrier]

Why You Should Use The King James Bible (http://logosresourcepages.org/Versions/why_use.htm)

[Logos1560]

Why You Should Use The KJB

In the article you linked to, David Brown stated:
"The King James Bible is built on the foundation of faith by men who had a high regard for the Bible,
The Modern versions are built on a foundation of doubt by men who have a low regard for the Bible."

Where is the evidence that shows that the KJV is built any more on a foundation of faith and that it was translated by men who had any higher regard for the Bible than the translators of the Geneva Bible or the translators of the NKJV?

You seem to be trying to change the subject of this thread. According to a consistent applications of the statements of various KJV-only authors, should present editions of the KJV be considered another Bible than the 1611 edition?

According to the evidence concerning the actual doctrinal views of the Church of England translators of the KJV that I have found, the doctrinal views of the translators of the Geneva Bible and the doctrinal views of the translators of the NKJV seem to be more sound than the doctrinal views of the KJV translators.

[TwinCrier]

Openly Christian men vs book publishers that do not profess to be Christian.According to a consistent applications of the statements of various KJV-only authors, should present editions of the KJV be considered another Bible than the 1611 edition?
I haven't looked at every other KJV in existence, but of the one I have; KJ21, it is simply another Alexandrian concoction.According to the evidence concerning the actual doctrinal views of the Church of England translators of the KJV that I have found, the doctrinal views of the translators of the Geneva Bible and the doctrinal views of the translators of the NKJV seem to be more sound than the doctrinal views of the KJV translators.That's your opinion. I disagree that the NKJV is anything more than another Alexandrian concoction. In the NKJV, there are 22 omissions of "hell", 23 omissions of "blood", 44 omissions of "repent", 50 omissions of "heaven", 51 omissions of "God", and 66 omissions of "Lord". The terms "devils", "damnation", "JEHOVAH", and "new testament" are completely omitted. http://www.av1611.org/kjv/fight.html#fight11
Why would Christians want to remove references to heaven, hell and the blood of Christ?

[Logos1560]

I disagree that the NKJV is anything more than another Alexandrian concoction.
Quote:
In the NKJV, there are 22 omissions of "hell", 23 omissions of "blood", 44 omissions of "repent", 50 omissions of "heaven", 51 omissions of "God", and 66 omissions of "Lord". The terms "devils", "damnation", "JEHOVAH", and "new testament" are completely omitted.


How does you claimed love for the KJV justify the making of misleading and even false accusations against the NKJV? The NKJV was not translated from any Alexandrian manuscripts. The NKJV was based on the same underlying Hebrew and Greek texts as the KJV.
When the NKJV is compared to those same traditional underlying Hebrew and Greek texts, the NKJV does not omit the name of God 51 times. The KJV added the name of God a good number of times where the name of God is not found in either the Hebrew text or in the N. T. Greek text. How is accurate to claim that the NKJV omits the name of God in places where the name of God was not found in the original language texts?

The KJV only has "Jehovah" at a very few verses when the Hebrew name that it translated in this manner those few times is actually found over 5,000 times in the Old Testament. Do you claim that the KJV omits the name "Jehovah" in those thousands of places where it translated it "LORD" or "GOD?" If not, how do you have any valid basis for your accusation against the NKJV when it translates it the same way the KJV usually did? Would you claim that the KJV omits "Jehovah" in fifteen places where the 1537 Matthew's Bible has that rendering and the KJV does not?

Here are two of those places:

Exod. 15:3
The Lord is a man of war, Jehovah is his name (Tyndale's, 1537 Matthew's Bible)
The Lord is a man of war, his name is Jehovah (1560 Geneva)
The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name (KJV, NKJV)

Exod. 23:17
the Lord Jehovah (Tyndale's, 1537 Matthew's, 1560 Geneva)
the Lord GOD (KJV, NKJV)

[Logos1560]

KJ21, it is simply another Alexandrian concoction.

Where is the evidence for your serious accusation against the KJ21?

[diamondjoust]

Like a lot of skim readers of the Bible, you make the hasty claim that the KJV omits the name "Jehovah" in the many places where it provides instead the name: "LORD" (i.e., capital "L" followed by three small capitals). For while the name "Jehovah" appears that way expressly in seven (I like that number!) places in the KJV, it is also faithfully translated in thousands of others as Jehovah, where it appears as "LORD" (i.e., capital "L" followed by three small capitals), as distinct from "Lord" (i.e., Adonai, capital "L" followed by three small letters), and as distinct from lord (i.e., small "l" followed by three small letters, e.g., Sarah called Abraham "lord").
And for those with extra sharp eyes, the KJV translates "the Lord Jehovah" (i.e., adonai Jehovah) as "the Lord (i.e., capital "L" followed by three small letters) GOD (i.e., capital "G" followed by three small capitals), as distinct from God (i.e., Elohim, capital "G" followed by three small letters), in Gen. 15.2, 8; Ex. 23.17; 34.23 etc.
For me it's nearly as easy to see the name of Jehovah (i.e., he who is uncreated, eternal, immutable in the nature and attributes of his being, and faithful in his covenants and promises, as the great and holy "I am") in the text of the KJV, where it reads expressly as that, as it is to see the name Jehovah in the text of the KJV, where it reads "LORD" (i.e., capital "L" followed by three small capitals). The KJV does not, therefore, omit the name of Jehovah in thousands of places as you claim or suppose; and it does, in fact, preserve and provide a more precise distinction between the three variations of "Lord", (and those of "God") which are often lost in other versions in English.

[oran0007]

As I understand it, the major portion of the KJV only belief(which my church teaches, not what someone else does) is that the "original" text is the issue. There are differences in the translated texts, so the results differ. There are a few translations which follow the same "original" as the KJV, so the question then becomes, "Was it done correctly?".


I would not have a problem with a revision of the KJV which kept the same meaning, but modernized the language. The problem is that in 1611, there were words used which were no longer part of the everyday English language. This was done because the words used conveyed the meaning of the original language. For instance, how does one in modern day English, differentiate between singular you, and plural you? This is an example of something which was no longer common to use at the time of the translation, but was used out of a great respect for the original meaning and divine nature of every jot and tittle of the written Word of God.

My stipulation is that, I believe the KJV is a divinely inspired translation, and that any revision to it must also be, or it is not acceptable.

James

[IronWill]

As I understand it, the major portion of the KJV only belief(which my church teaches, not what someone else does) is that the "original" text is the issue. There are differences in the translated texts, so the results differ. There are a few translations which follow the same "original" as the KJV, so the question then becomes, "Was it done correctly?".


I would not have a problem with a revision of the KJV which kept the same meaning, but modernized the language. The problem is that in 1611, there were words used which were no longer part of the everyday English language. This was done because the words used conveyed the meaning of the original language. For instance, how does one in modern day English, differentiate between singular you, and plural you? This is an example of something which was no longer common to use at the time of the translation, but was used out of a great respect for the original meaning and divine nature of every jot and tittle of the written Word of God.

My stipulation is that, I believe the KJV is a divinely inspired translation, and that any revision to it must also be, or it is not acceptable.

James
Divinely inspired? In what manner do you claim this translation is "inspired?"

[oran0007]

Divinely inspired? In what manner do you claim this translation is "inspired?"

This translation was taken on with a meticulous care to do so correctly. The namesake of it may be a questionable figure, but this does not detract from the correct translation.


Four years were spent on the preliminary translation by the six groups. The translators were exacting and particular in their work, as related in their preface:

Neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered: but having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at the length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see. The conferences of each of the six being ended, nine months were spent at Stationers' Hall in London for review and revision of the work by two men each from the Westminster, Cambridge, and Oxford companies. The final revision was then completed by Myles Smith and Thomas Bilson, with a preface supplied by Smith.

A Brief History of English Bible Translations by Dr. Laurence M. Vance.

[IronWill]

This translation was taken on with a meticulous care to do so correctly. The namesake of it may be a questionable figure, but this does not detract from the correct translation.



A Brief History of English Bible Translations by Dr. Laurence M. Vance.
That doesn't tell me what type of inspiration you are claiming for the KJV. Are you claiming inspiration by preservation? Inspiration in the same manner as the original writers?

[oran0007]

Peter Ruckman wrote: ... snip


I have to ask. Are you using this as proof that the KJV only teaching cannot be correct? If so, I must tell you that there is a problem in your logic. Here is an example.

I preach that Jesus Christ is the saviour of all mankind. I also preach that his name should be translated Jesus Christe, and that anyone who disagrees with me cannot be saved. Does my being wrong about the second point make the first one wrong? The answer is no.

While these people may be wrong about revisions, which I believe the word revision is printed somewhere in the front of every Bible I own, it does not disqualify the rest of their arguments.

James

[oran0007]

That doesn't tell me what type of inspiration you are claiming for the KJV. Are you claiming inspiration by preservation? Inspiration in the same manner as the original writers?

God gave us divinely inspired scriptures in an original language(This language may differ from book to book because of political issues). Would that original scripture be correct if words were changed? I believe it would not be. This means that in any given language, there is one translation which transmits God's message to us. I believe this to be the KJV. You can obviously disagree with me, and still be a child of God, but your doctrines cannot all be the same as mine while reading a different translation.

Let us say that my original assertion about one correct translation is incorrect. Can you go through any group of two translations, and come out with exactly the same doctrines? No. Some may be very close, but there are always differences in more than just minor words. Even some changes in articles(a, an, the) and other small words can have a profound effect on our understanding of God. God is not the author of confusion. If there are multiple translations which are correct, and different translations lead to different doctrines, then how can God be the author of them all?

James