Which KJV edition is the only accurate translation?

[Logos1560]

There are presently 7 to 10 different and varying editions of the KJV. There are at least three different Cambridge KJV editions. Perhaps the oldest Cambridge KJV edition in print is the 1873 Cambridge edition edited by Scrivener that is reprinted in Zondervan KJV editions.
There is also available the Cambridge Standard Text Edition of the KJV which has alterations introduced into its text in the 1900's. Also available is the new 2005 NEW CAMBRIDGE PARAGRAPH BIBLE edited by David Norton that has around 4,000 differences when compared to the present Oxford KJV edition in the Scofield Reference Bible. There are also at least three different Oxford KJV editions available today although those three don't have as many variations as in the three Cambridge editions. The KJV edition published by the American Bible Society has a number of differences when compared to the Oxford KJV edition. Other varying KJV editions including a reprint of the 1611 edition are also available.

Which of the varying KJV editions is the only accurate or perfect one? What greater authority or standard can be used to evaluate the many varying editions of the KJV?

[Logos1560]

Here is some evidence that confirms that there are actual variations between KJV editions printed today. There is a greater number of differences between the other two Cambridge editions and the Oxford edition than between this one and it.

Consider a present day KJV that is published by Cambridge University Press in Great Britain [ISBN 0-521-50882-7]. It is identified as a "standard text edition." It differs from the standard text in the Oxford edition in the Scofield Reference Bible in several places. This Cambridge edition has “spirit of God“ (Gen. 1:2) for “Spirit of God,” "assuaged" (Gen. 8:1) for "asswaged," "plucked" (Gen. 8:11) for "pluckt," “Sabtecha“ (Gen. 10:7) for “Sabtechah,” "mortar" (Gen. 11:3) for "morter," “theirs“ (Gen. 15:13, 34:23, 43:34) for “their‘s,” “fetched“ (Gen. 18:7) for “fetcht,” “entreat“ for “intreat“ (Gen. 23:8), “Abida“ (Gen. 25:4) for “Abidah,” “ours“ (Gen. 26:20, 31:16, 34:23) for “our‘s,” “chestnut“ (Gen. 30:37) for “chesnut,” "aught" (Gen. 39:6, 47:18) for "ought," “today“ (Gen. 40:7) for “to day,” “spirit of God“ (Gen. 41:38) for “Spirit of God,” “Zerah“ (Gen. 46:12) for “Zarah,” “basins“ (Exod. 24:6) for “basons,” "veil" (Exod. 26:31) for "vail," "plaster" (Lev. 14:42) for "plaister," "plastered" (Lev. 14:43) for "plaistered," "crookbacked" (Lev. 21:20) for "crookbackt," “jubilee“ (Lev. 25:9) for “jubile,” “mixed“ (Num. 11:4) for “mixt,” “ours“ (Num. 32:32) for “our‘s,” “aught“ (Deut. 4:2) for “ought,” “yours“ (Deut. 11:24) for “your‘s,” “awl“ (Deut. 15:17) for “aul,” “hers“ (Deut. 21:15) for “her‘s,” "rearward" (Josh. 6:9, 13) for "rereward," “Jahazah“ (Josh. 13:18) for “Jahaza,” "or Sheba" (Josh. 19:2) for "and Sheba," “Hapharaim“ (Josh. 19:19) for “Haphraim,” “spirit“ (Jud. 3:10) for “Spirit,” “wondrously“ (Jud. 13:19) for “wonderously,” "steadfastly" (Ruth 1:18) for "stedfastly," “hasted“ (1 Sam. 17:48) for “hastened,” “spirit“ (1 Sam. 19:20, 2 Sam. 23:2) for “Spirit,” “inquired“ (1 Sam. 22:13) for “enquired,” “Malchi-shua“ (1 Sam. 31:2) for “Melchi-shua,” “aught“ (2 Sam. 3:35) for “ought,” “Shammua“ (2 Sam. 5:14) for “Shammuah,” “Shimea“ (2 Sam. 21:21) for “Shimeah,” “spirit“ (2 Sam. 23:2) for “Spirit,” “Naharai“ (2 Sam. 23:37) for “Nahari,” "ceiling" (1 Kings 6:15) for "cieling," “the LORD“ (1 Kings 8:56) for “the Lord,” “spirit“ (1 Kings 18:12, 22:24) for “Spirit,“ “inquire“ (1 Kings 22:8) for “enquire,” “hers“ (2 Kings 8:6) for “her‘s,” "the LORD" (2 Kings 19:23) for "the Lord," “Ezer“ (1 Chron. 1:38) for “Ezar,” “Geshan“ (1 Chron. 2:47) for “Gesham,” “Achsah“ (1 Chron. 2:49) for “Achsa,” “Salchah“ (1 Chron. 5:11) for “Salcah,” “Shimron“ (1 Chron. 7:1) for “Shimrom,” “Shemida“ (1 Chron. 7:19) for “Shemidah,” “Jehoshua“ (1 Chron. 7:27) for “Jehoshuah,” “Michah“ (1 Chron. 23:20) for “Micah,” “Jeshua“ (1 Chron. 24:11) for “Jeshuah,” "floats" (2 Chron. 2:16) for "flotes," "ceiled" (2 Chron. 3:5) for "cieled," “spirit“ (2 Chron. 15:1, 18:23, 20:14, 24:20) for “Spirit,” “Ezion-geber“ (2 Chron. 20:36) for “Ezion-gaber,” "sin" (2 Chron. 33:19) for "sins," “Carchemish“ (2 Chron. 35:20) for “Charchemish,” “Mispar“ (Ezra 2:2) for “Mizpar,” “Asnappar“ (Ezra 4:10) for “Asnapper,” "O LORD" (Neh. 1:11) for "O Lord," “LORD“ (Neh. 3:5) for “Lord,” "entreated" (Job 19:17) for "intreated," “spirit“ (Job 33:4) for “Spirit,” “grayheaded“ (Ps. 71:18) for “greyheaded,” "vapour" (Ps. 148:8) for "vapours," “two-edged“ (Ps. 149:6) for “twoedged,” "inquiry" (Prov. 20:25) for "enquiry," “gray“ (Prov. 20:29) for “grey,” “further“ (Eccl. 8:17) for “farther,” “rearward“ (Isa. 52:12) for “rereward,” “cloak“ (Isa. 59:17) for “cloke,” "holy spirit" (Isa. 63:10) for "holy Spirit," "whom ye" (Jer. 34:16) for "whom he," "portray" (Ezek. 4:1) for "pourtray," “spirit“ (Ezek. 11:5, 24) for “Spirit,” “Kerioth“ (Amos 2:2) for “Kirioth,” "flieth" (Nah. 3:16) for "fleeth," “inquired“ (Matt. 2:7) for “enquired,” "Spirit" (Matt. 4:1) for "spirit," "theirs" (Matt. 5:3) for "their's," “aught“ (Matt. 5:23) for “ought,” "cloak" (Matt. 5:40) for "cloke," "lunatic" (Matt. 17:15) for "lunatick," "sponge" (Matt. 27:48) for "spunge," “Spirit“ (Mark 1:12) for “spirit,” “further“ (Mark 1:19) for “farther,” "yours" (Luke 6:20) for "your's," “havoc“ (Acts 8:3) for “havock,” “inquiry“ (Acts 10:17) for “enquiry,” “grafted“ (Rom. 11:23) for “graffed,” “graft” (Rom. 11:23) for “graff,“ “entreaty” (2 Cor. 8:4) for “intreaty,“ “entreat” (Phil. 4:3) for “intreat,“ “cloak“ (2 Tim. 4:13) for “cloke,” “Nicolaitans“ (Rev. 2:6) for “Nicolaitanes,” “Spirit of life” (Rev. 11:11) for “spirit of life,“ and "chrysolite" (Rev. 21:20) for "chrysolyte."

[TwinCrier]

1611 of course. http://www.biblebelievers.com/Branson_KJV1.html

[Logos1560]

I asked: "Which of the varying KJV editions is the only accurate or perfect one?"

1611 of course. Branson (http://Branson)

According to your answer, you seem to be saying that the 1611 edition of the KJV is the "perfect one."

Do you actually use a 1611 edition of the KJV? Are you claiming that the 1611 edition of the KJV did not have any errors of any kind?

[Logos1560]

/Branson (http://Branson)

In the information from KJV-only Roy Branson that you linked to, Roy Branson wrote:
"KJV 1611, or KJV, or The Authorized Version


All terms referring to the same Bible, the King James Bible. The 1611 refers simply to the year the final revisions were made by the translating commission. Since then only typographical errors have been corrected, and a handful of insignificant editing adjustments made - editing adjustments, not adjustments by retranslating. "

Branson's statements seem to contradict your claim that the 1611 edition was the "perfect one" since Branson states that the 1611 edition had some "typographical errors."

Are Branson's statements correct? According to the known and available evidence, some of Branson's statements are incorrect.

According to the first rule given the KJV translators: "The ordinary Bible read in the church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit."

According to this first rule, when the KJV translators followed the renderings of the Bishops' Bible, it would be their responsibility and not the fault of the printers.

The 1611 edition of the KJV does have some printing or typographical errors. However, all the later changes in the text of the KJV by later editors was not just the correction of such errors. Some of the later editors consulted the Hebrew and Greek texts, and then they made some changes in the renderings for which the KJV translators themselves were responsible since they had kept them from the Bishops' Bible.

At 2 Kings 11:10, the KJV translators had followed and kept the rendering of the Bishops' Bible ["temple"] and thus omitted English words for the Hebrew "of the LORD." Later editors consulted the Hebrew and added the words "of the LORD" that were omitted in the 1611 because the KJV translators kept the rendering of the Bishops' Bible.

[TwinCrier]

I asked: "Which of the varying KJV editions is the only accurate or perfect one?"



According to your answer, you seem to be saying that the 1611 edition of the KJV is the "perfect one."

Do you actually use a 1611 edition of the KJV? Are you claiming that the 1611 edition of the KJV did not have any errors of any kind?Not on actually printed in 1611, just one of the same kind. I am indeed saying that the KJV did not have an doctrinal errors of any kind and still does not. I know you disagree and will continue to make attempts to destroy my faith in the book til the Lord comes. Good luck! ^_^

[TwinCrier]

You butchered my link, but in any case, I do not consider printing errors as a fault of translation. I don't consider men or machines to be infallible, but God's word is.
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/articles.html

[Logos1560]

in any case, I do not consider printing errors as a fault of translation.

I did not claim that any errors made by printers were the responsibility of the KJV translators. However, I did provide evidence that shows that all the changes made by later editors of KJV editions were not just the correction of printing errors. Some of what you seem to excuse as so-called printing errors were actually the responsibility of the KJV translators who had kept them from the Bishops' Bible.

An error is still an error regardless of whether it was supposedly made by a printer, copier, editor, or translator. An error made by a printer can omit words, add words, change one word into another word, and thus can change the meaning.

How is God supposedly any more responsible for translating errors than He is for printing errors? If errors made by printers do not indicate that God failed to keep His promise to preserve His Word, on what basis do you imply that if any errors were made by translators that God failed to preserve His Word? Your inconsistent KJV-only reasoning does not hold up.

Disagreeing with inconsistent man-made KJV-only claims is not at attempt to get anyone to stop reading the KJV. I accept the KJV as an overall good translation of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages in the same sense that the KJV translators themselves accepted it.

[TwinCrier]

A mispelled word does not alter doctrine. Changing words to retain a copyright requires far more than updating a few thees and thous.
Proverb 30:5-6 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. :prayer:

http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/kjv1611.htm

[Logos1560]

Changing words to retain a copyright requires far more than updating a few thees and thous.

You seem to repeat common KJV-only claims that are actually inaccurate. Where is the valid proof for claiming that words were changed just to get a copyright? Would you claim that the KJV translators changed words in the earlier English Bibles of which it was a revision just to get a copyright?

[TwinCrier]

With modern translations of the Bible, permission has to be sought from the publishers before they can be reproduced. In the case of the RAV (the first British edition of the NKJV) we read: `All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the written permission of Samuel Bagster & Sons Ltd.' Hence, as Mr. Smith said, these new translations cannot be too similar to each other for fear of infringing their copyright. Not a helpful restriction when it comes to rendering the meaning of God's Word!
It is only fair to point out, however, that in one sense the AV is copyrighted: it is Crown Copyright and is subject to the Royal Letters Patent. This means that a publisher must be granted a special License in order to publish an edition of the AV, and stiff copyright restrictions are placed upon the reproducing of parts of it by anybody else, although in practice the spirit of the law permits the free use and quotation of the AV for all necessary purposes.


A “derivative work,” that is, a work that is based on (or derived from) one or more already existing works, is copyrightable if it includes what the copyright law calls an “original work of authorship.” Derivative works, also known as “new versions,” include such works as translations, musical arrangements, dramatizations, fictionalizations, art reproductions, and condensations. Any work in which the editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications represent, as a whole, an original work of authorship is a derivative work or new version.
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html

[Logos1560]

All translations are a derivative work. Your quotations do not show or prove your claim that words are changed just to get a copyright.

The 1994 21st Century KJV has its own copyright. The 1998 Third Millennium Bible has its own copyright even though it is almost identical in text to the 1994 KJ21.
There may be fewer differences between the 1994 KJ21 and the 1998 TMB than there are between the 1611 edition of the KJV and the present Oxford edition of the KJV.

According to your claim, should the present Oxford KJV edition with 2,000 changes that affect the sound from the 1611 edition have a different copyright than the 1611 edition?

[TwinCrier]

There is a difference between a dirivative work and a true translation. The differences are clear to see: http://biblebelievers.com/New_Eye_Opener.html
The Oxford DOES have a copyright. Isn't that the one they call the Pilgrim bible? I consider modern versions tobe dull swords.

[Logos1560]

The Oxford DOES have a copyright. Isn't that the one they call the Pilgrim bible?

All editions of the KJV both Oxford and Cambridge that are printed in Great Britain still have a copyright. All Oxford editions are not called the Pilgrim Bible, but there is one KJV study Bible edition published by Oxford that is called the Pilgrim Bible. Oxford editions of the KJV printed in New York may not all have a copyright.

The Oxford edition in the old 1948 Pilgrim Bible seems to have been the same in text as the Oxford edition in the Scofield Reference Bible. On the other hand, the 2002 NEW PILGRIM BIBLE that has two KJV-only advocates [Douglas Stauffer and Jerry L. Rockwell] as consulting editors does have some changes introduced into its text so that its text differs in a few places from that of the 1948 Pilgrim KJV edition.

[Logos1560]

The 1873 Cambridge KJV edition that is now printed in present Zondervan KJV editions has "strain out" at Matthew 23:24 instead of "strain at." It has "profession of our hope" at Hebrews 10:23 instead of "profession of our faith." At John 10:25, this 1873 edition has "ye believe not" in agreement with several of the earlier English Bibles while most present KJV's have "ye believed not." At Acts 25:23, it has "were entered" in agreement with several earlier English Bibles while most KJV's have "was entered" following the Bishops' Bible. This 1873 edition has "thy mercy's sake" (Psalm 6:4, 31:16, 44:26) for the Oxford edition's "thy mercies' sake," “fathers‘ house“ for “father‘s house“ (1 Chron. 7:2, Ezra 2:59, Neh. 7:61), “heart’s lust” for “hearts’ lust” (Ps. 81:12), “Adder‘s poison“ for “adders‘ poison“ (Ps. 140:3), “fools‘ back” for “fool‘s back“ (Prov. 26:3), “merchant’s ships” for “merchants’ ships” (Prov. 31:14), “priests‘” for “priest’s” (Ezek. 44:30), “potter’s clay” for “potters’ clay” (Dan. 2:41), and “oaths’ sake” for “oath’s sake” (Matt. 14:9, Mark 6:26). It has “mine hands” for “my hands” (Isa. 65:2) and “mine hand” for “my hand” (Jer. 25:15, Ezek. 6:14). It has “thine hand” for “thy hand” (Isa. 64:8).


The text of this KJV edition is more in agreement with the 1611 edition than are most other present KJV editions. Scrivener presented a list of the places in his 1873 edition that he restored 1611 readings (Authorized Edition, pp. 215-237). The Old Testament of this edition has “you“ for “ye“ (Gen. 9:4), “Girgashite“ for “Girgasite“ (Gen. 10:16), “towards“ for “toward“ (Gen. 15:5), “this thing“ for “this thing also“ (Gen. 19:21), “lift“ for “lifted“ (Gen. 22:4), “amongst“ for “among“ (Gen. 23:10), “to him“ for “unto him“ (Gen. 25:33), “Philistims“ for “Philistines“ (Gen. 26:1), "hand” for “hands” (Gen. 39:1), “spirit” for “Spirit” (Gen. 41:38), “drunk“ for “drank“ (Gen. 43:34), “any man” for “any men” (Gen. 47:6), “Haste you“ for “Haste ye“ (Gen. 45:9), “And you“ for “And ye“ (Gen. 45:13), “you did“ for “ye did“ (Exod. 10:11), “consecrations“ for “consecration“ (Exod. 29:26), “clothes“ for “cloths“ (Exod. 31:10), “stript“ for “stripped“ (Exod. 33:6), “manner fat“ for “manner of fat“ (Lev. 7:23), “nor scales“ for “and scales“ (Lev. 11:10), “were“ for “are“ (Lev. 25:23), “river side“ for “river‘s side“ (Num. 24:6), “begun“ for “began“ (Num. 25:1), “thy hand“ for “thine hand“ (Deut. 2:24), “thy heart“ for “thine heart“ (Deut. 15:7), “thy oil“ for “thine oil“ (Deut. 18:4), “all lost thing“ for “all lost things“ (Deut. 22:3), “noondays“ for “noonday“ (Deut. 28:29), “even the Lord” for “of the Lord” (Josh. 3:11), “or Sheba“ for “and Sheba“ (Josh. 19:2), “spirit” for “Spirit” (Jud. 3:10), “a hammer“ for “an hammer“ (Jud. 4:21), “he went” for “she went” (Ruth 3:15), “girt“ for “girded“ (1 Sam. 2:4), “my heart“ for “mine heart“ (1 Sam. 2:35), “in the fields” for “in the field” (1 Sam. 20:5), “wrapt“ for “wrapped“ (1 Sam. 21:9), “rose“ for “arose“ (1 Sam. 24:8), “a hill“ for “an hill“ (1 Sam. 26:13), “thy word“ for “thy words“ (1 Kings 3:12), “the LORD“ for “the Lord“ (1 Kings 8:56), “flotes“ for “floats“ (1 Kings 5:9), “son” for “sons” (1 Kings 13:11), “leese“ for “lose“ (1 Kings 18:5), “a horse “ for “an horse“ (1 Kings 20:20), “neesed“ for “sneezed“ (2 Kings 4:35), “kab“ for “cab“ (2 Kings 6:25), “to give to him“ for “to give him“ (2 Kings 8:19), “Geshan“ for “Gesham“ (1 Chron. 2:47), “Shimron“ for “Shimrom“ (1 Chron. 7:2), “men of might” for “valiant men of might” (1 Chron. 7:5), “son“ for “sons“ (1 Chron. 7:35), “Michah“ for “Micah“ (1 Chron. 23:20), “and laid” for “and they laid” (2 Chron. 29:23), “sin“ for “sins“ (2 Chron. 33:19), “and gold” for “and the gold” (Ezra 7:18), “built“ for “builded“ (Neh. 3:10, “cruddled“ for “curdled“ (Job 10:10), “sent“ for “scent“ (Job 14:9), “flying” for “fleeing” (Job 30:3), “the LORD“ for “the Lord“ (Ps. 2:4), “whiles” for “while” (Ps. 49:18), “holy Spirit“ for “holy spirit“ (Ps. 51:11), “Zion“ for “Sion“ (Ps. 65:1), “stablish“ for “establish“ (Ps. 89:4), “snare” for “snares” (Ps. 141:9), “vapour” for “vapors” (Ps. 148:8), “beareth“ for “bear“ (Song of Solomon 4:2), “mixt“ for “mixed“ (Isa. 1:22), “Get you” for “Get you” (Isa. 30:11), “burnt“ for “burned“ (Jer. 1:16), “nor daughters” for “or daughters” (Jer. 16:2), “sith“ for “since“ (Jer. 23:38), “afterwards” for “afterward” (Jer. 34:11), “word which“ for “word that“ (Jer. 40:1), “utter court” for “outer court” (Ezek. 10:5), “cropt“ for “cropped“ (Ezek. 17:4), “And the word” for “The word” (Ezek. 18:1), “ebeny“ for “ebony“ (Ezek. 27:15), “astrologians“ for “astrologers“ (Dan. 2:27), “a whirlwind” for “the whirlwind” (Hos. 13:3), “ript“ for “ripped“ (Hos. 13:16), “Kerioth“ for “Kirioth“ (Amos 2:2), “flieth” for “fleeth” (Nah. 3:16), and “Lord GOD“ for “LORD God“ (Hab. 3:19).


In the New Testament, this 1873 and present KJV edition has “but will” for “but he will” (Matt. 3:12), “Spirit“ for “spirit“ (Matt. 4:1), “a hungred“ for “an hungred“ (Matt. 4:2), “out the devils“ for “out devils“ (Matt. 9:34), “Is this“ for “Is not this“ (Matt. 12:23), “had not root” for “had no root” (Matt. 13:6), “a hymn“ for “an hymn“ (Matt. 26:30), “ought“ for “owed“ (Luke 7:41), “he said“ for “he had said“ (Luke 8:8), “to my Lord“ for “unto my Lord“ (Luke 20:42), “They say” for “They said” (John 11:34), “Canaan“ for “Chanaan“ (Acts 7:11, 13:19), “house“ for “housetop“ (Acts 10:9), “law of the husband“ for “law of her husband“ (Rom. 7:2), “approved to death” for “appointed to death” (1 Cor. 4:9), “hand“ for “hands“ (2 Cor. 5:1), “think you“ for “think ye“ (2 Cor. 12:19), “passed“ for “past“ (Eph. 2:11), “shamefastness” for “shamefacedness” (1 Tim. 2:9), “or by our epistle“ for “or our epistle“ (1 Thess. 2:15), “which doeth“ for “that doeth“ (1 John 2:29), “precious stone” for “precious stones” (Rev. 17:4), “sailers“ for “sailors“ (Rev. 18:17), “dipt” for “dipped” (Rev. 19:13), and several others. Do all these differences or alterations mean that KJV-only advocates do or do not accept this edition as having the same text? If they condemn the restoration of several 1611 readings, are they also in effect condemning the 1611 edition for having them? Is this 1873 edition acceptable and reliable? Some renderings accepted in other present KJV editions may have come from this 1873 edition. Since this KJV edition is presently available, it demonstrates that there are a large number of variations between present KJV editions.

[Logos1560]

Here is a quotation from the following web address about KJV editions:
www.baptistpillar.com/bd0161.htm (http://www.baptistpillar.com/bd0161.htm)

"And this my friend is only a sampling, there are literally hundreds of places they have changed words, punctuation, and grammar. Some could say, “Well spelling is no big deal, writing Isaiah for Esaias in John 1:23, what does that matter?” Well, let’s take a look at the Thompson Chain Reference Bibles published by Kirkbride Bible Co. Published in 1988. John 4:24 in the Thompson chain reads, “God is a spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” Notice the change in “...God is a spirit...” and “...God is a Spirit...” in the K.J.V. In the Thompson chain published in 1964 it reads, “...God is a Spirit...”
Why would they change winefat to winevat in the Annotated Study Bible? Why would they not tell you they have taken the liberty to change words, spelling, punctuation, and grammar? I hear the ssssssssss... of the serpent. I smell a rat. I hear, “Yea, hath God said,...” Some could still say, “Well, I don’t have a problem with changing the spelling, punctuation, or changing a few words, what harm could it do?” Confusion, is the answer, it causes confusion. Example, recently I was teaching in the Gospel of John and quoting from John 4:24, ““...God is a Spirit..” capital S,” I said, and one of our members said mine doesn’t say capital S it’s little s. “Yea, hath God said...” You see how easily the doubt and confusion could rise. We have always been able to see the confusion with using different translations but how much more if our K.J.V.’s don’t even say the same things. Jesus said in Mat. 24:35, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” Every word of God is important and in the K.J.V. we have every word and yes, every word does matter. The Lord Jesus Christ in these last 2,000 years has always used his church, the one he started, to defend, protect, and help preserve his Word. We’re slipping, let’s get to work. Our forefathers died and shed their blood so we could have the Word of God. Remember if a word has been changed they are saying there was a mistake. The K.J.V. is perfect without error, it doesn’t need to be changed, it needs to be read."
~ Pastor John Reaves

[AnthonytheBaptist]

"authorized" KJV is the Word of God, suitable for all doctrines, and guide for all righteousness. All scripture contained therin is inspired by the Holy Spirit and is not for private interpetation, one must have the Holy Spirit as guide to understand Gods' Word!!!

[Dewi Sant]

The reason there have been different editions of the King James Version of the Bible is due to the natural language changes of the English language.

For example, here is the opening of the Gospel according to Saint John in the original spelling of the 1611 version:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, & the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Joh 1:4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
Joh 1:5 And the light shineth in darknesse, and the darknesse comprehended it not.
Joh 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was Iohn.
Joh 1:7 The same came for a witnesse, to beare witnesse of the light, that all men through him might beleeue.
Joh 1:8 Hee was not that light, but was sent to beare witnesse of that light.
Joh 1:9 That was the true light, which lighteth euery man that commeth into the world.
Joh 1:10 Hee was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.



As you can see, there are minor spelling changes such as 'u's instead of 'v's, extended 'e's on long vowels and other general varients. The text itself is unchanged.


Myself, I do like the King James Version of the Holy Bible more than any of these 'modern' bibles. It is (from my experience) always the most accurate and the most faithful to the original greek and hebrew texts. Naturally, because it is english, it looses some of the beauty and poetry of the original language.

I would also suggest a bible translated from the Septuagint, as this is the original Greek text, and was started in the 3rd century BC in an attempt to preserve the original Hebrew meaning in the dominant Greek language.
Nelson Press will soon be releasing the Old Testament translated from the Septuagint in time for Easter. It comes under the title of 'Orthodox Study Bible', but that is mainly because the commentary is compiled from notes of Orthodox theologians (always interesting).


In Peace
Chris

[staveoffzombies]

I noticed in one of the articles posted that the author attacked those that looked at older greek manuscripts to figure out which translations were best and such.

Why do KJV defenders seem to attack scholarly work in regards to biblical translations? The only reason I can see is that any scholar who knows his way around the original languages can deconstruct the KJV-only argument fairly easily and so KJV advocates can't refute the claims.

Just an observation of an ongoing argument that should have been put to rest a long long LONG time ago.

[Logos1560]

For example, here is the opening of the Gospel according to Saint John in the original spelling of the 1611 version:

Joh 1:1
Joh 1:10 .
As you can see, there are minor spelling changes such as 'u's instead of 'v's, extended 'e's on long vowels and other general varients. The text itself is unchanged.

Chris

In the few example verses you listed, the text has not been unchanged. There have been some changes in KJV editions since 1611 that affect the text.

Here are seven examples from the Gospel of John:

John 7:16 Jesus answered them (1611 KJV) Jesus answered them and said (present Oxford KJV)
John 8:30 those words (1611 KJV) these words (present KJV)
John 9:27 would you (1611 KJV) would ye (present KJV)
John 11:3 his sister (1611 KJV) his sisters (present KJV)
John 11:34 They say (1611 KJV) They said (present KJV)
John 12:22 told Jesus (1611 KJV) tell Jesus (present KJV)
John 15:20 then the Lord (1611 KJV) than his lord (present KJV)

[AV1611VET]

Hi, Logos --- :wave: --- nice to meet you!

In the few example verses you listed, the text has not been unchanged. There have been some changes in KJV editions since 1611 that affect the text.

I have a digitally-remastered copy of the original 1611 King James Bible, and it indeed carries those "errors".

What is currently on the market is the AV1611 King James Version, fifth edition.

The fifth edition is a "highly polished" original. In other words, the Bible was completed in 1611, but just like any product that comes off the assembly line, it needed polishing.

[Logos1560]

What is currently on the market is the AV1611 King James Version, fifth edition.

The fifth edition is a "highly polished" original.

By fifth edition, which editions are you counting? Are you only counting the 1611 edition, 1629 Cambridge, 1638 Cambridge, 1762 Cambridge, 1769 Oxford? There are other editions besides those five that introduced changes into the text of the KJV.

Today's Oxford KJV edition in the Scofield Reference Bible is not every word the same in text as the 1769 Oxford edition. I do not know of any of the three or more present Cambridge editions that are every word the same in text as the 1762 Cambridge or 1769 Oxford editions. There are over five varying present editions of the KJV.

[Logos1560]

Hi, Logos --- :wave: --- nice to meet you!



Thanks for the welcome. Nice to meet you, too. From your number of posts, evidently you have been a member here awhile.

[AV1611VET]

By fifth edition, which editions are you counting? Are you only counting the 1611 edition, 1629 Cambridge, 1638 Cambridge, 1762 Cambridge, 1769 Oxford? There are other editions besides those five that introduced changes into the text of the KJV.

Today's Oxford KJV edition in the Scofield Reference Bible is not every word the same in text as the 1769 Oxford edition. I do not know of any of the three or more present Cambridge editions that are every word the same in text as the 1762 Cambridge or 1769 Oxford editions. There are over five varying present editions of the KJV.

The King James Version underwent 3 types of changes since 1611:

printing changes
spelling changes
textual changesThe printing changes were simply changes in font from Gothic Font to Roman Font.

The spelling changes were changes to correct spelling errors.

The textual changes were to correct such things as verb tense, pluralized words (such as ye vs. you) and omissions of words.

In short, it wasn't to change doctrine, but to correct errors in the original version.

My suggestion to you Logos, is to to get either a Scofield Study Bible, or a Defender's Study Bible; but whatever you purchase, you won't be disappointed - as long as it's a King James.

As the saying goes:

THE QUALITY GOES IN BEFORE THE NAME GOES ON!

[Logos1560]

The King James Version underwent 3 types of changes since 1611:

printing changes
spelling changes
textual changesThe spelling changes were changes to correct spelling errors.

The textual changes were to correct such things as verb tense, pluralized words (such as ye vs. you) and omissions of words.

In short, it wasn't to change doctrine, but to correct errors in the original version.


Who made the errors in the original 1611 edition: the printers, the translators, or both? By what date or in which edition, were all these errors corrected?

You did not answer my question about which editions of the KJV that you count to say that today's KJV is the "fifth edition." Some KJV-only advocates claim that it is the "seventh edition."

I have an old Scofield KJV along with several other KJV editions including three varying present Cambridge editions.

[AV1611VET]

Who made the errors in the original 1611 edition: the printers, the translators, or both? By what date or in which edition, were all these errors corrected?

You did not answer my question about which editions of the KJV that you count to say that today's KJV is the "fifth edition." Some KJV-only advocates claim that it is the "seventh edition."

I have an old Scofield KJV along with several other KJV editions including three varying present Cambridge editions.

You must be quite a collector of KJV's! I believe those Cambridge editions are high-quality binding - are they not? Do you have an Oxford edition, too? Which one is your preference (as far as quality of binding is concerned)?

To answer your questions --- I'm not sure which one is the Fifth Edition, as I can't tell them by sight. They don't have the edition number on the title page like other books do.

I personally am confident that the fifth edition is the last [divine] edition, as I now have KJVs that use the word "mixt" in Numbers 11:4, and "mixed"; not to mention "veil" and "vail", and a few others --- and that bothers me --- but I have to accept it as being a "sign of the times" and let it go.

"Mixed" and "vail" are probably products of the sixth and seventh editions - if indeed they exist.

Here is an exhaustive explanation of the different editions:

click here (http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_05.asp)

[Logos1560]

You must be quite a collector of KJV's! Do you have an Oxford edition, too?

I do have a collection of KJV editions. I have three 1611 editions: 2 small reprint editions in Roman type and one digital reproduction in the original Gothic type.
I have Oxford KJV editions printed in 1777, 1795, 1804, 1810, 1812, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840, 1847, 1850, 1857, 1859, 1865, 1868, 1870, 1876, 1880, and 1885 along with 3 present Oxford KJV editions. There are actually a few differences in text in the three present Oxford KJV editions. Many think that all spelling updating of the KJV was finished by 1769, but that is not true. The 1769 Oxford edition, the 1777 Oxford edition, the 1795 Oxford edition, the 1804 Oxford edition, and up to at least the 1810 Oxford edition still have a character shaped like "f" for long "s" in many words [examples: "fin" (Ps. 32:5) instead of "sin"; "fee" (Ps. 34:10) instead of "see"; "wife" (Ps. 36:3) instead of "wise"]. Thus, many changes were made after 1810. Other examples of spelling changes after 1804 include [“befel“ to “befell“ (2 Sam. 15:12), “Judea” to “Judaea” (Matt. 2:1), “Lebbeus” to “Lebbaeus” (Matt. 10:3), “Arimathea” to “Arimathaea” (Matt. 27:57), “Idumea” to “Idumaea” (Mark 3:8), “Alpheus” to “Alphaeus” (Mark 3:18), “Thaddeus” to “Thaddaeus” (Mark 3:18), “Bartimeus” to “Bartimaeus” (Mark 10:46), “Cesar’s” to “Caesar’s” (Mark 12:17), “vail” to “veil” (Mark 15:38), etc.] although some present KJV editions have gone back to the earlier spelling in same cases. Some words were changed after 1840 in Oxford editions [“houfhold” or “houshold” to “household” (Gen. 18:19), “houfholds” or “housholds” to “households” (Gen. 42:33), “houfholder” or “housholder” to “householder” (Matt. 13:27), “broidered” to “broided” (1 Tim. 2:9), “injoined” to “enjoined” (Heb. 9:20), etc.]. A few spelling changes were even made after 1885 in Oxford editions such as the present Oxford edition in the Scofield Reference Bible.

There are greater differences between the three present Cambridge KJV editions than the three present Oxford KJV editions. The three present Cambridge KJV editions that I have are the Cambridge Standard Text Edition, the 1873 Cambridge edition edited by Scrivener that is printed is present Zondervan KJV editions, and the 2005 NEW CAMBRIDGE PARAGRAPH BIBLE edited by David Norton. This 2005 Cambridge KJV edition goes back to many 1611 renderings, and it also updates the spelling of many words. I have several old Cambridge editions starting with one printed in 1790 and several printed in the 1800's.

[AV1611VET]

I do have a collection of KJV editions. I have three 1611 editions: 2 small reprint editions in Roman type and one digital reproduction in the original Gothic type.
I have Oxford KJV editions printed in 1777, 1795, 1804, 1810, 1812, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840, 1847, 1850, 1857, 1859, 1865, 1868, 1870, 1876, 1880, and 1885 along with 3 present Oxford KJV editions. There are actually a few differences in text in the three present Oxford KJV editions. Many think that all spelling updating of the KJV was finished by 1769, but that is not true. The 1769 Oxford edition, the 1777 Oxford edition, the 1795 Oxford edition, the 1804 Oxford edition, and up to at least the 1810 Oxford edition still have a character shaped like "f" for long "s" in many words [examples: "fin" (Ps. 32:5) instead of "sin"; "fee" (Ps. 34:10) instead of "see"; "wife" (Ps. 36:3) instead of "wise"]. Thus, many changes were made after 1810. Other examples of spelling changes after 1804 include [“befel“ to “befell“ (2 Sam. 15:12), “Judea” to “Judaea” (Matt. 2:1), “Lebbeus” to “Lebbaeus” (Matt. 10:3), “Arimathea” to “Arimathaea” (Matt. 27:57), “Idumea” to “Idumaea” (Mark 3:8), “Alpheus” to “Alphaeus” (Mark 3:18), “Thaddeus” to “Thaddaeus” (Mark 3:18), “Bartimeus” to “Bartimaeus” (Mark 10:46), “Cesar’s” to “Caesar’s” (Mark 12:17), “vail” to “veil” (Mark 15:38), etc.] although some present KJV editions have gone back to the earlier spelling in same cases. Some words were changed after 1840 in Oxford editions [“houfhold” or “houshold” to “household” (Gen. 18:19), “houfholds” or “housholds” to “households” (Gen. 42:33), “houfholder” or “housholder” to “householder” (Matt. 13:27), “broidered” to “broided” (1 Tim. 2:9), “injoined” to “enjoined” (Heb. 9:20), etc.]. A few spelling changes were even made after 1885 in Oxford editions such as the present Oxford edition in the Scofield Reference Bible.

There are greater differences between the three present Cambridge KJV editions than the three present Oxford KJV editions. The three present Cambridge KJV editions that I have are the Cambridge Standard Text Edition, the 1873 Cambridge edition edited by Scrivener that is printed is present Zondervan KJV editions, and the 2005 NEW CAMBRIDGE PARAGRAPH BIBLE edited by David Norton. This 2005 Cambridge KJV edition goes back to many 1611 renderings, and it also updates the spelling of many words. I have several old Cambridge editions starting with one printed in 1790 and several printed in the 1800's.


Oh, man! I gotta rep you for that! It's like King James Heaven (or King James Central) at your house, eh?

Do you know JohnR7 who posts on here? He's a direct descendant of one of the King James translators.

[Logos1560]

Do you know JohnR7 who posts on here? He's a direct descendant of one of the King James translators.

No, I don't know JohnR7. Of which KJV translator is he a descendant?

[AV1611VET]

No, I don't know JohnR7. Of which KJV translator is he a descendant?

Dunno --- he never said.

[Logos1560]

I personally am confident that the fifth edition is the last [divine] edition, as I now have KJVs that use the word "mixt" in Numbers 11:4, and "mixed"; not to mention "veil" and "vail", and a few others --- and that bothers me --- but I have to accept it as being a "sign of the times" and let it go.

"Mixed" and "vail" are probably products of the sixth and seventh editions - if indeed they exist.



Why do these spelling updates bother you? In some cases, such updating is only finishing the inconsistent updating in earlier 1700's editions. At Proverbs 23:30, Isaiah 1:22, and Daniel 2:43, the 1611 edition had "mixt" which was updated in later editions "mixed." The 1611 edition had spelled it both ways at Daniel 2:43 ["yron mixt" and "yron is not mixed"]. When these earlier "mixt" were changed to "mixed," the one at Numbers 11:4 may have been overlooked. Other such examples could be given. Here is one: the 1611 KJV edition had "pluckt" 10 times while later editions updated 9 of them to "plucked," leaving one "pluckt" (Gen. 8:11). While this "pluckt" at Genesis 8:11 is not updated in the present Oxford KJV edition, it is updated in the present Cambridge Standard Text Edition and in several American KJV editions. I have a KJV edition in America in 1813 that already has "plucked" at Genesis 8:11. Some of these spelling updatings come from older KJV editions than similar updatings that were made in the Oxford KJV edition after 1885.

[DLMoody]

Why are Fundamentalists always arguing about the most "non-fundemental" issues. rock music, KJVonly, dress and clothing issues, 4th degree seperation....anyone else find this ironic?

[jasper123]

I studied the kjv from the time I was 10 untill I was 36.
I then compared the kjv to the vulgate and found alot
of differences. The original had 72 books and 6 were
later chopped out. The words images was turned into
graven immages. There is reference to about 100
verses with the word unicorn shoved in there. Verses
against divorse we changed to make a green light
for divorce. About one third of the book of Ester
was chopped out because most of there transcripts
were in Latin. The 10 commandments were also
changed. There are alot more just go to any search
engine. To answer you question, there was not much
thoughfulness with the kjv translaters.
Ron

[doctrellor]

> http://www3.christianforums.com/images/icons/icon11.gif Which KJV edition is the only accurate translation?

I use the 1611 thru my e-sword software..:)

Since I use both the TR & KJV, I don't consider myself a KJVO..but as far as modern editions, I refuse to use them...

[Project 86]

I studied the kjv from the time I was 10 untill I was 36.
I then compared the kjv to the vulgate and found alot
of differences. The original had 72 books and 6 were
later chopped out. The words images was turned into
graven immages. There is reference to about 100
verses with the word unicorn shoved in there. Verses
against divorse we changed to make a green light
for divorce. About one third of the book of Ester
was chopped out because most of there transcripts
were in Latin. The 10 commandments were also
changed. There are alot more just go to any search
engine. To answer you question, there was not much
thoughfulness with the kjv translaters.
Ron

Jerome who wrote the Latin Vulgate was struck by the fact that the Jewish scriptures did not include the extra books that the Catholic church now uses. Because they were in the Greek Septuagint Jerome included them but made it clear that they were "church books" and not "canonical books".

[B®ent]

There are presently 7 to 10 different and varying editions of the KJV. There are at least three different Cambridge KJV editions. Perhaps the oldest Cambridge KJV edition in print is the 1873 Cambridge edition edited by Scrivener that is reprinted in Zondervan KJV editions.
There is also available the Cambridge Standard Text Edition of the KJV which has alterations introduced into its text in the 1900's. Also available is the new 2005 NEW CAMBRIDGE PARAGRAPH BIBLE edited by David Norton that has around 4,000 differences when compared to the present Oxford KJV edition in the Scofield Reference Bible. There are also at least three different Oxford KJV editions available today although those three don't have as many variations as in the three Cambridge editions. The KJV edition published by the American Bible Society has a number of differences when compared to the Oxford KJV edition. Other varying KJV editions including a reprint of the 1611 edition are also available.

Which of the varying KJV editions is the only accurate or perfect one? What greater authority or standard can be used to evaluate the many varying editions of the KJV?

That is an old, tired argument, my friend.

There is virtually no difference between the various editions of the KJV. Only minor corrections in spelling and grammar, and the style of print, were made.

[Logos1560]

There is virtually no difference between the various editions of the KJV. Only minor corrections in spelling and grammar, and the style of print, were made.

You are repeating an old, inaccurate KJV-only claim. All the changes made in the 1611 edition of the KJV were not just "minor corrections in spelling and grammar, and the style of print." Have you ever carefully compared the text of the 1611 edition with the present-day KJV editions? Have you carefully compared the text of the varying present-day KJV editions?

[JacobHall86]

I wonder how many KJO people who proclaim to want to save the "preserved" Word of God have taken the time to learn Greek and Hebrew.