Does Waite's DEFINED KJB have 1769 Cambridge text?

[Logos1560]

D. A. Waite is a leading KJV-only author, having written over one dozen books that defend the KJV. He is in charge of THE BIBLE FOR TODAY that has a catalog with over one hundred listings that advocate a KJV-only view.

On the title page of D. A. Waite's THE DEFINED KING JAMES BIBLE, the following is stated:
"The Authorized King James Bible
Unaltered, Large Print, with Uncommon Words Defined
Cambridge 1769 Text."

I recently obtained a copy of an edition of the KJV printed by John Archdeacon at Cambridge in 1769.

Do you think that the text of this actual 1769 Cambridge KJV edition will be every word the same in text as Waite's DEFINED KJB?

How many differences would be enough to suggest that the statement on the title page of THE DEFINED KJB is inaccurate or misleading?

[Logos1560]

In my opinion, the title page of The Defined King James Bible has an incorrect claim since the text of this KJV edition is not actually the "Cambridge 1769 text." I have a copy of one KJV edition that was printed at Cambridge in 1769 and have also examined the KJV text of the 1762 Cambridge edition.

Evidence from this 1769 Cambridge edition will show that the text of Waite's Defined KJB is not the same as it. One difference is that the 1762 and 1769 Cambridge editions along with Oxford KJV editions printed in 1769 and up to 1810 still have a character shaped like "f" for a long "s" in many many words. In agreement with the 1762 Cambridge KJV, this 1769 Cambridge has the renderings ["sins" (2 Chron. 33:19), "he" (Jer. 34:19), "fleeth" (Nahum 3:16)] that are now considered characteristic of present Oxford editions and that Waite has claimed were the "Oxford errors." Like the 1762, this 1769 Cambridge KJV used an apostrophe in possessive pronouns as now found in present Oxford editions ["their's" (Gen. 15:13), "our's" (Gen. 26:20), "your's" (Gen. 45:20), "her's" (Deut. 21:15) etc.]. This 1769 Cambridge has some distinctive renderings said to have been introduced in the 1762 edition ["killedst" instead of "diddest" (Acts 7:28), "and be ye filled" instead of "and filled" (James 2:16), "brakedst" instead of "brakest" (Deut. 10:2)]. Out of many other differences in text that could be listed, a few more examples include the following: "Emorite" (Gen. 10:16), "In that same day" (Gen. 15:18), "Heman" (Gen. 36:22), "and the Hivites" (Exod. 23:23), "travel" (Num. 20:14), "the widow's" (Deut. 24:17), "Beer-sheba, Sheba" (Josh. 19:2), "priest's" (1 Sam. 2:13), "O LORD" (Neh. 1:11), "travel" (Lam. 3:5), "and he cried out" (Luke 4:33), "fleshly" (2 Cor. 3:3), "in utterance" (2 Cor. 8:7), "those, who" (Gal. 2:6), "and I beseech Syntyche" (Phil. 4:2), "broidered" (1 Tim. 2:9), and "thy doctrine" (1 Tim. 4:16).

[Logos1560]

One minor point where Waite's DEFINED KJB differs from an actual 1769 KJV edition printed at Cambridge is in the spelling of some words. All spelling updating in KJV editions was not finished by 1769. Along with updating the many words that still have a character shaped like “f” for long “s” in many words, the spelling of other words was also changed or updated after 1769, some after 1840, and some even after 1885.

The change in several words may have been made after 1804 [“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), 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 made after 1880 in Oxford editions: [“enquire” to “inquire” (Gen. 24:57), “ax” to “axe” (Deut. 19:5), “ancles” to “ankles” (Ezek. 47:3), “sope“ to “soap“ (Mal. 3:2), “ancle” to “ankle” (Acts 3:7), “enquired” to “inquired” (1 Pet. 1:10), etc.]. Some of the changes may have been made earlier in Cambridge editions.

[arunma]

D. A. Waite is a leading KJV-only author, having written over one dozen books that defend the KJV. He is in charge of THE BIBLE FOR TODAY that has a catalog with over one hundred listings that advocate a KJV-only view.

On the title page of D. A. Waite's THE DEFINED KING JAMES BIBLE, the following is stated:
"The Authorized King James Bible
Unaltered, Large Print, with Uncommon Words Defined
Cambridge 1769 Text."

I'm sure that you are making a great, semi-related point here. But as a fellow anti-KJVO person, perhaps you can tell me this. If God wrote the King James Bible in 1611, then why did he change it in 1769?

[Logos1560]

If God wrote the King James Bible in 1611, then why did he change it in 1769?

If God had wrote the 1611 edition of the KJV, it would not have needed to be changed, corrected, or revised in 1629, 1638, 1762, 1769, and many other times. As the evidence in this thread already indicates, we do not actually use KJV editions today that are every word the same as the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV nor the 1769 Cambridge edition of the KJV.

Since according to a consistent application of scriptural principles and teaching, God did not actually and directly write nor inspire the 1611 edition; therefore, He also did not not change it in 1769.

[RichardT]

I'm sure that you are making a great, semi-related point here. But as a fellow anti-KJVO person, perhaps you can tell me this. If God wrote the King James Bible in 1611, then why did he change it in 1769?

I'm not a ruckmanite!

[cygnusx1]

I'm not a ruckmanite!

do they still exist ?

I remember reading that guys work , man was he outspoken ! :D

I have a couple of books by him , Peter Ruckman , if I remember :P

[JPPT1974]

Maybe you ought to go on Wikipedia
To see if they exist my friend!

[cygnusx1]

Maybe you ought to go on
Wikipedia
To see if they exist my friend!


KJV-Only supporters are often called "Ruckmanites," and those who take more moderate KJV-Only positions often criticize Ruckman because "his writings are so acerbic, so offensive and mean-spirited that the entire movement has become identified with his kind of confrontational attitude."[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Ruckman#_note-5) Many who support the KJV-Only position do not endorse Ruckman's position that the English KJV is superior to existing Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. Not surprisingly, Ruckman's position on the authority of the KJV is strongly opposed by many supporters of biblical inerrancy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy), including signers of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Statement_on_Biblical_Inerrancy).
[/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Ruckman

[Logos1560]

I'm not a ruckmanite!

Who said that you were? I did not notice any reference to you in this thread.

There may be holders of a KJV-only view that accept some of the claims made by Peter Ruckman that they were told or taught them second-hand, third-hand, or however. At times, some holders of a KJV-only view that think that they hold a more moderate, reasonable KJV-only position make statements just as extreme as those made by Ruckman.