End Times and Current Events
September 19, 2018, 12:05:34 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." John 5:39 (KJB)
 
  Home Help Search Gallery Staff List Login Register  

History and Text Comparison Articles

Shoutbox
August 08, 2018, 02:38:10 am suzytr says: Hello, any good churches in the Sacto, CA area, also looking in Reno NV, thanks in advance and God Bless you Smiley
January 29, 2018, 01:21:57 am Christian40 says: It will be interesting to see what happens this year Israel being 70 years as a modern nation may 14 2018
October 17, 2017, 01:25:20 am Christian40 says: It is good to type Mark is here again!  Smiley
October 16, 2017, 03:28:18 am Christian40 says: anyone else thinking that time is accelerating now? it seems im doing days in shorter time now is time being affected in some way?
September 24, 2017, 10:45:16 pm Psalm 51:17 says: The specific rule pertaining to the national anthem is found on pages A62-63 of the league rulebook. It states: “The National Anthem must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the National Anthem. “During the National Anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking. The home team should ensure that the American flag is in good condition. It should be pointed out to players and coaches that we continue to be judged by the public in this area of respect for the flag and our country. Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline, such as fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s) for violations of the above, including first offenses.”
September 20, 2017, 04:32:32 am Christian40 says: "The most popular Hepatitis B vaccine is nothing short of a witch’s brew including aluminum, formaldehyde, yeast, amino acids, and soy. Aluminum is a known neurotoxin that destroys cellular metabolism and function. Hundreds of studies link to the ravaging effects of aluminum. The other proteins and formaldehyde serve to activate the immune system and open up the blood-brain barrier. This is NOT a good thing."
http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-08-11-new-fda-approved-hepatitis-b-vaccine-found-to-increase-heart-attack-risk-by-700.html
September 19, 2017, 03:59:21 am Christian40 says: bbc international did a video about there street preaching they are good witnesses
September 14, 2017, 08:06:04 am Psalm 51:17 says: bro Mark Hunter on YT has some good, edifying stuff too.
September 14, 2017, 04:31:26 am Christian40 says: i have thought that i'm reaping from past sins then my life has been impacted in ways from having non believers in my ancestry.
September 11, 2017, 06:59:33 am Psalm 51:17 says: The law of reaping and sowing. It's amazing how God's mercy and longsuffering has hovered over America so long. (ie, the infrastructure is very bad here b/c for many years, they were grossly underspent on. 1st Tim 6:10, the god of materialism has its roots firmly in the West) And remember once upon a time ago when shacking up b/w straight couples drew shock awe?

Exodus 20:5  Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
View Shout History
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: History and Text Comparison Articles  (Read 477 times)
Kilika
Guest
« on: January 01, 2012, 05:11:59 am »

an article by Rick Norris...



Quote
Do we use a 1769 KJV?

It is often claimed that our present KJV editions are the 1769 edition. David Sorenson wrote: "The King James Version of the Bible in America at present is in fact the 1769 edition" (TOUCH NOT THE UNCLEAN THING, p. 17). David Cloud wrote that "an update was made between 1762-69 to correct any lingering printing errors and to update the spelling" (FAITH VS. THE MODERN BIBLE VERSIONS, p. 589). Douglas Stauffer asserted that "the 1769 edition merely continued the process of spelling standardization begun in the 1762 edition" (ONE BOOK STANDS ALONE, p. 348). Robert Sargent claimed that "the spelling was standardized to its modern form in the 1762 and 1769 editions" (ENGLISH BIBLE, p. 229). KJV-only author Timothy Morton contended that "the 1762 and 1769 [editions] were to update the spelling" and that "by 1769 whatever slight textual errors that still remained were removed, and the text was finally free from any man-made error" (WHICH TRANSLATION SHOULD YOU TRUST, p. 42). KJV-only author Al Lacy maintained that "the 1769 edition of the 1611 King James Bible is perfect" (CAN I TRUST MY BIBLE, p. 144). Joey Faust maintained that "nothing after 1769 is a true edition" (COMMON MAN'S DEFENSE OF KJV-ONLYISM, p. 43). William Bradley claimed that "the last one in 1769 made no changes in the text, only standardization of spelling, punctuation, and updated typeface" (TO ALL GENERATIONS, p. 71). Lloyd Streeter claimed that the perfection of the KJV "should be looked upon as a winnowing or refining process extending from Tyndale through 1769" (SEVENTY-FIVE PROBLEMS, p. 104). Streeter asserted that God used "those who corrected printing and spelling errors between 1611 and 1769" (p. 104).

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). 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). 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). 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). 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?" (Mickey Carter, ELEPHANT, p. 142). Are the above claims and statements by KJV-only authors applied to the alterations in various KJV editions?

Even some KJV-only advocates acknowledge that the present-day Oxford edition is different from the Cambridge edition, and these two editions are usually considered different editions because of only 3 to 5 main differences (2 Chron. 33:19; Jer. 34:16; Nahum 3:16; Josh. 19:2, Psalm 148: 8). Some have even argued that the Cambridge edition is more accurate simply based on its rendering at the first three of the five verses just listed. If there were just five differences between the 1769 Oxford edition and today's Oxford edition, should they be considered different editions just as the Oxford edition and Cambridge edition are considered different editions?

Anyone who carefully examines KJV editions printed after 1769 and even in the early 1800's will find that the KJV-only statements in the first paragraph are inaccurate. There were actually several hundred changes in the text that were introduced in the 1769 edition that remain in present KJV editions. The 1769 Oxford KJV still included the Apocrypha and the marginal notes from the 1611 edition along with some additional notes added in later editions. In addition, the 1769 edition had some changes in the text or some other renderings that later editors or printers changed or did not follow. While present KJV editions may be based on the 1769 Oxford edition, they are not 100% identical in text to that edition.

Consider a KJV edition that was printed at the Clarendon Press by William Jackson and William Dawson in 1795. While it is possible that the 1795 Oxford edition is not every word the same as the 1769 Oxford edition, the 1795 Oxford is more likely to be in agreement with the 1769 than is the present Oxford edition printed in the Scofield Reference Bible. An examination of this 1795 Oxford KJV edition shows that it has several renderings that came from the 1769 Oxford edition that are not found in the present Oxford edition. This 1795 Oxford edition, a 1799 Oxford edition, a 1804 Oxford edition, and a 1810 Oxford edition still have a character shaped like "f" for long "s" in many words. Here are some examples of this use of the long "s" in the 1795 Oxford edition of the KJV: "fin" (Ps. 32:5), "fee" (Ps. 34:12), "chafe" (Ps. 35:5), "wife" (Ps. 36:3), "flay" (Ps. 37:14), "feed" (Ps. 37:26), "fore" (Ps. 38:2), "foul" (Ps. 42:1), and "fake" (Ps. 44:26). Thus, the evidence will show that all updating of the KJV's text was not finished by 1769. This evidence is also supported by a KJV edition printed by John Archdeacon at Cambridge in 1790. Some of the changes in Oxford editions were made around 1830, and several may have been made after 1840 while at least five or more changes may not have been made until after 1880.

Consider the examples listed below. In some cases, access was no longer available for the Oxford edition, especially the 1782 and 1799 editions, after other differences were found. In some cases, one of the old Oxford editions was missing some pages. In other cases, some of the Oxford editions may have followed the rendering of a KJV edition earlier than 1769 or may have changed the rendering in the 1769. In these examples the character shaped like a "f" for a long "s" in some of the old editions was updated.

Genesis 18:19
houshold (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
household (present Oxford)

Genesis 18:27
LORD (1782, 1795, 1804, 1810 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Lord (present Oxford)

Genesis 18:30
the LORD (1795, 1804, 1810 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
the Lord (present Oxford)

Genesis 18:32
the LORD (1795, 1804, 1810 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
the Lord (present Oxford)

Genesis 20:4
LORD (1782, 1795, 1804, 1810, 1821 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Lord (present Oxford)

Genesis 24:57
enquire (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840, 1847, 1857, 1859, 1865, 1868, 1870, 1876, 1880 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
inquire (present Oxford)

Genesis 25:18
towards (1795, 1804 Oxford)
toward (present Oxford)

Genesis 36:22
Heman (1769, 1795, 1804, 1810 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Hemam (present Oxford)

Genesis 42:33
housholds (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
households (present Oxford)

Genesis 49:26
thy progenitors (1769, 1795, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
my progenitors (present Oxford)

Exodus 6:21
Zithri (1769, 1795, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840, 1847, 1857, 1859, 1865, 1868, 1870, 1876, 1880 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Zichri (present Oxford)

Exodus 15:17
Sanctuary, O LORD (1782, 1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
sanctuary, O Lord (present Oxford)

Exodus 21:6
awl (1795, 1804 Oxford)
aul (present Oxford)

Exodus 23:17
LORD God (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Lord GOD (present Oxford)

Leviticus 18:18
besides (1782, 1795, 1804 Oxford)
beside (present Oxford)

Numbers 6:5
rasor (1795, 1810 Oxford)
razor (present Oxford)

Numbers 14:17
LORD (1782, 1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Lord (present Oxford)

Numbers 20:14
travel (1795, 1799, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840, 1847, 1857, 1859, 1865, 1868, 1870, 1876, 1880 Oxford)
travail (present Oxford)

Deuteronomy 10:2
brakedst (1769, 1795, 1804, 1810 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
brakest (present Oxford)

Deuteronomy 19:5
ax (1795, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840, 1847, 1857, 1859, 1865, 1868, 1870, 1876, 1880 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
axe (present Oxford)

Deuteronomy 22:3
all lost thing (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840, 1847, 1857, 1859, 1865, 1868, 1870, 1876, 1880 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
all lost things (present Oxford)

Deuteronomy 24:17
the widow's (1795, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
a widow's (present Oxford)

Joshua 19:2
Beer-sheba, Sheba (1769, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Beer-sheba, and Sheba (present Oxford)

Judges 11:7
children of Gilead (1769, 1795, 1810 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
elders of Gilead (present Oxford)

Judges 13:8
O my LORD (1782, 1795, 1804, 1810 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
O my Lord (present Oxford)

Judges 19:29
coast (1769, 1795, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
coasts (present Oxford)

1 Samuel 2:13
priest's custom (1769, 1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840, 1847, 1857, 1859, 1865, 1868, 1870, 1876, 1880 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
priests' custom (present Oxford)

1 Samuel 17:48
hasted (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840, 1847, 1857, 1859, 1865, 1868, 1870, 1876, 1880 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
hastened (present Oxford)

1 Samuel 28:25
arose up (1795, 1804 Oxford)
rose up (present Oxford)

2 Samuel 12:22
God (1782, 1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
GOD (present Oxford)

2 Samuel 15:12
counseller (1795, 1804 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
counsellor (present Oxford)

2 Samuel 19:7
befel (1795, 1804 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
befell (present Oxford)

2 Samuel 23:37
Naharai (1804, 1810 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Nahari (present Oxford)

1 Kings 3:10
the LORD (1782, 1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
the Lord (present Oxford)

1 Kings 8:56
the LORD (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840, 1847, 1857, 1859, 1865, 1868, 1870, 1876, 1880 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
the Lord (present Oxford)

1 Kings 22:6
the LORD (1782, 1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
the Lord (present Oxford)

2 Kings 7:6
the LORD (1782, 1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
the Lord (present Oxford)

2 Kings 19:23
the LORD (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
the Lord (present Oxford)

2 Chronicles 4:12
on the pillars; (1769, 1795, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
on the top of the pillars (present Oxford)

Ezra 7:14
counsellers (1795, 1804 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
counsellors (present Oxford)

Nehemiah 1:11
O LORD (1769, 1782, 1795, 1799, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
O Lord (1835 Oxford, present Oxford)

Nehemiah 3:5
LORD (1795 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Lord (present Oxford)

Nehemiah 8:10
our LORD (1782, 1795, 1804, 1810 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
our Lord (present Oxford)

Job 28:28
LORD (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Lord (present Oxford)

Job 41:6
thy companions (1769, 1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
the companions (present Oxford)

Psalm 2:4
the LORD (1769, 1782, 1795, 1799, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
the Lord (present Oxford)

Psalm 18:47
unto me (1769, 1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
under me (present Oxford)

Psalm 35:17
LORD (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Lord (present Oxford)

Psalm 37:13
The LORD (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
The Lord (present Oxford)

Psalm 38:9
LORD (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Lord (present Oxford)

Psalm 44:23
O LORD (1769, 1782, 1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
O Lord (present Oxford)

Psalm 60:4
feared (1769, 1795, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
fear (present Oxford)

Psalm 78:66
part (1769, 1795, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
parts (present Oxford)

Psalm 83:14
the wood (1795 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
a wood (present Oxford)

Psalm 86:5
LORD (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Lord (present Oxford)

Psalm 107:16
gates of iron (1769, 1795, 1804, 1810 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
bars of iron (present Oxford)

Psalm 110:5
The LORD (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
The Lord (present Oxford)

Psalm 114:7
LORD (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Lord (present Oxford)

Psalm 135:5
our LORD (1795, 1799, 1804, 1810 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
our Lord (present Oxford)

Psalm 140:7
O God the LORD (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
O GOD the Lord (present Oxford)

Proverbs 22:4
riches, honour (1795, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
riches, and honour (present Oxford)

Isaiah 3:18
the LORD (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
the Lord (present Oxford)

Isaiah 4:4
the LORD (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
the Lord (present Oxford)

Isaiah 6:1, 8
the LORD (1795, 1804 Oxford)
the Lord (present Oxford)

Isaiah 8:7
the LORD (1782, 1795, 1804, 1810 Oxford)
the Lord (present Oxford)

Isaiah 9:17
the LORD (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
the Lord (present Oxford)

Lamentations 1:15
The LORD (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
The Lord (present Oxford)

Lamentations 3:5
travel (1795, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840, 1847, 1857, 1859, 1865, 1868, 1870, 1876, 1880 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
travail (present Oxford)

Lamentations 3:58
O LORD (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
O Lord (present Oxford)

Ezekiel 18:25
the LORD (1782, 1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
the Lord (present Oxford)

Ezekiel 18:29
the LORD (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
the Lord (present Oxford)

Ezekiel 47:3
ancles (1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840, 1847, 1857, 1859, 1865, 1868, 1870, 1876, 1880 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
ankles (present Oxford)

Daniel 9:3
Lord GOD (1795, 1810 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Lord God (present Oxford)

Micah 7:4
is a brier (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
is as a brier (present Oxford)

Nahum 3:16
flieth away (1795 Oxford)
fleeth away (present Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]

Habakkuk 3:19
Lord GOD (1795, 1799, 1804 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
LORD God (present Oxford)

Zechariah 4:14
LORD (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Lord (present Oxford)

Zechariah 9:4
the LORD (1782, 1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
the Lord (present Oxford)

Zechariah 11:2
mighty is spoiled (1769, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
mighty are spoiled (present Oxford)

Malachi 3:2
fuller's sope (1795, 1804 Oxford)
fullers' sope (1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840, 1847, 1857, 1859, 1865, 1868, 1876, 1880 Oxford)
fullers' soap (present Oxford)

Matthew 2:1, 5, 22
Judea (1795, 1804 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Judaea (present Oxford)

Matthew 3:10
ax (1795, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840, 1847, 1857, 1859, 1865, 1868, 1870, 1876, 1880 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
axe (present Oxford)

Matthew 10:3
Lebbeus (1795, 1804 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Lebbaeus (present Oxford)

Matthew 13:27
housholder (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
householder (present Oxford)

Matthew 27:57
Arimathea (1795, 1804 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Arimathaea (present Oxford)

Mark 3:8
Idumea (1795, 1804 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Idumaea (present Oxford)

Mark 3:18
Alpheus (1795, 1804 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Alphaeus (present Oxford)

Mark 3:18
Thaddeus (1795, 1804 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Thaddaeus (present Oxford)

Mark 10:46
Bartimeus (1795, 1804 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Bartimaeus (present Oxford)

Mark 12:17
Cesar's (1795, 1804 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Caesar's (present Oxford)

Mark 14:70
Galilean (1795, 1804 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Galilaean (present Oxford)

Mark 15:16
Pretorium (1795, 1804 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Praetorium (present Oxford)

Mark 15:38
vail (1795, 1804 Oxford)
veil (present Oxford)

Luke 2:27
spirit (1795, 1810 Oxford)
Spirit (present Oxford)

Luke 3:1
Iturea (1795, 1804 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Ituraea (present Oxford)

Luke 5:17
Judea (1795, 1804 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Judaea (present Oxford)

Luke 11:32
Nineveh (1795, 1810 Oxford)
Nineve (present Oxford)

Luke 16:23
lifted (1795, 1804 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
lift (present Oxford)

Luke 19:2
Zaccheus (1795, 1804 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Zacchaeus (present Oxford)

Luke 19:4
sycamore (1795, 1804, 1810 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
sycomore (present Oxford)

John 14:6
and the truth (1795, 1804 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
the truth (present Oxford)

Acts 2:7
Galileans (1795, 1804 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Galilaeans (present Oxford)

Acts 3:7
ancle (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1840, 1847, 1857, 1859, 1865, 1868, 1870, 1876, 1880 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
ankle (present Oxford)

Acts 7:4
Chaldeans (1795, 1804 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Chaldaeans (present Oxford)

Acts 8:40
Cesarea (1795, 1804 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Caesarea (present Oxford)

Acts 25:6
sitting in (1795, 1804 Oxford)
sitting on (present Oxford)

Acts 25:8
Cesar (1795, 1804 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Caesar (present Oxford)

Romans 7:20
Now if do (1769 Oxford)
Now if I do (present Oxford)

Romans 11:23
not in unbelief (1769, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1840 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
not still in unbelief (present Oxford)

1 Corinthians 4:13
the earth (1769, 1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
the world (present Oxford)

2 Corinthians 12:2
about (1769, 1795, 1799, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
above (present Oxford)

2 Corinthians 12:13
you were inferior (1769, 1795, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
ye were inferior (present Oxford)

Galatians 2:6
those, who (1795 Oxford)
those who (1804, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
these who (present Oxford)

Ephesians 3:5
the holy apostles (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
his holy apostles (present Oxford)

1 Timothy 2:9
broidered hair (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
broided hair (present Oxford)

1 Timothy 4:10
the saviour (1769, 1795, 1804, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
the Saviour (present Oxford)

Hebrews 9:20
injoined (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1838, 1840 Oxford)
enjoined (present Oxford)

1 Peter 1:10
enquired (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840, 1847, 1857, 1859, 1865, 1868, 1870, 1876, 1880 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
inquired (present Oxford)

1 Peter 3:21
towards (1795, 1804 Oxford)
toward (present Oxford)

1 John 1:4
our joy (1769, 1804 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
your joy (present Oxford)

1 John 5:8
spirit (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1839, 1835, 1838, 1840, 1847, 1857, 1859, 1865, 1868, 1870, 1876, 1880 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Spirit (present Oxford)

Revelation 18:22
at all in thee, and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more [missing in 1769 Oxford]

Revelation 21:20
chrysolite (1795, 1804 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
chrysolyte (present Oxford)


This may not be a complete list of all the differences between the 1769 Oxford or even the 1795 Oxford and the present Oxford edition. Based on this evidence, are the Oxford KJV editions in print today every word the same as the 1769 Oxford edition?

The facts from these Oxford editions shows that all the updating was not finished by 1769. This evidence clearly shows that editors or printers after 1769 introduced some changes into the text of present Oxford KJV editions. This evidence affirms that the 1769 Oxford KJV edition was not "free from man-made error." Furthermore, this evidence indicates that the text of the present Oxford KJV in the Scofield Reference Bible is a post-1840 edition or likely even a post-1880 edition. Is the present Oxford standard edition no longer a "true edition" according to some KJV-only reasoning since it has alterations made after 1769, 1840, and even 1880?

http://www.kjv-only.com/rick/1769.html

« Last Edit: February 27, 2013, 05:22:06 pm by Kilika » Report Spam   Logged

Social Buttons

Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21384



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: February 17, 2012, 06:24:14 am »

Quote
The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

The New Testament (NT) contains four biographies of Jesus (the Gospels), one history book of the early church (Acts), twenty-one letters (Romans to Jude), and an apocalypse (Revelation). While the letters and the apocalypse contain references to historical events, the Gospels and Acts are written as straightforward historical narratives. These are the NT books about which it makes particularly good sense to ask the question, "Are they historically reliable?" Twelve lines of evidence converge to suggest strongly that the answer is "yes."

First, we have over 5,700 Greek manuscripts representing all, or part, of the NT. By examining these manuscripts, over 99 percent of the original text can be reconstructed beyond reasonable doubt. We also discover that no Christian doctrine or ethic depends solely on one of the doubted texts. These facts do not prove that the NT is true, but it does mean we know what the original writers wrote. Without this assurance, the question of historical reliability is pointless.

Second, the authors of the Gospels and Acts were in an excellent position to report reliable information. Matthew and John were among the twelve disciples Jesus Himself chose; Mark was a close companion of Peter and Luke (who also wrote Acts) and traveled extensively with Paul. Even critical scholars who doubt the traditional attributions of authorship agree that these five books were written by followers of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which still puts them in a good place to tell the stories accurately.

Third, these five books were almost certainly written in the first century, within sixty to seventy years of Jesus' death (most likely in a.d. 30). Conservatives typically date Matthew, Mark, and Luke-Acts to the 60s and John to the 80s or 90s. Liberals suggest slightly later dates, typically placing Mark in the 60s or 70s, Matthew and Luke-Acts in the 80s, and John in the 90s. Even if one accepts the later dates, the amount of time separating the historical events and the composition of the five books is very short as compared to most ancient historical and biographical accounts, where many centuries could intervene between events and the books that narrated them.

Fourth, ancient Jews and Greeks meticulously cultivated the art of memorization, committing complex oral traditions to memory. Even before the Gospels or any other written sources about Jesus were compiled, Jesus' followers were carefully passing on accounts of His teachings and mighty works by word of mouth. This kept the historical events alive until the time they were written down.

Fifth, the ancient memorization and transference of sacred tradition allowed for some freedoms in retelling the stories. Guardians of the tradition could abbreviate, paraphrase, prioritize, and provide commentary on the subject matter as long as they were true to the gist or meaning of the accounts they passed on. This goes a long way to explaining both the similarities and the differences among the four Gospels. All four authors were true to the gist of Jesus' life, yet they exercised reasonable freedom to shape the accounts in ways they saw fit.

Sixth, the fact that these writers had distinct ideological or theological emphases does not mean they distorted history, as is often alleged. Oftentimes the very cause that a historian or biographer supports requires them to write their accounts accurately, for they know that their cause will be undermined if they are charged with bias or distortion. The first Christians had the uphill battle of promoting a crucified Messiah and His bodily resurrection. Had they been known to have falsified the details of their accounts to any significant degree, their movement would have been squelched from the outset.

Seventh, Luke's prologue (Lk 1:1-4) closely parallels the form and content of other works of generally reliable historians and biographers of antiquity, most notably Josephus, Herodotus, and Thucydides. The Gospel writers clearly believed that they were writing historically accurate works, not fiction or embellished history.

Eighth, the so-called hard sayings of Jesus support their authenticity. If the Gospel writers felt free to distort what Jesus originally said in order to increase the attractiveness of Christianity, why would they preserve unmodified His difficult and easily misunderstood teachings about hating family members (Lk 14:26) or not knowing when He would return (Mk 13:32)? The fact that they let these teachings stand indicates their faithfulness to recount true history.

Ninth, the fact that the NT does not record Jesus speaking about many of the topics that arose after His earthly life, during the time of the early church, supports its historical accuracy. For instance, early Christians were divided over how or whether the laws of Moses applied to Gentile converts (Ac 15). The easiest way to settle the controversy would be to cite Jesus' teachings on the matter, but the Gospels record no such teachings. This silence suggests that the Gospel writers did not feel free to play fast and loose with history by putting on the lips of Jesus teachings that could solve early church controversies.

Tenth, the testimony of non-Christian writers supports the details of the Gospels and Acts. About a dozen ancient Jewish, Greek, and Roman writers mention Jesus. Taken together, their writings attest to the basic contours of Jesus' life. Many names of people and places, as well as the exploits of first-century political and religious leaders, are attested in other writings of the day.

Eleventh, archaeology regularly confirms details about geography, topography, customs, artifacts, buildings, tombs, inscriptions, and graffiti that are mentioned in NT--the Gospels and Acts in particular.

Twelfth, the portions of the NT that were written before the completion of the Gospels and Acts confirm the historicity of these five books. For instance, Paul, James, and Peter show multiple signs of quoting or alluding to teachings and actions of Jesus in letters they wrote before the Gospels were written. Their quotes and allusions agree with what we find in the Gospels. This indicates that the Gospels are in tune with the very earliest writings about Jesus--the NT epistles. These earliest writings were in turn dependent on the authoritative oral traditions that were passed on by eyewitnesses to Jesus' life. Paul expresses this in 1Co 15:3-8, where he lists the beliefs he had "received" from these eyewitnesses when he became a Christian no more than two years after Jesus' death and resurrection. These are no late, slowly developing legends he is reporting!

http://www.edstetzer.com/2012/02/a-closer-look-the-historical-r.html?utm
« Last Edit: September 20, 2013, 05:16:30 pm by Kilika » Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #2 on: February 26, 2013, 02:57:54 pm »

Thomas Nelson 1611 KJV Reprint vs. Original 1611 Text Comparison...

http://www.wtlministry.org/articles/thethomasnelson1611reprint.htm

Quote
From the time when there were no word processors, typesetting was done letter by letter and corrections were commonly done after printing, the KJV 1611 original reprint has been made available for your purchase however there are some important facts about this text that you may not know.

 

First it should be understood that God’s English speaking people did not use the (uncorrected) original copy of the 1611 KJV in any significant numbers.  In 1611 and for some years afterward, God’s English speaking people commonly heard and were taught from the Geneva Bible of 1599 and so it was not until some years later after the needed corrections were made and the uninspired Apocrypha was removed before God’s people started using the KJV in significant numbers.  The widely used English Bible was the 1611 text conforming KJV, not the text of the Thomas Nelson 1611 original reprint.  The 1611 KJV conforming text Bible (corrected) has been commonly used in English speaking Churches over the last 300 plus years.  The text and spelling updated 1611 version is still available today in various Bible bookstores sometimes for as little as $1. Today’s KJV, with the exception of some punctuations, spelling changes and a few word changes, reads nearly identical to the text conforming 1611 KJV.

 

Here below is a copy of the title page from a text conforming (corrected) 1611 KJV that was printed in the early 1900’s. Notice that it has a line reading, “THE TEXT CONFORMABLE TO THAT OF THE EDITION OF 1611”. 

THE HOLY BIBLE

OLD AND NEW TEASTAMENTS

TRANSLATED OUT OF

THE ORIGINAL TONGUES

AND WITH

THE FORMER TRANSLATIONS DILIGENTLY COMPARED AND REVISED

THE TEXT CONFORMABLE TO THAT OF THE EDITION OF 1611,

COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE AUTHORIZED OR KING JAMES VERSION.

WHITMAN PUBLISHING COMPANY

RACINE, WISCONSIN NO. 551

 

The following comparison verses were presented by those critical of the KJV however they included only the Thomas Nelson 1611 original reprint and today’s KJV, apparently attempting to show that today’s KJV is changed and thereby unreliable.  However using these same verses selected the following comparison included the Geneva 1599 and the widely used 1611 KJV Conformable text.  This more inclusive comparison helps to demonstrate that the popular KJV 1611 Conformable text as well as today’s KJV remain to be highly accurate and completely trustworthy in meaning, not so with the many modern copyrighted text versions. (cont.)
« Last Edit: February 27, 2013, 04:40:52 pm by Kilika » Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #3 on: February 27, 2013, 03:57:30 pm »

THE KING JAMES VERSION OF 1611
THE MYTH OF EARLY REVISIONS


by Dr. David F. Reagan

Quote
Haven't there been several revisions of the King James Bible


QUESTION: Haven't there been several revisions of the King James Bible since 1611?

ANSWER: No. There have been several editions but no revisions.

EXPLANATION: One of the last ditch defenses of a badly shaken critic of the Authorized Version 1611 is the "revision hoax." They run to this seeming fortress in an attempt to stave off ultimate defeat by their opponents who overwhelm their feeble arguments with historic facts, manuscript evidence and to obvious workings of the Holy Spirit. Once inside, they turn self-confidently to their foes and ask with a smug look, "Which King James do you use, the 1611 or the 1629 or perhaps the 1769?" The shock of this attack and the momentary confusion that results usually allows them time to make good their escape.

Unfortunately, upon entering their castle and closing the door behind them they find that their fortress has been systematically torn down, brick by brick, by a man with the title of Dr. David F. Reagan. Dr. Reagan pastors the Trinity Baptist Temple in Knoxville, Tennessee. He has written a devastating exposé on the early editions of the King James Bible entitled "The King James Version of 1611. The Myth of Early Revisions." Dr. Reagan has done an excellent job of destroying the last stronghold of Bible critics. I see neither a way, nor a reason to try to improve on his finding. So I have secured his permission to reproduce his pamphlet in its entirety...

THE KING JAMES VERSION OF 1611
THE MYTH OF EARLY REVISIONS

by Dr. David F. Reagan

Introduction

Men have been "handling the word of God deceitfully" (II Cor. 4:2) ever since the devil first taught Eve how. From Cain to Balaam, from Jehudi to the scribes and Pharisees, from the Dark Age theologians to present-day scholars, the living words of the Almighty God have been prime targets for man's corrupting hand. The attacks on the Word of God are threefold: addition, subtraction, and substitution. From Adam's day to the computer age, the strategies have remained the same. There is nothing new under the sun.

One attack which is receiving quite a bit of attention these days is a direct attack on the Word of God as preserved in the English language: the King James Version of 1611. The attack referred to is the myth which claims that since the King James Version has already been revised four times, there should be and can be no valid objection to other revisions. This myth was used by the English Revisers of 1881 and has been revived in recent years by Fundamentalist scholars hoping to sell their latest translation. This book is given as an answer to this attack. The purpose of the material is not to convince those who would deny this preservation but to strengthen the faith of those who already believe in a preserved English Bible.

One major question often arises in any attack such as this. How far should we go in answering the critics? If we were to attempt to answer every shallow objection to the infallibility of the English Bible, we would never be able to accomplish anything else. Sanity must prevail somewhere. As always, the answer is in God's Word. Proverbs 26:4-5 states: Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

Obviously, there are times when a foolish query should be ignored and times when it should be met with an answer. If to answer the attack will make you look as foolish as the attacker, then the best answer is to ignore the question. For instance, if you are told that the Bible cannot be infallible because so-and-so believes that it is, and he is divorced, then you may safely assume that silence is the best answer. On the other hand, there are often questions and problems that, if true, would be serious. To ignore these issues would be to leave the Bible attacker wise in his own conceit. I believe that the question of revisions to the King James Version of 1611 is a question of the second class. If the King James Version has undergone four major revisions of its text, then to oppose further revisions on the basis of an established English text would truly be faulty. For this reason, this attack should and must be answered. Can the argument be answered? Certainly! That is the purpose of this book.

I - THE PRINTING CONDITIONS OF 1611

If God did preserve His Word in the English language through the Authorized Version of 1611 (and He did), then where is our authority for the infallible wording? Is it in the notes of the translators? Or is it to be found in the proof copy sent to the printers? If so, then our authority is lost because these papers are lost. But, you say, the authority is in the first copy which came off the printing press. Alas, that copy has also certainly perished. In fact, if the printing of the English Bible followed the pattern of most printing jobs, the first copy was probably discarded because of bad quality. That leaves us with existing copies of the first printing. They are the ones often pointed out as the standard by which all other King James Bibles are to be compared. But are they? Can those early printers of the first edition not be allowed to make printing errors? We need to establish one thing from the outset. The authority for our preserved English text is not found in any human work. The authority for our preserved and infallible English text is in God! Printers may foul up at times and humans will still make plenty of errors, but God in His power and mercy will preserve His text despite the weaknesses of fallible man. Now, let us look at the pressures on a printer in the year of 1611.

Although the printing press had been invented in 1450 by Johann Gutenburg in Germany (161 years before the 1611 printing), the equipment used by the printer had changed very little. Printing was still very slow and difficult. All type was set by hand, one piece at a time (that's one piece at a time through the whole Bible), and errors were an expected part of any completed book. Because of this difficulty and also because the 1611 printers had no earlier editions from which to profit, the very first edition of the King James Version had a number of printing errors. As shall later be demonstrated, these were not the sort of textual alterations which are freely made in modern bibles. They were simple, obvious printing errors of the sort that can still be found at times in recent editions even with all of the advantages of modem printing. These errors do not render a Bible useless, but they should be corrected in later editions.

The two original printings of the Authorized Version demonstrate the difficulty of printing in 1611 without making mistakes. Both editions were printed in Oxford. Both were printed in the same year: 1611. The same printers did both jobs. Most likely, both editions were printed on the same printing press. Yet, in a strict comparison of the two editions, approximately 100 textual differences can be found. In the same vein the King James critics can find only about 400 alleged textual alterations in the King James Version after 375 years of printing and four so-called revisions! Something is rotten in Scholarsville! The time has come to examine these revisions."

11 - THE FOUR SO-CALLED REVISIONS
OF THE 1611 KJV

Much of the information in this section is taken from a book by F.H.A. Scrivener called The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives. The book is as pedantic as its title indicates. The interesting point is that Scrivener, who published this book in 1884, was a member of the Revision Committee of 1881. He was not a King James Bible believer, and therefore his material is not biased toward the Authorized Version.

In the section of Scrivener's book dealing with the KJV "revisions," one initial detail is striking. The first two so-called major revisions of the King James Bible occurred within 27 years of the original printing. (The language must have been changing very rapidly in those days.) The 1629 edition of the Bible printed in Cambridge is said to have been the first revision. A revision it was not, but simply a careful correction of earlier printing errors. Not only was this edition completed just eighteen years after the translation, but two of the men who participated in this printing, Dr. Samuel Ward and John Bois, had worked on the original translation of the King James Version. Who better to correct early errors than two who had worked on the original translation! Only nine years later and in Cambridge again, another edition came out which is supposed to have been the second major revision. Both Ward and Bois were still alive, but it is not known if they participated at this time. But even Scrivener, who as you remember worked on the English Revised Version of 1881, admitted that the Cambridge printers had simply reinstated words and clauses overlooked by the 1611 printers and amended manifest errors. According to a study which will be detailed later, 72% of the approximately 400 textual corrections in the KJV were completed by the time of the 1638 Cambridge edition, only 27 years after the original printing!

Just as the first two so-called revisions were actually two stages of one process: the purification of early printing errors, so the last two so-called revisions were two stages in another process: the standardization of the spelling, These two editions were only seven years apart (1762 and 1769) with the second one completing what the first had started. But when the scholars are numbering revisions, two sounds better than one. Very few textual corrections were necessary at this time. The thousands of alleged changes are spelling changes made to match the established correct forms. These spelling changes will be discussed later. Suffice it to say at this time that the tale of four major revisions is truly a fraud and a myth. But you say, there are still changes whether they be few or many. What are you going to do with the changes that are still there? Let us now examine the character of these changes.

III - THE SO-CALLED THOUSANDS
OF CHANGES

Suppose someone were to take you to a museum to see an original copy of the King James Version. You come to the glass case where the Bible is displayed and look down at the opened Bible through the glass. Although you are not allowed to flip through its pages, you can readily tell that there are some very different things about this Bible from the one you own. You can hardly read its words, and those you can make out are spelled in odd and strange ways. Like others before you, you leave with the impression that the King James Version has undergone a multitude of changes since its original printing in 1611. But beware, you have just been taken by a very clever ploy. The differences you saw are not what they seem to be. Let's examine the evidence.

Printing Changes
For proper examination, the changes can be divided into three kinds: printing changes, spelling changes, and textual changes. Printing changes will be considered first. The type style used in 1611 by the KJV translators was the Gothic Type Style. The type style you are reading right now and are familiar with is Roman Type. Gothic Type is sometimes called Germanic because it originated in Germany. Remember, that is where printing was invented. The Gothic letters were formed to resemble the hand-drawn manuscript lettering of the Middle Ages. At first, it was the only style in use. The Roman Type Style was invented fairly early, but many years passed before it became the predominate style in most European countries. Gothic continued to be used in Germany until recent years. In 1611 in England, Roman Type was already very popular and would soon supersede the Gothic. However, the original printers chose the Gothic Style for the KJV because it was considered to be more beautiful and eloquent than the Roman. But the change to Roman Type was not long in coming. In 1612, the first King James Version using Roman Type was printed. Within a few years, all the bibles printed used the Roman Type Style.

Please realize that a change in type style no more alters the text of the Bible than a change in format or type size does. However, the modem reader who has not become familiar with Gothic can find it very difficult to understand. Besides some general change in form, several specific letter changes need to be observed. For instance, the Gothic s looks like the Roman s when used as a capital letter or at the end of a word. But when it is used as a lower case s at the beginning or in the middle of a word, the letter looks like our f. Therefore, also becomes alfo and set becomes fet. Another variation is found in the German v and u. The Gothic v looks like a Roman u while the Gothic u looks like the Roman v. This explains why our w is called a double-u and not a double-v. Sound confusing? It is until you get used to it. In the 1611 edition, love is loue, us is vs, and ever is euer. But remember, these are not even spelling changes. They are simply type style changes. In another instance, the Gothic j looks like our i. So Jesus becomes Iefus (notice the middle s changed to f) and joy becomes ioy. Even the Gothic d with the stem leaning back over the circle in a shape resembling that of the Greek Delta. These changes account for a large percentage of the "thousands" of changes in the KJV, yet they do no harm whatsoever to the text. They are nothing more than a smokescreen set up by the attackers of our English Bible.

Spelling Changes

Another kind of change found in the history of the Authorized Version are changes of orthography or spelling. Most histories date the beginning of Modern English around the year 1500. Therefore, by 1611 the grammatical structure and basic vocabulary of present-day English had long been established. However, the spelling did not stabilize at the same time. In the 1600's spelling was according to whim. There was no such thing as correct spelling. No standards had been established. An author often spelled the same word several different ways, often in the same book and sometimes on the same page. And these were the educated people. Some of you reading this today would have found the 1600's a spelling paradise. Not until the eighteenth century did the spelling begin to take a stable form. Therefore, in the last half of the eighteenth century, the spelling of the King James Version of 1611 was standardized.

What kind of spelling variations can you expect to find between your present edition and the 1611 printing? Although every spelling difference cannot be categorized, several characteristics are very common. Additional e's were often found at the end of the words such as feare, darke, and beare. Also, double vowels were much more common than they are today. You would find ee, bee, and mooued instead of me, be, and moved. Double consonants were also much more common. What would ranne, euill, and ftarres be according to present-day spelling? See if you can figure them out. The present-day spellings would be ran, evil, and stars. These typographical and spelling changes account for almost all of the so-called thousands of changes in the King James Bible. None of them alter the text in any way. Therefore they cannot be honestly compared with thousands of true textual changes which are blatantly made in the modern versions.

Textual Changes

Almost all of the alleged changes have been accounted for. We now come to the question of actual textual differences between our present editions and that of 1611. There are some differences between the two, but they are not the changes of a revision. They are instead the correction of early printing errors. That this is a fact may be seen in three things: (1) the character of the changes, (2) the frequency of the changes throughout the Bible, and (3) the time the changes were made. First, let us look at the character of the changes made from the time of the first printing of the Authorized English Bible.
The changes from the 1611 edition that are admittedly textual are obviously printing errors because of the nature of these changes. They are not textual changes made to alter the reading. In the first printing, words were sometimes inverted. Sometimes a plural was written as singular or visa versa. At times a word was miswritten for one that was similar. A few times a word or even a phrase was omitted. The omissions were obvious and did not have the doctrinal implications of those found in modern translations. In fact, there is really no comparison between the corrections made in the King James text and those proposed by the scholars of today.

F.H.A. Scrivener, in the appendix of his book, lists the variations between the 1611 edition of the KJV and later printings. A sampling of these corrections is given below. In order to be objective, the samples give the first textual correction on consecutive left hand pages of Scrivener's book. The 1611 reading is given first; then the present reading; and finally, the date the correction was first made.

1 this thing - this thing also (1638)
2 shalt have remained - ye shall have remained (1762)
3 Achzib, nor Helbath, nor Aphik - of Achzib, nor of Helbath, nor of Aphik (1762)
4 requite good - requite me good (1629)
5 this book of the Covenant - the book of this covenant (1629)
6 chief rulers - chief ruler (1629)
7 And Parbar - At Parbar (1638)
8 For this cause - And for this cause (1638)
9 For the king had appointed - for so the king had appointed (1629)
10 Seek good - seek God (1617)
11 The cormorant - But the cormorant (1629)
12 returned - turned (1769)
13 a fiery furnace - a burning fiery furnace (1638)
14 The crowned - Thy crowned (1629)
15 thy right doeth - thy right hand doeth (1613)
16 the wayes side - the way side (1743)
17 which was a Jew - which was a Jewess (1629)
18 the city - the city of the Damascenes (1629)
19 now and ever - both now and ever (1638)
20 which was of our father's - which was our fathers (1616)

Before your eyes are 5% of the textual changes made in the King James Version in 375 years. Even if they were not corrections of previous errors, they would be of no comparison to modem alterations. But they are corrections of printing errors, and therefore no comparison is at all possible. Look at the list for yourself and you will find only one that has serious doctrinal implications. In fact, in an examination of Scrivener's entire appendix, it is the only variation found by this author that could be accused of being doctrinal. I am referring to Psalm 69:32 where the 1611 edition has "seek good" when the Bible should have read "seek God." Yet, even with this error, two points demonstrate that this was indeed a printing error. First, the similarity of the words "good" and "God" in spelling shows how easily a weary type setter could misread the proof and put the wrong word in the text. Second, this error was so obvious that it was caught and corrected in the year 1617, only six years after the original printing and well before the first so-called revision. The myth that there are several major revisions to the 1611 KJV should be getting clearer. But there is more.

Not only does the character of the changes show them to be printing errors, so does their frequency. Fundamentalist scholars refer to the thousands of revisions made to the 1611 as if they were on a par with the recent bible versions. They are not. The overwhelming majority of them are either type style or spelling changes. The few which do remain are clearly corrections of printing errors made because of the tediousness involved in the early printing process. The sample list given above will demonstrate just how careful Scrivener was in listing all the variations. Yet, even with this great care, only approximately 400 variations are named between the 1611 edition and modern copies. Remember that there were 100 variations between the first two Oxford editions which were both printed in 1611. Since there are almost 1200 chapters in the Bible, the average variation per chapter (after 375 years) is one third, i.e., one correction per every three chapters. These are changes such as "chief rulers" to "chief ruler" and "And Parbar" to "At Parbar." But there is yet one more evidence that these variations are simply corrected printing errors: the early date at which they were corrected.

The character and frequency of the textual changes clearly

separate them from modern alterations. But the time the changes were made settles the issue absolutely. The great majority of the 400 corrections were made within a few years of the original printing. Take, for example, our earlier sampling. Of the twenty corrections listed, one was made in 1613, one in 1616, one in 1617, eight in 1629, five in 1638, one in 1743, two in 1762, and one in 1769. That means that 16 out of 20 corrections, or 80%, were made within twenty-seven years of the 1611 printing. That is hardly the long drawn out series of revisions the scholars would have you to believe. In another study made by examining every other page of Scrivener's appendix in detail, 72% of the textual corrections were made by 1638. There is no "revision" issue.

The character of the textual changes is that of obvious errors. The frequency of the textual changes is sparse, occurring only once per three chapters. The chronology of the textual changes is early with about three fourths of them occurring within twenty-seven years of the first printing. All of these details establish the fact that there were no true revisions in the sense of updating the language or correcting translation errors. There were only editions which corrected early typographical errors. Our source of authority for the exact wording of the 1611 Authorized Version is not in the existing copies of the first printing. Our source of authority for the exact wording of our English Bible is in the preserving power of Almighty God. Just as God did not leave us the original autographs to fight and squabble over, so He did not see fit to leave us the proof copy of the translation. Our authority is in the hand of God as always. You can praise the Lord for that!

IV - CHANGES IN THE BOOK OF ECCLESIASTES

An in-depth study of the changes made in the book of Ecclesiastes would help to illustrate the principles stated above. The author is grateful to Dr. David Reese of Millbrook, Alabama, for his work in this area. By comparing a 1611 reprint of the original edition put out by Thomas Nelson & Sons with recent printing of the King James Version, Dr. Reese was able to locate four variations in the book of Ecclesiastes. The reference is given first; then the text of the Thomas Nelson 1611 reprint. This is followed by the reading of the present editions of the 1611 KJV and the date the change was made.

1 1:5 the place - his place (1638)
2 2:16 shall be - shall all be (1629)
3 8:17 out, yea further - out, yet he shall not find it; yea farther (1629)
4 11: 17 thing is it - thing it is (?)

Several things should be noted about these changes. The last variation ("thing is it" to "thing it is") is not mentioned by Scrivener who was a very careful and accurate scholar. Therefore, this change may be a misprint in the Thomas Nelson reprint. That would be interesting. The corrected omission in chapter eight is one of the longest corrections of the original printing. But notice that it was corrected in 1629. The frequency of printing errors is average (four errors in twelve chapters). But the most outstanding fact is that the entire book of Ecclesiastes reads exactly like our present editions without even printing errors by the year 1638. That's approximately 350 years ago. By that time, the Bible was being printed in Roman type. Therefore, all (and I mean all) that has changed in 350 years in the book of Ecclesiastes is that the spelling has been standardized! As stated before, the main purpose of the 1629 and 1638 Cambridge editions was the correction of earlier printing errors. And the main purpose of the 1762 and 1769 editions was the standardization of spelling.

V - THE SO-CALLED JUSTIFICATION
FOR OTHER REVISIONS

Maybe now you see that the King James Version of 1611 has not been revised but only corrected. But why does it make that much difference? Although there are several reasons why this issue is important, the most pressing one is that fundamentalist scholars are using this myth of past revisions to justify their own tampering with the text. The editors of the New King James Version have probably been the worst in recent years to use this propaganda ploy. In the preface of the New King James they have stated, "For nearly four hundred years, and throughout several revisions of its English form, the King James Bible has been deeply revered among the English-speaking peoples of the world. "In the midst of their flowery rhetoric, they strongly imply that their edition is only a continuation of the revisions that have been going on for the past 375 years. This implication, which has been stated directly by others, could not be more false. To prove this point, we will go back to the book of Ecclesiastes.

An examination of the first chapter in Ecclesiastes in the New King James Version reveals approximately 50 changes from our present edition. In order to be fair, spelling changes (cometh to comes; labour to labor; etc.) were not included in this count. That means there are probably about 600 alterations in the book of Ecclesiastes and approximately 60,000 changes in the entire Bible. If you accuse me of including every recognizable change, you are correct. But I am only counting the sort of changes which were identified in analyzing the 1611 King James. That's only fair. Still, the number of changes is especially baffling for a version which claims to be an updating in the same vein as earlier revisions. According to the fundamentalist scholar, the New King James is only a fifth in a series of revisions. Then pray tell me how four "revisions" and 375 years brought only 400 changes while the fifth revision brought about 60,000 additional changes? That means that the fifth revision made 150 times more changes than the total number of changes in the first four! That's preposterous!

Not only is the frequency of the changes unbelievable, but the character of the alterations are serious. Although many of the alterations seem harmless enough at first glance, many are much more serious. The editors of the New King James Version were sly enough not to alter the most serious blunders of the modern bibles. Yet, they were not afraid to change the reading in those places that are unfamiliar to the average fundamentalist. In these areas, the New King James Version is dangerous. Below are some of the more harmful alterations made in the book of Ecclesiastes. The reference is given first; then the reading as found in the King James Version; and last, the reading as found in the New King James Version.

1:13 sore travail; grievous task
1:14 vexation of spirit; grasping for the wind
1:16 my heart had great experience of wisdom; My heart has understood great wisdom
2:3 to give myself unto; to gratify my flesh with
2:3 acquainting; guiding
2:21 equity; skill
3:10 the travail, which God hath given; the God-given task
3:11 the world; eternity
3:18 that God might manifest them; God tests them
3:18 they themselves are beasts; they themselves are like beasts
3:22 portion; heritage
4:4 right work; skillful work
5:1 Keep thy foot; Walk prudently
5:6 the angel; the messenger of God
5:6 thy voice; your excuse
5:8 he that is higher than the highest; high official
5:20 God answereth him; God keeps him busy
6:3 untimely birth; stillborn child
7:29 inventions; schemes
8:1 boldness; sterness
8:10 the place of the holy; the place of holiness
10:1 Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savour; Dead flies putrefy the perfumer's ointment
10:10 If the iron be blunt; If the ax is dull
10:10 wisdom is profitable to direct; wisdom brings success
12:9 gave good heed; pondered
12:11 the masters of assemblies; scholars

This is only a sampling of the changes in the book, but notice what is done. Equity, which is a trait of godliness, becomes skill (2:21). The world becomes eternity (3:11). Man without God is no longer a beast but just like a beast (3:18). The clear reference to deity in Ecclesiastes 5:8 ("he that is higher than the highest") is successfully removed ("higher official"). But since success is what wisdom is supposed to bring us (10: 10), this must be progress. At least God is keeping the scholars busy (5:20). Probably the most revealing of the above mentioned changes is the last one listed where "the masters of assemblies" become "scholars." According to the New King James, "the words of scholars are like well-driven nails, given by one Shepherd." The masters of assemblies are replaced by the scholars who become the source of the Shepherd's words. That is what these scholars would like us to think, but it is not true.

In conclusion, the New King James is not a revision in the vein of former revisions of the King James Version. It is instead an entirely new translation. As stated in the introduction, the purpose of this book is not to convince those who use the other versions. The purpose of this book is to expose a fallacious argument that has been circulating in fundamentalist circles for what it is: an overblown myth. That is, the myth that the New King James Version and others like it are nothing more than a continuation of revisions which have periodically been made to the King James Version since 1611. There is one problem with this theory. There are no such revisions.

The King James Bible of 1611 has not undergone four (or any) major revisions. Therefore, the New King James Version is not a continuation of what has gone on before. It should in fact be called the Thomas Nelson Version. They hold the copyright. The King James Version we have today has not been revised but purified. We still have no reason to doubt that the Bible we hold in our hands is the very word of God preserved for us in the English language. The authority for its veracity lies not in the first printing of the King James Version in 1611, or in the character of King James 1, or in the scholarship of the 1611 translators, or in the literary accomplishments of Elizabethan England, or even in the Greek Received Text. Our authority for the infallible words of the English Bible lies in the power and promise of God to preserve His Word! God has the power. We have His Word.

Individual copies of Dr. Reagan's excellent pamphlet can be obtained by sending one dollar to:

Trinity Baptist Temple Bookstore
5709 N. Broadway
Knoxville, Tennessee 37918
(865) 688-0780

Taken from http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/ ... iblecenter on 4/19/2010
« Last Edit: February 27, 2013, 04:01:29 pm by Kilika » Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #4 on: September 20, 2013, 04:31:50 pm »

http://www.bibleprotector.com/editions.htm

Quote
VARIATIONS BETWEEN COMMON EDITIONS OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE,

AS COMPARED TO THE PURE CAMBRIDGE EDITION (STANDARD),

WITH REFERENCE TO THE 1611 EDITION.
 

The following list shows variations in common editions of the King James Bible, namely, the Early 1800s London (B), Victorian London (L), Victorian Oxford (O), Victorian Cambridge (C), the 1950s London Edition (LE), the 1950s Oxford (OE) and the Concord Cambridge (CC).

The Pure Cambridge Edition is given as the standard, and the editions which differ at that place are named, meaning those not named agree at that place.

Note that the 1917 Scofield Oxford Edition (SO) does differ from ordinary Oxfords in several respects, many of which are not listed. Note that not all editions have been listed, and that editions of the same company can exhibit variations.

(see chart for details)
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #5 on: September 20, 2013, 04:33:46 pm »

http://www.kjv-only.com/rick/1769.html

Quote
Do we use a 1769 KJV?

by Rick Norris

It is often claimed that our present KJV editions are the 1769 edition. David Sorenson wrote: "The King James Version of the Bible in America at present is in fact the 1769 edition" (TOUCH NOT THE UNCLEAN THING, p. 17). David Cloud wrote that "an update was made between 1762-69 to correct any lingering printing errors and to update the spelling" (FAITH VS. THE MODERN BIBLE VERSIONS, p. 589). Douglas Stauffer asserted that "the 1769 edition merely continued the process of spelling standardization begun in the 1762 edition" (ONE BOOK STANDS ALONE, p. 348). Robert Sargent claimed that "the spelling was standardized to its modern form in the 1762 and 1769 editions" (ENGLISH BIBLE, p. 229). KJV-only author Timothy Morton contended that "the 1762 and 1769 [editions] were to update the spelling" and that "by 1769 whatever slight textual errors that still remained were removed, and the text was finally free from any man-made error" (WHICH TRANSLATION SHOULD YOU TRUST, p. 42). KJV-only author Al Lacy maintained that "the 1769 edition of the 1611 King James Bible is perfect" (CAN I TRUST MY BIBLE, p. 144). Joey Faust maintained that "nothing after 1769 is a true edition" (COMMON MAN'S DEFENSE OF KJV-ONLYISM, p. 43). William Bradley claimed that "the last one in 1769 made no changes in the text, only standardization of spelling, punctuation, and updated typeface" (TO ALL GENERATIONS, p. 71). Lloyd Streeter claimed that the perfection of the KJV "should be looked upon as a winnowing or refining process extending from Tyndale through 1769" (SEVENTY-FIVE PROBLEMS, p. 104). Streeter asserted that God used "those who corrected printing and spelling errors between 1611 and 1769" (p. 104).

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). 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). 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). 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). 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?" (Mickey Carter, ELEPHANT, p. 142). Are the above claims and statements by KJV-only authors applied to the alterations in various KJV editions?

Even some KJV-only advocates acknowledge that the present-day Oxford edition is different from the Cambridge edition, and these two editions are usually considered different editions because of only 3 to 5 main differences (2 Chron. 33:19; Jer. 34:16; Nahum 3:16; Josh. 19:2, Psalm 148:Cool. Some have even argued that the Cambridge edition is more accurate simply based on its rendering at the first three of the five verses just listed. If there were just five differences between the 1769 Oxford edition and today's Oxford edition, should they be considered different editions just as the Oxford edition and Cambridge edition are considered different editions?

Anyone who carefully examines KJV editions printed after 1769 and even in the early 1800's will find that the KJV-only statements in the first paragraph are inaccurate. There were actually several hundred changes in the text that were introduced in the 1769 edition that remain in present KJV editions. The 1769 Oxford KJV still included the Apocrypha and the marginal notes from the 1611 edition along with some additional notes added in later editions. In addition, the 1769 edition had some changes in the text or some other renderings that later editors or printers changed or did not follow. While present KJV editions may be based on the 1769 Oxford edition, they are not 100% identical in text to that edition.

Consider a KJV edition that was printed at the Clarendon Press by William Jackson and William Dawson in 1795. While it is possible that the 1795 Oxford edition is not every word the same as the 1769 Oxford edition, the 1795 Oxford is more likely to be in agreement with the 1769 than is the present Oxford edition printed in the Scofield Reference Bible. An examination of this 1795 Oxford KJV edition shows that it has several renderings that came from the 1769 Oxford edition that are not found in the present Oxford edition. This 1795 Oxford edition, a 1799 Oxford edition, a 1804 Oxford edition, and a 1810 Oxford edition still have a character shaped like "f" for long "s" in many words. Here are some examples of this use of the long "s" in the 1795 Oxford edition of the KJV: "fin" (Ps. 32:5), "fee" (Ps. 34:12), "chafe" (Ps. 35:5), "wife" (Ps. 36:3), "flay" (Ps. 37:14), "feed" (Ps. 37:26), "fore" (Ps. 38:2), "foul" (Ps. 42:1), and "fake" (Ps. 44:26). Thus, the evidence will show that all updating of the KJV's text was not finished by 1769. This evidence is also supported by a KJV edition printed by John Archdeacon at Cambridge in 1790. Some of the changes in Oxford editions were made around 1830, and several may have been made after 1840 while at least five or more changes may not have been made until after 1880.

Consider the examples listed below. In some cases, access was no longer available for the Oxford edition, especially the 1782 and 1799 editions, after other differences were found. In some cases, one of the old Oxford editions was missing some pages. In other cases, some of the Oxford editions may have followed the rendering of a KJV edition earlier than 1769 or may have changed the rendering in the 1769. In these examples the character shaped like a "f" for a long "s" in some of the old editions was updated...
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #6 on: September 20, 2013, 04:40:00 pm »

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/

English Bible History

Quote
The fascinating story of how we got the Bible in its present form actually starts thousands of years ago, as briefly outlined in our Timeline of Bible Translation History. As a background study, we recommend that you first review our discussion of the Pre-Reformation History of the Bible from 1,400 B.C. to 1,400 A.D., which covers the transmission of the scripture through the original languages of Hebrew and Greek, and the 1,000 years of the Dark & Middle Ages when the Word was trapped in only Latin. Our starting point in this discussion of Bible history, however, is the advent of the scripture in the English language with the “Morning Star of the Reformation”, John Wycliffe.


The first hand-written English language Bible manuscripts were produced in the 1380's AD by John Wycliffe, an Oxford professor, scholar, and theologian. Wycliffe, (also spelled “Wycliff” & “Wyclif”), was well-known throughout Europe for his opposition to the teaching of the organized Church, which he believed to be contrary to the Bible. With the help of his followers, called the Lollards, and his assistant Purvey, and many other faithful scribes, Wycliffe produced dozens of English language manuscript copies of the scriptures. They were translated out of the Latin Vulgate, which was the only source text available to Wycliffe. The Pope was so infuriated by his teachings and his translation of the Bible into English, that 44 years after Wycliffe had died, he ordered the bones to be dug-up, crushed, and scattered in the river!


One of Wycliffe’s followers, John Hus, actively promoted Wycliffe’s ideas: that people should be permitted to read the Bible in their own language, and they should oppose the tyranny of the Roman church that threatened anyone possessing a non-Latin Bible with execution. Hus was burned at the stake in 1415, with Wycliffe’s manuscript Bibles used as kindling for the fire. The last words of John Hus were that, “in 100 years, God will raise up a man whose calls for reform cannot be suppressed.” Almost exactly 100 years later, in 1517, Martin Luther nailed his famous 95 Theses of Contention (a list of 95 issues of heretical theology and crimes of the Roman Catholic Church) into the church door at Wittenberg. The prophecy of Hus had come true! Martin Luther went on to be the first person to translate and publish the Bible in the commonly-spoken dialect of the German people; a translation more appealing than previous German Biblical translations. Foxe’s Book of Martyrs records that in that same year, 1517, seven people were burned at the stake by the Roman Catholic Church for the crime of teaching their children to say the Lord’s Prayer in English rather than Latin.


Johann Gutenberg invented the printing press in the 1450's, and the first book to ever be printed was a Latin language Bible, printed in Mainz, Germany. Gutenberg’s Bibles were surprisingly beautiful, as each leaf Gutenberg printed was later colorfully hand-illuminated. Born as “Johann Gensfleisch” (John Gooseflesh), he preferred to be known as “Johann Gutenberg” (John Beautiful Mountain). Ironically, though he had created what many believe to be the most important invention in history, Gutenberg was a victim of unscrupulous business associates who took control of his business and left him in poverty. Nevertheless, the invention of the movable-type printing press meant that Bibles and books could finally be effectively produced in large quantities in a short period of time. This was essential to the success of the Reformation.


In the 1490’s another Oxford professor, and the personal physician to King Henry the 7th and 8th, Thomas Linacre, decided to learn Greek. After reading the Gospels in Greek, and comparing it to the Latin Vulgate, he wrote in his diary, “Either this (the original Greek) is not the Gospel… or we are not Christians.” The Latin had become so corrupt that it no longer even preserved the message of the Gospel… yet the Church still threatened to kill anyone who read the scripture in any language other than Latin… though Latin was not an original language of the scriptures.


In 1496, John Colet, another Oxford professor and the son of the Mayor of London, started reading the New Testament in Greek and translating it into English for his students at Oxford, and later for the public at Saint Paul’s Cathedral in London. The people were so hungry to hear the Word of God in a language they could understand, that within six months there were 20,000 people packed in the church and at least that many outside trying to get in! (Sadly, while the enormous and beautiful Saint Paul’s Cathedral remains the main church in London today, as of 2003, typical Sunday morning worship attendance is only around 200 people… and most of them are tourists). Fortunately for Colet, he was a powerful man with friends in high places, so he amazingly managed to avoid execution.


In considering the experiences of Linacre and Colet, the great scholar Erasmus was so moved to correct the corrupt Latin Vulgate, that in 1516, with the help of printer John Froben, he published a Greek-Latin Parallel New Testament. The Latin part was not the corrupt Vulgate, but his own fresh rendering of the text from the more accurate and reliable Greek, which he had managed to collate from a half-dozen partial old Greek New Testament manuscripts he had acquired. This milestone was the first non-Latin Vulgate text of the scripture to be produced in a millennium… and the first ever to come off a printing press. The 1516 Greek-Latin New Testament of Erasmus further focused attention on just how corrupt and inaccurate the Latin Vulgate had become, and how important it was to go back and use the original Greek (New Testament) and original Hebrew (Old Testament) languages to maintain accuracy… and to translate them faithfully into the languages of the common people, whether that be English, German, or any other tongue. No sympathy for this “illegal activity” was to be found from Rome… even as the words of Pope Leo X's declaration that "the fable of Christ was quite profitable to him" continued through the years to infuriate the people of God.


William Tyndale was the Captain of the Army of Reformers, and was their spiritual leader. Tyndale holds the distinction of being the first man to ever print the New Testament in the English language. Tyndale was a true scholar and a genius, so fluent in eight languages that it was said one would think any one of them to be his native tongue. He is frequently referred to as the “Architect of the English Language”, (even more so than William Shakespeare) as so many of the phrases Tyndale coined are still in our language today.


Martin Luther had a small head-start on Tyndale, as Luther declared his intolerance for the Roman Church’s corruption on Halloween in 1517, by nailing his 95 Theses of Contention to the Wittenberg Church door. Luther, who would be exiled in the months following the Diet of Worms Council in 1521 that was designed to martyr him, would translate the New Testament into German for the first time from the 1516 Greek-Latin New Testament of Erasmus, and publish it in September of 1522. Luther also published a German Pentateuch in 1523, and another edition of the German New Testament in 1529. In the 1530’s he would go on to publish the entire Bible in German.

William Tyndale wanted to use the same 1516 Erasmus text as a source to translate and print the New Testament in English for the first time in history. Tyndale showed up on Luther's doorstep in Germany in 1525, and by year's end had translated the New Testament into English. Tyndale had been forced to flee England, because of the wide-spread rumor that his English New Testament project was underway, causing inquisitors and bounty hunters to be constantly on Tyndale's trail to arrest him and prevent his project. God foiled their plans, and in 1525-1526 the Tyndale New Testament became the first printed edition of the scripture in the English language. Subsequent printings of the Tyndale New Testament in the 1530's were often elaborately illustrated.

They were burned as soon as the Bishop could confiscate them, but copies trickled through and actually ended up in the bedroom of King Henry VIII. The more the King and Bishop resisted its distribution, the more fascinated the public at large became. The church declared it contained thousands of errors as they torched hundreds of New Testaments confiscated by the clergy, while in fact, they burned them because they could find no errors at all. One risked death by burning if caught in mere possession of Tyndale's forbidden books.

Having God's Word available to the public in the language of the common man, English, would have meant disaster to the church. No longer would they control access to the scriptures. If people were able to read the Bible in their own tongue, the church's income and power would crumble. They could not possibly continue to get away with selling indulgences (the forgiveness of sins) or selling the release of loved ones from a church-manufactured "Purgatory". People would begin to challenge the church's authority if the church were exposed as frauds and thieves. The contradictions between what God's Word said, and what the priests taught, would open the public's eyes and the truth would set them free from the grip of fear that the institutional church held. Salvation through faith, not works or donations, would be understood. The need for priests would vanish through the priesthood of all believers. The veneration of church-canonized Saints and Mary would be called into question. The availability of the scriptures in English was the biggest threat imaginable to the wicked church. Neither side would give up without a fight.

Today, there are only two known copies left of Tyndale’s 1525-26 First Edition. Any copies printed prior to 1570 are extremely valuable. Tyndale's flight was an inspiration to freedom-loving Englishmen who drew courage from the 11 years that he was hunted. Books and Bibles flowed into England in bales of cotton and sacks of flour. Ironically, Tyndale’s biggest customer was the King’s men, who would buy up every copy available to burn them… and Tyndale used their money to print even more! In the end, Tyndale was caught: betrayed by an Englishman that he had befriended. Tyndale was incarcerated for 500 days before he was strangled and burned at the stake in 1536. Tyndale’s last words were, "Oh Lord, open the King of England’s eyes". This prayer would be answered just three years later in 1539, when King Henry VIII finally allowed, and even funded, the printing of an English Bible known as the “Great Bible”. But before that could happen…


Myles Coverdale and John “Thomas Matthew” Rogers had remained loyal disciples the last six years of Tyndale's life, and they carried the English Bible project forward and even accelerated it. Coverdale finished translating the Old Testament, and in 1535 he printed the first complete Bible in the English language, making use of Luther's German text and the Latin as sources. Thus, the first complete English Bible was printed on October 4, 1535, and is known as the Coverdale Bible.


John Rogers went on to print the second complete English Bible in 1537. It was, however, the first English Bible translated from the original Biblical languages of Hebrew & Greek. He printed it under the pseudonym "Thomas Matthew", (an assumed name that had actually been used by Tyndale at one time) as a considerable part of this Bible was the translation of Tyndale, whose writings had been condemned by the English authorities. It is a composite made up of Tyndale's Pentateuch and New Testament (1534-1535 edition) and Coverdale's Bible and some of Roger's own translation of the text. It remains known most commonly as the Matthew-Tyndale Bible. It went through a nearly identical second-edition printing in 1549.


In 1539, Thomas Cranmer, the Archbishop of Canterbury, hired Myles Coverdale at the bequest of King Henry VIII to publish the "Great Bible". It became the first English Bible authorized for public use, as it was distributed to every church, chained to the pulpit, and a reader was even provided so that the illiterate could hear the Word of God in plain English. It would seem that William Tyndale's last wish had been granted...just three years after his martyrdom. Cranmer's Bible, published by Coverdale, was known as the Great Bible due to its great size: a large pulpit folio measuring over 14 inches tall. Seven editions of this version were printed between April of 1539 and December of 1541.


It was not that King Henry VIII had a change of conscience regarding publishing the Bible in English. His motives were more sinister… but the Lord sometimes uses the evil intentions of men to bring about His glory. King Henry VIII had in fact, requested that the Pope permit him to divorce his wife and marry his mistress. The Pope refused. King Henry responded by marrying his mistress anyway, (later having two of his many wives executed), and thumbing his nose at the Pope by renouncing Roman Catholicism, taking England out from under Rome’s religious control, and declaring himself as the reigning head of State to also be the new head of the Church. This new branch of the Christian Church, neither Roman Catholic nor truly Protestant, became known as the Anglican Church or the Church of England. King Henry acted essentially as its “Pope”. His first act was to further defy the wishes of Rome by funding the printing of the scriptures in English… the first legal English Bible… just for spite.


The ebb and flow of freedom continued through the 1540's...and into the 1550's. After King Henry VIII, King Edward VI took the throne, and after his death, the reign of Queen “Bloody” Mary was the next obstacle to the printing of the Bible in English. She was possessed in her quest to return England to the Roman Church. In 1555, John "Thomas Matthew" Rogers and Thomas Cranmer were both burned at the stake. Mary went on to burn reformers at the stake by the hundreds for the "crime" of being a Protestant. This era was known as the Marian Exile, and the refugees fled from England with little hope of ever seeing their home or friends again.


In the 1550's, the Church at Geneva, Switzerland, was very sympathetic to the reformer refugees and was one of only a few safe havens for a desperate people. Many of them met in Geneva, led by Myles Coverdale and John Foxe (publisher of the famous Foxe's Book of Martyrs, which is to this day the only exhaustive reference work on the persecution and martyrdom of Early Christians and Protestants from the first century up to the mid-16th century), as well as Thomas Sampson and William Whittingham. There, with the protection of the great theologian John Calvin (author of the most famous theological book ever published, Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion)and John Knox, the great Reformer of the Scottish Church, the Church of Geneva determined to produce a Bible that would educate their families while they continued in exile.


The New Testament was completed in 1557, and the complete Bible was first published in 1560. It became known as the Geneva Bible. Due to a passage in Genesis describing the clothing that God fashioned for Adam and Eve upon expulsion from the Garden of Eden as "Breeches" (an antiquated form of "Britches"), some people referred to the Geneva Bible as the Breeches Bible.


The Geneva Bible was the first Bible to add numbered verses to the chapters, so that referencing specific passages would be easier. Every chapter was also accompanied by extensive marginal notes and references so thorough and complete that the Geneva Bible is also considered the first English "Study Bible". William Shakespeare quotes hundreds of times in his plays from the Geneva translation of the Bible. The Geneva Bible became the Bible of choice for over 100 years of English speaking Christians. Between 1560 and 1644 at least 144 editions of this Bible were published. Examination of the 1611 King James Bible shows clearly that its translators were influenced much more by the Geneva Bible, than by any other source. The Geneva Bible itself retains over 90% of William Tyndale's original English translation. The Geneva in fact, remained more popular than the King James Version until decades after its original release in 1611! The Geneva holds the honor of being the first Bible taken to America, and the Bible of the Puritans and Pilgrims. It is truly the “Bible of the Protestant Reformation.” Strangely, the famous Geneva Bible has been out-of-print since 1644, so the only way to obtain one is to either purchase an original printing of the Geneva Bible, or a less costly facsimile reproduction of the original 1560 Geneva Bible.

With the end of Queen Mary's bloody reign, the reformers could safely return to England. The Anglican Church, now under Queen Elizabeth I, reluctantly tolerated the printing and distribution of Geneva version Bibles in England. The marginal notes, which were vehemently against the institutional Church of the day, did not rest well with the rulers of the day. Another version, one with a less inflammatory tone was desired, and the copies of the Great Bible were getting to be decades old. In 1568, a revision of the Great Bible known as the Bishop's Bible was introduced. Despite 19 editions being printed between 1568 and 1606, this Bible, referred to as the “rough draft of the King James Version”, never gained much of a foothold of popularity among the people. The Geneva may have simply been too much to compete with.

By the 1580's, the Roman Catholic Church saw that it had lost the battle to suppress the will of God: that His Holy Word be available in the English language. In 1582, the Church of Rome surrendered their fight for "Latin only" and decided that if the Bible was to be available in English, they would at least have an official Roman Catholic English translation. And so, using the corrupt and inaccurate Latin Vulgate as the only source text, they went on to publish an English Bible with all the distortions and corruptions that Erasmus had revealed and warned of 75 years earlier. Because it was translated at the Roman Catholic College in the city of Rheims, it was known as the Rheims New Testament (also spelled Rhemes). The Douay Old Testament was translated by the Church of Rome in 1609 at the College in the city of Douay (also spelled Doway & Douai). The combined product is commonly referred to as the "Doway/Rheims" Version. In 1589, Dr. William Fulke of Cambridge published the "Fulke's Refutation", in which he printed in parallel columns the Bishops Version along side the Rheims Version, attempting to show the error and distortion of the Roman Church's corrupt compromise of an English version of the Bible.


With the death of Queen Elizabeth I, Prince James VI of Scotland became King James I of England. The Protestant clergy approached the new King in 1604 and announced their desire for a new translation to replace the Bishop's Bible first printed in 1568. They knew that the Geneva Version had won the hearts of the people because of its excellent scholarship, accuracy, and exhaustive commentary. However, they did not want the controversial marginal notes (proclaiming the Pope an Anti-Christ, etc.) Essentially, the leaders of the church desired a Bible for the people, with scriptural references only for word clarification or cross-references.

This "translation to end all translations" (for a while at least) was the result of the combined effort of about fifty scholars. They took into consideration: The Tyndale New Testament, The Coverdale Bible, The Matthews Bible, The Great Bible, The Geneva Bible, and even the Rheims New Testament. The great revision of the Bishop's Bible had begun. From 1605 to 1606 the scholars engaged in private research. From 1607 to 1609 the work was assembled. In 1610 the work went to press, and in 1611 the first of the huge (16 inch tall) pulpit folios known today as "The 1611 King James Bible" came off the printing press. A typographical discrepancy in Ruth 3:15 rendered a pronoun "He" instead of "She" in that verse in some printings. This caused some of the 1611 First Editions to be known by collectors as "He" Bibles, and others as "She" Bibles. Starting just one year after the huge 1611 pulpit-size King James Bibles were printed and chained to every church pulpit in England; printing then began on the earliest normal-size printings of the King James Bible. These were produced so individuals could have their own personal copy of the Bible.

The Anglican Church’s King James Bible took decades to overcome the more popular Protestant Church’s Geneva Bible. One of the greatest ironies of history, is that many Protestant Christian churches today embrace the King James Bible exclusively as the “only” legitimate English language translation… yet it is not even a Protestant translation! It was printed to compete with the Protestant Geneva Bible, by authorities who throughout most of history were hostile to Protestants… and killed them. While many Protestants are quick to assign the full blame of persecution to the Roman Catholic Church, it should be noted that even after England broke from Roman Catholicism in the 1500’s, the Church of England (The Anglican Church) continued to persecute Protestants throughout the 1600’s. One famous example of this is John Bunyan, who while in prison for the crime of preaching the Gospel, wrote one of Christian history’s greatest books, Pilgrim’s Progress. Throughout the 1600’s, as the Puritans and the Pilgrims fled the religious persecution of England to cross the Atlantic and start a new free nation in America, they took with them their precious Geneva Bible, and rejected the King’s Bible. America was founded upon the Geneva Bible, not the King James Bible.

Protestants today are largely unaware of their own history, and unaware of the Geneva Bible (which is textually 95% the same as the King James Version, but 50 years older than the King James Version, and not influenced by the Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament that the King James translators admittedly took into consideration). Nevertheless, the King James Bible turned out to be an excellent and accurate translation, and it became the most printed book in the history of the world, and the only book with one billion copies in print. In fact, for over 250 years...until the appearance of the English Revised Version of 1881-1885...the King James Version reigned without much of a rival. One little-known fact, is that for the past 200 years, all King James Bibles published in America are actually the 1769 Baskerville spelling and wording revision of the 1611. The original “1611” preface is deceivingly included by the publishers, and no mention of the fact that it is really the 1769 version is to be found, because that might hurt sales. The only way to obtain a true, unaltered, 1611 version is to either purchase an original pre-1769 printing of the King James Bible, or a less costly facsimile reproduction of the original 1611 King James Bible.


Although the first Bible printed in America was done in the native Algonquin Indian Language by John Eliot in 1663; the first English language Bible to be printed in America by Robert Aitken in 1782 was a King James Version. Robert Aitken’s 1782 Bible was also the only Bible ever authorized by the United States Congress. He was commended by President George Washington for providing Americans with Bibles during the embargo of imported English goods due to the Revolutionary War. In 1808, Robert’s daughter, Jane Aitken, would become the first woman to ever print a Bible… and to do so in America, of course. In 1791, Isaac Collins vastly improved upon the quality and size of the typesetting of American Bibles and produced the first "Family Bible" printed in America... also a King James Version. Also in 1791, Isaiah Thomas published the first Illustrated Bible printed in America...in the King James Version. For more information on the earliest Bibles printed in America from the 1600’s through the early 1800’s, you may wish to review our more detailed discussion of The Bibles of Colonial America. (cont.)
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #7 on: September 20, 2013, 04:44:07 pm »

http://www.kjvonly.org/rick/norris_spelling.htm

Quote
RICK NORRIS RESPONDS TO THE "SPELLING CHANGES ONLYISM"
ARGUMENT OFFERED BY MANY IN THE "KING JAMES ONLY" CAMP

In a message dated 9/2/00 2:53:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Pastor Rich Pringle rpringle@juno.com writes: "I have been told (and my 'limited library' does not have what is necessary for the full research) that the 1611 is the same Bible as the 1769.  There were only spelling changes that occurred"!

RICK NORRIS:

It seems that you have been misinformed.  Are all current editions of the KJV exactly the same as the 1611 KJV with only updating of spelling and type?  Some have made such claims, but are their claims accurate?  (cont.)
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #8 on: September 20, 2013, 04:47:42 pm »

http://www.biblebelievers.com/Reagan_myth-early.html

Quote
The King James Version of 1611
The Myth of Early Revisions

By Pastor David F. Reagan

INTRODUCTION

Men have been "handling the word of God deceitfully" (II Cor. 4:2) ever since the devil first taught Eve how. From Cain to Balaam, from Jehudi to the scribes and Pharisees, from the Dark Age theologians to present-day scholars, the living words of the Almighty God have been prime targets for man’s corrupting hand. The attacks on the Word of God are threefold: addition, subtraction, and substitution. From Adam’s day to the computer age, the strategies have remained the same. There is nothing new under the sun.

One attack which is receiving quite a bit of attention these days is a direct attack on the Word of God as preserved in the English language: the King James Version of 1611. The attack referred to is the myth which claims that since the King James Version of 1611 has already been revised four times, there should be and can be no valid objection to other revisions. This myth was used by the English Revisers of 1881 and has been revived in recent years by fundamentalist scholars hoping to sell their latest translation. This book is given as an answer to this attack. The purpose of the material is not to convince those who would deny this preservation but to strengthen the faith of those who already believe in a preserved English Bible.

One major question often arises in any attack such as this. How far should we go in answering the critics? If we were to attempt to answer every shallow objection to the infallibility of the English Bible, we would never be able to accomplish anything else. Sanity must prevail somewhere. As always, the answer is in God’s Word. Proverbs 26:4-5 states:

    Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

Obviously, there are times when a foolish query should be ignored and times when it should be met with an answer. If to answer the attack will make you look as foolish as the attacker, then the best answer is to ignore the question. For instance, if you are told that the Bible cannot be infallible because so-and - so believes that it is, and he is divorced, then you may safely assume that silence is the best answer. On the other hand, there are often questions and problems that, if true, would be serious. To ignore these issues would be to leave the Bible attacker wise in his own conceit. I believe that the question of revisions to the King James Version of 1611 is a question of the second class. If the King James Version has undergone four major revisions of its text, then to oppose further revisions on the basis of an established English text would truly be faulty. For this reason, this attack should and must be answered. Can the argument be answered? Certainly! That is the purpose of this book.
I. THE PRINTING CONDITIONS OF 1611

If God did preserve His Word in the English language through the Authorized Version of 1611 (and He did), then where is our authority for the infallible wording? Is it in the notes of the translators? Or is it to be found in the proof copy sent to the printers? If so, then our authority is lost because these papers are lost. But, you say, the authority is in the first copy, which came off the printing press. Alas, that copy has also certainly perished. In fact, if the printing of the English Bible followed the pattern of most printing jobs, the first copy was probably discarded because of bad quality. That leaves us with existing copies of the first printing. They are the ones often pointed out as the standard by which all other King James Bibles are to be compared. But are they? Can those early printers of the first edition not be allowed to make printing errors? We need to establish one thing from the out-set. The authority for our preserved English text is not found in any human work. The authority for our preserved and infallible English text is in God! Printers may foul up at times and humans will still make plenty of errors, but God in His power and mercy will preserve His text despite the weaknesses of fallible man. Now, let us look at the pressures on a printer in the year of 1611.

Although the printing press had been invented in 1450 by Johann Gutenburg in Germany (161 years before the 1611 printing), the equipment used by the printer had changed very little. Printing was still very slow and difficult. All type was set by hand, one piece at a time (that’s one piece at a time through the whole Bible), and errors were an expected part of any completed book. Because of this difficulty and also because the 1611 printers had no earlier editions from which to profit, the very first edition the King James Version had a number of printing errors. As shall later be demonstrated, these were not the sort of textual alterations, which are freely made in modern bibles. They were simple, obvious printing errors of the sort that can still be found at times in recent editions even with all of the advantages of useless, but they should be corrected in later editions.

The two original printings of the Authorized Version demonstrate the difficulty of printing in 1611 without making mistakes. Both editions were printed in Oxford. Both were printed in the same year: 1611. The same printers did both jobs. Most likely, both editions were printed on the same printing press. Yet, in a strict comparison of the two editions, approximately 100 textual differences can be found. In the same vein the King James critics can find only about 400 alleged textual alterations in the King James Version after 375 years of printing and four so-called revisions! Something is rotten in Scholarsville! The time has come to examine these "revisions."
II THE FOUR SO-CALLED REVISIONS OF 1611 KJV (cont.)

© Copyrighted by David F. Reagan. As long as this notice is included, permission is granted to copy and distribute this material (electronically or in print form) for individual use or for small groups. All other rights (such as use in books, periodicals, on web pages, etc.) are reserved and must be obtained by permission from the author. Contact David Reagan at Antioch Baptist Church, 5709 N. Broadway, Knoxville, TN, 37918 – (865) 688-0780 – Fax (865) 689-1611 – doit55@juno.com
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #9 on: September 20, 2013, 04:49:29 pm »

http://www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/italics.html

Quote
The Italicized Words in the King James Bible

The italicized words in the King James Bible are words that were added by the translators to help the reader. This is usually necessary when translating from one language to another because word meanings and idioms change. So, to produce a more readable translation, the King James translators (1604- 1611) added certain words to the Bible text. However, to make sure that everyone understood that these words were not in the available manuscripts they set them in italics. (cont.)
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: September 20, 2013, 04:52:42 pm »

Yes, italicizing certain words have been a tremendous help at times while reading through certain passages! There are times when you don't understand things, and the italicized words can get your attention.

It's not like those Alexandrian text translators, that change words, and hence the meanings of the texts, thinking they can make it an "easier read".
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: September 20, 2013, 05:10:54 pm »

Quote
The two original printings of the Authorized Version demonstrate the difficulty of printing in 1611 without making mistakes. Both editions were printed in Oxford. Both were printed in the same year: 1611. The same printers did both jobs. Most likely, both editions were printed on the same printing press. Yet, in a strict comparison of the two editions, approximately 100 textual differences can be found. In the same vein the King James critics can find only about 400 alleged textual alterations in the King James Version after 375 years of printing and four so-called revisions! Something is rotten in Scholarsville! The time has come to examine these "revisions."

Forgot what they are called, but they engage themselves in "higher criticism" - this all started in the 1800's with Wescott and Hort. And other nonsense like Charles Darwin's "theory" of evolution is connected to it as well. Ultimately, they're just grasping for straws but end up making a mountain out of mole hill.

Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: September 20, 2013, 08:16:31 pm »

Also, beware of some of these "discernment ministries" that are primarily exposing the Emergent/Postmodernism church - don't get me wrong, these Christ-hating reprobates like Rick Warren and Bill Hybels should be exposed through and through, but nonetheless some of these "discernment ministries" that are primarily doing so are from the likes of DA Carson and Chris Rosebrough, both of whom have used "higher criticism" to attack the King James Bible and its texts.

And they are also acting like the Emergent Church is THE end times Apostasy(meaning churches were somehow strong prior to the 21st century until they came along). Again, I'm all for exposing the Emergent Church, but to say they are THE Apostasy is to pretty much ignore church history since the 6th century or so(as well as the history of the King James Bible and its inspired and preserved Antioch texts).

Ultimately, they're playing a bait and switch game - while doing this, while they gain your trust, they are quietly leading you to the NIV and other modern-perversions(as well as into the organized church system), and then from there they have left you with a noodle-arm as your only defense.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: October 03, 2013, 07:07:40 pm »

I tell you - it seems like it's this very King James Bible that's under attack THE MOST. Was on a message forum in their religion section(no, not PPF), and in one of the discussions over the RCC's liberation theology heresy, I talked about how the Vatican has also warred against the KJB by throwing out all of these other perversions like the NIV, NASB, NLT, Living Bible, Message, etc. Next thing I know, one of the posters responded how somehow the KJB has some kind of Catholic connections, and posted links from no-name bloggers(professing Christians who hate the KJB).

Pt being that it's not just unbelievers and Catholics(ie-those at PPF) attacking the KJB, but it seems like even professing Christian ministries are also going on an all-out attack on it as well. I mean people can expose Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, the Emergent Church, the Roman Catholic Church, megachurches, etc, all they want until they're blue in the face - but ultimately it's this VERY King James Bible that continues to stand on that very rock, and it's shown to be a stumbling block and a rock of offense to those that continue to be hard-hearted!

While I'll admit it can wear me out and make me feel discouraged, at the same time, am I the only one that is REJOICING that "Let God be true, and every man a liar?", and our houses are built on a rock, and not sand? Am I the only one that's also REJOICING over the fact that we're being persecuted for righteousnesses sake?

Ultimately, yes, I(along with others) got saved using an NIV(or some other perversion), but nonetheless HOW can anyone CONTEND FOR THE FAITH with some wet noodle-arm? There are ALOT of verses in the NIV that is just pure blasphemy! And think of it this way too - just b/c you have decent health and car insurances, does this mean it's still OK for you to drive through neighborhoods with high crime rates at night?

And this is also my big problem with these modern-day church buildings(that are using these perversions too) - they think contending for the faith means witnessing to as many as you can, so you add more memberships in these churches. But what they are completely leaving out is all of the being reviled and persecuted for righteousnesses sake.

Anyhow, thought I would share my recent experiences here - was wondering how often everyone here has experienced this.
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
Free SMF Hosting - Create your own Forum

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy