KJV-Onlyism Biblical or Cultic?

[akfools]

KJV-Onlyism
Biblical or Cultic?
There are many today, often very sincere and well-meaning, who are seeking to promote a “double inspiration theory.” They teach that not only were the original manuscripts inspired by God, but also that the King James Bible translation has been miraculously preserved and translated with the result that it is absolutely perfect and flawless.

This view is stated clearly by one of its defenders: “We believe that the same God who gave the original Scriptures has the power and authority to PRESERVE them through the years of time and give them to us in our language—infallible and without possibility of error. … We believe that Almighty God through the power of the Holy Spirit has INSPIRED and PRESERVED (emphasis his) one and only one translation and version in the English language as the infallible and inerrant Holy Scriptures. That version is the King James Authorized Version of 1611” (written by Mark A. Underwood, president and founder of THE KING JAMES BIBLE MINISTRY, a ministry which was founded “for the purpose of promoting and defending the KJV of 1611 as the infallible and inspired Holy Scriptures”; the above quotations are from Underwood’s brochure in which he tells about his ministry and presents his statement of faith).

I, also, am “King James Only” in the sense that I use only the King James Bible in my reading and study of the Word. I love and honor and respect this translation of the Bible, and recognize that it has been greatly used of God since its first edition in 1611. I also recognize that there are serious problems involving the multitude of modern translations that are on the market today and that these problems must be faced and dealt with. But it is my position, and the historic position of Bible believers, that it is only the original manuscripts (autographs) which have been given by inspiration of God and that no translation, not even the revered KJV, is absolutely flawless and perfect. A translation is accurate only to the extent that it faithfully gives an accurate rendering of the original text. I am thankful that in general the KJV does this and does it very well. (Adapted from a 5/9/98 pastor’s e-mail.)

One can certainly appreciate the point that many modern translations are suspect because of the heterodoxy of the translators. Still, insisting on retreat to a less than perfect translation of 1611, as all translations must be (and in fact usually using a 1769 tenth edition of that translation, which alleviates some of the earlier nine editions’ imperfections), is still retreat, not an advance for the Kingdom of God. We can continue to appreciate and use “the KJV (tenth edition)” without making it into an idol that is as detestable to God as any other idol.

Background Information

The Old Testament (OT) was almost all originally written in Hebrew with a few portions in Aramaic. The New Testament (NT) was written in Greek. The OT: Before the Dead Sea Scrolls were found (1947-1956), the earliest hand copied manuscript of the Hebrew OT was dated about A.D. 900. The Dead Sea Scrolls provided manuscripts that were copied from 100 B.C. - A.D. 200. These manuscripts were about 1,000 years older than any previously known copies of Hebrew OT texts. The remarkable thing was that a comparison proved the amazing similarity of the texts. The only variation involved what scholars termed “incidental matters.” Today, there is little debate over the OT text.

The NT: There are three major sources to examine to try and determine the actual text of the original writings of the Greek New Testament. They are the Greek Manuscripts (about 5,300), the versions which are earlier translations (about 8,000) and Bible quotations in the writings of the early church fathers.

Greek manuscripts have two primary text-type families. The debate over the preferred (or non-corrupted, if you are KJV-Only) text centers around the Byzantine and the Alexandrian text-types. The Byzantine text-type was the Greek text used during the Byzantine period (A.D. 312-1453). The King James translation was based on a few (about 6) of these manuscripts. Those few manuscripts became the basis for what became known as the TEXTUS RECEPTUS or THE RECEIVED TEXT as presented in the KJV. The manuscripts that the KJV were based on were late, with none earlier than the 10th century (cf. THE KING JAMES VERSION DEBATE by D.A. Carson, pp. 35-36). The earliest Byzantine texts are from the 4th century. The Alexandrian text-type has fewer manuscripts but they are older. They were discovered after the translation of the KJV. Modern translations are based primarily on these older manuscripts.

Facts of the Matter

1. Of over 5,000 copies of the NT available (of which no two are identical), only 50 are complete NTs, of which the Textus Receptus is only one.

2. The Textus Receptus (TR) is NOT the NT the KJV translators used (for the 1611 KJV translation)—they used the Stephens of 1550. The TR did not even exist until after 1624. The TR was a combination of the Stephens and Beza texts. There are 200-300 variations between the Stephens text used by the KJV translators and the TR.

3. Other translations were used by the KJV translators is producing the 1611 edition—2.9% of the KJV is word-for-word from the 1525 Tyndale Bible. Overall, 61% of the KJV was taken from other available translations, including the Geneva Bible (see preface to the 1611 KJV).

4. The KJV used today is NOT the 1611 version, but the 10th edition! (which occurred about 150 years after 1611). Moreover, the KJV of 1611 included the Roman Catholic Apocrypha (also called “Deuterocanonical books”)! How could these “God-guided” translators (as KJV-Onlyites like to refer to them) have made such a grievous error? [The Apocrypha began to be omitted in approximately 1769, and the most common printings of the modern day rarely include them (except that all Roman Catholic Bibles still do). However the British coronation service requires, or required, an “unmutilated” edition.]

5. Modern translations of the Bible as a standard practice include textual notes to indicate to the reader where the Greek or Hebrew manuscripts contain variants. KJV-Only advocates, generally, dislike such footnotes, feeling that they can “confuse” the reader, and that they are, in fact, faith-destroying. However, the KJV contained 8,422 such marginal readings and notes when it was first published.

6. The translators of the 1611 edition, in the preface, stated the need for constant revision to update the language. Yet KJV-Onlyism people criticize the modern translations for doing this very thing. If the KJV is the “authorized” Bible, then KJV-Onlyites should have a real problem with what the translators themselves said.

7. A KJV-Only advocate, Texe Marrs, wrote the following letter on July 28, 1994, in response to receiving twenty-eight pages of documentation demonstrating the errors and misrepresentations in Gail Riplinger’s book, New Age Bible Versions: “Don’t write me again unless in sincere repentance. You are a devil, plain & simple. I understand well why Mrs. Riplinger does not respond to your ridiculous assertions. Why dignify the lying claims of a servant of Satan!” Is this the kind of “godliness” and “humility” we can expect from KJV-Only defenders?

8. It’s unfortunate that King James name is even on the KJV—he was an unsavory character.

Questions for KJV-Onlyism Advocates
 
To those who believe that the King James translation has been flawlessly preserved and miraculously inspired, we would ask the following questions (for more questions):

1. Which revision of the KJV is inspired and/or preserved, since it was revised ten times, the last being in 1850? 

2. What Bible did God have for the English-speaking world prior to 1611? Was it also a perfect translation? If God was under obligation to make the King James Version perfect, then why would He leave English-speaking people for 1600 years without a translation they could rely on? 

3. Where in the Bible does God guarantee that any translator of the Bible, anyone who copies the Bible, anyone who preached the Bible, or anyone who teaches the Bible, will be infallibly correct? [There is no such Scripture. The doctrine of infallibility of the translation in the King James is not a Bible doctrine; it is a manmade scheme by some partly ignorant and some partly influenced by bad motives.]

4. The KJV translators translated the Apocrypha and included these books in the original 1611 edition. If the KJV translation was inspired, does this mean that the Apocrypha is inspired by God also? And if so, why was the Apocrypha removed from later editions?

5. If God gave the English-speaking world an inspired translation, did He also give an inspired translation in the other languages (French, Spanish, Italian, Russian, etc.)? If so, where is it? If not, why not? [If God has obligated Himself, as some fanatics say, to make one translation in English, that is, the King James Version, perfectly translated without error, then would not God be obligated to furnish such a translation in every other language also? What are those translations?]

6. Why did the KJV translators use marginal notes showing alternate translation possibilities and showing variant manuscript readings?

7. If the KJV translators were inspired of God in their work, why did they not know this and why did they not mention this in their introduction, “The Translators to the Reader”? Instead, why did they humbly acknowledge their own shortcomings and imperfections as Bible translators? If the KJV was perfect, why did the translators expect that others would one day make their 1611 Bible into an even better one?

8. When there is a difference between the Textus Receptus (the “Received Text”) and the KJV translation, why do you favor the KJV and reject the Textus Receptus?

9. When there is a difference between the Majority Text and the KJV translation, why do you favor the KJV and reject the Majority Text?

10. Did our Pilgrim fathers have the wrong Bible with them when they brought the Geneva Bible with them to North America?

11. If the KJV differs or varies from the original Greek text, should we correct the English by making it agree with the Greek or should we correct the Greek by making it agree with the English?

12. When was the KJV “given by inspiration by God”? In 1611 or in one of the years when major/minor revisions took place?—in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or 1850?

13. Was the original Greek lost after 1611? If not, where are we to find it? It cannot be the Textus Receptus, because there are many places where the KJV differs from the Textus Receptus. It cannot be the Majority Text because there are many places where the KJV differs from the Majority Text.

14. Where does the Bible teach that God will perfectly preserve His Word in the form of one and only one seventeenth-century English translation?

15. Should we condemn Tyndale’s translation (1525), Coverdale’s translation (1535), the Great Bible (1539), or the Geneva Bible (1560—the Bible of the Pilgrims), because these English Bibles varied slightly from the KJV? And if so, why did the “inspired” translators use these translations in their own readings?

16. If the KJV can “correct” the inspired originals, does this mean that the Hebrew and Greek originally “breathed out by God” was in need of correction and improvement? How can the inspired, infallible originals need correcting or improving?

17. Why did the Lord Jesus and the Apostles make use of and quote from the Septuagint translation (ancient Greek translation of the OT), even though the Septuagint differed from the original Hebrew in places and was certainly not a perfect translation?

18. Since no two manuscripts of the Greek New Testament have been found to be exactly alike, which manuscript is it that has been perfectly preserved and perfectly reflects the original?

19. F.H.A. Scrivener published a Greek New Testament that was made to reflect what the KJV says. The 1976 Trinitarian Bible Society Greek New Testament followed the text of Scrivener and claimed to be the Greek text behind the KJV. Why is it that the KJV differs from these two Greek editions in certain places? [For example, in Acts 19:20, where the Greek editions have “Lord” but the KJV has “God.”]

20. King James Only advocates frequently refer to the “Textus Receptus” (TR, Text Received) and the work of the Roman Catholic monk Erasmus (ca. 1466-1536) as the only correct Greek text of the New Testament. Were the compilers of the Textus Receptus (Erasmus, Stephanus, etc.) inspired by God in their work and miraculously kept from error? But Erasmus revised the Greek text four times (and the KJV translators did not use his last edition). Which is the correct, inspired text?

21. For 150 years Wycliffe’s translation was the only complete English translation in use. He completed his translation about 1382. It was not translated from the original languages but from the Latin Vulgate. Wycliffe’s translation varied from the KJV in many places. Should Wycliffe’s Bible be condemned or did it serve a good purpose? Was it helpful or hurtful?

22. Luther translated the Greek New Testament into the German language. Was his translation a perfect translation? Was it blessed of God and useful to the German people? Was it of the devil or of God?

23. Was Tyndale’s Bible a good translation? Was Tyndale guided by God any less than the KJV translators? It has been estimated that one-third of the King James Version is worded as Tyndale had it, and that even in the remaining two-thirds, the general literary structure set by Tyndale has been retained. Some scholars have said that ninety per cent of Tyndale is reproduced in the King James Version of the New Testament. Thus, the KJV translators were greatly indebted to Tyndale and yet they recognized that even his work was in need of revision and correcting. Did they not also recognize that their work might also be improved upon?

24. The Geneva Bible was the translation used by Shakespeare, John Bunyan, the Puritans in England, and Oliver Cromwell, as well as the Pilgrim fathers. It was the Bible that was brought to America on the Mayflower. Even the address from “The Translators to the Reader,” which is prefaced to the Authorized Version of 1611, took its quotations of the Scripture from the Geneva Bible. Was this Bible a corrupted Bible? Was it used of God? Was it hurtful or helpful to the cause of Christ? Did it make people wise unto salvation? Was it used effectively in building up God’s people in the most holy faith?

25. If God guided the KJV translators to translate a perfect Bible, did He also guide them to translate an imperfect and uninspired Apocrypha? Were the Old and New Testaments translated in the Spirit and the Apocrypha translated in the flesh?

26. Why were italics employed by the KJV translators in 1 John 2:23? [The italics were not employed, as usual, to mark a supplement, but to show that the words were regarded as suspicious. Stephanus excluded the clause but had a reference to it in the margin; Beza admits it without hesitation]. Do the italics indicate that the KJV translators were uncertain as to whether or not this clause was part of the original text?

27. Why were there 35 textual notes given in the margin of the King James Bible? [Examples: Matthew 26:26—“Many Greek copies have…” Luke 10:22—“Many ancient copies add these words…” Luke 17:36—“This verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies” Acts 25:6—“Or as some copies read, no more than eight or ten days.”

28. Was the KJV correct in following the Latin Vulgate in Revelation 22:19 (“book of life”), even though most Greek manuscripts have “tree of life”? Should the Latin be preferred over the Greek?

29. The Greek text underlying the King James Version agrees in 81 places with Beza’s Greek edition against Stephen’s Greek edition, and it agrees in about 21 places with Stephen’s Greek edition against Beza’s Greek edition, and in 29 places they agree with neither. In light of this, which Greek edition can we say has been divinely and perfectly preserved?

30. Blayney’s edition of the KJV (1769) became the standard form of the version and is unto this day, but his edition differs from the 1611 edition in about 75,000 minor details. Which edition of the KJV (Blayney’s or the original) is the perfect, flawless Bible? If the original 1611 Bible that the KJV translators produced was perfect, does this mean that our present KJV edition (based on Blayney’s edition) is flawed in about 75,000 details?

In Their Own Words

As cited earlier in this report, the King James translators did NOT think they were inspired by the Holy Spirit to produce an infallible translation which was to be the only English Bible that God would ever use to preserve His Word.

In fact, in the preface to the 1611 version (the Preface and the Apocrypha which they translated have both been omitted from most copies of the KJV today), they clearly disclaim that their translation was the only Word of God. There were already several English translations in existence and being used in England, America, and other countries. Some of these were Wycliffe (1380), Tyndale (1525-30), Coverdale (1535), Matthew’s Bible (1537), Great Bible (1540), Geneva Bible (1560), and Bishop’s Bible (1568).

In the preface titled, “The Translators to The Reader,” was written:

“... We do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest [most common, lowest quality] translation of the Bible in English … containeth the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God. … We are so far off from condemning any of their labors that prevailed before us [previous translators of previous versions] in this kind, either in this land or beyond sea … that we acknowledge them to have been raised up of God, for the building and furnishing of his Church, and that they deserve to be had of us and of posterity in everlasting remembrance. … Truly (good Christian reader) we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one … but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principle good one …”

The 1611 original had numerous margin notes that offer different possible translations of words and phrases. The translators wrote in the preface:

“Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, less the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be so sound in this point. … It hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness. … Variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded. …We have not tied ourselves to a uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done. …Why should we be in bondage to them [words or syllables] if we may be free, use one precisely when we may use another no less fit, as commodiously? …We have … avoided the scrupulosity of the Puritans.”

Conclusion

KJV-Onlyism runs the gambit from moderately reasonable advocates (David Cloud, E.L. Bynum, John R. Rice), to the wacked-out, stone throwers (D.A. Waite, Jack Hyles, Samuel Gipp, Walter Bebe, Texe Marrs, Peter Ruckman, Gail Riplinger, etc.). A couple of years ago, Gary Hudson launched a website devoted to exposing the errors of “King James Onlyism”—“The King James Only Resource Center.” Gary has a number of articles and reports posted. This site has become a “one stop” resource center for all questions related to “King James Onlyism.”


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Biblical Discernment Ministries - Revised 12/2003
 
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/kjvonly.htm

[Mark]

This is a KJV site.

[Mark]

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

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.
 
 
 

[akfools]

Just to make myself clear. I myself use only a KJV and have complete faith in the Word of God that I hold in my hands to study from. I would not recommend any other english version. I think there is a definite attempt by satan to pervert the true word of God and to deceive as many Christians as he can. But, I do not like to see this causing such a division among Christians to the point that someone's salvation comes into question over it.  I believe it is the Holy Spirit that leads us to truth and that God can work through whatever version He chooses to. I just posted this for the sake of conversation. I do not understand how any professing Christian would not have the desire to search deeper into the history of the Bible and seek to fully understand the origins of the translation they are using.

[Mark]

6. The translators of the 1611 edition, in the preface, stated the need for constant revision to update the language. Yet KJV-Onlyism people criticize the modern translations for doing this very thing. If the KJV is the “authorized” Bible, then KJV-Onlyites should have a real problem with what the translators themselves said.

The Modern Versions rely soley on the work of Westcott and Hort, notice how this guy didnt mention that. Also when the KJV was penned, there was no such thing as Grammar rules and the printing press was in its infancy. This guy failed to mention that also. What he is doing in his whole article is placing a tiny bit of doubt in the minds of people. Not a lot, doesnt even have to be true. This is the same that Satan did to eve in the Garden, yea hath God said? This guy that wrote this is a devil in disguise.

3. Where in the Bible does God guarantee that any translator of the Bible, anyone who copies the Bible, anyone who preached the Bible, or anyone who teaches the Bible, will be infallibly correct? [There is no such Scripture. The doctrine of infallibility of the translation in the King James is not a Bible doctrine; it is a manmade scheme by some partly ignorant and some partly influenced by bad motives.]

Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

 Rev 22:19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.


Psalms 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

 Psalms 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.



Wooops.

Again this guy is a liar and a fraud, i could go through each of these and show this, maybe i will. 

[Mark]

I do not understand how any professing Christian would not have the desire to search deeper into the history of the Bible and seek to fully understand the origins of the translation they are using.

Because a lot of the sites that "expose" KJV onlyists are packed with lies and distortions. It doesent take a lot, just a small seed of doubt. Like the kind the author of that article is spreading.

like here,

5. If God gave the English-speaking world an inspired translation, did He also give an inspired translation in the other languages (French, Spanish, Italian, Russian, etc.)? If so, where is it? If not, why not? [If God has obligated Himself, as some fanatics say, to make one translation in English, that is, the King James Version, perfectly translated without error, then would not God be obligated to furnish such a translation in every other language also? What are those translations?]

No they just translate the KJV into those languages, they dont go back to the manuscripts to make a chinese or korean Bible, they just translate the KJV text.  again, this guy knows this, he is just lying and spreading doubt.

[Psalm 51:17]

Just to make myself clear. I myself use only a KJV and have complete faith in the Word of God that I hold in my hands to study from. I would not recommend any other english version. I think there is a definite attempt by satan to pervert the true word of God and to deceive as many Christians as he can. But, I do not like to see this causing such a division among Christians to the point that someone's salvation comes into question over it.  D.A. Waite  operates a 501c3 church and uses the title Reverend but he will throw stones at people for not using a KJV. None of us are perfect. I believe it is the Holy Spirit that leads us to truth and that God can work through whatever version He chooses to. I just posted this for the sake of conversation. I do not understand how any professing Christian would not have the desire to search deeper into the history of the Bible and seek to fully understand the origins of the translation they are using.

James 2:10  For  whosoever shall keep the whole law , and yet offend  in  one  point, he is guilty of all .

I agree with you, but from my own testimonies, I can honestly say that the 1611 KJV has really saved my tail b/c for a long, long time, I was an NIV/NLT/Good News Bible version reader, and it wasn't until 2 years ago when a poster on Alex Jones' Prison Planet MB showed me the errors of the NIV(xTruthSeekerx - I'm sure most of you here remember him. This guy may have been a pain in the behind, but I am thankful he pointed out these errors in the NIV).

Since I started reading the KJV, the Holy Spirit has REALLY opened my eyes to the REAL truth. For some reason, whenever I read the NIV and those other corrupt versions all those years, I just never had any kind of understanding or discernment. And supposedly, these were "easier" versions to read. However, as "hard" a version the KJV is, all of a sudden, I was able to understand the bible 100 X's better. And I take NO credit for this, as the Lord Jesus Christ has done it all, and he alone deserves all the glory.

And I also happen to be the same person who nearly failed English class in my senior year in HS b/c I had NO clue how to understand British lit(my quizzes and tests were near 0's, and my teacher asked me not to come to my 1st quarter exam b/c my grades were so bad). Which is why I don't understand how people that I've crossed paths with, who are smarter than me, think the KJV is too hard to understand.

Anyhow, this is just my personal testimonies regarding this.

[Kilika]

akfools, you question why believers don't have the desire to search deeper into this, but it seems you have missed a little research of your own. I DID desire to research it, and did, at length actually. And I didn't copy/paste somebody else's research. I did it on my own. Unforetunately I could not get Cambridge or Oxford to reply to emails, but I suggest you take a look at what I found...

http://endtimesandcurrentevents.freesmfhosting.com/index.php/topic,38.0.html

12. When was the KJV “given by inspiration by God”? In 1611 or in one of the years when major/minor revisions took place?—in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or 1850?

What you posted is in part untrue. I have no idea where you get "10 versions" from, but that is not true, at all. There are in fact only 4 "editions" after the Authrozied 1611; 1629, 1638, 1762, 1769.

And "versions" after 1769 are versions, not editions.

Also a mistake is made in including those other versions you mention previous to the King James, such as the Bishop's and before. Not all of theose were complete and not any of them were KJB in any way, and were variations of each other, and some weren't even in english. You really need to research each of the previous attempts and get the truth of how they were published and who published them.

As Dok pointed out, those clowns Westcott and Hort were knee deep in tossing misinformation and lies into the mix.

What you also miss is that the first KJB was in black letter, or "Gothic" type. The change from black letter happened in 1612, of which your info doesn't mention at all. (no idea where 1613 comes from!) In my research I provide a link to an actual 1611 Gothic type. Good luck reading it! That stuff was a crazy type to read.

Yet another mistake is about the Apocrypha. What is said is VERY misleading. The truth is, as evidenced by actually photos of real first editions shows that group of non-canonical books was indeed included, but were put between the Old and New Testament, again proven by actual bibles that still exist to this day of which I provided links to photos of original editions. They were eventually removed by 1769 edition, along with some of the other additonal "helps" such as maps, commmentary's etc, but the Apocrypha was never offered as scripture in the KJB.

You do understand why, as you call it, the "British Coronation Service" requires a standard be met? It's called copyright, or this case it's called "crown copyright". That ONLY applies to their copyrighted Cambridge VERSION of which comes the PCE (Pure Cambrdge Edition). The 1900 PCE is the most common in use today, though they have come out fairly recently with an even newer version still!.

6. The translators of the 1611 edition, in the preface, stated the need for constant revision to update the language. Yet KJV-Onlyism people criticize the modern translations for doing this very thing. If the KJV is the “authorized” Bible, then KJV-Onlyites should have a real problem with what the translators themselves said.

You need to get your bible termonolgy down as there is no "preface". It's called a "frontis", and what was removed was the "Epistle Dictatory" which I also provided what it actually says taken from photos of actual bibles still in existance today.

1850? What version is that? To include anything after 1769 is not correct, and misleads people. Anything after 1769 is a version, not an edition.

Also you need to read up as to why they even came up with the King James in the first place, but I don't see where your information talks of that. The KJB was for replacing the Bishop's Bible, which no common person had, same for all the previous versions. They were all "folios", being very large bibles that were literally chained to the pulpit. It was not till after the 1611 that what's called "quartos" size bibles were begun to be printed, which is equivalent to our modern day bibles in size, thus allowing the general public to have a bible of their own. Again, I provided in my research actual photos of real bibles on this.

10. Did our Pilgrim fathers have the wrong Bible with them when they brought the Geneva Bible with them to North America?

Yes, I believe they did have an inferior book. Close but no cookie. A little research into the divisions of the Church of England and the Protastants, etc is in order.

15. Should we condemn Tyndale’s translation (1525), Coverdale’s translation (1535), the Great Bible (1539), or the Geneva Bible (1560—the Bible of the Pilgrims), because these English Bibles varied slightly from the KJV? And if so, why did the “inspired” translators use these translations in their own readings?

According to the research I did, yes. Just look into how and from what "versions" they used to come up with those books. Tehy used them in part for a number of reasons but mainly to make sure they were getting it right and not make the same mistakes others had previously. Some of them had some of the scriptures correct, but overall they were bad versions that were motivated by a biased church system. Their printers were not at all objective in their work. They had an agenda motivated by church politics of the day.

23. Was Tyndale’s Bible a good translation? Was Tyndale guided by God any less than the KJV translators? It has been estimated that one-third of the King James Version is worded as Tyndale had it, and that even in the remaining two-thirds, the general literary structure set by Tyndale has been retained. Some scholars have said that ninety per cent of Tyndale is reproduced in the King James Version of the New Testament. Thus, the KJV translators were greatly indebted to Tyndale and yet they recognized that even his work was in need of revision and correcting. Did they not also recognize that their work might also be improved upon?

Nowhere in my research do I find this to be the case at all. This is I believe is blatant misinformation.

21. For 150 years Wycliffe’s translation was the only complete English translation in use. He completed his translation about 1382. It was not translated from the original languages but from the Latin Vulgate. Wycliffe’s translation varied from the KJV in many places. Should Wycliffe’s Bible be condemned or did it serve a good purpose? Was it helpful or hurtful?

Are you serious, or is that author actually serious? You really believe that? Look at what that says. The Latin Vulgate? Now that is major misinformation and down lies. The Vulgate is the source of the Catholic poison.

30. Blayney’s edition of the KJV (1769) became the standard form of the version and is unto this day, but his edition differs from the 1611 edition in about 75,000 minor details. Which edition of the KJV (Blayney’s or the original) is the perfect, flawless Bible? If the original 1611 Bible that the KJV translators produced was perfect, does this mean that our present KJV edition (based on Blayney’s edition) is flawed in about 75,000 details?

Your information leaves out another well used bible in the Americas, the Baskerville Birmingham. Both that and the Blayney I have not been able to find a confirmed copy of the text. A Baskerville is in the links I provided showing an actual bible, but no text found yet in pdf, etc. yet to use for comparisons, yet more than one source claims the Blayney was the most used KJB in the US.

The bible I have used for the last 20+ years I cannot determine what it is, but it is different so far from any KJB I have found to date, so I have a suspicion it may be a Blayney, but it has nothing in the front nor is it copyrighted. It was printed by World Bible Publishers, which was bought out by Thomas Nelson, but Nelson did not buy the KJB, so it's now out of print and the publisher is no longer in business for me to call somebody to confirm. I've tried to no avail.

I'd love to find a pdf file or something of the Blayney, but so far no luck with it or the Baskerville Birmingham.

So, I didn't reply to every one of the number list you have simply because most of it is not worth even replying to as they are rhetorical questions and assumptions and general falsehoods, according to the research I did. But I'm not perfect nor is my research complete by any means. I went only so far as to determine the lineage of the KJB only due to the muliple editons over the years that people keep questioning to show just what took place to the KJB in the process.

I also gave my position on the matter, which basically says any book after 1769 was not needed at all seeing the scriptures had been put into english and was readable in Roman type from 1612. I personally beieve the KJB had been finely corrected of misspellings etc by 1769 and was complete. All other atempts after that were nothing but versions and twistings of the truth.