I have heard this enough in varying places that I wanted to post this just to help others not be duped by the statement: “The only changes made since the 1611 translation of the KJV until now have been changes of spelling or printing only.”
That statement is a lie, and people who love Jesus & the Bible should not make such a claim — even if they do have the best of intentions in doing so!
So here is a list of significant changes (i.e., changes which affect meaning) made to the KJV text since 1611. The 1611 reading is first, followed by the 1769.
- 1 Corinthians 12:28 — “helpes in gouernmets” vs. “helps, governments”
- Joshua 3:11 — “Arke of the Couenant, euen the Lord” vs. “ark of the covenant of the Lord”
- 2 Kings 11:10 — “in the Temple” vs. “in the temple of the LORD”
- Isaiah 49:13 — “for God” vs. “for the LORD”
- Jeremiah 31:14 — “with goodnesse” vs. “with my goodness”
- Jeremiah 51:30 — “burnt their dwelling places” vs. “burned her dwellingplaces”
- Ezekiel 6:8 — “that he may” vs. “that ye may”
- Ezekiel 24:5 — “let him seethe” vs. “let them seethe”
- Ezekiel 24:7 — “powred it vpon the ground” vs. “poured it not upon the ground”
- Ezekiel 48:8 — “which they shall” vs. “which ye shall”
- Daniel 3:15 — “a fierie furnace” vs. “a burning fiery furnace”
- Matthew 14:9 — “the othes sake” vs. “the oath’s sake”
- 1 Corinthians 15:6 — “And that” vs. “After that”
- 1 John 5:12 — “the Sonne, hath” vs. “the Son of God hath”
If anyone wants to check out the above readings for themselves, both the 1611 KJV and the 1769 KJV are available freely for e-Sword.:”(The list itself can be found in Differences Between Bible Versions Updated and Expanded Edition by Gary F. Zeolla.)”:
Additionally, even in today there are two versions of the KJV in use: the Oxford and the Cambridge editions. Some of the differences in them affect the meaning of the text as well. For example, here are a couple Cambridge passages vs. their Oxford counterparts.
- Jeremiah 34:16 — “whom ye had set” vs. “whom he had set”
- 2 Timothy 2:2 — “heard from me” vs. “heard of me”
One cannot help to wonder about KJV-Onlyism in light of the above… Was the King James Version of 1611 perfect? If yes, why were there such substantial changes made to the text between then and 1769? By using a modern edition of the KJV, the Onlyists are admitting that the 1611 translation was flawed!
And what about those modern versions? Which one is correct? Why? Upon whose authority?
Which edition of the KJV is perfect?
Between 1611 and 1769, was there a perfect English translation?
Why is the 1769 edition perfect?
If you believe that translations can be inspired or that the KJV is advanced revelation of some kind, as some KJV-Onlyists do, why did God take over a hundred years to continue to revise His 1611 work? Does God operate on a trial and error basis?
I think these are all legitimate questions, but from my experience of being a KJV-Onlyist, I always heard that there were no substantial differences between the 1611 and the 1769. It is often claimed, as I noted above, that only spelling & printing errors were fixed. But clearly, there were changes to the content at well.
KJV-Onlyists should be aware of these claims, especially if they’ve bought the lie that there were no substantial changes.
After all, knowing is half the battle. :)
{ 45 voices in the conversation. Speak up! }
so where can I get a copy of God’s word in the english language, and which one?
You can get an English translation at just about every department store — Walmart, Target, K-mart, etc. all stock Bibles in their books sections, not to mention online retailers, Christian stores, etc.
As to what version you should use, I recommend the ESV, the NKJV, or the NASB as being reliable translations, but if you want something easier to read, there are a myriad of options. I prefer the more literal versions, despite the added difficulty in reading that entails.
Hi all.
In the version issue there a a whole host of opinions.
Much of the discussion generates more heat(argument) than light(understanding).
Here is my take.
1. The best version is one you read faithfull and understand.
2. I like more literal versions.
3. Some versions are easier for public reading.
(NIV is my favourite in the pulpit)
4. Some literal versions (NASB) help you know which Greek and
Hebrew words were used in the original text.
5. Knowing that each has strengths and weaknesses I pick a
different version each year to read through.
6. Some paraphrases (NOT A TRANSLATION) help me put difficult
concepts into easy language. (I like “The Message”)
That’s a wise position, Gordon, and I appreciate your emphasis in #6.
I’ll also add that when a translation uses dynamic equivalency (as the NIV and others do) rather than more literal methods of translation, there are points where what you’re reading isn’t translation but is interpretation. An example of this is in the KJV, the phrase “God forbid” should be “may it not be so” or similar; the translators interpreted “God” into the text, but it really isn’t there.
Only the KJV 1611 is the version God gave his people. Fellowships are so screwed up today because if these fake bibles like the witches bible: NIV – they should be the most exciting place in the world to go to – but are in fact the most dull and boring places where heretics dance the dance of death. These people who use these bibles neither understand nor can help anyone else with the Lord truth. They are also listening but never hearing, always knowing but never understanding, always watching but never seeing. FOOLS: catch up with the truth: read Gail Riplinger:
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=1961396636600887201&hl=en
Thanks Rick (Beckman) for your comments on the different verses – it was a real eye opener. I use e-sword to study the bible and I was having a problem, with some word searches. I was searching in KJV but only using KJV 1611 for study: but some words did not have the same ‘count’ in the KJV and KJV 1611. Some words are mispelled in the KJV 1611 like ‘deuil’ also once spelled ‘divel’. I guess without computer technology and different ‘companies’ of scholars working on this amazing work some misspelling slips occurred – but this did not change the meaning. Another common misspelled word spelt three different ways was: Liar, Lyar, Lyer – all found in KJV 1611. But the men used for this bible version word for word translation are remarkable in themselves – these men were not today’s half baked donuts that preach or teach in pulpits and theology colleges: here is a history of the translators of the greatest bible and only bible God gave us KJV1611 Translators: http://www.wilderness-cry.net/bible_study/translators/
I respectfully wish to ask the following question:
Considering Daniel only had manuscripts and no autographs of the Pentateuch, when he wrote his book then it can be concluded that at no time has any one person ever had the complete and original copy of the Word of Copy.
Therefore it would only make since that God has once inspired his Word and forever preserved it.
God’s Word is perfect, complete, and preserved- hopefully all of us are in agreement of that fact… and recognizing that the Byzantine & Alexandrian Texts disagree with each other as do all of the Versions of the Bible with each other, one can only conclude that:
A) All are corrupt and flawed…
Only problem is that this would disprove Pslam 12.6-, Matt 24.35, I Pet 1.25
…but seeing that the Word is flawed would it really matter?
B) One is correct and the rest are all corrupt…
Seeing that the NIV which is derived from the Alexandrian Text removes “through his blood” from Colossians, while the King James contains “through his blood” which is found in the Byzantine (Antioch) Text, wouldn’t it make sense that one must be wrong?
Also the NIV, NASB, NKJV, and KJV all disagree in some major way with everyother version as do the Byzantine Texts with the Alexandrian Texts- therefore by reason of common sense it would only seem logical that only one of the texts and versions can be the “Perfect and complete word of God.”
Furthermore, Christ quoted Old Testament Hebrew passages in Greek and no person accused him of believing in double inspiration.
God’s Word has not been double inspired- it was breathed only once. However, every time we find God breathing in the Bible it was eternally and perfectly-
He breathed upon Adam once- but yet I and you still have that same breath of life within us today. Christ breathed upon his disciples and they received the Holy Ghost and never lost it. God breathed his word prior to the foundations of the earth were laid, and I still have a perfect copy of it today- not double inspiration… Once inspired, forever preserved!
Respectfully,
Jeremy Farley
You know my brother? the holy papa loves folks like you. Wanna guess why biblical christianty is long gone? A version for every heresy amen, if ya gona teach it ya got have a book for it, amen. May God have mercy.
Hardpan
There is one reliable version to teach from, the King James version. Untill around 1650 no standard of spelling was established, so no wonder there are different spellings of words in earlier editions of the KJV. Early printers were notorious for leaving out, changing, or adding words, to make their type set to fit the page. So this is the reason for the errors up until 1769. This is when the edition you have today was printed, and all subsequent copies are from.
As for Cambridge, and Oxford differences, that is a result of printer disagreements on translation of two or three words. Of which no doctrine is changed or compromised.
You’re missing the point, Samuel. King James Onlyists cannot claim that the King James Version is perfect if there are varying discrepancies between the still-used editions. Onlyists often point out that modern translations “contradict” each other. If editions of the King James Version “contradict” each other, then Onlyists either need to put up or shut up.
As I see it, Oxford has remained as is since 1769. Cambridge on the other hand has changed, several editions of the Cambridge differ. Only the PCE “Pure Cambridge Edition” is accepted by the KJVO folks. That one has been out of print since 1980, but some of the Cameo editions still use the same plates.
But still there remains the two or three word difference between the PCE, and the Oxford. But its not enough, nor does it change anything doctrinally to grumble about, except for some KJV radical. Which really do themselves, and everyone else a disservice, because a radical can never convince anyone. As far as I am concerned the KJV is the only trustful, and reliable Bible we have. But that is only my opinion.
The “Bible Versions” page on your site mentions that numerous versions — including my favorite, the English Standard — are “excellent.”
I tend to agree with your site in that regard. :)
Most of the versions mentioned on my site, are reliable versions of their respective manuscripts. Of course; you can’t consider the paraphrase editions, in the same light.
I just happen to favor the Textus Receptus, over the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus . But use the NASB along with the KJV, for Bible Studies. The NASB I use is a pre 1995 edition, I feel it is more accurate than the later edition. Which left word for word translation, for a dynamic principle translation.
Your arguments seem nice, but the whole of the issue has been proven false by F.H.A. Scrivener in the late 1800′s. He was a critical text supporter and stated that the brunt of all changes were spelling standardization, grammar standardiztion, corrections of printer errors and other such items. He even stated that many of the so-called errors were due to the copyists misreading the manuscripts. So, if someone makes a mistake in printing does that make preservation null and void? No, because the error was not the writer’s fault. For example, let’s say you make a perfect translation of The Iliad or some other such work. Now, you turn that copy over to the printer to be printed. Now, the printer takes that copy and sets it up for printing. Now, spelling and grammar have already been standardized so we can say there is no issue there. But what if when they print some characters begin to look blocked out like [][][][][] as can happen when computers have issues reading certain fonts. On top of that let’s say that the computer decided certain words were misspelled and corrected them such as their with they’re and your with you’re. On top of that let’s say that the printer was an older one and that it possibly dropped the letter t every fifth time. So there we now have a plethora of errors in modern day printing and the first edition of your translation is flawed. Now, was the manuscript imperfect? Of course not. It was printer errors. Do the printer errors make your translation imperfect? No, it does not. What you do is you go back and print a revision. Now, even enemies of the KJV Only group can admit this was the case. Secular scholars can also attest to the fact. When the original copyists were doing their hand setting, letter by letter and page by page printing of the first edition, some of them had the manuscripts read to them and some read it as they went along. Firstly, there were very poor lighting conditions in these printing shops and most printing was done by candlelight. Also there were issues with the printers reading one thing and typesetting another thing. Add to that the fact that some of these typesetters had printed previous English Bibles so they knew some passages at the very least by heart. So, as they typeset they could read one passage and easily go to set the type for it and accidentally typeset for a reading they remembered from a previous translation. Now, do these errors make the original KJV manuscript in error? Of course not. And the fact that some of the translators worked to correct these errors introduced through the printer’s errors is evident that they noticed their text was not the same as they had presented for printing. Any intelligent person can tell the difference between what kind of editing was going on with the KJV of 1611 and the printing conditions throughout that time and see that the argument of all of these supposed differences melts away. As stated before, F.H.A. Scrivener found roughly 400 differences in the KJV editions between 1611 and 1769. Secular scholarship and other Christian scholars have attested it was indeed mostly due to the printers reading into the manuscript what they knew from previous printings. As far as the issue between the readings that Oxford and Cambridge have today, it is evident that there is one in error that maintained a printing error over time and has not changed it since. The proper readings are found in the Cambridge prints. I have studied this for nearly a decade and have found that KJV Only people and Original Autograph Only people on both sides have outright lied, presented false or erroneous historical accounts and facts and/or repeated talking points like most people often do. It is for that reason I am working on a book to dispel these errors. A good read about the translation of the KJV would be Adam Nicholson’s book God’s Secretaries. He is not KJV Only or Original Autograph Only. He is just a historian that has set about to gather facts that others have muddied over or misrepresented.
Oh, and I forgot to ask, how do printer’s errors negate a KJV Only person from believing in a preserved text? After all, the original manuscript was not in error and that was the standard used in correcting it. In fact, to a KJV Only believer it would only seem to support their belief and not hurt it that God preserved His Word, as preserve means to guard or to keep safe, by seeing that learned men noticed the printing errors and worked to edit them out. So, in all fairness they can say they have a 1769 edition of the 1611. Those errors would not mean the work itself was erroneousness. I am just curious on your take on that. That’s all.
God did not say He would “preserve” the Scriptures. Psalm 12:7 says that God will protect His people… well, unless you’re a King James Onlyist and are stuck with how it renders the verse.
You mentioned that the King James Version was “corrected” by comparing publications of it to the “original” — the original what? There are not original manuscripts, and the manuscripts the King James translators did have were rather late manuscripts, some of which were heavily influenced by the Vulgate (not to mention King James’ own adherence to Church of England-esque terminology).
Today’s King James Version (of which there are at least TWO in common usage) differs from that in 1611. That’s a fact. Which one is “perfect”? You didn’t answer that question.
Dear friends in Christ,
May the good Lord be with you and bless you and your work for Him more and more!
I am Baptist pastor in the full time ministry for more than 38 years. I would like to have a copy “The KJV Bible- 1611″, but my problem is that I would really need this precious Book, but am not able to pay for the book.
I am not KJV Onlyist!
So I beg you for a copy (even old used book) and I’ll never, never forget your love-gift and your kindness. Thank you indeed for your understanding and help. My paryer be with you and your families.
Yours in His service,
Nikola Vukov
Pastor
My address is:
Pastor Nikola Vukov
42 000 Varazdin
Vilka Novaka 33
CROATIA
You might want to get in touch with the Bible Senders. They may be able to set you up with several Bibles for your ministry.
Shameful Rick. The manuscripts the KJV Translators did not only have late Manuscripts and none were that influenced by the Vulgate. I thought you had studied the secular accounts made by historians throughout the world on that matter. I can see now you either are repeating some things you were told or simply have not studied this in depth as you seem to say you did. Yes, the King James Translators had an original manuscript they prepared to print that they could consult with to ensure that the printed text was the same as their work. If you can find this to be untrue I would love to know, but as of now I am quite uncertain of your scholarship in that area.As I stated apographs are not originals, but the King James Translators could compare their original translation manuscript. Please read more carefully. Have I said I was King James Only? If you were to ask me which of the two published are more correct in their rendering , I already stated that the Cambridge held the correct readings, not the Oxford. I see that in spite of all of the scholarly facts I laid out for you you are more worried about trying to prove there is no exact replica of the 1611 available today. Who said there was? After all there were several editions printed in 1611 that differed from one another. However, if the text was perfect and the printing was flawed, then who are you to make the standard the product and not the original English manuscript all the production was to take place from? That is a question no one has ever dared to answer.
I find this interesting.
Jesus was reading from the septuigent the greek translation of the old testament whenever he was reading in the temple.
When he read from the Scroll of Isaiah the prophecy about himself it was from an inaccurate translation of Isaiah, when compared to the Hebrew texts.
So were the texts translated incorrectly to Greek by Jews after the presence of God had left Israel authoritative like the early church thought? What scripture do you believe Paul was talking about in Timothy when he said that all scripture is God breathed?
If today our translations are far better than the ones in Jesus’ own day why do we take the Jot and Tiddel statement so literally when he being God knew that portions of that scroll of Isaiah were not accurately translated?
I agree that knowingly false translations such as “In the beginning was the word and the word was with god and the word was a god.” from the Mormons are examples of how heresy can creep in through mistranslation. However if we can look at God and any of the older greek texts and have honest disagreements about translation, why make a firestorm over minor differences.
As English is not capable of explaining every concept in the Greek fully accurately, I think the KJV only crowd should take a much more logical approach. Screw any translation. Become a Greek only crowd. Have all texts available for study. Require every Christian learn Greek. Then we can just argue over which HAND COPIED manuscripts copied at least several times since Jesus’ day is accurate.
There are those among the King James Onlyists that believe that each time the Scriptures are translated, they become more pure. The Greeks had more pure Scriptures than did the Hebrews; the Romans had more pure translations than the Greeks; the whoever had more pure translations than the Romans; the English have more pure translations than the whoever… and so on. I have heard it said that the King James Version is more perfect and more authoritative than the originals were on the day they were written by the prophets themselves. Crazy, I know.
Also, the quote you gave of a faulty translation was from the Witnesses, not the Mormons.
hi
I don’t write English well… because I’m a Korean. I’ve been living in Korea
however I have something that I want to ask you
I love KJV… And I believe that is perfect Words of God
but I know that KJV 1611 and Kjv 1769 are defferent
99% of Korean KJV believers are believe that Kjv 1611 and Kjv 1769 same Perfectly.
about 4~6 Korean people(I also) are believing that only Kjv 1611edition is Pefect, Kjv 1769edition is not……..
but I don’t have someone who teach me about these questions in Korean
so I want you teach me about that
thank you
Neither one of them are perfect — the translation was made using inferior manuscripts with bias toward the practice and teachings of the Church of England. The 1611 edition would barely be able to be understood by a good deal of people — it’s spelling is very outdated; the newer editions update that, but they don’t remove the translational bias.
To believe that the King James Version is perfect and that no other translation is valid is to call the King James Version translators themselves liars, and I dare say that they above any other mortal are the experts to be trusted when it comes to the King James Version. They among all men would have the most to gain by saying that their translation was perfect, yet they did not, and they admitted that all translations are profitable — that even the worst is the Word of God. If they were wrong about the King James Version, then how can any Onlyist be right about it when they have less information about the translation than the translators?
I happened upon your site while doing some research, and decided to read through some posts to see if the overall spirit of the disagreements on this have changed at all since last I bothered to discuss it at any length with someone.
Sadly I see that for the most part, they have not. Case in point: In post #14-15 Chad stated his questions and arguments both very well, and as was plain in what he wrote – did not identify himself as, nor did he paint himself as an “Onlyist”. In fact, he made it rather clear that he was not one of that persuasion. See his posts:
Chad August 30, 2009 at 12:50 am
Your arguments seem nice, but the whole of the issue has been proven false by F.H.A. Scrivener in the late 1800’s. Those errors would not mean the work itself was erroneousness. I am just curious on your take on that. That’s all.
Your immediate response began with this:
Rick Beckman August 30, 2009 at 5:32 am
God did not say He would “preserve” the Scriptures. Psalm 12:7 says that God will protect His people… well, unless you’re a King James Onlyist and are stuck with how it renders the verse.
In that one paragraph alone you made your real intentions utterly clear – to do your level best to defame and denigrate in every way possible the dreaded “King James Onlyist’s” you so obviously fear will bring about the destruction of the known world.
You are so consumed with hatred for this group of people and your mission to lead everyone else to the truth as you see it, that you cannot engage in a reasonable or honest discourse regarding it with anyone who does not see things exactly as you do. In responding to Chad, you were utterly ungracious, snide even, and ignored everything he said in his post in order to just loudly reiterate your war chant. Terrible behavior.
I have to agree with Chad, that your obvious attempts at obfuscation of facts and questions you cannot properly answer or refute make it plain that the vast majority of your knowledge on the subject is little more than anecdotal propaganda; and that your reason for “discussing” it here is not to edify or enlighten anyone in any way that is God-honoring, it is only an outlet for you to hammer at a group of people you feel such a deep contempt and loathing toward.
You so easily place your enemies under the blanket label of “Onlyist” (in essence assigning them their scarlet letter), making the very term sound evil and worthy of hunting down and casting out…I can only wonder how many other labels you likely use to further categorize people and thus show yourself as above them, as superior.
The issue of Bible inerrancy and translational differences is definitely one worth being studied, and one worth using in an attempt to draw brothers and sisters in Christ closer to God and closer to one another. To use it as an axe to slice the body into ever smaller pieces? Especially when it becomes obvious by what is written here that the purpose is to win against an opponent, not to win the day for Christ Jesus? I think not.
May God in His wisdom guide your every step as He determines each beat of your heart.
We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death. Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. – 1John 3:14-15
I never called Chad a King James Onlyist. I responded mainly to his second comment which referred more to scriptural matters than his first comment did — I’m unfamiliar with Scrivener or his work, so I had nothing to add to or reply to concerning Chad’s first comment.
I didn’t even attack King James Onlyists in the comment of mine to which you refer; all I said was that they are stuck with how the King James Version renders a verse (this is true by definition, not any abstract reasoning of my own).
If that constitutes any sort of negativity or fear toward King James Onlyists, then I’d hate to see how you’d take an actual attack against them.
But then I also would like to note that your reply to me did not further any argument biblically; my argument is and always will be that King James Onlyism is indefensible on the basis of sola Scriptura. From that simply foundation, plenty of arguments can be made against Onlyism, such as the inconsistency in available King James Versions as noted above.
I still see you are saying that the Translators used inferior texts. Rick, even secular and liberal scholars readily admit this is not true. After all 99% of all MSS and frgments found to date agree with the overall readings of the KJV. That means the dead sea scroll finds did not effect the readings nor does it back up the supposed inferiority bunk. I can quote you the MSS and lay them all out for you if need be. The fact that you keep making claims bound in ignorant opposition to factual science and knowledge and makes you look foolish. I say that in charity and not to be mean. I mean, if I started telling everyone that Columbus was wrong and that the world is indeed flat and all of the information that proves he was right is wrong do you realize how I would look? I would look foolish because the facts are there. So if 95% to 99% of MSS backs up the KJV readings then how was an inferior text used? Did you read that book by Adam Nichols I suggested? He mentions this fact and as I said he is not invested in the outcome of the KJVO debate either way. Historical data proves your supposition to be false.
As far as whether or not KJVO is defensible based on Sola Scriptura I have actually seen that position defended quite well using the Scriptures alone, and they did not even use Psalm 12 as one of their passages. They have even gone so far as to lay out the fundamental doctrines of the Scriptures in many instances in an analytical way and have proven the inferiority of the modern versions and the manuscripts used to translate them based on that fact alone. If a modern version or a MSS waters down, muddies or alters the fundamental doctrines handed down since the time of Christ and backed up by all true theologians would that not help to prove that the other versions or manuscripts alone were inferior?
If you can get past some of the fanatical people who are not intelligent enough to convey what they mean then you might find better sources. I am not certain where you have derived your information but it has been seriously lacking in the spirit of studiousness and scholarship. As I said, I derive my information from as many sources as possible, look for bias, compare testimonies, search historical accounts and so on. I do not take engaging in a charge such as the errors of KJV Onlyism lightly. Were I to make such a charge I would be certain of my sources and information first.
Another serious question then begs an answer. What do we make of those Greek and Hebrew experts out there who are King James Only. Are they duped and unlearned? They speak and read the original languages and they are well-versed in all aspects of this issue and yet they adhere to the King James Version and uphold its superiority. When a secular school such as Harvard and Yale can come out with statements to the superiority of the texts and the readings where does that leave the KJV Only scholar and your argument? I am just wondering. As I already stated Scrivener, who sat on the RSV Committee, admitted that even what we might view as changes in wording were due to printer’s mistakes and not a deviation from the originals. Either way there are some seriously learned and intelligent KJVO men out there who can not be dissuaded. Does their choice to be KJVO mean they are automatically to be cast aside as knowledgeable and intelligent opting instead to label them fanatics? How do we not know that those in opposition are not the fanatics if such be the case?
The original 1611 was not biased towards the COE either. It is 90% the exact same translation Wycliffe made over a century and a half before the COE was established. Wycliffe published his work on the Scriptures circa 1382 and the Anglican Church was established in 1534. Amazingly, the KJV which you claim is biased towards the Anglican Establishment stood in overall agreement with the readings and translations that the Swiss and Dutch reformers such as Calvin, Beza and Zwingli made. It stood They did not support the Church of England or its doctrines if you study history. The 1611 also stood in overall agreement with Luther’s Heilige Schrift printed in 1534, full 82 years before the 1611. How do you refute these facts by claiming the 1611 edition of the KJV supports Anglican Doctrine?
The 1611 edition is not hard to be understood. When I encountered that argument I myself purchased an exact reprint of one of the 1611′s and set about to find if it was true. I found not only was it intelligible but it was also gorgeous. The capital indents and woodcuts appeal to the eye on every page almost. However, that fact aside I can sit and read the text of the 1611 quite easily. Now if we were to consider the fact that it was printed in the 1600′s and was a form of Elizabethan High English much like Shakespearean plays were then claiming it would have been hard to understand is a misstatement. After all, many people today do not understand Shakespeare but there are a great many deal more whom do. I have seen the KJV used by some groups to teach the illiterate to read and unbiased studies by outside agencies have shown that these men were more learned in the end than those who were taught using contemporary methodologies.
You also say that the KJV Translators claimed the worst translations were the Word of God. That is patently untrue. If such were the case then why would they call for a revision to the Bishop’s Bible? They said the meanest translation were verily the Word of God. In other words those translations made by Wycliffe and Tyndale along with other such endeavors were the Word of God. By meanest they meant crude in speech and spelling because you have to consider the fact that history attests that the English language did not start to congeal and solidify until after the King James Version was printed. Ask any historian or English professor at Harvard or Stanford and they will attest to that fact. If you want a “mean” translation then try reading Wycliffe’s version. It is very difficult as some of the spellings and wording were so varied.
Also, the Translators would never had claimed their translation was perfect. Would that alone negate the claim of some? I must adjure you to consider the simple fact that many of the apostles and prophets themselves never claimed their text was perfect or inspired. According to Job 32:8 God inspires men in their understanding. So the KJVO believer asks me, how then can we not make claim to the perfection of the KJV.
Let me lay out their reasoning.
1. Christ said we are to live by EVERY WORD of God.
2. Christ said the Word of God would judge the believer in the last days. That Word was the written Word being used by the Living Word to make judgment.
3. If we are to live by every word and be judged by the Word then God is OBLIGATED to provide us with them or else Christ has lied.
4. The Scriptures state that God would provide His Word to all nations and that it would not pass away.
5. The Scriptures say the Word of God is settled forever in heaven.
6. God exists outside of all time and is omniscient.
7. Therefore seeing these facts exist who are we as men to believe that God could not have known that the KJV would be the successor to the Greek and Hebrew texts as English is the major trade language of our day. After all, Greek was the major trade language when the New Testament was written.
Now, I must admit that such logic is hard to refute because it deals with God and not man. If one follows their logic how are they to refute it? The simple answer would be to compare the manuscripts and other such historical data. Yet, they have the weight of scientific and historical agreement in their corner. So what is one to do then? They do not have to be KJVO, per se, and this is where TR Only believers come in. However, when they have more proof that their text is the superior one and show where by compiling the data and the MSS than the climatologists do on global warming then why do some dismiss their claims summarily? In any scientific or historical field the opposition would be laughed off the stage if they attempted to do so.
Now to the other extreme. I do know people who claim the KJV is more perfect than the originals. That is foolishness. How can the product of the original be more perfect when dealing with something given by God? That would be like saying the Holiest of Holies made for the temple when Israel wandered the desert are more perfect than the original Holiest of Holies in heaven. It is impossible. There are some KJVO who claim that it is foolish to study the Greek and the Hebrew. However, there is no harm in knowing the original tongues. The harm lies in being biased and picking or choosing readings at one’s whim to create a version that is not supported as well as the KJV is.
The KJV Only brethren that I have read and are intellectually knowledgeable as well as versed in the history surrounding the translation have not been answered to date. Everyone I see attempting to refute them run to the same arguments. However, when even many of their own enemies and those who are not aligned with their theology back up their claims and knowledge then where does the line get drawn?
You stated: If they were wrong about the King James Version, then how can any Onlyist be right about it when they have less information about the translation than the translators? I ask where this supposition is drawn. Have you ever read Torrey, Gipp, Carter, Grady, Burgon, Westcott, Hort or any of those involved in the fray at an earlier point in time to see whether or not the KJVO scholars actually knew what they were talking about or are you merely repeating a handful of talking points you have picked up along the way. I am at least trying to be honest by doing the research to see who has the most valid claim of the two mentalities. That is called unbiased research.
You start with a blank slate and say, Okay, both of these groups cannot be right because their suppositions disagree on a point that can only have one conclusion. Then you start researching apart from bias and feeling. When you reach the outcome then you report on it. That is what research and journalism used to be. Now with the advent of the internet many false truths have been put forth and research has to be intensely scrutinized. That is why I have been in research for this for so long. I am merely saying, please be sure your statements are factually founded and not just repeated propaganda that has been sounded out by those who are far too lazy to do any research themselves. I can give you an example where some KJVO brethren do the same thing so you will not think this is an attack on you.
Most KJVO brethren will claim that the Sinaiticus manuscript was found in a trash bin at St. Catherine’s Monastery. That is not true. Codex Frederico-Augustanus was found in the rubbish bin there. The Vaticanus manuscript itself was in one of the monks personal cell. See how they have repeated a line without knowing the facts? Now, where the Sinaiticus was found is not so important as its textual variants, discrepancies and deviations. However with one ignorant statement they have cast doubt on their sincere scholarship. I hope that makes sense. Tischendorf’s work, though rather old and obscure, is an excellent read on how he found the Sinaiticus and Frederico-Augustanus.
With that I close and ask for more scholarly research from you when you state things are facts. Please be sure that they are because you are damaging your own reputation and knowledge if others know the truth and facts.
Hello My name is Daniel Self I don’t know much about the manuscript arguments or the manuscripts themselves but I am fond of the KJV and I was just wandering if I could get your e-mail chad I would very much enjoy talking with you about all this.
sincerely Daniel
P.S. My e-mail is [email protected]
Hello,
I, too, have been looking for the most accurate/perfect translation of the Word. I’ve been reading numerous sites on the the web about the differences between versions of the printed Word which is disturbing. All that I can do is believe what my Lord said in the first part of John 16:13, Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
I have been a Christian for 1 year as of Aug.6 – I have been in intense study of the bible since. – Two points. – 1. I use several different Bibles in my study, they ALL seem to contain the basic “Word of God”. One may explain a passage better than others, but the Word combined with the witness of the Holy Spirit gives me ALL I need to be a Christian. 2. God put Adam in the Garden of Eden to take care of it and preserve it. When he failed, the Devil Smiled! When God gave man the original ” Word” , The Devil Smiled again! He knows man! But just as God preserved enough of the Garden to show us what the world could be, he preserved the Word in all these versions to show us what he is like. God always gets the last laugh. I just Love him!!!
Rick,
Let me understand this – for the sake of 14 differences, one of which appears to be only a spelling issue [Matthew 14:9 — “the othes sake” vs. “the oath’s sake”], I’m supposed to toss the KJV in favor of the NIV or NASB, both of which have clear errors and thousands of words dropped? Are you saying there were only 14 differences in the over 750,000 words?
Tom — I don’t remember if that list of changes was comprehensive or simply a list of examples. Either way, it doesn’t matter.
Regarding your other comments, I should point out that you seem to have ignored the questions posed in my post above which reveal the pointlessness of King James Onlyism. The “problems” with modern versions are usually only problems if the King James Version is presupposed to be perfect.
For more information on this subject, I recommend James White’s book The King James Only Controversy. It’s available on Amazon for cheap.
Rick, i feel the same way on these issues. I just happened upon your site tonight and found it interesting. I am a fan of James White and am currently reading through his book “the kin g james only controversy”. I definately recommend it to everyone. I attend a church that is kjvo but i am not. I use 3 translations for study, the kjv, esv and nasb. I also enjoy listening to john macarthur daily at work. I would rather use the little time i have on earth to learn all i can about the bible and what it means than to waste my time arguing with someone over a translation. The kjv is a translation. Some people forget that. God didnt write it. Man did. For someone to say that we cant update the english 400 years and have an accurate version of what God wanted us to know is a fool. However i do not support all modern translations because some are just garbage. I support growing in knowledge of God and if i do that through something other than a kjv and and someone has a problem with that then shame on them. I have Christ in my heart and thats what matters to me.
Daryll
Hi all. So now you are a Bible agnostic. Congratulations. You have now joined the majority of present day Christians who no longer believe that The Bible (any bible in any language) IS the complete, inerrant and 100% historically true words of God.
I have seen this list and even more expanded lists like it and all they are is nothing more than minor printing errors that were soon caught and corrected. The underlying Hebrew and Greek texts of the KJB have never changed. This is in sharp contrast to your Bible Babble Buffet versions like the NIV, ESV, NASB (all the new Catholic bibles) that continually change both their English texts and the underlying Greek and Hebrew.
We KJB believers have a neat little “double-check” system you “No Bible is inerrant” fellas don’t have. Read all about it here:
http://brandplucked.webs.com/printingerrors.htm
Happy hunting for that phantom bible you guys claim to believe in.
Will Kinney
Thanks for the list and the book reference, Rick! I have never understood why KJVO people continually stress the 1611 motif when they only use the 1769 version. The latter is printed without the almanac listing Saint’s Days, and the KJV translators preface and their marginal notes in different readings. Maybe that explains things…?
It’s amusing to see the KJVO brigade ask us for a ‘complete, inerrant and 100% historically true words of God’ and then grow all flustered when we ask them about the variants in Ruth 3:15 (to take an example at random). This is know as the ‘He’ and the ‘She’ Bible issue, and I would love to learn a coherent KJVO answer. The Masoretic tradition supports the reading “and he went into the city” [3rd person masculine singular form וַיָּבֹא (vayyavo], and there is proof some of the first printings of the KJV said “and *he* went into the citie”. The problem is that subsequent KJV editions follow the Syriac and Vulgate OT traditions and change the text to “and *she* went into the city”. The KJV revisers evidently chose to follow the prevailing Geneva Bible tradition at the point, even though it contradicts the MT reading (and, yes, I know the NASB, ESV and the GNB have this error too).
My point is that if there are *any* difficulties with the KJV 1611 or 1769, then the whole argument that the KJVO person has a ‘perfect’ Bible collapses. Their usual response to the take refuge in criticising other translations, but honesty surely obliges them to look first to their own argument. 1 John 3:19-20
James White’s book is a joke. He has so many lies and half-truths permeated throughout that his historical accuracy is questioned by scholars who are not of the King James only persuasion. White has been refuted on many occasions by many scholarly men who are not KJV Only. As a matter of fact, White’s book was one of the first I read on the issue years ago before I started studying the issue in depth. I prefer all truth to be accurate. I have always shot with both barrels when I present facts. However, when people like White spread lies it is hard to overlook. His work is less than scholarly as well. Only someone who had no knowledge of historical and manuscript evidence would accept his work as an excellent resource. He has a tendency, like Ruckman, to over-sensationalize things and ignore facts. If you want a better resource why not research Burgon’s work? He was not KJVO and was the leading textual scholar of his time. His work is truly more scholarly in its approach.
As for the 1611 motif, where do you see the supposed issue? The believer uses a 1611 King James even if it is a 1980 edition. The contradiction is in the mind only. Herein lies your answer. The text of the KJV was laid out. In the conditions they printed in originally there was only candle light to use. Secondly, a reader would read the text and a printer would lay out the text. If one of the readers read “there” then it would be possible for one of the two printers to place “their” in that spot. Your issue with she and he is a perfect example of this. Read any scholarly account given by men who are not writing from KJVO positions and have no agenda to rebut the KJVO position and you will find this fact attested to time and again by secular historians.
Most of your supposed variants are just that. We do not get flustered at having to answer the ridiculous charge. Print errors are not an issue for inerrancy. Even to this day if I find an NIV with a print error I do not fault the version on that. A recent book was printed by Cambridge University Press. The name of that book is A Textual History of the King James Bible and was written by David Norton. The book costs around $100 but he traces these print errors in various editions throughout history. Norton was in charge of editing the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible. Believe me, Norton is no KJVO Scholar, but he does an excellent job of rebutting these false claims people keep parroting.
However, I digress. Even in the day and age of our modern printing things can get pretty flaky at the printing stage. I know of one pastor that prepared a KJV text for print and distribution. As the presses began to roll they noticed that for some reason the software was not recognizing the italicized words and was dropping them out of the text completely. Now, was that edition not a KJV? Of course to answer in the affirmative would be asinine and ignorant. Was there a print error? Of course there was. Did that print error cause what was being printed to no longer be the Word of God? Of course not. All it meant was that certain portions were missing by complete error on the behalf of the print process.
Now, if you want to throw those supposed flustering issues at me I would be more than happy to answer them for you. I have more than a decade’s research into this issue. My own book on the issue will be published this year. It runs 500 pages and merely scratches the surface of the issue. White’s book ran 368 pages and was mostly smoke and mirrors with very little real substance. If you want a better book than White’s check out secular historian Adam Nicolson’s God’s Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible. It is historically accurate, substantive and has no agenda for either position. Your positing of a position that a perfect Bible collapses if there are any difficulties creates a false positive.
Oh, by the by, if you want to get technical I must point out your error and lack of knowledge in the issue. MOST KJVO believers do not use a 1769 edition. Most of them use a 1980 edition of the 1769 edition of the 1611 edition. This was printed by Cambridge and caught more print errors that had slipped through since the previous print check. If you look at historical evidences you will find that there were people not authorized to print the KJV who did so and smuggled them into England to be passed off as printed by the authorized printers who held the royal patent. Those printings had multiple errors. After all, in only one instance the printers in charge of the process left out not in the seventh commandment and they were fined 300 pounds. That is the rough equivalent of 30,000 Pounds, or $50,000 American, in today’s currency. Those who were printing the text of the Bible were closely monitored. That did not stop inferior editions from places other than England creeping in nor did it mean every time someone set the type in a dark, single window print shop by candlelight and ear could not make a mistake either. That is why believers would often cry out when they caught such a print error. That is how preservation of the Bible has always occurred through history. Why, that is even how Manuscript evidence occurs even in our own time. However, I suppose in your mind that will cause an issue. Yet, the truth is, a perfect Bible does not rest on the subsequent printings alone. God has used His people to catch these issues as they arise and correct it immediately before the text could be corrupted. It is the same reason the Masoretes went about with the notations and vowel point in their own texts.
I suggest you study all of the issue more in depth before spouting off in the future. The Scriptures say, “He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.” They also say to study to shew thyself approved unto God. Too few people actually do scholarly studies anymore. All they do is read a book here or there and think they have the sum of the whole matter and are a master on the subject. Do you not think we who are KJVO are not scholarly and have not studied the issue? I know men with manifold more decades and hours of research into this issue than me and they are KJVO. Are they ignorant of the arguments you put forth? No, we are not. Your disputations have been answered manifold times over by many a scholar. Burgon answered them in the 1800′s. The Masoretes answered them in their time. The Vadouis answered it in the 1200′s. Shall I continue to supply the historical evidence and weights? Then again, I suppose you would not hear them.
By the way, I was not raised KJV Only. I used the NLT my whole life. When the issue was brought up I began to study it. I got into previous translations. I studied Manuscript evidence. I studied translational decisions. I studied the men who were most intimately involved with the issue. I studied the doctrines affected. I studied the variants. I studied the editions. I studied every aspect. I had to face empirical and historical data apart from bias. So, when I abandoned my position held my whole life for the KJV position none can say I did not do the research. Neither can anyone claim I do not know the facts or the opposition’s points of contention. The fact remains, I see too many ignorant points argued from both sides, but none so heinous as those who oppose the position of an inerrant Bible. After all, the issue of an inerrant translation is not secluded to America and Britain. There were German HSO believers in Luther’s time. There were OLO believers in Jerome’s time. On that issue I could go on and on as well. This is no new phenomena, but is one that has plagued the church and believers since the first century. It has just become more magnified because we are in the Laodicean age and instead of there only being two different translations to contend over there are hundreds.
If you want me to document White’s lies I will briefly name a few: the real heresies of Westcott and Hort which I document from their own writings and not some secondary source; the mentality of Westcott and Hort in their hatred of and desire to replace the traditional text as documented from their own works, the defamation of Erasmus’ character and doctrinal positions, historical data concerning the translation process and the textual authenticity of the Received Text from historical accounts.
I am done. I have to be or else I would write another book. I am done with the issue here. I will let others answer if they so choose. If anyone is interested in even a small rebuttal of all these claims then feel free to read my previous posts to see them. Yet, I would close with the benediction of the Lord to love your brethren. Even though I disagree with you and have evidence of your fallacious claims I bear no ill-will. I am just a man who likes to see fairness and truth as opposed to half-lies being repeated without scholarly evidences.
Chad… Actually, I’m an atheist now. The inanity of the Bible versions issue is just one of the reasons I left Christianity. Even if the King James Version is perfect, its content is so absurd and ridiculous that only a fool would believe it honestly. Yes, I’m admitting to being foolish at one point when I did believe fervently, and no, I’m not really insulting Christians — the New Testament says that it is the fools of the world which are chosen, not the intelligent or wise.
Actually the bible says in Psalm 14:1, “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.”.
Actually, the Bible says in the New Testament that it is the fools who are chosen… So whether you want to be Old Testament (atheists are fools) or New Testament (Christians are fools) is up to you. I’ve met few Christians who have praised being stupid, though, despite the high praise it gets in the New Testament (intelligence, however, is pretty much denounced… no surprise).
Also, an insult ascribed to a god which i don’t believe in does me no harm. It’s like telling me that Santa thinks i’m naughty — it isn’t scary.
Further, i’m curious what “abominable works” i’ve done, and would point out that the “none that doeth good” is just as true of Christians as atheists, biblically speaking. (Morally speaking, there are far more Christians in prison and divorce courts, wars and witch trials than there have ever been atheists.)
I had pretty much forgotten my posted article here, but a pal mentioned there had been a response. Without trying to sound impolite, Chad seems to have used a great deal of words (going on about printing conditions in the 17th century, etc.) that had no relevance whatever to the textual question I had posed. In case, however, KJVO brigade feel they have ‘triumphed’ via obfuscation, I felt it was necessary to make my argument very clear.
Before I do, I would like to make one comment on a tendency in KJVO apologetics, namely using ‘errors’ in ‘modern versions’ as a smoke-screen for mistakes in the KJV. If KJV is perfect, then all other English translations are flawed. Thus it’s redundant for a KJVO to justify scribal errors in the KJV by mentioning mistakes in other translations. The fact other books are imperfect does not make your favourite book perfect (logically).
My point in mentioning the Ruth 3:15 issue was to show that there are two options a translator can take – either the Hebrew Masoretic (‘he’) or the Jewish Greek Septuagint (‘she’).
και επεθηκεν επ αυτην και εισηλθεν εις την πολιν. [Septuagint]
And she gat her into the citie [Bishops Bible 1568]
and she went into the citie. [Geneva Bible 1587]
and she went into the city. [KJV 1769]
It’s safe to say this is another example of the KJV ‘translators’ uncritically adopting the ‘traditional’ reading, even though this badly contradicts the KJVO argument that the KJV Old Testament readings are all from the Masoretic Bomberg edition of 1525. Mind you, the First Westminister company (including Lancelot Andrewes) still did a better job than the First Oxford bunch (check ‘seraphims’ in Isaiah 6:2 – ‘seraphim’ is already a Hebrew plural). Sad, really.
Another example of the ‘let’s-just-copy-the-Bishop’s-Bible’ phenomenon in the KJV is Acts 12:4. For those just joining the show, here’s the situation. The Greek word ‘πασχα (pascha)’ occurs 29 times in the New Testament, and is translated ‘passover’ 28 of those 29 times in the KJV. The exception is Acts 12:4. Let’s do that table thing again!
βουλομενος μετα το πασχα αναγαγειν αυτον τω λαω [Greek]
entendynge after ester to brynge him forth to the people. [Tyndale Bible 1534]
intendyng after Easter to bryng hym foorth to the people. [Bishops Bible 1568]
intending after the Passeouer to bring him foorth to the people. [Geneva Bible 1587]
intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. [KJV 1611]
Notice something going on between the Bishops Bible and the KJV?
Now KJVO explanations of this range from the odd to the surreal. Have they read Luke 22:1, I wonder?
Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover. [KJV 1769]
This makes it rather clear that the eating of the Passover lamb = feast of unleavened bread, and that therefore a Jewish person could justifiably name the whole festival (sacrifice, eating of the lamb & the days of unleavened bread) as the Passover (πασχα). Luke in fact does so (see Acts 12:3).
KJVO apologists have brought up mythical stories of pagan orgiastic festivals taking place in Jerusalem, or an utterly non-documented Asiatic goddess called Ostara. Three replies to this:
1) The Venerable Bede (673-735), in his book ‘De temporum ratione’, mentions the Saxon spring goddess Eostre’s festival occurring about the same time as the Christian Paschal feast, and how Saxons had kept the name going.
2) Charlemagne (742? – 814), the Frankish Emperor, renamed April ‘Ostarmanoth’ after the Germanic form of the month’s name. This is a reference to the Teutonic spring goddess Ostara (Saxon: Eostre).
3) Why, if Ishtar was worshipped in Jerusalem by King Herod, is there no archaeological or documentary evidence whatsoever apart from a implausible reading of the KJV?
In summary, Easter is a saxon name for the Pashal feast, and was obviously in use at the time of the KJV. Acts 12:4 is not really an error in the KJV, but just laziness on the part of the ‘translators’.
I’ll leave you with a question from good ol’ Steve Rudd
“Were the KJV translators “liars” for saying that “the very meanest [poorest] translation” is still “the word of God”?”
On a purely personal note, I was not happy at the use of Psalm 14:1. The idea that by merely adopting the title ‘Christian’ takes a person out of the fool category, and into a group that can judge others is both dangerous for that person and shows a lack of reverence for Scripture. Remember Jesus’ harshest words and judgements were for the ‘religious’ of his day (today’s version would be people like Jerry Falwell, Rob Bell, Rick Warren, Norman Geisler, etc.). It is in the heart, the internal seat of motivations, that the gift of true faith in the only Saviour, Jesus Christ, really works.
Amen to Chads response ! well said brother !! Please keep up your perserverence for Gods word . You commented that you were writing a book and I would appreciate info about obtaining a copy when available . [email protected]
I go to a Christian college and I think that I am the only KJVO person on campus. I haven’t met another one at least. Chad’s arguments are great and he certainly knows what he is talking about. Without even doing any study of the history of bible versions I know that this KJV contains no errors and no contradictions. I don’t really care if it’s 1611 1769 or 1980. Whatever it is, it is right. Chad gave you the history lesson and I loved it. I’m going to give the God lesson. God created the heaven and the earth right? Why is He dead today? Can the Almighty not make a bible that is 100% right for His English speaking people. No the Word of God is not confined to the KJV. It is found in bits and pieces in tracts, hymnals, and various other versions of the bible. I don’t see why I come under attack so often for believing God preserved His scripture for me and put it into English through men. Moses broke the tablets, was God’s word lost forever? No, God made Moses write the tablets again. God hasn’t forgotten His word, so rather than argue about it and make more people atheist let’s pray for those who are lost like rick. Making people atheist and destroying their faith is the will of the devil not God. You can get saved reading any bible version, but after reading a few passages from other bible version I realized mine makes the most sense. I will always be KJVO, and I pray for those who aren’t. Woe is me if I turn anyone away from Christ. I only want to build of other people’s faith in the Lord. I sincerely believe that the KJV is the Word of God. As i said before it’s not confined to the KJV, but there are no errors in it.
I have seen this list many times and to me it is just plain obvious that they are nothing more than printing errors that were soon caught and corrected. But the bible agnostics and Bible critics will hang on to this excuse and pretext for dear life. It is the ONLY thing they still have going for them in an effort to “prove” that no Bible in any language is or ever was the complete and infallible words of God. Not one of these people has anything in the way of a complete and 100% true Bible in any language to give us in the place of the King James Bible, and they know it. They stubbornly and pridefully refuse to submit to God’s final written authority and sovereignty in history in giving us the King James Bible as His Final Authority of Written Truth. I run into these guys on the internet all the time. They have run out of arguments and examples of alleged “errors” in the Book, so this is their last ditch effort to hang on to their Biblical agnosticism.
See ‘The Printing Errors Ploy’
http://brandplucked.webs.com/printingerrors.htm
Will Kinney
Bible agnostic says: “I have heard this enough in varying places that I wanted to post this just to help others not be duped by the statement: “The only changes made since the 1611 translation of the KJV until now have been changes of spelling or printing only.”
That statement is a lie, and people who love Jesus & the Bible should not make such a claim — even if they do have the best of intentions in doing so!”
Well, what about the American Bible Society statement?
Even the American Bible Society, no friend to the King James Bible, had this to say about the “revisions” of the King James Bible. The American Bible Society wrote, “The English Bible, as left by the translators (of 1611), has come down to us unaltered in respect to its text…” They further stated, “With the exception of typographical errors and changes required by the progress of orthography in the English language, the text of our present Bibles remains unchanged, and without variation from the original copy as left by the translators” (Committee on Versions to the Board of Managers, American Bible Society, 1852).
As for the comments about Easter, the King James Bible is right, as always -
http://brandplucked.webs.com/easterreplenish.htm
Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET etc. are the new “Catholic” bibles
“Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins” Revelation 18:4
http://brandplucked.webs.com/realcatholicbibles.htm