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. 
Enhance Your Blog with Thesis
What do you look for in a WordPress theme? Loads of options? Unsurpassed support? A beautiful base style?
Look no further than Thesis, the premier WordPress theme framework from the one and only Chris Pearson.
Rock solid semantics. Bulletproof search engine optimization. Crystal clear typography. And more options than you can shake a stick at. What are you waiting for? Get Thesis today!
23 responses in this conversation. Join in!
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?