KJV 1611 vs. KJV 1769

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/

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

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.

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.

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

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 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,
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.