You have pointed out that Copeland does not think that the King James Bible is perfect, but what about all the other leaders of congregations and so on, who reject the King James Bible outright (and what about all those Baptist anti-KJB authors!)
Also, I think that almost no King James Bible person is using the "1769 Edition" today.
- two editions were printed by Oxford that year, both slightly differing.
- in 1806 the Eyre and Strahan reported that 116 errata had existed in the "1769 Edition".
- in 1817 D'Oyly and Mant edited the "1769 Edition" at Oxford, making further slight changes, such as changing Joshua 19:2 which had "Beer-sheba, Sheba" to "Beer-sheba, and Sheba".
- in 1833 or so, Cambridge began to print the "1769 Edition" as adopted from Oxford, with spelling changes like "axe" for "ax".
- the Oxford Editions now differ to those of Queen Victoria's time in a few places, such as "soap" for "sope".
- the Pure Cambridge Edition made almost fifty small purification changes around the year 1900, which is the final edition of the KJB now.
- in recent years, other Cambridge editions have appeared with slight differences and changes.
- other companies publish King James Bibles, and in recent years, some have Americanised the spelling, etc.
Therefore, while most King James Bibles today are based upon the 1769 Edition, they are not actually using the "1769 Edition". I can show you that the line of KJB editions does not end with the 1769 Edition, but with the Pure Cambridge Edition, which is the final presentation form of the King James Bible, and fully and exactly correct.
The New King James Version pretends to be the next great edition of the King James Bible, but that is a lie, because they are saying that there are always going to be more editions, and they have changed away from the very foundations, and have not kept to the tradition or proper lineage at all.
|