I was wondering what you guys believe about the '1611' vs. '1769' edition argument? I've heard it often. Mostly by liberals that use the modern versions. Which edition of the King James is PERFECTLY perfect, and how do we prove it.

By the way, I believe the King James is God's perfect word. But which edition? I am not sure yet. I hope that someone can give me some help.

ALSO: Whichever is God's word... I want it.

You can read these two articles to learn about the differences between the 1611 and the 1769:

Myth Of Early Revisions - by David Reagan
What About Those Printing Errors In The 1611 Holy Bible? - by Will Kinney

[Diligent]

Those are both good articles. There are three points I want to make:

1. The Holy Spirit has led believers over the last 400 years to declare the purity of the King James Bible -- no other translation in history has ever been held to as absolutely pure. God's people have easily rejected revisions of the KJV that were false -- the RV, the NKJV, and others have either been outright rejected or simply became colossal commercial failures. Despite the defense of the NKJV going on in another thread, nobody has ever accused it of being the perfect word of God. Even subtle "updates" to the KJV have been rejected by believers, like the "New Scofield Reference Bible" which they are now once again printing with the true KJV text because so many people rejected the "minor" alterations of the first "New" Scofield. Another new "edition" of the KJV is Norton's "New Cambridge Paragraph Bible" which is another flop. Publishers haven't been able to pull a fast one on KJV believers in the past. They know that if they want to sell new versions they need to market them as new versions to the crowd that demands them, not KJV proponents.

2. The differences in genuine KJV editions have never been of the sort that makes people wonder what God's word actually says -- not like eliminating 1Jo 5:7 or dropping the last 12 verses of Mark. When KJVs were published with printing errors like "the wicked Bible," people immediately knew what God's word said and subsequent editions contained corrections. Nobody asked "did God really say 'thou shalt commit adultery?'" due to a printing error.

3. Are some printings of the KJV better than others? Yes. Wherever possible I will prefer the KJV text as it was printed by Cambridge (and other publishers like Collins) c.1900. But what is different between those editions and other printings? A few capital letters, some commas moved, and difference in italics in a few places. When we have modern versions deleting entire verses and changing words like "God" to "He who" (in reference to Christ), a difference between "flieth away" and "fleeth away" in some KJV printings hardly amounts to a bean, let alone a hill of beans.

The bottom line is that I would take any printing of the KJV since 1611 and be willing to shout "this is God's word and you can trust it!"

The "update" issue is always a red herring on the part of modernists. They aren't seeking to "update" the KJV when they hold its underlying text (the Textus Receptus) is absolute contempt, and switch it out for the critical texts.

i got a cornberstone bible, holman bible, thompson chain, and a zondervan. all kjv, and out of they all match up as far as i know with the exception of the zondervan. the zondervan is using an 1873 edition of the cambridge paragraph bible, but it was revised by dr. f.h.a. scrivener and i've found where only halfa word will be printed. such as but not limited to at least 14 times where the words fetchd-fetched-fetcht-fetch have been changed to "fet".. it's just the kjv thatzondervan uses, so now i don't like the zondervan kjv text. i just got my thompson chain reference, and that bible is awesome, as is my cornerstone, and holman

Originally Posted by Diligent

Those are both good articles. There are three points I want to make:

1. The Holy Spirit has led believers over the last 400 years to declare the purity of the King James Bible -- no other translation in history has ever been held to as absolutely pure. God's people have easily rejected revisions of the KJV that were false -- the RV, the NKJV, and others have either been outright rejected or simply became colossal commercial failures. Despite the defense of the NKJV going on in another thread, nobody has ever accused it of being the perfect word of God. Even subtle "updates" to the KJV have been rejected by believers, like the "New Scofield Reference Bible" which they are now once again printing with the true KJV text because so many people rejected the "minor" alterations of the first "New" Scofield. Another new "edition" of the KJV is Norton's "New Cambridge Paragraph Bible" which is another flop. Publishers haven't been able to pull a fast one on KJV believers in the past. They know that if they want to sell new versions they need to market them as new versions to the crowd that demands them, not KJV proponents.

2. The differences in genuine KJV editions have never been of the sort that makes people wonder what God's word actually says -- not like eliminating 1Jo 5:7 or dropping the last 12 verses of Mark. When KJVs were published with printing errors like "the wicked Bible," people immediately knew what God's word said and subsequent editions contained corrections. Nobody asked "did God really say 'thou shalt commit adultery?'" due to a printing error.

3. Are some printings of the KJV better than others? Yes. Wherever possible I will prefer the KJV text as it was printed by Cambridge (and other publishers like Collins) c.1900. But what is different between those editions and other printings? A few capital letters, some commas moved, and difference in italics in a few places. When we have modern versions deleting entire verses and changing words like "God" to "He who" (in reference to Christ), a difference between "flieth away" and "fleeth away" in some KJV printings hardly amounts to a bean, let alone a hill of beans.

The bottom line is that I would take any printing of the KJV since 1611 and be willing to shout "this is God's word and you can trust it!"

The "update" issue is always a red herring on the part of modernists. They aren't seeking to "update" the KJV when they hold its underlying text (the Textus Receptus) is absolute contempt, and switch it out for the critical texts.

Is the KJB perfect? I think we open up a can of worms when we make statements like that? But I could be wrong also?

How about the KJB is the most reliable translation of the Received Text, (the most reliable Greek mss) in the English language. I'm sure there is a better way to say what I attempted to say?

The KJV is perfect - there are no errors in it. If someone has a Bible version that is not perfect, they don't have the Word of God, because the Bible itself claims to be perfect:

Psalms 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

The word "perfect" means complete - but it also has the idea of without blemish, without spot:

The word used for perfect in the verse above is:

from 8552; entire (literally, figuratively or morally); also (as noun) integrity, truth:--without blemish, complete, full, perfect, sincerely (-ity), sound, without spot, undefiled, upright(-ly), whole.

1 Corinthians 13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

James 1:25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.

from 5056; complete (in various applications of labor, growth, mental and moral character, etc.); neuter (as noun, with 3588) completeness.

The King James Bible is perfect. It is without errors or contradictions.

Originally Posted by jerry

The KJV is perfect - there are no errors in it. If someone has a Bible version that is not perfect, they don't have the Word of God, because the Bible itself claims to be perfect:

Psalms 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

The word "perfect" means complete - but it also has the idea of without blemish, without spot:

The word used for perfect in the verse above is:

from 8552; entire (literally, figuratively or morally); also (as noun) integrity, truth:--without blemish, complete, full, perfect, sincerely (-ity), sound, without spot, undefiled, upright(-ly), whole.

1 Corinthians 13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

James 1:25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.

from 5056; complete (in various applications of labor, growth, mental and moral character, etc.); neuter (as noun, with 3588) completeness.

The King James Bible is perfect. It is without errors or contradictions.

I guess I was thinking that there could be places where the translation made was not perfect. I don't know of any places where this is the case, I just wasn't sure if I could make the statement that the KJV is perfect and be able to back it up.

Although, I agree with what you are saying. I certainly agree that this definition of perfect would apply to the KJV

from 8552; entire (literally, figuratively or morally); also (as noun) integrity, truth:--without blemish, complete, full, perfect, sincerely (-ity), sound, without spot, undefiled, upright(-ly), whole.

I thought this portion of this article would help with the OP.

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/whichtr.htm
3. Which edition of the Received Text should we follow today? Edward F. Hills, who had a doctorate in modern textual criticism from Harvard, made the following important statement in regard to the KJV and the Received Text:

“The King James Version is a variety of the Textus Receptus. The translators that produced the King James Version relied mainly, it seems, on the later editions of Beza's Greek New Testament, especially his 4th edition (1588-9). But also they frequently consulted the editions of Erasmus and Stephanus and the Complutensian Polyglot. According to Scrivener (1884), out of the 252 passages in which these sources differ sufficiently to affect the English rendering, the King James Version agrees with Beza against Stephanus 113 times, with Stephanus against Beza 59 times, and 80 times with Erasmus, or the Complutensian, or the Latin Vulgate against Beza and Stephanus. HENCE THE KING JAMES VERSION OUGHT TO BE REGARDED NOT MERELY AS A TRANSLATION OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS BUT ALSO AS AN INDEPENDENT VARIETY OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS....

“BUT WHAT DO WE DO IN THESE FEW PLACES IN WHICH THE SEVERAL EDITIONS OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS DISAGREE WITH ONE ANOTHER? WHICH TEXT DO WE FOLLOW? THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION IS EASY. WE ARE GUIDED BY THE COMMON FAITH. HENCE WE FAVOR THAT FORM OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS UPON WHICH MORE THAN ANY OTHER GOD, WORKING PROVIDENTIALLY, HAS PLACED THE STAMP OF HIS APPROVAL, NAMELY, THE KING JAMES VERSION, OR, MORE PRECISELY, THE GREEK TEXT UNDERLYING THE KING JAMES VERSION. This text was published in 1881 by the Cambridge University Press under the editorship of Dr. Scrivener, and there have been eight reprints, the latest being in 1949 [DWC: It has since been republished by the Trinitarian Bible Society of London, England, and the Dean Burgon Society of Collingswood, New Jersey.] We ought to be grateful that in the providence of God the best form of the Textus Receptus is still available to believing Bible students” (Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended, 4th edition, pp. 220, 223).

We agree with Dr. Hills’ position.

The exact Greek text underlying the King James Bible was reconstructed by Frederick Scrivener under the direction of the Cambridge University Press and published in 1891. It is republished today by the Trinitarian Bible Society in England as well as the Dean Burgon Society in America.

[bibleprotector]

The exact Greek text underlying the King James Bible was reconstructed by Frederick Scrivener under the direction of the Cambridge University Press and published in 1891. It is republished today by the Trinitarian Bible Society in England as well as the Dean Burgon Society in America.

Actually, it wasn't and isn't... Scrivener's Textus Receptus does not exactly match the text as presented in the KJB. That is why Hills was right when he said that the KJB itself was an independent variety of the Textus Receptus.

Basically, instead of doing an Erasmus, or Stephanus or Beza job, the translators gathered out of multiple sources and rendered it in English. They coupled "translation" with their "textual selection" work.

I believe and present the view that the King James Bible is perfect in English because it has gathered the correct text from the original languages, and has been translated exactly, and that through a process of editorial work in time, we have the exact presentation of the King James Bible without printing error or unstandardised spelling, etc.

Can you give actual concrete difference between Scrivener's TR and the KJV?

Originally Posted by jerry

Can you give actual concrete difference between Scrivener's TR and the KJV?

Second that. We know bro Hill's pedigree and testimony. What's yours? I only ask because of Hill's plain statement coupled with your emphatic dissent from it. NOTE: I'm not saying one has to be a bona-fide textual scholar in order to disagree with bro. Hills. I'm simply asking if you are? Either way, you should state that to prevent your "correction" of bro Hills from sounding provocative. Your statement was provocative and I guess I got provoked :O).

Basically, instead of doing an Erasmus, or Stephanus or Beza job, the translators gathered out of multiple sources and rendered it in English. They coupled "translation" with their "textual selection" work.

And all Scrivener did was come along behind them and do a greek text whose goal was to match the KJV's greek decisions. Scrivener shows in his book (The Authorized Bible) that the KJV translators' greek decisions were no longer very well documented. So he did the next best thing: come along behind them working from english and developing a greek text that matches it.

I believe and present the view that the King James Bible is perfect in English because it has gathered the correct text from the original languages, and has been translated exactly, and that through a process of editorial work in time, we have the exact presentation of the King James Bible without printing error or unstandardised spelling, etc.

I don't see any significant difference between your position and that of Hills'. Scrivener said ther choices were not very well documented anymore and so the only way to reproduce their greek decisions in a single text was to start from the KJV and work towards the greek with it.