|
Post by Brother Ben on Apr 20, 2005 12:34:05 GMT -5
I was a reading brothers response to a mans statements in regards to the changes in the King James Version. His answer was very clear and informative and I wanted to include it on our discussion board. Enjoy!
Bro. Ben
.............begin article..............
To answer your first question RJP, yes, the Pastor of the Church that wrote that Statement of Faith is definately a King James Version Only Pastor. I know the man personally.
You constantly refer to the fact that the King James Version of the Bible has "changed" over the years and therefore there is something inherantly wrong with it. While it is granted that it has changed it has not been revised as you constantly say. There has been no revision of the King James Version of the Bible since the 1611 version except in the case of those that want to copyright their particular printing and must make changes to words in order to secure a copyright.
In the first year that the King James Version of the Bible was printed there were actually two seperate printings. They were both made in Oxford by the same men on the same printing presses and yet there were at least 100 "changes." Oh my goodness! Yes, one hundred changes in the first year by the second printing. How can that be you may ask? It was to correct printing errors.
The modernists that insist that the AV was changed over the years state that there have been "thousands" of changes made to this wonderful Book However they cannot point out the "thousands" of changes. It actuality there were approximately 400 changes made over the course of the years.
The vast majority of the changes made to the AV were made in 1629. I do not see that printing mentioned in your list of "versions.' Withiin 18 years of the original printing of the AV the vast majority of the mistakes in printing and grammar were corrected already. I must point out that two of the men that were on the original translation committee were also involved in the changes that were made up to and including 1629. They knew full well the wording of the original translators and therefore were present to ensure that any changes that were made were made in accordance with the wording of that translation.
The "thousands" of changes attributed to the AV by the modernists are vastly spelling standardization. In the 1600's at the time of the printing of the original AV spelling was a rather haphazard affair. Even the writers of the original translation fo the AV used different spellings for the same word in different chapters of the Book. Spelling in the English language was not standardized until the last half of the 18th century. There you have the two "revisions" of 1762 and 1769. These were done to produce a Book that could be easily read and understood by all that read it.
The vast majority of the changes that took place in the AV were done within 27 years of the first printing. That was the "version" of 1638. This correction process amounted to fully 80% of the "changes" in the AV. In all some 400 changes can be attributed by comparing the current AV with the original printing of 1611. Since there are almost 1200 chapters in the Bible that means that the correction or change rate is about one change per every three chapters of the Bible and not the "thousands' of changes that are attributed to the AV by modernists.
There is much information on the alleged "changes" in the AV available in a book by F. H. A. Scrivener called "The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives" published by Scrivener in 1884. It should be noted that Scrivener was a member of the Revision Co0mmittee of 1881 that produced one of the so-called "modern versions." Since Scrivener was a member of that committee and was not a King James Bible believer he had no bias or predisposition toward the AV. Yet Scrivener could only find the approximately 400 "changes" that took place. Scrivener, who worked on the English Revised Version committee of 1881 admitted that the Cambridge printers had simply reinstated words and clauses overlooked by the 1611 printers and amended manifest errors. And yes, 1884 does include the so-called "revision" of 1850 that you have mentioned that is mostly not accepted by Bible scholars.
Two of the most noted "revisions" of the AV came about merely seven years apart in 1762 and 1769. These were again changes to standardize spelling and the 1769 printing was a continuation of the earlier 1762 printing.
The idea that the AV has experienced "thousands" of changes over the years and is therefore not the preserved and inspired Word of God any more is nothing more than a myth. Any prudent man that goes into a study of the AV without prejudicial thought can find a wealth of material on the internet and in printed books. I have shown that a lot of the things noted in the above come from a man that was on the Revision Committee of the English Revised Version of 1881, not a King James Version believer and yet could only find 400 "changes" to the Book in all those many years. In actuality there have been only those four hundred changes made in the 393 years since the first printing of the King James Bible.
Now, compare that with the "modern" versions that even go so far as to downgrade and denigrate the deity of Christ.
Yours in Christ, George
|
|
|
Post by George on Sept 9, 2005 0:03:47 GMT -5
Ha! I just happened across this as I was looking through the site. I wrote this response to a man who is a defender of the modern perversions of the bible. I do not use capital letters when speaking of those books because I do not believe them worthy to be called Bible. They are not God's Word. I would like to point out something else about changes to the King James Bible that is occurring right under people's noses and a lot of them are not even aware of it. Yes brothers and sisters, people are changing the King James Bible strictly for commercialism and profit. The King James Bible (it is not a "version") is NOT copyright. This wonderful Book was written long before copyright laws came to being. Not only that, the King James Bible is not only God's Holy Word, it is the Words of God! Copyrights are issued to provide monetary gain to the author and publisher of various works. How can folks send royalty checks to God? Yes I know, we can place them in the offering but I hope and pray we do that anyway. If you have a King James Bible and it has a copyright notice in it, it has changes in it. Sometimes subtle but changes nonetheless. I used to believe the copyright pertained to the maps, reference systems, concordances and things of that nature. Some Bibles have a section titled, "Between the Testaments" which is full of useful things. However I have found that in King James Bibles with copyright notices WORDS have been changed. Yes, the very words are being changed. They must be in order to secure a copyright. Have you ever sat in Church and noticed that sometimes the words the Pastor reads from his Bible are different than the one you have? Just a word here and there but different anyway. That has happened to me and that is why I undertook to determine why. So what is the solution to this problem of the creeping change to our beloved Bible? There exists in this country a ministry called, "Bearing Precious Seed." This is a ministry of local, independent, fundamental Baptist Churches. Each of the BPS sites has their own printing plants. They produce Bibles that are authentic and true to the original King James Bible. These ministries also produce reproductions of the original 1611 Bible. However the authentic ones they produce are in roman script rather than the more fancy script of the original. There are a number of Bearing Precious Seed ministries. The one I deal with is: www.biblebelievers.com/bookshop/BPS.htmlThe prices are very reasonable for what you get and the customer service is outstanding. They do ask for a donation with the purchase of each Bible but the donation goes to support the ministry rather than in the pocket of some large commercial publisher. I have found the prices to be about half of what you would pay for a similar Bible through any other source. This is not a commercial endorsement or an ad of any kind. It is meant merely as a service to Christians for the purpose of ensuring the Bible we treasure so much is authentic. Yours in Christ, George Groce
|
|
|
Post by blessedbygod on Sept 14, 2005 21:11:26 GMT -5
We had some questions about the changes in the King James Bible. We were always under the impression the King James Bible was the Bible to get. We did not know there was is a difference between a King James Bible w/ a copyright and a King James w/o a copyright. We are looking to get another Bible and have looked at the site that was posted. We noticed that the Scofield Bible was one listed on the site. We have seen a King James Scofield Bible in our local Christian bookstore. We really like it and we also like being able to see the Bible and look at it before purchasing. Would that Bible be safe to get or would it have the changes that you were referring to?
Would you mind listing some of the changes within the King James Bible that you are referring to? Thanks - that would be of help to us.
Thank You So Much, The Lawhorns
|
|
|
Post by George on Sept 15, 2005 0:19:35 GMT -5
The Scofield Bible is widely used in fundamental Baptist circles. However, there are some problems with the references and things of that nature. the only caveat I can give you is one passed on to me from my Pastor. If you use the Scofield Bible and the notes seem to contradict the Scripture, ignore the notes and go by the Scripture. One of the ways to tell if things have been changed is by the use of proper names. Yes, believe it or not that is a rather easy way to tell if your Bible of potential Bible is authentic and true to the King James Bible. As example, does the Bible you are looking at speak of Jonas in the New Testament or is it Jonah? Does it speak of Elias in the New Testament or does it refer to Elijah? Is the name of Jesus spelled Savior or is it correctly spelled Saviour? The spelling of the names in the New Testament is one of the ways to tell if the Bible has been changed. the ending of the names in the New Testament is quite a test of authenticity. The New Testament is translated from Koine Greek. The names end in "as" in the Greek. If the names in the Bible you are looking at end in "ah" that is the Hebrew ending for the names and it is not an accurate Bible. That may sound petty to you but God's Word does not change. To me if even one word has been changed I do not care to read or purchase that Bible because it is not truly God's Holy Word. One way to not have to be concerned about it is by using a Bible you are sure is authentic. As I pointed out in an earlier post, if you purchase one from one of the Bearing Precious Seed printing houses you can be certain it is authentic. Incidentally, the BPS ministry I mentioned at www.biblebelievers.com does print Old Scofield reference Bibles. It is important in my opinion to use the Old Scofield. BPS has five different styles of Scofield's including a vinyl covered one for only about seven dollars. Even though some of the ones they sell are over 50 dollars they are excellent quality and such as you would expect to pay twice as much for from a commercial publisher. Of course another way to tell if the one you are looking at is authentic and accurate is to compare it with one which is known to be. Yours in Christ, George Groce
|
|
|
Post by bereanman on Oct 29, 2005 2:30:45 GMT -5
When I was more of a babe in Christ than I am now, I had no idea about these copyrights, subtle changes, etc. At that time, the Holy Spirit had only lead me into understanding that the KJB was His Word in English.
In my quest for more Bible knowledge, I bought a "KJV" bible that was keyed to Strong's Hebrew and Greek. But about a week after I bought it, I noticed that it had small S's where it seemed to be referring to the Spirit of God. Also I noticed that it had Savior instead of Saviour. Immediately the Spirit convivted me and I threw that thing in the garbage.
Not long after, I found the BPS ministry on biblebelievers.com, learned what it was about, and bought a Bible from them. I have not bought a Bible for myself anywhere else, except for gift & award Bibles for the kids. They certainly do have superior quality. In fact, I believe they are of better quality than anything you can get at the average Christian bookstore. And they have an excellent concordance, maps, and other helps- but no commentaries or footnotes, which I like. Unless you buy the Schofield. I would recommend one of those Bibles to any serious student or lover of the Scriptures.
Incidentally, I am bilingual in fluent Spanish (speak/read/write) because my family is Cuban. (I am 100% full-blooded American- born in New Orleans, LA) And I realized that there must be one Bible in the Spanish language as well. Well, I found out that that is a hot subject indeed! There are the same battles in the Spanish Bible issue that there is in English. Well, BPS has that taken care of too.
The most commonly used Spanish Bible in the world is the Reina-Valera 1960. No doubt it is reponsible for many salvations and good, fundamental churches in the Spanish world. But the BPS website had a very interesting article describing many of the changes, omissions, and additions in that version. They compared the RV1960, RV1909, Cipriano de Valera 1602 and the KJV. Well, of course I can read them all. So I went through that whole article and saw dozens of verses compared side-by-side and was able to clearly see that the old CV1602 (last edition 1865) was line by line almost IDENTICAL to the KJB. The others were off in many places. Also, the RV 1960 used the Wescott-Hort manuscripts to contrast and water down the tranlation from the TR.
The CdV1602 was translated literally from the TR AND the inserted words were in italics just like the KJB, where as the others were not. And as far as the italicized words in the KJB go, I can appreciate that because being bilingual, when I have to translate from Spanish to English and vice-versa, I often times have to use words in the translation that were not in the original statement because the original language may have used a discriptive word that takes two or three words to describe in the translation.
Well, BPS just happens to be the only place in the world that I know of that prints the CdV1602. I bought two of them and their quality is the same as the KJB's. The Spanish in the CdV is old Spanish, like the old English of the KJB and it has some "archaic" words in it too, but as with our blessed KJB, a quick reference to a good old dictionary will clarify them.
In what I have studied, the CdV seems to agree 99.9% with the KJB, compared to about 90% with the RV1960. I am just as picky with a Spanish Bible as I would be with English. By the way, they now have the Spanish equivalent to the NIV, it it the NVI- Nueva Version Internacional. And other Spanish perversions too.
God bless y'all!
Tony Tirse
|
|
|
Post by nightingale on Oct 29, 2005 12:25:46 GMT -5
Hello all...I have a King James Version: Ryrie Study Bible: Expanded Edition: By the Moody Bible Institute Of Chicago:........There is no copyright and it uses the old language such as Jonas and Elias...I love my bible...Hope this is helpful to those looking for new ones...Sister Debbie
|
|
|
Post by George on Oct 29, 2005 19:22:43 GMT -5
Amen to Bearing Precious Seed brother! I have ordered from them before and just received another Bible from them today which I am going to give to one of my RUI students who has become a good friend in The Lord. The BPS unit I deal with is the one in Minnesota. It is at www.biblebelievers.comOne of the things I like most about them outside of the wonderful Bibles they produce, is their customer service. Each and every time I order from them the books are shipped the next day and since I ask for Priority Mail shipping I receive them in two days. I can always count on receiving my order from them by the third day. Yours in Christ, George
|
|
|
Post by Brother Ben on Oct 30, 2005 15:10:13 GMT -5
Is the BPS text the Cambridge text? Someone told me there is the Oxford text and the Cambridge text.
|
|
|
Post by benshelpmeet on Oct 31, 2005 11:07:07 GMT -5
I've enjoyed reading this thread, and I'm learning alot.
|
|
|
Post by George on Oct 31, 2005 12:16:04 GMT -5
Brother Ben, In reference to the Oxford and Cambridge editions of the AV let me share with you what my understanding is.
The difference in these two is that in 1762 a group of men in Cambridge set out to correct spelling errors, printing errors and such in the original printings which were produced at Oxford. One of the primary factors behind this edition was to standardize spelling. In the time period the original printings and writings of the AV were produced there existed no such thing as standardized spelling.
I am the steward of a King James Bible which was printed in 1688. It makes for very interesting reading. There are numerous cases in which the same word is spelled differently in the same chapter. There are a lot of printed "e's" at the end of words which we take as silent "e's" in current spelling practice.
The original work to standardize the spelling and correct printing errors was started in 1762 as I stated above. The work was completed in 1769. It is quite interesting to note that defenders of the modern perversions of the Bible call these two printings "revisions." They are not revisions. In fact only four changes were made to the actual content of Scripture. The rest of the "changes" were spelling and grammatical.
Again it is my understanfding that unless one has a copy of the King James Bible that is an actual reproduction of the AV 1611 such as a photographic reproduction, or as is available currently, a Bible true to all of the original spelling and such of the 1611 Bible printed in Roman rather than Gothic script, one most likely has a "Cambridge" edition. By the same token, if one has a Bible printed prior to the editions of 1762/1769 it is also going to be true to the original publication of the AV which would make this Bible an Oxford edition.
The Bible used by the vast majority of the people is apparently a "Cambridge" edition. If not it would be rather difficult to read for most of us today. I must say that the very few times I take out the 1688 Bible and glance through parts of it I really enjoy looking at the original language.
Let me give you an example of the type of language used in the early Bibles so the many reasons for producing the Cambridge editions can be easily seen.
9 And thus ye schulen preye, Oure fadir that art in heuenes, halewid be thi name; 10 thi kyngdoom come to; be thi wille don `in erthe as in heuene; 11 yyue to vs this dai oure `breed ouer othir substaunce; 12 and foryyue to vs oure dettis, as we foryyuen to oure dettouris; and lede vs not in to temptacioun, 13 but delyuere vs fro yuel. 14 Amen.
Now if one takes the time to really look it can be seen this is what we refer to as "The Lord's prayer" as written in the early Bibles. This one is actually from the Wycliffe Bible of 1382. However it should be noted there we hardly any changes in language use and spelling from the time of Wycliffe until the AV was first produced. Also bear in mind that ALL the early translations of the Bible prior to the Av were based on the Wycliffe Bible. As a little explanation of the above verses, please note the use of the "yy" was to produce the hard "G" sound. It would be fascinating to determine how the old English folks got a hard "G" sound out of two y's.
I think I am straying from the original question. I wanted to provide a little knowledge about the so-called "evolution" of the AV.
Yours in Christ, George
|
|
|
Post by bereanman on Oct 31, 2005 15:00:42 GMT -5
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Wow!
|
|
|
Post by zholden on Jun 27, 2006 22:16:33 GMT -5
The most commonly used Spanish Bible in the world is the Reina-Valera 1960. No doubt it is reponsible for many salvations and good, fundamental churches in the Spanish world. But the BPS website had a very interesting article describing many of the changes, omissions, and additions in that version. They compared the RV1960, RV1909, Cipriano de Valera 1602 and the KJV. Well, of course I can read them all. So I went through that whole article and saw dozens of verses compared side-by-side and was able to clearly see that the old CV1602 (last edition 1865) was line by line almost IDENTICAL to the KJB. The others were off in many places. Also, the RV 1960 used the Wescott-Hort manuscripts to contrast and water down the tranlation from the TR. In what I have studied, the CdV seems to agree 99.9% with the KJB, compared to about 90% with the RV1960. I am just as picky with a Spanish Bible as I would be with English. By the way, they now have the Spanish equivalent to the NIV, it it the NVI- Nueva Version Internacional. And other Spanish perversions too. God bless y'all! Tony Tirse That's so interesting! I work in a Christian bookstore and we only sell NVI, RVR1960, RVR1909 and I think something called Version Popular. What's the difference between RVR1960 and RVR1909? I'm only semi-fluent in Spanish so it's hard to discern a difference in translations.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Ben on Jun 27, 2006 22:57:10 GMT -5
The 1960 is comparable to our NKJV, being a blend of the TR and the Wescott and Hort. The 1909 would actually be like our Revised Standard Version, which is a pure Wescott and Hort translation.
Understand the difference between the TR and the Wescott and Hort works are the difference between a "literal," and a "dynamic," traslation. A literal translation is word for word, whereas a dynamic is translating the essence of the verse, but not exactly transmitting the text into the new work.
How important is the difference?
Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
The Wescott and Hort has gross omissions. They took the liberty to take away the word of God.
Luk 8:11 Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. Luk 8:12 Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.
You can find the devils calling card when the word of God is being mangled, or taken away altogether.
As I've said before, I would not be against a actually honest update of the TR into modern English, if the translators would not tamper with the base manuscript, but translate it word for word and stay true to the TR ONLY.
Bro. Ben
|
|
|
Post by Brother Randy on Jun 27, 2006 23:06:20 GMT -5
[quote author=admin . As I've said before, I would not be against a actually honest update of the TR into modern English, if the translators would not tamper with the base manuscript, but translate it word for word and stay true to the TR ONLY.
Bro. Ben[/quote]
I would agree with this line of thought too. But I honestly don't think this will ever happen short of it being by God's hand which he is fully able to do.
Bro Randy
|
|
|
Post by prv31wife on Jun 27, 2006 23:10:51 GMT -5
I'm beginning to wonder now if the King James Bible I have is the real thing now. I can't afford to go out and buy another Bible if it isn't. This is just so annoying that people are out there tampering with God's Word.
|
|