Changes in the King James Version

imJRR

Well-known member
"If you think that "not one Christian belief/doctrine has been omitted or threatened by MVs", then you are living in cloud cuckoo land. What about the doctrine that the preaching of the gospel is supposed to be confirmed by signs following?"

Thank you for being so openly insulting. It was not unexpected. KJVONLYists have a habit of doing this.

As for responding - Theo has already done a more than adequate job of this.
 

David1701

Well-known member
Tell you what, David...


Not trying to but in but I believe David is more of a Textus Receptus advocate than a MT advocate. True I could be wrong.
I'm kind of both... I regard the TR as a variant of MT.

I notice that what you quoted, from that other poster, was a complete misunderstanding of drinking deadly poison (I know that wasn't your point). He doesn't seem to realise that that refers to being poisoned by others (missionaries have sometimes miraculously survived such poisoning, fulfilling the Scripture), not tempting God by drinking poison willingly.
 

David1701

Well-known member
"If you think that "not one Christian belief/doctrine has been omitted or threatened by MVs", then you are living in cloud cuckoo land. What about the doctrine that the preaching of the gospel is supposed to be confirmed by signs following?"

Thank you for being so openly insulting. It was not unexpected. KJVONLYists have a habit of doing this.

As for responding - Theo has already done a more than adequate job of this.
I'm not a KJOist, whom I regard as being almost as much in error as supporters of CT-based MVs (Modern Versions).

I no longer see that poster's posts; but, having discussed this subject with him before, I very much doubt that the "job" was anything approaching adequate.
 

imJRR

Well-known member
I'm not a KJOist, whom I regard as being almost as much in error as supporters of CT-based MVs (Modern Versions).

I no longer see that poster's posts; but, having discussed this subject with him before, I very much doubt that the "job" was anything approaching adequate.

(shrug) And you would be very, very wrong.
 

Conan

Active member


I'm not a KJOist, whom I regard as being almost as much in error as supporters of CT-based MVs (Modern Versions).

I no longer see that poster's posts; but, having discussed this subject with him before, I very much doubt that the "job" was anything approaching adequate.
Ironic since it seems to me that you, him and Hort go with the slimmest evidence at times. I do not mean that as an insult David. But there are things that are the same between all of you three.
 

David1701

Well-known member



Ironic since it seems to me that you, him and Hort go with the slimmest evidence at times. I do not mean that as an insult David. But there are things that are the same between all of you three.
Very, very rarely would I go with slim evidence. In the vast majority of cases, I go with the MT readings. There is only a very small number of exceptions to that (e.g. 1 John 5:7, where there is slim Greek manuscript evidence, but a HUGE body of Latin manuscript evidence).
 

Shoonra

Active member
For a return to the original topic of changes in the KJV text, I suggest shifting to the adjacent thread of whether the KJV is based on the Reformation text of Tyndale and Luther.
 

David1701

Well-known member
For a return to the original topic of changes in the KJV text, I suggest shifting to the adjacent thread of whether the KJV is based on the Reformation text of Tyndale and Luther.
There have certainly been changes in the KJV text; this is indisputable.

There are quite a few changes from the 1611 to 1769 editions of the KJV, some of which result in a changed meaning (not merely spelling or grammatical changes).
 

Shoonra

Active member
The 1769 changes that have been mentioned were either (1) to bring the KJV diction into 18th century style without a change in meaning, or (2) - mostly the instances of words being inserted - to make the KJV text conform to the readings of the (then) standard editions of the Hebrew and Greek texts. In either case, the 1769 changes were improvements and should not be rejected.
 

Conan

Active member
The 1769 changes that have been mentioned were either (1) to bring the KJV diction into 18th century style without a change in meaning, or (2) - mostly the instances of words being inserted - to make the KJV text conform to the readings of the (then) standard editions of the Hebrew and Greek texts. In either case, the 1769 changes were improvements and should not be rejected.
How about this one?
The editors of the 1769 Oxford edition undertook, therefore, to regularize the use of italics by italicizing all words of the translation which did not have a counterpart in the text of Stephens 1550. Consequently, modern editions of the King James version are much more heavily italicized than the original: In Matthew, the 1611 edition uses roman type 69 times, whereas the more exact 1769 edition uses italics 384 times. The reader should be aware of the fact that the King James version is not, strictly speaking, a translation of Estienne 1550; and so in some cases the modern italics are misleading if used as an indication of the readings upon which the version is based. For example, in Mark 8:14 the modern editions italicize the words the disciples because they are not in Estienne, but it is evident that here the King James translators were following, as usual, the text of Beza 1598, where the words hoi mathetai are found. The following is a complete list of such cases.

 

David1701

Well-known member
The 1769 changes that have been mentioned were either (1) to bring the KJV diction into 18th century style without a change in meaning, or (2) - mostly the instances of words being inserted - to make the KJV text conform to the readings of the (then) standard editions of the Hebrew and Greek texts. In either case, the 1769 changes were improvements and should not be rejected.
I agree that the 1769 KJV is generally better than the 1611 edition; although, it still needs some improvements.
 

Conan

Active member
So what makes the changes better? Better Greek New Testament? Better Hebrew scholarship? What percentage is better? Did they have the right to change the KJV? We're all changes for the better? Or wore some for the worse? What gave them the right? To have a better Bible?
 

logos1560

Well-known member
Simon Wong asserted: “Blayney assumed wrongly that the translators of the 1611 New Testament had worked from the 1550 Robert Stephanus (or Estienne) edition of the Textus Receptus tradition, whereas it was from the later editions of Beza (most likely that of 1598). Accordingly, the correct standard text mistakenly ‘corrects’ about a dozen readings where Beza and Stephanus differ” (Bible Translator, Vol. 62, January, 2011, p. 7). One textual reading where Beza and Stephanus differ is at 1 John 1:4, which may indicate that Blayney could have intentionally altered the KJV’s text at this verse to match the 1550 Stephanus text. Concerning the italics in the 1769, Jack Countryman also reported or quoted from some source the following: “Unfortunately, Blayney assumed that the translators of the 1611 New Testament had worked from the 1550 Stephanus edition of the Textus Receptus, rather than from the later editions of Beza; accordingly the current standard text mistakenly ‘corrects’ around a dozen readings where Beza and Stephanus differ” (Treasure of God‘s Word, p. 75). James D. Price maintained that “there have been a few alterations in later revisions of the AV that no longer follow the text followed by the 1611 translators” (King James Onlyism, p. 544). For possible examples of textually-based changes in use or non-use of italics in different KJV editions, see and compare Mark 8:14, Mark 9:42, John 8:6, Acts 1:4, Acts 26:3, Acts 26:18, 1 Corinthians 14:10, Hebrews 12:24, 1 John 3:16, 1 Peter 5:13, 2 Peter 2:18, Revelation 11:14, Revelation 19:14, and Revelation 19:18 in the 1611 to later editions. Some of these textually-based changes may have been made before 1769. Concerning one of those places, James D. Price noted: “The following is a place where the AV has words in italics that are actually in Scrivener’s TR: 2 Peter 2:18: the word ‘through’ was erroneously italicized in 1769 as though the word is not in the Greek text” (King James Onlyism, p. 544). Scrivener also indicated that the Greek word was in the text of Beza at this verse and that “through was not italicized before 1769” (Authorized Version, p. 254). In 1833, Thomas Curtis asserted: “Dr. Blayney and his coadjutors also employ them [italics] to express their doubts of the authenticity of particular readings--see John 8:6 where they thus, in a sense, discard the whole clause, ‘as though he heard them not’” (Existing Monopoly, p. 59). Edward F. Hills claimed: “At John 8:6, the King James translators followed the Bishops’ Bible in adding the clause, as though He heard them not” (KJV Defended, p. 221). Hills maintained that this clause is found “in the Complutensian, and in the first two editions of Stephanus. After 1769, it was placed in italics in the King James Version” (Ibid.). Concerning 1 Corinthians 14:10, Scrivener asserted: “Of them is placed in the type representing italics in the Bishops’ Bible and in ours of 1611, in deference to Beza” (Authorized Edition, p. 251) while later editors removed the italics. Charles Hodge contended that “to alter these italics is, therefore, to alter the version” (Princeton Review, July, 1857, p. 513). Hodge may raise a valid point concerning changing italics based on using a different edition of the original language text than that actually followed by the KJV translators themselves. However, Hodge’s point would not be valid in relationship to attempts to make the italics consistent to the actual rules or principles that the KJV translators themselves stated and used. Is the fact that Benjamin Blayney based his editing and revising of the KJV’s NT on the 1550 Stephanus edition avoided and ignored by KJV-only advocates? Did Blayney in effect change the underlying Greek text for the KJV’s NT in a few places?
 
Top