Empty, unsound, and incorrect KJV-only rhetoric is harmful

Shoonra

Well-known member
In a book the size of the KJV Bible (and that probably included the Apocrypha) the chance of a typo or two escaping the proofreader's eyes, esp in 17th century technology, is substantial. I'd be a little surprised that a ca. 1680 edition had only two typos.
 

Conan

Well-known member
In a book the size of the KJV Bible (and that probably included the Apocrypha) the chance of a typo or two escaping the proofreader's eyes, esp in 17th century technology, is substantial. I'd be a little surprised that a ca. 1680 edition had only two typos.
Obviously it had more than 2 typos. That's all that a certain person could find. But there was really more.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
David Daniels claimed: “There are actually two single mistakes that were introduced by printers at Oxford University Press over 60 years after the KJV was first printed” (Answers to your Bible Version Questions, p. 127). Daniels asserted: “Cambridge University Press did not make the printing error. And all Cambridge-type texts have the correct readings” (Ibid.).
David Daniels was likely referring to two of what D. A. Waite calls the three Oxford errors. If I recall correctly, David Daniels may mention Jeremiah 34:16 and 2 Chronicles 33:19 as the two.

D. A. Waite asserted: “There are a few printer’s errors between the Oxford edition and Cambridge edition” (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 28). Waite claimed: “I have found at least three errors in the Oxford edition of the KJB, which are correct in the Hebrew” (Foes of the KJB Refuted, p. 117). Waite asserted: "In Jeremiah 34:16 the Oxford University Press King James Version is wrong, false, and in error" (Foes of the KJB Refuted, p. 66). Waite maintained that “sins” at 2 Chronicles 33:19 “is an error in the Oxford editions” (Ibid.). Concerning Jeremiah 34:16, Thomas Holland wrote: "Although one cannot prove that this error is the fault of Dr. John Fell in his 1675 Oxford edition, we can state that considerable time had passed before the error was introduced, and that the error was limited to the editions published by Oxford or those based on the Oxford edition" (Crowned with Glory, p. 101).

These two renderings were not first introduced by the printers at Oxford University Press as KJV-only authors claimed, and they were not limited to editions published by Oxford. KJV-only authors typically make their claims concerning KJV editions second-hand or third-hand without ever examining first-hand the actual text of early editions of the KJV such as the 1629 Cambridge, the 1638 Cambridge, the 1679 Oxford, the 1743 Cambridge, the 1762 Cambridge, or the 1769 Oxford.

"Whom he" at Jeremiah 34:16 was introduced in early London KJV editions in 1613 and 1616, and it was kept in the 1629 standard Cambridge edition, in the 1638 standard Cambridge edition, and in the 1762 standard Cambridge edition. Thus, Oxford printers had picked up this rendering from London editions by the king's printer or from standard Cambridge editions or from both.

At 2 Chronicles 33:19, it was the 1760 Cambridge and the 1762 standard Cambridge edition that had introduced the rendering "sins" in the KJV, and this change was then followed in the 1769 Oxford. Once again Cambridge already had or had introduced the rendering blamed on Oxford.

The 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV did introduce some new errors into KJV editions, including one that remained in most Oxford and Cambridge editions for over 100 years.

Of course, KJV editions have more than just these three claimed errors, but KJV-only advocates like to try to minimize the number of actual errors that have been found in editions of the KJV.
 
Last edited:

robycop3

Well-known member
Actually their big differences seems to be whether the AV has differences in meaning and usage in words like the following:

stablish - establish

ensample - example

alway - always

From my studies to date, I tend to side with Matthew Verschuur.
From MY studies, I conclude that both you & Verschuur are wrong. The KJVO myth has been proven false over & over.
 
Top