The KJV translators' Magic Marker

logos1560

Well-known member
At times KJV-only advocates seem to overemphasize only one half of a scriptural truth. That scriptural truth teaches that it is wrong to add to the word of God and to omit from the word of God. Each is equally wrong. KJV-only advocates ignore or avoid the possibility of the KJV having additions as they throw out their unproven allegations of omissions. At times the KJV added some words, phrases, clauses, and verses that were not found in one of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it was a revision while at other times they omitted some words, phrases, clauses, and verses that were found in one of the pre-1611 English Bibles. KJV-only advocates do not deal with all the facts as they selectively make unrighteous judgments based on use of different measures/standards [double standards]. This thread reveals the KJV-only use of double standards.

The 1539 Great Bible may not be overall purer in all its renderings than the 1537 Matthew’s Bible in the KJV-only pure stream of Bibles. Sometimes the next Bible in the line made some changes by adding words likely from the Latin Vulgate as in the case of the Great Bible. In several likely additions from the Latin Vulgate including three whole verses in Psalm 14 (between verses 4 and 5), an edition of the Great Bible in 1540 has over one hundred eighty words in the book of Psalms that are not found in the KJV (check and compare Ps. 13:6, 14:1, 17:9, 18:6, 19:14, 20:9, 29:1, 33:10, 38:16, 48:4, 55:23, 65:1, 73:13, 73:28, 85:8, 92:13, 95:7, 108:1, 111:10, 115:9, 118:2, 120:7, 132:4, 134:2, 136:26, 147:8, 148:5). An edition of the Great Bible has over one hundred fifty words in the book of Proverbs that are not found in the KJV (check and compare Prov. 4:27, 6:12, 12:11, 13:13, 15:5, 15:27, 16:6, 18:22). Because of possible additions from the Latin Vulgate, an edition of the Great Bible also has over one hundred words in one New Testament book (Acts) which are not found in the KJV (check and compare Acts 4:25, 4:27, 5:15, 13:30, 14:7, 15:34c, 15:41c, 18:4, 23:24c, 24:17). These textual differences (pertinent facts), involving over 400 words, were found in a reprint of one of the 1540 editions of the Great Bible so they may not be in every one of the varying editions of the Great Bible. Thus, the Great Bible, the first authorized Bible in English, would likely have hundreds of more words than the 1611 KJV.

Was someone involved with the English Bibles on the KJV-only view’s good line adding to or subtracting from the word of God? If the Latin manuscripts have signification in determining the text of Scripture as Edward Hills and David Cloud asserted, why would these readings based on the Latin be removed or omitted in the KJV?

The 1568 Bishops' Bible was considered by many to be overall a poorer translation than the 1560 Geneva Bible. The Bishops’ Bible has several added explanatory words and phrases (likely over 200 words) with many of them not kept in the KJV.
The Bishops’ Bible added the words “in companies” at Genesis 14:15. It added: “shall he bear out“ (Lev. 4:11), “of the altar“ (Num. 18:9), “Ye shall number the people“ (Num. 26:4), “That is to wit“ (Num. 31:43), and “as upon an horse“ (Deut. 32:26) Some other example additions include the following: “otherwise called“ (Jud. 8:35), “so shall my house be, but not“ (2 Sam. 23:4), “as namely” (1 Kings 6:29), “that is to wit” (1 Kings 9:10), “offence which Solomon hath committed“ (1 Kings 11:39), “with your cry” (1 Kings 18:27), “that came in his way” (1 Kings 20:20), “in the ceremonies“ (2 Kings 17:8), “I beseech thee” (2 Kings 19:16), “O thou king of Assyria“ (2 Kings 19:21), “even so deal with me“ (2 Chron. 2:3), and “shall this building be“ (2 Chron. 2:6). At the end of Job 9:24, it added: “that can shew the contrary.“ It added “to God” at Job 35:14. In the middle of Psalm 139:20, this addition is found: “thou art O God.“ At the end of Isaiah 1:7, it added: “in the time of war.“ After the word “replenish” at Isaiah 2:6, it added “with evils,“ and it added “the wicked ones of” before “the earth” at the end of Isaiah 2:19 and 2:21. In the middle of Isaiah 3:14, this addition is found: “and shall say to them.“ These words are found in a different size type at the end of Isaiah 3:18: “after the fashion of the moon.“ In the middle of Isaiah 8:19, these additional words are found: “then make them this answer.“ At the beginning of Jeremiah 4:22, it added: “Nevertheless, this shall come upon them.“ At Jeremiah 28:9, it has this addition: “if God hath sent them in very deed.“ It added “when ye had gotten the victory” at the end of Jeremiah 50:11. At the end of Jeremiah 50:28, it added “yea, a voice of them that cry against Babylon.“ At Ezekiel 28:14, it added this phrase: “in this dignity.“ The words “their sacrifices” were added at the end of Ezekiel 40:41. At Ezekiel 45:2, the Bishops’ Bible has the following two additions in a different size type: “in length” and “in breadth.” This chapter has another addition [“a portion shall be” (45:7)]. At the beginning of Daniel 7:20, six words were added [“I desired …to know the truth”]. After “Loruhamah” in Hosea 1:6, it added: “that is, not obtaining mercy.“ Likewise, it added after “Loammi” in Hosea 1:9: “that is, not my people.“ More Old Testament examples could be given. Some of the additions may have first been added in the Great Bible or another pre-1611 English Bible.

More such examples of additions are also found in its New Testament. Would Bradley, Riplinger, and other KJV-only advocates consider the Bishops' Bible's addition at John 18:13 ["And Annas sent Christ bound unto Caiaphas the high priest"] to be a faithful or perfect translation? At John 18:22, the Bishops' Bible has the rendering "smote Jesus with a rod." The Bishops’ Bible inserted “the fishers” at Matthew 13:48. At Matthew 26:30, the Bishops’ began as follows: "when they had praised God." After “preparing” at John 19:31, it inserted “of the Sabboth.“ It added "of the synagogue" in italics or a different size type at Matthew 9:18 and 9:23, "of God" at Matthew 26:64, "of the gospel" at Mark 2:2, “from the region which is“ at Mark 3:8, “at his feet“ at Mark 3:11 and Luke 8:47, “And said“ at Mark 10:7, “of God“ at Mark 14:62, “of the city“ at Mark 15:43, “unto them“ at Luke 8:10, “of their sins” at Luke 10:13, “at the doors“ at Luke 14:35, “and no man gave unto him“ at Luke 16:21, “the means“ at John 5:16, “the means“ at John 6:57, “as though he heard them not” at John 8:6, “on high“ at John 8:28, “unto you“ at John 16:15, “any question“ at John 16:30, “unto them“ at Acts 2:41, “unto him“ at Acts 8:37, “one Scripture with another“ at Acts 9:22, “that is“ at Acts 15:22, “that is to say“ at Acts 15:29, “of the Lord“ at Acts 19:9, “that is to say“ at Acts 28:25, “the inheritance given“ at Romans 4:16, “election“ at Romans 9:16, “I mean“ at Romans 9:24, “nations“ at Romans 11:32, “not only before God, but also“ at Romans 12:17, "I did not mean" at 1 Corinthians 5:10, and “the shedding of“ at Hebrews 12:4. At the end of 1 Corinthians 9:25, it added “to obtain” before “an incorruptible” and “crown” after it. At the end of Revelation 9:11, it added “that is to say, a destroyer.“

Scrivener wrote: “In some places, they [referring to the interpolations or additions from the Latin Vulgate found in the Great Bible] are retained” in the Bishops’ Bible (Supplement, p. 96). At Luke 16:21, the Bishops’ Bible kept the following added words in the Great Bible: “and no man gave unto him.” The Bishops’ Bible kept added words [“all the whole”] at John 12:19 from the Great Bible. Likewise, the added words [“not only before God, but also”] in the Great Bible at Romans 12:17 are retained in the Bishops’ Bible. Scrivener maintained that “unto them” at Matthew 26:15 is “wrongly added by Cranmer’s [Great], Bishops, [and] AV from the [Latin] Vulgate (p. 299).

According to a consistent, just application of KJV-only allegations, did the magic marker of the KJV translators remove or omit over 600 words found in pre-1611 English Bibles?
 
Last edited:

RiJoRi

Well-known member
That's a lot of work! Now I can understand why some claim the AV was "re-inspired"! (I hope you have your flame-proof suit handy! 😁)

--Rich
 

Steven Avery

Active member
Rick, are there any specific AV-1611 textual decisions that you believe were incorrect?

======================================

Also, you do not indicate whether NT verses and phrases were in the Geneva Tomson 1576 edition.

You seem to be criticizing the AV for improvements on the Bishop's Bible.
Very strange.

Note that major Theodore Beza improvements to the Textus Receptus editions came after the Bishop's Bible was published in 1568.

======================================
 
Last edited:

logos1560

Well-known member
You seem to be criticizing the AV for improvements on the Bishop's Bible.
Very strange.
Your bogus allegation is very strange. I did not criticize the KJV for making any actual improvements on the Bishops' Bible. You dodge and avoid my actual points and observations.

My opening paragraph stated accurate and true observations, which I soundly supported with verifiable facts.

At times KJV-only advocates seem to overemphasize only one half of a scriptural truth. That scriptural truth teaches that it is wrong to add to the word of God and to omit from the word of God. Each is equally wrong. KJV-only advocates ignore or avoid the possibility of the KJV having additions as they throw out their unproven allegations of omissions. At times the KJV added some words, phrases, clauses, and verses that were not found in one of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it was a revision while at other times they omitted some words, phrases, clauses, and verses that were found in one of the pre-1611 English Bibles. KJV-only advocates do not deal with all the facts as they selectively make unrighteous judgments based on use of different measures/standards [double standards]. This thread reveals the KJV-only use of double standards.
 

Steven Avery

Active member
At times the KJV added some words, phrases, clauses, and verses that were not found in one of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it was a revision while at other times they omitted some words, phrases, clauses, and verses that were found in one of the pre-1611 English Bibles.

So, they improved the text and translation of the Bishop's Bible. (Which needed improvement.)

Thanks!

If you have no specific objections to these improvements, then you are simply complimenting the AV efforts.

===========================

Do you support the removal of 45 verses from the Geneva and AV texts?
(Part of the real Magic Marker Westcott-Hort effort.)
 

logos1560

Well-known member
So, they improved the text and translation of the Bishop's Bible. (Which needed improvement.)
The 1611 KJV also needed improvement.

All the changes that the Church of England makers made to the pre-1611 English Bible were not improvements. In at least some places one of the pre-1611 English Bibles is better or more accurate than the 1611 KJV when compared to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. In some cases, the poorer renderings of the Bishops' Bible were kept in the 1611 edition when another English Bible had a better rendering.

Even some of the many changes or revisions made to the 1611 edition of the KJV were already found in one of the pre-1611 English Bibles.
 

Steven Avery

Active member
The 1611 KJV also needed improvement.

Putting aside typos, please list your 10 major spots where you believe the AV 1611 needed improvement.

Thanks!

Even some of the many changes or revisions made to the 1611 edition of the KJV were already found in one of the pre-1611 English Bibles.

Including the Geneva.
So you are affirming the excellence of their methodology.
 
Top