Revisions in editions of the KJB

King James Bible information (Moderators only)

Revisions in editions of the KJB

Postby bibleprotector » 26 May 2014, 22:40

Textual Criticism the technique of restoring texts as nearly as possible to their original form.

If we examine the King James Bible in this regard, we would have to admit that the “real” King James Bible is in the original edition.

And yet, the original edition is marred by typographical errors and uses fluid spelling/grammar and is in want of regularisation in regards to the use of italics and so on.

In fact, we could take one step back, and look at the partial drafts and other “autographica” that survives from the very translators themselves. The problem with this is that we do not have the final copy submitted to the press, and therefore the picture is incomplete.

If we view the situation from a Biblical perspective, we should not have to divine out of old printings now, or look to the past to find the authentic King James Bible. After, God in His providence would supply His Word TODAY, to be NOW PRESENT with us, pure and complete.

This is because the King James Bible, as has come through its purification editions, is in its authoritative form, because we have a Bible which has been cleared of typographical errors, unstandard spelling or other irregularities.

Peter Ruckman wrote, “the idea that genuine updating and genuine revision work done on different editions of the AV” should not “justify the REPLACING OF ITS GREEK TEXT with the African text of the Jesuit priests in Rome.”

Even though some folk do not like to say “revised” in regards to the King James Bible text, that word has been used historically, and with a historical proper meaning. William Kilburne wrote a pamphlet in 1659 entitled Dangerous Errors in several late Printed Bibles to the great scandal and corruption of sound and true religion. Discovered by William Kilburne. He calls the 1638 Cambridge Bible “the Authentic corrected Cambridge Bible, revised Mandato Regio”.

Benjamin Blayney of 1769 called it “editing”, and spoke of “collation”, “In the first place, according to the instructions he received, the folio edition of 1611, that of 1701, published under the direction of Bishop Lloyd, and two Cambridge editions of a late date, one in quarto, the other in octavo, have been carefully collated, whereby many errors that were found in former editions have been corrected, and the text reformed to such a standard of purity, as, it is presumed, is not to be met with in any other edition hitherto extant.”

The kind of “textual criticism” that has taken place with the King James Bible is only that which was to ensure that it would be altogether pure, free of typographical errors, with proper standardised language and regularisation. Therefore, we can accept that the King James Bible has been revised in the true sense, but only to make it pure, to match the many Scripture promises, “ The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.” (Psalm 12:6).

There are revisions of the King James Bible which are bad and dangerous. For example, to change the underlying texts would be dangerous. But even to change things because of personal doctrines is bad. That is exactly what Noah Webster did and what the American Bible Society did. To revise on the basis of a false theory, and to reject the proper tradition is what Scrivener did and what Norton has done.

The "silent" revisions which have taken place in recent years by various publishers, notably American ones, to change the spellings and wordings has been quite deceptive.

The true and proper King James Bible is now represented by the Pure Cambridge Edition.

Edward Hills wrote, "It is possible, if the Lord tarry that in the future the English language will change so much that a new English translation of the Bible will become absolutely necessary. But in that case any version which we prepare today would be equally antiquated. Hence this is a matter which we must leave to God, who alone knows what is in store for us. For the present, however, and the foreseeable future no new translation is needed to take the place of the King James Version. Today our chief concern must be to create a climate of Christian thought and learning which God can use providentially should the need for such a new English version ever arise. This would insure that only the English wording would be revised and not the underlying Hebrew and Greek text."

Of course, he was wrong to think that changes to the King James Bible were possible, but his caution and providential view meant that he was placing himself in line with God's thoughts, not man's. This is exactly where the modern revisers go wrong.
____________________________________________
http://www.bibleprotector.com
bibleprotector
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 145
Joined: 26 May 2014, 15:31
Location: Australia

Return to King James Bible

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests

cron