Has the KJB really changed since 1611?

King James Bible information (Moderators only)

Has the KJB really changed since 1611?

Postby bibleprotector » 26 May 2014, 23:17

Comparing the 1611 Edition with the Pure Cambridge Edition.

This following gives some differences in the presentation of editions of the King James Bible, but are they really changes in the underlying text and translation?

It seems very unlikely that the word "God" having its presentation changed to "GOD" in itself actually changes a meaning, but for preciseness and so on, the "GOD" rendering would be accurate. This seems to be a typographical error or oversight in the first printings from 1611, which was adjusted in 1629. Such cases cannot be argued from pre-existing editions where such particular calligraphic features are not found.

As for Nehemiah 1:11, the relatively late correction of "Lord" cannot be conclusively be stated to be an actual change in the King James Bible, since that there is no authoritative final standard of the King James Bible which existed prior to the 1830s (when this occurred) which can be compared to, however, in this case it is possible to see that a typographical error persisted in the ages of the King James Bible to that time, and that those who knew the Hebrew properly understood in fact that the correct rendering should have been "Lord". Perhaps the original typesetters put "LORD" out of habit, or out of zeal, but it was not correct, and persisted wrongly, though we may find that there are editions prior to the 1830s which already contained the correct presentation.

The correction of Matthew 16:16 by adding the word "the" is nothing more than editorial regularisation in line with the standardisation of the English grammar which was taking place around the 1750s, therefore, this correction being made in the English presentation in the 1760s. Surely we would accept the word "the" in front of a descriptive title in line with the standardised English use.

It is possible that the word "the" was a typographical error for "a" in Luke 19:9, but certainly it might be said that these articles were subject to the standardisation of the language which took place, thus the editorially precise rendering in the English presentation.

Let us venture that "Jesus Christ" at Romans 3:24 was, on the grounds of the preceding letters, a typographic error. We know that the Geneva and Bishops' had "Christ Jesus". Moreover, we find that sometimes, some of the work in the editing of the King James Bible regards the flow of the language, which may deal with punctuation, but occasionally word order. While this cannot be the primary motive, it would certainly fit in with the other factors which a learned editor in the 1760s would consider. It is fairly safe to assume that the "Jesus Christ" rendering was not the intention of the translators, in that those learned in the Greek and Latin would also find there Christo Iesu.

1 Peter 2:1 has “all evil speakings”, which appears to be a typographic omission in 1611 for wanting the word "all", for that its early correction in 1629 also indicates that it would be editorially consistent in the English to have such a word at that place, having witness also as early as Tyndale. And doubtless the learned editors of 1629 were intimate with the translators' intentions.

In all these examples, if taken case by case, and if taken as a whole, there is no real case of any real challenge to the integrity of the underlying text and translation of the King James Bible, and it quite rightly can be said that the text and translation have not altered, though there are always places where we only have maximum certainty rather than full and final scientific knowledge, whereas to argue to the opposite must appeal to maximum uncertainty, making that case essentially uncertain and self-destroying.
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 148
Joined: 26 May 2014, 15:31
Location: Australia

Return to King James Bible

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests