|And God hath set some in the Church, first Apostles,
secondarily Prophets, thirdly Teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of
healings, helpes in gouernmets,
diuersities of tongues.
|And God hath set some in the church,
first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles,
then gifts of healings, helps,
A strange and new doctrine concerning the King James Bible is held by
some today. It is said that the KJV is an absolutely "infallible" translation
that "perfectly preserves the word of God in English" from 1611 to the present.
In this insistence on absolute perfection for "every word" of the translation,
it is common to hear some argue that the KJV has not undergone any significant
"revision or change" since 1611. Those of us
who refuse to "bow the knee" to such claims,
contending for the
inerrancy of the original texts
ONLY (Hebrew & Greek
words), are viciously
denounced as "Bible
correctors" and "apostates without final
But when the real question is raised about the many changes that have
occurred in the editions of the KJV since its initial publication in 1611,
attacks and accuses his "opponent" of propagating "myth". Favorite cliches
are repeated about "the myths of revision". One of the most popular
objections stated by
is, "Those were all mere
changes in spelling and typesetting. None of the
words themselves were
actually changed". Actually,
that's NOT True!
Rather than taking the word of brethren on either "side" of the issue,
we have investigated the authoritative sources on the alleged
"changes" firsthand. In 1884, Dr. F. H.
A. Scrivener, perhaps the greatest authority on the
history of the "Authorized Version" (1611 KJV), aptly said concerning these
changes the following
"Most readers will be aware that numberless and not inconsiderable
departures from the original or standard edition of the Authorized
Translation as published in 1611, are to be found in the modern
[KJV] Bibles which issue from the press by thousands every
year. Some of these differences must be imputed to oversight and negligence,
from which no work of man can be entirely free; but much the greater part
of them are deliberate changes, introduced silently and without authority
by men whose very names are often unknown."
F. H. A.
[The Authorized Edition of the English
Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives
CAMBRIDGE, 1884 pg.
Dr. Scrivener did a masterful collation of such
CHANGES in the KJV occurring from the revisions
of 1613, 1629, 1638, 1744, 1762, and 1769. Also,
Dr. Benjamin Blayney, whose
1769 edition best represents the current KJV, said concerning his revision
that "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"
[Scrivener, pg. 238, emphasis
Most importantly, however, is a key reason for many of Blayney's 1769
"corrections" when he says, "Frequent recourse has been
made to the Hebrew and Greek Originals"
[Ibid.]. It will be shown below
in the following list of "changes" taken from Scrivener's book (some of which
were made on the basis of "the Hebrew and Greek Originals") [copies,
of course], that there were indeed deliberate
alterations in the KJV revisions affecting the sense of many passages.
Revision is no "myth" at all !
We must hasten to say that in spite of the following PARTIAL LIST of
changes, the King James Version is a trustworthy, accurate translation, a
faithful giving of the original texts to the English language (like many
other English and foreign translations). Our purpose here is to reproduce
enough evidence to explode the real "myth" the
ERRONEOUS "infallible" translation theory that parrots the notion
that there were only "changes in spelling and typesetting" in the
many KJV revisions. It is hoped that this well help
re-establish the scriptural and historic doctrine of
the inspiration and
inerrancy of the Bible in the
"Allowing all due honour to the English translation of the Bible, it
must be granted to be a human performance, and, as such, subject to imperfection.
Where any passage appears to be mistranslated, it is doubtless proper for
those who are well acquainted with the original languages to point it out,
and to offer, according to the best of their judgment, the true meaning of
the Holy Spirit."
[Andrew Fuller's WORKS
PROOF OF ACTUAL WORD
CHANGES IN KJV REVISIONS AFFECTING
THE SENSE OF MANY
Revision Changes are in
||concerning this thing
||concerning this thing also
||he made a statute
||he made for them a statute
||thirty shekels of silver
||it shall be an unleavened cake
||it shall be unleavened cakes
||shall be as one born
||shall be unto you as one born
||shall be put to death
||shall surely be put to death
||be reformed by these things
||be reformed by me by these things
||the iniquity of their fathers
and the iniquity of their fathers
||charger of an hundred
and thirty shekels
|charger of the weight of an hundred
and thirty shekels
||keep my commandments
||keep all my commandments
||covenant, even the Lord
||covenant of the Lord
||and he went into the citie.
||and she went into the city.
|1 Samuel 18:27
||David arose, he and his men
||David arose and went,
he and his men
|1 Samuel 28:7
|2 Samuel 16:8
||to thy mischief
||in thy mischief
|2 Kings 11:10
||in the temple.
||in the temple of the LORD.
|2 Kings 23:21
||this book of the Covenant
||the book of this covenant
|1 Chron 7:5
||were men of might
||were valiant men of might
|1 Chron 11:15
|2 Chron 28:22
||His soul draweth near
||Yea, his soul draweth near
||With much fair speech
||With her much fair speech
||shall be forgotten
||shall all be forgotten
|Sg of Solm 4:6
|Sg of Solm 5:12
||The cormorant and the bittern
||But the cormorant and the bittern
||and made a covenant
||and made thee a covenant
||be satisfied with goodness
||be satisfied with my goodness
||thou art the Lord my God
||for thou art the Lord my God
||that he may
||that ye may
||violence of them
||violence of all them
||poured it upon the ground
||poured it not upon the ground
||the midst of a fiery furnace
||the midst of a burning fiery furnace
||of the plain
||and the plain
||Is this the son of David?
||Is not this the son of David?
||Thou art Christ
||Thou art the Christ
||a doctor of law
||a doctor of the law
||we shall all stand
||for we shall all stand
|1 Corinth 10:28
||The earth is the Lords
||for the earth is the Lord's
|1 Corinth 12:28
||helps in governments
|1 Corinth 15:6
|2 Thessa 2:14
||the Lord Jesus Christ
||our Lord Jesus Christ
|1 Timothy 1:4
||rather than edifying
||rather than godly edifying
|2 Timothy 4:8
||unto them also
||unto all them also
||run with patience unto the race
||run with patience the race
|1 John 5:12
||he that hath not the Son,
hath not life.
|he that hath not the Son of God
hath not life.
|2 Chron 33:19
||[Cambridge KJV Editions]
|[Oxford KJV Editions]
(with the above evidence)
A QUESTION for
Since the revisions of the KJV from
1613-1850 made (in addition
to changes in punctuation, capitalization, and spelling)
many hundreds of
changes in words, word order,
possessives, singulars for plurals, articles, pronouns, conjunctions,
prepositions, entire phrases, and the addition and deletion of words
you say the KJV was
"verbally inerrant" in 1611... or 1613,
1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or
Is it from GOD or MAN ??
the theory that the KJV is the "ONLY", ...or "BEST",
...or "PERFECT" translation of the original
"verbally inerrant" inspired
Hebrew & Greek words...
of a Bible
"All subsequent copies or translations are "inspired" only to the extent
that they accurately represent the autographs."
(Fall, 1983), pg.
"Versions, or translations, are not inspired. If they were, all of them
would be just alike. But the original manuscript was inspired."
[B. H. CARROLL, as quoted in
James M. Gray's A Coffer
of Jewels About Our Infallible, Eternal Word of God pg.
"As to our being "left without a standard", through the multiplicity
and variety of translations, we have only to say that there can, in the nature
of things, be no perfect standard but the Hebrew and Greek originals; these,
being written by inspired men, are infallible, while all translations by
men uninspired must be more or less imperfect. The number of translations
cannot affect the original." [SAMUEL AARON
& DAVID BERNARD,
Translation (1842) pg.
"The Holy Spirit chose as the language of the New Testament revelation
the colloquial language of everyday people, not an ancient classical idea.
The modern insistence upon the supremacy of the King James Version of 1611
represents a reversal of the action of the Holy Spirit by insisting that
for us the best idiom for the word of God is not the modern colloquial idiom,
but the ancient classical language of Shakespeare."
[GEORGE ELDON LADD,
The New Testament and Criticism
"Are translations inspired? The position is here taken that so far as
a translation faithfully represents the original Scriptures, it is characterized
by the same inspiration with them. If it exactly coincides with the original
as to matter, it is substantially the same with it. So far as it deviates
from the original, it ceases to be inspired... The translation was effected
by fallible men, and therefore contains some errors... The translators were
uninspired men, and consequently liable to mistakes; the translation is inspired,
so far it exactly gives the original so far, no more."
Discussions of Theological
"We have no right to expect that the inspiration of the original writer
will be followed by a miracle in the case of every copyist. Why believe in
infallible copyists, more than in infallible printers? God educates us to
care for his word, and for its correct transmission. Reverence has kept the
Scriptures more free from various readings than are other ancient manuscripts.
None of the existing variations endanger any important article of faith.
Yet some mistakes in transcription there probably are."
[AUGUSTUS H. STRONG,
Theology pg. 226]
"Why so strenuous of exact inspiration of the words, when you admit
there may be errors of transcription? What do you gain? We answer, we gain
all the difference there is between an inspired and an uninspired original;
all the difference between a document truly divine and authoritative to begin
with though the copies or translations may have in minute
particulars varied from it and a document faulty and unreliable
at the outset, and never really divine... There is even now, with some
ignorant persons, an assumption of the infallibility and equality with the
original of some particular translation, as the Vulgate, or King
James, or Luthers." [BASIL MANLEY JR.,
The Bible Doctrine of Inspiration
"The nature of language does not permit a
'perfect' translation the semantic
area of words differs between languages so that there is seldom complete
overlap. A 'perfect' translation of John 3:16
from Greek into English is impossible, for we have no perfect equivalent
for "agapao" [translated "loved" in John
3:16]." [WILBUR NORMAN PICKERING,
The Identity of the New Testament
Text (1977, 1980)]
"We affirm and avow, that the very meanest
[poorest or least
translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of
our profession... contains the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God. Though
it be not interpreted by every Translator with like grace, the King's speech
is still the King's speech; no cause therefore why the word translated should
be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be currant
[used], notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes
may be noted in the setting forth [translating] of it."
[KING JAMES TRANSLATORS,
Translators to the Readers Preface
of the King James Version 1611]
"Variety of translations is profitable for finding out of the sense
"For any preacher or theologian who loves God's Word to allow that Word
to go on being misunderstood because of the veneration of an
archaic, not-understood version of four centuries ago
is inexcusable, and almost unconscionable."
[THE PRESBYTERIAN GUARDIAN, as
quoted in D. A. Carson's
The King James Version Debate pg.
"To the Bible in its original languages is every translation to be brought,
and by it to be examined, tried, and judged, and to be corrected and amended:
and if this was not the case, we should have no certain and infallible rule
to go by." [JOHN GILL,
A Body of Divinity
"I do not hesitate to say that I believe that
there is no mistake whatever in the original Holy Scriptures from
beginning to end. There may be, and there are MISTAKES of translation
are NOT INSPIRED
but even the
historical facts are correct... there is not an error in the whole compass
of them. These words come from him who can make no mistake, and who can have
no wish to deceive his creatures." [C. H.
SPURGEON, from sermon
Tried and Proved
Vol 35, Year
1889, pg. 257,
"Believers in verbal inspiration should be studiously careful to be
verbally correct. The gentlemen who see errors in Scripture may think themselves
competent to amend the language of the Lord of hosts; but we who believe
God, and accept the very words He uses, may not make so presumptuous an attempt.
Let us quote the words as they stand in the best possible translation, and
it will be better still if we know the original, and can tell if our version
fails to give the sense."
Greatest Fight in the
"A perfect translation of the Bible is humanly impossible.
The words in one language do not have exactly the same color and meaning
as opposite words in another language, and human frailty and imperfection
enter in. So, let us say, there are no perfect translations."
[JOHN R. RICE,
The Bible pg. 376]
"To claim, therefore, inerrancy for the King James Version, or even
for the Revised Version, is to claim inerrancy for men who never professed
it for themselves; is to clothe with the claim of verbal inspiration a company
of men who would almost quit their graves to repudiate such equality with
Prophet and Apostle."
[WILLIAM BELL RILEY,
his message, The
Meaning of Modernism]
This Page was Created on 27 November 1998