[Cody1611]

I read an article today by this guy named Rick Beckman trying to disprove the inspiration of the King James Bible by using the 1611 vs 1769 argument. Here is some of the article, tell me what you guys think.

-------

I have heard this enough in varying places that I wanted to post this just to help others not be duped by the statement: “The only changes made since the 1611 translation of the KJV until now have been changes of spelling or printing only.”

That statement is a lie, and people who love Jesus & the Bible should not make such a claim — even if they do have the best of intentions in doing so!

So here is a list of significant changes (i.e., changes which affect meaning) made to the KJV text since 1611. The 1611 reading is first, followed by the 1769.

* 1 Corinthians 12:28 – “helpes in gouernmets” vs. “helps, governments”
* Joshua 3:11 – “Arke of the Couenant, euen the Lord” vs. “ark of the covenant of the Lord”
* 2 Kings 11:10 – “in the Temple” vs. “in the temple of the LORD”
* Isaiah 49:13 – “for God” vs. “for the LORD”
* Jeremiah 31:14 – “with goodnesse” vs. “with my goodness”
* Jeremiah 51:30 – “burnt their dwelling places” vs. “burned her dwellingplaces”
* Ezekiel 6:8 – “that he may” vs. “that ye may”
* Ezekiel 24:5 – “let him seethe” vs. “let them seethe”
* Ezekiel 24:7 – “powred it vpon the ground” vs. “poured it not upon the ground”
* Ezekiel 48:8 – “which they shall” vs. “which ye shall”
* Daniel 3:15 – “a fierie furnace” vs. “a burning fiery furnace”
* Matthew 14:9 – “the othes sake” vs. “the oath’s sake”
* 1 Corinthians 15:6 – “And that” vs. “After that”
* 1 John 5:12 – “the Sonne, hath” vs. “the Son of God hath”

http://rickbeckman.org/kjv-1611-vs-kjv-1769/

--------

[Samuel]

I think 99.9% of the evidence he posted, is nothing more than bad 1611 spelling, and typo errors. Which went through quite a few editions, before they got all the wrinkles ironed out; but that does not constitute a different Bible, or subsequent re-translations.

However each MV that comes out, is re-translation of a re-translation. None of which agree with the others, just like the manuscripts they come from.

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by Cody1611

I read an article today by this guy named Rick Beckman trying to disprove the inspiration of the King James Bible by using the 1611 vs 1769 argument. Here is some of the article, tell me what you guys think.

-------

I have heard this enough in varying places that I wanted to post this just to help others not be duped by the statement: “The only changes made since the 1611 translation of the KJV until now have been changes of spelling or printing only.”

That statement is a lie, and people who love Jesus & the Bible should not make such a claim — even if they do have the best of intentions in doing so!

So here is a list of significant changes (i.e., changes which affect meaning) made to the KJV text since 1611. The 1611 reading is first, followed by the 1769.

* 1 Corinthians 12:28 – “helpes in gouernmets” vs. “helps, governments”
* Joshua 3:11 – “Arke of the Couenant, euen the Lord” vs. “ark of the covenant of the Lord”
* 2 Kings 11:10 – “in the Temple” vs. “in the temple of the LORD”
* Isaiah 49:13 – “for God” vs. “for the LORD”
* Jeremiah 31:14 – “with goodnesse” vs. “with my goodness”
* Jeremiah 51:30 – “burnt their dwelling places” vs. “burned her dwellingplaces”
* Ezekiel 6:8 – “that he may” vs. “that ye may”
* Ezekiel 24:5 – “let him seethe” vs. “let them seethe”
* Ezekiel 24:7 – “powred it vpon the ground” vs. “poured it not upon the ground”
* Ezekiel 48:8 – “which they shall” vs. “which ye shall”
* Daniel 3:15 – “a fierie furnace” vs. “a burning fiery furnace”
* Matthew 14:9 – “the othes sake” vs. “the oath’s sake”
* 1 Corinthians 15:6 – “And that” vs. “After that”
* 1 John 5:12 – “the Sonne, hath” vs. “the Son of God hath”

http://rickbeckman.org/kjv-1611-vs-kjv-1769/

--------

He himself is a liar Cody, he can't point to one "version" of the Bible he himself believes is perfect and inspired. I don't trust these people and their "differences" without actually seeing the texts myself, and it's a useless wild goose chase anyway over meaningless redundancies. What the people had in 1611 was perfect for them, what they had in 1660 was perfect for them, what the people had in 1769 was perfect for them, what we have today is perfect for us. What I want to know is how much preaching of the cross this man has done himself this week? Has he shown anyone this week how to be reconciled to God?

Paul tells us not to be an evangelist("evangelium", the man who declared the decrees of Caesar, a government office) but "do the work of..." an evangelist. Why is this man doing the work of a Jesuit? The Jesuits were set up specifically to fight the Reformation, to penetrate by means of deception and espionage any opposition to Romanism. What single publication has done the most damage to Rome, Pilgrim's Progress? Uncle Tom's Cabin? Webster's Dictionary of 1828? No, your KJV in any edition. Why does this man have a website devoted to the differences in editions of a Bible, who pays for it, who supports it? Who hates the KJV more than any organization on this planet?

These people, from Westcott/Hort on to today remind me of the demon possessed girl in Acts 16. ANYTHING they can do to impede, to obstruct the preaching of the cross they'll do it. Because they are ashamed of the gospel of Christ, we are not. I rarely "go to the Greek", but look at that word "diobalos", translated "devil". It means to "cast down between, to obstruct". We say today, a roadblock. Why do they want to erode, to break down, the authority of the words you read and preach? So they can change them.

If this man wants to be a devil. let him be one. Don't let them obstruct your ministry of reconciliation. The Senate "health care" bill places a 1000 dollar fine on people who do not take the insurance, we are heading towards dictatorship, you and I will live to see all "versions" of the Bible banned, the KJV included.

Satan's most dear wish. Preach the cross now.

Grace and peace brother

Tony

[bibleprotector]

Whether we look at the 1769 Edition or the 1611 Edition, we can see that in our KJB, there is only one version, and one translation.

The list supplied by Beckman would be "significant" if they actually were changes in the text and translation of the KJB, but of course nobody can prove that. The fact is that these differences are mainly typographical errors in the first printing of the Bible, and in some cases, the standardisation of the language. They are not "significant" differences, because nothing actually was changed, just presentational issues remedied.

[magicref]

I wrote elsewhere on this site (under "of Castles and Nations" topic) a possible perspective on the KJVO viewpoint:

"KJVO believe that around the late 1500's God began orchestrating things to bring the jealousy of King James and the learned Scholars (not perfect in any sense) to the right place and the right time, along with the appropriate Greek and Hebrew texts. These texts were not necessarily all GOLD in themselves, but were sufficient for the job. God, through His inspiration, enabled these fallible men, working off the base of other great men raised up by Him previously (Coverdale, Tyndale, etc.), to create a "very good" Bible in 1611 of almost pure "gold". By the time of 1769, this version was cleaned up, and is now contains ALL the GOLD, none of the dross, and is the perfect Word of God in the English language. The fruit of the KJV has been its widespread use throughout the World and its proven accuracy. Also, if all English speaking believers would use it as their base, we would ALL have the same standard to work from."

If this is the way God worked the preservation of His Word, then there could be expected to be variations between the 1611 and 1769 versions, even with the "significant" variations mentioned above. The way we know that no significant changes have taken place since 1769 is simply the fact that (as far as I know) there have not been any proper or accepted changes since then.

I don't think this is an answer that will satisfy the anti-KJ folks, but it makes sense to me!

Doug A.

[bibleprotector]

The text and translation of the KJB was complete in 1611.

Changes in proper traditional editions since 1611 have not altered the text and translation.

The changes in the Scripture in editions since the first one of 1611 are only the:
1. correction of typographical errors,
2. standardisation of the language, and
3. other editorial regularisation.

Accepted changes of this nature have occurred after 1769, but they cannot keep occurring today. Once we have arrived at the standard, which is the Cambridge Edition from the twentieth century, we cannot go either backward or further in changes, for to do so is only to go into problems or errors.

For more information, see my website: www.bibleprotector.com

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by magicref

I wrote elsewhere on this site (under "of Castles and Nations" topic) a possible perspective on the KJVO viewpoint:

"KJVO believe that around the late 1500's God began orchestrating things to bring the jealousy of King James and the learned Scholars (not perfect in any sense) to the right place and the right time, along with the appropriate Greek and Hebrew texts. These texts were not necessarily all GOLD in themselves, but were sufficient for the job. God, through His inspiration, enabled these fallible men, working off the base of other great men raised up by Him previously (Coverdale, Tyndale, etc.), to create a "very good" Bible in 1611 of almost pure "gold". By the time of 1769, this version was cleaned up, and is now contains ALL the GOLD, none of the dross, and is the perfect Word of God in the English language. The fruit of the KJV has been its widespread use throughout the World and its proven accuracy. Also, if all English speaking believers would use it as their base, we would ALL have the same standard to work from."

If this is the way God worked the preservation of His Word, then there could be expected to be variations between the 1611 and 1769 versions, even with the "significant" variations mentioned above. The way we know that no significant changes have taken place since 1769 is simply the fact that (as far as I know) there have not been any proper or accepted changes since then.

I don't think this is an answer that will satisfy the anti-KJ folks, but it makes sense to me!

Doug A.

Doug, I was hit recently with the "...so God chose of all people England and King James to 'preserve' in one version by supernatural means the original mauscripts in English?'

According to the World Health Organization 10,000 children are conceived on this planet each hour, that means God forms in the womb 10,000 children an hour, 10,000 human bodies, the most complex machine in the known Universe, why can't He preserve His words, every one of them, for me and you? He holds this Universe together by the word of His power, has He contracted Alzheimer's, did He forget what He wrote?

I'm by no means a Charismatic, but when you touch the keyboard of your computer it means the molecules of your fingers and the keys are in phase with each other, otherwise your fingers would go right through them, God holds an intimate knowledge of every quantum particle in the Universe together, why can't He preserve His words? Where are these people's faith?

Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Grace and peace brother

Tony

[PaulB]

Hi Cody – Thanks for your question.

Firstly, I haven’t come across this guy before and I’m not sure why he is so desperate to cast doubt over the authenticity of the word of God. What is he trying to prove other than convince God’s people and His enemies that there is no authentic Bible on earth?

Men like him get so agitated when the same methods of critique are applied to their modern versions, (labelling people like me as “liars, trouble makers, divisive and ignorant”) whilst they themselves seem to feel fully justified trying to destroy the authenticity of the KJB.

My question is – what is his problem with someone accepting the KJB as the authentic preserved word of God (why is a conviction that is so historic in its confession deemed to be such an unacceptable crime today?)

Secondly, I can’t see how his selected examples disprove his point that they are not printing issues. Where has he proved that that is not the case?

In his own statement of faith he says the following;
“If I were to describe myself, it would be something like this: I am a Calvinistic, Dispensational Presbyterian Credobaptist who believes in the complete inspiration, authority, and perfection of the Holy Scriptures.”

My question is – where are these Scriptures (seeing as his knowledge of them seems to give him such a confident position to disqualify authenticity of the KJB?) he obviously has to have this “final authority” at hand to criticise the so-called “ignorance” of the King James translators.

He also says: “I believe in the verbal, plenary, infallible, and unlimited inerrancy of the Holy Bible. 2 Timothy 3:16”. If this is so then why doesn’t he present that Bible to us?

This man seems to have gone out of his way to set up a web page, declare his statement of faith and present his ministry as a fundamental Christian witness. But what I really don’t understand is why the preservationists (such as me) are such a problem to him, when he (by his own admission) claims to believe the same thing but without a Bible to prove the point he is making.

God bless

PaulB

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Personally I do not see any difficuly in their being impurities in the 1611 that were corrected in the process leading to the pure text in our hands today, especially including the refinings of 1629 and 1637. As long as the 100% pure Bible is the result, and we have the word of God in purity and excellence, I see no difficulty whatsoever in this involving a process that continued after 1611.

Above Matthew says that the "text and translation" were complete in 1611, and mentions "editorial regularisation". The term is a bit vague, and we can see that as the one group of the three that might materially affect the Bible text. In fact, there are some differences that came forth, purifications an corrections, after 1611, and Matthew is likely aware of a few of the examples. Not many, very small in significance compared to other verse differentiations between Bibles, yet real nonetheless.

So by comparison to the changes in other Bibles, these are exceedingly small. And if a Bible believer affirms the 1611 as perfectly pure and refined -- while I would have great respect for their position, I believe that they will find themselves in a difficult situation in holding that position with consistency in the Bible version dialog. They may end up being harsh or dismissive with the questioners rather than walking an extra mile in analysis, depth and presentation. (Understanding that there is a place to 'cut bait' with the scoffer and skeptic.)

A lot of my thinking in this regard was influenced and I believe clarified and improved by the efforts of Matthew and others who have laboured with the PCE. Thus I do not think we do ourselves a favor by denying those few verses where the text actually did change from 1611 to the PCE (or 1769 or what we use today and accept as 100% pure). While the nattering nabobs may bring forth the question in order to try create a fog, we can use the extra inquiry to allow our belief and faith in the Bible in our hands to be strengthened that much more !

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

... Thus I do not think we do ourselves a favor by denying those few verses where the text actually did change from 1611 to the PCE (or 1769 or what we use today and accept as 100% pure). ...

Steven's statement is the only real answer to the original inquiry. Every one else seems to not want to deal with the core issue. Let's take another look at the other responses again --

Originally Posted by Samuel

I think 99.9% of the evidence he posted, is nothing more than bad 1611 spelling, and typo errors. ...

No, the list is NOT presenting a majority of orthographic issues. Your incorrect reply does not help. Try actually reading them carefully, looking past the archaic spelling. Do you now see some completely different words? Do you now see words in one version lacking in the other?

Originally Posted by tonybone2112

He himself is a liar Cody, he can't point to one "version" of the Bible he himself believes is perfect and inspired. I don't trust these people and their "differences" without actually seeing the texts myself, and it's a useless wild goose chase anyway over meaningless redundancies. ...

Interesting opinions, but none of it addresses young Cody's question. You tore the man down, but not his evidence. I have a 1611 reprint and have looked at these verses compared to a modern KJV and the differences are genuinely present. Don't be such a coward. Deal with the facts. If you won't, people will begin to distrust you.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

... The list supplied by Beckman would be "significant" if they actually were changes in the text and translation of the KJB, but of course nobody can prove that. The fact is that these differences are mainly typographical errors in the first printing of the Bible, and in some cases, the standardisation of the language. They are not "significant" differences, because nothing actually was changed, just presentational issues remedied.

Perhaps nothing can be proved, but the differences (additional words, different words) are present in the 1611 text. For those that believe the 1611 was created perfect there is no such thing as an insignificant change. Again, these are NOT "mainly" accidental differences (G-o-d cannot be mispelled as t-h-e L-O-R-D). "Standardisation of the language" also known as "editorial regularisation" are nebulous and ambiguous terms. Its an escape to not deal with the question. C'mon, face the music. Get real, man.

Originally Posted by magicref

If this is the way God worked the preservation of His Word, then there could be expected to be variations between the 1611 and 1769 versions, even with the "significant" variations mentioned above. The way we know that no significant changes have taken place since 1769 is simply the fact that (as far as I know) there have not been any proper or accepted changes since then.

You're just guessing, Doug. Circumstantial at best. A non-answer.

Originally Posted by PaulB

... I can’t see how his selected examples disprove his point that they are not printing issues. Where has he proved that that is not the case? ...

When you read three additional words ("of the LORD" after "in the temple") do you really think it is just a "printing" issue? Well then, it just can't be proved either way. But it does exist. Why not deal with the issue and actually be helpful? Give the kid a substantial rebutal.