[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

[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.

[bibleprotector]

Let us assess ideas, but let us not submit to “Only by pride cometh contention” (Prov. 13:10a).

The query at hand is, are there any significant differences between the First 1611 Edition and the 1769 Edition.

First of all, let us realise that what the printers printed is not exactly what the translators had. This is a known fact. What we cannot say is every last place where this is so, but we can have a good idea.

Second of all, we should be aware that the language and spelling was not standardised, so there are differences which have arisen from this having taken place in the history of the KING JAMES BIBLE.

Thirdly, there are changes due to editorial regularisation. This means that a more consistent use of italics has been introduced, and on occasions, a reframing of the English, or effects in the English for a consistency, or uniformity of usage, etc.

There is no real case for differences in the actual Version (Text)or Translation of the King James Bible.

* 1 Corinthians 12:28 – “helpes in gouernmets” vs. “helps, governments”

There is an extremely high degree of probability that this was a typographical error. It was corrected to the translators’ intended rendering in 1629.

* Joshua 3:11 – “Arke of the Couenant, euen the Lord” vs. “ark of the covenant of the Lord”

There is an extremely high degree of probability that this was a typographical error. It was corrected to the translators’ intended rendering in 1629.

* 2 Kings 11:10 – “in the Temple” vs. “in the temple of the LORD”

There is an extremely high degree of probability that this was a typographical error, where the Bishops’ text was retained by the typesetter without the translators’ emendation being added, consequently corrected in 1638.

* Isaiah 49:13 – “for God” vs. “for the LORD”

There is an extremely high degree of probability that this was a typographical/copyist error, where the Bishops’ text was retained by the typesetter without the translators’ emendation being taken, consequently corrected in 1638.

* Jeremiah 31:14 – “with goodnesse” vs. “with my goodness”

There is an extremely high degree of probability that this was a typographical error. It was corrected to the translators’ intended rendering in 1629.

* Jeremiah 51:30 – “burnt their dwelling places” vs. “burned her dwellingplaces”

There is an extremely high degree of probability that this was a typographical error, where the Bishops’ text was retained by the typesetter without the translators’ emendation being taken, consequently corrected in 1629.

* Ezekiel 6:8 – “that he may” vs. “that ye may”

There is an extremely high degree of probability that this was a typographical error. It was corrected to the translators’ intended rendering in 1638.

* Ezekiel 24:5 – “let him seethe” vs. “let them seethe”

There is an extremely high degree of probability that this was a typographical error. It was corrected to the translators’ intended rendering in 1638.

* Ezekiel 24:7 – “powred it vpon the ground” vs. “poured it not upon the ground”

There is an extremely high degree of probability that this was a typographical error, where the Bishops’ text was retained by the typesetter without the translators’ emendation being taken, consequently corrected in 1613.

* Ezekiel 48:8 – “which they shall” vs. “which ye shall”

There is an extremely high degree of probability that this was a typographical error, where the Bishops’ text was retained by the typesetter without the translators’ emendation being taken, consequently corrected in 1638.

* Daniel 3:15 – “a fierie furnace” vs. “a burning fiery furnace”

There is an extremely high degree of probability that this was a typographical error, where the typesetter omitted a word from the translators’ intended rendering, consequently corrected in 1638.

* Matthew 14:9 – “the othes sake” vs. “the oath’s sake”

This is utter foolishness, in that apostrophes were not used in 1611, and clearly ONE oath was made, not multiple ones, which is the suggestion of some who rely upon book-learning of the Greek.

* 1 Corinthians 15:6 – “And that” vs. “After that”

There is an extremely high degree of probability that this was a typographical error, where the typesetter accidentally set the word from the previous verse, consequently corrected in 1616.

* 1 John 5:12 – “the Sonne, hath” vs. “the Son of God hath”

There is an extremely high degree of probability that this was a typographical error, where the typesetter omitted the words from the translators’ intended rendering (and Bishops’ Bible), consequently corrected in 1629.

Almost all these above cases clearly fall into the category of typographical errors in the first printing of 1611.

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking

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 –

Critical’s “core issue”, which he conveniently thrusts upon this inquiry, is his a priori assumption that there are actually significant differences between 1611 and today.

In the above examples, is there really a case where there are actually or even probably, or even possibly, underlying textual and translational differences? I do not think so.

When it comes to a few other cases of minor importance, it could be said that there is some sort of variation in the original language details, but even these cases can be explained, and are certainly not in the examples listed above.

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking

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?

Looking past Critical’s abrasive (and condescending) tone, I wonder how he can state, “one version lacking in another”. Does Critical believe that the 1611 Edition of the KJB is a different VERSION to the 1769 Edition of the KJB?

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking

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.

Again, looking past the rudeness, I would hasten to point out that Cody’s inquiry is genuine, but Cody is quoting from Rick Beckman, who makes no secret of his rejection of the KJBO view. Is Critical agreeing with Beckmen? It seems that way!

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking

Perhaps nothing can be proved, but the differences (additional words, different words) are present in the 1611 text.

Of course things can be proved. But not every last detail can be said to be so. Just because things cannot be categorically stated does not mean that they cannot be valid assumptions, or taken by faith. We cannot say the name of every last translator, but we can say the names of many, and we know that the KJB was translated. Let us accept things as they stand, and not allow some minor points to cloud the facts. It is as if those few questions are the entry point for the enemy to make some great doubt, when in fact, what we do know is enough to make a certain case about, covering all the minor things we cannot certainly say. This is a whole lot better than doubting everything, or holding nothing certain.

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking

For those that believe the 1611 was created perfect there is no such thing as an insignificant change.

Really? I’d say that is a lie. In fact, even James White, who is ardently against the KJBO position admits that the differences between 1611 and now are not significant. Clearly, the differences are not significant to KJBOs who know something about typographical errors and spelling alterations, of which there is a sufficient knowledge, so as silly disputes about “perfect” do not shake their faith. (Shades of "Which edition?") Yes, the KJB was and is perfect, but the printers were not perfect, and so it follows that the perfect Bible would be printed with errors. Let’s be clear: there are no real alterations in the text and translation of the KJB, only minor alterations in matters to do with presentation.

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking

Again, these are NOT "mainly" accidental differences (G-o-d cannot be mispelled as t-h-e L-O-R-D).

In the above list, yes indeed mainly accidental origins, deliberately corrected, creating seeming differences. But the case of “God” and “the LORD” is a kind of typographical error, that is, the copyist error where the emendation upon the previous text (the Bishops’ Bible) was accidentally ignored by the printer. This is a fair assumption. But when it comes overall to differences between 1769 and 1611, checking the entire Bible through, most of the differences would be in mere orthography and spelling.

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking

"Standardisation of the language" also known as "editorial regularisation" are nebulous and ambiguous terms.

“Standardisation of the English language” is a fact, as is highlighted in the 1750s, a different phenomenon to that of “editorial regularisation”, which deals with consistency of use, word forms, italic typeface, etc. While these terms both are far-reaching, they are not in the end analysis either “nebulous” nor “ambiguous”, for that ultimately the fair and deliberate examination of all cases could with a high degree of certainty put most differences into definitely one of these categories, including the class of typographical (or copyist) errors, and that there are peculiarities to each of these, so that there is enough to warrant taxonomisation into rigid positions.

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking

Its an escape to not deal with the question. C'mon, face the music. Get real, man.

If the question is not answered to Critical’s liking, I think that Critical would say it is not an answer. But does Critical give an answer? No, he is pleased to play rather poorly Devil’s Advocate.

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking

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

And so Critical gives no answer but to reject ours.

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking

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.

I think there is plenty of good stuff for Cody here. Maybe not the kind of information that Critical would like to give Cody, but I think Cody would be better without someone who calls our answers “non-answers”. Well, if the omitting words which appears (and can be given with various valid arguments to be) accidental is not a printing issue, I wonder what it is?

I suspect that Critical really thinks our KJB translators “got it wrong”. If not that, then he must think that all our KJBs today are “wrong” because they don’t match the first 1611 Edition. If either case were his thinking, he would have to try and explain why the KJB has been blessed throughout its history.

But I don't expect answers from him, going on his present demeanour, just unruly questionings.