Question of the day: KJV revisions.

Today is week 5 in the series of questions put forth by Dr. Sam Gipp in His book “The Answer Book.”* I feel like these questions have been beneficial for people on both sides of the fence:  you share your thoughts, others share their thoughts – everyone learns something in between.

As I said before, the point of these questions is not to start a Baptist War, but rather encourage everyone to engage in a discussion and learn from and among fellow believers. I believe everyone’s doing a good job at sticking to the purpose.

I don’t want you to rely on “he said, she said” or even unconfirmed history. Read your Bible, study accurate accounts of History, pray about it, and take what you don’t understand by faith.

I will post Dr. Gipp’s written answer to the question tomorrow, so be sure to check back on here for the answer to today’s question.

Here’s the question for today…

Haven’t there been several revisions of the King James Bible since 1611?

Thoughts?  Opinions?  Scriptures to back your position?

*All material from “The Answer Book”© is used on Grow Up! with permission received directly from Dr. Sam Gipp.

Advertisements

Posted on June 20, 2011, in Question of the Day and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 8 Comments.

  1. No, there have not been seven revisions but seven editions to fix typos and editing errors. I have a 1611 Bible and when I compare it to my newer printing, I have yet to find a content error. The printing press back then was a big ordeal and often held many printing mistakes (i.e. a question mark instead of a period, a u instead of a V, etc . . . ). Any added words (which are articles or pronouns like “a” or “the” or “he”) are italicized to let you know that was added to complete the sentence in translation.

  2. No “jots” or “tittles”? Sorry, had to say it.

  3. If it had been like the original manuscripts, those with even typographical errors, if found, would have been destroyed. The scribes, being as meticulous as they were, would not have allowed for a mass printing of documents containing error, even if the mistakes were only a misplaced comma or “a”, “the”, or “he”. Did the original printers of the 1611 attempt to destroy all copies containing elements that needed revisions?

    • I don’t think they did, but people back then did enjoy destroying things. For instance the “Wicked Bible”, and edition that forgot the “not” in thou shalt not commit adultery. (Can you imagine in the surprise there? ) But they did not destroy all of them, they go for a pretty penny now.

      I’m not sure about the revisions part, I haven’t looked too deeply into that part of the KJB history, I’ll have to check it out. As for destruction of copies that had typographical errors, I don’t think they did.

  4. Bruce Metzger describes the Blayney version, produced by Hebrew scholar Dr Benjamin Blayney (1728-1801) as “the most careful and comprehensive revision” that came to be known as the “Authorized Version”. Blayney’s 1769 revision produced the text that is used by most publishers of the KJV today. (This is explained in Bruce Metzger’s article on “Translations” in The Oxford Companion to the Bible, edited by Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan, New York: Oxford University Press, 1993, page 759-760.)

    So, almost all KJV’s are actually the 1769 Blayney Revision of the AV, not the 1611. But, there are different kinds of KJV’s. The two most prevalent are the Oxford and Cambridge types. How can you tell which you have? Look at Jeremiah 34:16:

    The Oxford edition has: “But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom HE had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection, to be unto you for servants and for handmaids.”

    But the Cambridge edition has: “But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom YE had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection, to be unto you for servants and for handmaids.”

    So which one is the inspired reading of that passage?

  5. Yep, there’s been a good number of revisions. When people say, “We use the 1611 KJV!”, they’re deceived. They’re really using the 1769 or so.

    1. The 1611 had the Apocrypha.

    2. The letters are quite different. An example…

    Psa 5:5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest al workers of iniquity
    Psa 5:6 Thou shalt destroy them that speake leasing: the Lord will abhorre the bloodie and deceitfull man.
    (1611)

    Psalm 5:5-6
    King James Version (KJV)
    5The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.
    6Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man.

    And so on, and so forth.

    • I don’t know that I would call fixing the letters a revision in the way people are downcasting it. That has to do with printing issues. They say the exact same thing. I am not saying you are implying that; that is a general comment for the discussion.

      I don’t know much about the Apocrypha to be honest. All I know is I hear they prayed over it, and they did not feel it belonged. The fact that it was not included in the Old or New Testament leads many to question the authoritativeness. Again, I am not skilled enough to make a judgment on that particular issue. I am curious what others think on that issue.

      • I have a good friend at church who has a 1611 replica, and it does have the apocrypha in it. The original 1611’s did. The 1769 is the one used today and made the printing/spelling revisions and does not contain the apocrypha. To say “revision” isn’t a bad thing, it’s not like they just got offended and removed something that offended them, they were simply correcting a human error.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: