What's the Big Deal Saying KJV1611?

[Pastor Matt]

This topic is not to discuss the accuracy of the KJV or other translations, but to discuss the use of saying "I use the KJV 1611 Bible"

Is it wrong to say that we use the KJV 1611 or should we say KJV 1763?

A common argument against the KJV is to say that we don't use the 1611 Bible but rather the 1763. I understand what took place in the English language for the updates that took place in 1763, and I also understand why I say KJV 1611. Nobody that I'm aware of says that the Bible I read is the original KJV 1611 style, but the foundation was from the KJV 1611.

It seems that that logic that is thrown in the KJV faces only applies to the Bible. I drive a 2013 Chrysler 200M. People always tell me that its a 2013, but there have been changes made to the car since 2013 (It does not have all the original 2013 parts) so why do those same people still say its a 2013 car? 

[Rebecca]

I didn't know it was a common argument against the KJV when I say I use the KJV 1769 and not KJV 1611, because I do say this all the time and I am not against the KJV! I do think it is misleading to say 1611 if it's not the one you're actually using, though.  What's wrong with being accurate with the year of the KJV Bible you're using?

[SureWord]

What's the difference between the 1611 and the 1769? As far as I know text type and spelling changes. The text itself is the same.

[Jerry]

Yes, Sureword, the changes in 1762 and 1769 were correcting printing errors and standardizing spelling - so for all practical purposes, the 1769 is the same as the 1611, but with those changes (which do not change meaning).

I think if we need to clarify it because we are speaking about our English Bible’s history (and perhaps even discussing some of the modern attempts at editing the KJV to show that these other “re-translations” - for lack of a better word - are not the same - referring to ones such as the Modern KJV, KJV21, etc.), then mention the date - but otherwise I think it is simply just unnecessary. Most Christians that I have come across that use the KJV just assume it is the 1611, even if they aren’t aware of what “changes” were made in the 1760’s.

[SureWord]

1 hour ago, Jerry said:

Yes, Sureword, the changes in 1762 and 1769 were correcting printing errors and standardizing spelling - so for all practical purposes, the 1769 is the same as the 1611, but with those changes (which do not change meaning).

I think if we need to clarify it because we are speaking about our English Bible’s history (and perhaps even discussing some of the modern attempts at editing the KJV to show that these other “re-translations” - for lack of a better word - are not the same - referring to ones such as the Modern KJV, KJV21, etc.), then mention the date - but otherwise I think it is simply just unnecessary. Most Christians that I have come across that use the KJV just assume it is the 1611, even if they aren’t aware of what “changes” were made in the 1760’s.

If we really want to split hairs we shouldn't call it the KJV or the AV since it was not called that in the beginning. Neither title caught on until years later. Not until 1814 was it even called the KJV 

[Pastor Matt]

14 hours ago, SureWord said:

If we really want to split hairs we shouldn't call it the KJV or the AV since it was not called that in the beginning.

Let's just call it the Word of God

[farouk]

On 5/12/2021 at 6:35 PM, Rebecca said:

I didn't know it was a common argument against the KJV when I say I use the KJV 1769 and not KJV 1611, because I do say this all the time and I am not against the KJV! I do think it is misleading to say 1611 if it's not the one you're actually using, though.  What's wrong with being accurate with the year of the KJV Bible you're using?

@RebeccaYes, it's good to be accurate; I agree.

If we actually looked at a page from the 1611 edition, it would have many archaisms in it.

There were other revisions done of the King James: in 1629, 1638 and 1762; what is commonly known as the King James is from 1769. Print formats vary greatly also; and in Commonwealth countries Crown Copyright applies, a fact not realized by many citizens of English-speaking republics.

Some editions (updates?) of the King James are so light that their publishers do not even refer to them as separate revisions; e.g., the KJ21.

[BrotherTony]

On 5/12/2021 at 3:02 PM, PastorMatt said:

This topic is not to discuss the accuracy of the KJV or other translations, but to discuss the use of saying "I use the KJV 1611 Bible"

Is it wrong to say that we use the KJV 1611 or should we say KJV 1763?

A common argument against the KJV is to say that we don't use the 1611 Bible but rather the 1763. I understand what took place in the English language for the updates that took place in 1763, and I also understand why I say KJV 1611. Nobody that I'm aware of says that the Bible I read is the original KJV 1611 style, but the foundation was from the KJV 1611.

It seems that that logic that is thrown in the KJV faces only applies to the Bible. I drive a 2013 Chrysler 200M. People always tell me that its a 2013, but there have been changes made to the car since 2013 (It does not have all the original 2013 parts) so why do those same people still say its a 2013 car? 

I agree. The changes were to update spelling and grammatical problems and it still leaves the meaning intact. It's NEVER wrong to give the version of the tranlation you're reading (1611, 1763, etc) as it helps people know which year you're reading from. It's still the same Word of God as in 1611 even if it was updated for correction in 1763. Some just get far too legalistic about some things like this, and it's disconcerting at times. It's only meant to cause division, and that is one of the adversary's favorite tactics, divide and conquer! 

Great post, PastorMatt!

[Jordan Kurecki]

It's not 100% true that the differences between editions were only corrections in printing errors and spelling changes. Honestly none of us have any real way of knowing why there were changes because it's not like we have a written record given by the people who did the slight revisions on why they made their changes. With that being said, the differences between the different editions of the KJV are MASSIVELY minuscule. 

I believe the point and reason why people say that is because people who are King James Only commonly are claiming 100%, every word perfection and accuracy for their text, yet in any given church, depending upon if you have an Oxford or Cambridge, there will be actual substantial differences in some places, for some example there is a passage in Jeremiah 34:16 that has "he" in one edition and "ye" in another edition, or in a list of Joshua one edition may say "or sheba" and another edition may say "and sheba"

It's a fair question to ask, which edition today is correct? The Cambridge or Oxford? And upon what authority does anyone declare which one to be correct? In reaction to this point, there is a charismatic pentecostal in Australia that claims "God" audibly spoke to him and told him that a specific edition he calls the "Pure Cambridge Edition" is the perfect KJV edition. 

Another fair question is, if the 1611 and other editions had certain printing errors, how do we know that whatever current 1769 edition that we have now, does not also have some printing errors yet to be corrected?

The reason why people bring this up is because the original 1611 edition of the KJV does have some differences of substance, though minor, from most of the editions that people are carrying and using today. You can say all the differences are "just printing change and spelling changes".. but honestly nobody really knows if that's true. in 1769 when Blayney did his revision, none of the translators of the KJV were alive anymore, had he "corrected" printing errors, he would have technically had to do "textual criticism" on the English editions of the KJV available to him in that day in order to do that. Because KJVOist present the KJV as a 100% every word perfect text, pointing out that the text has changed in different editions, even though extremely minor, is an attempt to point out an inconsistency. Personally the substantial differences between KJV editions to me is really a non issue because the differences are so massively minor. 

Most KJVO people are unaware that there are different editions of the KJV text floating around out there, in any church that is KJVO its not uncommon for people to unknowingly have different editions amongst the congregation, albeit again the differences are so minor no one probably even notices. 

To be fair, most KJV people would NOT be willing to pardon the kind of differences seen between the different editions of the KJV, if those same kinds of differences were differences between say, the KJV and the NKJV. For example in 1 John 5:12 the 1611 KJV is missing a phrase like "of God" which is now currently found in pretty much all current editions:

If a modern translation removed "of God" from that verse, many people would be ranting and raving about the modern translation for "removing God".

Edited September 15, 2021 by Jordan Kurecki

[farouk]

8 minutes ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

It's not 100% true that the differences between editions were only corrections in printing errors and spelling changes. Honestly none of us have any real way of knowing why there were changes because it's not like we have a written record given by the people who did the slight revisions on why they made their changes. With that being said, the differences between the different editions of the KJV are MASSIVELY minuscule. 

I believe the point and reason why people say that is because people who are King James Only commonly are claiming 100%, every word perfection and accuracy for their text, yet in any given church, depending upon if you have an Oxford or Cambridge, there will be actual substantial differences in some places, for some example there is a passage in Jeremiah that has "he" in one edition and "ye" in another edition, or in a list of Joshua one edition may say "or sheba" and another edition may say "and sheba"

In reaction to this point, there is a charismatic pentecostal in Australia that claims "God" audibly spoke to him and told him that a specific edition he calls the "Pure Cambridge Edition" is the perfect KJV edition. 

The reason why people bring this up is because the original 1611 edition of the KJV does have some differences of substance, though minor, from most of the editions that people are carrying and using today. You can say all the differences are "just printing change and spelling changes".. but honestly nobody really knows if that's true. in 1769 when Blayney did his revision, none of the translators of the KJV were alive anymore, had he "corrected" printing errors, he would have technically had to do "textual criticism" on the English editions of the KJV available to him in that day in order to do that. Because KJVOist present the KJV as a 100% every word perfect text, pointing out that the text has changed in different editions, even though extremely minor, is an attempt to point out an inconsistency. Personally the substantial differences between KJV editions to me is really a non issue because the differences are so massively minor. 

Most KJVO people are unaware that there are different editions of the KJV text floating around out there, in any church that is KJVO its not uncommon for people to unknowingly have different editions amongst the congregation, albeit again the differences are so minor no one probably even notices. 

To be fair, most KJV people would NOT be willing to pardon the kind of differences seen between the different editions of the KJV, if those same kinds of differences were differences between say, the KJV and the NKJV. For example in 1 John 5:13, one of the previous editions of the KJV is missing a phrase like "of God" which is now currently found in pretty much all current editions. If a modern translation removed "of God" from that verse, many people would be ranting and raving about the modern translation for "removing God".

Hi @Jordan KureckiI have used the King James extensively for years and greatly appreciate it. I do think that its use has been undermined in some ppl's minds because of some the rather exaggerated rhetoric that is sometimes made about it, lacking in historical accuracy, evincing the response in some ppl's minds: "Well, I can't possibly agree with that statement".

Although I don't agree with all it says, James White's The King James Only Controversy has a lot of good points to it.

[BrotherTony]

On 5/12/2021 at 3:02 PM, PastorMatt said:

This topic is not to discuss the accuracy of the KJV or other translations, but to discuss the use of saying "I use the KJV 1611 Bible"

Is it wrong to say that we use the KJV 1611 or should we say KJV 1763?

A common argument against the KJV is to say that we don't use the 1611 Bible but rather the 1763. I understand what took place in the English language for the updates that took place in 1763, and I also understand why I say KJV 1611. Nobody that I'm aware of says that the Bible I read is the original KJV 1611 style, but the foundation was from the KJV 1611.

It seems that that logic that is thrown in the KJV faces only applies to the Bible. I drive a 2013 Chrysler 200M. People always tell me that its a 2013, but there have been changes made to the car since 2013 (It does not have all the original 2013 parts) so why do those same people still say its a 2013 car? 

I agree. The changes were to update spelling and grammatical problems and it still leaves the meaning intact. It's NEVER wrong to give the version of the tranlation you're reading (1611, 1763, etc) as it helps people know which year you're reading from. It's still the same Word of God as in 1611 even if it was updated for correction in 1763. Some just get far too legalistic about some things like this, and it's disconcerting at times. It's only meant to cause division, and that is one of the adversary's favorite tactics, divide and conquer! 

Great post, PastorMatt!

A good book on the KJV is the one by Dr. David Sorenson, "Touch Not the Unclean Thing." Dr. Sorenson used to be my youth pastor when I was growing up, and his father was my pastor when I was in Illinios. David, when he first came to the Pekin, IL church I grew up in as Associate Pastor under his father, gave my mother a copy of the NASB, which was what Central Theological Seminary was allegedly pushing at that time. My mother used it for a few months and went back to the KJV. After a few years, David was researching this subject, especially since the KJV debate was becoming more prominent. I believe he did a very good job on presenting evidence in this book. 

[Jerry]

Farouk, just to clarify, the KJV21 is a different translation of the Bible, not an update of the King James Bible. It is marketed as an update the same way the NKJV is an update (which it is not - it is an entirely different translation, only partly using the same underlying manuscripts).

[Jordan Kurecki]

45 minutes ago, Jerry said:

Farouk, just to clarify, the KJV21 is a different translation of the Bible, not an update of the King James Bible. It is marketed as an update the same way the NKJV is an update (which it is not - it is an entirely different translation, only partly using the same underlying manuscripts).

I use to say in the past that the NKJV was based on different manuscripts than the KJV. I said that based on what I had heard and read online and I have come to believe that it is NOT true that the NKJV only partly uses the same underlying manuscripts as the KJV.

While I agree that the NKJV is a new translation and not simply an updated KJV, I do not believe it's factual that it only "partly uses the same underlying manuscripts", the NKJV is based on the same Hebrew and Greek texts as the KJV. As part of my study for my Master of Theology in Biblical Languages, I have spent the last 7 months studying, comparing, noting differences and annotating several chapters in depth in the KJV, NKJV and MEV (Modern English Version) with the Hebrew Masoretic Text, In addition to my work in the OT, At this point I have looked at every verse in the NT of the NKJV except Revelation, and so far I have not found a single place where the NKJV departed from the Hebrew Masoretic Text or the Greek Textus Receptus. Every example I have seen cited in articles online where an accusation is made of the NKJV being based on a different text, I found after honesty study and and inquired of the specific cited examples that the issues were simply a differences of translation choices but differences which could somewhat reasonably be considered justifiable/allowable by the Hebrew/Greek. Many of the places I have looked at where people have accused the NKJV of following the Critical Text, the Critical Text has had the same Greek wording as the TR.

 Now, don't misunderstand me, one can certainly make a legitimate case for places in the NKJV where certain translational choices are unhelpful, subpar, or even erroneous; I have found myself disagreeing with translational choices that the NKJV has made in several places, however, claiming that the NKJV is based on different manuscripts than the KJV is an accusation that seems to be made without basis in truth. I have heard several people over the last few months claim that "Only the KJV is based on the right Hebrew and Greek texts and EVERY other translation is based on corrupt Hebrew and Greek texts", and as far as I can tell, this claim is NOT factually accurate. If any claim is not true, then it should stop being repeated.

Whenever false information is repeated, there are always people who eventually realize that the information was wrong, and eventually those people often throw the baby out with the bath water because of it. When they find something they were told about the KJV or other translations is false, then they will begin to question everything or to reject many if not all of the things they are told about the translation issue. I cannot tell you how many people I have met who were propelled into embracing a full on critical text position because of things they were taught about the Bible Translation issue that were false. There are many people who realize that popular KJV defenders like Gail Riplinger, and Sam Gipp tell false information, misleading information, and even outright lies, and sadly that often propels them to someone like James White who also gives false and misleading information.

You can't blindly trust everything people say just because they happen to agree with your position, you also can't blindly trust someone just because you respect them and they have godly character. We need to be discerning, and discernment does not mean you only use discernment with those OUTSIDE your church, circle, family, etc... True discernment means you are careful about EVERYTHING you hear and are taught. 

1 Th 5:21 says "prove all things, hold fast that which is good" 

Edited September 15, 2021 by Jordan Kurecki

[Jerry]

It has been a while since I read the info, but I think it was in the Intro to the NKJV where they state that they also used other manuscripts. However, even if my memory is faulty on exactly where it is stated, a simple look at the translator/marginal notes show that they made translational choices based on other manuscripts than the TR.

For the sake of the argument, even if the TR and Masoretic Text were the primary manuscript used, they were not the only manuscripts used to come up with their translational choices.

[Jordan Kurecki]

On 9/15/2021 at 5:45 PM, Jerry said:

It has been a while since I read the info, but I think it was in the Intro to the NKJV where they state that they also used other manuscripts. However, even if my memory is faulty on exactly where it is stated, a simple look at the translator/marginal notes show that they made translational choices based on other manuscripts than the TR.

For the sake of the argument, even if the TR and Masoretic Text were the primary manuscript used, they were not the only manuscripts used to come up with their translational choices.

I just went back and read through the NKJV preface, they do admit to CONSULTING the LXX and the Latin Vulgate, but they also claim the KJV translators at times followed the LXX and Latin Vulgate at times over the Hebrew text! Doing some research, it's at least agreed upon that the KJV translators 100% consulted other texts like the LXX. In fact in Genesis there is a marginal note in the KJV that references the LXX. 

There is a quite a bit of phraseology and words that the KJV borrowed and carried over from the Latin Vulgate into English. The Latin Vulgate seemed to have strong influence on the style of the KJV in some places. You can do research and google it yourself and find tons of influence that the Latin Vulgate had on the KJV..

The KJV translators absolutely consulted and looked at other Ancient Translations and even earlier English translations as well. 

Dr. Price, the executive editor of the NKJV, on his personal website answered an accusation by D.A. Waite that the NKJV used a different OT text than the KJV and stated: “As former executive editor of the NKJV Old Testament, I can confidently assure you that the NKJV fol­lowed, as carefully as possible, the Bomberg 1524-25 Ben Chayyim edition that the KJV 1611 translators used--I personally made sure.” Here is the source from Dr. Price's website where you can read it for yourself: https://www.jamesdprice.com/newkingjamesversion.html

Arthur Farstad the executive editor of the NKJV has stated “Most current New Testaments use some modification of the Westcott-Hort text, such as an eclectic one not too far removed from that text. Seminary and college professors especially are surprised that the NKJV used such a conservative text as the Textus Receptus..the NKJV is an update of an historic version translated from a specific type of text. We felt it was unwise to change the base from which it was made. As noted earlier, the translators of the English Revised Version of the New Testament (1881) were soundly criticized for slipping in the Westcott-Hort Greek text when it was not part of their mandate from the church.”

The KJV translators themselves included textual variants and references to other manuscripts in the original marginal notes. For example the margin in Matthew 26:26 says “Many Greek copies have, gave thanks”.  There are marginal notes of this nature in Matthew 1:11, Luke 10:22, Luke 17:36,  and other places as well...

There is a whole segment on this link with these kinds of examples:https://bloggingtheword.com/the-blog/the-types-of-marginal-notes-in-the-1611-kjv

According to Scrivener there were 67 marginal notes of a textual nature in the original KJV. Does, to use your own words, a "simple look at the translator/marginal notes show that" the KJV translators "made translational choices based on other manuscripts"?

Dr. Price said in response to D.A. Waite: "So it is quite obvious that the KJV translators used marginal notes to identify variant readings in the Hebrew and Greek text, and they also referred to the ancient versions and church fathers in these notes. Usually their notes did not identify specific sources, yet Waite criticizes the NKJV for giving the same kind of marginal notes with more specific information.".. 

The NKJV Preface states: "The notes in the present edition make no evaluation of the readings (and so terms such as "better manuscripts" are avoided), but they do clearly indicate the sources of the readings that diverge from the traditional text." Price went on to say "By the very nature of a translation it is understood that the words in the main body of a translation represent the content of the traditional text being followed, and that the alter­nate words in the marginal note represent the alternate readings found in the non-traditional texts. The fact that no evaluations were made, as are made in some modern versions, indicates that the editors were not suggesting that any alternate readings were necessarily better than the readings of the traditional text. Thus they do not express nor imply any lack of confidence in the tradi­tional text."

The NKJV has plenty of places in the OT where it lists the LXX or Latin Vulgate as places to SUPPORT it's following of the Masoretic text. For example in 1 Samuel 10:1 there is a marginal note that says "so with the MT (Masoretic text), Tg (Targum), Vg (Vulgate); LXX reads...." As you can see, the NKJV REFERENCES the Vulgate and Targum to SUPPORT it's FOLLOWING of the Masoretic text but does mention a variant in the LXX. 

Can you show me ONE single example where the NKJV disagrees with the KJV in the OT and has a marginal note stating that it followed something other than the Masoretic text? If you can I will gladly admit that I am mistaken and I will stop saying that the NKJV is based on the Masoretic text like the KJV. 

D.A. Waite in his criticism of the NKJV, criticized it for having a marginal note in Neh 3:20 that says "Zabbai".. Ironically the KJV has the same marginal note! So by criticizing the NKJV, he unintentionally criticizes the KJV! 

If your accusation is that the NKJV is to be rejected because they fail your criteria of having consulted and looked at other manuscripts/translations than the Masoretic text, to be consistent you would need to also reject the KJV by your own standard that you have put forth.

Edited September 17, 2021 by Jordan Kurecki