Please define King James Version Only and King James Version Onlyist

Walt said:
If I remember correctly, after leaving off spelling changes and printer errors, the changes from the 1611 KJV as originally published compared to today's KJV has 143 changes, none of them substantive.

So 143 more differences than there are between the KJV and NIV that actually affect orthodox doctrine.
 
Walt said:
If I remember correctly, after leaving off spelling changes and printer errors, the changes from the 1611 KJV as originally published compared to today's KJV has 143 changes, none of them substantive. (I'm doing this from memory; I can look up the sources if someone things that this is way off).

What KJV-only advocates attempt to pass off as being all printer's errors have not been proven to be actually the fault of the printers.

There are more than 143 changes or differences between the 1611 edition of the KJV and one of the present varying editions of the KJV that are not 1611 reprint editions.  Some of the actual differences are significant or substantial.  There have also been many other differences found in post-1611 KJV editions printed in the 1600's, 1700's, and 1800's that may not be in present KJV editions.
 
logos1560 said:
Walt said:
If I remember correctly, after leaving off spelling changes and printer errors, the changes from the 1611 KJV as originally published compared to today's KJV has 143 changes, none of them substantive. (I'm doing this from memory; I can look up the sources if someone things that this is way off).

What KJV-only advocates attempt to pass off as being all printer's errors have not been proven to be actually the fault of the printers.

There are more than 143 changes or differences between the 1611 edition of the KJV and one of the present varying editions of the KJV that are not 1611 reprint editions.  Some of the actual differences are significant or substantial.  There have also been many other differences found in post-1611 KJV editions printed in the 1600's, 1700's, and 1800's that may not be in present KJV editions.

A lot of this is just word games; one change was a font change that (I think) changed the final "s" that looked like an "f" to be an "s" and "v" became "u" -- so, the word "thvf" (thus) became "thus".  I don't consider this kind of change to be worth counting.

There were many, many spelling changes: "euille" became "evil" as spelling was standardized.  Again, this is not a substantive change, and I wouldn't count it.

A man has compared, word for word, the 1611 Bible with, I think, a Scofield 1901 Bible.

He found 1,095 changes that affect the sound (out of the 791,328 words in the KJV).  Most of these were minor form changes, such as "amongst" to "among" or "towards" to "toward".

He found 136 "substantive" changes -- some samples are:

"for the king" to "for so the king" (Esther 1:8)
"shearer" to "his shearer" (Acts 8:32)
"sacrifice" to "sacrifices" (I Pet 2:5)

The bulk of these 136 changes were made in the 28 years following the original printing when they were, according to the original translators, correcting printing errors.
 
Walt said:
A man has compared, word for word, the 1611 Bible with, I think, a Scofield 1901 Bible.

He found 1,095 changes that affect the sound (out of the 791,328 words in the KJV).  Most of these were minor form changes, such as "amongst" to "among" or "towards" to "toward".

He found 136 "substantive" changes -- some samples are:

"for the king" to "for so the king" (Esther 1:8)
"shearer" to "his shearer" (Acts 8:32)
"sacrifice" to "sacrifices" (I Pet 2:5)

The bulk of these 136 changes were made in the 28 years following the original printing when they were, according to the original translators, correcting printing errors.

That man D. A. Waite actually earlier claimed to have found only 421 changes that affect the sound until I sent me a list of over 2,000 such differences, based on my comparison of the 1611 edition with the same KJV edition in the Scofield Reference Bible.  He revised his inaccurate 421 count up to over 1,000, but so far as I know he has not provided or produced a list of his differences and has not explained why his new count omits another 1,000 of the same type differences.  The booklet entitled Today's KJV and 1611 Compared lists the over 2,000 differences.

If only the type changes that are considered and listed as substantial by D. A. Waite [adding a word, omitting a word, changing the tense of verbs, changing a word to another word, changing the number [singular/plural] of words, changing the case of pronouns, changing the gender] were counted, there would still be over 300 if not over 400 differences [not 136]. 

There were over 140 words added to the 1611 edition of the KJV in most present KJV editions so that one substantial type change proves Waite's count to be inaccurate.
 
The KJV-only count or claim of only 136 substantial changes between the 1611 and the Oxford KJV edition in the Scofield Reference Bible is factually incorrect. 

There were over 140 words added to a typical present KJV edition that are not found in the 1611 edition.  For example, six words were added were added at one verse (Eccl. 8:17).  At nine verses, three words were added (Lev. 26:40, Num. 7:31, Num. 7:55, Josh. 13:29, Jud. 1:31, 2 Kings 11:10, 2 Cor. 11:32, 2 Tim. 4:13).  Two words are added to eighteen verses while one word is added to over eighty more verses.  Thus, just the number of words added in later editions is greater than the incomplete, incorrect count of 136. 

In addition, over 45 words found in the 1611 edition are omitted in a typical present KJV edition if the 21 repeated words omitted at Exodus 14:10 are included.  When compared to the 1611 edition, over 60 times the number [singular/plural] of nouns, pronouns, or verbs is changed in most typical present KJV editions.  Twenty or more times the tense of a verb is changed.  There are also a good number of the other type changes that Waite himself identified as being ?substantial? between the 1611 edition and a typical present Oxford edition. 
 
Back
Top