Which KJV is correct?
An attack against the KJV that is often used is “which version of the KJV is correct?”
Is it the 1629, 1638 1762 or the 1769 version ?” Which print is it the Oxford or Cambridge version?
James White stated in his book the KJV only controversy
“The KJV that is carried by the average KJV advocate today looks very different than the edition that came off the press of Robert Barker in 1611
Does it Mr White? Does it really? You might like to try to make it so, that doesn’t in fact make it so.
When I am confronted with this argument I immediately know that the person using the argument has not, at least in any great detail, studied the subject and has almost certainly either heard or read this argument somewhere and is now regurgitating it as if it was “fact”, a “fact” they have not bothered to actually check before spouting it as such. I know they have not fact checked it as if they had they would not be using it as an argument.
The KJV has NEVER been revised. This is simply the fact, whether the person saying it has knows it or not.
The revisions that the person so assuredly refers to were not revisions at all. It is rather dishonest to say otherwise.
For a start the Greek text that underlies the KJV was not and has never been changed. This has remained constant throughout the more than 400 years since the KJV was first translated way back in 1611 and the first printing carried out by the aforementioned Robert Barker. Unlike the modern versions where the underlying Greek text is constantly being changed. They are on the 28th edition of the Nestle-Aland text already, this being only around 120 years after the first.
However it is true that there have been a number of ‘updates’ to the KJV.
The first of these was simply to change the type font from Gothic to Roman. NO words were changed, just the ability to read them was made a little easier.
The other updates between 1611 and 1629 were simple printing error corrections. Printing errors most certainly did occur, I am pretty sure no KJV advocate who themselves have studied the subject would make claims to the contrary. Printing errors are exactly that, errors in the printing of the KJV and NOT in the handwritten text of the KJV itself. These errors ranged from a single letter to words and phrases being left out of the print. Again these were ALL printing errors and NOT errors with the actual text.
1 such printing error was simply a duplicated 5 in 1 Corinthians 15:1-5/6
The printer numbered the verses 1,2,3,4,5,5,7. The verses themselves are correct but obviously the 2nd 5 should have been a 6. This was corrected in an update.
Another such example is found in Psalms 69:32 where the printer put “good” instead of “God”.
Psalm 69-32 “Your heart shall live that seek good”
This printer error was corrected in 1617.
Again this was not an error with the KJV text but with the print.
There are a number of cases where there is the word he/she when the opposite should have been the correct rendering.
2 Of the KJV translators themselves, Samuel Ward and John Bois, corrected these printing errors or rather typos.
It must be pointed out that the spelling of many English words had not been finalised in 1611 and there were many words spelt differently than what would eventually become the finalised spelling.
Examples of such spelling
Genesis 21:12 – Than the LORDE SAYDE vnto Abraham: let it not be greavous vnto the because of the ladd and of thy bondmayde: But in all that Sara hath SAIDE vnto the heare hir voyce for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Notice the spelling of SAID, spelled in two different ways in the SAME verse.
Also here we have LORDE with an E, vnto with a v plus greavous, ladd, bondmayde heare, hir, voyce all spelt differently than the eventual finalised spelling of the words.
This had nothing to do with the translation or the actual word used.
There simply is not one single alteration to the actual underlying text of the KJV. There is nothing more than the correction of the errors that occured in the process of the printing.
the Blayney Revision
In 1769 Dr Benjamin Blayney produced an edition of the KJV. Many people, those who do not know any better, James White included, love to point to the 1769 Blayney “revisions” to proclaim that the KJV has indeed gone through literally thousands of changes.
However what they do not realise, probably because they have not actually bothered to find out what those changes were, is that Blayney did not change the text of the KJV at all. The THOUSANDS of changes he made were the updating of the spelling of many words to the finalised spelling. He changed saide and sayde to said, Sinne to the now modern sin, dayes to days, sonne to son and others words in the same manner. He also edited some of the punctuation and removed the capitalisation of some words like Ark to ark. Some words that were not previously italicised were put in italics. And that was it. Those are the thousands of changes that he made. He NEVER changed the actual wording of the KJV.
Oxford v Cambridge
Another argument is the Oxford v Cambridge versions.
There are basically 2 printers of the KJV. The Oxford press and the Cambridge press.
There are some people who will use this as an attack against the inerrancy of the KJV. Which version is the correct version?
This “problem” is rather less of a problem than what those using the argument would like to think there is.
There are actually 3 differences between the 2 prints
They are in Jeremiah 34-16 Nahum 3-16 and 2 Chronicles 33-19
Oxford: Jeremiah 34:16 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.
Cambridge: Jeremiah 34:16 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.
If we go on manuscript evidence the more correct reading based on the Hebrew is YE.
BUT even if we go with the reading he, there is no real difference. He would be referring to the group collective singularly speaking of each individual whereas Ye refers to each individual member as the collective group.
Oxford: 2 Chronicles 33:19 His prayer also, and how God was entreated of him, and all his sins, and his trespass, and the places wherein he built high places, and set up groves and graven images, before he was humbled: behold, they are written among the sayings of the seers.
Cambridge: 2 Chronicles 33:19 His prayer also, and how God was entreated of him, and all his sin, and his trespass, and the places wherein he built high places, and set up groves and graven images, before he was humbled: behold, they are written among the sayings of the seers.
There really is no difference between sins and sin here seeing the word is preceded by the words ALL his. All here is inclusive. Sins is the plural of sin. All sin means all the sins. BOTH are correct renderings in English.
Oxford: Nahum 3:16 Thou hast multiplied thy merchants above the stars of heaven: the cankerworm spoileth, and fleeth away.
Cambridge: Nahum 3:16 Thou hast multiplied thy merchants above the stars of heaven: the cankerworm spoileth, and flieth away.
A cankerworm does not fly but in the context a literal flying is not what is being inferred it is rather taking flight as in to flee
Flight here means EXACTLY the same as flee.
And that’s it folks, that IS the Oxford v Cambridge argument.
When we properly study the revision argument there just is no argument to be had.
The KJV stands against all attacks. The KJV is correct.