This is getting too recondite for me. It's not enough to believe that there is special something about the KJV -- it turns out that special something is found in only one edition of the KJV, only there seems to be no agreement on identifying that one edition. It evidently wasn't the first edition in 1611, it was something afterward. Maybe Oxford, maybe Cambridge, maybe this year, maybe that year, .... maybe the edition that the Gideons put in the nightstand in my hotel room.
And I think that people who are wrapped up in that argument have lost sight on the main issue: The teachings of the Bible that transcend trifling differences in editing.
What is the KJV-only basis for the presumption or assumption that there is such a thing as the "true Cambridge edition"?
It has been pointed out to you before that you change the phrasing, the PCE asserts it is the pure Cambridge edition, yet Cambridge truly prints other versions even today. There is no TCE.
The purity proclaimed is not only within the class of Cambridge editions, the purity proclaimed is that the edition represents the received King James Bible of today and is pure by careful and providential updating and editing. The term Cambridge in the PCE is for general identity, since they actually printed the text frequently in the 1900s.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coverdale
If there is supposedly no true standard Oxford edition, why are present Cambridge editions based on the 1769 standard Oxford edition?
Your question is based only on your own word changing.
This is getting too recondite for me. It's not enough to believe that there is special something about the KJV -- it turns out that special something is found in only one edition of the KJV, only there seems to be no agreement on identifying that one edition.
On this forum there is no such disagreement, and the position for the pure edition is well represented by bibleprotector.
And the attack-point is made by anti-pure-KJB "what about the editions !". If you look at that Norris argument as petty then you can surely bypass the response that answers his belaboured attempts to compare italics within editions ! And other such stuff.
You might however clearly state that you do not consider the minor updates and edition changes of the KJB as a concern and you find the labours of Norris amusing but of no consequence, rather than be concerned about the very sensible responses.
David Sorenson claimed: "To summarize, the edition of the King James Version almost universally used in the world today is the 1769 edition by Benjamin Blayney. It contains 136 substantial and specific translational changes as documented by D. A. Waite. Therefore, the King James Bible used by these brethren has been changed 136 times from the one which they hold inviolate. Furthermore, the edition of the KJV which virtually all Americans use is the Oxford edition" (Touch Not the Unclean Thing, p. 19).
David Sorenson claimed: "To summarize, the edition of the King James Version almost universally used in the world today is the 1769 edition by Benjamin Blayney. It contains 136 substantial and specific translational changes as documented by D. A. Waite. Therefore, the King James Bible used by these brethren has been changed 136 times from the one which they hold inviolate. Furthermore, the edition of the KJV which virtually all Americans use is the Oxford edition" (Touch Not the Unclean Thing, p. 19).
This is not representative of facts or of a proper KJBO view.
David Sorenson claimed: "To summarize, the edition of the King James Version almost universally used in the world today is the 1769 edition by Benjamin Blayney. It contains 136 substantial and specific translational changes as documented by D. A. Waite. ... the Oxford edition" (Touch Not the Unclean Thing, p. 19).
This was written in 2001 and at that time many KJB defenders were not as aware of the edition details and refinements as we are today. The pure-KJB opponents idea of making a big deal about minor edition changes was also only beginning at that time. It is a bit humorous since every KJB update put together is not even remotely significant compared to one of the alexandrian corruptions like that done to "God was manifest in the flesh.." in the versions of most of those against the purity of the KJB. Note how Rick has not once spoken out against such gross textual mangling as occurs in the alexandrian modern versions against his own preserved scripture.
The reliance on the study of D. A. Waite could be from his 1998 "Defending the King James Bible: a four-fold superiority : texts, translators, technique, theology" (there was also a smaller 1993 edition). Or Sorenson was working off of Waite's "KJB of 1611 Compared to the KJB of the 1917 Old Scofield” http://www.biblefortoday.org/search.asp (put in Item# 1294).
Folks can check the pamphlet for details if they have it available, I do not. And Waite may have used the Scrivener Appendix A which has a lot of detail info. And/or he was working off his own study which talked about "changes to the ear". That study gives the number 136 and used a rather unrefined methodology and another writer could change the exact description. The number of "changes to the ear" (which will vary by speaker and listener) would not be a good indicator of "substantial and specific translational changes" which true number could be more or less. I do not know offhand if Waite was including what looked to be printer's errors .. although of course as we have seen here you can have rather long discussions about that term.
And in general such numbers will always vary, as do numbers of variants in comparing any two NT editions in any textual analysis, since 2-way comparisons are always subject to the vagaries of the specific implementation. Only 3-way comparisons will by nature be subject to numbers that have built-in precision.
Since many KJB defenders have learned a lot more about the 1611, the 1629 and 1638 editions, the 1769 Blayney and the general edition refinements in the last few years (largely due to the technical efforts and writings of bibleprotector and those working with him and also Internet availability of historical information) any quote that goes to research a decade ago is a smidgen behind the times.
One thing we have learned .. to simply talk of 'Oxford' and 'Cambridge' can be misleading, since the pure Cambridge edition includes much by way of the refinements received from the efforts of the Oxford editor Benjamin Blayney. Thus the thread subject talking about the "True Standard Oxford edition" is simply irrelevant, although it is good to see how we received the refinements in the pure KJB.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Last edited by Steven Avery; 11-09-2009 at 05:19 AM.
Folks can check the pamphlet for details if they have it available, I do not. And Waite may have used the Scrivener Appendix A which has a lot of detail info. And/or he was working off his own study which talked about "changes to the ear". That study gives the number 136 and used a rather unrefined methodology and another writer could change the exact description. The number of "changes to the ear" (which will vary by speaker and listener) would not be a good indicator of "substantial and specific translational changes" which true number could be more or less.
In his study and comparison, D. A. Waite claimed that he took "these same examples" listed by Scrivener (Central Seminary, p. 78). It seems however that Waite did not actually make use of the appendix in Scrivener's book even though Waite's Bible for Today had reprinted it. He perhaps only assumed that he found all the same examples listed by Scrivener. If Waite actually used Scrivener's book, it becomes difficult to explain why so many actual differences listed by Scrivener are omitted from Waite's list.
Here are some examples of differences listed in Scrivener's book, but that are not in Waite's list. Waite’s listing and count does not include the adding of two words at ten verses (Exod. 15:25 [“for them”], Exod. 35:11 [“his boards”], Lev. 19:34 [“unto you”], Lev. 26:23 [“by me”], Deut. 26:1 [“thy God”], 1 Sam. 18:27 [“and went”], Ezek. 46:23 [“row of”], John 7:16 [“and said“], 1 John 5:12 [“of God“], Rev. 1:4 [“which are“]), three words at three other verses (Josh. 13:29 [“the children of“], Jud. 1:31 [“of” three times], 2 Kings 11:10 [“of the LORD“]), and six words at one verse (Eccl. 8:17 [“yet he shall not find it”]). Thirty-five more word changes missed by Waite. There are also over 60 verses where later editors added one word that are not included in Waite’s list. There are at least fifteen verses where later editors omitted one word in the 1611 that are not on Waite’s list. Over thirty changes of the number [singular/plural] of words in the 1611 are also not listed.
Both Waite's count of 421 changes that affect sound and of 136 substantial changes are inaccurate. Waite did not list and count over two-thirds of the total number of changes that affect the sound and around one-half of those he termed "substantial changes." After being sent a booklet that listed over 2,000 such differences, Waite now says that there are over 1,000. Thus, Waite in effect now admits that his original research was less than 50% accurate.
D. A. Waite admitted that there are "136 substantial changes" between the 1611 KJV and current KJV plus "285 minor changes of form" (Defending the KJB, p. 244, see also pp. 3-4). In another book, Waite noted that he “found only 421 changes to the ear from the 1611 original compared with the 1917 Old Scofield King James Bible of today” (Fundamentalist Mis-Information on Bible Versions, p. 53, see also pp. 90-93). He indicated that he was sure that if another person did the same comparison that they “would get the same results” (p. 93). In yet another book, Waite observed that in “changes of words as to their sound from the King James Bible of 1611 to the present King James Bible there are only 136 differences” (Central Seminary Refuted on Bible Versions, p. 24). He then indicated that if such small things as a change from “towards” to “toward” are included “you get 413 words in all” (p. 25). Later in this same book, he gives his “only 421 translational changes” count (p. 76), but he also gives a count of “only 435 changes” (p. 116). In his original 1985 booklet, Waite did acknowledge that he “might have missed a place or two throughout the course of the Bible” (AV1611 Compared to Today’s KJV, p. 4). He added that he “tried to record them all” (p. 4). He then referred to “the total translation changes of 421” (p. 4). How accurate and reliable was Waite’s research in comparing these two KJV editions? Should his count be regarded as an almost complete list of all the changes of sound between these two editions? When Waite used the words “total,” “only,” and “in all“ that are quoted above, does that suggest that his count is presented as a complete or incomplete list of all these changes? Waite seemed to recommend to others that they use his count when he wrote: “You tell them about the mere 136 changes of substance plus 285 minor changes of form only. Argue them down” (Defending the KJB, p. 244). Do others cite or quote this count as though it was a complete and factual listing of all the changes?
Waite labored in vain to convince English-speaking believers that there were only 421 changes between the 1611 edition and the Oxford edition in the Scofield Reference Bible and that there were only 136 changes of substance although he did manage to mislead some KJV-only advocates who repeated his inaccurate counts.
D. A. Waite admitted that there are "136 substantial changes" between the 1611 KJV and current KJV
Actually the supposed "admission" was worded as follows.
"There were only 136 substantial changes that were different words."
Now a "different word" is an extremely minor change compared say to the hundreds of alexandrian substantial changes that radically change verses and meanings. Substantial is only in the context of KJB editions, where a "substantial change" is extremely minor compared to modern textual tamperings.
Rick Norris never once criticizes such gross tamperings however .
Consistency, thou are a jewel.
As for D. A. Waite inaccuracies, they are becoming more and more irrelevant as folks get more informed on the pure King James Bible. I have never seen his counts quoted by the net defenders, it is simpler simply to look at some of the examples to see the minor updates and then study the purification to today's pure Bible.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Last edited by Steven Avery; 11-10-2009 at 12:27 AM.
The views and opinions expressed on this web site are not necessarily those of the Fighting Fundamental Forums management. This is an open and unmoderated forum. The content of each post is the sole responsibility of the poster. Participants are expected to follow the simple rules of the forum. Within these wide parameters various views are welcome to be expressed freely.
The college names used on the FundamentalForums.com web site are trademarks of their respective schools. The forums are not officially sanctioned by any of the institutions represented.
.
Linear Mode
