Was 1769 Oxford KJV free from man-made error?

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Nov 16, 2006
563
18
✟805.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
David Sorenson wrote: "The King James Version of the Bible in America at present is in fact the 1769 edition" (Touch Not the Unclean Thing, p. 17). David Cloud wrote that "an update was made between 1762-69 to correct any lingering printing errors and to update the spelling" (Faith vs. the Modern Bible Versions, p. 589). Douglas Stauffer asserted that "the 1769 edition merely continued the process of spelling standardization begun in the 1762 edition" (One Book Stands Alone, p. 348). Robert Sargent claimed that "the spelling was standardized to its modern form in the 1762 and 1769 editions" (English Bible, p. 229). KJV-only author Timothy Morton contended that "the 1762 and 1769 [editions] were to update the spelling" and that "by 1769 whatever slight textual errors that still remained were removed, and the text was finally free from any man-made error" (Which Translation Should You Trust, p. 42). Al Lacy maintained that "the 1769 edition of the 1611 King James Bible is perfect" (Can I Trust My Bible, p. 144). Joey Faust maintained that "nothing after 1769 is a true edition" (Common Man’s Defense of KJV-onlyism, p. 43). William Bradley claimed that "the last one in 1769 made no changes in the text, only standardization of spelling, punctuation, and updated typeface" (To All Generations, p. 71). Lloyd Streeter claimed that the perfection of the KJV "should be looked upon as a winnowing or refining process extending from Tyndale through 1769" (Seventy-five Problems, p. 104). Streeter asserted that God used "those who corrected printing and spelling errors between 1611 and 1769" (p. 104).

Was the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV free from man-made error? Was all the updating of spelling finished in KJV editions by 1769?
 

TwinCrier

Double Blessed and spreading the gospel
Oct 11, 2002
6,069
617
54
Indiana
Visit site
✟24,768.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Upvote 0

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Nov 16, 2006
563
18
✟805.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Quote:
Was the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV free from man-made error?
No.

Great, you answered the question correctly. The 1769 Oxford edition did have some errors.

Were any of those errors kept from the 1611 edition?
Were any of those errors introduced into the KJV between 1611 and 1769?
Were any of those errors first introduced in 1769?
 
Upvote 0

TwinCrier

Double Blessed and spreading the gospel
Oct 11, 2002
6,069
617
54
Indiana
Visit site
✟24,768.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Were any of those errors kept from the 1611 edition?
There are no doctrinal errors in the KJV.
Were any of those errors introduced into the KJV between 1611 and 1769?
Yes.
Were any of those errors first introduced in 1769?
Have to be since they aren't in their before 1611.

You sure spend a lot of time on the net attempting to destroy the faith of bible believers. Do you crisicize all versions of the bible, or only the one people believe?
 
Upvote 0

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Nov 16, 2006
563
18
✟805.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married

According to her posts, TwinCrier disagrees with those KJV-only authors who claim that the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV was perfect and free of all man-made error.

Some sources claim that the 1769 Oxford KJV had at least 116 errors. For example, Blackford Condit asserted that Blayney’s 1769 edition “was not entirely free from errors, which were discovered to the number of one hundred sixteen, when it was collated for Eyre and Strahan’s edition of the Bible in 1806” (History of the English Bible, p. 397). Calmet’s Dictionary of the Holy Bible confirmed: “In collating the edition of 1806 with Dr. Blayney’s, not fewer than one hundred and sixteen errors were discovered” (I, p. 312). Raidabaugh also reported that “not fewer than one hundred and sixteen errors were discovered in collating the edition of 1806 with Dr. Blayney’s” (History, p. 61). Darlow and Moule observed that the 1769 edition "contains many misprints, probably more than 'the commonly estimated number of 116‘" (Historical Catalogue of the Printed Editions of Holy Scriptures, I, p. 294). The Cambridge History of the Bible noted that Blayney’s edition “was indeed erroneous in many places” (p. 464). David Daniell also asserted that the 1769 Oxford standard KJV edition included “many errors,” and that it repeated “most of Dr. Paris’s errors” in the 1762 Cambridge (Bible in English, pp. 606, 620). Bullinger maintained that the 1762 and 1769 editions "made many emendations of the Text; some of them very needless, and also introduced errors of their own, not always those pertaining to the printer" (Figures of Speech, p. 987).
 
Upvote 0

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Nov 16, 2006
563
18
✟805.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
The 1769 Oxford KJV edition is said to have introduced the mistaken rendering “Zithri” into the text at Exodus 6:21. A printer may have taken this rendering from Exodus 6:22. While it may have been originally a printing error, this rendering persisted though many editions, even being accepted in KJV editions published by different publishers.
 
Upvote 0

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Nov 16, 2006
563
18
✟805.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Another actual error that seems to have been introduced by printers or editors at Oxford is at 1 Chronicles 2:47 [“Gesham“ for “Geshan“]. James D. Price affirmed that the Masoretic Text and the 1611 edition of the KJV correctly read “Geshan” at this verse (King James Onlyism, p. 290). The 1762 Cambridge edition still has the correct “Geshan.” Scrivener indicated that this error was introduced in the 1769 Oxford edition (Authorized Version, pp. 33, 220). It is possible that some earlier edition of the KJV first had this error. This error is found in Oxford editions printed in 1795, 1810, 1812, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840, 1847, 1850, 1857, 1859, 1868, 1870, 1876, 1880, 1885, and in today’s Oxford edition in the Scofield Reference Bible. Some Cambridge editions printed in 1790, 1824, 1833, 1842, 1865, 1869, 1872, and 1887 have this same error. A present American Bible Society KJV edition and a present Thomas Nelson KJV edition also still have this error. Why do some present KJV editions still have a printing error introduced over 200 years ago? On the other hand, the 1873 Cambridge edition as also found in present Zondervan KJV editions, the present Cambridge Standard Text Edition, and the 1997 Oxford World’s Classics edition of the KJV printed by Oxford University Press have the correct “Geshan.” Did present Cambridge editions take this correction from Scrivener’s 1873 edition?
 
Upvote 0

Seeker of the Truth

Walking is harding than Talking.
Aug 20, 2006
2,145
82
35
Georgia
✟10,243.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Honestly, what's the point in saying the same thing over and over again? You say the same thing in every thread you post in. What's the point? You're not accomplishing anything by making yourself look like all you care about is slandering the KJV.
 
Upvote 0

IndyRider

Member
Aug 29, 2006
102
10
✟7,769.00
Faith
Christian
Honestly, what's the point in saying the same thing over and over again? You say the same thing in every thread you post in. What's the point? You're not accomplishing anything by making yourself look like all you care about is slandering the KJV.
He does not slander the KJV bible in any thread that he posts in. He is merely stating that it is not the only translation inspired by God. By doing this, those who are hopelessly closed minded about the issue feel attacked. This whole controversy is here to distract and divide the Christian body. It is legalism at its very best.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Seeker of the Truth

Walking is harding than Talking.
Aug 20, 2006
2,145
82
35
Georgia
✟10,243.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
He does not slander the KJV bible in any thread that he posts in. He is merely stating that it is not the only translation inspired by God. By doing this, those who are hopelessly closed minded about the issue feel attacked. This whole controversy is here to distract and divide the Christian body. It is legalism at its very best.
while i may agree, everybody is always defensive and nothing good comes from them.. if anything, people lose their beliefs
 
Upvote 0

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Nov 16, 2006
563
18
✟805.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
You say the same thing in every thread you post in. What's the point?

Evidently, you have not read all my posts. My posts do not all have the same information. I do post more about this issue of Bible translations because it is the subject that I have carefully researched and because it is a subject that is dividing Fundamentalists and Baptists unnecessarily. I read and use the KJV as my favorite overall English translation. I have not and do not object to any one reading the KJV. Out of love for the truth and even love for the KJV, I attempt to provide accurate information about the KJV and other translations. I see the inconsistent, KJV-only view as harmful to the KJV itself since it in effect undermines its underlying original language texts and the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it was a revision. The truth is consistent. The inconsistent claims of the KJV-only view hurts the cause of Christ and undermines the confidence of those who read other English translations. My view of Bible translation is actually the same view as that held by the early English translators including the KJV translators. The KJV-only view is contrary to the Bible translation view of the KJV translators. How do you think that nothing good comes from posting facts and truthful information?
 
Upvote 0
May 18, 2007
7
5
68
Santa Barbara Ca.
✟10,957.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Upvote 0

ric john

New Member
Dec 21, 2019
1
0
70
london
✟15,201.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Evidently, you have not read all my posts. My posts do not all have the same information. I do post more about this issue of Bible translations because it is the subject that I have carefully researched and because it is a subject that is dividing Fundamentalists and Baptists unnecessarily. I read and use the KJV as my favorite overall English translation. I have not and do not object to any one reading the KJV. Out of love for the truth and even love for the KJV, I attempt to provide accurate information about the KJV and other translations. I see the inconsistent, KJV-only view as harmful to the KJV itself since it in effect undermines its underlying original language texts and the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it was a revision. The truth is consistent. The inconsistent claims of the KJV-only view hurts the cause of Christ and undermines the confidence of those who read other English translations. My view of Bible translation is actually the same view as that held by the early English translators including the KJV translators. The KJV-only view is contrary to the Bible translation view of the KJV translators. How do you think that nothing good comes from posting facts and truthful information?
In a nutshell is there a better bible translation than the 1769 Blaney ? if yes which one?
 
Upvote 0