✪ It was Merab, not Michal who was given to Adriel (1S. 18:19). "Another thing to notice is the mistranslation found in the King James Version of verse two. The King James Version indicates that one-sixth of the invading army is left alive. This is not found in the Hebrew text and has not been translated that way by subsequent translations." Ref-0204, p. 75. "When, finally, in the nineteenth century, Dr. F. Scrivener, a scholar working to modern standards, attempted to collate all the editions of the King James Bible then in circulation, he found more than 24,000 variations between them. The curious fact is that no one such thing as ‘The King James Bible’ -- agreed, consistent and whole -- has ever existed." Ref-0235, p. 226. "More than four hundred [printing] errors in the first edition of the King James Bible were corrected in a subsequent edition two years later." Ref-0236, p. 87. "The King James translation has passed through many editions and has been modernized considerably over the years. In 1613 a new edition was issued which contained more than four hundred variations from the original printing. Countless other emendations have taken place through the centuries of its existence, so many changes that the King James reader of today would be startled by the appearance of the 1611 edition." Ref-0236, p. 183. "While teaching the Greek text of Romans 5:11 years ago at seminary, I told my third-year class that here we had an example of one of the rare places in the KJV where we had an actual error. It reads here “by whom we have now received the atonement.” I pointed out that the Greek word there was katalagē, which definitely means reconciliation, not “atonement.” Later I did some seventeenth-century English study. Encountering the expression “to be at one with” in Shakespeare, I then realized that “at-one-ment” used to mean “reconciliation.” The KJV was right, and I was wrong!" Ref-0684, p. 28. "The early printings of the King James Bible included many errors. Many of these arose from weaknesses in the book production processes of the period. Proofing was often a haphazard business." Ref-0686, p. 213. "The first printing of the King James Bible in 1611 included a number of printing errors. For example, a small slip in the typesetting of the description of the interior of the tabernacle led to the following reading (Exodus 28:11): And for the north side the hangings were an hundred cubits, their pillars were twenty, and their sockets of brass twenty; the hoops of the pillars and their fillets of silver. But there were probably few who noticed, let alone cared, that the pillars really book hooks, not hoops. This error was corrected in the 1613 reprint." Ref-0686, pp. 214-215. "A further difference between the 1611 printing of the work and the 1613 reprint is of interest. Their variant translations of Ruth 3:15 led to the early printing being known as the “Great He Bible” (1611) and the later one as the “Great She Bible” (1613) respectively. The passage in question describes how Boaz measured out “six measures of barley,” and gave it to Ruth. The “Great He Bible” then has Boaz going off to a nearby city, whereas the “Great She Bible” reports it is Ruth who made this journey. The “Great She Bible” also caused bewilderment to some of its readers by confusing Jesus and Judas at one point (Matthew 26:36)." Ref-0686, p. 215. ". . . a warning to the Israelites about the devious ways of the Midianites took an unusual turn, thanks to an amusing misprint in one edition (Numbers 25:17-18): “Vex the Midianites, and smite them: For they vex you with their wives.” The possibilities suggested by this passage are immense and intriguing, to say the least. Yet “wives” was merely a misprint for “wiles.” More serious was the misprint in an edition of 1631, which rendered Exodus 20:14 as follows: “Thou shalt commit adultery.” The omission of the word “not” was speedily corrected, . . . The first edition of the King James Bible to be published by Oxford University Press appeared in 1675; this was followed in 1682 by a sumptuous edition prepared by the Oxford printer John Baskett. The value of the edition was greatly reduced by its many printing errors. For example, it made reference to the “Parable of the Vinegar” instead of the “Parable of the Vineyard” -- an error which led it to beuing nicknamed the “Vinegar Bible.”" Ref-0686, p. 216. In Mat. 6:13, the τοῦ πονηροῦ, a substantive adjective, is translated “evil,” but see exegesis - Mat._6:13. "Plummer pointed out that the King James translation of this verse [Luke 3:23] “is impossible” in light of the Greek text. Cranmer led the way in this mistaken translation in the Bible of 1539, and the later versions followed it. According to Plummer, the proper translation is: “‘Jesus himself was about thirty years of age when He began.’“ Alford said the verse should be translated: “‘Jesus was about thirty years old when He began’ (His ministry); not, ‘began to be about,’ & c., which is ungrammatical.” A. T. Robertson wrote that the translation “‘began to be about thirty years of age,’ is an impossible translation.”" Renald E. Showers, New Testament Chronology and the Decree of Daniel 9, Grace Journal Volume 11 Number 1, p. 30. In Eze. 21:10,13, the KJV uses “rod” where the context clearly is about the “scepter” ruling from the throne of David (cf. Gen. 49:10, KJV). The KJV mentions the "church in the wilderness" in Acts 7:38 when the Church did not exist prior to the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2), yet it translates εκκλησια more correctly as "assembly" in Acts 9:32,39,40. In Rev. 17:10, the KJV (and NKJV) translates εισιν in the TR as “and there are seven kings” when it should be they are. In Daniel 1:11, the KJV incorrectly translates הַמֶּלְצַר, “the steward” as the personal name “Melzar.” The mistranslation of our versions encourages this opinion: “The thing is gone from me” (Dan. 2:5, A. V.). Interpreters are quite commonly agreed that the rendering should be something like “the matter has been fully determined by me.” For the difficult word ’azda’ very likely means “assured, certain,” being a Persian loan word. The meaning is then: “The word is assured from me,” and that must mean, “The thing is fully resolved upon by me” (BDB). Ref-1241. p. 89. "Scholars today have an overall enhanced grasp of the original languages, leading to improved translations. . . . An instructive example is the use of the word satyr, which is a mythological dancer associated with the Greek god Dionysus. It has been incorrectly employed in the KJV in both Isaiah 13:21 and 34:14. If we refer to the original Hebrew (se'irim-pl.), and examine the meaning and context, we realize that this is not a reference to a satyr but an expression used to describe “hairy” male goats." Tania Fenwick, The King James Bible and the Importance of Textual Criticism, Ref-0066, Vol. 24 No. 4 Fall 2011, 107-112, p. 109. "[At Rev. 22:19] the TR text stands alone having Book of Life. The MT and NU texts have tree of life. It appears that the word Book is an artifact reflecting the reliance of Erasmus on the Latin Vulgate for the last six verses of the book of Revelation. Deficiencies other than typographical are not all Erasmus’ fault, or only partly so. He had the use of less than twenty manuscripts and used mainly only two or three. His only manuscript of Revelation lacked its last page; so Erasmus himself translated the Latin Vulgate back into Greek for the last six verses. [Gordon H. Clark, Logical Criticisms of Textual Criticism (Jefferson, MD: The Trinity Foundation, 1990), 38.] Instead of ἀπὸ τοῦ ζύλου (from the tree), the Textus Receptus (followed by the King James Version) reads ἀπὸ τοῦ βίβλου (from the book), a reading that occurs in no Greek manuscript. The error arose when Erasmus, in order to provide copy for the last six verses of Revelation (which were lacking in the only Greek manuscript of Revelation available to him), translated the verses from the Latin Vulgate into Greek. . . . The corruption of “tree” into “book” had occurred earlier in the transmission of the Latin text when a scribe accidentally miscopied the correct word ligno (“tree”) as libro (“book”). [Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Rev. 22:19] Ref-1266, Rev. 22:19." "Altogether, nearly 100,000 changes have been made to the 1611 KJV. The vast bulk of these are rather minor (mostly spelling and punctuation changes), but in the least this fact shows how impossible it is today for any church or any Christian to claim, “We read only the original 1611 King James Version of the Holy Bible”! With all the revisions made to this translation over the centuries, printer’s errors were bound to creep in. Even though the goal was to eradicate all mistakes, every printing of the KJV added more! For example, in 1611 the so-called ‘Judas Bible’ was printed: In Matt 26.36, the KJV says that Judas came with his disciples to a place called Gethsemane—even though Judas had already hanged himself in the previous chapter! The very first edition of the Authorized Version is the ‘Basketball Bible’ because it speaks of ‘hoopes’ instead of ‘hookes’ used in the construction of the Tabernacle. A 1716 edition has Jesus say in John 5.14 “sin on more” instead of “sin no more”! The next year, the famous ‘Vinegar Bible’ appeared; this name was attached to this printing because the chapter title to Luke 20 was “The Parable of the Vinegar” instead of the “Parable of the Vineyard.” In 1792, Philip, rather than Peter, denied his Lord three times in Luke 22.34. Three years later the ‘Murderer’s Bible’ was printed: It was called this because in Mark 7.27 Jesus reportedly told the Syro-Phoenician woman, “Let the children first be killed” instead of “Let the children first be filled”! In 1807 an Oxford edition has Heb 9.14 say, “Purge your conscience from good works” instead of “Purge your conscience from dead works.” A printing of the KJV in 1964 said that women were to “adorn themselves in modern apparel” instead of “modest apparel” in 1 Tim 2.9. But none of these printing mistakes can equal the Bibles of 1653 or 1631. These are the two ‘Evil Bibles’ of the King James history, for they both left out the word ‘not’ at key junctures. The 1653 edition—known as the ‘Unrighteous Bible’—said “the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of God” in 1 Cor 6.9. And the 1631 edition, the infamous ‘Wicked Bible,’ wrote the seventh of the ten commandments as “Thou shalt commit adultery”!" -- Daniel Wallace, 20180126100017.pdf. "As Erasmus neared the end of the project, he faced a delicate problem. In the Greek codex he had received from Reuchlin, the text of Revelation was embedded in a commentary by Andreas of Caesarea, a sixth-century exegete. The two texts were so closely entwined that it was hard to tell what was Scripture and what commentary, and the typesetter had so much trouble deciphering them that he introduced many errors. In about fifty places, moreover, the Greek text was so unclear that Erasmus had to translate from the Latin back into Greek. Finally, the codex lacked its final leaf and along with it the last six verses of Revelation. Since he could hardly issue a Bible without them, he decided to translate the verses from the Latin of the Vulgate into Greek—a mortal sin in sacred studies." Ref-1522, p. 253.
✪ See KJV - errors?, KJV - only - Geneva Bible preferred, KJV - preface. "Occasionally one sees a sign in front of a church building reading: “We use only the 1611 Authorized King James Version.” These churches mean well in seeking to maintain a great tradition. However, regarding “the 1611 version,” they are in error. If such readers were to be handed a copy of the real 1611 KJV (or the reprint of the same in Roman type), most of them would be unable to follow the archaic spelling and punctuation. Many would probably be offended to find the Apocrypha included as well. What they are really using is the 1769 revision (or a later Americanized edition of the same from the Bible Society)." Ref-0684, p. 25. "Many evangelicals and KJV-only advocates assert that the Bible provides explicit evidence for a doctrine of miraculous preservation. In their assertions, they apply the doctrine to a particular version of the Bible, most often the King James Version (KJV) of 1611. Yet an examination of the exegetical evidence from commonly cited biblical texts supports only a general promise of preserving the truth of God's message to mankind, not a particular version of the Bible. . . . Since historical evidence demonstrates that scribal errors exist in every extant manuscript, the conclusion to be drawn is that the Bible has been providentially preserved by means of secondary causation through the plethora of available manuscripts and not through miraculous preservation of particular manuscripts and versions." Jon Rehurek, "Preservation of the Bible: Providential or Miraculous? The Biblical View", Ref-0164, Vol. 19 No. 1, Spring 2008, 71:90, p. 71. "Combs rebuts, “If not one ‘jot’ or ‘tittle’ is to be changed, then they should insist on using only the 1611 edition of the KJV since ‘jot’ and ‘tittle’ certainly involve spelling, and there have been thousands of spelling changes since 1611.” " Jon Rehurek, "Preservation of the Bible: Providential or Miraculous? The Biblical View", Ref-0164, Vol. 19 No. 1, Spring 2008, 71:90, pp. 76-77. "The point is that if these verse [Mat. 5:17-18] claim miraculous preservation of the Scriptures themselves, the manuscript evidence contradicts Jesus' words. Not available manuscripts contain the inerrant autographic text (i.e., unchanged ‘jot’ or ‘tittle’) in totality. Combs writes, Jesus is not teaching in this verse ‘inerrant preservation of the Words of the Bible.’ Instead, Jesus is defending the “nature, extent, and duration of its [OT authority] validity and continuity.”" Jon Rehurek, "Preservation of the Bible: Providential or Miraculous? The Biblical View", Ref-0164, Vol. 19 No. 1, Spring 2008, 71:90, p. 77. "By stark contrast, that person who simply puts his/her faith in God's promise to preserve His Word (Jer. 1:12; Ps. 12:6-7; Isa. 40:8; Mark 13:31) concludes that God has done so and that it is to be found where He originally deposited it, namely, in the Hebrew Masoretic Text. It is likewise faithfully preserved in the English translation of the 1611 King James Bible. This person is left with maximum certainty, with peace of heart and peace of mind." Ref-0186, p. 12. "All questions related to the preservation and transmission of the Text are accepted as having been accomplished via providential preservation in fulfillment of God's promises to so do. Exhaustive study into the matter has led to the further conclusion that this preserved Text has best and most faith fully been rendered into English by the A.D. 1611 King James translators." Ref-0186, p. 20. But, as these KJV-only proponents are fond of appealing to Mat. 5:17-18 (every jot and tittle), the 1611 can't just be “best and most faithful,” it must be perfect which is easily demonstrated as not the case. Moreover, they should solely be utilizing the 1611 edition, not a later edition with thousands of corrections, as minor as they may be. "If, for instance, his commitment to inerrancy is not firmly established or if it only extends to the “originals”, he will be tempted and almost invariably eventually succumb to relegating difficulties to the category of so-called “scribal errors” in the text in order to ameliorate the problem." Ref-0186, p. 163. See KJV - errors? "Besides Tyndale’s translation, the Geneva Bible also had a huge influence on the KJ—especially in the Old Testament books that Tyndale had not translated. Further, in the original preface to the KJV the Bible is quoted several times—and every time it is the Geneva version that is quoted, not the King James!" Daniel Wallace, 1. From Wycliffe to King James (The Period of Challenge), [https://bible.org/seriespage/1-wycliffe-king-james-period-challenge], 20180126100015.pdf. "In the preface entitled, “The Translators to the Reader,” “They mention that some readers [may] have misgivings about the alternative renderings suggested in the margin, on the ground that they may appear to shake the authority of Scripture in deciding points of controversy.” But these translators had no illusions that theirs was the final word on the Word of God. They knew that later discoveries and research would help to clear up the meaning of the original. Unfortunately, this preface is no longer printed in the KJV. Its omission has been one of the major reasons why some religious groups believe that the KJV is the only inspired Bible, that the KJV is perfect in every way." -- Daniel Wallace, 20180126100017.pdf. "The preface also explicitly denied that the Authorized Version was perfect. The actual statement is important to grasp; listen to what it had to say: “To those who point out defects in [the translators’ works], they answer that perfection is never attainable by man, but the word of God may be recognized in the very meanest translation of the Bible, just as the king’s speech addressed to Parliament remains the king’s speech when translated into other languages than that in which it was spoken, even if it be not translated word for word, and even if some of the renderings are capable of improvement. To those who complain that [the translators] have introduced so many changes in relation to the older English version, they answer by expressing surprise that revision and correction should be imputed as faults. The whole history of Bible translation in any language, they say, is a history of repeated revision and correction.” A few observations on this statement are in order. (1) The translators do not equate their work with the inspired word of God; they explicitly deny the perfection of the KJB. (2) They freely admit that even the worst translation of Scripture is still to be regarded as the Word of God. (3) They make a qualitative distinction between the text written in one language and the translation of it into another. Regarding Scripture, they admit that only the original text in Greek and Hebrew was inspired (4) They implicitly approve all later revisions of their own work, because the very nature of Bible translation involves “a history of repeated revision and correction.”" -- Daniel Wallace, 20180126100017.pdf. "Here are some of the basic arguments that KJV advocates use for this Bible’s status as the only Holy Bible, with a brief response: (1) It is perfect. The translators were the best ever, the most godly men. But even the translators explicitly denied that the KJV was perfect in the original preface (which, unfortunately, is now no longer printed with the KJV Bible). They said, “perfection is never attainable by man.” They themselves said that only the original was inspired, that no translation was perfect or ever could be. (2) All modern translations cause chaos because they are so different. If we all used the KJ, there would be no uncertainty about the wording of the text. There is no uncertainty anywhere. But this ignores the fact that original 1611 KJV had 8500 marginal readings, many of which expressed doubt about the meaning or wording of the text. On numerous occasions, they simply had to ‘flip a coin’ and put something in the text! The translators were humble men, who wanted to alert the reader when they just weren’t sure what the Hebrew or Greek text meant. It is only the omission of these marginal readings that has given some folks the illusion of certainty. (3) No modern translation deserves the name, “Holy Bible.” But this is not the attitude of the KJ translators themselves. They said, “the word of God may be recognized in the very meanest translation of the Bible.” This would include the translations that came before them and the ones that came after. (4) God has used the KJV for 270 years. No other translation has stood the test of time. No other translation has sold as many copies. This proves that it is the one and only inspired Word of God. But this is not true. The Latin Vulgate was the official Bible of western Europe for over 1000 years—four times as long as the KJV was on the throne! And the NIV has actually outsold the KJV—and it did it in one-tenth the time. Frankly, this attitude is remarkably similar to the attitude that virtually every generation of Christians has had when confronted by a new translation that challenges their ‘old favorite.’ It represents emotional baggage rather than clear thinking. This attitude of resistance to new translations was seen when Jerome produced the Latin Vulgate, when Erasmus ‘corrected’ the Latin Vulgate, and even when the King James Bible was produced! Those who know history know that it is the attitude of the ignorant. And as much as we must truly love these folks, it is also important that we help them love and learn truth. The incarnation of Christ demands no less of us. (5) The language is exalted, elegant, beautiful. This Bible was written in the golden age of the English language—when English was correctly and properly spoken. This is the language that the Bible deserves to be in—Elizabethan English. But the real language of the Bible was of a different sort. It was the conversational Greek of the day—the Greek that men on the streets of Athens and Antioch, Jerusalem and Corinth, spoke. In fact, it was known as the ‘common Greek,’ and it was a big step down from the golden age of Greek literature, the classical Greek era that ended 400 years earlier. And although there were artificial and pompous attempts in the first century AD to revive this classical Greek, none of the NT writers got sucked into this mode of writing. Their writing was clear, and simple, and connected to real people—not artificial and pompous. And the KJ translators explicitly tried to capture that. Their goal, in fact, was to make the text as plain and simple to understand as possible. They said (in the original preface): ‘[The Catholics have] the purpose to darken the sense, that [although] they must needs translate the Bible, yet by the language thereof it may be kept from being understood. But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself … that it may be understood even [by] the very vulgar.” ‘It is a great irony that today part of the reason the KJB is so revered is because it sounds so archaic, so other-worldly. It is the Bible that speaks in a stained-glass voice. But this is precisely what the KJ translators condemned in a translation! Their intention—which they accomplished for their day 400 years ago—was to make the Bible clear, simple, easy to understand. All of these arguments have nothing to do with our Protestant heritage. Instead, KJ Only advocates unwittingly look more like Roman Catholics than Protestants." -- Daniel Wallace, 20180126100017.pdf "But choices have to be made by all who study the ancient witnesses to the text of Scripture. Even within the traditional text MSS there are textual variations that can be settled only by careful textual criticism. Those who demand an uncritical acceptance of the Received Text of the NT must face this. They have simply opted to live with the critical decisions of textual critics of the 16th and 17th centuries." Ref-1363, p. 449.
✪ "The Bishop’s Bible of 1568 would serve as a base text for the KJV. It is interesting to note that the Biship’s Bible relied on the Great Bible of 1539, and the Great Bible was based on Coverdale’s revision of Matthew’s Bible, published in 1535. This in turn was a revision of William Tyndale’s translations, crica 1525. Therefore, ‘the vast bulk of Tyndale’s translation has consequently been incorporated into the KJV.’" Tania Fenwick, The King James Bible and the Importance of Textual Criticism, Ref-0066, Vol. 24 No. 4 Fall 2011, 107-112, p. 107.
✪ "In the English of the King James Version (KJV), the forms that begin with th are singular (thou, thee, thy, thine), while those that begin with y are plural (ye, you, your)." Ref-1162, p. 77.
✪ See 20180126113832.pdf, 20180126113832.pdf. "Yet for all that, as nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, and the later thoughts are thought to be the wiser: so, if we building upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labours, do endeavor to make that better which they left so good; no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us; they, we persuade ourselves, if they were alive, would thank us." -- 20180126113832.pdf, p. 7. "No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it." -- 20180126113832.pdf, p. 7. "The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither doth it come near it, for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it, (as it is apparent, and as Saint Jerome and most learned men do confess) which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy of the appellation and name of the word of God." -- 20180126113832.pdf, p. 8. "Yet before we end, we must answer a third cavil and objection of theirs against us, for altering and amending our Translations so oft; wherein truly they deal hardly, and strangely with us. For to whomever was it imputed for a fault (by such as were wise) to go over that which he had done, and to amend it where he saw cause?" -- 20180126113832.pdf, p. 8. "But the difference that appeareth between our Translations, and our often correcting of them, is the thing that we are specially charged with; let us see therefore whether they themselves be without fault this way, (if it be to be counted a fault, to correct) and whether they be fit men to throw stones at us." -- 20180126113832.pdf, p. 8. "Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, (for then the imputation of Sixtus had been true in some sort, that our people had been fed with gall of Dragons instead of wine, with whey instead of milk but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark." -- 20180126113832.pdf, p. 9. "If you ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the New. These are the two golden pipes, or rather conduits, where-through the olive branches empty themselves into the gold. Saint Augustine calleth them precedent, or original tongues; [S. August. 3. de doctr. c. 3. etc.] Saint Jerome, fountains. [S. Jerome. ad Suniam et Fretel.] The same Saint Jerome affirmeth, [S. Jerome. ad Lucinium, Dist. 9 ut veterum.] and Gratian hath not spared to put it into his Decree, That "as the credit of the old Books" (he meaneth of the Old Testament) "is to be tried by the Hebrew Volumes, so of the New by the Greek tongue," he meaneth by the original Greek. If truth be tried by these tongues, then whence should a Translation be made, but out of them? These tongues therefore, the Scriptures we say in those tongues, we set before us to translate, being the tongues wherein God was pleased to speak to his Church by the Prophets and Apostles." -- 20180126113832.pdf, p. 9. "Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be sound in this point." -- 20180126113832.pdf, p. 9. ". . . diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded." -- 20180126113832.pdf, p. 10. "Lastly, we have on the one side avoided the scrupulosity of the Puritans, who leave the old Ecclesiastical words, and betake them to other, as when they put WASHING for BAPTISM, and CONGREGATION instead of CHURCH: as also on the other side we have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their AZIMES, TUNIKE, RATIONAL, HOLOCAUSTS, PRAEPUCE, PASCHE, and a number of such like, whereof their late Translation is full, and that of purpose to darken the sense, that since they must needs translate the Bible, yet by the language thereof, it may be kept from being understood. But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar." -- 20180126113832.pdf, p. 10. "The makers of the version in their day felt that the work called for some explanation and defense, and entrusted the writing of a suitable preface to Myles Smith, of Brasenose College, Oxford, afterward Bishop of Gloucester." -- 20180126114025.pdf, p. 1. "His Preface for many years stood at the beginning of the version. But for various reasons -- its length, its obscurity, its controversial and academic character -- it has gradually come to be omitted by modern publishers of the King James, which is thus made to present itself to the reader abruptly and without explanation or introduction of any kind. The result of this upon the hosts of ignorant and untrained people who use the version is disastrous in the extreme." -- 20180126114025.pdf, p. 1. "[KJV-only advocates] will accept this guidance and protection from no one else. It is idle for any modern to attempt to correct these misapprehensions; his efforts will only be resented or ignored. But if the King James Bible itself can be shown to say to its adherents the very things they most need to know about their version, it will be possible for them to benefit by them." -- 20180126114025.pdf, p. 2. "For these people will not give up so cherished a view for any say-so of ours. On the contrary, it would only serve to set them more rigidly in it. To whom then would they look with some willingness to learn? To the King James Bible itself. If its original Preface were once more offered to them, as it was offered to the first readers of that version, and as its makers intended it to be offered to all its readers, they could hardly refuse to listen." -- 20180126114025.pdf, p. 2. "The doctrine of the inspiration of the Translators was not held by them, and it is difficult to see how it can be held by anyone who will read even this much of their Preface." -- 20180126114025.pdf, p. 3. "But of course the greatest illusion about the King James Bible is that it is the sole, unique, divine Bible, untouched by human hands. This doctrine, grotesque as it is, is actually held as a matter of course by the vast majority of people. The publication of any preface from the Translators to the Reader would, by its very presence, whatever its contents, do much to remedy this. The superstitious veneration with which some very pious people regard it would be corrected by the reprinting of the Preface." -- 20180126114025.pdf, p. 3. "One of the most unfortunate things about the adherents of the King James Version is their antipathy to scholars. They regard them with grave suspicion. Yet their own version is the masterpiece of biblical scholarship in Jacobean England. If the Preface reveals no more to them than this, it would be worth printing, for it is precisely this rift between piety and learning that is most dangerous to the church." -- 20180126114025.pdf, p. 4. "As for obscurity, is the Preface any more obscure than the version it introduced? This is the strangest of all reasons for the King James printers to adduce, yet I have it before me in writing from one of the greatest of them. . . . "The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd." - Ecclesiastes 12:11 So reads the King James Version. Is there anything in the Preface that approaches this in obscurity? Yet publishers justify the omission of the Preface on the ground that it is "obscure." There is not a sentence in it as obscure as this one, or as hosts of others in the King James Version. No, if obscurity is the criterion, the publishers might have omitted the version and printed the Preface." -- 20180126114025.pdf, p. 4. "That that edition should continue to sink into greater and greater misconception and misrepresentation, when much of it might be prevented by the simple and obvious device of restoring the Preface, is intolerable." -- 20180126114025.pdf, p. 5.
✪ "The word “prevent” then meant something like “go before” or “precede.” Shifts in meaning can easily lead to misunderstandings of what an older translation meant. . . . the meaning of this verse might seem singularly unclear, until it is realized that the English really has the following sense: “The God of my mercy shall go before me.”" Ref-0686, p. 237.
✪ "The most famous English Bible of all time is often called the Authorized Version (AV), a misnomer because it was never officially sanctioned by either the monarchy or the clerical hierarchy (though its title page claimed that it was “appointed to be read in Churches”)." Ref-0240, p. 50. "There is no record of any final royal authorization of the completed translation -- for example, by an Order in Council. However, it is important to note that a fire at Whitehall in January 1618 led to the destruction of the records of the Council, including its registers, for the period 1600-13. The fact that there is no known royal “authorization” for the translation cannot necessarily be taken to imply such authorization was not forthcoming." Ref-0686, p. 164. "It is sometimes assumed that the words “appointed to be read in churches” imply that the work has been authorized for this purpose. In fact, this is not the case. Although a twenty-first-century reader would naturally interpret the word “appointed” to mean “authorized,” this is not the seventeenth-century meaning of the English term. The words -- which were in any case omitted from many later editions -- simply mean that the work was laid out in a way suitable for public reading in churches. . . . there is no documentary evidence that the 1611 Bible ever received final written authorization from the bishops, Privy Council, or the king. While it is possible that such authorization -- which would have taken the form of an Order in Council -- may have been lost in the Whitehall fire of January 12, 1618 (which destroyed the Privy Council registers for the years 1600-13), it is more likely that no such order ever existed." Ref-0686, pp. 206-207.
✪ "The translation of Romans 5:2-11 reveals this concern [of the KJV translation commitee] to ensure variety. According to the King James Bible, Paul and his colleagues “rejoice in hope of the glory of God . . . we glory in tribulations . . . we also joy in God.” The same Greek verb -- which would normally be translated as “rejoice” -- is, in fact, being translated using different words (here italicized) in each of the three cases. There can be no doubt that this flexibility allowed the translators to achieve a judicious verbal balance that enhanced the attractiveness of the resulting work. Yet inevitably, a price was paid for this in terms of the accuracy that some had hoped for." Ref-0686, pp. 194-195. "The difficulty in translating what are usually referred to as “gospel parallels” can be seen by comparing the following, bearing in mind that exactly the same Greek words are being translated in each case. Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak (Matthew 26:41). Watch ye and pray, lest ye enter into temptation. The spirit truly is ready, but the flesh is weak (Mark 14:38). The casual reader might gain the impression that quite different Greek words were being translated in each passage; in fact, the Greek text is identical in each case." Ref-0686, p. 240. "We have already noted some of the issues that are of importance here -- for example, the decision not to translate each Hebrew or Greek word with exactly the same English word or phrase in every case. While this unquestionably led to a more elegant English translation, issues of accuracy inevitably arose. For example, the same Hebrew word -- khiyday -- is translated in a number of different ways, including “riddle” (Judges 14:12-17; Ezekiel 17:2), “hard question” (1 Kings 10:1), “dark saying” (Psalm 49:5; Proverbs 1:6), and “dark sentence” (Daniel 8:23)." Ref-0686, p. 249.