The Differences In The Editions of the King James Bible

One of the charges brought to bear by the Yea Hath God Said Society on King James Bible-believers, who believe every word of their Bible is perfect, is that “The King James is a ‘revised version’ JUST LIKE ALL THE OTHER REVISIONS ON THE MARKET, having gone through several revisions and editions since 1611 to arrive in it’s current form." 

This challenge is offered (like so many from those “deceiving and being deceived” within the ranks of the Alexandrian Cult) in hopes that the Bible-believer won’t do his homework and check the facts. After all, the goal of the cult is not to arrive at the truth nor help anyone else to find the truth; there is no such thing as absolute truth in their philosophy (Col. 2:8). They have no final authority above the hamster wheel slowly turning in their own heads. 

The goal, as usual, is to make the Bible-believer doubt his faith in God's Book. DOUBT IS THE NAME OF THE GAME. “Yea, hath God said…?” (Gen. 3). If the believer doubts, he might abandon his antiquated King James for a modern corruption. (It has happened, and continues to happen regularly—especially in the classrooms at Christian colleges and universities.) And, if he does THAT, then he becomes the property and plaything of the egotistical authoritarians in Christian Scholarship, who seek to supplant God’s Authority (His words) and install themselves as the final authority of the body of Christ.  

Another desire nested in the subtle (Gen. 3) and perversely deceptive motivations of the Yea Hath God Said Society might be accomplished if they manage to pull off this con—it would seem to justify the existence of the modern, corrupt “bibles,” which call themselves “revisions,” by pretending the King James is on the same level as they are because it, too, has been revised.

We call this a “deceptive con” because that is what it IS. As anyone within the scholarly community well knows, no “bible” put out since 1880 is a “revision” of the King James Bible. Every new version put on the market, beginning with the Revised Version of 1881, is based on an entirely different text than that of the King James Bible. If they were honest (and they certainly are not), the YHGSS would have called the RV the Replacement Version. In 1881, Westcott and Hort REPLACED the majority, Antiochan text of the King James Bible with the grossly corrupt (that is according to Dr. Dean Burgon, Dr. Edward Hills, Dr. David Otis Fuller, Dr. Ruckman, and Dr. Gipp, etc.), minority, Alexandrian text of the Vatican. 

So, what of the several legitimate revisions and editions of the King James Bible?

In a work entitled The Report On The History And Recent Collation Of The English Version Of The Bible Presented By The Committee On Versions To The Board Of Managers Of The American Bible Society And Adopted May 1, 1851 (American Bible Society, 1857), we find the facts about these matters.

By way of introduction to the material contained in the report, we here reproduce, for the reader’s edification, a statement on the profession of the AV translators concerning the power and authority of their work: “The translators little foresaw the vast results and immeasurable influence of what they had thus done, both for time and eternity” (pg. 7).

As for the supposed 30,000 changes in the various editions, the report states, “The English Bible as left by the translators has come down to us unaltered in respect to its text” (pg.7, emphasis mine). 

We will now list the exact number of editions (found on pg. 8-10 of the report), which is unknown to, or disregarded by the average Bible critic:

1. An edition in 1613 without the Apocrypha between the testaments. 

2. An Amsterdam edition in 1664 with a preface by a Baptist named John Canne; it was printed in Edinburgh and London in 1696, 1698, 1701, 1762, and 1766.

3. An Edition from Cambridge in 1678 with parallel texts by a certain Dr. Scattergood. 

4. An edition from Oxford in 1680 with Ussher’s Chronology added. 

5. An edition in 1701 under Drs. Tenison and Lloyd with chronological dates at the head of the columns and a further collection of parallel scriptures. Added in an appendix in the back were tables of scriptural measures, weights, and coins by a certain Dr. Cumberland of Peterborough. Because of typographical errors in this edition (which were nothing like erasing “God” from the verse that deals with the Incarnation—see the NIV, ESV, TEV, etc. in I Tim. 3:16), King George of England (April 24, 1724) ordered more proofreaders at the press to insure better copies.

6. An edition at Oxford under Dr. Blaney (1767) where the Oxford copies were carefully collated with the folio [“a book of the largest size, formed by once doubling a sheet of paper”] edition of 1611 [an original 1611 edition], that of 1701, and two other editions. The edition was published finally at Clarendon in 1769. This edition has been regarded as the standard copy for 250 years. 

With regard to variations within the editions, the report states, “With the exception of typographical errors and changes required by the process of orthography [the practice of spelling or writing words with the proper letters] in the English language, the text of our present Bible remains UNCHANGED AND WITHOUT VARIATION FROM THE ORIGINAL COPY AS LEFT BY THE TRANSLATORS” (pg. 11, emphasis mine).

The textual critic attempts to shake up the young believer and make him doubt his faith in the word and words of God by vaguely stating that there have been “30,000 changes” made between all the revisions of the various editions of the King James Bible from 1611 to 1769. In reality, these “changes” number no more than 24,000, and were made for the following purposes: 

1. To bring the spellings of certain words to a consistent standard (orthography).

2. To correct typesetting and printing errors.

3. To correct the typesetting and printing errors introduced when attempting to correct the FIRST round of typesetting and printing errors.

4. To add, subtract, or modify chapter headings, marginal notes, and page summaries. 

5. To add chronological markings in the margins or to text columns. 

6. To remove the useless apocrypha from between the testaments.

7. To standardize punctuation and parenthetical usage.

8. To standardize the usage of the indefinite article—“a” versus “an”—with regard to the words to which they apply. 

9. To capitalize words like “Spirit” and “Most High” in certain passages. 

10. To bring subsequent editions BACK IN LINE, and insure agreement with, the original 1611.

THE TEXT OF THE BIBLE WAS NEVER ALTERED, AND THE GOAL OF THESE GENUINE REVISIONS WAS ADHERENCE TO THE 1611. The result was a purification process, which God has honored. 

To conclude, there are differences in the editions of the King James—but differences are not legitimate errors in the text. Don’t be fooled by the lying infidels in “Christian scholarship,” or those who follow them and parrot them. They want to make you think the above changes are equal to REPLACING THE TEXT of the Scriptures with a corrupt text from Alexandria, Egypt, which makes a sinner out of Jesus Christ (Matt. 5:22), denies the Incarnation (1 Tim. 3:16), covers up the sins of the translators (2 Cor. 2:17), and attacks the Virgin Birth (Luke 2:33) and the Blood Atonement (Col. 1:14).

We have a God that has the power to inspire a perfect Bible (II Timothy 3:16), preserve It for us (Psalm 12:6,7), and put a copy in our hands. I’ve got One right here on the desk next to me. The question for you dear reader is, do YOU have a perfect Bible? 

“My Bible is just as good as any other…” 

Have you checked it? 

You say, “It’s not about every word being perfect, it’s about ‘the message’ contained in it…” 

How can you have a “message” without words? 

How can you have a perfect message, without perfect words?

And if your Bible is not perfect, how can you trust what it says about anything? 

Do you realize that you would know nothing about the love of God for your soul, which He proved to you by sending his Son, Jesus Christ, to suffer and die on a cross in your place, and rise again from the dead three days later, without the words of a Book? 

You have to stake your soul on the words of a Book, in order to be saved from your sins, and an eternity in hell. Do you mean to tell me that God would not go through the trouble or effort to make sure the words He gave to you about these matters were perfect? 

Do you believe God has the power to give you a perfect Book, a HOLY BIBLE (that’s what “holy” means, after all), that you can trust? If He does, and you don’t have one…why don’t you?

---GLC