Thu. Sep 29th, 2022
    Annotation 2022-05-25 112248

    Transcript: Greetings everyone. Today I’m going to talk about the 1611 authorized King James Bible compared to the KJV. So when I say authorized 1611 King James Bible, I mean the first printing that came off the press in 1611 and was approved by the translation committee and by King James. And I have to emphasize the first printing because there were subsequent printings, one in 1613 and several after that introduced corruptions. So you must have the first printing. How do I know I have the first printing? Because it lines up with the first printing that is held in the British Library in London. It’s exactly the same. That’s the one I’m using. So unless you’ve got a 1611 that lines up with the first printing that is held in the British Library, you may not have the real thing.

    YouTube player

    Source of Video and the published books on this subject.

    One of the reasons I’m doing this study is because I’ve received some very
    misguided and I would say pompous comments from people who use the KJV and
    claim that they’ve actually compared the real 1611 to the KJV. And they say
    there are no doctrinal changes in the KJV. Now that is simply not true. And I
    know they haven’t carefully compared the two because if they had, they would
    know where the problems are. Yet I often hear KJV defenders say that they have
    made these comparisons. It’s simply not possible for them to have made those
    comparisons because when Benjamin Blayney in 1769 revised the 1611, that’s what
    the KJV is. It is not a translation, it is a revision. And that’s a fact of
    history. When Blayney did that, there were a significant number of well-known
    and respected scholars that commented on the problems.

    And indeed Pollard in the introductory notes to the 1611 mentions this very
    thing. And there was a controversy and it was called the he she Bible
    controversy. And Blayney had made mistakes in the pronouns. For example, in the
    book of Ruth he changed Boaz going to the city, to Ruth going to the city. So
    the pronoun in the 1611 and all the Reformation Bibles read he went to the
    city. Blayney, with no training in Greek or Hebrew, changed the pronoun to she
    went to the city. And there was an outcry at the time because even the people
    in the pews knew it was Boaz who went to the city. And this is confirmed when
    you get to chapter four in the 1611 authorized King James Bible that it is indeed
    Boaz in the city. And the reason this is important is because Boaz is a Kinsman
    Redeemer, and the Kinsman Redeemer is a type of Jesus Christ.

    And the city that Boaz went into is Bethlehem. So to complete the picture,
    the Kinsman Redeemer had to come out of Bethlehem and he had to redeem the
    Church. Ruth is a picture of the Church. And so Boaz went to the city which is
    Bethlehem redeemed Ruth which is a picture of the Church, and came out of
    Bethlehem. And so this is an important distinction. Blayney in chapter three
    makes the mistake of changing the pronoun. He went to the city, to she went to
    the city. And so it creates a doctrinal inconsistency. It makes the witnesses
    of the scripture confused and disagree with each other. Now, this is typical of
    the KJV, but let me just reel things back a little bit. To understand the
    difference, you have to have something of an historical perspective. The 1611
    was indeed a translation from the Greek and Hebrew.

    It was commissioned by King James and he appointed 47 or 54 scholars.
    There’s some debate about that. It doesn’t matter. But these were the best
    scholars in the entire British Kingdom. King James put the entire resources of
    the British Kingdom behind this translation, and he picked the very best
    scholars in the world. These were men who spoke Hebrew and Greek, conversed in
    Hebrew and Greek, and read Hebrew and Greek. They were very well informed. Now,
    the translation was done in public. That is to say, as they translated, they
    made the information, the translation publicly available so anybody could
    scrutinize the work as it went along. And when these great scholars were
    uncertain of something, they would take it out to the churches, they would go
    to the pastors of the various churches, to the congregations, and they would
    pray about these things, and then they would go back to the drawing board and
    continue with the translation. So the whole process was in full scrutiny of
    anyone who wanted to see what was going on. Now contrast this with Benjamin
    Blayney’s revision. Benjamin Blayney’s revision was not done with open scrutiny
    to the public or the academic community.

    He was one man, one man in 1769 with a master’s degree, no formal training
    in Hebrew or Greek. One man compared to the 47 or 54 of the best scholars in the
    British Kingdom that translated the 1611, Blayney was one man with no Greek or
    Hebrew training. So how is it that this one man, in private, in secret, makes a
    revision of the work of 47 of the best scholars who actually spoke the ancient
    languages, conversed in Hebrew and Greek, read it, understood it. How is it
    that one guy, Benjamin Blayney, was able to produce a Bible that was superior?
    It makes no sense. Furthermore, Blayney was an Episcopalian, Episcopalians were
    basically half Roman Catholic and half Protestant. And if push came to shove,
    they invariably fell to the Roman Catholic side of things. That was Benjamin
    Blayney. And indeed, after the KJV revision came off the press in 1769, Blayney
    then went back to school to learn Hebrew and Greek. And he spent a considerable
    amount of time earning a doctorate, after which he then did translations of
    Jeremiah and a couple of other Old Testament books using the Vatican
    manuscripts.

    He did not use the text that the translators of the 1611 used to produce the
    authorized 1611 King James Bible. He used Vatican manuscripts. So this is the
    difference. This guy, Benjamin Blayney, was not favourably disposed to the
    underlying texts used by the translators of the authorized 1611 King James
    Bible. Let me return to the reason that I’m making this message. It’s because
    of misguided comments from people who don’t really know this subject but want
    to challenge me in ways that are simply not credible. Nor are they adequately
    informed historically. Nor have they actually compared the 1611 to their KJV.
    They claim to some of them. But if you have in fact done this yourself, you
    will know that most of these people have not. And so I wrote a book, Authorized
    the Real 1611 King James Bible, and in that book I provide the historic background,
    and I discuss many of the problems with the KJV. I’ll read you a little bit
    from the introduction, which begins with tingling ears. Few have actually read
    the authentic 1611 Authorized King James Bible, however, many think they have
    because they’ve read the King James Version KJV, and fewer still have carefully
    compared the 1611 Authorized King James Bible and the KJV. In this book I will
    explain some of the critical differences between the two Bibles, both bearing
    the name of King James, but only one legitimately.

    Now I’m going to skip down to page twelve. I’m still reading in the
    introduction, beginning in the second to last paragraph on that page.
    Impersonation and corruption of the pure Word began almost immediately after
    the 1611 Authorized King James Bible was published, and it has continued over
    the last 400 years with imposter after imposter littering the Christian
    community presuming to take the place of the 1611. Yet there is no Bible today
    that can legitimately claim to be a faithful update or equally represent the
    Bible that King James authorized and published in 1611. Moreover, acquiring a
    faithful and unaltered Authorized King James Bible is difficult and sometimes
    confusing, as most publishers sell Bibles claiming to be the 1611, many of
    which are Reprints of altered versions produced after the real Authorized King
    James Bible came off the press in 1611. Such is the KJV with its many changes.
    Scrivener commented on this.

    If you don’t know who Skrivener is, do a little bit of research. He was a
    very well respected Greek and Hebrew scholar, considered one of the very best
    in the 18 hundreds, and he wrote this numberless and not inconsiderable
    departures from the original or standard edition of the Authorized Translation
    published in 1611 are to be found in the modern Bibles, which issue from the
    press by the thousands every year. Some of these differences must be imputed to
    oversight and negligence, from which no work of man can be entirely free. But
    much the greater part of them are deliberate changes introduced silently and
    without authority by men whose names are unknown. So here Scribner is
    commenting on Bibles that come after the 1611, and that would include the KJV
    now, we know that there was considerable outcry in the academic community
    regarding Bibles like the KJV, because in 1848 Reverend James W. Mcclain was
    employed by the American Bible Society to compare the leading British editions
    of the so called 1611 King James Bible, that is, of the Bibles that purport to
    be the 1611, and he compared those fake Bibles with the original 1611, that is,
    the first printing that came off the press in 1611. Now, his catalog showed few
    differences between the current leading versions, that is, the Bibles that were
    being published in the here’s what he said as illustrating the necessity of the
    present collection and the remarks already made upon the exposure of variation
    and error in the printing of so many millions of copies. It may suffice here to
    mention that the number of variations recorded by the Collater solely in the
    text and punctuation of the six copies compared that includes the KJV falls
    little short of 240.

    Now, I footnoted all these references in my book authorized the real 1611
    King James Bible. So if that’s something you think you need to verify, you can
    get my book, check the references. This is indeed what the scholars were saying
    in the 1800s. Let me continue quoting from my book, commenting further, James
    Price, in his book titled King James onlyism a new sect wrote the following. It
    must be observed, however, that a large percentage of the 240 variations were
    due to modernization of spelling, grammatical forms, and punctuation changes
    that had little or no effect on meaning and truth. More important are those
    changes that did affect meaning in some way. So James Price is acknowledging
    that there were many changes, but he’s also saying that some of them did affect
    meaning. Now, this was the general view when the KJV came out and for a while
    thereafter.

    Here’s another important historic fact, and I’ll continue reading from my
    book Polar Notes in his biographical introduction to the 1611 that there were
    several editions printed by Barker, the printer of the first printing of the
    1611. These subsequent editions, Polar Notes, were not faithful to the first
    printing. In fact, there were two editions printed in 1611, the first being the
    correct 1611, and the subsequent additions that came out of Barker’s office of
    questionable accuracy. Here’s what Polar writes. After the first edition completed
    in 1611, an entirely new one was put in hand, the issue of the bulk of which
    belongs to 1613. And in this year there appeared also a Folio reprint for
    Church use in smaller type. A third edition in the largest type was published
    in 1617, a fourth in 1634, and a fifth in 1640. Now this is important
    information because only the 1611 1st printing is faithful. That’s the one that
    the 47 best scholars in the Kingdom approved.

    That’s the one that King James approved. That’s the 1611 that you want. All
    the subsequent additions have corruptions, and they lead up to Benjamin Blayney’s
    revision. You can see the trend the devil corrupting the real 1611 a little at
    a time until we get to the Episcopalian Benjamin Blayney, who again had no
    training in Hebrew or Greek but revised the 1611. This was the trend and this
    is how Satan works. Now we know that Pollard’s testimony and statement is
    correct because Barker, the printer of the first edition of the 1611, the first
    printing, spent his last days in debtor’s prison unable to settle the many
    lawsuits filed against him for supplying imperfect books. Pollard notes that
    Barker’s subsequent printings exhibit a combination of sheets from the first
    and second printings where discrepancies in dates and other things appear. So this
    is important information because it’s leading up to the K JV, which is not a
    translation. It is a revision.

    Now these people who have perhaps ignorantly commented about this subject
    and obviously know nothing of these matters and have not compared the 1611 and
    the KJV. They have no idea of the history of corrupting the 1611 that led to
    the KJV. Let me continue reading from my book. Also, textual corruption began
    creeping in, as documented by Rev. Walter E. Smith, who published an article in
    titled The Great She Bible, referring to the second edition of the 1611 and
    most certainly the KJV, wherein the pronoun in Ruth chapter three, verse 15, is
    incorrectly rendered. The first incorrect edition of the 1611 reads he went
    into the city, and the latter, including the KJV reads she went into the city.
    It’s important to note that all Reformation Bibles included said he went into
    the city, not she went into the city. The KJV says she went into the city. I’ve
    already explained why he went into the city is the correct rendering and indeed
    the 47 scholars 54 if you seek a different source, but there was a lot of them.
    The reason they used he is because it’s the correct rendering and they took
    these issues out to the pastors and the congregations and other scholars, and
    it was settled that he went to the city.

    So when Blaine says she went to the city, he’s ignorantly. Changing that
    pronoun. One man changing the pronoun compared to the 47 or 54 best scholars in
    the British Kingdom who consulted with the academic community at large and the
    churches, there can be very little doubt that this one man, Blayney, with no
    training in Hebrew and Greek, didn’t know what he was doing. Let me continue
    reading from my book. Polard references Dr. Fha Scribner’s book titled The
    Authorized Edition of the English Bible in brackets 1611, noting that Scrivener
    maintained that the opportunity of a new addition would be used for making the
    text more correct. So far from this being the case, it is practically
    invariably my experience that for every error corrected in a 17th century
    reprint, at least two are introduced. In other words, Scrivener’s scrutiny of
    the 1611, comparing it to subsequent editions reveals that there are many
    errors in these so called corrected versions. That includes the KJV of 1769
    produced by the Episcopalian Benjamin Blayney.

    Now you’re going to find many of the forwards or introductory notes in the
    KJV Bibles, the common KJV Bible that most people read today. Many misleading
    statements. So let me read from my book. Once again. Most printings of what is
    mistakenly called the KJV, implying the 1611 Authorized King James Bible failed
    to inform readers of certain facts. Moreover, introductory notes are often
    misleading and some make patently false statements certain that most readers
    will not take the time to verify claims. One example is the 19 Seth Nelson
    Edition named Authorized King James Version. Authorized by whom? Certainly not
    King James. Wherein the preface notes titled Special Features of Your Giant
    Print Reference Bible, state the following I’m quoting directly from the Thomas
    Nelson Edition purporting to be the Authorized King James Version, and this is
    what the publishers said. This Bible contains the text of the King James
    Version originally published in 1611. The statement is entirely false as the
    text is representative of many changes noted by the Collater Reverend James W.
    Mclean in 1848.

    It cannot be said to represent the text originally published in 1611 by King
    James and the translators Thomas Nelson publishers is misleading the reader.
    Neither is that particular Blamey version authorized by King James or the
    translators. It is a revision and if the translators and King James saw that,
    they would recoil in disgust and disappointment and there is no way it would be
    authorized by King James or the translation committee. Not possible. Let me
    give you another example of the deception in these printings of the KJV,
    quoting again from my book Authorized the Real 1611 King James Bible. Another
    example is the preface to Hendrickson publisher’s 11th printing of the King
    James Version 1873 edition. The preface was written by John Colinberger III.

    It States that Dr. Benjamin Blayney’s edition was published in 1769 by
    Oxford, although it is true that it was published in 1769. Blayney did not have
    a doctorate at that time, yet Colenberger leads the reader to believe he did.
    When Colenburger refers to Blayney as Doctor, he creates a false impression that
    Blayney was eminently qualified to make revisions. At the time of Blayney’s
    revision in 1769, Blayney held a master’s degree from Oxford with no training in
    ancient Hebrew or Greek. Those are facts of history. You can verify them
    yourself. They are not secrets. Continuing with my reading, there are many
    deceptions surrounding the KJV and its sister Bibles that I could cite.
    However, for the time being, this evidence should be sufficient to suggest that
    the text of the 1611 Authorized King James Bible was indeed altered
    significantly in the KJV and that scholars and publishers are not above
    spinning the facts in their introductions to create an impression of
    credibility and honest intentions. Now I’ll give you one more scriptural
    example of where Benjamin Blayneys. Kjv corrupts the word of God. This happens
    in the Song of Solomon. Chapter two, verse seven. The real 1611 authorized King
    James Bible. Uses the final phrase in chapter two, verse seven. Nor awake my
    love till she please. She the pronoun. She. All the Reformation Bibles agree
    the pronoun is she. Yet Blayney’s revision changes that pronoun to he. They
    both can’t be the word of God. They’re two very different testimonies.

    Okay, so the KJV, Blayney’s edition says, awake my love till he please. The
    reason the 47 best scholars in the world went with she please. Is because it
    makes sense. Contextually. Otherwise, King Solomon is holding a man in his
    arms. And this sends out the wrong message entirely. What is Solomon doing
    holding this man in his arms. And calling this man my love? It opens the door
    to all kinds of erroneous speculation. So Benjamin Blayney. One guy, no training
    in ancient Hebrew. Changes the pronoun from she to he. The 47 scholars, the
    best in the British Kingdom. And all the other Reformation Bibles. Have the
    correct reading.

    And so the KJV. Although it’s better than the modern translations. It
    contains corruptions. And there are some distinct reasons which I have
    presented. And this evidence was supported and observed by very important and
    very well known scholars of the day. Yet those scholars have been swept under
    the carpet. And KJV defenders believe the introductory notes from their
    publishers. And from guys like Colinberger III. Who gets his paycheck, by the
    way, from Rupert Murdoch. A papal night. That’s a whole other subject. Anyway,
    I wanted to put some of this information on the table. There is a lot more that
    I could say about this. And there are many more examples of where the KJV
    corrupts the original text. And indeed introduces different doctrines and
    conflicts directly with the 1611. So if anybody says to you. They’ve compared
    the real 1611 to the KJV. And there’s no difference. You can count on the fact
    that they have not studied this thoroughly. They have not studied it
    historically. Nor have they actually carefully gone through and made the
    comparisons. Nor have they understood these changes and why Blayney introduced
    them. I’ll leave it at that for now. But, folks, study to show yourselves
    approved. Don’t be like these guys who think they know something. And are
    unwilling to actually do the hard work.

    Bless you all, and thank you for listening.

    >