Do minor changes make the KJV an imitation? Part Three.

Unlike Matthew Verschuur, who is very specific in recommending which Bible he thinks is the “pure” edition of the King James translation, Nic Kizziah leaves us hanging. He uses very strong language to condemn counterfeit Bibles, but then does not tell us to “buy this one.” At the end of his composition he writes, “The best place I know to purchase a good Bible at a reasonable price is at Bearing Precious Seed Ministry.” I agree and recommend Bearing Precious Seed Bibles. However, I have checked my Bible that I purchased and found some of the very “errors” that he says makes a Bible counterfeit. His trumpet gives an uncertain sound.[i]
 
“Just give us the text that has established itself as the standard text of the Holy Bible, an old fashioned, Christ exalting, devil kicking, Authorized King James Bible,” Kizziah writes. But which one is that? He continues, “To the best of my understanding this is the 1769 edition of the 1611 King James Bible with a few minor printing errors and spellings corrected along the way in the 1800’s.” But how many claim to follow the 1769 edition? Which printing errors and spellings were corrected, since all editions from the 1800’s are not exactly the same?
 
In his treatise Kezziah further advises, “All the common ordinary Bible believer wants is the same Bible that his grandmother had and the same Bible her grandmother had and the same Bible her grandmother had etc. that’s all.” I agree. I believe he is right about that. What he is wrong about, though, is thinking that these grandmothers had the same concern about minute orthography as do some 20th and 21st century King James advocates. They did not.
 
Here is the sum and substance of it all. To find the right and wrong Bible, one must have and consult his “Quick Check List When Buying a King James Bible?” Those poor grandmas were out of luck! Here is the “Check List.”

Kizziah’s check list proves too much. In Genesis 11:3, the “Real Bible” must have throughly, but the 1611 printing has thorowly. Genesis 23:8 should have intreat, but 1611 has entreat.[ii] Genesis 41:38 should have a capital “S” (Spirit), but 1611 has a lower case “s” (spirit). Exodus 25:30 should have shewbread and alway, but 1611 has Shew-bread and always. Leviticus 25:9 should have jubile, but 1611 has Jubile. Numbers 10:25 should have rereward, but 1611 has rere-ward. 1 Samuel 18:6 should have musick, but 1611 has musicke. Psalms 149:6 should have twoedged, but 1611 has two edged. Isaiah 59:17 should have cloke, but 1611 has cloake. Matthew 1:19 should have publick, but 1611 has publique. And if we would create a hill to die on with the “seven-letter” Saviour, it might be worth noting that the 1611 typography is Sauiour, not Saviour. I realize that this can be considered nit-picking. However, it is nit-picking the nits picked by the pickers. If the 1611 printing of the new translation has “cloake” – do we really need to differentiate between “cloke” and “cloak” to identify a “real” Bible from a counterfeit? Pfft.
 
Interesting also, when claiming that ensample means something different than example – why not look at the Bible itself? 2 Peter 2:6 uses “ensample” and Jude verse 7 “example” with the same meaning regarding the same historical incident.
 
Whichever edition is the one of which Nic Kizziah speaks, “It is basically the same Book that rolled off the printing press in 1611.” Basically, but not exactly.  “The only differences being,” he writes, “it was changed from Gothic type to Roman type, printer’s errors were corrected and spelling was stabilized.” It becomes the one that Nic Kizziah says it is. We just have to accept that!
 
As concluded yesterday, good honest Bible believers who happen to buy and use a King James Bible with some variant spellings should not be charged with using a Bible that is “counterfeit.” This practice causes confusion and dissension, sets up a select few as authorities over us all, and turns fellow KJV supporters into opponents rather than allies. Lord, help us to avoid such a course of action.

---

[i] For example, Kizziah proclaims, “The rules of English grammar may change but the King James Bible is fixed in a moment of time (the 1800’s, the 1900’s and for ever more) and is unchangeable. This is the standard text and there is no other.” How is it fixed in a moment of time, when you say it was being fixed from the 1600’s to the 1900’s. Which one is the standard text? Be clear. (He sort of seems to say, “There is a standard text; I am just not sure which one it is.”)
[ii] There can be a difference in the words “entreat” and “intreat,” according to the context. Sometimes entreat means to treat in a certain way, as in Matthew 22:6, et al. However, in the English language “entreat” and “intreat” are also variant word spellings with the meaning “to ask earnestly” (e.g. Exodus 10:18). Using the spelling variant “entreat” instead of “intreat” (or vice-versa) does not make a Bible “counterfeit.” However, it is best leave “intreat” where it is and “entreat” where it is, already in the King james translation. The variant spellings can then function as a cue to the possible difference in meaning.