Article: What About Those Printing Errors in 1611? by Will Kinney

From Textus Receptus

Jump to: navigation, search

What About Those Printing Errors and "Revisions" of the 1611 King James Holy Bible?

People who do not believe that any Bible or any text in any language IS right now, today, the inspired, inerrant and complete words of God often raise this objection. They ask us Which Revision of the King James Bible is the inspired word of God?

The simple fact is, the King James Bible has never been "revised". There have been different editions of the King James Bible, in which the Gothic type was changed to Roman type, the spelling of various English words was updated, some minor punctuation changes were made, and several minor printing errors were corrected, but the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts have never changed at all.

Even the American Bible Society, no friend to the King James Bible, had this to say about the "revisions" of the King James Bible. The American Bible Society wrote,

"The English Bible, as left by the translators (of 1611), has come down to us unaltered in respect to its text..." They further stated, "With the exception of typographical errors and changes required by the progress of orthography in the English language, the text of our present Bibles remains unchanged, and without variation from the original copy as left by the translators" (Committee on Versions to the Board of Managers, American Bible Society, 1852).

Pastor David F. Reagan has written an excellent article about The Myth of Early Revisions of the Authorized King James Holy Bible. In his article he discusses the conditions of the printing process in 1611, and shows how the so called revisions are actually only examples of updating the spelling of words and the correction of minor printing errors.

His article can be seen here -

Pastor Reagan rightly says: "We need to establish one thing from the out-set. The authority for our preserved English text is not found in any human work. The authority for our preserved and infallible English text is in God! Printers may foul up at times and humans will still make plenty of errors, but God in His power and mercy will preserve His text despite the weaknesses of fallible man."

Brother Herb Evans, another strong King James Bible believer, briefly answers this typical objection to the King James Bible being the pure words of God. " If God supervised the translation process so that the KJV is 100% error free, why did God not extend this supervision to the printers?"

Brother Evans answers: "Probably because He did not extend His supervision to the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that we have. None of them are without errors and none are even complete. We can't expect more of the KJB Bible printers than we can of the Hebrew and Greek printers, now can we? Don't you make any distinctions between textual errors and typographical errors? In the English? In the Greek also? "– Herb Evans

Dr. Donald Waite also has written a booklet titled The Authorized Version 1611 Compared to Today's King James Version. In this booklet Dr. Waite discusses the "thousands of changes", and he clearly shows that the vast majority of the changes have to do with changing the printing type from Gothic print to Roman, and updating the spelling of such words as "Sonne" to "Son", and "sinne" to "sin", "blesse" to "bless", "weepe" to "weep" and "owne" to "own".

In the first printing of the 1611 Holy Bible there were hundreds of very minor printing errors such as omitting or duplicating a word, or the mispelling of a simple word. None of these printing errors seriously affected the sense of the passage nor introduced any false doctrines. The printing process was laboriously done by hand, one letter at a time, and it was very common in all printed works of that day to contain "typos". These are things like "the shearer" to "his shearer" Acts 8:32; "sacrifice" to "sacrifices" 1 Peter 2:5 ; "made a" to "made thee a" Isaiah 57:8; "the field" to "thy field" Lev. 33:22; "Bozra" to "Bozrah" Genesis 36:33; "Jabok" to "Jabbok" Lev. 21:24, and "while the feast" to "while their feast" Judges 14:17.

The King James Bible contains 791,328 words. Since the first King James Bible rolled off the press in 1611 to the King James Bible you buy off the shelf today, NOTHING HAS BEEN CHANGED in the English text aside from these minor corrections of printing errors nor in the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts that were used in the making of this magnificent Holy Bible.

The total number of printing errors that have been corrected or the spelling updates would amount to no more than a maximum of one-tenth of one percent. Among these changes are the following examples:

TOWARDS has been changed to TOWARD 14 times.

BURNT has been changed to BURNED 31 times.

AMONGST has been changed to AMONG 36 times.

LIFT has been changed to LIFTED 51 times.

The nature of the other so called "revisions" have been of the type of "thy people" to "the children of thy people" in Ezekiel 3:11 (easily a printing error of skipping three words); "wayes" to "ways" 2 Kings 22:2; "wee shall" to "for we shall" Romans 14:10. All of these are easily explained as minor printing errors, but THE TEXT itself has never changed.

In the first printing of 1611, the words "of God" were accidentally left out of 1 John 5:12. These two words are in the Greek texts and in all previous English Bible versions. 1 John 5:12 reads: "He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life." This minor printing error was soon discovered and corrected in 1629.

The biggest printing error occured in Exodus 14:10 "and...afraid" where 21 words were accidentally omitted due most likely to the printer's eyes having skipped from one "and" to the next "and".

In every case, the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts remained the same and only minor printing errors occured, all of which were soon caught and corrected to read as they now stand in the King James Bible.

At a Bible club I belong to, one Christian brought up two examples he thought were textual changes rather than spelling errors. He said to me: "Brother Kinney, if you will continue to look at Dr. Waite's excellent booklet you will notice on page 20, item numbers 0144 and 0177 where "GOD" was changed to "LORD" twice. (Once in 2 Chronicles 28:11, and again in Isaiah 49:13) On page 21, item number 0067 where "LAMBE" was changed to "RAM." (Numbers 6:14) I am sure you do not dismiss those as corrections of printer's errors. They are actual word changes. How do you address those actual word changes in view of your position on the perfect nature of the KJV?"

To which I answered: "These two examples are really quite easy to explain. I believe they are simple printing errors. The words God, Lord, GOD, LORD, are found with what a printer might consider monotonous regularity throughout those passages. It would have been quite easy for a tired and weary printer to skip over or misread the word God and put Lord instead, or vice versa. The fact is that out of the thousands of times the words "Lord, LORD, God, and GOD" occur in the Old Testament, only twice did this easily explained printing error occur."

"As for the second example, the verse in question - Numbers 6:14- actually contains three printing errors. I will highlight the printing errors in capital letters. Also notice the old style spelling of some words, which later were updated, and which the critics love to number among their "thousands of changes". In the reprint of the original 1611 Bible, put out by Thomas Nelson Publishers, it reads: "And he shall offer his OFFRING unto the LORD, one hee lambe of the first yeere without blemish, for a burnt offering, OFFERING, and one ewe lambe of the first yeere without blemish, for a sinne offering, and one LAMBE without blemish for peace offerings."

You will notice here the three printing errors in this one verse. The printer mispelled offering once as "offring", he also repeated the word "offering, offering", and instead of reading "lamb", "lamb" and "ram", he accidentally printed "lamb, lamb, lamb". The word "lamb" occurs twice already in Numbers 6:14, and the third time the original 1611 misprinted the word "lamb" for "ram", which is in the Hebrew and in the present day KJB editions. This mistake would have been quite easy to do for the printer who was hand setting the type. He most likely saw the word "lamb" twice already and mistook "ram", which shares both the "a" and the "m", with the word "lamb".

As you can see, there is no deliberate change in the text or meaning from 1611 to the present. To compare these extremely minor changes in spelling and accidental printing errors to the thousands of deliberate changes in texts, meaning and translation that occur in the modern versions is totally unjustified.

Modern Bible versions such as the NASB, NKJV, NIV are constantly and deliberately changing their own English texts in literally hundreds and even thousands of places. The NASB made some 8000 changes in their own text from the 1977 to the 1995 editions. Likewise the NKJV 1982 edition has changed thousands of words from that of their 1979 edition, and the NIV continues to do the same from one edition to the next. These are not minor printing errors in the NASB, NKJV, and NIV, but deliberate alterations of both the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts as well as the English translation.

Throughout the history of Bible publishing there have been some rather humorous examples of printing errors . It should also be noted that there have been printing errors, even with today's advanced technology, in the NASB, NKJV, and NIV as well. Here are a few of the printing errors that have occurred in various King James Bible editions.

A 1631 edition became known as the “Wicked Bible” because the seventh commandment read, “thou shalt commit adultery.” The printer was fined 300 pounds.

The printer of the "Fool Bible" had to pay 3,000 pounds for this mistake in Psalm 14:1: “The fool hath said in his heart there is a God.”

In 1653, there was a misprint in I Corinthians 6:9 that read, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of God” and one in Romans 6:13 that read, “"Neither yield ye your members as instruments of righteousness unto sin." This Bible became known as “the Unrighteous Bible.”

In 1716, the “Sin On Bible” commanded, “Go, and sin on more” in John 8:11.

In 1717, there was a misprint in a heading for the “parable of the vineyard,” which called it the "Parable of the vinegar." This Bible was called “the Vinegar Bible.”

In 1801, Jude 16 stated, "these are murderers" instead of “murmurers”, and Mark 7:27 stated, “let the children first be killed” instead of “filled.” This Bible was nicknamed “the Murderers Bible.”

In 1820, Jesus says, "Who hath ears to ear, let him hear" in Matthew 13:43, and this was called “the Ears to Ear" Bible.

In 1823, Genesis 24:61 states "Rebekah arose, and her camels", instead of "her damsels," in “Rebekah’s Camels Bible.”

The cause for all of these defects may be found in “the Printers' Bible” (1702), which states in Psalm 119:161, "printers have persecuted me" (instead of “princes.” have persecuted me). If ever there was a misprint that carried a lot of legitimate meaning, this is it. "Printers have persecuted me."

The whole "Printing Error" complaint the biblical relativists bring up, is really a non issue. What I mean by this is that if every single copy of the King James Bible that has ever come off the presses read exactly the same with no minor printing errors found in any of them, it still would not change their opinion that the KJB is not the inspired, inerrant word of God. It is brought up as a smokescreen and is not a serious issue concerning the ultimate truth of Scripture and its preservation.

Most people who reject the King James Bible as being the inerrant, preserved words of God in English, do so for other reasons than printing errors. They have done so because they went to a seminary where they were taught that no Bible in any language and no text, be it Hebrew or Greek, is the inspired words of God. Or they visited some anti-KJV only website where they were told something like: "The KJV is not based on the best texts", "God forbid" is wrong, or "1 John 5:7 does not belong in the Bible." They most likely assumed that all KJB Bibles read the same since the very beginning. It wasn't till later they learned of the minor printing errors and now they toss this up as a smokescreen. Like I said, if someone is convinced the KJB is not the inspired word of God, no matter if all copies in its long history read exactly the same, his mind would not be changed by this fact. The alleged "revisions" and "hundreds of printing errors" is a non-issue of no real significance.

Another member at one of the internet Bible clubs brought up this very common objection. He asked: "Why did God guide the hands and minds of the KJV tranlators to produce a perfect Bible, only to have it corrupted by printers? I'll await your answer."

To which I answered: Hi..., excellent question. Here is what I believe about this. The production of the KJB mirrors exactly what happened in the case of the originals and all good copies of the correct texts.

God inspired the originals. Scribes then copied these originals into other manuscripts but all of the correct line of good copies introduced "printing errors", inversion of word order, slight omissions, and such like. God's word was not lost but needed some degree of purification as a result of human error.

God has preserved His inerrant words Providentially, not miraculously. He did not keep every copyist from making "printing errors", but He guided in such a way as to purify the text and bring it back to its original state.

It seems you would have to admit that the stated purpose of modern scholarship is to accomplish this same end. They believe they need to examine the evidence, purge the texts of errors and false readings, and try to restore the texts to their original state.

Yet their results are exceedingly flawed, and some even admit it is hopeless. Witness the textual differences between the ESV, NASB, Holman Christian Standard, and the NIV. Literally hundreds of words from the texts themselves are different between the ESV, Holman, and the NASB.

The scholars today, all of whom have the same training and access to the same information, all come up with very different conclusions, and the multiple, conflicting bible versions reflect these differences.

I think God has allowed the issue of "printing errors" to act as a stumbling block to blatant hypocrites. It is hypocritical to claim a Bible or text of any kind needs to be free of all scribal or printing errors in order to meet the Standard of being "inerrant and inspired". This man-made Standard then turns on the one who makes it, because it then invalidates his own claim to any Bible or any version as being the infallible word of God. His own favorite bible version(s) also fail to meet the Standard he has set up. By bringing up the issue of "printing errors" the Bible critic cuts his own throat.

If one adopts the view that the correction of printing errors in the history of any Bible version or Hebrew or Greek text disqualifies it from being the word of God, then you end up with no inspired, inerrant Bible anywhere on this earth. That too is carrying the argument to its logical conclusion. Guess who wants you to think this way?

Without exception, every person I have encountered who raises this objection about "printing errors and revisions" in the King James Bible's history, himself has no Bible and no text that he considers to be the inspired, complete and inerrant words of God. If he insists on raising this petty and hypocritical objection to the King James Bible as being the perfect word of God, then God will allow him to stumble over this pebble by the roadside. He will reap the bitter fruits of his own unbelief in the promises and ways of God who covenanted to preserve His words in a Book till heaven and earth pass away.

My belief is that God has kept His promises to preserve His inerrant words, and He has already providentially guided certain chosen men through this same "scholarly process" to select both the correct texts and the correct meaning for those texts. After all, it is only God who really knows which readings are His and which are not. The King James Bible believer first looks to God and His promises to preserve His words, and believes that God has done what He said He would do.

The "No Bible is Inspired" group, or the "reliable but flawed versions" promoters, seem to think that they and their colleagues are capable "restoring" what God never lost, and deny that God has already preserved His inerrant words in any Bible on this earth.

This is the fundamental difference in our approach to the doctines of inspiration and preservation. We King James Bible believers are convinced God has done what He said He would do. The Bible of the Month Club member thinks it is still an ongoing process and his results are getting more confused and divergent as time goes by.

The Nestle-Aland, UBS Greek text, upon which most modern versions are based, continues to change every few years, and the modern versions have introduced a multitude of textual variations into the Old Testament Scriptures. They often reject the Hebrew readings in favor of the alleged pre-Christian Septuagint, Syriac, Samaritan Pentateuch, or Vulgate texts. Just look at the differences between the KJB, NASB, NIV, Holman Standard, and the ESV in this regard.

God alone sees the end from the beginning and He knew very well that the battle for the Bible would intensify in the latter days. God gave us His holy and true words in the Bible that He knew would be used far more effectively than any other in history - the Authorized King James Holy Bible. Those who cavil and complain about the minor printing errors in the history of this great Book of books are stumbling over pebbles and straining at gnats to swallow a camel.

The "Probably Close Enuf" side ends up with no inspired, complete, inerrant, sure words of God, and maximun uncertainty. = "Yea, hath God said...?"

The King James Bible believer is convinced he has the inerrant words of God and enjoys maximum certainty and rest in the fulfilled promises of Almighty God. = "Thus saith the LORD".

The King James Bible we have today is the same as the one in 1611.

I hope this helps you to better understand the nature of the so called "thousands of changes" that have occured in the King James Bible since 1611 to the present.

If you care to read it, here is a well done and short article dealing with the so called "revisions" of the King James Bible, and the printing errors issue.

Will Kinney

It is interesting to me how those who object to a perfect Bible in any language deal with the issue of past printing errors in the various editions of the King James Bible. At one of our Bible clubs, a man called Aaron said he had read my article about the past printing errors twice, and he still objected to my position that the King James Bible is the only true Bible.

Here is his stated position. He said: "If it had printing errors in it, then it can't be the perfect words of God. I can be just as true to the Bible and disagree with verbal- plenary-inerrant-preservation-in-a-single-text-version-manuscript-and/or- group-of- manuscripts idea. At this point you will say, well if I can't point to a single version or text that leaves me with no final authority and thus how can I even know if I'm true to the Bible? To that I will reply that to 90% of the text of the Bible there is no doubt. That 10% that is in doubt is mostly minor except for a few major ones we are all familiar with. I can speak of THE Bible without needing to point to a particular version as THE ONE. THE Bible, first of all, is forever settled in heaven. It exists. It will never pass away. THE Bible, secondly, exists in the multiplicity of manuscripts and versions we possess today. Somewhere in there is the true Word of God."

Can you see how badly this man has stumbled over the minor pebble of "printing errors"? The printing errors issue bothers this man so much that he has rejected the doctrine of a pure and perfect Bible in any language here on this earth. Yet he turns right around and tells us that "only ten percent " of the Bible text is "in doubt" but this is only a "minor" consideration. We also have a few "major" ones, but he still thinks he can refer to "The Bible", even though it's not something in print. Instead he says it is settled in heaven, (though he has never seen it), and "SOMEWHERE" the true words of God are in the multiplicity of manuscripts and versions. This is like saying the true words of God are found in Webster's unabridged dictionary - all mixed up with thousands of words that are not Scripture and out of order, but, Hey, there in there somewhere." The printing errors issue is blown all out of proportion, and his 10% of textual uncertainly is only "minor". This is the broke-down logical conclusion of all Bible Agnostics. They don't know where "the Bible" is to be found, or what "the Bible" might or might not say, but the only thing they all agree upon is that it is NOT the King James Bible.

Another example of alleged changes and differences in the King James Bible is often brought up by people like Doug Kutilek, or Rick Norris who themselves do not believe ANY Bible or ANY text IS NOW the inspired and inerrant words of God. These are a very few minor differences between the Cambridge and the Oxford editions. The Oxford editions still have three or four very minor printing errors in them that they have never corrected.

Ruth 3:15 he or she?

Frequently those who claim the King James Bible is riddled with errors and has changed in thousands and thousands of places since it first came out in 1611, bring up Ruth 3:15 as an example of contradiction and confusion. This supposed error is one of Doug Kutilek's favorites. He has no final authority but his own mind and he seems to take great delight in pointing out alleged errors in the KJB.

Mr. Kutilek says: "It should be unnecessary to say much about variations which have always existed among various printings and editions of the KJV. They do exist, and have from the beginning (the two editions printed in 1611 differ in over 2,000 places, perhaps the most famous being "he" or "she" at Ruth 3:15)."

Actually, I know of a few more places where the KJB Cambridge edition differs from the Oxford KJB edition. One is in Jeremiah 34:16 where the Cambridge KJB reads: "whom YE had set at liberty" while the Oxford edition says: "whom HE had set at liberty", and Song of Solomon 2:9 where the Cambridge KJB edition says: "that ye stir not up, nor awake my love, till HE please", while the Oxford KJB says "nor awake my love, till SHE please." Another one that exits in SOME, but not all, Oxford editions is found in Joshua 19:2 where the original 1611 and the Cambridge editions correctly say: "Beersheba, OR Sheba, and..."

We will examine each of these and compare them with other Bible versions.

An excellent study of these "thousands of changes" showing that the vast majority of them were changes in spelling, as Sonne to Son, and yeeres to years, can be found at this site.

Ruth 3:15. The Cambridge edition, which I use, says: "Also he said, Bring the vail that thou hast upon thee, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her: and SHE went into the city."

There was a discrepancy between the edition published in 1611 and the one published in 1613. The verse in question was Ruth 3:15. In the 1611 edition, it read, “HE went into the city,” referring to Boaz. In the 1613 edition, it read, “SHE went into the city,” referring to Ruth. These two editions became known as “the Great He Bible” and “the Great She Bible,” respectively. This printing error was soon discovered and changed back to the reading of "she" went into the city.

Mr. Kutilek and those like him have no infallible Bible. They continue to promote the modern versions which differ from one another in both text and meaning in hundreds of verses. The NASB, NIV and ESV often reject the Hebrew Masoretic texts and follow the Greek Septuagint, Syriac, Samaritan Pentateuch, Dead Sea Scrolls or the Vulgate in scores of instances and often not in the same places as the others. Yet this is the confused Bible of the Month club babel that Mr. Kutilek would recommend to overthrow the time tested KJB.

There still continue to be differences among the many versions even in Ruth 3:15. Those versions that read: "And HE went into the city" are the NIV, Revised Version, American Standard Version, Darby, Young's, the Jewish 1917 translation, the 1998 Complete Jewish Bible translation, the World English Bible, New Century Version 1991, New Living Translation, the New Revised Standard Version 1989, and the 2005 TNIV (Today's NIV).

The versions that read: "And SHE went into the city" are the KJB, NKJV, NASB, Revised Standard Version, Coverdale, Bishop's, Douay, Bible in Basic English, Geneva bible, 1936 Jewish translation, Holman Standard, New English Bible 1970, Douay 1950, New Jerusalem Bible 1985, and the 2001 English Standard Version. Notice in the case of the RSV, NRSV, and ESV, each of which is a revision of the other, that the RSV went with "he", then the NRSV read "she", and the latest ESV has now gone back to "he" again.

We even get conflicting footnotes in some of these versions. The NKJV which reads SHE, just as the KJB and NASB, has a footnote which says: "Masoretic text reads HE; some Hebrew manuscripts, Syriac, and Vulgate read SHE.

However the NIV, NRSV, both of which still say HE, have footnotes telling us: "Most Hebrew manuscripts read HE, but many Hebrew manuscripts, Vulgate and Syriac read SHE."

So, the multitude of modern versions not only continue to disagree among themselves in their textual reading, but also in the reasons they give for their differences. Mr. Kutilek wants us to come to the same conclusion he has, that is, "There is no inerrant and inspired Bible on this earth."

  1. 2 - Song of Solomon 2:7 "O ye daughters of Jerusalem, by the roes, and by the hinds of the field, that ye stir not up, nor awake my love, till HE please."

In the original AV 1611 a printer's error occured and it read: "till SHE please". It was soon discovered and changed to read as it stands today in both the Oxford and Cambridge editions - "till HE please".

Here is how other Bible versions render this verse.

"till IT please" - Revised Version, NIV, NKJV, ESV

"till SHE please" - NASB, Geneva Bible

"till HE please" - American Standard Version 1901, Jewish translation 1917, King James Bible (Oxford and Cambridge editions)

Holman Standard - until the appropriate time.

  1. 3 - Jeremiah 34:16 "But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom YE had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection..."

The original 1611 said "YE" as does the Cambridge edition today, but the Oxford KJB edition says "whom HE had set at liberty".

Other Bible Versions in Jeremiah 34:16 - "whom YE (or YOU) had set at liberty" - Wycliffe, Coverdale, Bishops’s Bible, the Geneva Bible, the ASV, RV, NASB, NIV, ESV, NRSV, 1917 Jewish translation put out by Jewish Publication Society.

"whom HE had set at liberty" - NKJV, Youngs, 1936 Jewish translation put out by the Hebrew Publishing Company of New York, Lamsa’s 1936 translation, . The Holman Standard, on the other hand, reads like no other. It says: "EACH has taken back HIS male and female slaves WHO HAD BEEN FREED to go wherever they wanted, and YOU have again subjugated them to be YOUR slaves." This version uses several pronouns and doesn't even tell us "who" set them at liberty.

Mr. Kutilek is all worked up about a little printing error he thinks he has found in the KJB, and he recommends we use the modern versions, yet they all continue to disagree with each other!

That people like Mr. Kutilek have to resort to such petty arguments as this against the King James Bible, only shows how weak their case is and how desperate they are to find any error at all in God's Book.

Joshua 19:2 How many cities? Error in many bible versions.

In Joshua 19:1-6 we read of the lots being cast for the inheritance of the children of Simeon. Notice the number of the cities mentioned - 13 - and then number of cities listed in such versions as the NASB 1972-1977, Geneva, Bishops' bible, Coverdale, Wycliffe, RSV, NRSV, ESV and the Catholic Douay version.

The ever changing NASB has gone through 9 or 10 revisions so far, and each time they change textual readings of both the Old and New Testament, as well as their English translation. The 1972 and 1977 editions of the NASB say: "Beersheba AND Sheba, and....", but in 1995 the latest NASB has now corrected its previous blunder in this verse and now reads "Beersheba OR Sheba...".

To see more about the ever-changing 'literal' NASB, see -

In the King James Bible we read: "And they had their inheritance Beer-sheba, OR Sheba, and Moladah, and Hazarshual, and Balah, and Azem, and Eltolad, and Bethul, and Hormahn, and Ziklag, and Beth-marcaboth, and Hazarsusah, and Bethlebaoth, and Sharuhen; THIRTEEN CITIES and their villages."

If you count the number of cities mentioned in the King James Bible, and correctly take the reading of "OR Sheba" to mean that the town of Beer-sheba was also known as Sheba, then we end up with exactly 13 cities mentioned.

The Hebrew word Beer simply means a well or a pit, and it often formed a prefix for a more complete name. We can see this in names of other cities like the one mentioned in Ezra 2:24 and comparing this with Nehemiah 7:28. In Ezra we read a list of cities and the people who came from each. "The children of Azmaveth, forty and two" but in Nehemiah the same group is called "the men of BETHazmaveth, forty and two." In both cases it is the same city, but in the one example we have the additional "Beth" but not in the other.

However such versions as the NASB 1968-1977, RSV 1952, NRSV 1989, ESV 2001, Geneva bible, Bishops', Coverdale, Darby, Young's, Green's MKJV, and the Jehovah witness New Word Translation all read: "And they had in their inheritance Beersheba, AND Sheba, and Moladah....THIRTEEN cities." Yet a simple count from these wrong bible versions shows that they list FOURTEEN cities and not thirteen.

Good ol' Dr. Daniel Wallace, of Dallas Theological Seminary, with his ongoing scholarly disaster called the NET bible version simply omits the word altogether saying: "Their assigned land included Beer Sheba,(3) Moladah,..." Then in a revealing footnote Wallace tells us that he has "emended" the text (i.e. changed it at his own will) and that: "The MT has “and Sheba” listed after “Beer Sheba.” The LXX suggests “Shema.” The HEBREW TEXT APPEARS TO BE CORRUPT, since the form “Sheba” duplicates the latter part of the preceding name. If Sheba (or Shema) is retained, the list numbers fourteen, one more than the number given in the concluding summary (v. 6)."

This is so typical of today's "Blinded Scholar's Syndrome". These men with all their education are judicially blinded by God in their proud unbelief. Rather than accept a simple and reasonable explanation as to why God's preserved words are true, they prefer to believe that "the Hebrew text is corrupt", when in fact it is their own minds that are corrupt and not the words of God.

John Gill comments on the passage saying: "Or, Beersheba, that is, Sheba; for so the particle "vau" is sometimes used, and must be so used here; or otherwise, instead of thirteen, it will appear that there are fourteen cities, contrary to the account of them, (Joshua 19:6); so Kimchi and Ben Melech make them one city."

Agreeing with the reading found in the King James Bible of "Beersheba, OR Sheba, and Moladah..." are the following Bible versions: the Revised Version 1881, the American Standard Version of 1901, the NKJV "Beersheba (Sheba) and...", the NIV 1982, TNIV 2005, Holman Standard 2003, the NASB 1995 edition (but not all the previous NASBs) and even the Message.

The King James Bible is always right.

The example here in Joshua 19:2 presents us with an interesting case of "printing errors". When the original 1611 Bible came out, it read as do the Cambridge editions today - "Beersheba, OR Sheba, and...". However some later Oxford editions changed this to: "Beersheba, AND Sheba, and...". This printing error is easily explained. A later printer could have been proof reading the text and noticed that Joshua 19 is listing a series of cities followed time and again with the word AND. He could easily have thought that the word OR was a printing error, when in fact it was not. So he "corrected" what he thought was a printing error, and instead created one himself. Later editions merely repeated this error.

There is no copyright law that is now binding on the publication of King James Bibles. You can print one up in your own basement if you wish. My wife has a KJV from World Press and in Deut. 33:6 it reads: "is not he thy father that hath BROUGHT thee?" instead of "thy father that hath BOUGHT thee?". Others have told me they have KJB bibles that read things like "the God of my LITE" instead of "the God of my LIFE". Are we to toss out the doctrine of an inerrant Bible solely on the basis of an occasional printing error that can easily be corrected by comparing the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts of the KJB? I think not.

One such Bible critic who continues to harp on the printing errors ploy in order to promote the idea that there does not exist now any Book that can truthfully be called the inspired and inerrant words of God is Rick Norris. Mr. Norris has written a book called 'The Unbound Scriptures'. Rick's "inspired original languages" (which he never identifies for us) is so Unbound that they can't even be found in a looseleaf notebook. He will NEVER tell you what any of these "inspired original languages" actually SAY for any given verse, and they are not found in any book in print that he can recommend to anyone else. In his book he continues to attack the King James Bible in numerous ways as being incorrect and flawed. Every one of his points has been shot down as having no proof or validity at all. You can check out my Response to The Unbound Scriptures here -

The last shallow foxhole Rick has taken refuge in is the printing errors issue. He keeps telling us that if a book has had printing errors in it, then it cannot be the perfect words of God. Actually, what his argument goes to prove is that there never was a complete Bible and there isn't one now in any language, including the Hebrew and the Greek. All his efforts are ultimately to try to prove that there is no inerrant Bible on the earth today. Never once in his entire book about the Bible does Rick ever tell us where we can get a hold of a tangible Bible in any language that he believes are the very words of God. Rick has no answers, but lots of questions - all along the lines of the first question recorded in Holy Writ, namely Satan's first words- "Yea, hath God said...?"

Try asking people like Rick Norris if his "inspired original languages" have printing errors in them or not. He doesn't know. Why? Because they don't exist in print anywhere on this earth. Ask Rick if his "inspired original languages" read "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen" in Matthew 6:13, or if 1 John 5:7 and the witness to the Trinity is Scripture or not, or if 2 Chron. 22:2 reads 42 years or 22 years, and Rick will not tell you. Believe me, I have tried many times, and Rick never tells anyone what the Bible really says for any passage of Scripture. Yet he is absolutely sure the King James Bible is not the true and inspired words of God. How does he know this? Well, it's his OPINION, of course, and we should just believe him because he is such a renowned scholar, and he has shown us that there have been occasional printing errors in the various editions of the King James Bible.

If you want to follow the reasoning of men like Rick Norris and Doug Kutilek and many others who deny the King James Bible is the very words of God, go right ahead. God takes the wise in their own craftiness. But realize that when you follow the reasoning of these men, you end up having no Bible to believe in, and each and every one of these men will have their own individual "bible" that differs in texts and meanings in hundreds if not thousands of ways from everybody else's "bible", and not even they themselves believe theirs is the complete and inerrant words of God. "In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did that which was right in his own eyes." Judges 21:25

The examples listed above are just printing errors and they still can be found in some KJB, NKJV, NASB, and NIV editions today even with our modern high-tech presses. Don't let people like Doug Kutilek rob you of God's pure words and convince you we have no infallible Bible we can hold in our hands and believe. Bible relativists and KJB debunkers are only straining at gnats and swallowing camels.

Will Kinney

End of article

External Link

Other Artilces by Will Kinney in the Textus Receptus database ~

Old Testament

Genesis Genesis 1:28 Replenish or Fill? - Genesis 6:6 Can God repent? - Genesis 22:1 Did God "Tempt" Abraham? Exodus Exodus 20:13 Thou Shalt Not KILL - Exodus - the Israelites "borrowed" of the Egyptians Numbers Numbers 22 Why was God Angry with Balaam? Job Bible Babel in Job - a comparative study 1 Samuel 1 Samuel 13:21 "a file" a "pim" or "two-thirds of a shekel"? 2 Samuel 2 Samuel 21:8 Michal or Merab? - 2 Samuel 21:19 Who Killed Goliath? 1 Kings 1 Kings 20:38 ashes upon his face - 1 Kings 22:38 "washed his armour" or "while the harlots bathed" NKJV Nonsense Psalms Psalm 8:5 Lower than the Angels, or a little lower than God? - Answering Doug Kutilek's anti-Preservation in Psalm 12 - Psalm 74:8 the synagogues of God; Psalm 77:2 my sore ran in the night - Psalms 1 How Different the Versions! - Psalms 2 How Different the Versions! - Psalms 3 How Different the Versions! - Psalms 4 How Different the Versions! - Psalms 5 How Different the Versions! Proverbs NKJV Bible Babel in Proverbs - Bible Babel in Proverbs Isaiah Isaiah - a Comparative Study - Does God Create Evil? Isaiah 45:7 Jeremiah Jeremiah 8:8 the pen of the scribes is in vain - Jeremiah 27:1 Jehoiakim or Zedekiah? - Ezekiel Ezekiel 29:7 Hebrew, Greek or Syriac? Hosea Hosea - a Comparative Study

New Testament

Did Jesus Tell Them to Take a Staff or Not? Matthew Is Matthew 23:14 Scripture or not? - Matthew 27:44 cast in teeth Mark Gospel of Mark - a Modern Version Mix-up Luke Is "cousin" wrong in Luke 1:36 - Luke 17:36 Is it inspired Scripture or not? John John 1:18 the only begotten Son Acts Act 3:19 times of refreshing; 7:20 Moses was exceeding fair - Acts 9:5-7 hear the voice; 7:20 exceeding fair - Acts 5:30 slew and hanged; 19:20 word of GOD - Acts 13:33 this day have I begotten thee - Acts 19:9 DIVERS were hardened, and believed not - Acts 19:35 Diana or Artemis? Jupiter, Zeus or Heaven? - The So-called "Science" of Textual Criticism. Science or Hocus-Pocus? Gospels through Acts Romans James White discussing Romans 6:17 Philippians Textual Studies in Philippians 2 Timothy 2 Timothy 3:16 Inspiration of God or God Breathed? Hebrews The Book of Hebrews - a Comparative Study 1 Peter 1 Peter - Shifting Sands of Scholarship 1 John And These Three Are One Article defending the inclusion of 1 John 5:7. - 1 John 5:7 These three are one Jude The Book of Jude - James White's "inferior" texts Revelations Revelation 13 Confusion - Vials or Bowls in the book of Revelation - Rev.16:5 and SHALT BE; 5:8-10 redeemed US - Revelation 17:8 "the beast that was, and is not, and YET IS" - Acts 28:13 We Fetched a Compass; 1 Tim5:4 Nephews - Matthew 24:3; Hebrews 9:26 End of World or Age?

Modern Versions

Bible Babel 1 - Bible Babel 2 - Bible Babel 3 - Bible Babel 4 - The Oldest and Best Manuscripts? - Every Man for Himself Bible Versions - the HCSB, NET, ESV, TNIV, NKJV - The Inerrancy of Scripture - are you a Bible believer or a Bible agnostic? - True Bible? - Modern Versions Teach Racism - Modern Versions Teach Pride as a Virtue - Do Ghosts Exist? Modern Versions say Yes ESV The English Standard Version 2001 NASB The Ever Changing NASB's NKJV NKJV Word Changes - When the NKJV departs from the TR - The New KJV is a Hack Job Translation - NKJV vs KJB Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah - Is the NKJV the same as the KJB? - Don't go on Safari with a New KJV Translator - The NKJV is a Poor Substitute for the True Bible - NKJV vs KJB Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah - NKJV Bible Babel in Proverbs

King James Word Definitions

Lucifer - Jehovah - Unicorns - Is the word "Easter" an error in the King James Bible? - Are the words "CHURCH" and 'BISHOP' wrong? - Hell and Damnation in the King James Bible - "By and by" versus "the-by-and-by" - Servants or Slaves? - Is "charity" an error in the KJB? - The Grace of God Destroyed - "Would to God" - Another alleged 'error' bites the dustIs "bottles" an inaccurate word in the King James Bible?

King James Bible

Is King James onlyism Scriptural? - Does the KJB only position "blow up"? - What About Those Printing Errors in 1611? - Does the King James Bible depart from the Hebrew Texts? - Why do you King James Bible onlyies Attack the word of God? - The Historic Confessions support the KJB position - Can a Translation be Inspired? - The Old Latin versions and the KJB


NO LXX Part 1 - NO LXX - the Fictitious Use of Septuagint

Dead Sea Scrolls

The Dead Sea Scrolls Fiasco

Hebrew Text

The NIV, NASB reject the Hebrew Texts - NIV, NASB reject Hebrew texts Part 2 - How to Destroy Messianic Prophecies

Greek Text

"The Greek" and Hebrew Games

Gender Inclusive Versions

Gender Inclusive Versions Dealing with the TNIV

Answering Critics

E mail exchange with Bible Agnostic Doug Kutilek - John MacArthur - Pastor with NO Infallible Bible - A Bible Believer's Response to James Price's book King James Onlyism - a New Sect - A King James Bible Believer's Response to Rick Norris' book 'The Unbound Scriptures' - 17 Parts

Part 1 - The "logical" Premise of Mr. Norris

Part 2 - Those Dreadful Archaic Words

Part 3 - Imperfect men, Perfect Bible

Part 4 - Revision

Part 5 - Printing Errors and Spelling

Part 6 - Inspiration and Inerrancy

Part 7 - Alleged Errors in the King James Bible

Part 8 - Let Me Count The Ways

Part 9 - Beasts or Living Creatures?

Part 10 - Mules or Hot Springs?

Part 11 - "Digged down a wall" or "hamstrung an ox"?

Part 12 - Steel, brass, copper, bronze - Paper or Plastic?

Part 13 - The Usual Suspects

Part 14 - The Preservation of the words of God

Part 15 - KJB Only versus Latin Vulgate Only Argument

Part 16 - Where Was the Word of God Before 1611?

Part 17 - Final Thoughts

Personal tools