Add the Authorized 1611 Bible

Page 1 of 1 (19 items)
This post has 18 Replies | 1 Follower

Posts 10
Scott Cornoyer www.hpibc.com | Forum Activity | Posted: Mon, Mar 1 2010 8:40 AM

Logos 4 has a wonderfully wide and varied selection of Bible versions.  Can you add to that the original Authroized Bible from 1611 (no apocrypha).  AKA: the King James Bible.  Completely searchable and useable like the rest.

Thanks for your consideration

Pastor Scott Cornoyer

Posts 343

It would be neat to have, but it'd be even better if they put some of the pre-1611 translations into Logos!  It's neat comparing them all with our modern 1769 KJV, they're so close.  Most of the time when read out loud they match to the ear.  Yet it's interesting seeing different synonyms that are sometimes used, that mean the same thing, but are a different English word.  It's such a blessing seeing how close Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops, Geneva, KJV1611,  and KJV1769 are to each other.  Once you get past 1881 to the present, it's hard to find translations that are similar to each other.

Jason Saling

Posts 25956
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Mar 1 2010 4:39 PM

ScottCornoyer:
Can you add to that the original Authroized Bible from 1611 (no apocrypha

NO! If you include the 1611 Authorized Bible, include the 1611 Authorized Bible. Don't try to muck with history. [Yes for the real thing] BTW, I'd really like to see a collection of all early English Bibles - Old English through 1800's.  And, as an FYI, the only "King James" that I actually use for reference is an 1611 facsimile. Yes, after a post by Bob P. himself, I went back and checked.

Just curious, Scott, why do you want it truncated?

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 10

MJ

I am "just" asking for the AV 1611 BIble, not the added history.  Not all AV 1611's were printed with the Apocrypha...  So, its not truncated as you say.  I am interested in studying God's Word more than added history.  The Apocrypha has historic value of course and the intertestimental books can be added in the "Historic App".  Just looking for Gods Word...  thanks Psalm 12:6-7, Rev 22:19-20

Posts 433
Vincent Setterholm | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Mar 2 2010 11:29 AM

The 1629 quarto "Imprinted at London by Bonham Norton and John Bill Printers to the King’s most Excellent Majestie" was the first edition of the KJV printed without the Apocrypha, according to Scrivener's introduction to the Cambridge Paragraph Bible and Geisler and Nix's General Introduction to the Bible.

Though I have no trouble believing that since that time someone out there has printed something that is more or less the 1611 edition minus the deuterocanonical books. Whether you consider such a creature to be an 'abridgement' depends on if you're comparing the contents to the printed editions of 1611 or if the comparison is made to the biblical canon of your particular faith tradition.

Posts 25956
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Mar 2 2010 11:44 AM

Thanks, Vincent, for the historical detail.

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 10

Great!Geeked

Posts 1672
LogosEmployee
Bob Pritchett | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Mar 2 2010 1:51 PM

Scott Cornoyer www.hpibc.com:
Can you add to that the original Authroized Bible from 1611 (no apocrypha).  AKA: the King James Bible.

Hi, Scott....

We've invested quite a lot of energy in identifying "the right" KJV. I'm quite certain that one of our two offerings will meet your need for a reliable and suitably authentic KJV.

I believe that Scrivener's 1873 Cambridge Paragraph Bible should meet you needs as a consistent, usable KJV that's been carefully compared to earlier editions and standardized in defensible ways, by a man with a passion for the text and the problem. If not, you'll at least find Scrivener's introduction and detailed collations of differences over the years to be very helpful.

Otherwise, the KJV we started shipping with Logos 4 will probably be what you want, and should match most older KJV's in print. It is based on the "Pure Cambridge Edition" maintained at http://www.bibleprotector.com. At that site you'll find a 500 page document detailing in excruciating detail one man's search for "the pure KJV", a careful collation of every problem/concern/issue, and his rationale for the edition produced. (It matches what Cambridge was printing around 1900.)

If not, please feel free to forward details on EXACTLY which paper edition you think to be authoritative. ("1611" isn't precise enough here.)

I highly  recommend David Norton's A Textual History of the King James Bible, if you want to get to the bottom of the search for the "real" KJV.

-- Bob

Posts 10

Bob, thanks for the information: have not heard that before.  Will look into it.

 

Posts 25956
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Mar 2 2010 7:51 PM

Thanks for your description of the situation. I would still like to have a collection offered of all Bibles in native English languages i.e. starting with Anglo-Saxon and going through the 1800's. The edition of the KJV in this collection should include the deuterocanonicals which are still used in Anglican services. The resources at Bible Protector are valuable - thanks for the link.

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 343

I thought he was speaking of 1611 spelling differences and sometimes slightly difference word choices.  I guess not.

Jason Saling

Posts 2681
DominicM | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 3 2010 7:49 AM

that would include all the olde english text as well (for that authenticness) and so no one can actually read it..

Whilst I understand the desire for research, for day to day use - not for me thank you.

 

Never Deprive Anyone of Hope.. It Might Be ALL They Have

Posts 10

Jason, you are correct: I am speaking to the spelling differences; the f instead of s the u instead of v, extra vowels and consonants we dont use today, etc... the original writing of the AV 1611.... but it seems the production or inclusion in Logos of the 1611 printing, or 1613, or 1629 might be "too" difficult...  I think the 1629 would be great (its still 1611, but typo's reduced) I would hate to have been the type setter for the original Bible; hand making each letter and setting them....  incredible work!  Tongue Tied

Posts 612
John Brumett | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 3 2010 9:18 AM

Nelson Publishers has a reprint of the first edition of the authorized version called The Holy Bible 1611 EDITION King James Version this edition inclused the original Hebrew and Greek marginal notes and the original introduction to the reader.  This would be nice to have in Libronix.   

Posts 10

John, do you know the actual print date/ year Nelsons is based off of?

Posts 25956
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 3 2010 3:23 PM

DominicM:
that would include all the olde english text as well (for that authenticness) and so no one can actually read it..

Hey, I can read it a whole lot easier than HebrewCool

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 25956
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 3 2010 3:27 PM

Scott Cornoyer www.hpibc.com:
the f instead of s

I assume you know it is a "long s" not an "f"? I, too, would like the spelling and punctuation of a 1611 edition as a move towards a complete Early English Bible set. I do know of a source for most of the Anglo-Saxon texts.

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 612
John Brumett | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 3 2010 3:33 PM

Scott:  This copy of the 1611 KJV by Nelson publishers is based off of the first print edition of the original 1611 edition with all the old english spelling.   

Posts 5607
Todd Phillips | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 3 2010 3:47 PM

DominicM:

that would include all the olde english text as well (for that authenticness) and so no one can actually read it..

Whilst I understand the desire for research, for day to day use - not for me thank you.

I think you meant: "Whilst underſtande I the deſire for re-ſearch, for daye to daye uſe - for me not thank ye."

Wiki Links: Enabling Logging / Detailed Search Help - MacBook Pro (2014), ThinkPad E570

Page 1 of 1 (19 items) | RSS