Are the 3 KJV the same?

Page 1 of 3 (52 items) 1 2 3 Next >
This post has 51 Replies | 2 Followers

Posts 214
dcleghorn | Forum Activity | Posted: Fri, Nov 20 2009 10:14 AM

What is the difference between the three different KJV bibles? You have the old one that Logos has always used (that I have found reliable), the Cambridge Paragraph (AV 1873) and the 1900 Version. I have not used the last two but they are the ones with the ones with the interlinears.

My concern: are there word differences from the old authorized KJV? The book note says some typos were fixed. What typos? Is there a list somewhere?

Also, are there plans for the "old" KJV to have an interlinear?

Thanks.

Posts 187
Rick Ross | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Nov 20 2009 10:41 AM

Dan,

The Cambridge Paragraph Bible has the same text as the King James Version as far as I know.  You are correct, F. H. A. Scrievner's interlinear is part of that.  I am not sure about the 1900 Version you speak of.  I only have the two that I mentioned.  The orginal KJV is the 1769 version.  There have been subtile changes made by various publishers over the years....why...because the text of the original is not copy written, thus, without changing the orginal text they could not morally profit from the sale of their version.  I hope that answers your question.

I realize the changes do not adversely affect doctrine, but they are changes nevertheless.  Look up the definition of "Savior" vs "Saviour".  They are not the same in meaning.

Rick
IFB

Posts 68
Zachary Oglesby | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Nov 20 2009 11:30 AM

The 'old' KJV is not in the new base packages so you only have it if you had an older version of Logos, because of that I don't think we will get interlinears with it. I personally think thats a shame I like the layout of the one better.

For more info read http://community.logos.com/forums/p/3501/26845.aspx#26845

 

 

Posts 1236
LogosEmployee
Bob Pritchett | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Nov 20 2009 3:06 PM

The old KJV in our old packages was the 1769 Blayney. 

The 1873 Scrivener is arguably a more consistent text, and more carefully edited, but it never was used as much. It does have extensive formatting, notes, appendices, etc. AND matches the Scrivener edition of the textus receptus often used by majority text fans.

The 1900 text is derived from the "Pure Cambridge Edition KJV" (search the web for more info), and represents the "stable" version of the KJV published by the authorized printers around 1900, and most like what you probably have in print.

For more info I recommend David Norton's book on the KJV, and this earlier blog post:

http://blog.logos.com/archives/2006/03/in_search_of_the_king_james_ve_1.html

 

Posts 8461
Forum MVP
Jack Caviness | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Nov 20 2009 6:46 PM

RIchard K Ross:
Look up the definition of "Savior" vs "Saviour".  They are not the same in meaning.

Which dictionary did you consult to find this gem of misinformation?

Posts 14356
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Nov 20 2009 7:37 PM

RIchard K Ross:
The orginal KJV is the 1769 version.

Er ... a... then why was it originally published in 1611 - of which I have a fascimile edition? Actually, I'd love to see Logos offer the 1611 Authorized Version

Logos4catholics Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 1236
LogosEmployee
Bob Pritchett | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Nov 20 2009 9:39 PM

I meant the one originally in Logos. Sorry.

The 1611 text, as originally published in 1611, has rarely been used since. Almost every KJV published since has been a variant. The most popular and widely available "facsimiles" are actually "reproductions" that use old looking type and reproduce the 1611 text. (Which won't match almost any KJV Bible you've ever seen, since most of htem are the 1769 or approximate the "1900" text.) For more information on how to tell if yours is "the 1611":

http://www.greatsite.com/facsimile-reproductions/kingjames-1611.html

Again, I'd recommend David Norton's book to any KJV fan, and/or the 500+ pages of excruciatingly detailed information at the 'Pure Cambridge Edition" web site. Hard as it is to believe, there simply isn't a single, defensible, "correct" KJV. I have spent a lot of time in this rabbit hole... :-)

It's like the Gettysburg address, which, even though only 150 years old and short enough to fit on an envelope, is actually not known definitively. (Lincoln himself produced multiple slightly differing manuscripts, and apparently didn't keep the one he read from on the field in Gettysburg. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettysburg_Address)

 

Posts 112
T MacLeod | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Nov 20 2009 11:07 PM

RIchard K Ross:

Look up the definition of "Savior" vs "Saviour".  They are not the same in meaning.

 

In point of fact, they have precisely the same meaning.  The former is simply the American spelling, while the latter is the spelling used virtually everywhere else.

Posts 68
Zachary Oglesby | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Nov 21 2009 12:21 AM

Bob Pritchett:

Again, I'd recommend David Norton's book to any KJV fan, and/or the 500+ pages of excruciatingly detailed information at the 'Pure Cambridge Edition" web site. Hard as it is to believe, there simply isn't a single, defensible, "correct" KJV. I have spent a lot of time in this rabbit hole... :-)

Whats that chance we can get David Norton's book in Logos at some point? Have you looked into that at all?

Posts 187
Rick Ross | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Nov 21 2009 8:16 PM

Open mouth, insert foot.  I was obviously thinking of another example.  You are correct, same meaning; updated spelling.

Sorry.

Posts 214
dcleghorn | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Nov 21 2009 8:24 PM

For KJV fans, it seems the Pure Cambridge Edition is the best. Interesting links below. Thanks for all the help. My goal is NOT to start a Bible version debate, but to find out which KJV I want to use.

http://www.bibleprotector.com/purecambridgeedition.htm

http://www.soulwinning.info/bible/kjb/pce.htm

http://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104

Posts 8461
Forum MVP
Jack Caviness | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Nov 22 2009 4:36 AM

RIchard K Ross:
I was obviously thinking of another example

Richard

I believe there is a very old dictionary (Greene?) that makes an issue of the difference between "thoroughly" and "throughly" in the KJV. However, this is a false distinction as both translate the identical Greek word, tense, voice, mood, etc. 

Posts 15678
Rosie Perera | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Nov 22 2009 4:41 AM

JackCaviness:

I believe there is a very old dictionary (Greene?) that makes an issue of the difference between "thoroughly" and "thoroughly" in the KJV.

Hmmm....that would be quite an amazing dictionary indeed, as I see absolutely no difference between those two words, even if I examine the fonts carefully to see if you used a different character for the 'l' in each one. Did you mean "throughly" for one of them? If so, that is just an archaic English word that means precisely the same as "thoroughly."

Posts 8461
Forum MVP
Jack Caviness | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Nov 22 2009 5:12 AM

RosiePerera:

JackCaviness:

I believe there is a very old dictionary (Greene?) that makes an issue of the difference between "thoroughly" and "thoroughly" in the KJV.

Hmmm....that would be quite an amazing dictionary indeed, as I see absolutely no difference between those two words, even if I examine the fonts carefully to see if you used a different character for the 'l' in each one. Did you mean "throughly" for one of them? If so, that is just an archaic English word that means precisely the same as "thoroughly."

Rosie

I need to hire a proof-reader Geeked. Yes, you are correct on all counts.  I did mean "throughly" for one of them. I even thought I read it that way. Someone used that spelling difference to make a point against the NKJV at the Church I attend. that is the reason I researched the underlying Greek words. When I asked where he got this misinformation, he said it came from Greene's dictionary.

I have edited the original post to correct the error. Thank you for pointing it out.

Posts 12
John A. English | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Nov 22 2009 9:33 AM

The Trinitarian Bible Society is preparing for a celebration of the anniversary the 1611 publication of the Kin James Bible.  Take a look, if you like:

http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/

They also have links to discussions of the version if I remember correctly.  It is a very interesting society and they publish King James Bibles and similar translations in other languages only.

Br. John English, OLB

 

Posts 14356
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Nov 22 2009 3:47 PM
through Look up through at Dictionary.com
c.1300, metathesis of O.E. þurh, from W.Gmc. *thurkh (cf. O.S. thuru, O.Fris. thruch, M.Du. dore, Du. door, O.H.G. thuruh, Ger. durch, Goth. þairh "through"), from PIE base *tr- "through" (cf. Skt. tirah, Avestan taro "through, beyond," L. trans "beyond," O.Ir. tre, Welsh tra "through"). Not clearly differentiated from thorough until early Mod.Eng. Spelling thro was common 15c.-18c. Reformed spelling thru (1917) is mainly Amer.Eng.
thorough Look up thorough at Dictionary.com
c.1489, adj. use of O.E. þuruh (adv.) "from end to end, from side to side," stressed variant of þurh (adv., prep.), see through. Thoroughfare is recorded from late 14c., "passage or way through."

Logos4catholics Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 44
Sam Shaw | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Nov 22 2009 4:35 PM

Okay, I'm still confused. Which version, exactly, is the "King James Version"/"King James Version Apocrypha" provided in Logos 4?

Posts 187
Rick Ross | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Nov 22 2009 10:52 PM

Thanks, Dan for the links.  That was some of what I was searching the internet for.  I learned tonight that the KJV that I was reading from, published by Hendrickson, is Scrievner's test from 1873.  I found that Zondervan's KJV Study Bible also has this text.  Also, as I was listening to Scourby and following along with a facsimile copy of they 1873 KJV, I found that he must have been reading from that same edition.

Thanks everyone else who commented on my earlier post.  I hope my Morris Seminar Training Manual gets here soon so I can really learn to use L4.

Rick Ross

Posts 8461
Forum MVP
Jack Caviness | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Nov 23 2009 4:20 AM

DanCleghorn:
Interesting links below.

I will probably have to dodge fireballs for this, but I cannot resist. Do the authors of these documents actually believe that the pure Word of God did not exist prior to 1900 and that only English speakers have access to the unvarnished truth? 

Posts 187
Rick Ross | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Nov 23 2009 9:09 AM

Jack,

From what I have learned through reading many books on the King James Bible, and through my Pastor, is that they believe the 1611 as translated was the only pure Bible.  They view any changes as an attempt to change the Word of God.  Now I can't read the mind of God, but,  He said His word would be preserved, but, does that mean the actual Hebrew & Greek or the English?  I prefer to believe that He meant we would have the Word of God in its entireity to read and learn.  But, when a publisher changes His Doctrine, then there is a problem.  Is the publisher just out for the dollars or was he attempting to modernize?  I believe 80% are doing it for the money, the others at least made a valiant attempt.  Either way, any attempt to update either would be a violation.  I am a Independent, Fundamental Baptist as you might have determined.  I have looked at some of the information on the New Cambridge KJV and would have to disagree with some of his changes.  When I look at Strongs and my copy of Stephen's TR 1550, of the words I checked, in my opinion he used the wrong word.  To get a modern KJV, for me at least, I would think that if you took out the 'th' and 'est' and corrected the mispellings in words, you would have something everyone could agree upon.  I have a copy of The Evidence Bible which was put out by Ray Comfort and they did just that.  So far, I have found any problems.

Ultimately, we have the Word of God as translated in 1611 which was the standard until the 20th Century when mankind came out with another version by putting 'New' in the title.  That is when man determined he could read the mind of God and made wholesale changes.  I will take probably take some heat as well for some of this, but, it is one man's opinion shared by a few.

I will get off this topic as it has run it's course.  I prefer the 1611, updated in 1769, and cautiously look at other attempts to change the KJB for the better.  Sadly, at least I don't think we do, have a copy of the entire Textus Receptus used to translate the Greek for the 1611 KJV.

Rick Ross

Page 1 of 3 (52 items) 1 2 3 Next > | RSS