Add the Authorized 1611 Bible

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

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Jason Saling

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.

MJ. Smith

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. [[Y] 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?

Scott Cornoyer www.hpibc.com

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

Vincent Setterholm

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.

MJ. Smith

Thanks, Vincent, for the historical detail.

Scott Cornoyer www.hpibc.com

Great![8-|]

Bob Pritchett

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

Scott Cornoyer www.hpibc.com

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

MJ. Smith

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.

Jason Saling

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

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.

Scott Cornoyer www.hpibc.com

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! [:S]