AV vs KJV 1900

I preach in a King James only church. When I use Logos resources I use the KJV 1900 because it has the interlinear feature. It does however raise eyebrows when folks see something other than KJV next to a Bible quotation. Are there any textual differences between the Logos AV and the KJV 1900? Thanks for your help.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Rob

There have been a number of blogs on the topic over the years that might clarify the difficulties.

My favorite from ~2006: "In Search of the KJV"

More recently: "You’ve Probably Never Seen the Real King James Version"

Pastor Don Carpenter

So if I explain to the folks that this KJV 1900 is merely updated spelling, is that an accurate statement?

Levi Durfey

Here's an article that talks about the Pure Cambridge Edition of 1900, which is what the KJV 1900 is (see the "information" page on the resource menu--three vertical dots):

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

The bottom of the page highlights some differences.

BTW: if the "1900" bothers you, you can remove it by editing the title on the information page.

DMB

When I use Logos resources I use the KJV 1900 because it has the interlinear feature. It does however raise eyebrows when folks see something other than KJV next to a Bible quotation.

Just my own opinion (of course), you're cruising for a bruising. If KJV-only, it's KJV-specific. Our pastor switch-hits, and all it does, is raise the question 'what's up' ... playing games?

As for the KJV RI, (technically), you're better off with Newberry's. It works off the TR, and if you're a Strongs guy, includes not only regular Strongs, but the verbal extensions (as well as the other usual interlinear lines).

JohnB

One thing that KJ only fans may not always appreciate is the full 12 or 13 page introduction by the translators which is seldom in modern translations but is in the Cambridge (including the Logos version). It is a essential read to be able to appreciate see the mindset (and humour?) of the translators. Such as :-

"Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet*) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God: as the King’s speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King’s speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, every where."

The Cambridge Paragraph Bible: of the Authorized English Version. (1873). (p. cxiii). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Every translation IS the word of God??? Interesting.

I suggest that Levi's advice is the best, just edit the title. [:)]

Pastor Don Carpenter

Levi, you have just added much time to my work week! I have been manually taking out the 1900 from every verse reference in every slide and in every printed document because I believe they are essentially the same and it was causing confusion. This is a wonderful solution. Thanks also for the folks who posted the article about the 1900 being the best King James. Personally I am not KJO, I am a preservationist and believe that the TR is the better text... but for most church folks they just don't want any new Bible and I don't blame them.Thanks for all your help,

Doc B

I preach in a King James only church.

Personally I am not KJO

May God have mercy on you. Or, at least preserve you from the angst of your flock.

[:O]