1611 KJV - why not in English Bibles Collection in prepub and can it be added?

Unless I'm missing something, unlike many competitors and inferior and free software programs, Logos does not have a 1611 KJV, only the 1769 revision (resource called "Authorized Version") and the 1900 "King James Version"

It seems this is a glaring omission to the set of Wycliff, Tyndale, Geneva, etc., and makes Logos offerings of early English Bibles inferior to Bibleworks and even sites like www.studylight.org

It would be ideal if Logos offered a superior 1611 KJV with original footnotes and marginal readings and preface

Thanks for your consideration

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

JT (alabama24)

There is no such thing as "the 1611" KJV. The process of printing made differences inevitable. The 1769 version that Logos uses is not a revision, but a reprinting of the 1611. You can read more HERE.

MJ. Smith

but a reprinting of the 1611

minus the Church of England apocrypha[;)]

JT (alabama24)

but a reprinting of the 1611

minus the Church of England apocrypha

You are right. [8-|]

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

It would be ideal if Logos offered a superior 1611 KJV with original footnotes and marginal readings and preface

Which printed 1611 KJV version should be used as a basis ? wikipedia article => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version notes different 1611 print versions of Ruth 3:15 have "he went into the city" and "she went into the city"

only the 1769 revision (resource called "Authorized Version") and the 1900 "King James Version"

Logos also has => The Cambridge Paragraph Bible of the Authorized English Version

Wiki has => Logos Speaks with links => Logos’ KJV choice 1 , => Logos’ KJV choice 2 , and => Logos’ KJV choice 3 that includes:

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

Keep Smiling [:)]

John Brumett

http://www.nelsonbibles.com/bible.php?id=104 I think what he means is this. Thomas Nelson reprinted a copy of the original 1611 Bible with footnotes and with original old English spellings. The advantage of this in logos is you can easily compare the Geneva Bible with the 1611 and see the changes.

John Brumett

^{1611 Edition}

¹ In the beginning God created the Heauen, and the Earth.

² And the earth was without forme, and voyd, and darkenesse was vpon the face of the deepe: and the Spirit of God mooued vpon the face of the waters.

³ And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

⁴ And God saw the light, that it was good: and God diuided the light from the darkenesse.

⁵ And God called the light, Day, and the darknesse he called Night: and the euening and the morning were the first day.

1769 Edition Genesis 1:1-5

¹ In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

² And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

³ And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

⁴ And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

⁵ And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

The 2 Versions are Not the Same!

Compare the 2 Here: http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Genesis-Chapter-1/

Also see this Copy of the 1611 KJV that Nelson Publishers reprinted with footnotes.

Jason Saling

Also, what about the Bishop's Bible?

I've been waiting for these to become available.

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

The 2 Versions are Not the Same!

Noticed the first five verses have the same English words, which have spelling variations. The Nelson reprint includes long s, see => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_s

Also thread => What approach is used for Greek transliteration? includes:

http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~kemmer/Histengl/spelling.html

Thankful for historic English insights.

Keep Smiling [:)]

William Gabriel

Also, what about the Bishop's Bible?

I've been waiting for these to become available.

While we're making requests for old Bible translations, how about the Tyndale version?

You can hear the English accent as you read it: http://wesley.nnu.edu/sermons-essays-books/william-tyndales-translation/

fgh

While we're making requests for old Bible translations, how about the Tyndale version?

You didn't look at the English Bible Collection that is mentioned in this thread's title, did you? Because if you had, you would have seen it's already there. [;)]

And while you wait, there's PB of it in the files forum.

Milford Charles Murray

While we're making requests for old Bible translations, how about the Tyndale version?

You didn't look at the English Bible Collection that is mentioned in this thread's title, did you? Because if you had, you would have seen it's already there.

And while you wait, there's PB of it in the files forum.

Peace and Joy to you, fgh! ... and to all!

Thanks for that link! I'm signed up for it now. It may take a long time to get it through Community Pricing; but, The Price is Right! Indeed!

John 15:12-15

Huge Berger

That article is rubbish and incorrect. We call it the 1611 because it was first published then. It is the ONLY bible ever authorised by King James. It was translated from the Antioch manuscripts and the KJV is a butchering if you bother to compare which I did. So no your statement is 100% incorrect as far as the intended information goes. All other bibles are made from Vatican forged manuscripts. Simple as that. Historical and irrefutable.

MJ. Smith

That article is rubbish and incorrect. We call it the 1611 because it was first published then. It is the ONLY bible ever authorised by King James. It was translated from the Antioch manuscripts and the KJV is a butchering if you bother to compare which I did. So no your statement is 100% incorrect as far as the intended information goes. All other bibles are made from Vatican forged manuscripts. Simple as that. Historical and irrefutable.

Welcome to the Faithlife forums. Please read the guidelines.

Please abide by the following guidelines as you interact on our forums.

Please keep your discussions focused on Logos Bible Software: our software, products, websites, company, tools, etc.

Please do not discuss or debate biblical, theological, or other controversial topics. Use one of the many web forums intended for these kinds of discussions.

Please treat each other with the love, courtesy, respect, and kindness that you would if you were sitting in your living room together.

Please do not use our forums to
sell or give away anything or link to anything you’re selling or giving away—including Logos products

promote or link to competitors

promote affiliate links or discounts

point people to other places that sell Logos-compatible products

advertise yourself, your business, your ministry, your website, etc. (a tasteful link in your forum signature is acceptable)

post Logos Coupon Codes. If you are aware of a special promotion Logos is running online, you are welcome to link directly to the promotion.

Please search before posting. It’s likely that someone has already asked your question.

Please help others follow these guidelines. If the problems continue after you’ve given a gentle reminder of these expectations, please click “Report Abuse” under “More” or send an email to forums@logos.com. If a user is a repeat offender, we may temporarily suspend their account. If the offenses continue, we reserve the right to permanently ban the offender's account from the forums either by shadow banning it or blocking it entirely.

Thank you for your cooperation. Enjoy discussing and learning about Logos Bible Software.

Please don't offend Catholics with faux-facts and Authorized Version (KJV) fans with highly biased information. This sort of material belongs in other forums not Bible software forums where everyone using the software, no matter how fringe their ideas, needs to feel welcome to come for assistance.