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.
Comments
-
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"
0 -
So if I explain to the folks that this KJV 1900 is merely updated spelling, is that an accurate statement?
0 -
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.
0 -
Pastor Don Carpenter said:
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).
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
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. [:)]0 -
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,
0 -
Pastor Don Carpenter said:
I am a preservationist and believe that the TR is the better text...
Then, the NKJV is the best translation—but in a KJV Only church, you will be burned at the stake [:P]
0 -
Jack Caviness said:
Then, the NKJV is the best translation—but in a KJV Only church, you will be burned at the stake
Try
http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-the-kjv-and-the-nkjv/
3. The NKJV includes Alexandrian texts.
4. The KJV neglected to include Alexandrian texts altogether
[[Or I would say that the KJV avoided Alexandrian texts]]
http://www.sound-doctrine.net/KJB-Vs-NKJB.html
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-main-differences-between-the-NKJV-and-KJV-versions-of-the-Bible
There maybe better ones but these covered some of the differences that I have been shown
0 -
Pastor Don Carpenter said:
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.
That's good to hear!
0 -
Pastor Don Carpenter said:
I preach in a King James only church.
Pastor Don Carpenter said:Personally I am not KJO
May God have mercy on you. Or, at least preserve you from the angst of your flock.
[:O]
Eating a steady diet of government cheese, and living in a van down by the river.
0 -
David Ames said:
In the article it says:
"We have to remember that the English language was used more precisely in the 1600’s when the KJV addressed the word of religion for the people.
Read more: Difference Between the KJV and the NKJV | Difference Between http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-the-kjv-and-the-nkjv/#ixzz5xFYv8F2VYet a common observation about the variations in KJV grammar, style and word choice is that the KJV translators were working in a time before English was fully formed as a language. If true this implies the direct opposite of the observation in the article making the issue the lack of precision in the 1600s.
0 -
Graham Owen said:
In the article it says:
""It should also be stated that the KJV was written entirely based upon the exclusion of the Alexandrian Manuscripts. The NKJV includes the Alexandrian Manuscripts in an effort to find more potent and direct information. Translation of the Alexandrian Manuscripts is rejected by most KJV followers.""
That is the NKJV is not a "new KJV" but a new translation of some text that is not the TR from which the (old) KJV was translated from.
0 -
We can debate which translation is better endlessly. As a practical matter, if you're going to preach to a congregation, you have to use a translation that they will accept as the Word of God. Whatever its limitations may be, you can teach the gospel from the KJV - just as you can from any of the generally recognized English translations.
I salute Don's efforts to serve his congregation. Perhaps at some point he will have an opportunity to profitably discuss the issue of translation with them. But the gospel comes first.
0 -
VERY true. At least the congregation take the bible seriously and accept it as the word of God - even if one does not agree with their opinions as to the relevance of the ease in understanding the meaning of the English text or the accuracy of the original text behind it.EastTN said:As a practical matter, if you're going to preach to a congregation, you have to use a translation that they will accept as the Word of God.
That is more than can be said of many church congregations today.0 -
David Ames said:
Try
http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-the-kjv-and-the-nkjv/
3. The NKJV includes Alexandrian texts.
4. The KJV neglected to include Alexandrian texts altogether
[[Or I would say that the KJV avoided Alexandrian texts]]
Thank you for that information.
0 -
Quora.com, the very best source for sound theological expert knowledge, yay!!
Here's what I found in Logos:
https://ref.ly/logosres/genintro?ref=Page.p+598&off=993 (Norman Geisler)
https://ref.ly/logosres/gotqdatabase?art=topic.31.25 (GotQuestions)
0 -
Everyone else on Logos seems to be an expert on the subject of Textual Criticism, (!) yet as far as I am aware, Logos does no courses on Textual Criticism or I would have bought them. The books I have bought from Logos are good as far as they go but they don't go far enough for me.
Hence I was delighted to find an extremely accessible free audio course hosted by Credo House and done by a practising Textual Critic & Evangelical Christian, Daniel Wallace at https://www.credocourses.com/product/textual-criticism-audio/ Although pure audio is free for downloading you miss the power point slides that are on the video version [:D]
Now all I need is the equivalent TR and MT equivalents - preferably for a similar price!!0 -
Amen brother. I was taking out the 1900 as well. Thanks for this helpful suggestion!
0 -
EastTN said:
We can debate which translation is better endlessly. As a practical matter, if you're going to preach to a congregation, you have to use a translation that they will accept as the Word of God. Whatever its limitations may be, you can teach the gospel from the KJV - just as you can from any of the generally recognized English translations.
I salute Don's efforts to serve his congregation. Perhaps at some point he will have an opportunity to profitably discuss the issue of translation with them. But the gospel comes first.
Great response! I see Christians on both sides of this debate not respecting the translation choices of the other. This should not be an issue for division. I personally use the NRSV, but the gospel is the gospel no matter the translation.
0
