Are the 3 KJV the same?
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.
Comments
-
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
IFB0 -
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
0 -
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
0 -
RIchard K Ross said:
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?
0 -
RIchard K Ross said:
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
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
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)
0 -
RIchard K Ross said:
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.
0 -
Bob Pritchett said:
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?
0 -
Open mouth, insert foot. I was obviously thinking of another example. You are correct, same meaning; updated spelling.
Sorry.
0 -
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
0 -
RIchard K Ross said:
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.
0 -
JackCaviness said:
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."
0 -
RosiePerera said:JackCaviness said:
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 [8-|]. 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.
0 -
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
0 -
- through
- 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.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 - through
-
Okay, I'm still confused. Which version, exactly, is the "King James Version"/"King James Version Apocrypha" provided in Logos 4?
0 -
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
0 -
DanCleghorn said:
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?
0 -
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
0 -
Those of you (us) who really want to get an accurate account of God's word need to get back to the Hebrew and Greek scriptures. There is NO such thing as an accurate or literal translation in any language by anyone - that is an impossibility for no other reason than there are few if any words in any one language that correspond to a given word in another.
Even doing that, however, you will soon discover additional difficulties in determining what was the original text, although this will be far less a problem than determining what is a good translation.
As to the problem of learning Greek and Hebrew, it can be done by anyone if you are serious and are willing to put forth the effort. If you prefer to be spoon-fed that's another problem but you'll spend the rest of your life trying to figure out and argue about which is the best translation, a useless exercise if ever there was one.
Longtime Logos user (more than $30,000 in purchases) - now a second class user because I won't pay them more every month or year.
0 -
Apparently.
But, it's too bad people tend to not even understand the language they fight so hard for.0 -
"... but, does that mean the actual Hebrew & Greek or the English?"
Well, English of course.
Everyone knows that Adam and Eve were 20th century Americans, who spoke English.
There may be a few who actually believe they spoke Hebrew.
(Come to think of it, I wonder what language they did speak; pretty confident it wasn't 1611 English, or Hebrew, for that matter ).0 -
The calvinists teach the same dogma regardless of whether they use KJV, NKJV, ESV, or NASB. I think all 4 bibles are the best as far as conservitive English scholarship is concerned. I prefer ESV or NASB, mainly for readability. One thing you will battle is the fact that there are 2 main lines of Greek. The Textus Receptus and the Alexandrian Text (Greek). Which is more correct? Even if you study Greek, you have to solve that battle. I say don't let the devil lead you astray and don't follow doctrines of men. There is truly no "perfect" literal version, but God's word will never change and I believe you will find that doctrine wise that all 4 bibles I mentioned will be 95% in agreement. JM2cents!
0 -
RIchard K Ross said:
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.
I think it was in this thread that Bob P. indicated that the 1811 Bible was a dead end - that the KJV crowd use a later text as their base. Which makes sense given the treatment of the Deuterocanonical.s
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Sam Shaw said:Sam Shaw said:
Okay, I'm still confused. Which version, exactly, is the "King James Version"/"King James Version Apocrypha" provided in Logos 4?
Again. Help, please.
It's the 1900 Pure Cambridge Edition (Check the info panel in the Library for this info).
MacBook Pro (2019), ThinkPad E540
0 -
The purpose of a translation should be...
1) It should communicate the AUTHOR/authors intentions... (therefore should strive to be a "literal" translation)
2) It should be readable by the MASSES... (Not just by a select few or group who then tell you what it means)
(Doing 1&2 well together is sometimes a difficult thing to accomplish)
If #1 is NOT true, then the version will contain errors/heresies/opinions....
If #1 IS true but #2 Is NOT, then the person has to find someone/Church that will interpret.
-The intent of the early translations 1500s-1600s was to get the Scriptures to the People (masses) so they could read it for themselves...
-If people can't understand/comprehend the Bible they have at home, they are MUCH less likely to read it...
-If a people have a hard time understanding but want to be "good" Christians, then the only choice is to find a Church that will explain it...
-OR they are already going to a Chruch that says ONLY a certain version of Bible (the more difficult kind to understand/comprehend) is the ONLY one that should be used/read
Then because that Version is more difficult to read... It gets read LESS and the Christian has to rely Solely/Mostly on the interpretation that is given by their pastor.
-Bible learning should happen MOSTLY at HOME not Church. Certainly we should all learn from the Scriptures at Church, but a Christian should be "searching the Scriptures daily"... "Church" is something that is to be PERFORMED (EX. Worship, ALSO:by the body of Christ AKA CHURCH exercising their spiritual gifts with one another)
-My criteria, as far as suggesting a Bible version, follows my 2 points above.
Blessings,
Jeremiah
Independent Fundamental (by Webster's def) Baptist Pastor
P.S. God's Word CAN be understood (to a VERY high degree) without knowing Greek/Aramaic/Hebrew.... (esp thanks to Logos!) Just because I don't know those other languages doesn't mean I'm being "spoon-fed"... [:P]
0 -
RIchard K Ross said:
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.
I won't quote your entire post, but you did not answer the question. I attended a Fundamentalist college and served as Pastor of 2 Independent Fundamental Baptist Churches, but I reject the entire premise upon which the KJB error is built. Did Paul, Peter and even Jesus not have a pure Word of God? After all, they lived and ministered prior to 1611 or any other date cited by KJB partisans. There are people in this world who could not understand any portion of the KJB. Do they, therefore, have no access to the Word of God?
0 -
Alex Scott said:
Those of you (us) who really want to get an accurate account of God's word need to get back to the Hebrew and Greek scriptures.
Alex
I only quoted the first sentence, but the entire post is superb.[Y]
0 -
Not sure if I can add anything else to what you said, except, our congregation uses the KJV, mostly Scofield as you might imagine, which is supposed to be the 1769 text, not a later textual update. If you, as a former Pastor can substantiate that, please do. But, I don't much care about the Bible Version debate as it just seems to serve the purpose of dividing and distracting us from the work in which Christ has called us. I dare state that I could take the NKJV, ASV, DR or ESV and witness to someone to plant the seed. We don't have the original greek/hebrew the translators used, so we have to make due with what the good Lord has given us.
Rick Ross
0
