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.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Rick Ross

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
IFB

Zachary Oglesby

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

Bob Pritchett

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

Jack Caviness

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?

MJ. Smith

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

Bob Pritchett

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)

Zachary Oglesby

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?

Rick Ross

Open mouth, insert foot. I was obviously thinking of another example. You are correct, same meaning; updated spelling.

Sorry.

Dan Cleghorn

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

http://www.soulwinning.info/bible/kjb/pce.htm

http://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104

Jack Caviness

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.

Sam Shaw

Okay, I'm still confused. Which version, exactly, is the "King James Version"/"King James Version Apocrypha" provided in Logos 4?

Rick Ross

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

Jack Caviness

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?

Rick Ross

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

Batman

Apparently.
But, it's too bad people tend to not even understand the language they fight so hard for.

Sam Shaw

Okay, I'm still confused. Which version, exactly, is the "King James Version"/"King James Version Apocrypha" provided in Logos 4?

Again. Help, please.

Todd Phillips

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).

J. Morris

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]

Ira L. Hargis

That is a question that I have been asking for decades. No one responds.

Wayne Levi Price

Yeah - I would like to see these 'so-called' - WORD DIFFERENCES myself.

If it is true that the New version of Logos does not allow you to have the older KJV Bible I would not buy it. It is an outrage that they are phasing it out. Sick spiritual leadership in my opinion.

Wayne Levi Price

If it is true that the New version of Logos does not allow you to have the older KJV Bible I would not buy it. It is an outrage that they are phasing it out. Sick spiritual leadership in my opinion.

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

If it is true that the New version of Logos does not allow you to have the older KJV Bible I would not buy it.

Thankful for English Bible Collection that includes many older Bibles (albeit noticeably missing is the Bishop's Bible).

Personal Book is also an option. Logos wiki has => Personal Books with link => User Contributed Personal Books

Keep Smiling [:)]

Ken McGuire

My installation of Logos 8 has three versions of the KJV text, and I believe they are the same three versions that have been in the software since Logos 4.0 days, namely the Cambridge Paragraph, the 1900 Cambridge, and the 1769 KJV that has been in Logos since the beginning.

I will fully admit that I don't know the exact details about which ones are still for sale, are included in new base packages, or have all the tagging for the fancy Logos features.

But the most recent version of Logos certainly appears to "allow you to have the older KJV Bible."

Noah

"The only pure Bible."

Even though we take studying scripture very seriously, the truth is, the King James Version will always be just that--a translation of the original text. There are many variables to consider when looking at text, including finding manuscripts older than the ones used in the original KJV. Not only that, but we must also remember that any English version is a translation, and we should seek out the original text when one is able (study Greek and Hebrew if possible). I personally use the tools within Logos (inline, Strong’s, text comparison, etc…), multiple translations (KJV, ESV, etc.), and most importantly I pray for revelation (for God to reveal Himself) since this is what all this studying is about (John 17:3, John 5:39-40). I have studied the Bible like many of you here--a lifetime-- and I must say that the leading(s) of the Holy Spirit far out way me or the arguments we see in these types of discussions. Yes, I believe discussion helps others see truth, but in the end, a personal walk with God and His Son brings life. With the help of the Holy Spirit--we see truth.

John 16:13–15 (ESV)¹³ When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. ¹⁴ He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. ¹⁵ All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

John 17:3 (ESV)³ And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.

John 17:3 (KJV 1900)³ And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

John 17:3 (AV)³ And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

John 5:38–40 (KJV 1900)³⁸ And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. ³⁹ Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. ⁴⁰ And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

John 5:39–40 (ESV)³⁹ You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, ⁴⁰ yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.

MJ. Smith

Welcome to the Faithlife software forums. Please note that they are to discuss the Logos/Verbum/Proclaim software and resources for it - not for general religious discussions.

the truth is, the King James Version will always be just that--a translation of the original text.

Given that no original manuscripts exist, are you requesting resources on manuscript transmission for your Logos library? If so, I'll be glad o provide suggestions. Otherwise, please read the forum guidelines (upper right of the main page) and come to the forums frequently -- we're the best place to get your questions answered.