This is first and foremost software to make Bible study easier. William Shakespeare's works are hear as well.
The Bible in the original King James English of 1611 is not here. ! AM I MISSING SOMETHING !?
If you have a "Base Package" you probably have a King James Version.
Click on "Library" (the open book icon; the second icon on the top left ribbon on your screen).
Then enter "King James Version" and/or "Authorized Version".
The "Authorized Version" is the closest I could find in my library. It says it is 1769 Edition of the 1611 Authorized Version.
Good thread on the 1611: http://community.logos.com/forums/t/44433.aspx
Bradley,
Denise directed you to an informative thread. If you are willing to follow the links be sure to read this post in that thread.
This is first and foremost software to make Bible study easier. William Shakespeare's works are hear as well. The Bible in the original King James English of 1611 is not here. ! AM I MISSING SOMETHING !?
Yeah, you're missing this: https://www.logos.com/product/24557/the-new-cambridge-paragraph-bible-with-the-apocrypha-rev-ed
Please sign up for it so we can help get it into production!
Oh, and try to get out more. I'm pretty sure even that bastion of fundamentalism, Bob Jones University, has the works of Shakespeare in their library.
Might even have Dracula too, but that could be pushing it [:P]
Nope, they have Dracula too!
Pardon my ignorance, but other than as an interesting historical artifact, why having a 1611 is such a big deal? Wouldn't be better to consult original language materials? Am I missing something? (probably) What am I missing?
Thanks
Wouldn't be better to consult original language materials?
When reading commentaries and monographs from any era in any language it is useful to be able to read the translation that they are working with. It often makes the difference between finding their interpretation bizarre and understanding what they mean.
Probably re-stating MJ's comment, a translation is an interpretive commentary.
And the best way to see how earlier writers interpreted a passage is to see how they moved it into a language not easily translated. I often enjoy seeing how the Navajo Bible is translated from the denominational creed (and in theory, original languages). The language doesn't easily support greek and so an interpretation (the creed) has to be inserted.
Having the early original language text says nothing about its early interpretation per se. And an interpretation 2,000 years later is just that.
To further restate your restatement; This is why I so enjoy the UBS commentaries. They further demonstrate the linguistic hurdles one must overcome when attempting to make sense of text written in a language that is "Greek to me."
And the joke of the day! If the Holy Spirit actually spoke to some, then why would they even bother using a Bible translation? The Holy Spirit should be able to tell them everything from translation to 100% accurate interpretation and application. Wow, what an eye opener...LOL
DAL
If the Holy Spirit actually spoke to some
IF?
I want the 1611 spelling also. I have an interest in how the English language evolved during the last millennium.
Perhaps this 1609 translation will be an acceptable intermediary representing the 1600s?
Seems to have been modernized.
If the Holy Spirit actually spoke to some IF?
Yeah, you know, like the guy who saw his friend drowning and when asked why he didn't help him, he said, "The Holy Spirit told me to let him drown." Or like those foolish people on TV, "I had a message last night, but the Holy Spirit told me to change it." And little does the audience know that he didn't prepare anything and he's just going to "wing it" for 40 minutes...LOL
