Highlights showing in other Bible version

Page 1 of 1 (15 items)
This post has 14 Replies | 2 Followers

Posts 10
Steve Baldaramos | Forum Activity | Posted: Tue, Nov 7 2017 6:43 AM

Hello,

When I highlight a phrase in the ESV, the same highlight will show in e.g. NASB and the NIV, but not in the KJV or the LEB.

Is this some setting I need to adjust?  Thanks.

Posts 4711
Forum MVP
Fred Chapman | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Nov 7 2017 7:10 AM

Go into the Visual Filters menu in the resource pane. That is the icon that looks like three dots forming a triangle.

Click the icon and scroll down to notes and highlights. Ensure notes and highlights is checked, and that the desired note or highlight file is checked

Posts 27963
Forum MVP
JT (alabama24) | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Nov 7 2017 7:26 AM

For clarification: Highlights are notes by "selection," not by "reference." Until fairly recently, highlights in a Bible would ONLY appear in the single translation. There is a newer feature which allows highlights from one translation to appear in another. You must check "corresponding notes & highlights" from the visual filter menu. NOTE: for this feature to work, both translations MUST have an underlying "reverse interlinear." If not, the feature won't work. 

OSX & iOS | Logs |  Install

Posts 10
Steve Baldaramos | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Nov 7 2017 7:44 AM

Ahhh.....well that explains why it worked for versions I had in question except for the KJV.  Thank you so much.

Posts 27963
Forum MVP
JT (alabama24) | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Nov 7 2017 8:04 AM

Steve Baldaramos:
well that explains why it worked for versions I had in question except for the KJV.

...because you didn't have it turned on, or because you don't have the reverse interlinear? 

OSX & iOS | Logs |  Install

Posts 10
Steve Baldaramos | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Nov 7 2017 9:34 AM

Thank you.  That was it!  I was using the AV version.  When I opened the "King James Version | KJV 1900" that worked.  I'm not sure I'm understanding the difference between the KJV 1611(assuming that is the AV)  and the KJV 1900 versions.

Posts 8

As a side note, I wanted to post a couple URLs that deal with the question of "What is the difference between the KJV 1611 and the KJV 1900?".

The KJV 1611 was written in Old English; that which was in use at the time of it's compilation. It contained words like “Arke of the Couenant, euen the Lord”

Wordings such as these were changed in 1769 to our more.. modern.. english spellings. In 1900 it was mainly capitalization changes to reflect the glory and position of God. An example would be:

KJV1611 (Joshua 3:11)“Arke of the Couenant, euen the Lord”

KJV 1769 (Joshua 3:11): “ark of the covenant of the Lord”

KJV 1900 (Joshua 3:11): "ark of the covenant of the LORD"

That being said, there are a few changes from 1611 to 1769 that could be viewed as changing the meaning of a passage, unless you look at the overall context by examining the verses immediately before and after the affected verses, as well as examining the overall context of that section of Scripture. A case in point:

KJV 1611 (Jeremiah 51:30): “burnt their dwelling places”

KJV 1769 (Jerimiah 51:30): “burned her dwellingplaces”

KJV 1900 (Jerimiah 51:30): "burned her dwellingplaces"

* In this passage the word 'their' was changed to 'her' due to the direct reference to 'Babylon' and due to the meaning of 'they became as women:' just prior within the same verse. Here, it was changed to 'her' because at that time period, and even now, cities were referred to in a female sense. For example, "What a great city Boston is! She really shines as a beacon of hope!". We normally don't say 'he' when referring to cities in a gendered way. This kind of a change does not change the overall passage's meaning(s) or focus. The passage is still talking about the men of Babylon and their penchant for no longer making war, still accurately describes how one can see that penchant echoed out in how they live, and that the passage still refers to what the men of Babylon did within their city to the living quarters of the city.

There was an 1830 edition of the KJV that also made minor changes to word spellings that did not change meanings of affected passages. Bible Protector (www.bibleprotector.com) calls this process 'text purification' which I happen to agree with being the correct phrase for what was done.

The 1900 edition of the KJV is called the 'Pure Cambridge Edition', or PCE. It was first published by Cambridge University Press in England in that year and was, later within that same year, published under the name Cambridge Publishing and Collins Publishers in the United States of America. This is the bible most people using the KJV have in their hands today.

You might want to read a few of these articles for clarification and reconcile them via your own reasoning skills rather than just mine. Here they are:


https://bible.org/article/changes-kjv-1611-illustration - This site is referenced by most scholars today as the online site for biblical information and studies.

https://rickbeckman.org/log/kjv-1611-vs-1769/

http://www.bibleprotector.com/

I hope this sheds some light on the changes, and your question, and provides a vehicle for your further research.

Posts 10
Steve Baldaramos | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Nov 7 2017 10:55 AM

Wow! that was quit the exhaustive explanation and much appreciated, thank you.  So, regarding Logos, is the AV (I'm assuming AV stands for Authorized Version) version of the KJV the 1611 then?

Posts 8

My AV is a user-added document (PDF from bibleprotector.com) but I also have 3 other KJVs.

The Holy Bible: King James Version. Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009. Print.

King James Version Study Bible. electronic ed. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997. Print.

The Apocrypha: King James Version. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1995. Print.

Looking at https://bible.faithlife.com/books/kjv/ it appears this is the AV1769, not the AV1611 due to the language constructs it uses. There is nothing in the info on that resource that states which particular version it actually is. However, as I said, due to the language constructs it appears to be the KJV 1769.

The one marked King James Version is most definitely the KJV1900. This is the same one as https://bible.faithlife.com/books/kjv1900/

The only other King James version, except the Study Bible, I can find is the AV1873 which is also called the "The Cambridge Paragraph Bible of the Authorized English Version". Obviously not the right one, LOL!

Posts 10
Steve Baldaramos | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Nov 7 2017 12:13 PM

Thank you Bro Deryl.  Yes, I did a side by side comparison from one of the web sites you posted for me and I thought the same thing.  I'm not a KJV Only person, just got a little confused between the AV and the 1900.  My library did not have interlinear lookup for the AV, but did for the 1900.

Posts 18040
Forum MVP
Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :) | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Nov 7 2017 6:08 PM

Steve Baldaramos:
My library did not have interlinear lookup for the AV, but did for the 1900.

Concur AV => The King James Version Bible (KJV) does not have Reverse Interlinear. Citation includes 1769:

The Holy Bible: King James Version. (1995). (electronic ed. of the 1769 edition of the 1611 Authorized Version.). Bellingham WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

1900 KJV => The Holy Bible: King James Version (KJV) has Reverse Interlinear as does 1873 => The Cambridge Paragraph Bible of the Authorized English Version (KJV)

English Bible Collection includes more Authorized Version revisions, including J.G. Paltrey's New Testament that was turned into the District Clerk's office in July 1828 (with subsequent publication in 1830).

Modern English Version (MEV) is a recent revision.

FYI: personally add year prefix to Bible titles.

Keep Smiling Smile

Posts 10
Steve Baldaramos | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Nov 7 2017 6:25 PM

This is awesome info, thank you.

Posts 18040
Forum MVP
Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :) | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Nov 8 2017 11:04 PM

Pre-publication of 1611 KJV with updated spelling (needs more pre-orders) => https://www.logos.com/product/24557/the-new-cambridge-paragraph-bible-with-the-apocrypha-rev-ed includes blog link => https://blog.logos.com/2017/06/youve-probably-never-seen-real-king-james-version/

Wikipedia article about AV mentions "He" and "She" variants => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version

Keep Smiling Smile

Posts 1898
David Thomas | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Nov 9 2017 8:07 AM

Bro. D Deryl Downey:

I wanted to post a couple URLs that deal with the question of "What is the difference between the KJV 1611 and the KJV 1900?".

The KJV 1611 was written in Old English; that which was in use at the time of it's compilation. It contained words like “Arke of the Couenant, euen the Lord”

Wordings such as these were changed in 1769 to our more.. modern.. english spellings. In 1900 it was mainly capitalization changes to reflect the glory and position of God. An example would be:

KJV1611 (Joshua 3:11)“Arke of the Couenant, euen the Lord”

KJV 1769 (Joshua 3:11): “ark of the covenant of the Lord”

KJV 1900 (Joshua 3:11): "ark of the covenant of the LORD"

That being said, there are a few changes from 1611 to 1769 that could be viewed as changing the meaning of a passage, unless you look at the overall context by examining the verses immediately before and after the affected verses, as well as examining the overall context of that section of Scripture. A case in point:

KJV 1611 (Jeremiah 51:30): “burnt their dwelling places”

KJV 1769 (Jerimiah 51:30): “burned her dwellingplaces”

KJV 1900 (Jerimiah 51:30): "burned her dwellingplaces"

* In this passage the word 'their' was changed to 'her' due to the direct reference to 'Babylon' and due to the meaning of 'they became as women:' just prior within the same verse. Here, it was changed to 'her' because at that time period, and even now, cities were referred to in a female sense. For example, "What a great city Boston is! She really shines as a beacon of hope!". We normally don't say 'he' when referring to cities in a gendered way. This kind of a change does not change the overall passage's meaning(s) or focus. The passage is still talking about the men of Babylon and their penchant for no longer making war, still accurately describes how one can see that penchant echoed out in how they live, and that the passage still refers to what the men of Babylon did within their city to the living quarters of the city.

This "side-by-side" comparison of the changes within the KJV family is VERY helpful. THANK YOU for posting. I will share it with others who get hung up on errant (in my opinion) understandings of Verbal inspiration and the "jot and tittle"

Making Disciples!  Logos Ecosystem = Logos8 on Microsoft Surface Pro 4 (Win10), Android app on tablet, FSB on iPhone, [deprecated] Windows App, Proclaim, Faithlife.com, FaithlifeTV via Connect subscription.

Posts 15
Bradley Childs | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Feb 21 2018 1:15 PM

I sorry to have to correct you but the KJV1611 was written in Early Modern English. The Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer was written in Middle English. Old English reads like a different language even though it used  the Latin Alphabet. The first 11 lines of Beowulf is in by English Lit. book which I kept after having the classes.

For Reference, see The literature of England 3rd Edition and published by HarperCollins in 1979

Page 1 of 1 (15 items) | RSS