1611 KJV - why not in English Bibles Collection in prepub and can it be added?

Page 1 of 2 (21 items) 1 2 Next >
This post has 20 Replies | 2 Followers

Posts 18
Philip G Layton | Forum Activity | Posted: Thu, Jan 26 2012 8:33 PM

Unless I'm missing something, unlike many competitors and inferior and free software programs, Logos does not have a 1611 KJV, only the 1769 revision (resource called "Authorized Version") and the 1900 "King James Version"

It seems this is a glaring omission to the set of Wycliff, Tyndale, Geneva, etc., and makes Logos offerings of early English Bibles inferior to Bibleworks and even sites like www.studylight.org

It would be ideal if Logos offered a superior 1611 KJV with original footnotes and marginal readings and preface

Thanks for your consideration

 

 

Posts 27684
Forum MVP
JT (alabama24) | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jan 26 2012 8:48 PM

There is no such thing as "the 1611" KJV. The process of printing made differences inevitable. The 1769 version that Logos uses is not a revision, but a reprinting of the 1611. You can read more HERE.

 

OSX & iOS | Logs |  Install

Posts 26533
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jan 26 2012 8:51 PM

alabama24:
but a reprinting of the 1611

minus the Church of England apocryphaWink

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 27684
Forum MVP
JT (alabama24) | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jan 26 2012 8:54 PM

MJ. Smith:

alabama24:
but a reprinting of the 1611

minus the Church of England apocryphaWink

You are right. Geeked

 

OSX & iOS | Logs |  Install

Posts 15805
Forum MVP
Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :) | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jan 26 2012 8:56 PM

Philip G Layton:

It would be ideal if Logos offered a superior 1611 KJV with original footnotes and marginal readings and preface

Which printed 1611 KJV version should be used as a basis ? wikipedia article => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version notes different 1611 print versions of Ruth 3:15 have "he went into the city" and "she went into the city"

Philip G Layton:
only the 1769 revision (resource called "Authorized Version") and the 1900 "King James Version"

Logos also has => The Cambridge Paragraph Bible of the Authorized English Version

Wiki has => Logos Speaks with links => Logos’ KJV choice 1 , => Logos’ KJV choice 2 , and => Logos’ KJV choice 3 that includes:

Bob Pritchett:

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

Keep Smiling Smile

Posts 612
John Brumett | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jan 26 2012 9:55 PM

http://www.nelsonbibles.com/bible.php?id=104 I think what he means is this.  Thomas Nelson reprinted a copy of the original 1611 Bible with footnotes and with original old English spellings.  The advantage of this in logos is you can easily compare the Geneva Bible with the 1611 and see the changes. 

Posts 343

Also, what about the Bishop's Bible?

I've been waiting for these to become available.

 

Jason Saling

Posts 15805
Forum MVP
Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :) | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jan 26 2012 10:29 PM

John Brumett:
The 2 Versions are Not the Same!

Noticed the first five verses have the same English words, which have spelling variations.  The Nelson reprint includes long s, see => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_s

Also thread => What approach is used for Greek transliteration? includes:

MJ. Smith:

Thankful for historic English insights.

Keep Smiling Smile

Posts 612
John Brumett | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jan 26 2012 10:44 PM

 

The 1769 edition is not simply an update in Spelling but there are changes in the actual words.  These 2 editions are not the same.   See especially Ruth 3:15

Here are some more changes between the 1611 and the 1769 edi­tions of theKJV.

Deuteron­omy 26:1 — “which the Lord giueth” vs. “which the LORD thy God giveth”

  • Joshua 13:29 — “tribe of Man­asseh, by” vs. “tribe of the chil­dren of Man­asseh by”
  • Ruth 3:15 — “he went into the citie” vs. “she went into the city”
  • Psalm 69:32 — “seeke good” vs. “seek God”
  • Jere­miah 49:1 — “inherit God” vs. “inherit Gad”
  • Matthew 16:16 — “Thou art Christ” vs. “Thou art the Christ”
  • Mark 10:18 — “There is no man good” vs. “there is none good” (note that now “there is” is marked as being added by the trans­la­tors for clarity)
  • 1 Corinthi­ans 4:9 — “approued to death” vs. “appointed to death”

Posts 612
John Brumett | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jan 26 2012 10:50 PM

Jason:

Chech out this website for a brief comparison between the 1602 Bishops Bible and the 1611 KJV:

http://www.biblepages.web.surftown.se/fs03b.htm

Also notice this picture of the 1611 KJV

Posts 15805
Forum MVP
Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :) | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jan 26 2012 11:25 PM

John Brumett:
Ruth 3:15 — “he went into the citie” vs. “she went into the city”

Wikipedia article => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version notes different 1611 print versions of Ruth 3:15 have "he went into the city" and "she went into the city"

In Nov 2009, thread => Are the 3 KJV the same? inquires about different Logos versions.

Bob Pritchett's reply on 2 Mar 2010 => http://community.logos.com/forums/p/12703/99473.aspx#99473 in Suggestions thread => Add the Authorized 1611 Bible includes:

Bob Pritchett:
... please feel free to forward details on EXACTLY which paper edition you think to be authoritative. ("1611" isn't precise enough here.)

Keep Smiling Smile

Posts 612
John Brumett | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jan 27 2012 5:49 AM

I would like the 1611 1st Edition as Reproduced by Thomas Nelson Publishers with the Old English spellings and the margin notes.  The advantage of this vs. the1769 Edition is that you can more easily compare the changes between other Old English Bibles with the Text Comparison Tool than you could with the 1769 Edition.  The 1769 edition would have thousands of spelling differences and not actual word changes when compared to Earlier English Editions such as the Tyndale Bible.  Thomas Nelson Publishers has already reprinted this Bible so why not contact them so we can have it in Logos.  

By  the way there were thousand of marginal notes added to the 1769 edition so it is not the same Bible as the 1611 1st Edition.  I am not a KJV only person but would simply like this historic bible added to Logos.         

Posts 1049
William Gabriel | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jan 27 2012 8:10 AM

Jason Saling:

Also, what about the Bishop's Bible?

I've been waiting for these to become available.

While we're making requests for old Bible translations, how about the Tyndale version? 

You can hear the English accent as you read it: http://wesley.nnu.edu/sermons-essays-books/william-tyndales-translation/

Posts 8893
fgh | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jan 27 2012 10:22 AM

William Gabriel:
While we're making requests for old Bible translations, how about the Tyndale version? 

You didn't look at the English Bible Collection that is mentioned in this thread's title, did you? Because if you had, you would have seen it's already there. Wink

And while you wait, there's PB of it in the files forum. 

"The Christian way of life isn't so much an assignment to be performed, as a gift to be received."  Wilfrid Stinissen

Mac Pro OS 10.9.

Posts 4625
RIP
Milford Charles Murray | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Feb 27 2012 6:02 AM

fgh:

William Gabriel:
While we're making requests for old Bible translations, how about the Tyndale version? 

You didn't look at the English Bible Collection that is mentioned in this thread's title, did you? Because if you had, you would have seen it's already there. Wink

And while you wait, there's PB of it in the files forum. 

Peace and Joy to you, fgh!          ...  and to all!

                     Thanks for that link!          I'm signed up for it now.  It may take a long time to get it through Community Pricing; but, The Price is Right!  Indeed!

                                                           John 15:12-15

Philippians 4:  4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........

Posts 1228
Ron | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Feb 27 2012 7:17 AM

John Brumett:
The advantage of this vs. the1769 Edition is that you can more easily compare the changes between other Old English Bibles with the Text Comparison Tool than you could with the 1769 Edition.

The other advantage is that when you run into someone claiming that the "1611 KJV 'Authorized Bible'" is the "only" "inspired" English Bible and that anything else is a "satanic counterfeit", you can demonstrate to them that the KJV in their hands is NOT the "1611 KJV"

Bob Pritchett:
... please feel free to forward details on EXACTLY which paper edition you think to be authoritative. ("1611" isn't precise enough here.)

It's not about having the "most authoritative" 1611 edition (at least not for some of us)...it is about having an edition that retains ye olde English spellings (including the long "s"), the translators' margin notes and the translators' preface to the readers.  I agree that the 1769 is the "most authoritative" in the sense that it is the version that most KJV readers carry around in paper form.  What many are asking for is something comparable to the Thomas Nelson 1611 facsimile in Logos format.

Posts 15805
Forum MVP
Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :) | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Feb 27 2012 12:41 PM

Kknight78:
What many are asking for is something comparable to the Thomas Nelson 1611 facsimile in Logos format.

+1 Yes since would appreciate Logos resource of the Thomas Nelson 1611 facsimile, including footnotes.  My printed edition has 1982 date.

Keep Smiling Smile

Posts 1497
Josh | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Feb 27 2012 4:11 PM

I would love to see more progress on the English Bible Collection too. It looks like it is at less than 30% right now.

I don't mind the omission of the 1611 KJV because I am a 1560 Geneva-onlyist. Cool

Posts 18
Philip G Layton | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Feb 27 2012 9:26 PM

I agree and was asking in the original post for consideration of any 1611 facsimilie or electronic ed with marginal notes and preface (with or without apocrypha, whether it's the "she" or "he" printing of the verse in Ruth, and not wanting to digress to debates as to which printing is authoritative). if Logos is going to take the work to convert this many other old Bibles from facsimilies/re-scanning, the most important and influential English Bible in history seems well-worth the effort and would be a shame if they took the effort on 10 or more other Bibles but not the 1611 text that is available in other programs and websites and that differs from the KJV texts presently available in Logos. 

Here is a practical real-life example of a recent passage I was teaching through and how this type of study can be significant and affects the person in the pew. This is what could be done someday in Logos if the "English Bible Collection" ever moves from community pricing to prepub and live rather than having to use competitors or my print facsimilie KJV. I don't own Bibleworks so have to do this type of comparison at www.studylight.org or using E-Sword app until Logos catches up to what other alternates offer 

Ephesians 4:11b-12a in older versions and KJV variations:

Wycliffe 1395: “… othere scheepherdis and techeris, to the ful endyng of seyntis, in to the werk of mynystrie …”

Tyndale 1525: “…some Sheperdes some Teachers: yt the sainctes might have all thinges necessarie to worke and minister …”

Coverdale 1535: “…some to be shepherdes & teachers, wherby the sayntes mighte be coupled together thorow comen seruyce …”

KJV 1611: “…and some, Pastors, and teachers: For the perfecting of the Saints, for the worke of the ministerie …”

KJV 1769 Logos: “…and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry …”

KJV 1873 Cambridge Logos: “… and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints for the work of the ministry …”

 

It is significant to note that the term "shepherds" (used in all English versions thru 1568 I believe) was replaced with "Pastors" and to study how that impacted church history. Also, the comma after "saints" that was removed in 1873 and NKJV had an impact on understanding that pastors and teachers are not "for perfecting saints AND for the work of ministry," but pastors and teachers are given to the church "for perfecting the saints FOR the work of ministry." (In other words, the pastors/teachers from v. 11 do not do all the ministry in v. 12 and following, but they are to prepare/equip the SAINTS to do ministry in the latter rendering, which makes a big difference which rendering you follow).

Having a KJV 1611 in old English spelling would also be helpful to compare to the Geneva 1599 Bible in Logos, as well as the other English versions before and after and KJV revisions. Other examples, with differences I changed to ALL CAPS:

1 Corinthians 4:9 KJV 1611 “God hath set forth vs the Apostles last, as it were approued to death …” (1769 and later have “APPOINTED to death”; same in Geneva 1599 in Logos)

Ezekiel 6:8 KJV 1611 “Yet will I leaue a remnant, that HE may haue some …” (1769 and later have “… that YE may have some”)

Ezekiel 48:8 KJV 1611: “…the offring which they shall offer…” (1769 and later have “which YE shall offer”)

Jeremiah 31:14 KJV 1611: “…my people shall be satisfied with goodnesse, saith the Lord.” (1769 and later have “with MY goodness”)

LOGOS - PLEASE RE-CONSIDER. SINCE YOU APPEAR WILLING TO DO THE 1560 GENEVA EDITION IN THE "ENGLISH BIBLE COLLECTION" EVEN THOUGH YOU ALREADY OFFER THE 1599 GENEVA EDITION THAT IS VERY SIMILAR, PLEASE ALSO INCLUDE THE 1611 KJV WHICH HAS MORE DIFFERENCES VS. 1789 KJV AND GENEVA 1560 VS. 1599. THIS WILL NOT ONLY HELP MOVE THIS TO PRODUCTION FASTER, BUT WILL UNDOUBTEDLY MEAN MORE $ FOR LOGOS AS WELL. THANKS FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION!

 

Page 1 of 2 (21 items) 1 2 Next > | RSS