Are the 3 KJV the same?

Page 4 of 4 (74 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4
This post has 73 Replies | 3 Followers

Posts 202
Wayne levi Price | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jan 22 2019 4:33 PM

DID you notice that the collection you suggested "DOES NOT HAVE THE KJV in it?

That is the ONLY one that I would want to make sure is absolutely included.

And it is MISSING

Posts 17963
Forum MVP
Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :) | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jan 22 2019 5:00 PM

Wayne levi Price:
DID you notice that the collection you suggested "DOES NOT HAVE THE KJV in it?

Free version 7 Basic and Verbum Basic include KJV with Reverse Interlinear tagging so can use visual filters to "see" range of Greek verbal expression.

By the way, this KJV text is a "she" version in Ruth 3:15

FYI: since introductory Logos 8 & Verbum 8 promotion ends on Thu 7 Feb, humanly not know what change(s) are coming for free Basic and Verbum Basic next month.

Keep Smiling Smile

Posts 26518
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jan 22 2019 5:41 PM

Someone want to explain to me why possible contents of L8 libraries is being discussed under L4?

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

Posts 1599
Ken McGuire | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jan 22 2019 5:51 PM

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."

The Gospel is not ... a "new law," on the contrary, ... a "new life." - William Julius Mann

Posts 202
Wayne levi Price | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jan 22 2019 8:29 PM

In the New packages for new people, they will not be able to get the Original KJV one -1769, they do not even show it on the Logos.com website anymore. THey only show the 1900. They are slowly dissolving the Standard KJV icon to blend the powerful name with appendages like 1900, New King James, and many others you can see on the internet like American King James, King James 2000 and many more. 

Posts 10177
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jan 22 2019 9:41 PM

Wayne levi Price:

In the New packages for new people, they will not be able to get the Original KJV one -1769, they do not even show it on the Logos.com website anymore. THey only show the 1900. They are slowly dissolving the Standard KJV icon to blend the powerful name with appendages like 1900, New King James, and many others you can see on the internet like American King James, King James 2000 and many more. 

It does seem a bit bizarre. Maybe they're trying to push the Heiser 1879 Cambridge RI.

What I get tired of, is them changing resources I own and no communication. Luckily, Libby (Libronix) keeps the oldie; thank you Libby!. In this case, the 1769 with Strongs, to include the interesting morph coding, OT included. The current one is stripped but they forgot to change the resource info.


Posts 4642
Forum MVP
Mike Binks | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Jan 23 2019 1:02 AM

MJ. Smith:

Someone want to explain to me why possible contents of L8 libraries is being discussed under L4?

Deaf ears Martha?

Posts 202
Wayne levi Price | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Jan 23 2019 4:36 AM

That is a simple answer, my friend.

When doing a google search for Bible versions, the link to this forum and string pope up.

Posts 202
Wayne levi Price | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Jan 23 2019 5:40 AM

I have had Logos since Libby myself. What are you referring to when you say 1769 with strongs to include the Morph coding? I want to see if I have that?? Are you referring to the KJV The original? 

Posts 10177
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Jan 23 2019 7:37 AM

Wayne levi Price:

I have had Logos since Libby myself. What are you referring to when you say 1769 with strongs to include the Morph coding? I want to see if I have that?? Are you referring to the KJV The original? 

I'm not a KJV person, so I'm just repeating. As I understand it, the closest original Logos might choose would be the 1611 (which I think is unreadable?).  The 1769 might have been the first 'practical' KJV for modern users? Like KSFJ above, I hope for the Bishops.

I also don't know the history of the Logos 1769 KJV. It's an interlinear. English, Strongs lexeme numbers, and verbal morph numbers (if you remember them). The resource was titled 'The King James Version' (the 1900 one didn't have 'The). The verbal morphs came from Pierce (Woodside Bible Fellowship). The last update was 2011-11 (Libby version).

My guess is, like much of Logos' work, they got lazy. NAS also had a Strongs interlinear. In their updated NAS they retained the Strongs, but not the  updated version. (as also the 1900 KJV RI).


Posts 650
Kiyah | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Jan 23 2019 9:45 AM

Wayne levi Price:

I have had Logos since Libby myself. What are you referring to when you say 1769 with strongs to include the Morph coding? I want to see if I have that?? Are you referring to the KJV The original? 

Hey Wayne, I'm curious. The original post was asking what's the difference between all the KJVs in Logos and which one is the right one. Do you think the 1769 is the right one and not the Pure Cambridge 1900 and if so why? I've read the info linked in earlier posts that was arguing for the 1900. What's the argument for the 1769?

I'm not KJV-only but I'm just curious to know what people think about that and what makes a KJV the right KJV.

Posts 10177
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Jan 23 2019 10:33 AM

Kiyah:

... I'm not KJV-only but I'm just curious to know what people think about that and what makes a KJV the right KJV.

While we're waiting for Wayne, as above I'm not a KJV'er. But I am interested in 'theological' translation (why MJ and I get tangled up on the Logos Bible Sense tool). Ezra 5:1 is a random example. The 1769 and 1900 KJVs are the same. But if you track forward from 1382 (Wycliffe1), you'll see their treatments shift (in this example, unimportantly). The missing pieces in comparisons like this are the Bishops and 1611 KJV. By the time of the ISV, as an example, the translation is pretty much a disaster.  I could select other examples.


Posts 352
Batman | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Feb 23 2019 9:44 AM

Wayne levi Price:

In the New packages for new people, they will not be able to get the Original KJV one -1769...



With all due respect, Logos has NEVER offered the ORIGINAL KJV. Very few people have even seen one page of the original KJV. 
I saw one page of the original KJV. It was purchased for $400 and on display. 
The KJV has been revised many times throughout the years. And, YES, there are many differences. The original and several early revisions are unreadable to us today. 
I will not get into a KJV and why it is not the end all translation debate. Everyone has their favorite version, and what IS important is that we are reading God's word. I will agree that I believe there far too many translations, and that is rather ridiculous. Of course, in a software collection such as Logos, and others, it is awesome. 

Below is a facsimile page of the original 1611 KJV. https://manifoldgreatness.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/2013-05-004.jpg Please note the odd-to-us spellings. There is no consistency in what is a "s" "r" and other letters. Thanks to Webster, we now have consistent spelling. So, please understand, The KJV has been revised many many times throughout the years, and chances are you never saw the original KJV, and probably not any version or reproduction thereof. 
But, enjoy the image of an original page, below:












Posts 352
Batman | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Feb 23 2019 9:55 AM

MJ. Smith:

Someone want to explain to me why possible contents of L8 libraries is being discussed under L4?


Bunny trails. 
That's the nature of open discussions. The topic will be one point, by the time the end it is somewhere never even dreamed of. 

Page 4 of 4 (74 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 | RSS