1611 KJV - why not in English Bibles Collection in prepub and can it be added?
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
Comments
-
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.
macOS, iOS & iPadOS |Logs| Install
Choose Truth Over Tribe | Become a Joyful Outsider!0 -
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
macOS, iOS & iPadOS |Logs| Install
Choose Truth Over Tribe | Become a Joyful Outsider!0 -
Philip G Layton said:
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 said: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 said: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 [:)]0 -
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.
0 -
1611 Edition1 In the beginning God created the Heauen, and the Earth.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God diuided the light from the darkenesse.
1769 Edition Genesis 1:1-5
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
The 2 Versions are Not the Same!
Compare the 2 Here: http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Genesis-Chapter-1/
Also see this Copy of the 1611 KJV that Nelson Publishers reprinted with footnotes.
0 -
Also, what about the Bishop's Bible?
I've been waiting for these to become available.
Jason Saling
0 -
John Brumett said:
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 said:Thankful for historic English insights.
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
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”
0 -
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
0 -
John Brumett said:
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 said:... please feel free to forward details on EXACTLY which paper edition you think to be authoritative. ("1611" isn't precise enough here.)
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
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.
0 -
Jason Saling said:
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/
0 -
William Gabriel said:
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. [;)]
And while you wait, there's PB of it in the files forum.
Mac Pro (late 2013) OS 12.6.2
0 -
fgh said:William Gabriel said:
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.
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..........
0 -
John Brumett said:
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 said:... 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.
0 -
Kknight78 said:
What many are asking for is something comparable to the Thomas Nelson 1611 facsimile in Logos format.
+1 [Y] since would appreciate Logos resource of the Thomas Nelson 1611 facsimile, including footnotes. My printed edition has 1982 date.
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
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. [H]
0 -
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!
0 -
Wonder if Thomas Nelson has digital files for:
that could be converted into a Logos resource ?
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
That article is rubbish and incorrect. We call it the 1611 because it was first published then. It is the ONLY bible ever authorised by King James. It was translated from the Antioch manuscripts and the KJV is a butchering if you bother to compare which I did. So no your statement is 100% incorrect as far as the intended information goes. All other bibles are made from Vatican forged manuscripts. Simple as that. Historical and irrefutable.
0 -
Huge Berger said:
That article is rubbish and incorrect. We call it the 1611 because it was first published then. It is the ONLY bible ever authorised by King James. It was translated from the Antioch manuscripts and the KJV is a butchering if you bother to compare which I did. So no your statement is 100% incorrect as far as the intended information goes. All other bibles are made from Vatican forged manuscripts. Simple as that. Historical and irrefutable.
Welcome to the Faithlife forums. Please read the guidelines.
Phil Gons (Faithlife) said:Please abide by the following guidelines as you interact on our forums.
- Please keep your discussions focused on Logos Bible Software: our software, products, websites, company, tools, etc.
- Please do not discuss or debate biblical, theological, or other controversial topics. Use one of the many web forums intended for these kinds of discussions.
- Please treat each other with the love, courtesy, respect, and kindness that you would if you were sitting in your living room together.
- Please do not use our forums to
- sell or give away anything or link to anything you’re selling or giving away—including Logos products
- promote or link to competitors
- promote affiliate links or discounts
- point people to other places that sell Logos-compatible products
- advertise yourself, your business, your ministry, your website, etc. (a tasteful link in your forum signature is acceptable)
- post Logos Coupon Codes. If you are aware of a special promotion Logos is running online, you are welcome to link directly to the promotion.
- Please search before posting. It’s likely that someone has already asked your question.
- Please help others follow these guidelines. If the problems continue after you’ve given a gentle reminder of these expectations, please click “Report Abuse” under “More” or send an email to forums@logos.com. If a user is a repeat offender, we may temporarily suspend their account. If the offenses continue, we reserve the right to permanently ban the offender's account from the forums either by shadow banning it or blocking it entirely.
Thank you for your cooperation. Enjoy discussing and learning about Logos Bible Software.
Please don't offend Catholics with faux-facts and Authorized Version (KJV) fans with highly biased information. This sort of material belongs in other forums not Bible software forums where everyone using the software, no matter how fringe their ideas, needs to feel welcome to come for assistance.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Wonder if Thomas Nelson has digital files for:
that could be converted into a Logos resource ?
Bob P. wrote a post explaining why the KJV version included in Logos is what it is. I'm too lazy to search for it -- I need to finish my coffee.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
Bob P. wrote a post explaining why the KJV version included in Logos is what it is.
Huge Berger in his post replied not to KS4J but to JT (alabama24)'s short post from 2012 which linked Bob's post from 2006 "In search of the King James Version" which I understood was meant when Huge referred to "that article".
Have joy in the Lord!
0 -
NB.Mick said:
when Huge referred to "that article".
I was responding to the "forged documents" and "butchering."
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0
said: