End Times and Current Events
December 11, 2018, 12:58:34 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome To End Times and Current Events.
 
  Home Help Search Gallery Staff List Login Register  

KJB History General Discussion

Shoutbox
August 08, 2018, 02:38:10 am suzytr says: Hello, any good churches in the Sacto, CA area, also looking in Reno NV, thanks in advance and God Bless you Smiley
January 29, 2018, 01:21:57 am Christian40 says: It will be interesting to see what happens this year Israel being 70 years as a modern nation may 14 2018
October 17, 2017, 01:25:20 am Christian40 says: It is good to type Mark is here again!  Smiley
October 16, 2017, 03:28:18 am Christian40 says: anyone else thinking that time is accelerating now? it seems im doing days in shorter time now is time being affected in some way?
September 24, 2017, 10:45:16 pm Psalm 51:17 says: The specific rule pertaining to the national anthem is found on pages A62-63 of the league rulebook. It states: “The National Anthem must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the National Anthem. “During the National Anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking. The home team should ensure that the American flag is in good condition. It should be pointed out to players and coaches that we continue to be judged by the public in this area of respect for the flag and our country. Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline, such as fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s) for violations of the above, including first offenses.”
September 20, 2017, 04:32:32 am Christian40 says: "The most popular Hepatitis B vaccine is nothing short of a witch’s brew including aluminum, formaldehyde, yeast, amino acids, and soy. Aluminum is a known neurotoxin that destroys cellular metabolism and function. Hundreds of studies link to the ravaging effects of aluminum. The other proteins and formaldehyde serve to activate the immune system and open up the blood-brain barrier. This is NOT a good thing."
http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-08-11-new-fda-approved-hepatitis-b-vaccine-found-to-increase-heart-attack-risk-by-700.html
September 19, 2017, 03:59:21 am Christian40 says: bbc international did a video about there street preaching they are good witnesses
September 14, 2017, 08:06:04 am Psalm 51:17 says: bro Mark Hunter on YT has some good, edifying stuff too.
September 14, 2017, 04:31:26 am Christian40 says: i have thought that i'm reaping from past sins then my life has been impacted in ways from having non believers in my ancestry.
September 11, 2017, 06:59:33 am Psalm 51:17 says: The law of reaping and sowing. It's amazing how God's mercy and longsuffering has hovered over America so long. (ie, the infrastructure is very bad here b/c for many years, they were grossly underspent on. 1st Tim 6:10, the god of materialism has its roots firmly in the West) And remember once upon a time ago when shacking up b/w straight couples drew shock awe?

Exodus 20:5  Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
View Shout History
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: KJB History General Discussion  (Read 2603 times)
Kilika
Guest
« on: November 06, 2010, 06:31:07 am »

From a thread at http://matthew18twenty.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=225
Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2010 8:32 by: theBIBLICALdude

Haven't there been several revisions of the King James Bible


QUESTION: Haven't there been several revisions of the King James Bible since 1611?

ANSWER: No. There have been several editions but no revisions.

EXPLANATION: One of the last ditch defenses of a badly shaken critic of the Authorized Version 1611 is the "revision hoax." They run to this seeming fortress in an attempt to stave off ultimate defeat by their opponents who overwhelm their feeble arguments with historic facts, manuscript evidence and to obvious workings of the Holy Spirit. Once inside, they turn self-confidently to their foes and ask with a smug look, "Which King James do you use, the 1611 or the 1629 or perhaps the 1769?" The shock of this attack and the momentary confusion that results usually allows them time to make good their escape.

Unfortunately, upon entering their castle and closing the door behind them they find that their fortress has been systematically torn down, brick by brick, by a man with the title of Dr. David F. Reagan. Dr. Reagan pastors the Trinity Baptist Temple in Knoxville, Tennessee. He has written a devastating exposé on the early editions of the King James Bible entitled "The King James Version of 1611. The Myth of Early Revisions." Dr. Reagan has done an excellent job of destroying the last stronghold of Bible critics. I see neither a way, nor a reason to try to improve on his finding. So I have secured his permission to reproduce his pamphlet in its entirety...

Taken from http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/ ... iblecenter on 4/19/2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Haven't there been several revisions of the King James Bible
Posted: Mon May 10, 2010 2:56 by Kilika


So is the Cambridge Edition THE King James Bible?

I have a KJB that has "AUTHORIZED King James Version" in the title page, but the Cambridge Edition says just that in it, under King James. Also the last part is not there in my bible where it says...

"TRANSLATED OUT OF THE ORIGINAL TONGUES AND WITH THE FORMER TRANSLATIONS DILIGENTLY COMPARED AND REVISED"

The Cambridge has...

"TRANSLATED OUT OF THE ORIGINAL TONGUES AND WITH THE FORMER TRANSLATIONS DILIGENTLY COMPARED AND REVISED BY HIS MAJESTY’S SPECIAL COMMAND"

"Appointed to be read in Churches"

"Authorized King James Version"
"Pure Cambridge Edition"

in that order down the page. And it is this "version" that conflicts with the bible I have.

So is the author saying the Cambridge is THE bible? And the Cambridge is untouched since 1769?

I also have to say I'm confused as to what side of this Scrivener is. Did he provide support for the Cambridge or not? Sorry, I'm kinda confused as to who is claiming what. The article seems to use Scrivener as support for saying that the Cambridge is THE bible. And he apparently didn't even support the King James Bible! Isn't that like asking the NIV publisher to lend written support for the King James? That's a strange situation, unless I'm totally missing it all.

I had a Bible Hotline person with Ingram Books tell me that the common KJB is refered to as the 1769 Authorized King James and has no copyright, and that the Cambridge is the crown copyright version of Britian.

The four editions spoken of; 1629, 1638, 1762, 1769, I understand are the lineage of the Cambridge, and that there is also a non-Cambridge King James that also is not copyrighted, which Ingram Books called "1769 Authorized King James" (Edit: This would be the Oxford edition, as Cambridge did the 1762 edition), and apparently the one I have (it's actually apparently a 1762 Cambridge Paris edition). It has most of what the Cambridge does, though it has some letter case changes and some other differences, but most of the claims of alterations and such in these articles seem to be from the Cambridge perspective.

So is my bible a 1769 Oxford(?) King James (Edit: No, it's the 1762 Cambridge Paris edition), or an altered 1769 Cambridge? It's not a fake Cambridge because the word Cambridge is nowhere in my bible.

The problem I have run into is there are many websites that discuss versions and such, but like the above pamplet, they cloud the situation by including changes made by such books as the New KJ and the NIV, etc, which don't even apply to the King James discussion. Those are much later books that entered the mix. The focus needs to be on those first four editions of the Authorized 1611 King James, and what exactly the Cambridge edition crowd is claiming.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Haven't there been several revisions of the King James Bible
Posted: Wed May 12, 2010 6:22 by theBIBLICALdude


I am not sure what to think there buddy. I try not to focus on what bible I have other than that it is a KJV. No wotrds removed, and what not. Good luck with that one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Haven't there been several revisions of the King James Bible
Posted: Thu May 13, 2010 3:19 by Kilika


We need to focus on what bible we have brother! Afterall, whats your reference to determine the bible you have has not been changed. What do you compare it to? Dok and I have been going over this for a couple days now, and the more we ask questions the less answers we're finding. Something is definately afoot. How do you know words haven't been removed or changed without an original to compare to? And what is an original? See the problem? We all need to know what the deal is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Haven't there been several revisions of the King James Bible
Posted: Thu May 13, 2010 1:33 by Dok


They have taken the liberty to not capitalize the word “spirit” in many places. To capitalize the “s” in “spirit” is proper when referring to the Holy Spirit. Check the following verses in your King James Bible to see if they have been tampered with. These should have the word “Spirit” capitalized.

1. Genesis 1:2

2. Genesis 41:38

3. Judges 3:10

4. Judges 6:34

5. Judges 11:29

6. Judges 13:25

7. Judges 14:6

8. Judges 14:19

9. Judges 15:14

10. I Samuel 10:6

11. I Samuel 10:10

12. I Samuel 11:6

13. I Samuel 16:13

14. I Samuel 16:14

15. I Samuel 19:20

16. I Samuel 19:23

17. II Samuel 23:2

18. I Kings 2:16

19. II Chronicles 15:1

20. II Chronicles 18:23

21. II Chronicles 20:14

22. II Chronicles 24:20

23. Job 33:4

24. Isaiah 40:13

25. Isaiah 48:16

26. Isaiah 59:19

27. Isaiah 61:1

28. Isaiah 63:10

29. Isaiah 63:11

30. Isaiah 63:14

31. Ezekiel 11:5

32. Ezekiel 11:24

33. Matthew 4:1



By making these changes the Devil has set out to deny the deity of the Holy Spirit. The Bible teaches a Trinity, One God, manifested in three Persons. The Holy Spirit is not a force, He is a Person. He is honored with a capital “S”.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now that I've found that there is in fact first editions available, we have a solid reference to base any future editions on. So now the task is putting all this together so people can make clear sense of what the real King James Bible is, and what it's actually called, which really needs "standardizing" if you will. Also put together a list of common changes that have been made to the KJB.

We also need to document why it is that there is a Cambridge Edition KJB that is crown copyright in Britain, and how it differs, if at all, from a first edition first printing 1611 Authorized Version. (Edit: Done.) We may determine that the Cambridge Edition is in fact a change all it's own (Edit: It is.), especially since there are KJB that do not say Cambridge in them (Edit: Then it is likely an Oxford), yet matched the 1611 Authorized King James 1769 Edition. Cambridge also claims theirs is a 1769 edition. (Edit: Apparently, Cambridge printed the first three, then Oxford did the 1769 edition, but it may be that there is also a 1769 Cambridge, but usually it's the 1900 PCE, which is different than the 1769 text.)

Clarify the difference between "edition" and "version" in relation to the KJB, as well as address the 4 editions of the "The authorized Version of 1611", later known as the "Authorized King James". Point out as best as possible what each edition corrected, be it typos or spellings, such as when the change from Gothic(black-letter) to all Roman type, and when was the Roman type inserted into the gothic.

Those KJB out there that don't match need to be pointed out among those that claim to be a KJB. The other versions and translations such the NIV, NKJV, and many others, fall into a whole seperate catagory of something like "modern versions", or maybe "KJB variations", or simply "altered bibles".

Speaking of 1769, it is looking like the 1769 edition of the 1611 Authorized Version can be the final edition KJB. I haven't learned yet all the things that were officially addressed betweeen first print 1611, and the 1769 edition, but I've seen alot so far, and it seems consistant. And I'm not sure I can see the reason or need for a "Cambridge Edition" though (Edit: There is both Cambridge and Oxford). The Bible is already giving the guy credit by calling it the King James Bible, but for a country to place a crown copyright? The more I've thought about that the more it seems wrong somehow.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Haven't there been several revisions of the King James Bible
Posted: Fri May 14, 2010 4:39 by theBIBLICALdude


Good work on that Kilika. I understand the importance of ensuring that one has the actual non corrupted text. Keep us informed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After searching countless sites and articles, a few things have become fairly certain, but what I think is most important is that there is apparently no disputing that the "Authorized Version of 1611" was first printed two times and they had differences between them. Add to that, there were at the very least 50 different printings in 1611, and over 100 more is claimed to have been printed.

At least 50 or so Authorized Versions are in known existence, and they range from all Gothic type (black letter) to later printings that year that inserted Roman type. A rather exhaustive site I found talks of it...

http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon10.html

This is what I was talking about the image of a 1611 that Dok had shown me. Words of the translation which were supplied to make the sense clear, but which were not represented in the Greek text used by the translators, were often set in small "roman" type: In later editions, the ordinary text was set in roman type, with the supplied words in italics.

So in reality, I've found mention of the change to all Roman type in at least one printing in 1612, and that is the point to base off of for any future editions. From that edition in all Roman type, if anything is changed because they claim it is a better representation of the gothic, then it must be considered a version, not an edition of the 1611.

The common claim is the real King James has been through 4 editions since 1611, but it gets real blurry as to just which printing from 1611 they used as the Authorized Version for their starting point to trasition to all Roman type then to the 1629 edition. From what I've read, it appears there were well over 100 different printings that year in 1611. You can't go by a copy because they are all original printings. You have to use an actual bible or leaves from one.

It's claimed that there were two first printings, and that ultimately would be the real starting point for a King James english translation.

Even Cambridge University Press has recently offered a "New Cambridge Paragraph" that they claim is better. and these are the people who claim they have the copyright to the real Authorized King James(Britian crown copyright). And there is two basic Cambridge Editions; Cambridge Edition and Collins Cambridge. Then in the 1970's along came the Concorde Cambridge. The Cambridge Paragraph came much later than that.

Then there are those Cambridge fans that claim it is the 1900 Edition of the "Pure Cambridge Edition" that is the best King James bible. But there is also the later "Collins Pure Cambridge Edition". Both of these are claimed to be from the 1769 Authorized King James.

Part of the confusion is who the printers were, and who publishers are today. The original printer was a guy named Barker and his name is clearly shown in the original folios that I've seen for sale...

http://www.greatsite.com/ancient-rare-bibles-books/platinum.html

Scroll down the page of bibles for sale and check out the "he" bible for sale from 1611. This points out an issue the printers ran into with possible typos. It is disputed as to whether the original was "he" or "she", but is now generally considered a "correction" by making it say "she" in Ruth 3:15. There is a "she" KJB right below it for sale.

So we see there are in fact real 1611 Authorized King James bibles still around that can and have been used as a reference for future editions, but unfortunately, which 1611 folio, or pulpit bible does one use?

Records apparently are clear enough to support that the majority of "corrections" were done by the 1629 printing, and nearly all of them by 1638 printing. By 1769, english was more or less standardized and certain spellings were corrected.

So then this leads us to ask, which 1769 edition is most accurate when compared to the printings of 1611? Cambridge University Press claims it's their crown copyright edition. I have found a copy of a "1769 Oxford" as named (Edit: later Oxfords usually are 1917 Scofield or later). I have a claimed PCE on pdf, but I'm not sure if it is a 1769 or 1900 PCE. The 2 bibles I have, neither match Cambridge (Edit: It is a 1762 Cambridge Paris), but differ between them, which I see as a result of no copyright on the King James. It doesn't match the 1769 Oxford either.(Edit: It shouldn't, it's two different texts)

Here is the Pure Cambridge Edition(circa 1900) in several file formats
http://www.bibleprotector.com/

Here is a direct download 1769 Oxford King James from Oxford University (the file is SGML/XML - can be viewed as text file)
http://ota.oucs.ox.ac.uk/headers/1691.xml

Authorized King James 1769 Oxford Edition - from Oxford.(should be the same text as above file from Oxford)
http://www.complete-bible-genealogy.com/kjv_1769.htm
easy to view >>>>>(webpage - not a file download)

This is supposedly the 1769 Oxford Standard Text King James...
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_(King_James)

Various original 1611 bibles need to be compared to each other for a common agreed upon correct Authorized 1611, and every original bible known in existence from 1611 needs to be photographed completely of all pages in them and then made available to the public for proofing of one's own bibles. I finally found what is claimed to be the original Gothic spelling of the 1611, but it's just the actual scripture, and not the various other pages that identify what actual 1611 bible it's from. Since I can't see an actual bible in person, I'd like to see images of each page posted somewhere.

The title page where at the top it says HOLY BIBLE and then goes down the page from there, but that page is crucial in determining what 1611 bible you have. You want to see Barker's name there at the bottom for an original Authorized 1611. Those bibles for sale show images of that title page and what it should say. Notice you don't see "Cambridge" there in the 1611's, though Cambridge was and is an official crown printer, and now publisher of the Cambridge Edition of the Authorized King James. Oxford was the other official printer.

The original Authorized Version had "The Epistle Dedicatory" and the "Letter to the Translators". Originals also have a certain wording to the title page as a whole...

The Epistle Dedicatory
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kjvpref.htm

Preface to the 1611 - Translators to the Reader
http://www.housechurch.org/miscellaneous/preface_king_james_translators.html


So which is it, Oxford or Cambridge? And we still would need the printings in between to show exactly what the 1629, 1638, and 1762 editions "corrected" that produced the 1769 Oxford edition, that seems to be the most widely accepted edition year.

At some point a final edition must be reached. English is English. Once that is determined, then everything after are other versions not to be considered real scripture.

While I'm not sure just how accurate it is, here's a link to a site with a biblical time line of the Word of God...
http://www.s8int.com/bibletimeline.html
This article makes the following statement, but I haven't found any mention of it elsewhere...


One little-known fact, is that for the past 200 years, all King James Bibles published in America are actually the 1769 Baskerville spelling and wording revision of the 1611. The original “1611” preface is deceivingly included by the publishers, and no mention of the fact that it is really the 1769 version is to found, because that might hurt sales.


Here's a 1769 Baskerville Birmingham for sale...
http://www.earlyamerica.com/shopping/ebayproducts.html?itemid=110455662993&rp=antiquebooks

I think the next task is to sort through all the articles I've found that mentions corrections, changes, etc. so those items can be listed in some reasonable fashion to clarify just what one should check to see what their bible is or isn't, as far as editions and versions go. My two bibles are not Cambridge, so they may well be some edition of a 1769 Oxford Edition (Edit: They are).

The bible-researcher site is very extensive, but I'm not sure about his position just yet. He covers A LOT, but he does have many different things to check bibles for.

He covers changes made by the 1769 Oxford Edition from the Authorized 1611 here...
http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon10.html

The problem is separarting Oxford and it's variants from Cambridge, and it's known corrections of previous editions. Once one of each of Oxford and Cambridge are decided that they are their respective "authorized" versions, it needs to be clearly documented exactly how they differ from each other, along with what each of them changed or corrected in their previous edition.

So far, it seems that most people that have a King James Bible, have either a Cambridge Edition which is most likely a "1900 Pure Cambridge Edition" or later edition, or they have a variant (likely the 1917 Scofield or later version) of the 1769 Oxford Edition which has no copyrights anywhere, and there seems to be virtually nothing that I can find that lists anything about what this particular bible is suppose to be, and how it compares to say a 1900 PCE. I did find the Wiki, but no other source for comparison. Most that you find is based on the Cambridge, as far as pointing out differences.

An interesting result of all this research is learning new terminology of books, such as "frontispiece" which is "verso" to the recto "title page". The frontispiece is the page opposite the title page that is typically some kind of artwork, and in old books such as the bibles, these would be "woodcuts".

Oh, did I mention that the books called the Apocrypha were included in the Authorized King James up until the 1800's? They were referred to as the "Intertestament", though not considered canonical, and were placed between the Old and New Testaments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sources

Here's the various sites I've visited in this search. Many of them have specific changes, corrections listed for comparison, but it's not presented very well what changes to what editions, and what bible they are using as a baseline. Out of these various site claims maybe a more clear understanding of what the bible is actually suppose to be will emerge.

http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521771005

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version

http://www.biblebelievers.com/AV_FAQ.html

http://www.biblebelievers.com/believers-org/counterfeit-kjv.html

http://www.bereanworkman.com/miscellaneous/kjeditions.html

http://www.tentmaker.org/Biblematters/KJV.htm

http://www.biblebelievers.net/BibleVersions/kjcbiblv.htm

http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/sbs777/vital/kjv/index.html

http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon10.html

http://bible.org/article/changes-kjv-1611an-illustration

http://www.av1611.org/articles.html#KJV

http://www.preservedwords.com/kj-outline-pv.htm

http://www.servantofjesuschrist.com/articles/biblecomparisons.html

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/counterfeit.html

http://dshortt.homestead.com/files/king_james_version_of_the_bible_by_john_kohler.htm

http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible/kjv.htm

http://blog.logos.com/archives/2006/03/in_search_of_the_king_james_ve_1.html

http://www.ankerberg.com/wiki/index.php/Is_the_King_James_Version_of_the_Bible_the_Only_Bible_Christians_Should_Trust_and_Read/Part_1

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/King_James_Version_of_the_Bible

http://www.learnthebible.org/king-james-bible-inspired-or-preserved.html

http://libertytothecaptives.net/king_james_links.html

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/King_James_Version

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/King_James_Version

http://rickbeckman.org/kjv-1611-vs-kjv-1769/

http://www.cambridge.org/uk/religious_studies/kjv/

http://www.biblebelievers.com/Reagan_myth-early.html

http://www.bibleprotector.com/purecambridgeedition.htm

http://www.1611bible.com/

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,952996,00.html

http://www.kjvonly.org/rick/norris_spelling.htm

http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon10.html

http://kjvodebate.wordpress.com/2010/03/18/the-1611-moment/

http://www.biblebelievers.com/AV_TODAY.html

http://members.fortunecity.com/faithofgod/kjbeditions.htm

http://www.handsonapologetics.com/King_James_Bible.htm

http://www.bible-researcher.com/kjvbib.html

http://www.bible-researcher.com/kingjames.html

http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/kjv3.htm

http://www.s8int.com/bibletimeline.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd like to be able to post a separate post that lists the differences between a 1611 Authorized Version - Gothic type (preferably a Barker Edition printing) and...

1612 Authorized Version - Roman type
1629 Authorized Version - Bois
1638 Authorized Version - Ward
1760 Cambridge King James - Paris
1762 Cambridge King James - Paris
1769 Cambridge Standard Text (?)
1769 Oxford Standard Text - Blayney
1769 Baskerville Birmingham. (American King James)
1900 Pure Cambridge Edition

As I was searching this topic, I started adding folders to my favorites for each bible name I ran across. Below is what I have cataloged so far, but I have the claimed text of only 3 of them...

-1611 Authorized King James Gothic type - Robert Barker, printer - text on eSword in Roman type(font)
(there are many that were printed in 1611, but Barker was the crown printer for James, and printed many himself)
Image of a Barker title(frontis) page...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Biblefrontisbarkerdetail.jpg

-1612 Authorized Version (Roman type) - no printer name or text found yet

-1629 Authorized Version (Bois) - no text found yet

-1638 Authorized Version (Ward) - no text found yet

-1760 Cambridge King James (Paris) - no text found yet

-1762 Cambridge King James (Paris) - no text found yet

-1769 Oxford Standard Text (Blayney) - text online, though not confirmed authentic
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_(King_James)

-1873 Cambridge Paragraph Bible - no text yet

-1900 Pure Cambridge Edition (PCE) - PDF by Scott Johnson
http://media.sermonaudio.com/mediapdf/825082036444.pdf

Also...http://www.bibleprotector.com/(several file formats)

Quote from bibleprotector.com

This precise edition of the King James Bible is wholly based on the received traditional text as was published by Cambridge University Press and by Collins publishers. This electronic text has been made in Australia for the purpose of the exaltation of the Bible within Australasia. This Word is necessary for true Pentecostal revival throughout the whole Earth. The English Bible has been providentially raised up by God for a great dissemination of the true Gospel.

The Pure Cambridge Edition (first published circa 1900) is the product of the process of textual purification that has occurred since 1611 when the Authorized Version was completed, and has been used (often unwittingly) as the received text for many decades. Millions of copies conformed to this edition were issued by Bible and missionary societies in the twentieth century. This text stands in contrast to all other editions (especially newly edited and modernised ones). The providentially established and correct text has, among other things, “Geba” not “Gaba” at Ezra 2:26.

-1900 Collins PCE (apparently just a different printer of same text)

-1769 Baskerville Birmingham (no idea what this is based on, but is claimed it is THE King James used for printings in America, but is not in agreement with the Cambridge)

-1769 Oxford Standard Text King James by Blayney - Blue Letter Bible http://www.blueletterbible.org/index.cfm
(BLB states that most KJB today are Blayney)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
« Last Edit: February 27, 2013, 04:39:24 pm by Kilika » Report Spam   Logged

Kilika
Guest
« Reply #1 on: November 06, 2010, 06:37:36 am »

(cont.)


Haven't there been several revisions of the King James Bible
http://matthew18twenty.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=225
Page 2 of 3

Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 3:05 by Kilika

Blue Letter Bible

"The Blue Letter Bible currently utilizes the King James Version of 1769 as its primary study text. Note that the King James Version went through many editions to correct wording of the 1611 text. These were not new translations, but corrections of the original. Such editions came out as early as 1612 and number at least a dozen. Unfortunately, some of the intermediate editions that corrected printing errors in earlier editions introduced in their own errors, mostly dealing with spelling and punctuation. Most of the King James Versions that you see today are the revision by Benjamin Blayney completed in 1769, which dealt with these issues, as well as added thousands of marginal references."


http://www.blueletterbible.org/help/why_kjv.cfm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Haven't there been several revisions of the King James Bible
Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 5:03 by Kilika


F.H.A. Schrivener - The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611) Its Subsequent Reprints And Modern Representatives (Cambridge Press 1884)

http://www.archive.org/details/authorizedbible00scriuoft

(Read online, download PDF, and a few other formats. I got the pdf and it is a photocopy of an actual book.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Haven't there been several revisions of the King James Bible
Posted: Sat May 22, 2010 7:42 by theBIBLICALdude


Thanks Kilika.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Haven't there been several revisions of the King James Bible
Posted: Sun May 23, 2010 3:25 by Kilika


Your welcome BD.

This is a topic that is controversial at best, but I've thought for some time that there needed to be clarification on the subject; a final decision of THE bible if you will. The many versions and editions causes confusion, but that is in part why those other books were put out, to cloud the situation.

The other side of this is the reality of no copyright. Cambridge has managed it's position because of it, though that in itself doesn't make the 1900 PCE THE bible, but it has helped a great deal in keeping their edition/version from being diluted with future variations and the variation not being labeled as such. For instance my bible has no indication that is obvious what edition/version it is. All I know is it was published by World Bible Publishers, yet the title page says it is a Authorized King James, which in this research I have determined I'm not so sure. It appears to be a seperate version by World, thus it has no copyright either.

No copyright has been more of a problem than anything. I like "open source" material, but in this case, there must be something done. THE bible needs to be designated, and all others be labeled modern versions, while previous bibles would be "early editions or variations".

The book by Scrivener I have gone through roughly, and I can see why it is referenced so much, but even it is limited, in part because his book was done in support of a specific Cambridge edition as I understand it. Where things really get cloudy is in later editions and versions. We end up with bibles that are variations of variations with no clear original source material.

So, I have managed to get the text for what I believe is the primary candidates for THE HOLY BIBLE; 1611 Authorized King James (roman type), 1769 Oxford, and the 1900 Pure Cambridge Edition. I really would like to get the 1769 Blayney and the 1769 Baskerville Birmingham. Out of those bibles, there should be one "edition" that is the end all bible.

Till then, one must decide for themselves where they stand. The evidence seems to point to just a couple candidates as an acceptable bible; 1769 Oxford and the 1900 PCE.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Haven't there been several revisions of the King James Bible
Posted: Sun May 23, 2010 5:38 by theBIBLICALdude


Well, first it goes from "You are reading an incorrect version of Scripture, you should be reading the KJV" and then from there it is "which KJV" are you reading??? I look at it like this, without a indept research project into the various KJV Bibles I just go with, (A) Are there any verses missing? (B) Where is the Spirit vs spirit differences and have they been modified or are all "spirit" instead of Spirit where needed. And does the versions attack the divinity of Christ, or remove anything from an original translation?

Guess one would have to research to find out, which you are doing I can tell so keep it up. As for me, I have my KJV and I believe that it fits in under the (A) and (B) as I believe it passes both tests so far...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Haven't there been several revisions of the King James Bible
Posted: Tue May 25, 2010 3:51 by Kilika


Yep, that's pretty much the thought process I had once I got into this. It was actually Mark that got me started on this. Once I checked out a couple sites with checklists he refered to, I had that very thought, "Which KJV do I have?" I asked that of the bible I've been using for the past 20+ years, and after comparing it to the various checklists that are out there, I quickly realized my bible was different than other KJV bibles, so that motivated me to learn what "version" I have. I still haven't determined what I have as the publisher is no longer in business. But then I haven't found what a couple KJV's text are; the Blayney and the Baskerville. These two are both mentioned as the KJV that's most widely printed in America, yet I haven't found it's known text in file format or posted as a pdf or whatever. It may be that my bible is in fact one of those, but I haven't found a way to verify that as yet.

It's not that difficult to determine what a bible is once one has the few that were printed early on. Anything past the 1900 PCE I feel isn't part of the equation and are just "modern" versions. Doing the actually comparison is difficult though if there isn't a list of changes already somewhere that says how it differs from others.

I'd really like to find a software program that does comparisons, like comparing one exhuastive concordence to another. ESword has many different bibles that can be downloaded and compared but they don't have all the important versions/editions. For their KJV, all they say is it's a Authorized King James, but that doesn't help at all, as all the early KJV were called that. In fact, the original name was 1611 Authorized Version. The name King James wasn't a part of the name initially. The title page of the first printings show it. So until eSword says exactly what KJV they use, it must be compared line by line with a known edition. Same with BluLetterBible; they mention Blayney, but don't say their KJV is a Blayney, which really doesn'thelp the situation.

The sites that have comparison lists, such as David Reagan's pamplet that has been widely referenced, doesn't itself say what KJV they use as the basis for saying what is right or wrong in other versions/editions, but it comes across as though he's making comparisons to the PCE, but without saying, it's hard to know for sure unless every single verse is checked.

So as it stands, there is really only 4 KJV bibles that are the main contenders for THE bible, as far as I'm concerned; 1769 Oxford, 1900 PCE, 1769 Baskerville, and the 1769 Blayney. Though I'm not sure the 1900 PCE should be included because I don't know what they used to come up with the 1900 PCE. I haven't determined if there was/is such a thing as a 1769 Cambridge.

For even more accurate documentation of the history of KJB editions, there should even be a listing of the "corrections" made to the 4 edtions of the KJB; 1629, 1638, 1762, 1769. For the record people should be able to look at a 1629 and clearly see how a 1900 PCE differs for example, and those differences should be widely published. This provides a record that people can easily reference, but that's just not the case now.

Want to compare your bible with a 1762? That should be no problem, but it's a big problem in reality, as a 1762 is not accessable to the general public that I can find, and I haven't found mention of one for sale, etc, so the only real way is to see an actual bible to compare to. Some universities I have no doubt have the texts documented somewhere, but for academic use only most likely. The two schools to start with would be Cambridge and Oxford.

The copy I got from Oxford(1769 Oxford) unfortunately is not in a pdf or online, but a text file format and has no pages or verse numbers. For the editor/writer/publisher types, that file format (SGML,XML) might be fine, but for general use, it's not good as there is no easy way to search it.

I do think it interesting after all these years, that there isn't a commonly available listing of these known propular KJB texts, and I'm really surprised neither eSword or BLB don't have them all. We're not talking alot of text, so the work to digitize these editions would not take THAT much time, especially for expert data entry folks who can type without error amazingly fast at 100+ wpm. My mother says back in her secretary days years ago she could type faster than a 10 key could keep up, and could type nearly 100wpm. The work is not difficult, just time consuming. And with digital technology, the whole process can easily be documented.

This issue can be easily resolved if the Christian community wanted to name one certain bible as THE Holy Bible, but we know why it hasn't happened, and is why it most likely will never happen. That doesn't preclude people from making sure they have a respectable KJB that is based on the 1611 Authorized Version. If the commonly known editions of the KJB were widely available for comparison, things wouldn't be so confusing as they are now, and we know that God is not the author of confusion! Thank you Jesus for the Spirit to make sense of it all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Haven't there been several revisions of the King James Bible
Posted: Tue May 25, 2010 5:54 by theBIBLICALdude


Well, I assume that God would preserve His Word as He has promised to do, and it would not be called preserving if we could ot have access to it....

Something to think about.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Haven't there been several revisions of the King James Bible
Posted: Tue May 25, 2010 2:49 by KJBbelieverUK


I ordered the defined King James Bible from D.A Waite's website. Just arrived yesterday all the way from the US of A after 3 weeks of waiting. Quality wise it's the best I've ever bought. It's said to be the standard text unaltered with footnotes giving the definitions of "archaic" or lesser known words. It's not interpretations, just definitions from dictionaries. I'm pleased with it so far. It even has detailed information on the manuscripts and the modern perversions in the back. I just don't feel comfortable buying KJB's from publishers that also publish the perversions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Haven't there been several revisions of the King James Bible
Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 7:31 by Kilika


Do you know what previous KJB edition the Defined King James is taken from? One particular site claims the title page says it is the 1769 Cambridge text, and I suspect it is copyrighted to Waite?

I'm really curious about this because it is claiming "1769 Cambridge text"? Interesting, as so far, all I find is the 1769 edition was an Oxford printing, and it was actually a 1762 with some minor "corrections". So this enforces my question I've had about if there is in fact a 1769 Cambridge KJB text. Guess Cambridge could answer that.

I'd also be curious to see how it compares to the 1769 Oxford, which you can compare to here...

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_(King_James)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Haven't there been several revisions of the King James Bible
Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 7:42 by Kilika


I emailed both eSword and Blue Letter Bible asking for specifics on their KJB they use, and so far, no replys at all. This was 2 days ago. Seems a bit unprofessional to not have replied yet, or am I being impatient? Well, the others I want to ask some questions is Cambridge and Oxford for some clarification on their printings. If they don't know, who would?

Primarily, I want to know if there is a 1769 Cambridge edition, and what exactly is the 1900 PCE based on. As for Oxford, mainly to obtain a source for verified 1769 Oxford text. I suspect the wiki I have of it is it, but I'd like for Oxford to verify as I'm not comfortable with the openness of a wiki as far as editing goes.

Also if they have any source for the Baskerville and Blayney.

(cont.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The rest of the thread can be found here...

http://matthew18twenty.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=225&start=20
« Last Edit: November 06, 2010, 06:40:04 am by Kilika » Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #2 on: March 28, 2011, 06:25:32 am »

Here's a couple resources that I discovered having watched the video of bible history "The Forbidden Book: History of the English Bible" by Dr. Craig Lampe of "The Bible Museum" in Arizona.

The Bible Museum is actually located within the Hampton Inn and Suits, open 24/7.

http://thebiblemuseum.com/Welcome.html


English Bible History - Greatsite.com

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/index.html

Quote
...Protestants today are largely unaware of their own history, and unaware of the Geneva Bible (which is textually 95% the same as the King James Version, but 50 years older than the King James Version, and not influenced by the Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament that the King James translators admittedly took into consideration). Nevertheless, the King James Bible turned out to be an excellent and accurate translation, and it became the most printed book in the history of the world, and the only book with one billion copies in print. In fact, for over 250 years...until the appearance of the English Revised Version of 1881-1885...the King James Version reigned without much of a rival. One little-known fact, is that for the past 200 years, all King James Bibles published in America are actually the 1769 Baskerville spelling and wording revision of the 1611. The original “1611” preface is deceivingly included by the publishers, and no mention of the fact that it is really the 1769 version is to be found, because that might hurt sales. The only way to obtain a true, unaltered, 1611 version is to either purchase an original pre-1769 printing of the King James Bible, or a less costly facsimile reproduction of the original 1611 King James Bible...(cont.)



The Bibles of Colonial America

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/colonial-bibles.html


Quote
...Robert Aitken
Robert Aitken had immigrated from Dalkeith in Scotland in 1769 to settle in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. There, he opened a bookshop and also began publication of “The Pennsylvania Magazine” to which Thomas Paine often contributed. By 1776, Robert Aitken was the official printer of the Journals of Congress for the United States Congress. Aitken was a bold patriot, and it disturbed him greatly to see his country without copies of the scripture. In 1771, he produced the first English language New Testament printed in America. It was eagerly received, and went through a second edition printing in 1778, a third in 1779, a fourth in 1780, and a fifth in 1781.

On January 21, 1781, Robert Aitken petitioned the Unites States Congress to authorize, and if possible even fund, the printing of a complete Bible in the English language of the King James Version. On September 10, 1782, Aitken received authorization from the United States Congress to commence his American printing of the Bible in English. This is the only instance in history of the U.S. Congress authorizing the printing of a Bible. In subsequent years, that session was often mockingly referred to as “The Bible Congress.” Thus, in 1782, Robert Aitken produced the first English language Bible printed in America. In 1783, George Washington wrote a letter commending Robert Aitken for his Bible. The Robert Aitken Bible is known as the “Bible of the American Revolution” and it remains the most rare and valuable of early American English Bibles...(cont.)


King-James-Version-Bible.com

http://www.king-james-version-bible.com/

Quote
What is the King James Bible?

The King James Bible is the most printed book in the history of the world. Any so-called “1611” King James Version you buy today at the local Christian Bookstore is absolutely NOT the 1611. .. it is the 1769 Baskerville Birmingham revision, even though it admits that nowhere, and may even say “1611” in the front… it’s just not true. Prepare to be shocked! The spellings have been revised, and some words changed, in almost every printing done since 1769, and fourteen entire books plus extra prefatory features have been removed from almost every printing done since 1885!


NOTE:

Though I have not been as thorough in this search of the history, from what I find so far is claims that the Baskerville is the KJB that has been printed in America for the last 200 years (which would make the bible I have a Baskerville). I'd really like to find more proof. The problem is that none of the Baskervilles have the name in them, so the only proof really is in checking the actual text in comparison to known others.

The only idication in the title page is... Authorized King James

And the name of "World Bible Publisher, Iowa Falls Iowa" at the bottom of the page. And yes, King James is italicized. But there is no mention of which KJ the text is. I've sent an email to the Bible Museum, so we'll see what reply I may get.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2011, 06:44:06 am by Kilika » Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #3 on: March 29, 2011, 01:36:42 pm »

It seems the plot thickens!

I spoke a Don Callaghan today at the Bible Museum by phone, and he informed me that my bible is not a Baskerville, but one that was published from text done by a Dr. F. S. Paris.

Found this about Paris...

Quote
There were changes made between 1613 and 1639, largely for the purpose of correcting printing errors. The revisers included Samuel Ward and John Bois, two of the original translators. “Some errors of the press having crept into the first edition, and others into later reprints, King Charles the First, in 1638, had another edition printed at Cambridge, which was revised by Dr. Ward and Mr. Bois, two of the original Translators who still survived, assisted by Dr. Thomas Goad, Mr. Mede, and other learned men” (Alexander McClure, The Translators Revived, 1855).

Another major update of the KJV was made between 1762-69 to correct any lingering printing errors and to update the spelling, enlarge and standardize the italics, and increase the number of cross-references and marginal notes. The revision was begun in 1762 by Dr. F.S. Paris of Cambridge University and completed in 1769 by Dr. Benjamin Blayney of Hertford College, Oxford University. “The edition in folio and quarto, revised and corrected with very great care by Benjamin Blayney, D.D., under the direction of the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford, and the Delegates of The Clarendon Press, in 1769” (Alexander McClure, The Revision Revised).

Other than the correction of printing errors, following are the major types of changes that were made:

1. The use of italics was more standardized and its use expanded.

2. Spelling and punctuation were updated.
http://www.wayoflife.org/files/8a51885e2ce91f3454c7b185f3e49a74-623.html

The Paris name is new to me in my search, so off on a new direction. Apparently, if I understood the guy correctly, which he covered alot fast, but it seems this text comes from the 1762 done by Bethern(?). It does not match anything so far that I've found. It retains the lower case "s" in Genesis 1:2, and has many differences to the Cambridge.

So my bible doesn't really have a "name" like say a Baskerville-Birmingham. I need to write Mr. Callaghan for clarification on the name Bethern. Paris simply was a publisher. So maybe it can be called a "Paris", I don't know.

The fact is, there are many King James bibles out there, all based on the 1611 text, and some even include the 1611 year, but the reality is that they are obviously not a 1611, but later editions or versions up through 1769. The first big clue is the Gothic text(black letter). If it isn't in Gothic, it ain't a 1611. That is a fact. Roman type wasn't introduced till 1613 as I understand it.

Ultimately, one can only take what's available and make a decision for ones self which King James. Personally, I don't see any need for going beyond 1769, and then one must decide of the many from 1769, which one. I personally feel too much was changed with the Cambridge that led to the 1900 PCE, so I look to the Oxford line of editions, though Paris was from Cambridge! Some of the Oxford work was used by Cambridge to really muddy the waters.

If you really wanted to get technical, one should go with the first Roman type edition of I think 1613.

Mr. Callaghan said some interesting things about the King James, but I think we are rather close in our "preferences" of which edition or version. He seems more tolerent of later King James versions, at least more so than I.

Basically, there is a alot of misinformation out there, tossed into the mix of opinion, but the only way to sort all that out is by looking at an actual printing text, which the Bible Museum has MANY originals. But the one thing I've been wanting to locate, they have...online images of every page of the most popular bibles. They are the real deals.

http://bibles-online.net/

This is an invaluable resource. A must have in your favorites.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2011, 01:43:00 pm by Kilika » Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #4 on: March 29, 2011, 06:11:18 pm »

It also must be noted that all the original KJB's up to 1885 had the Apocrypha in them, and the Bible Museum has one that it is intermingled within the Old Testament even. But most were "intertestments, placed between the Old and New Testaments.

If your KJB doesn't have the Apocrypha, then it's most likely a later version.
Report Spam   Logged
Christian40
Moderators
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3836


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: April 29, 2011, 03:51:52 am »

The 400th Anniversary of the King James Bible, which was first published on May 6th, 1611. We are proud to stand with and stand on the King James Authorized 1611 Holy Bible as the revealed word of God, as God wrote it, and as God has preserved it. God promised to always have His word here on earth, forever, and available to all those who seek it's Truth.

Articles in celebration and defense of the King James Bible as God's Preserved Word:

http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/pages/KJV/400-years-of-the-king-james-bible.htm
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: May 08, 2011, 05:18:53 pm »

So if I understand this correctly, the Textus Receptus is THE true original texts?
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #7 on: August 19, 2011, 06:29:55 am »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version

Quote
...Standard text of 1769

By the mid-18th Century the wide variation in the various modernized printed texts of the Authorized Version, combined with the notorious accumulation of misprints, had reached the proportion of a scandal, and the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge both sought to produce an updated standard text. First of the two was the Cambridge edition of 1760, the culmination of twenty-years work by Francis Sawyer Parris,[86] who died in May of that year. This 1760 edition was reprinted without change in 1762 (Herbert #1142) and in John Baskerville's fine folio edition of 1763.[87] This was effectively superseded by the 1769 Oxford edition, edited by Benjamin Blayney (Herbert #1196), though with comparatively few changes from the 1760 edition, which became the Oxford standard text, and is reproduced almost unchanged in most current printings.[88] Parris and Blayney sought consistently to remove those elements of the 1611 and subsequent editions that they believed were due to the vagaries of printers, while incorporating most of the revised readings of the Cambridge editions of 1629 and 1638, and each also introducing a few improved readings of their own. They undertook the mammoth task of standardizing the wide variation in punctuation and spelling of the original, making many thousands of minor changes to the text; although some of these updates do alter the ostensible sense – as when the original text of Genesis 2:21 "in stead" ("in that place") was updated to read "instead" ("as an alternative"). In addition, Blayney and Parris thoroughly revised and greatly extended the italicization of "supplied" words not found in the original languages by cross-checking against the presumed source texts. Unfortunately, Blayney assumed that the translators of the 1611 New Testament had worked from the 1550 Stephanus edition of the Textus Receptus, rather than from the later editions of Beza; accordingly the current standard text mistakenly "corrects" around a dozen readings where Beza and Stephanus differ.[89] Like the 1611 edition, the 1769 Oxford edition included the Apocrypha, although Blayney consistently removed marginal cross-references to the Books of the Apocrypha wherever these had been provided by the original translators. Altogether, Blayney's 1769 text differed from the 1611 text in around 24,000 places.[90] Since that date, only six further changes have been introduced to the standard text – although 30 of Blayney's proposed changes have subsequently been reverted.[91] The Oxford University Press paperback edition of the "Authorized King James Version" provides the current standard text, and also includes the prefatory section "The Translators to the Reader".[92]

The 1611 and 1760 texts of the first three verses from I Corinthians 13 are given below.

1. Though I speake with the tongues of men & of Angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brasse or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophesie, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge: and though I have all faith, so that I could remoove mountaines, and have no charitie, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestowe all my goods to feede the poore, and though I give my body to bee burned, and have not charitie, it profiteth me nothing.

1. Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

In these three verses, there are eleven changes of spelling, nine changes of typesetting, three changes of punctuation, and one variant text – where "not charity" is substituted for "no charity" in verse two, in the erroneous belief that the original reading was a misprint.

A particular verse for which Blayney's 1769 text differs from Parris's 1760 version is Matthew 5: 13, where Parris (1760) has

Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out, and to be troden under foot of men.

Blayney (1769) changes 'lost his savour' to 'lost its savour', and troden to trodden.

For a period, Cambridge continued to issue Bibles using the Parris text, but the market demand for absolute standardisation was now such that they eventually fell into line. Since the beginning of the 19th Century, almost all printings of the Authorized Version have derived from the 1769 Oxford text - generally without Blayney's variant notes and cross references, and commonly excluding the Apocrypha.[93] One exception to this was a scrupulous original-spelling, page-for-page, and line-for-line reprint of the 1611 edition (including all chapter headings, marginalia, and original italicization, but with Roman type substituted for the black letter of the original), published by Oxford in 1833.[94] Another important exception was the 1873 Cambridge Paragraph Bible, thoroughly revised, modernised and re-edited by F. H. A. Scrivener, who for the first time consistently identified the source texts underlying the 1611 translation and its marginal notes.[95] Scrivener, however – as Blayney had done – did adopt revised readings where he considered the judgement of the 1611 translators had been faulty.[96] In 2005, Cambridge University Press released its New Cambridge Paragraph Bible with Apocrypha, edited by David Norton, which modernized Scrivener's spelling again to present-day standards and introduced quotation marks, while restoring the 1611 text, so far as possible, to the wording intended by its translators, especially in the light of the rediscovery of some of their working documents.[97] This text has been issued in paperback by Penguin books.[98]

From 1769, the text of the Authorized Version remained unchanged – and since, due to advances in printing technology, it could now be produced in very large editions for mass sale, it established complete dominance in public and ecclesiastical use in the English-speaking Protestant world. Academic debate over the next hundred years, however, increasingly reflected concerns about the Authorized Version shared by some scholars: (a) that subsequent study in oriental languages suggested a need to revise the translation of the Hebrew Bible – both in terms of specific vocabulary, and also in distinguishing descriptive terms from proper names; (b) that the Authorized Version was unsatisfactory in translating the same Greek words and phrases into different English, especially where parallel passages are found in the synoptic gospels; and (c) in the light of subsequent ancient manuscript discoveries, the New Testament translation base of the Greek Textus Receptus could no longer be considered to be the best representation of the original text.[99]

The Authorized Version maintained its effective dominance throughout the first half of the 20th Century. New translations in the second half of the 20th Century displaced its 250 years of dominance (roughly 1700 to 1950),[100] but groups do exist – sometimes termed the King James Only movement – that distrust anything not in agreement with ("that changes") the Authorized Version...[101]

(cont.)
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #8 on: August 19, 2011, 07:51:45 am »

Quote
It seems the plot thickens!

I spoke a Don Callaghan today at the Bible Museum by phone, and he informed me that my bible is not a Baskerville, but one that was published from text done by a Dr. F. S. Paris.

Found this about Paris...


Quote
There were changes made between 1613 and 1639, largely for the purpose of correcting printing errors. The revisers included Samuel Ward and John Bois, two of the original translators. “Some errors of the press having crept into the first edition, and others into later reprints, King Charles the First, in 1638, had another edition printed at Cambridge, which was revised by Dr. Ward and Mr. Bois, two of the original Translators who still survived, assisted by Dr. Thomas Goad, Mr. Mede, and other learned men” (Alexander McClure, The Translators Revived, 1855).

Another major update of the KJV was made between 1762-69 to correct any lingering printing errors and to update the spelling, enlarge and standardize the italics, and increase the number of cross-references and marginal notes. The revision was begun in 1762 by Dr. F.S. Paris of Cambridge University and completed in 1769 by Dr. Benjamin Blayney of Hertford College, Oxford University. “The edition in folio and quarto, revised and corrected with very great care by Benjamin Blayney, D.D., under the direction of the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford, and the Delegates of The Clarendon Press, in 1769” (Alexander McClure, The Revision Revised).

Other than the correction of printing errors, following are the major types of changes that were made:

1. The use of italics was more standardized and its use expanded.

2. Spelling and punctuation were updated.

http://www.wayoflife.org/files/8a51885e2ce91f3454c7b185f3e49a74-623.html

The Paris name is new to me in my search, so off on a new direction. Apparently, if I understood the guy correctly, which he covered alot fast, but it seems this text comes from the 1762 done by Bethern(?). It does not match anything so far that I've found. It retains the lower case "s" in Genesis 1:2, and has many differences to the Cambridge.

So my bible doesn't really have a "name" like say a Baskerville-Birmingham. I need to write Mr. Callaghan for clarification on the name Bethern. Paris simply was a publisher. So maybe it can be called a "Paris", I don't know.

The fact is, there are many King James bibles out there, all based on the 1611 text, and some even include the 1611 year, but the reality is that they are obviously not a 1611, but later editions or versions up through 1769. The first big clue is the Gothic text(black letter). If it isn't in Gothic, it ain't a 1611. That is a fact. Roman type wasn't introduced till 1613 as I understand it.

Ultimately, one can only take what's available and make a decision for ones self which King James. Personally, I don't see any need for going beyond 1769, and then one must decide of the many from 1769, which one. I personally feel too much was changed with the Cambridge that led to the 1900 PCE, so I look to the Oxford line of editions, though Paris was from Cambridge! Some of the Oxford work was used by Cambridge to really muddy the waters.

If you really wanted to get technical, one should go with the first Roman type edition of I think 1613.

Mr. Callaghan said some interesting things about the King James, but I think we are rather close in our "preferences" of which edition or version. He seems more tolerent of later King James versions, at least more so than I.

Basically, there is a alot of misinformation out there, tossed into the mix of opinion, but the only way to sort all that out is by looking at an actual printing text, which the Bible Museum has MANY originals. But the one thing I've been wanting to locate, they have...online images of every page of the most popular bibles. They are the real deals.

http://bibles-online.net/

This is an invaluable resource. A must have in your favorites.
 
« Last Edit: March 29, 2011, 12:43:00 pm by Kilika » 
 

UPDATE...

So, it seems that my bible may well be (haven't checked it word for word) a version based on the 1762 Parris that was published by Bentham.

http://greatsite.com/ancient-rare-bibles-books/bibles/ks1104/
(1762 Parris/Bentham for sale)

An attempt at a "standard text", two editions were done, one in 1760 (that became the 1762) and one in 1763 by Baskerville (folio).

Apparently, the 1760 Cambridge by F.S. Parris was printed unchanged in 1762. In 1769, the Oxford text by Blayney (1760 Parris update) became the 1769 Oxford Standard Text, in competition with the 1769 Cambridge by Scrivener.

Initially, Cambridge was using the 1760 Parris text, but switched to a version by F. H. A. Scrivener, then later they came out with the 1900 PCE.

Thus, the "split" of the "Authorized Version text was in 1769 when Cambridge went with Scrivener, and Oxford remained with Blayney. So, it seems that if a KJB is not a Cambridge (usually a 1900 PCE), it is most likely a Oxford Standard text by Benjamin Blayney, or possibly a Baskerville.

My personal bible from World Bible Publishers (no longer in business) is then apparently based on/is a 1760/62 Parris. So the 1769 Blayney Oxford Standard text is an edition from the bible I have I think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version

I still need to locate the text of these editions in a format like in Blue Letter or eSword for comparisons. There are references to the 1762 Parris and 1763 Baskerville texts, but I haven't located the full text of either of them in digital format.
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #9 on: October 28, 2011, 03:39:38 pm »

Yes, the King James "Authorized Version" is under "crown copyright", in Britian.

If that production of reading the KJB were done in America, or any non-British territory, then there would be no copyright, as the crown copyright, as I understand it, does not extend beyond the British crown. I believe this applies to the 1769 Oxford Standard Text as well.
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #10 on: November 30, 2011, 02:29:08 pm »

Bump.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: April 12, 2012, 06:03:41 pm »

Hey Mark, Kilika, Christian40, et al - don't mean to call you guys out here, but where did you say you got your 1611 AVs? No, you don't have to tell me the exact store(if it was a used 2nd hand bookstore in particular), but what kinds of stores did you get them at?

I want to get a pure Cambridge one(or whatever you call it). DA Waite's is a very good one, but he's more into the Greek/Hebrew thing. Thanks!
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21415



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: April 12, 2012, 06:17:42 pm »

Goodwill's are a great place to find them. Cheap to. My first Bible i bought after being saved was at a local Christian Book store that went out of business 20 years ago. I am always finding good Bibles at Goodwill and second hand stores.

Also those dollar stores like Dollar General and such sometimes have KJB for around $5.00, but you need to proof it first. Remember Spirit in Gen 1:2 should be capitalized.

Gen 1:2  And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2012, 06:19:45 pm by Mark » Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
PeanutGallery
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 225


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: April 12, 2012, 08:48:46 pm »

Remember Spirit in Gen 1:2 should be capitalized.

Gen 1:2  And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
What about 'Spirit' or 'spirit' in 1John 5:8

1John 5:8  And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

1John 5:8  And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21415



View Profile
« Reply #14 on: April 13, 2012, 06:43:17 am »

What about 'Spirit' or 'spirit' in 1John 5:8

1John 5:8  And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

1John 5:8  And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

12. “spirit” not “Spirit” in 1 John 5:8
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #15 on: April 13, 2012, 02:04:55 pm »

peanutgallery, this is where it is a good idea to have a copy of the (black letter) Authorized Version of 1611 handy. Those in Roman type vary as to those kinds of changes. Some use lower case, while others don't, so the original use is important obviously.

According to eSword...

Quote
"And the earth was without forme, and voyd, and darkenesse was vpon the face of the deepe: and the Spirit of God mooued vpon the face of the waters." Genesis 1:2 (Authorized Version of 1611)

Quote
"And the earth was without fourme, and was voyde: & darknes [was] vpon the face of the deepe, and the spirite of God moued vpon the face of the waters." Genesis 1:2 (Bishop's Bible)

Quote
"And the earth was without forme and voide, and darkenesse was vpon the deepe, and the Spirit of God moued vpon ye waters." Genesis 1:2 (Geneva Bible)

Otherwise, you can decide to go by either the Cambridge Standard Text (not to be confused with the PCE) or the Oxford Standard Text. Both of these were finalized in 1769. The PCE didn't come along till 1900.

EDIT: Correction. According to "Local Church Bible Publishers", the 1900 PCE is in fact what is called the "Cambridge Standard Text". LCBP does not carry the PCE due to it's lower case "s" usage.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2013, 04:41:54 am by Kilika » Report Spam   Logged
Phord
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 67


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: February 26, 2013, 05:47:31 pm »

I did some searching, and found this so far regarding every King James bible Edition up to 1900 or so called "revision"

1. 1611
2. 1612
3. 1613
4. 1616
5. 1617
6. 1629
7. 1630
8. 1634
9. 1638
10. 1743
11. 1744
12. 1761
13. 1762
14. 1769

1 1817.
2. 1835
3. 1858
4. 1867
5. 1900

I found also this website regarding some of this information, and whille you can "glean" from this site the guy appears to be attacking and slandering website is gist i got, but couldnt read it all as using phone like now. It is: www.watch.pair.com/TR-8-kjv-revision.html

just be careful on site.
Report Spam   Logged
Phord
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 67


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: February 26, 2013, 05:54:27 pm »

forgot to mention the guy said on his website something about the "false prophet" using the king james bible to get people to worship the beast and take the mark, yea.....i know. it was one thing i caught on phone that really popped out at me. i just wanted years of editions is all i went to site for, and caught that when i was done looking through it.

Kilika i was not sure what post to put site in so you can copy and add to collection if you think it helps.

also i think your right about the 1769 being final one.
Report Spam   Logged
Phord
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 67


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: February 26, 2013, 06:53:45 pm »

Update:

1611, 1612, 1613, 1616, 1617, 1629, 1630, 1634,1638,1639

1743, 1744, 1760, 1761, 1762, 1763, 1769, 1782, 1790, 1795, 1799

1804, 1810, 1817,  1821, 1828, 1829, 1830, 1833, 1835, 1838, 1840, 1847, 1857, 1858, 1859, 1865, 1867, 1868, 1870, 1873, 1876, 1880

1900, 1917, 1970, 2000

some borrowed from Kilikas information.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: February 26, 2013, 07:09:28 pm »

So if I understand this correctly, even a few of these perverted versions are KJV "revisions"? Ie-Thomas Nelson, Zonderfan, and I think KJV2000 is the most recent.
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #20 on: February 27, 2013, 02:58:35 am »

Thanks for the info Phord.

I browsed it and it does add some info to the KJB history. And I see what you mean about his "position". It's rather obvious he's anti-KJVO, and continues to perpetuate the typical misrepresentation of those who advocate "KJV Only".

All those years mean little really, as pretty much anybody that could afford it could print a book. All those years need proof of publishing. The main focus is a more narrow range of years, primarily based on the four editions that ended with the 1769 text. I wouldn't waste my time with any years/versions after absolutely no later than 1800, to use a round number.

Fortunately, with this type topic, the proof of claims is in the text published. An actual bible is most desired. No guess at all, it's either "upper case" or not in a given edition, version, translation. We simply compare the text and see what it says. It seems those with the weakest defense scream the loudest in protest of their opposition. If their position is that it doesn't matter if you change the text to make it "better" or more "readable", then I'd expect them to try to shoot down anybody that advocates a pure text, which makes their newer versions less than what they claim they are.

From what I have gathered in my own personal search, is that there is a bunch of misinformation about the history of the KJB, from multiple sources with multiple personal opinions that tend to block out the facts of what was actually printed at any given time and who did it.

It's truly frustrating. Something so important, yet so clouded as to it's history. Sure, if we were talking about text that was first printed say 5,000 years ago, one might expect it difficult to find actual text to prove it's history, but with the KJB, we are talking a period of only about 500 years to date. It's a good detective story that really shouldn't be. It should be well documented and clear, but alas, prophecy is fulfilled yet again.
Report Spam   Logged
Phord
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 67


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: February 27, 2013, 10:23:15 am »

so it doesnt matter much on years as you would have to proof all those texts in every single year, while a more narrow search would be better?

what four editions were there of 1769? i must have missed them looking through your info.

i know now there was a cambridge standard text (not pce) and Oxford standard text.

what are the other two?
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #22 on: February 27, 2013, 02:18:42 pm »

Admittedly, the info can be overwhelming as to what's what. Obviously, there have been many published, but the distinction is between an edition, and a version. The official chronology of the KJB involves just 5 years total that official editions were printed. After 1769, there was really no more need for another English edition, as the original work was completed by that edition. Anything more was and is just man meddling with the text to suit their own opinions, which usually leads back to the love of money.

Here's the chronology...

http://endtimesandcurrentevents.freesmfhosting.com/index.php/topic,38.msg15575.html#msg15575

The four common years of editions of the 1611; 1629, 1638, 1762, 1769

An article on it's history...

Quote
    The completed work was issued in 1611, the complete title page reading:

        "THE HOLY BIBLE, Conteyning the Old Testament, and the New: Newly Translated out of the Originall tongues: & with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties Special Commandment. Appointed to be read in Churches. Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie. ANNO DOM. 1611."

    The New Testament had a separate title page, the whole of it reading:

        "THE NEWE Testament of our Lord and Saviour JESUS CHRIST. Newly Translated out of the Originall Greeke: and with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties speciall Commandment. IMPRINTED at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie. ANNO DOM. 1611. Cum Privilegio."

    The King James Bible was, in its first editions, even larger than the Great Bible. It was printed in black letter with small italicized Roman type to represent those words not in the original languages.

    A dedicatory epistle to King James, which also enhanced the completed work, recalled the King's desire that "there should be one more exact Translation of the Holy Scriptures into the English tongue." The translators expressed that they were "poor instruments to make GOD'S holy Truth to be yet more and more known" while at the same time recognizing that "Popish persons" sought to keep the people "in ignorance and darkness."

    The Authorized Version, as it came to be called, went through several editions and revisions. Two notable editions were that of 1629, the first ever printed at Cambridge, and that of 1638, also at Cambridge, which was assisted by John Bois and Samuel Ward, two of the original translators. In 1657, the Parliament considered another revision, but it came to naught. The most important editions were those of the 1762 Cambridge revision by Thomas Paris, and the 1769 Oxford revision by Benjamin Blayney. One of the earliest concrdances was A Concordance to the Bible of the Last Translation, by John Down-ham, affixed to a printing of 1632.

    The Authorized Version eclipsed all previous versions of the Bible. The Geneva Bible was last printed in 1644, but the notes continued to be published with the King James text. Subsequent versions of the Bible were likewise eclipsed, for the Authorized Version was the Bible until the advent of the Revised Version and ensuing modern translations. It is still accepted as such by its defenders, and recognized as so by its detractors. (cont.)

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvhist.html

According to that article, Cambridge published the 1762, and Oxford the 1769, but apparently Cambridge published a 1769 as well.

When I say "common years", those are the main years referenced, but obviously there were other "editions" that were technically "versions" published by other people, and not the original KJB group that completed their work with the 1769 edition.

Check this article out by Rick Norris...

http://endtimesandcurrentevents.freesmfhosting.com/index.php/topic,38.msg15572.html#msg15572

Quote
This may not be a complete list of all the differences between the 1769 Oxford or even the 1795 Oxford and the present Oxford edition. Based on this evidence, are the Oxford KJV editions in print today every word the same as the 1769 Oxford edition?

The facts from these Oxford editions shows that all the updating was not finished by 1769. This evidence clearly shows that editors or printers after 1769 introduced some changes into the text of present Oxford KJV editions. This evidence affirms that the 1769 Oxford KJV edition was not "free from man-made error." Furthermore, this evidence indicates that the text of the present Oxford KJV in the Scofield Reference Bible is a post-1840 edition or likely even a post-1880 edition. Is the present Oxford standard edition no longer a "true edition" according to some KJV-only reasoning since it has alterations made after 1769, 1840, and even 1880?

I disagree with him in that while he's correct work on the text continued, it was not by the original group, but I get his overall point that the KJB continued to be changed to the point what we have today is not even what was originally available it's been changed so much.

Good luck finding a bible being published that is either the 1762  Paris Cambridge, or the 1769  Blaney Oxford text.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2013, 02:43:04 pm by Kilika » Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #23 on: February 27, 2013, 05:10:01 pm »

I did some merging and sort, hopefully making things a bit more clear.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: May 26, 2015, 02:25:34 pm »

Report Spam   Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
Free SMF Hosting - Create your own Forum

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy