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