End Times and Current Events
January 27, 2022, 09:34:43 am
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  

Cambridge vs. Oxford - Which Standard Text?

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] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Cambridge vs. Oxford - Which Standard Text?  (Read 3625 times)
Kilika
Guest
« on: July 24, 2012, 12:33:25 pm »

After searching out the history of the King James Bible, it boils down to two standard texts, both finalized in 1769; Cambridge and Oxford, both of which are British Crown printers of the KJB.

Here's an article with differences comparisons...

http://www.kjv-only.com/rick/1769.html

Quote
Do we use a 1769 KJV?
by Rick Norris

It is often claimed that our present KJV editions are the 1769 edition. David Sorenson wrote: "The King James Version of the Bible in America at present is in fact the 1769 edition" (TOUCH NOT THE UNCLEAN THING, p. 17). David Cloud wrote that "an update was made between 1762-69 to correct any lingering printing errors and to update the spelling" (FAITH VS. THE MODERN BIBLE VERSIONS, p. 589). Douglas Stauffer asserted that "the 1769 edition merely continued the process of spelling standardization begun in the 1762 edition" (ONE BOOK STANDS ALONE, p. 348). Robert Sargent claimed that "the spelling was standardized to its modern form in the 1762 and 1769 editions" (ENGLISH BIBLE, p. 229). KJV-only author Timothy Morton contended that "the 1762 and 1769 [editions] were to update the spelling" and that "by 1769 whatever slight textual errors that still remained were removed, and the text was finally free from any man-made error" (WHICH TRANSLATION SHOULD YOU TRUST, p. 42). KJV-only author Al Lacy maintained that "the 1769 edition of the 1611 King James Bible is perfect" (CAN I TRUST MY BIBLE, p. 144). Joey Faust maintained that "nothing after 1769 is a true edition" (COMMON MAN'S DEFENSE OF KJV-ONLYISM, p. 43). William Bradley claimed that "the last one in 1769 made no changes in the text, only standardization of spelling, punctuation, and updated typeface" (TO ALL GENERATIONS, p. 71). Lloyd Streeter claimed that the perfection of the KJV "should be looked upon as a winnowing or refining process extending from Tyndale through 1769" (SEVENTY-FIVE PROBLEMS, p. 104). Streeter asserted that God used "those who corrected printing and spelling errors between 1611 and 1769" (p. 104).

KJV-only author Dave Reese claimed: "If words are changed, it is not the King James Version. It is another Bible" (THE BOOK NO ONE CAN READ, p. 56). Jim Ellis asked: "How could it be a King James Bible if it is different from the King James Bible?" (ONLY TWO BIBLES, p. 17). Attacking the idea that the New Scofield Reference Bible has the same basic text as the KJV, William Grady contended: "A lost man would laugh at the suggestion that a particular text could be promoted as the same text with even one alteration" (FINAL AUTHORITY, p. 311). Charles Perkins wrote: "Personally I cannot find anything ‘Godly’ about changing even one word in the King James Bible" (FLAMING TORCH, April-June, 1998, p. 7). Bill Bradley asked: "Would you allow someone to take your King James Bible and change it in more than 130 places, and still call it a King James Bible?" (Mickey Carter, ELEPHANT, p. 142). Are the above claims and statements by KJV-only authors applied to the alterations in various KJV editions?

Even some KJV-only advocates acknowledge that the present-day Oxford edition is different from the Cambridge edition, and these two editions are usually considered different editions because of only 3 to 5 main differences (2 Chron. 33:19; Jer. 34:16; Nahum 3:16; Josh. 19:2, Psalm 148:8). Some have even argued that the Cambridge edition is more accurate simply based on its rendering at the first three of the five verses just listed. If there were just five differences between the 1769 Oxford edition and today's Oxford edition, should they be considered different editions just as the Oxford edition and Cambridge edition are considered different editions?

Anyone who carefully examines KJV editions printed after 1769 and even in the early 1800's will find that the KJV-only statements in the first paragraph are inaccurate. There were actually several hundred changes in the text that were introduced in the 1769 edition that remain in present KJV editions. The 1769 Oxford KJV still included the Apocrypha and the marginal notes from the 1611 edition along with some additional notes added in later editions. In addition, the 1769 edition had some changes in the text or some other renderings that later editors or printers changed or did not follow. While present KJV editions may be based on the 1769 Oxford edition, they are not 100% identical in text to that edition.

Consider a KJV edition that was printed at the Clarendon Press by William Jackson and William Dawson in 1795. While it is possible that the 1795 Oxford edition is not every word the same as the 1769 Oxford edition, the 1795 Oxford is more likely to be in agreement with the 1769 than is the present Oxford edition printed in the Scofield Reference Bible. An examination of this 1795 Oxford KJV edition shows that it has several renderings that came from the 1769 Oxford edition that are not found in the present Oxford edition. This 1795 Oxford edition, a 1799 Oxford edition, a 1804 Oxford edition, and a 1810 Oxford edition still have a character shaped like "f" for long "s" in many words. Here are some examples of this use of the long "s" in the 1795 Oxford edition of the KJV: "fin" (Ps. 32:5), "fee" (Ps. 34:12), "chafe" (Ps. 35:5), "wife" (Ps. 36:3), "flay" (Ps. 37:14), "feed" (Ps. 37:26), "fore" (Ps. 38:2), "foul" (Ps. 42:1), and "fake" (Ps. 44:26). Thus, the evidence will show that all updating of the KJV's text was not finished by 1769. This evidence is also supported by a KJV edition printed by John Archdeacon at Cambridge in 1790. Some of the changes in Oxford editions were made around 1830, and several may have been made after 1840 while at least five or more changes may not have been made until after 1880.

Consider the examples listed below. In some cases, access was no longer available for the Oxford edition, especially the 1782 and 1799 editions, after other differences were found. In some cases, one of the old Oxford editions was missing some pages. In other cases, some of the Oxford editions may have followed the rendering of a KJV edition earlier than 1769 or may have changed the rendering in the 1769. In these examples the character shaped like a "f" for a long "s" in some of the old editions was updated.

Genesis 18:19
houshold (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
household (present Oxford)

Genesis 18:27
LORD (1782, 1795, 1804, 1810 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Lord (present Oxford)

Genesis 18:30
the LORD (1795, 1804, 1810 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
the Lord (present Oxford)

Genesis 18:32
the LORD (1795, 1804, 1810 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
the Lord (present Oxford)

Genesis 20:4
LORD (1782, 1795, 1804, 1810, 1821 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Lord (present Oxford)

Genesis 24:57
enquire (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840, 1847, 1857, 1859, 1865, 1868, 1870, 1876, 1880 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
inquire (present Oxford)

Genesis 25:18
towards (1795, 1804 Oxford)
toward (present Oxford)

Genesis 36:22
Heman (1769, 1795, 1804, 1810 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Hemam (present Oxford)

Genesis 42:33
housholds (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
households (present Oxford)

Genesis 49:26
thy progenitors (1769, 1795, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
my progenitors (present Oxford)

Exodus 6:21
Zithri (1769, 1795, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840, 1847, 1857, 1859, 1865, 1868, 1870, 1876, 1880 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Zichri (present Oxford)

Exodus 15:17
Sanctuary, O LORD (1782, 1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
sanctuary, O Lord (present Oxford)

Exodus 21:6
awl (1795, 1804 Oxford)
aul (present Oxford)

Exodus 23:17
LORD God (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Lord GOD (present Oxford)

Leviticus 18:18
besides (1782, 1795, 1804 Oxford)
beside (present Oxford)

Numbers 6:5
rasor (1795, 1810 Oxford)
razor (present Oxford)

Numbers 14:17
LORD (1782, 1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Lord (present Oxford)

Numbers 20:14
travel (1795, 1799, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840, 1847, 1857, 1859, 1865, 1868, 1870, 1876, 1880 Oxford)
travail (present Oxford)

Deuteronomy 10:2
brakedst (1769, 1795, 1804, 1810 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
brakest (present Oxford)

Deuteronomy 19:5
ax (1795, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840, 1847, 1857, 1859, 1865, 1868, 1870, 1876, 1880 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
axe (present Oxford)

Deuteronomy 22:3
all lost thing (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840, 1847, 1857, 1859, 1865, 1868, 1870, 1876, 1880 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
all lost things (present Oxford)

Deuteronomy 24:17
the widow's (1795, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
a widow's (present Oxford)

Joshua 19:2
Beer-sheba, Sheba (1769, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Beer-sheba, and Sheba (present Oxford)

Judges 11:7
children of Gilead (1769, 1795, 1810 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
elders of Gilead (present Oxford)

Judges 13:8
O my LORD (1782, 1795, 1804, 1810 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
O my Lord (present Oxford)

Judges 19:29
coast (1769, 1795, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
coasts (present Oxford)

1 Samuel 2:13
priest's custom (1769, 1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840, 1847, 1857, 1859, 1865, 1868, 1870, 1876, 1880 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
priests' custom (present Oxford)

1 Samuel 17:48
hasted (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840, 1847, 1857, 1859, 1865, 1868, 1870, 1876, 1880 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
hastened (present Oxford)

1 Samuel 28:25
arose up (1795, 1804 Oxford)
rose up (present Oxford)

2 Samuel 12:22
God (1782, 1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
GOD (present Oxford)

2 Samuel 15:12
counseller (1795, 1804 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
counsellor (present Oxford)

2 Samuel 19:7
befel (1795, 1804 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
befell (present Oxford)

2 Samuel 23:37
Naharai (1804, 1810 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Nahari (present Oxford)

1 Kings 3:10
the LORD (1782, 1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
the Lord (present Oxford)

1 Kings 8:56
the LORD (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840, 1847, 1857, 1859, 1865, 1868, 1870, 1876, 1880 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
the Lord (present Oxford)

1 Kings 22:6
the LORD (1782, 1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
the Lord (present Oxford)

2 Kings 7:6
the LORD (1782, 1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
the Lord (present Oxford)

2 Kings 19:23
the LORD (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
the Lord (present Oxford)

2 Chronicles 4:12
on the pillars; (1769, 1795, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
on the top of the pillars (present Oxford)

Ezra 7:14
counsellers (1795, 1804 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
counsellors (present Oxford)

Nehemiah 1:11
O LORD (1769, 1782, 1795, 1799, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
O Lord (1835 Oxford, present Oxford)

Nehemiah 3:5
LORD (1795 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Lord (present Oxford)

Nehemiah 8:10
our LORD (1782, 1795, 1804, 1810 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
our Lord (present Oxford)

Job 28:28
LORD (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Lord (present Oxford)

Job 41:6
thy companions (1769, 1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
the companions (present Oxford)

Psalm 2:4
the LORD (1769, 1782, 1795, 1799, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
the Lord (present Oxford)

Psalm 18:47
unto me (1769, 1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
under me (present Oxford)

Psalm 35:17
LORD (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Lord (present Oxford)

Psalm 37:13
The LORD (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
The Lord (present Oxford)

Psalm 38:9
LORD (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Lord (present Oxford)

Psalm 44:23
O LORD (1769, 1782, 1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
O Lord (present Oxford)

Psalm 60:4
feared (1769, 1795, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
fear (present Oxford)

Psalm 78:66
part (1769, 1795, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
parts (present Oxford)

Psalm 83:14
the wood (1795 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
a wood (present Oxford)

Psalm 86:5
LORD (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Lord (present Oxford)

Psalm 107:16
gates of iron (1769, 1795, 1804, 1810 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
bars of iron (present Oxford)

Psalm 110:5
The LORD (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
The Lord (present Oxford)

Psalm 114:7
LORD (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Lord (present Oxford)

Psalm 135:5
our LORD (1795, 1799, 1804, 1810 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
our Lord (present Oxford)

Psalm 140:7
O God the LORD (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
O GOD the Lord (present Oxford)

Proverbs 22:4
riches, honour (1795, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
riches, and honour (present Oxford)

Isaiah 3:18
the LORD (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
the Lord (present Oxford)

Isaiah 4:4
the LORD (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
the Lord (present Oxford)

Isaiah 6:1, 8
the LORD (1795, 1804 Oxford)
the Lord (present Oxford)

Isaiah 8:7
the LORD (1782, 1795, 1804, 1810 Oxford)
the Lord (present Oxford)

Isaiah 9:17
the LORD (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
the Lord (present Oxford)

Lamentations 1:15
The LORD (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
The Lord (present Oxford)

Lamentations 3:5
travel (1795, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840, 1847, 1857, 1859, 1865, 1868, 1870, 1876, 1880 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
travail (present Oxford)

Lamentations 3:58
O LORD (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
O Lord (present Oxford)

Ezekiel 18:25
the LORD (1782, 1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
the Lord (present Oxford)

Ezekiel 18:29
the LORD (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
the Lord (present Oxford)

Ezekiel 47:3
ancles (1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840, 1847, 1857, 1859, 1865, 1868, 1870, 1876, 1880 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
ankles (present Oxford)

Daniel 9:3
Lord GOD (1795, 1810 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Lord God (present Oxford)

Micah 7:4
is a brier (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
is as a brier (present Oxford)

Nahum 3:16
flieth away (1795 Oxford)
fleeth away (present Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]

Habakkuk 3:19
Lord GOD (1795, 1799, 1804 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
LORD God (present Oxford)

Zechariah 4:14
LORD (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Lord (present Oxford)

Zechariah 9:4
the LORD (1782, 1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
the Lord (present Oxford)

Zechariah 11:2
mighty is spoiled (1769, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
mighty are spoiled (present Oxford)

Malachi 3:2
fuller's sope (1795, 1804 Oxford)
fullers' sope (1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840, 1847, 1857, 1859, 1865, 1868, 1876, 1880 Oxford)
fullers' soap (present Oxford)

Matthew 2:1, 5, 22
Judea (1795, 1804 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Judaea (present Oxford)

Matthew 3:10
ax (1795, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840, 1847, 1857, 1859, 1865, 1868, 1870, 1876, 1880 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
axe (present Oxford)

Matthew 10:3
Lebbeus (1795, 1804 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Lebbaeus (present Oxford)

Matthew 13:27
housholder (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
householder (present Oxford)

Matthew 27:57
Arimathea (1795, 1804 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Arimathaea (present Oxford)

Mark 3:8
Idumea (1795, 1804 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Idumaea (present Oxford)

Mark 3:18
Alpheus (1795, 1804 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Alphaeus (present Oxford)

Mark 3:18
Thaddeus (1795, 1804 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Thaddaeus (present Oxford)

Mark 10:46
Bartimeus (1795, 1804 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Bartimaeus (present Oxford)

Mark 12:17
Cesar's (1795, 1804 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Caesar's (present Oxford)

Mark 14:70
Galilean (1795, 1804 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Galilaean (present Oxford)

Mark 15:16
Pretorium (1795, 1804 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Praetorium (present Oxford)

Mark 15:38
vail (1795, 1804 Oxford)
veil (present Oxford)

Luke 2:27
spirit (1795, 1810 Oxford)
Spirit (present Oxford)

Luke 3:1
Iturea (1795, 1804 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Ituraea (present Oxford)

Luke 5:17
Judea (1795, 1804 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Judaea (present Oxford)

Luke 11:32
Nineveh (1795, 1810 Oxford)
Nineve (present Oxford)

Luke 16:23
lifted (1795, 1804 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
lift (present Oxford)

Luke 19:2
Zaccheus (1795, 1804 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Zacchaeus (present Oxford)

Luke 19:4
sycamore (1795, 1804, 1810 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
sycomore (present Oxford)

John 14:6
and the truth (1795, 1804 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
the truth (present Oxford)

Acts 2:7
Galileans (1795, 1804 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Galilaeans (present Oxford)

Acts 3:7
ancle (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1840, 1847, 1857, 1859, 1865, 1868, 1870, 1876, 1880 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
ankle (present Oxford)

Acts 7:4
Chaldeans (1795, 1804 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Chaldaeans (present Oxford)

Acts 8:40
Cesarea (1795, 1804 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Caesarea (present Oxford)

Acts 25:6
sitting in (1795, 1804 Oxford)
sitting on (present Oxford)

Acts 25:8
Cesar (1795, 1804 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Caesar (present Oxford)

Romans 7:20
Now if do (1769 Oxford)
Now if I do (present Oxford)

Romans 11:23
not in unbelief (1769, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1840 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
not still in unbelief (present Oxford)

1 Corinthians 4:13
the earth (1769, 1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
the world (present Oxford)

2 Corinthians 12:2
about (1769, 1795, 1799, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
above (present Oxford)

2 Corinthians 12:13
you were inferior (1769, 1795, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
ye were inferior (present Oxford)

Galatians 2:6
those, who (1795 Oxford)
those who (1804, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
these who (present Oxford)

Ephesians 3:5
the holy apostles (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
his holy apostles (present Oxford)

1 Timothy 2:9
broidered hair (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
broided hair (present Oxford)

1 Timothy 4:10
the saviour (1769, 1795, 1804, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
the Saviour (present Oxford)

Hebrews 9:20
injoined (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1838, 1840 Oxford)
enjoined (present Oxford)

1 Peter 1:10
enquired (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840, 1847, 1857, 1859, 1865, 1868, 1870, 1876, 1880 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
inquired (present Oxford)

1 Peter 3:21
towards (1795, 1804 Oxford)
toward (present Oxford)

1 John 1:4
our joy (1769, 1804 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
your joy (present Oxford)

1 John 5:8
spirit (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1839, 1835, 1838, 1840, 1847, 1857, 1859, 1865, 1868, 1870, 1876, 1880 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Spirit (present Oxford)

Revelation 18:22
at all in thee, and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more [missing in 1769 Oxford]

Revelation 21:20
chrysolite (1795, 1804 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
chrysolyte (present Oxford)


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?

« Last Edit: July 24, 2012, 02:16:34 pm by Kilika » Report Spam   Logged

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: July 24, 2012, 01:27:39 pm »

FWIW, mine is a Cambridge 1769 text - so from what I'm understanding from this article(and I'll admit I don't 100%), this is the correct one? And not the Oxford 1769?

Kilika, when you get the chance, could you see if what you have in your Cambridge matches what I have in mine? Not sure if mine is a Cambridge or an Oxford, but just need to check the insides and outs. Just say yeah or neah to each, you don't have to post all the verses from your bible. Thanks!

2Ch 33:19  His prayer also, and how God was intreated of him, and all his sin, and his trespass, and the places wherein he built high places, and set up groves and graven images, before he was humbled: behold, they are written among the sayings of the seers.

Jer 34:16  But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom ye had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection, to be unto you for servants and for handmaids.

Nah 3:16  Thou hast multiplied thy merchants above the stars of heaven: the cankerworm spoileth, and flieth away.

Jos 19:2  And they had in their inheritance Beersheba, or Sheba, and Moladah,

Psa 148:8  Fire, and hail; snow, and vapour; stormy wind fulfilling his word:
« Last Edit: July 24, 2012, 01:35:13 pm by BornAgain2 » Report Spam   Logged
PeanutGallery
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 226


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: July 24, 2012, 01:56:38 pm »

I have a Cambridge Concord and a Cambridge Cameo; they differ in spelling, such as counsellor (concord) and counseller (cameo).
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #3 on: July 24, 2012, 02:01:27 pm »

My bible is neither. It's actually a 1760 Parris text (or maybe it's an actual Blayney) that became the basis for the Blaney text, and that became the Oxford Standard Text of 1769. But it doesn't match the Oxford text. It has many lower case "s" (Gen 1:2) unlike the Cambridge, etc.

I've done some looking around, and it's apparent that the Oxford Standard Text of 1769 (Blayney) is pretty much not being published as a bible, just the text is available from what I found so far.

Cambridge bibles are all over the place, but you have to be careful which Cambridge.

There is allegedly a Cambridge Standard Text of 1769 (Scrivener), but most these days are newer versons, ike the Concord Cambridge (1970's), the 1900 PCE, and a couple newer ones from Cambridge. If a person were to use a Cambridge, I'd say it should be no older than the 1769 Cambridge Standard Text, if you can find one! Even the PCE isn't right, and has been changed quite a bit.

This is in the KJB history thread...

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2012, 02:25:46 pm by Kilika » Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: July 24, 2012, 02:18:27 pm »

Quote
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.

If the Cambridge is by Scrivener...this shouldn't be good? I thought I read somewhere that the Scrivener Greek is something should be avoided. Maybe I read it wrong, but still trying to understand this.
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #5 on: July 24, 2012, 02:30:16 pm »

I know, it's rather confusing with all these editions and versions. Hard at first to keep track of the translators and which text they did, but it centers on the texts of 1769. Anything after that I believe should not be labeled a bible, but a commentary.

Scrivener is not good. Look up the history of the Cambridge texts.

My opinion is that the Oxford is the real bible text, and it should have stopped at the Blayney Oxford Standard Text of 1769. No more bibles should have been "translated" into english after that.
Report Spam   Logged
PeanutGallery
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 226


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: July 24, 2012, 02:41:56 pm »

Even the PCE isn't right, and has been changed quite a bit.
Do you have a link on that?  I've read about PCE and was wondering about it.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: July 24, 2012, 02:43:07 pm »

I know, it's rather confusing with all these editions and versions. Hard at first to keep track of the translators and which text they did, but it centers on the texts of 1769. Anything after that I believe should not be labeled a bible, but a commentary.

Scrivener is not good. Look up the history of the Cambridge texts.

My opinion is that the Oxford is the real bible text, and it should have stopped at the Blayney Oxford Standard Text of 1769. No more bibles should have been "translated" into english after that.

So pretty much, if you have an Oxford, compared to a Cambridge, there WILL be differences in it?

Here's the Local Church Bible Publishers web site(where you can buy KJVs for really good prices), here's what they state...

http://www.localchurchbiblepublishers.com/about/history/

I researched everything I could find out about this enormous project and began to share my burden with pastors. I started to raise money to get this project going. Finally, I had $11,000 and I was able to buy signatures (unsewn Bibles) from Oxford and then have good covers put on them. Next, I bought some Bibles from the bindery and they put covers on for me. This continued for several years, and we brought them to churches and let people give us a love offering for them. The cost to produce them was $20-$30 each and we got love offerings of 25 CENTS for one up to $100. God “balanced the books” and increased our faith. Then, one day, a pastor friend told me that the Bibles I had on my table were not true King James Bibles. I was appalled. He said they had many changes in them, and after MUCH research, I found out he was right.

http://www.localchurchbiblepublishers.com/about/faq/

What is the Pure Cambridge Edition (PCE) text or the 1900 edition Cambridge?
These are both the same text and they are also known as the Standard text. It is an out-of-print Cambridge text, determined to be ‘pure’ by Mr. Verschuur, a young and ambitious Pentecostal man from Australia. His research is fairly exhaustive, and he is to be commended for it. But his conclusions, that the Cambridge text he uses is in all points superior to other Cambridge texts, cannot be defended, at every point. On these points he relies on his ‘Pentecostal’ experiences to defend them, as described in his book, “Guide to the Pure Cambridge Edition of the King James Bible.” For more information, please contact us.

Are any of your Bibles the Pure Cambridge Edition (PCE) text?
No. We do not carry the PCE because it lowercases the “s” in I John 5:8 and we believe, based on the context of I John 5:6, the “Spirit” should be capitalized. Please see this letter from Cambridge-->http://www.localchurchbiblepublishers.com/wp-content/uploads/CambridgeLetter.pdf. For more information, please contact us.

What do you guys think? Huh
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #8 on: July 24, 2012, 03:25:41 pm »

Scofield really isn't any better in a way, but he did the "current" Oxford text.

The 1769 Oxford Standard Text has change obviously, just like the Cambridge version.

So it seems it boils down to modern text choices:

Oxford text - Scofield Reference

Cambridge text - Scrivener Pure Cambridge Edition
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #9 on: July 24, 2012, 03:28:33 pm »

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

Quote
Statement to all King James Bible (KJB) supporters concerning the Pure Cambridge Edition (PCE).

By Matthew Verschuur, copyright 26 January 2007 (Australia Day).

Since the year 2000 I have contacted various King James Bible people and organisations in regards to seeking out a certain text of King James Bible, namely, a standard text of the Cambridge Edition.

For a long time the question, “Which King James Bible edition is correct?” has not been properly answered by true Bible defenders.

We must acknowledge that there are indeed variations in various historical and present editions of the King James Bible. Furthermore, there has been a rising awareness in recent years concerning “counterfeit” King James Bibles with “subtle changes”.

The Scripture promises that the Word of God should be preserved by God, and this undergirds a sound King James Bible only doctrine. It is consistent with this that there should be one correct received standard edition of the King James Bible, where every word is pure (Proverbs 30:5) to the jot and tittle (Matthew 5:18).

I do not agree with the claim that there is no standard or that any edition of the King James Bible is sufficient. On the other side, those who have said, “The 1769 Edition”, or “The Cambridge Edition” have been too vague. Plainly, there have been changes in all editions since 1769, and there are variations in Cambridge Bibles, such as the Victorian text (circa 1830 to circa 1900), the Pure Cambridge Edition (circa 1900 to circa 1970s) which is also printed in many Collins editions, and the Concord text (circa 1970s to circa 2000). Besides these, other modernised variations appear in Bibles printed in America under the name of Cambridge.

And then there is Scrivener’s Edition, which is clearly deficient on many grounds, including that it has never been used by ordinary Protestants every Sunday morning. Even worse is the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible by David Norton, 2005, which makes many unacceptable changes departing from all traditional King James Bibles.

Those who are knowledgeable about the King James Bible agree that the Cambridge Edition is superior to the Oxford, Nelson or any other edition. However, the particular variations in Cambridge Editions have not been closely studied until now. That is, identifying which Cambridge Edition is correct.

Sadly, many King James Bibles that follow the Cambridge Edition as are now being produced or provided by King James Bible people are not the correct Cambridge Edition, but follow the Concord Cambridge Edition, which has departed from the pure text. The correct text has, among other things, “rasor”, “inquire”, “counseller”, “expences”, “ancle”, “Geba” at Ezra 2:26 and lower case “spirit” at Acts 11:12, 28 and 1 John 5:8.

There has been a great ignorance of the fact that a final purification took place in the history of the King James Bible. Those who have studied the history of the King James Bible in depth would have been aware of the major purifications that took place, such as the editions of 1629, 1638 and 1769. There was also a proper purification that took place circa 1900, which has resulted in the final text of the King James Bible, which is in all ways the definitive presentation of the King James Bible, and should not be altered.

I have now launched a website which details this area, and have also freely made available an exactly correct electronic text of the King James Bible (without typographical or edition variation errors). The Pure Cambridge Edition is the historically received true text of the Authorized Version.

Go to: www.bibleprotector.com

HOW TO KNOW THE
PURE CAMBRIDGE EDITION OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE


It is important to have the correct, perfect and final text of the King James Bible, since there are correctors (e.g. publishers) who have changed some aspects of King James Bible texts. The final form of the King James Bible is the Pure Cambridge Edition (circa 1900), which conforms to the following:

1. “or Sheba” not “and Sheba” in Joshua 19:2

2. “sin” not “sins” in 2 Chronicles 33:19

3. “Spirit of God” not “spirit of God” in Job 33:4

4. “whom ye” not “whom he” in Jeremiah 34:16

5. “Spirit of God” not “spirit of God” in Ezekiel 11:24

6. “flieth” not “fleeth” in Nahum 3:16

7. “Spirit” not “spirit” in Matthew 4:1

8. “further” not “farther” in Matthew 26:39

9. “bewrayeth” not “betrayeth” in Matthew 26:73

10. “Spirit” not “spirit” in Mark 1:12

11. “spirit” not “Spirit” in Acts 11:28

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

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

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: July 24, 2012, 03:45:57 pm »

11. “spirit” not “Spirit” in Acts 11:28

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

Wait...shouldn't they be the OTHER WAY AROUND? Huh

Edit: from the E-Sword software

Act 11:28  And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.

1Jn 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.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2012, 03:47:51 pm by BornAgain2 » Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #11 on: July 24, 2012, 03:57:09 pm »

Ah, now your getting it! One went with lower case "s" and the other went with upper case "S". Now your seeing the issue of, "Which King James Bible?".

I personally believe by belief I received the Spirit to guide me and teach me what it means when a letter is upper or lower case. I understand what "spirit" is being referenced. It may be a technically proper thing that a reference to the Holy Ghost would be upper case, such as Spirit, but if it's written originally lower case, then that's what it ought to be.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: July 24, 2012, 04:07:18 pm »

Ah, now your getting it! One went with lower case "s" and the other went with upper case "S". Now your seeing the issue of, "Which King James Bible?".

I personally believe by belief I received the Spirit to guide me and teach me what it means when a letter is upper or lower case. I understand what "spirit" is being referenced. It may be a technically proper thing that a reference to the Holy Ghost would be upper case, such as Spirit, but if it's written originally lower case, then that's what it ought to be.

This has been a great discussion today - however, I will admit I am still a bit confused(even over these passages). Which is why in those 2 passages I posted above where the PCE uses "s", and my 1769 Cambridge uses "S"...again, when you look at the context of those 2 passages, shouldn't it be CAPITOL S?

Again, I'm not saying I'm 100% correct here or anything, but if I'm wrong, I need some explanation.

Edit: My Cambridge 1769 checks out with the other 10 verses just fine, FWIW.

And yes, this has been an interesting discussion today.
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #13 on: July 24, 2012, 04:13:20 pm »

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

Chronology of KJB Text

-1611 Authorized Version of 1611 (Robert Barker, Crown printer) (blackletter) - (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 Cambridge Standard Text (Scrivner) - no text found yet

-1769 Oxford Standard Text (Blayney) - no text found yet

-"1769" Oxford (Scofield Reference Bible)
(modern text differs from original 1769 edition, and are likely a Scofield text)

-1782 Oxford - no text found yet

-1790 Cambridge (John Archdeacon) - no text found yet

-1795 Clarendon Press (Jackson/Dawson) ("f" long s) - no text found yet

-1799 Oxford (?) ("f" long s) - no text found yet

-1804 Oxford (?) ("f" long s) - no text found yet

-1810 Oxford (?) ("f" long s) - no text found yet

-1873 Cambridge Paragraph Bible (F.H.A. Scrivener) - no text yet
(they now have a "New Cambridge Paragraph" published in 2005 by Cambridge University Press)

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

-1900 Collins Cambridge (PCE)

-1970's Concorde Cambridge
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: July 24, 2012, 04:20:39 pm »

Very interesting...
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #15 on: July 24, 2012, 04:22:51 pm »

This has been a great discussion today - however, I will admit I am still a bit confused(even over these passages). Which is why in those 2 passages I posted above where the PCE uses "s", and my 1769 Cambridge uses "S"...again, when you look at the context of those 2 passages, shouldn't it be CAPITOL S?

Again, I'm not saying I'm 100% correct here or anything, but if I'm wrong, I need some explanation.

Edit: My Cambridge 1769 checks out with the other 10 verses just fine, FWIW.

And yes, this has been an interesting discussion today.

But that is the ultimate decision one must make, which one is correct? The Authorized Version of 1611 is the source for both, so the question arises, why is there two schools of thought? Why if using the same source, do they come up with different results? Pride in my opinion, which results in people making changes based on opinion, and not what the original says, thinking they have the better more modern way.

Sure, technically, one would use upper case "S" for a proper name, but if it's orinially lower case, should it be changed to upper case? I think not. Those type changes I really hesitiate to accept. To me it shows a lack of faith the word will get to where God wants it. Man thinks he needs to tweek it to make it better, and more "readable". That is what the Spirit is for.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: July 24, 2012, 04:30:45 pm »

With that being said, here are my specific questions on these 2 passages...

Act 11:28  And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.

In this case, wouldn't "S" be proper, b/c...

2Pe_1:21  For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

The great dearth that happened during the days of Caesar DID come to pass as it was prophecized by Agabus, so therefore he was moved by the Holy Ghost aka Spirit, right?

1Jn 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.

Again, it looks like "S" seems to be correct, b/c when the word of God is being witnessed on earth, aren't people moved by the Holy Spirit?

Again, I'm not saying I'm right, but to me it appears that way. However, if I'm wrong, by all means correct me.

2Ti 3:16  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #17 on: July 24, 2012, 04:36:04 pm »

I agree it should be technically an upper case. But one letter use doesn't make a bible. There are many other differences. Like I said, the key is what does the 1611 black letter edition (pre-Roman type) say.

And you can't always go by online bibles because many don't disclose exactly what text they are using, BLB included. They just say the KJB.

eSword doesn't disclose at all that I can find which KJB text they use. They just say King James version.

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

Quote
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.

That second claim I don't know if I can agree with. They are saying most bibles then are Blayney Oxford texts, which originated from the 1762 F.S. Parris text. Notice they don't use the word Oxford at all.

If anything, their claim then is that they use the Scofield text (modern Oxford text), not the Blayney text, as the Scofield replaced the Blayney text years later.

« Last Edit: July 24, 2012, 04:51:41 pm by Kilika » Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: July 24, 2012, 04:46:26 pm »

I agree it should be technically an upper case. But one letter use doesn't make a bible. There are many other differences. Like I said, the key is what does the 1611 black letter edition (pre-Roman type) say.



I think I understand now, like you posted above...

-1611 Authorized Version of 1611 (Robert Barker, Crown printer) (blackletter) - (text on eSword in Roman type(font)

Yes, the eSword software is also what I have on my PC.

FWIW - the bible I have(and I think I've said this in other threads) is DA Waite's KJV. No, he didn't change/replace, etc any words or passages, but he does subscribe to the lexicon/Scrivener's Greek/Hebrew, and bold-printed some words and defined them in the footnotes.(some of them, unsurprisingly, are not defined properly) No, don't want to get into a DA Waite discussion here, but am just saying this is the bible I have, and with the exception of the words he tried to define(and came up short), it looks like he may have used the proper texts to keep everything in-check. Just wanted to say which specific bible I am using(which I didn't in the previous posts here).

Again, thank you everyone for all the info provided - it seems like the more you study into this, the more alot of this gets very interesting.

Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #19 on: July 24, 2012, 04:55:08 pm »

http://www.kjv-only.com/rick/waites3errors.html

Quote
Waite's Three Errors in the Oxford KJV Edition

by Rick Norris

KJV-only author D. A. Waite maintained that "there are slight errors in the Oxford edition which do not conform either to the Hebrew and Greek or to the original Authorized Version of 1611" (Defending the KJB, p. 252). Waite wrote: "I have found at least 3 errors in the Oxford edition of the KJB" (Foes, p. 117). If these three variations or differences can be labeled "errors" by a KJV-only author, are there no other such differences that can be accurately considered errors? David Sorenson noted that "the Oxford Edition is the more commonly used one in the United States" (Touch Not, p. 18).

In one example in Jeremiah 34:16, the present Oxford KJV has "whom he" while the present Cambridge KJV has "whom ye." Waite wrote: "In Jeremiah 34:16 the Oxford University Press King James Version is wrong, false, and in error" (Foes of the KJB Refuted, p. 66). Concerning this same verse, Thomas Holland claimed that "the error was limited to the editions published by Oxford or those based on the Oxford edition" (Crowned with Glory, p. 101). He also identified it as "a printing error found in some current editions" (p. 100). David Daniels wrote that the Oxford printers "mistakenly printed ’whom he’ instead of the correct ’whom ye’ (Answers, p. 127). David Sorenson maintained that the Cambridge edition has the "correct translation" at this verse (Touch Not, p. 19). On the other hand, Scrivener pointed out that the rendering "whom he" was introduced into the KJV in the 1629 and 1638 Cambridge editions (Authorized Edition, p. 225). Two of the KJV translators themselves were among the editors of the Cambridge editions that introduced the rendering "whom he" into the text of the KJV. At this verse, the later Oxford editions were following earlier Cambridge standard editions. The 1762 Cambridge edition, one 1790 Cambridge edition, one 1824 Cambridge edition, one 1833 Cambridge edition, one 1842 Cambridge edition, one 1844 Cambridge edition, one 1865 Cambridge edition, one 1869 Cambridge edition, one 1872 Cambridge edition, and one 1887 Cambridge edition all have "whom he" at this verse, indicating that several Cambridge editions in the 1800‘s likely had this rendering. Peter Ruckman defended both renderings "ye" and "he" at this verse and suggested that either does "not alter the truth" of the statement in this verse at either edition of the KJV (Scholarship Only, p. 71). While the 1948 Pilgrim Edition printed by Oxford University Press in New York had "whom he" at Jeremiah 34:16, the 2003 New Pilgrim Bible [KJV] with consulting editors Jerry Rockwell and Douglas Stauffer has "whom ye." The 1997 Oxford World’s Classics edition of the KJV printed by Oxford University Press has "whom ye" (Jer. 34:16).

In 2 Chronicles 33:19, the present Oxford KJV has "sins" while the present Cambridge KJV has "sin." Waite maintained that the rendering "sins" is "an error in the Oxford editions" (Foes, p. 66). David Daniels referred to "sins" as "the Oxford error" (Answers, p. 130). Concerning "sins," Daniels claimed: "Cambridge University Press did not make the printing error. And all Cambridge-type texts have the correct readings" (p. 129). In contract to inaccurate KJV-only claims, Scrivener indicated that the rendering "sins" was first introduced into the KJV’s text by the 1762 Cambridge edition (Authorized Edition, p. 222). Those Oxford editions and other KJV editions that have "sins" at this verse in effect picked up this "error" from the 1762 Cambridge edition. A Cambridge edition printed in 1790 still has "sins" at this verse. One 1824 Cambridge edition, one 1833 Cambridge edition, one 1842 Cambridge edition, one 1844 Cambridge edition, one 1865 Cambridge edition, one 1869 Cambridge edition, one 1872 Cambridge edition, and one 1887 Cambridge edition also have "sins" at 2 Chronicles 33:19, which may indicate that this rendering was also found in some other Cambridge editions between 1762 and 1887. An 1762 Oxford edition, an 1782 Oxford edition, and an 1804 Oxford edition of the KJV have "sin" at 2 Chronicles 33:19. In a KJV printed in 1897 by the American Bible Union with a title page where it is stated that "the text conforms to that of the Oxford Bible printed at the University Press, Oxford," it has "sin" at 2 Chronicles 33:19. The New Pilgrim Bible [KJV] has "sin" at 2 Chronicles 33:19 while the 1948 Pilgrim Edition still had "sins." ." The 1997 Oxford World’s Classics edition of the KJV printed by Oxford University Press has "sin" (2 Chron. 33:19). David Norton indicated that the 1602 Bishops’ Bible with KJV translators’ annotations in the Bodleian Library has "all his sinnes" at 2 Chron. 33:19 (Textual History, p. 264).

The third "error" according to Waite is found at Nahum 3:16. At this verse, the present Oxford KJV has "fleeth" while the present Cambridge KJV has "flieth." The 1795 Oxford KJV edition has "flieth" at this verse. Waite contended that "’flieth’ is the correct translation" (Foes, p. 66). The 1762 Cambridge edition, one 1790 Cambridge edition, the 1817 Cambridge Stereotype Edition, one 1824 Cambridge edition, one 1833 Cambridge edition, one 1842 Cambridge edition, one 1844 Cambridge edition, one 1865 Cambridge edition, one 1869 Cambridge edition, one 1872 Cambridge edition, and one 1887 Cambridge edition all have "fleeth" at Nahum 3:16. Waite maintained "that the Cambridge edition of the King James Bible is more accurate than the Oxford edition" (p. 65). When was the Cambridge edition made more accurate than the Oxford edition? The 1948 Pilgrim Edition has "fleeth" at Nahum 3:16 while the 2003 New Pilgrim Bible has "flieth." The 1997 Oxford World’s Classics edition of the KJV printed by Oxford University Press has "flieth" (Nah. 3:16).
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #20 on: July 24, 2012, 05:01:36 pm »

Quote
In one example in Jeremiah 34:16, the present Oxford KJV has "whom he" while the present Cambridge KJV has "whom ye." Waite wrote: "In Jeremiah 34:16 the Oxford University Press King James Version is wrong, false, and in error" (Foes of the KJB Refuted, p. 66).

It's interesting how my bible is the same as the "present Oxford" text in many places, but not all, like the Jeremiah verse. My bible says, "whom ye" like the Cambridge text, yet in many places it matches the Oxford text, but in others it conflicts with it and the Cambridge!
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: July 24, 2012, 05:08:41 pm »

Just cross-checked the 3 verses Norris said Waite was in error with the ones in eSword - they matched just fine.

Yes, I have issues with DA Waite and everyone in the Dean Burgon Society(ie-Phil Stringer) b/c they have his misperception that while the KJV is the best bible, it's somehow still not perfect and needs to go back to the Greek/Hebrew texts(even worse, they use the updated nonsense like Scrivener's and the early 1900's secular stuff). Don't ask me why they have this attitude(as they ARE middle-aged men and should have more wisdom than that).

But anyhow, just saying that despite all that, the 3 passages come from the Cambridge Texts seem to match the ones in the eSword software(which uses the 1611 blackletter pre-Roman). And from my experiences looking up bible passages in eSword, the bible I have(Cambridge) seems to match just fine.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2012, 05:10:40 pm by BornAgain2 » Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #22 on: July 24, 2012, 05:20:26 pm »

What eSword uses is not "black letter". It's a later, 1612 and later, Roman type that is used. Look up an image of the 1611 text from the history thread. Pretty sure I have a link to one there.

The original Authorized Version was printed in "black letter" gothic style lettering which is very cursive and fancy, and hard to read. The first Roman type was done in 1612, but most were 1613 and later.

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

Many use the Cambridge text. But now days one better pay attention to "which "Cambridge when asking for a Cambridge, each has become even worse than the previous.

You have a pre-1900 PCE, 1769 Scrivener text bible? If I'm not mistaken, that would be the Cambridge Standard text of 1769 by Scrivener, who had a split from using the F.A. Parris text (which Oxford stayed with). Could you send me an image of it's title page? Does it say "Cambridge" at the bottom?

The more I discuss this topic and research it, the more I'd like to see a KJB museum/preservation effort going on. All this stuff is a bit confusing at first, and for the record so people can compare real texts with real texts, based on real bibles the museum would use as references.

Apps like Blue Letter and eSword are nice, but they both need to have several other bibles available. I'd like to see one of just KJB editions, from the first Roman type in 1612, through the 1900 PCE and the Oxford Scofield Reference, at least the major ones.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2012, 05:39:23 pm by Kilika » Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: July 24, 2012, 05:26:48 pm »

What eSword uses is not "black letter". It's a later, 1612 and later, Roman type that is used. Look up an image of the 1611 text from the history thread. Pretty sure I have a link to one there.

The original Authorized Version was printed in "black letter" gothic style lettering which is very cursive and fancy, and hard to read. The first Roman type was done in 1612, but most were 1613 and later.

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

Oh that's what it is - understand on this now.(reading the link)

BTW - what software do you use? I know you mentioned it, but I forgot. Thanks!
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: July 24, 2012, 05:37:30 pm »

Quote
Genesis 18:19
houshold (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
household (present Oxford)

Genesis 18:27
LORD (1782, 1795, 1804, 1810 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Lord (present Oxford)

Genesis 18:30
the LORD (1795, 1804, 1810 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
the Lord (present Oxford)

Genesis 18:32
the LORD (1795, 1804, 1810 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
the Lord (present Oxford)

Genesis 20:4
LORD (1782, 1795, 1804, 1810, 1821 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Lord (present Oxford)

Genesis 24:57
enquire (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840, 1847, 1857, 1859, 1865, 1868, 1870, 1876, 1880 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
inquire (present Oxford)

Genesis 25:18
towards (1795, 1804 Oxford)
toward (present Oxford)

Genesis 36:22
Heman (1769, 1795, 1804, 1810 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
Hemam (present Oxford)

Genesis 42:33
housholds (1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
households (present Oxford)

Genesis 49:26
thy progenitors (1769, 1795, 1810, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1790 Cambridge]
my progenitors (present Oxford)

cont'd

This is from the OP - I only cross-checked the Genesis verses with my Cambridge edition. FOR THE MOST PART, they seemed to match the Oxford. However, there ARE a couple that matched the Cambridge.

I didn't check the others, but if the pattern stays consistent, then likely 90%-95% of my Cambridge edition matches with the PCE Oxford.
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #25 on: July 24, 2012, 05:46:03 pm »

Quote
This is from the OP - I only cross-checked the Genesis verses with my Cambridge edition. FOR THE MOST PART, they seemed to match the Oxford. However, there ARE a couple that matched the Cambridge.

I didn't check the others, but if the pattern stays consistent, then likely 90%-95% of my Cambridge edition matches with the PCE Oxford.

As it should, being pre-PCE. Of course they do differ some.

And it also should be more like the Oxford seeing it was based on the Parris also like the Oxford, then Cambridge switched to Scrivener.

What you have then is more like it should be, with the Cambridge and Oxford being the same. In my opinion, there should not have been a split between Oxford and Cambridge, but rather a meeting of a common agreed edition, and stick to that one edition. But man would have none of that when there is a copy right to make money off of.
Report Spam   Logged
PeanutGallery
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 226


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: July 24, 2012, 06:32:24 pm »

Rom 10:17  So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Eph 1:13  In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
...........................
I think faith comes by hearing the word, not by spell check or grammar.
I struggled for awhile about which edition of the KJB; technically, there are no versions, only editions.
The PCE is suppose to be the final edition; so what I did was mark the differences in my KJB.  If you get someone to read the text, you can't tell the difference.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: January 17, 2013, 10:24:06 am »

Quote
MARGINAL REFERENCES TO THE APOCRYHA DELETED

The total number of references to the Apocrypha in the margins of the Old and New Testaments of the King James version as printed in 1611 is 113. Of this number, 102 are in the Old Testament, and 11 in the New. The New Testament passages with references to the Apocrypha are as follows:

Quote
I'm confused - is the Apocryha good or bad? Maybe I'm getting it mixed up with something else(slips my mind now, but it starts with an "A"). Huh

No, you got the correct "A".  Wink

Yes, the Apocrypha is not good. It is not canonical. They are "another Jesus", primarily originating with the Gnostics. The reason it's mentioned is because the original KJV's did have it in them, between the Old and New Testaments. So this info is listed for comparison of versions/editions, as some old ones had it, while others did not.





« Last Edit: January 17, 2013, 01:30:18 pm by Kilika » Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: January 17, 2013, 11:05:44 am »

So the big picture is that these changes(albeit somewhat minor) happened largely b/c of the differences in the printing presses et al(and the upgrades in b/w time)? No, I'm not talking about spelling stuff here, but overall just imagine how much time AND energy it took to put out even ONE sentence with that BEGINNER'S printing press. It's alot like comparing an 80's Commodore 64 to a modern day Microsoft Windows PC. I think I understand everything in the article, but nonetheless I think I see why all of these changes happened.

This is very interesting(b/w the 1611 and the 1769). Was wondering if I can ask a favor though. I'm going to post some of the verses listed in the article Kilika posted today, as is written in my bible(which is a 1769 Cambridge that I bought from Pastor DA Waite 3 years ago - Waite didn't tamper with anything, although he bold printed selected words and put their definitions in the footnotes). And was wondering if what is written in my bible matches your's? Thanks!

This is only a (small)handful from the article...

Mat 1:20  But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

Mat 9:34  But the Pharisees said, He casteth out devils through the prince of the devils.

Mat 10:25  It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?

Mat 16:19  And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Mat 16:22  Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.

Mat 26:75  And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the **** crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.

Mat 28:19  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Mar 10:18  And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

Act 5:34  Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space;

Act 8:13  Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.

Rom 4:12  And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

Rom 11:28  As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.

1Co 12:28  And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

Heb 3:10  Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways.

Heb 10:2  For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

James 4:2  Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not.

2Pe 1:1  Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

2Jn 1:12  Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy may be full.

Rev 15:3  And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints.

Rev 22:19  And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #29 on: January 17, 2013, 01:43:05 pm »

Matches my bible exactly.
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: [1] 2   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