1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

post-1885 Oxford KJV edition?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Logos1560, Dec 26, 2006.

Top Posters
Page 1 of 2
  1. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,217
    Likes Received:
    406
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The Oxford text in the KJV edition in the Scofield Reference Bible is evidently a post-1885 Oxford edition.

    Are some alterations in the KJV made after 1885 accepted while other alterations that may be older are not accepted?
     
    #1 Logos1560, Dec 26, 2006
  2. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,217
    Likes Received:
    406
    Faith:
    Baptist
    My statement in my first post in this thread was based on my examination of a KJV edition printed at Oxford in 1885 compared to the present Oxford edition in the Scofield Reference Bible. I just recently received that 1885 Oxford edition, and I had checked that edition for the variations I had earlier found in an 1880 Oxford KJV.

    That examination of the 1885 Oxford edition has been compared to KJV editions printed at Oxford in 1870, 1876, and 1880. Another way that the differences between Oxford editions in that day and today's Oxford KJV edition can be found is by checking old editions of STRONG'S CONCORDANCE. At least some editions of STRONG'S CONCORDANCE were based on an Oxford KJV edition printed in 1886.
     
    #2 Logos1560, Dec 28, 2006
  3. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Things that are different are not the same, even though some people may falsely claim they are...
     
    #3 Keith M, Dec 29, 2006
  4. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,217
    Likes Received:
    406
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Oxford editions printed at the University Press for the British and Foreign Bible Society in 1870, 1876, 1880, and 1885 indicate that the present Oxford edition in the Scofield Reference Bible was likely made from an Oxford edition printed after 1885. The 1870, 1876, and 1880 Oxford editions still had the error introduced in the 1769 Oxford edition at Exodus 6:21 [“Zithri”] while it had been corrected in the 1885 Oxford edition. The 1870, 1876, and 1880 have “ax” for “axe” (1 Sam. 13:20) while the 1885 has “axe.” All four editions [1870, 1876, 1880, 1885] have “enquire“ for “inquire“ (Gen. 24:57), “shoulderpieces“ [one word] for “shoulder pieces“ [two words] (Exod. 28:7, 25), “travel” for “travail” (Num. 20:14), “ax” for “axe” (Deut. 19:5, 20:19), “all lost thing” for “all lost things” (Deut. 22:3), “ax“ for “axe“ (Jud. 9:48), “priest’s custom” for “priests’ custom” (1 Sam. 2:13), “hasted” for “hastened” (1 Sam. 17:48), “ax“ for “axe“ (1 Kings 6:7), “the LORD” for “the Lord” (1 Kings 8:56), “ax head“ for “axe head“ (2 Kings 6:5), “ax“ for “axe“ (Isa. 10:15), “sope“ for “soap“ (Jer. 2:22), “ax“ for “axe“ (Jer. 10:3), “battle ax“ for “battle axe“ (Jer. 51:20), “travel” for “travail” (Lam. 3:5), “ancles” for “ankles” (Ezek. 47:3), “fullers’ sope” for “fullers’ soap” (Mal. 3:2), “ax” for “axe” (Matt. 3:10), “ancle” for “ankle” (Acts 3:7), “the spirit“ for “the Spirit“ (Acts 11:12, 28), “enquired“ for “inquired“ (1 Pet. 1:10), “spirit“ for “Spirit“ (1 John 5:8), and “Spirit of life“ for “spirit of life“ (Rev. 11:11). The evidence from these four Oxford editions demonstrates that over twenty alterations were introduced into Oxford editions after 1885. An examination of an old edition of Strong’s Concordance that is based on the 1886 Oxford edition of the KJV also confirms that some alterations had not yet been made in the Oxford text. Thus, the 1886 Oxford KJV edition being used as a standard text in Strong’s Concordance for around 100 years differed from the later Oxford KJV edition being used as a standard in the Scofield Reference Bible. The 1870, 1880, and 1885 Oxford editions have “scull” (Jud. 9:53) while the 1876 and present Oxford have “skull.”

    While the majority of these alterations are minor spelling changes, it is still important evidence that refutes some KJV-only claims. KJV-only advocates have claimed that all spelling updates in the KJV were finished by 1769. It has also been claimed that the 1769 Oxford KJV was free of all man-made error when a printing error introduced in the 1769 Oxford KJV at Exodus 6:21 remained in Oxford editions until 1880. This evidence also shows that changes were still being made in KJV editions at a later date than KJV-only advocates acknowledge. This evidence also shows the inconsistency of those KJV-only advocates who condemn some present KJV editions as "counterfeit" for spelling updates when those spelling updates may have originated in older editions of the KJV than the spelling changes accepted by those same KJV-only advocates.
     
    #4 Logos1560, Dec 29, 2006
  5. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    When I read this lunacy at
    http://www.biblebelievers.com/believers-org/counterfeit-kjv.html

    I thought at first that it was a satire on the order of "Landover Baptist Church", but further investigation shows this is a serious article. I can only conclude that its author is three fries short of a Happy Meal.

    Now, ya know many KJVOs will say, "Well, besides spelling, what's the difference in 'ax' & 'axe'?" These are many of the same people who insist the WORDS are more important than the "message". Seems their argument is part of the great KJVO double standard.
     
    #5 robycop3, Dec 29, 2006
  6. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0

    Here is a quote from that source:
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The seven-letter Saviour is the only begotten Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ. The six-letter Savior is the son of perdition, the anti christ. He wants to be like the most High (Isaiah 14:14,) but not in a good way, but in an evil way. He is not a follower. He's a counterfeiter. Therefore his final destination is the lake of fire. The new versions, along with the new age movement, and some of the King James Bible counterfeits are preparing the way for this six-letter so called Savior. That's the way he will spell his name, S-a-v-i-o-r not S-a-v-i-o-u-r. No thank you Satan. I'm sticking with the seven-letter Saviour as portrayed in the old black Book that I inherited from my forefathers.

    [/FONT]    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]As a matter of fact, the word 'saviour' does not appear in th e
    KJV1611 Edition; it is spelled 'Sauiour'. The word '[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Sauiour'
    doesn't appear in the KJV1769 Edition;it is spelled 'Savior'.
    So I really have NO idea what the person ois spealkiong of.


    And just for good sport, 'savior' appears in 37 verses of the KJV1769;
    [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]'Sauiour' appears in 38 verses of the KJV1611 Edition. Oops,
    I hate it when a 'spelling correction' deletes one 'Savior' :([/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
     
    #6 Ed Edwards, Dec 29, 2006
  7. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I reckon Mr. Kizziah never considers the 5/6 of the world that doesn't use English.
     
    #7 robycop3, Dec 29, 2006
  8. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Evidently it is even more complex than I thought.

    My KJV1769 Edition in e-sword.com uses 37 'savior'
    My KJV1769 Edition in crosswalk.com uses 37 'saviour'.
    I'm going to use this for the reason I can't spel vera gud atoll.

    So Brother Logos1560 - how many KJVs are there
    still being sold new?
     
    #8 Ed Edwards, Dec 29, 2006
  9. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,217
    Likes Received:
    406
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I don't know the exact number. It would depend somewhat on what you count or consider to be an edition of the KJV. It is clear that there are several varying KJV editions in print today. There are at least three different Cambridge KJV editions in print today: the oldest Cambridge edition in print today may be the 1873 Cambridge KJV edited by Scrivener that is being printed in present Zondervan KJV editions, the Cambridge Standard Text Edition of the KJV which has changes introduced in the 1900's, and the 2005 NEW CAMBRIDGE PARAGRAPH BIBLE. There are at least three Oxford KJV editions today: the Oxford KJV edition in the Scofield Reference Bible, the Oxford KJV edition in the NEW PILGRIM BIBLE that has some changes from Cambridge editions introduced into it, and the Oxford KJV edition edited by Robert Carroll and printed as Oxford World's Classic edition. There is also the present American Bible Society edition of the KJV that has several differences when compared to the Oxford or Cambridge editions. There is the KJV edition printed in the OPEN BIBLE that may be similar to the American Bible Society edition. The present-day edition entitled THE KING JAMES RED LETTER BIBLE printed by a KJV-only advocate has a few differences from most other present KJV editions.
    You also have the KJV edition in the COMPANION BIBLE that substitutes "LORD" in several verses where most KJV editions have "Lord." There is also the “Comfort-able” KJV in The Evidence Bible. There was also a reprint of the 1611 edition for sell today. Seven to ten would seem to be a conservative estimate for the number of varying KJV editions available for sell new today.
     
    #9 Logos1560, Dec 29, 2006
  10. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    And my KJVO friends talk about MV-users calling them
    'book of the month club'?

    In fact, even most freedom readers insist on
    calling it the KJV when we should call it the KJVs.
     
    #10 Ed Edwards, Dec 29, 2006
  11. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    There is also no "Jesus" in the 1611AV but "Iesus".

    HankD
     
    #11 HankD, Dec 29, 2006
  12. av1611jim

    av1611jim New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Though you guys do not intend it this way and no doubt are sincere in whatever it is you hope to accomplish with muck like this:
    IT STILL READS AS THOUGH YOU GUYS ARE SLAMMING THE KJV!!!!!
     
    #12 av1611jim, Dec 29, 2006
  13. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    You know, of course, that what is now 'J' and what is now 'I'
    used to all be lumped together as an 'I'.
    So 'Jesus' is pronounced exactly the same way one
    pronounces 'Iesus'.
     
    #13 Ed Edwards, Dec 29, 2006
  14. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'll agree with you if you rephrase as:

    IT STILL READS AS THOUGH YOU GUYS
    ARE SLAMMING THE KJVs

    Thank you for your kind attention to the matter.

    -Ed,
    Who uses more KJVs than even I knew until
    today :praying:
     
    #14 Ed Edwards, Dec 29, 2006
  15. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,217
    Likes Received:
    406
    Faith:
    Baptist
    How is providing accurate information about editions of the KJV supposedly "slamming the KJV?" Are you suggesting that the truth is harmful or wrong?

    Do you think when sincere KJV-only advocates make inaccurate claims about the KJV that it helps the KJV?
     
    #15 Logos1560, Dec 29, 2006
  16. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,217
    Likes Received:
    406
    Faith:
    Baptist
    If some online editions or revisions of the KJV and editions of only the KJV's N. T. were also included, the count could be larger than the seven to ten range I suggested earlier.

    Others that could possibly be included are the 1998 King James Clarified New Testament edited by Bill McGinnis, the 1999 American King James Version edited by Michael Engelbrite, the 2000 Revised King James New Testament edited by Brad Baugaard, the 2000 Updated KJV, the “Comfort-able” KJV in The Evidence Bible, the 2003 Revised KJV edited by Fred Miller, the AV7, the Easy Reading KJV, and the 2006 A Voice in the Wilderness [updated KJV by Max Mader]. Some may consider the KJ21 to be only an updated edition of the KJV.
     
    #16 Logos1560, Dec 29, 2006
  17. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    I found I have some 'different' KJVs.

    I have an unidentified Edition of the KJV of the "Standard Text Edition'
    from Cambridge University Press. It has an eight letter 'Saviour'
    in Jeremiah 14:8.

    I inherited an American Bible Society KJV dated 1851 (the date
    page is the first page intact. The last page intact starts Rev.
    chapter 7. One page up front says "Nonpareil -- 94th Edition".
    This also has an eight letter 'Saviour' in Jere 14:8

    My KJV1769 with Strongs numbers has the six letter
    'savior'. Here is how Bro. Stong handled it:

    H3467
    ישׁע
    yâsha‛
    yaw-shah'
    A primitive root; properly to be open, wide or free,
    that is, (by implication) to be safe; causatively
    to free or succor: - X at all, avenging, defend,
    deliver (-er), help, preserve, rescue, be safe,
    bring (having) salvation, save (-iour), get victory.

    Strong dodged the whole issue by not using
    'savior'     nor 'saviour' :)
     
    #17 Ed Edwards, Dec 29, 2006
  18. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    As has been pointed out here in these forums ad nauseum, no one is "slamming" the KJVs. The point in many posts is simply to show, despite untruthful claims to the contrary, that there really are differences in the various editions of the KJV. The KJV, no matter which of the various editions you may prefer to use, is one of the best English translations of God's word in the history of English Bibles - yet the KJV is not the only legitimate translation of God's word into English as some erroneously claim. The word of God is found in the KJVs, the NASB, the NKJV, the NIV, the HCSB, and many other English Bible versions. So when folks make the claim that other folks are attacking or "slamming" the KJV, their claims are totally false. These claims are based in error and confusion, and in some cases, deliberate misrepresentation. The only "muck" is from believers in the often-disproven KJVO error.
     
    #18 Keith M, Dec 30, 2006
  19. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Every false or inaccurate claim made in the name of the King James Version of the Bible which is used in a comparative contrast to a valid MV as being defective and therefore untrustworthy is also a slam against that MV.

    Most if not all MV users not versed in the original languages were well pleased to use all the versions available including the KJV to find the "sense" of the Scriptures. It was not until the radical KJVO started with the some of their outrageous claims here on the BB a few years ago that many of us felt the need to squelch those inaccuracies.

    Personally I don't relish pointing out the weaknesses of any version even those produced by cultic groups.

    The irony is that the KJV of the Bible and its translators have (to one degree or another) these very same weaknesses the radical KJVO claimed for the MVs.

    If folks want us to stop pointing out these KJV weaknesses the solution is a simple one.

    Stop "slamming" the MVs directly or by implication.

    There is a backlash and it will probably go on for a while, but even when things start to settle down some radical KJVO newbie shows up and starts again with the inflammatory remarks.

    Matthew 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them...

    HankD
     
    #19 HankD, Dec 30, 2006
  20. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Whenever people wrongly claim the KJV to be the ONLY valid English Bible version, they'll be opposed, because their claim is simply INCORRECT.

    One of their incorrect claims is that the KJV is absitively, posolutely PERFECT. Knowing this isn't so, we speak in opposition and post the data PROVING their claim wrong. What Logos is doing here is showing differences between editions, not claiming one or the other is wrong. This begs some questions to the "perfect" advocates: WHICH KJV EDITION IS PERFECT, AND BY WHAT CRITERIA DO YOU PROCLAIM IT PERFECT? There can only be one "perfect". If there's one punctuation mark's difference between the 'perfect' edition and another edition, that other edition isn't perfect.
     
    #20 robycop3, Dec 30, 2006
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 1 of 2
Loading...