Do we have any kjvo, 2nd attempt

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Jkdbuck76, Feb 14, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jkdbuck76

    Jkdbuck76
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    2,263
    Likes Received:
    64
    Ok. We were all moderatiOWNED on the last thread for breaking Rule 9. And rightfully so, Squire threw a yellow flag on the play.

    One point was brought up by Jordan that if we wanted a kjv Bible, we needed to get a Cambridge. Ok....why? Why not an Oxford?

    Also, what is meant by "corrupt"? Is it the dictionary version?

    Edit: we had some interesting points going. Please use logic and reason. Refrain from personal attacks. Adress the issues and please keep this about the issues and not each other.

    Sent from my SM-T230 using Tapatalk
     
    #1 Jkdbuck76, Feb 14, 2016
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2016
  2. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,192
    Likes Received:
    1,315
    Yes, but admonishing the offender and editing the offensive language may have been a better solution to the problem. :)
    Good question. It is the 1769 Oxford edition that most KJV people use, with a few exceptions. In my opinion the 1873 Scrivener Cambridge edition is more accurate than the 1769 which most KJVOs consider their "perfect" version. I have never heard an adequate explanation of why.
    Corrupt can have several definitions. It is true that all extant Greek manuscripts have exhibited some minor corruptions through the copying and aging process (at least as far as we can tell. How would we know if a single manuscript were perfect to the original as we no longer have an original to compare it to). But I doubt that is what a KJVO means. I suspect the term refers to a more dastardly conspiracy to deliberately adulterate the bible to the point it is no longer "able to make you wise unto salvation." But that is just my opinion and I will let the KJVOs speak for themselves.:)
    Yes. This is an issue that needs to be dragged out into the open and honestly discussed or it will continue to divide us over that which ought to unite us, the bible. :)
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. SovereignGrace

    SovereignGrace
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2015
    Messages:
    2,781
    Likes Received:
    493
    1611, 1769, or 1873? Which is the KJVO's bible of choice? Plus with three different KJB's in circulation, how can one be KJVO with three different KJB's available? o_O
     
  4. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Actually there are more than three varying editions of the KJV in print today. There may be as many as thirty varying editions of the KJV in print today. Cambridge University Press printed six varying editions of the KJV in 2011 [Concord edition, Clarion edition, Transetto Text edition, Standard Text Edition or Emerald edition, Pitt Minion edition, 2011 New Cambridge Paragraph Bible edited by David Norton].

    I know of no KJV edition in print today that is identical to the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV. I have found as many as 400 differences between the 1769 Oxford KJV and most present typical KJV editions.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  5. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,455
    Likes Received:
    93
    KJVO, 2nd attempt?

    Is that the 1769 edition?
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  6. SovereignGrace

    SovereignGrace
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2015
    Messages:
    2,781
    Likes Received:
    493
    I have some KJB's that have Timothy and some that say Timotheus. o_O Confused Cautious
     
  7. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    Why do you believe that the1873 Scrivener Cambridge edition is more accurate than the 1769 Oxford edition? Do you believe that the the 1873 Scrivener Cambridge edition is more accurate than the current Cambridge editions? When you say “more accurate,’ do you mean ‘closer to the most likely original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts,’ or ‘closer to one of the two 1611 editions of the KJV?’, or something else?
     
  8. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,192
    Likes Received:
    1,315
    Because Scrivener investigated the source of each variant and compared the textual foundation of each and restored some of the changes that made their way into the 1769 edition that were less well attested to than the original reading.

    When I say it is, in my opinion, more accurate than the 1762/1769 I mean that it is closer to the readings of the original 1611. After all, if you are going to call it an AV 1611 shouldn't its text reflect the translational choices of the 1611 translation committees? :)
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  9. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    Thank you!
     
  10. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    I have many copies of the KJV published by a number of publishers, and the text varies from publisher to publisher. The text found KJV Bibles published by the American Bible Society is quite different from the texts published by Cambridge or Oxford.
     
  11. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    There were 6,565 marginal notes in the Old Testament and 777 in the New (not including the Apochrypha). Could a variation of the KJV use a large number of the marginal alternatives from the 1611 in the actual text instead?

    The following marginal alternatives (Or:"...) from Romans alone are found in the NIV.

    1:9 : in my spirit
    3:9 : charged
    7:5 : passions
    8:11 : because of his spirit
    11:7 : hardened
    11:12 : loss
    11:36 : him
    13 : decently
     
  12. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,192
    Likes Received:
    1,315
    In the OT there were qere and ketive pairs, one reading in the text and a different reading in the margin. The KJV was inconsistent in following one or the other. That inconsistency grew more pronounced over the years as the revisers chose one over the other. The 1873 returned most of those to the original reading.
     
  13. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    This 1873 and present KJV edition has "strain out" at Matthew 23:24 instead of "strain at." It has "profession of our hope" at Hebrews 10:23 instead of "profession of our faith." At John 10:25, this 1873 edition has "ye believe not" in agreement with several of the earlier English Bibles while most present KJV's have "ye believed not." At Acts 25:23, it has "were entered" in agreement with several earlier English Bibles while most KJV's have "was entered" following the Bishops' Bible. This 1873 edition has "thy mercy's sake" (Psalm 6:4, 31:16, 44:26) for the Oxford edition's "thy mercies' sake," “fathers‘ house“ for “father‘s house“ (1 Chron. 7:2, Ezra 2:59, Neh. 7:61), “heart’s lust” for “hearts’ lust” (Ps. 81:12), “Adder‘s poison“ for “adders‘ poison“ (Ps. 140:3), “fools‘ back” for “fool‘s back“ (Prov. 26:3), “merchant’s ships” for “merchants’ ships” (Prov. 31:14), “priests‘” for “priest’s” (Ezek. 44:30), “potter’s clay” for “potters’ clay” (Dan. 2:41), and “oaths’ sake” for “oath’s sake” (Matt. 14:9, Mark 6:26).

    From the second 1611 “She” edition, the 1873 Cambridge has “possession“ for “possessions“ (Gen. 47:27), “ye shall“ for “shall ye“ (Lev. 18:30), “thou shalt“ for “shalt thou“ (Num. 10:2), “the valleys“ for “valleys“ (Deut. 8:7), “it is true“ for “it be true“ (Deut. 17:4), “she rose“ for “she arose“ (1 Kings 3:20), “bondman“ for “bondmen“ (1 Kings 9:22), “maidens“ for “maids“ (Job 19:15), “thine hand“ for “thy hand“ (Isa. 64:8), “mine hands” for “my hands” (Isa. 65:2), “mine hand” for “my hand” (Jer. 25:15, Ezek. 6:14), “with the sword“ for “by the sword“ (Ezek. 31:18), “in pieces“ for “to pieces“ (Dan. 2:34), and “they be drunken“ for “they are drunken“ (Nahum 1:10)..

    The text of this KJV edition is more in agreement with the 1611 “he” edition than are most other present KJV editions. Scrivener presented a list of the places in his 1873 edition that he restored 1611 readings (Authorized Edition, pp. 215-237). Compared to the Oxford KJV text in the Scofield Reference Bible, the Old Testament of this edition has “you“ for “ye“ (Gen. 9:4), “Girgashite“ for “Girgasite“ (Gen. 10:16), “towards“ for “toward“ (Gen. 15:5), “this thing“ for “this thing also“ (Gen. 19:21), “lift“ for “lifted“ (Gen. 22:4), “amongst“ for “among“ (Gen. 23:10), “to him“ for “unto him“ (Gen. 25:33), “Philistims“ for “Philistines“ (Gen. 26:1), "hand” for “hands” (Gen. 39:1), “spirit” for “Spirit” (Gen. 41:38), “drunk“ for “drank“ (Gen. 43:34), “Haste you“ for “Haste ye“ (Gen. 45:9), “And you“ for “And ye“ (Gen. 45:13), “any man” for “any men” (Gen. 47:6), “you did“ for “ye did“ (Exod. 10:11), “consecrations“ for “consecration“ (Exod. 29:26), “clothes“ for “cloths“ (Exod. 31:10), “stript“ for “stripped“ (Exod. 33:6), “manner fat“ for “manner of fat“ (Lev. 7:23), “nor scales“ for “and scales“ (Lev. 11:10), “were“ for “are“ (Lev. 25:23), “river side“ for “river‘s side“ (Num. 24:6), “begun“ for “began“ (Num. 25:1), “thy hand“ for “thine hand“ (Deut. 2:24), “thy heart“ for “thine heart“ (Deut. 15:7), “thy oil“ for “thine oil“ (Deut. 18:4), “all lost thing“ for “all lost things“ (Deut. 22:3), “noondays“ for “noonday“ (Deut. 28:29), “even the Lord” for “of the Lord” (Josh. 3:11), “or Sheba“ for “and Sheba“ (Josh. 19:2), “spirit” for “Spirit” (Jud. 3:10), “a hammer“ for “an hammer“ (Jud. 4:21), “he went” for “she went” (Ruth 3:15), “girt“ for “girded“ (1 Sam. 2:4), “my heart“ for “mine heart“ (1 Sam. 2:35), “in the fields” for “in the field” (1 Sam. 20:5), “wrapt“ for “wrapped“ (1 Sam. 21:9), “rose“ for “arose“ (1 Sam. 24:8), “a hill“ for “an hill“ (1 Sam. 26:13), “thy word“ for “thy words“ (1 Kings 3:12), “the LORD“ for “the Lord“ (1 Kings 8:56), “flotes“ for “floats“ (1 Kings 5:9), “son” for “sons” (1 Kings 13:11), “leese“ for “lose“ (1 Kings 18:5), “a horse “ for “an horse“ (1 Kings 20:20), “neesed“ for “sneezed“ (2 Kings 4:35), “kab“ for “cab“ (2 Kings 6:25), “to give to him“ for “to give him“ (2 Kings 8:19), “Geshan“ for “Gesham“ (1 Chron. 2:47), “Shimron“ for “Shimrom“ (1 Chron. 7:2), “men of might” for “valiant men of might” (1 Chron. 7:5), “son“ for “sons“ (1 Chron. 7:35), “Michah“ for “Micah“ (1 Chron. 23:20), “and laid” for “and they laid” (2 Chron. 29:23), “sin“ for “sins“ (2 Chron. 33:19), “and gold” for “and the gold” (Ezra 7:18), “built“ for “builded“ (Neh. 3:1), “cruddled“ for “curdled“ (Job 10:10), “sent“ for “scent“ (Job 14:9), “flying” for “fleeing” (Job 30:3), “the LORD“ for “the Lord“ (Ps. 2:4), “whiles” for “while” (Ps. 49:18), “holy Spirit“ for “holy spirit“ (Ps. 51:11), “Zion“ for “Sion“ (Ps. 65:1), “stablish“ for “establish“ (Ps. 89:4), “snare” for “snares” (Ps. 141:9), “vapour” for “vapors” (Ps. 148:8), “beareth“ for “bear“ (Song of Solomon 4:2), “mixt“ for “mixed“ (Isa. 1:22), “Get you” for “Get you” (Isa. 30:11), “burnt“ for “burned“ (Jer. 1:16), “nor daughters” for “or daughters” (Jer. 16:2), “sith“ for “since“ (Jer. 23:38), “afterwards” for “afterward” (Jer. 34:11), “word which“ for “word that“ (Jer. 40:1), “utter court” for “outer court” (Ezek. 10:5), “cropt“ for “cropped“ (Ezek. 17:4), “And the word” for “The word” (Ezek. 18:1), “ebeny“ for “ebony“ (Ezek. 27:15), “astrologians“ for “astrologers“ (Dan. 2:27), “a whirlwind” for “the whirlwind” (Hos. 13:3), “ript“ for “ripped“ (Hos. 13:16), “Kerioth“ for “Kirioth“ (Amos 2:2), “flieth” for “fleeth” (Nah. 3:16), and “Lord GOD“ for “LORD God“ (Hab. 3:19).

    In the New Testament, this 1873 and present KJV edition has “but will” for “but he will” (Matt. 3:12), “Spirit“ for “spirit“ (Matt. 4:1), “a hungred“ for “an hungred“ (Matt. 4:2), “out the devils“ for “out devils“ (Matt. 9:34), “Is this“ for “Is not this“ (Matt. 12:23), “had not root” for “had no root” (Matt. 13:6), “a hymn“ for “an hymn“ (Matt. 26:30), “ought“ for “owed“ (Luke 7:41), “he said“ for “he had said“ (Luke 8:8), “to my Lord“ for “unto my Lord“ (Luke 20:42), “They say” for “They said” (John 11:34), “Canaan“ for “Chanaan“ (Acts 7:11, 13:19), “house“ for “housetop“ (Acts 10:9), “law of the husband“ for “law of her husband“ (Rom. 7:2), “approved to death” for “appointed to death” (1 Cor. 4:9), “hand“ for “hands“ (2 Cor. 5:1), “think you“ for “think ye“ (2 Cor. 12:19), “passed“ for “past“ (Eph. 2:11), “shamefastness” for “shamefacedness” (1 Tim. 2:9), “or by our epistle“ for “or our epistle“ (1 Thess. 2:15), “which doeth“ for “that doeth“ (1 John 2:29), “precious stone” for “precious stones” (Rev. 17:4), “sailers“ for “sailors“ (Rev. 18:17), “dipt” for “dipped” (Rev. 19:13), and several others.
     
  14. Jkdbuck76

    Jkdbuck76
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    2,263
    Likes Received:
    64
    Quiet in here....

    Sent from my SM-T230 using Tapatalk
     
  15. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Would a variation of the KJV --switching most of the the marginals to the main text still be considered a KJV? My question is mainly aimed at KJVOs. I rather doubt they would accept that kind of inversion because they believe that exact phraseology is necessary to retain its perfection. Synonyms alone are anathema to them. However, as has been noted, editions of the KJV since 1611 have indeed put a number of marginals into the text and readers of the KJV either did not notice or didn't think it was a big deal.

    But if the NIV followed the same principle it would still be an NIV edition. The same applies to many other translations.
     
  16. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,074
    Likes Received:
    102
    To start off on another rabbit trail, has anyone looked at the new Cambridge KJV produced by David Norton? Is it fair to say that Norton is the Scrivener of this generation?
     
  17. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    The 2005 New Cambridge Paragraph Bible edited by David Norton is another present KJV edition. Like Scrivener’s 1873 edition, this 2005 edition restores many renderings found in the 1611 edition. It likely goes back to more 1611 renderings than Scrivener’s 1873. This 2005 Cambridge edition is not every word the same as the 1873 Cambridge edition in text. In his “Editor’s Introduction,” David Norton wrote: “Except where there are good reasons to think that the first edition does not represent the readings the translators decided on, first edition readings are restored. Consequently, The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible gives the reader as closely as possible the exact text that the King James translators themselves decided on -- but which was far from perfectly realised in the first edition. The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible is the translators’ Bible” (p. ix). Norton added: “In short, what The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible does is to modernise the spelling of the Bible without sinning against the language of the translators” (p. x). This standard Cambridge edition does not put words in italics. The text of this edition is also found in the 2006 Penguin Classics Bible.

    There would be around 4000 differences in text that affect the sound in this 2005 Cambridge edition when compared to the Oxford edition in the Scofield Reference Bible. Hundreds [perhaps a thousand] of these differences would be where it goes back to 1611 renderings. The updating of the spelling of many words also affected the sound over 1,700 times [examples include “baked“ for “baken,” “bore” for “bare” used as a past tense verb, “begot” for “begat,” “broke” for “brake,” “built” for “builded,” “”dug” for “digged,“ drove” for “drave,” “dwelt“ for “dwelled,” “got“ for “gat,” “show” for “shew,” “showed” or “shown” for “shewed,” “shone“ for “shined,” “strewed“ for “strawed,” “swore” for “sware,” “tore“ for “tare,” “waxed“ for “waxen“]. In addition, the 2005 Cambridge used “a” instead of “an” before several words starting with h (over 300 differences). The 2005 Cambridge also used “thy” or “my” when used as adjectives instead of “thine” and “mine” in many cases (over 1100 differences).

    Some other example changes include the following: “And Abram” for “But Abram” (Gen. 16:6), “innocence” for “innocency” (Gen. 20:5), “seethed” for “sod” (Gen. 25:29), “endowed” for “endued” (Gen. 30:20), “chided” for “chode” (Gen. 31:36), “hindmost” for “hindermost” (Gen. 33:2), “aught” for “ought” (Gen. 47:18), “excellence” for “excellency” (Exod. 15:7), “showbread“ for “shewbread“ (Exod. 25:30), “always“ for “alway“ (Exod. 25:30), “rearward” for “rereward” (Num. 10:25), “ribbon” for “ribband” (Num. 15:38), “diverse“ for “divers“ (Deut. 22:11), “avowed“ for “avouched“ (Deut. 26:17), “haemorrhoids” for “emerods” (Deut. 28:27), “hocked” for “houghed” (Josh. 11:9), “wrung“ for “wringed“ (Jud. 6:38), “arrogance” for “arrogancy” (1 Sam. 2:3), “situated” for “situate” (1 Sam. 14:5), “sawn“ for “sawed“ (1 Kings 7:9), “cleaved” for “clave” (1 Kings 11:2), shreded“ for “shred“ (2 Kings 4:39), “attentive“ for “attent“ (2 Chron. 7:15), “upheld“ for “upholden“ (Job 4:4), “shaped“ for “shapen“ (Ps. 51:5), “shook“ for “shaked“ (Ps. 109:25), “ploughmen“ for “plowman“ (Isa. 28:24), “tablet“ for “table“ (Isa. 30:8), “cockatrice‘s eggs“ for “cockatrice‘ eggs“ (Isa. 59:5), “insatiable“ for “unsatiable“ (Ezek. 16:28), “hose“ for “hosen“ (Dan. 3:21), “overflowed“ for “overflown“ (Dan. 11:22), “vats“ for “fats“ (Joel 2:24), “tablets“ for “tables“ (Hab. 2:2), “priced“ for “prised“ (Zech. 11:13), “whilst” for “whiles” (Matt. 5:25), astonished“ for “astonied“ (Matt. 13:54), “oaths‘ sake“ for “oath‘s sake“ (Matt. 14:9), “unwashed“ for “unwashen“ (Matt. 15:20), “louring“ for “lowring“ (Matt. 16:3), “spat“ for “spit“ (Mark 8:23), “wine-vat“ for “wine fat“ (Mark 12:1), “Elizabeth“ for “Elisabeth“ (Luke 1:5), “leapt“ for “leaped“ (Luke 1:41), “writing-tablet“ for “writing table“ (Luke 1:63), “showing“ for “shewing“ (Luke 1:80), “thanks“ for “thank“ (Luke 6:32), “spat“ for “spitted“ (Luke 18:32), “others“ for “other“ (Luke 23:32), “Canaan“ for “Chanaan“ (Acts 7:11), “aware“ for “ware“ (Acts 14:6), “others“ for “other“ (Acts 17:9), “hoisted“ for “hoised“ (Acts 27:40), “immovable” for “unmoveable” (Acts 27:41), “incorruptible” for “incorruptible” (Rom. 1:23), “Timothy“ for “Timotheus“ (2 Cor. 1:19), “tablets“ for “tables“ (2 Cor. 3:3), “engraved“ for “engraven“ (2 Cor. 3:7), “all others“ for “all other“ (2 Cor. 13:2), “others“ for “other“ (Gal. 1:19), “sometime” for “sometimes” (Eph. 2:13, 5:8), “others“ for “other“ (Phil. 1:17, 2:3), “example” for “ensample” (Phil. 3:17), “establish“ for “stablish“ (1 Thess. 3:13), “braided“ for “broided“ (1 Tim. 2:9), “fly” for “flee” (1 Tim. 6:11), “Luke“ for “Lucas“ (Philemon 1:24), “tablets“ for “tables“ (Heb. 9:4), and “diverse“ for “divers“ (Heb. 13:9).

    The 2011 edition by Norton makes a few other changes, not in the 2005 edition.
     
  18. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Why all the fuss? English is so heavily-used worldwide that it constantly undergoes small changes almost weekly, and from nation to nation. The main point of importance is that we UNDERSTAND the Bible we are reading, be it the KJV, ESV, or any other accurate translation.

    I have a Cambridge Edition KJV, a repro AV 1611, and several other KJV volumes, likely 1769 editions. I understand all of them equally, despite the small differences in wording, spelling, etc.

    And I also KNOW-not GUESS-that GOD IS NOT LIMITED to the KJV in English. that's why I have several other translations, from a repro Geneva to the ESV, and I also read Wycliffe's 1384 edition online. I have learned something from each & every one of them. After all, that's why God caused/allowed them to be made.
     
  19. Jkdbuck76

    Jkdbuck76
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    2,263
    Likes Received:
    64
    Mods, pls close this thread since it is dead.

    Sent from my SM-T230 using Tapatalk
     
  20. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,074
    Likes Received:
    102
    Closed at the author's request.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...