Is the E-Sword KJV edition actually the 1769 Oxford edition?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Logos1560, Jun 24, 2016.

  1. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Many assume that present post-1900 KJV editions are the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV when they are not identical to it. Most of present varying KJV editions are based on the 1769 Oxford edition, but they have as many as 400 differences with it.

    Besides over 100 differences involving LORD/Lord and GOD/God and over 100 spelling differences along with other editing differences, places where the 1769 Oxford of the KJV would differ from most present post-1900 editions include the following Old Testament examples: “Heman” (Gen. 36:22), “thy progenitors” (Gen. 49:26), “Zithri” (Exod. 6:21), “travel’ (Num. 20:14), “brakedst” (Deut. 10:2), “thy tithe“ (Deut. 12:17), “thy earth” (Deut. 12:19), “the widow’s” (Deut. 24:17), “Beer-sheba, Sheba” (Josh. 19:2), “children of Gilead” (Jud. 11:7), “all the coast” (Jud. 19:29), “in a straight“ (1 Sam. 13:6), “Shimei“ (1 Chron. 6:30), “whom God alone” (1 Chron. 29:1), “on the pillars” (2 Chron. 4:12), “thy companions’ (Job 41:6), “unto me“ (Ps. 18:47), “my foot” (Ps. 31:8), “feared” (Ps. 60:4), “in the presence” (Ps. 68:2), “part“ (Ps. 78:66), “When there were” (Ps. 105:12), “gates of iron” (Ps. 107:16), “the latter end” (Prov. 19:20), “riches, honour” (Prov. 22:4), “king of Jerusalem” (Eccl. 1:1), “gone to” (Isa. 15:2), “travel‘ (Lam. 3:5), “a brier” (Micah 7:4), and “mighty is spoiled” (Zech. 11:2).

    In the New Testament, examples include “And in the same” (Luke 7:21), “ye enter not” (Luke 11:52), “lifted“ (Luke 16:23), “and the truth” (John 14:6), “Now if do” (Rom. 7:20), “not in unbelief” (Rom. 11:23), “the earth” (1 Cor. 4:13), “was done“ (2 Cor. 3:11), “about” (2 Cor. 12:2), “you were inferior” (2 Cor. 12:13), “those who” (Gal. 2:6), “the holy apostles” (Eph. 3:5), “broidered” (1 Tim. 2:9), “sprinkled likewise” (Heb. 9:21), “our joy” (1 John 1:4), and several missing words at Revelation 18:22.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. banana

    banana
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2014
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    1
    The kjv is inferior to the NET, ESV, and NASB
     
  3. Smyth

    Smyth
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2012
    Messages:
    758
    Likes Received:
    47
    I must admit that the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV is inferior to the NET, ESV, and NASB when it comes to standards of modern spelling.
     
  4. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,634
    Likes Received:
    310
    Which may or may not be, but it is not the point of the OP.
     
  5. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    The 1769 Oxford edition was not free from all man-made errors as some KJV-only authors have claimed or assumed.

    Concerning this 1769 edition, Christopher Anderson observed: “There had not been sufficient vigilance in superintendence, as more than a hundred errors have been detected since” (Annals of the English Bible, II, p. 560). Adam Thomson claimed: “Dr. Blayney’s edition itself is very incorrect; the errors are both numerous and important” (Report from the Select Committee, March, 1860, p. 42). Blackford Condit asserted that Blayney’s 1769 edition “was not entirely free from errors, which were discovered to the number of one hundred sixteen, when it was collated for Eyre and Strahan’s edition of the Bible in 1806” (History of the English Bible, p. 397). Calmet’s Dictionary of the Holy Bible confirmed: “In collating the edition of 1806 with Dr. Blayney’s, not fewer than one hundred and sixteen errors were discovered” (I, p. 312). P. W. Raidabaugh also reported that “not fewer than one hundred and sixteen errors were discovered in collating the edition of 1806 with Dr. Blayney’s” (History of the English Bible, p. 61).

    T. H. Darlow and H. F. Moule observed that the 1769 edition "contains many misprints, probably more than 'the commonly estimated number of 116‘" (Historical Catalogue of the Printed Editions of Holy Scriptures, I, p. 294). The Cyclopaedia of Literary and Scientific Anecdote edited by William Keddie asserted: “What is in England called the Standard Bible is that printed at Oxford, in 1769, which was superintended by Dr. Blayney; yet it has been ascertained that there are at least one hundred and sixteen errors in it” (p. 189). The Cambridge History of the Bible noted that Blayney’s edition “was indeed erroneous in many places” (Vol. 3, p. 464). David Daniell also asserted that the 1769 Oxford standard KJV edition included “many errors,” and that it repeated “most of Dr. Paris’s errors” (Bible in English, pp. 606, 620). Before a committee of Parliament, Thomson stated: “Dr. Blayney’s edition itself is very incorrect; the errors are both numerous and important” (Reports from Committees, Vol. XXII, p. 42).

    E. W. Bullinger maintained that the 1762 and 1769 editions "made many emendations of the Text; some of them very needless, and also introduced errors of their own, not always those pertaining to the printer" (Figures of Speech, p. 987). Concerning this 1769 Oxford edition, Lea Wilson asserted: “I find therein many errors of considerable importance, and unwarrantable departures from the text of the first edition” (Bibles, p. 128). John M’Clintock and James Strong asserted concerning Blayney’s edition: “But very soon his errors, one by one, came to light; some were corrected at one press, some at another; just has had been the case before; passages really correct were changed in ignorance, and the upshot of it all was, that in a very few years there was no standard again” (Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. I, p. 563).
     
  6. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    In some places in the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV, the apostrophe was not yet introduced, was introduced incorrectly, or was revised in later editions.

    Some examples include the following: “three days journey“ (Gen. 30:36), “seven days journey“ (Gen. 31:23) “camels‘ furniture“ (Gen. 31:34), “priest’s custom” (1 Sam. 2:13), “two mules burden” (2 Kings 5:17), and “Mars hill“ (Acts 17:22). The 1769 Oxford has “wit’s end” at Psalm 107:27 while some present KJV editions have “wits’ end.“ A good number of present KJV editions depart from the 1769 Oxford standard edition at 1 Samuel 2:13 as they follow the 1873 Cambridge's rendering "priests' custom."

    These are more places that can be checked to see if the E-Sword edition of the KJV is actually the 1769 Oxford.
     
  7. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gordon Campbell incorrectly claimed: “In the Old Testament the only innovation since 1769 has been the change from LORD to ‘Lord’ in Nehemiah 1:11” (Bible, p. 141).

    The data collected from KJV editions shows that there are actually around 90 places where this same change has been made from the 1769 Oxford edition in most present KJV editions [besides The Companion Bible and perhaps a few others] [Gen. 18:27, Gen. 18:30, Gen. 18:31, Gen. 18:32, Gen. 20:4, Exod. 15:17, Exod. 34:9, Num. 14:17, Josh. 3:11, Jud. 13:8, 1 Kings 3:10, 1 Kings 22:6, 2 Kings 7:6, 2 Kings 19:23, Neh. 1:11, Neh. 4:14, Neh. 8:10, Job 28:28, Ps. 2:4, Ps. 22:30, Ps. 35:17, Ps. 35:22, Ps. 37:13, Ps. 38:9, Ps. 38:15, Ps. 38:22, Ps. 39:7, Ps. 40:17, Ps. 44:23, Ps. 51:15, Ps. 54:4, Ps. 55:9, Ps. 57:9, Ps. 59:11, Ps. 62:12, Ps. 66:18, Ps. 68:11, Ps. 68:17, Ps. 68:19, Ps. 68:22, Ps. 68:32, Ps. 77:2, Ps. 77:7, Ps. 78:65, Ps. 79:12, Ps. 86:3, Ps. 86:4, Ps. 86:5, Ps. 86:8, Ps. 86:9, Ps. 86:12, Ps. 86:15, Ps. 89:49, Ps. 89:50, Ps. 97:5, Ps. 110:5, Ps. 114:7, Ps. 130:2, Ps. 130:3, Ps. 130:6, Ps. 135:5, Ps. 136:3, Ps. 140:7, Ps. 141:8, Ps. 147:5, Isa. 3:17, Isa. 3:18, Isa. 4:4, Isa. 9:8, Isa. 9:17, Isa. 11:11, Isa. 21:6, Isa. 21:16, Lam. 1:14, Lam. 1:15, Lam. 2:1, Lam. 2:5, Lam. 2:7, Lam. 2:20, Lam. 3:31, Lam. 3:36, Lam. 3:37, Lam. 3:58, Ezek. 18:25, Ezek. 18:29, Zech. 4:14, Zech. 6:5, Zech. 9:4, Mal. 1:14, Mal. 3:1]. The 1769 KJV has "LORD" in those verses where many present KJV editions have "Lord."

    At three verses, the 1769 Oxford has “Lord” where present KJV editions have “LORD” [Gen. 30:30, Deut. 29:23, Jer. 7:4].
    The 1769 Oxford has “LORD God” where most present KJV editions have “Lord GOD” at some verses [Exod. 23:17, Exod. 34:23, 2 Sam. 7:18, 2 Sam. 7:19, 2 Sam. 7:20, 2 Sam. 7:28, Isa. 56:8].
    At Daniel 9:3, the 1769 Oxford has “Lord GOD” instead of “Lord God” that is in most present KJV editions.
    The 1769 Oxford has “Lord God” at seven verses where present KJV editions have “Lord GOD” [Jud. 6:22, Isa. 3:15, Isa. 61:1, Ezek. 16:23, Ezek. 23:35, Ezek. 32:11, Ezek. 45:9].
    The 1769 Oxford has “LORD GOD” at one verse [Amos 6:8].
    The 1769 Oxford still has “God” at 2 Samuel 12:22 instead of “GOD.”

    Checking the above references would show whether the E-Sword KJV edition is actually the 1769 Oxford.
     
  8. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Just this past week, I came across another example of where most present KJV editions depart from the 1769 Oxford standard so there may be others that have not been identified. At Acts 1:15, the 1769 Oxford standard actually followed the Cambridge standard as found in the 1629, the 1638, the 1743, and the 1762 editions while in the mid-1800's someone departed from it in later Cambridge and Oxford editions.

    Acts 1:15 [article or no article before names]

    the number of the names together were (1715, 1728, 1743, 1747, 1762, 1768, 1769, 1773, 1774, 1783, 1784, 1788, 1795, 1804, 1810, 1812, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1840 Oxford) [1629, 1638, 1743, 1760, 1762, 1767, 1768, 1769, 1778, 1790, 1800, 1817, 1824, 1833 Cambridge] {1672, 1747, 1763, 1768, 1795, 1811, 1816, 1818, 1824 London} (1712, 1791, 1793, 1796, 1834, 1842, 1851, 1858 Edinburgh) (1722, 1801 Dublin) (1645 Dutch) (1782 Aitken) (1784 Piguenit) (1791 Collins) (1791 Thomas) (1803 Ethridge) (1810 Woodward) (1843 ABS) (1845 Harding) (1846 Coldstream) (1846 Portland) (1833 WEB)

    the number of names together were (1847 Oxford, SRB) [1837 Cambridge, DKJB] {1611 London}
     
  9. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    I have found that there is one incomplete paperback edition of the KJV [a Nahu Public Domain Reprint] that has the actual text of Benjamin Blayney's 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV [Genesis thru Jeremiah]. I found it at amazon.

    It may have been reprinted from the incomplete edition of the 1769 Oxford KJV that can be found at books.google.com
     

Share This Page

Loading...