Oxford/Cambridge Comparison Chart

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Logos1560, May 1, 2009.

  1. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A Chart for comparing Oxford and Cambridge KJV Editions[/FONT]


    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Scripture Reference[/FONT]

    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Oxford KJV[/FONT]​



    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Cambridge KJV[/FONT]​


    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Genesis 15:13[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]their's [/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]theirs[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Genesis 26:20[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]our's[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]ours[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Genesis 46:12[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Zarah[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Zerah[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Deuteronomy 11:24[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]your's[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]yours[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Joshua 13:18[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Jahaza[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Jahazah[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Joshua 19:2[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]and Sheba[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]or Sheba[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Joshua 19:19[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Haphraim[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Hapharaim[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1 Samuel 31:2[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Melchi-shua[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Malchi-shua[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]2 Samuel 21:21[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Shimeah[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Shimea[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1 Kings 8:56[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]LORD[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Lord[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]2 Chronicles 33:19[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]sins[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]sin[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Ezra 2:2[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Mizpar[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Mispar[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Ezra 4:10[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Asnapper[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Asnappar[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Psalm 107:27[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]wit's end[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]wits' end[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Psalm 148:8[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]vapours[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]vapour[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Proverbs 20:25[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]enquiry[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]inquiry[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Proverbs 20:29[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]grey[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]gray[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Ecclesiastes 8:17[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]farther[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]further[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Jeremiah 34:16[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]whom he[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]whom ye[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Amos 2:2[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Kerioth[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Kirioth[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Naham 3:16[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]fleeth[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]flieth[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Matthew 2:7[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]enquired[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]inquired[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Matthew 4:1[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]spirit[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Spirit[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Mark 1:19[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]farther[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]further[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Luke 6:20[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]your's[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]yours[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1 Corinthians 4:15[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]instructers[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]instructors[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Revelation 2:6[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Nicolaitanes[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Nicolaitans[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Revelation 21:10[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]chrysolyte[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]chrysolite[/FONT]​


    This is not all the differences between the present Cambridge edition of the KJV and the present Oxford edition of the KJV. Since there are three or more Cambridge KJV editions in print today and more than one Oxford edition, this chart may not match all of them.

    This chart did not come out in chart form, and I do not know how to edit it to try to fix it.
     
    #1 Logos1560, May 1, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2009
  2. Samuel Owen

    Samuel Owen
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    0
    The two most reliable KJV versions were the Oxford 1769, and the Pure Cambridge Edition 1772, I think it was.

    The Oxford is available in the Old Scofield Reference Bible (now out of print). The Cambridge of course; in the Pure Cambridge Edition (now out of print). I have an Old Scofield from the last printing 2002, and love it.

    Sometimes you can find places that have these editions, but you have to be careful they are not counterfeit. Printed by some other house other than Oxford, or Cambridge, masquerading for the original.

    The only differences in these two editions, are a few disagreements on the spelling on half a dozen words or so. :)
     
    #2 Samuel Owen, May 1, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2009
  3. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why would you consider the 1769 and 1772 (actually maybe 1762) to be more reliable than the earlier editions?

    By what standard should Oxford and Cambridge have made the multiple editings of Dr(s). Parris and Blaney in these two editions??

    Ed
     
  4. Samuel Owen

    Samuel Owen
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    0
    I wasn't making any comparison to earlier editions, since that would be useless. You certainly! would not find any of those around today.

    As for the current KJV editions these two (Oxford 1769 & Cambridge 1762 is correct) would be more reliable than any since. Like the Scofield 1967 edition, which is supposed to be KJV, but isn't. There is a lot more fiddling with the text in that edition, than just a few old fashioned word changes.

    Or like some other KJV study Bibles I can think of, with author expanded non KJV text (Bullinger).
     
  5. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    today's Cambridge is not the 1762 Cambridge edition


    The 1762 Cambridge had some renderings kept from the 1629 Cambridge edition that are not found in many present KJV editions [“and the Hivites” (Exod. 23:23), “hands” (Jer. 12:7), “fleshly” (2 Cor. 3:3), ”in utterance” ( 2 Cor. 8:7), “thy doctrine” (1 Tim. 4:16)]. From the 1629, the 1762 KJV has “travel” (Num. 20:14), which remained in Oxford KJV editions as late as 1880. Again from the 1629, the 1762 edition has “whom he” instead of “whom ye” (Jer. 34:16). From earlier KJV editions, the 1762 KJV has “and Sheba” (Josh. 19:2). Thus, the standard 1762 Cambridge edition already had the renderings that are now considered characteristic of most present Oxford KJV editions [Josh. 19:2, Jer. 34:16], and it may have introduced two other such renderings [“sins” (2 Chron. 33:19), “fleeth” (Nahum 3:16)]. The 1762 Cambridge also used an apostrophe in possessive pronouns as now found in present Oxford editions [“their’s” (Gen. 15:13), “our’s” (Gen. 26:20), “your’s” (Gen. 45:20), “her’s” (Deut. 21:15)]. Several other renderings in the 1762 Cambridge are not found in present Cambridge KJV editions [“Heman“ instead of “Hemam“ (Gen. 36:22), “brakedst“ instead of “brakest“ (Deut. 10:2), “the widow’s raiment” instead of “a widow’s raiment” (Deut. 22:5), “Aman“ instead of “Amam“ (Josh. 15:26), “priest‘s custom“ instead of “priests‘ custom“ (1 Sam. 2:13), “Archite” instead of “Arkite” (1 Chron. 1:15), “the wood” instead of “a wood” (Ps. 83:14), “merchant ships” instead of “merchants’ ships” (Prov. 31:14), “killedst” instead of “diddest” (Acts 7:28), “those, who“ instead of “these who“ (Gal. 2:6), “and I beseech” instead of “and beseech” (Phil. 4:2), “be ye warmed and be ye filled” instead of “be ye warmed and filled” (James 2:16)]. The 1762 edition made more use of hyphens than some present KJV editions. For example, it has “son-in-law“ (Gen. 19:12), “to-day“ (Gen. 21:26), “four-square“ (Exod. 38:1), and “mother-in-law” (Ruth 1:14). In addition, there are over 300 more renderings in the 1762 Cambridge that are different from most present Cambridge editions since these changes were not introduced until the 1769 Oxford.
     
  6. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    You are claiming that the 1967 Scofield edition is not really a KJV? That's a new one.

    So it's your position that there are such marked differences from the Blayney edition that the 1967 should not be considered a 'real KJV?'

    I think there are a multitude of more differences between the 1611 and the 1769 edition than there are between the 1769 and the 1967.

    Please explain your logic.
     
  7. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    1769 Oxford text differs from present Oxford KJV text

    All spelling updating in KJV editions was not finished by 1769. The 1762 Cambridge edition, a 1769 Cambridge edition, the 1769 Oxford edition, and even later Oxford editions printed in 1795, 1799, 1804, and even as late as 1810 still have a character shaped like “f” for long “s” in many words. A few examples of the use of this character in the 1795 Oxford KJV edition: “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). The spelling of other words was also changed or updated after 1769, some after 1840, and some even after 1885. The change in several words may have been made after 1804 [“befel“ to “befell“ (2 Sam. 15:12), “Judea” to “Judaea” (Matt. 2:1), “Lebbeus” to “Lebbaeus” (Matt. 10:3), “Arimathea” to “Arimathaea” (Matt. 27:57), “Idumea” to “Idumaea” (Mark 3:8), “Alpheus” to “Alphaeus” (Mark 3:18), “Thaddeus” to “Thaddaeus” (Mark 3:18), “Bartimeus” to “Bartimaeus” (Mark 10:46), “Cesar’s” to “Caesar’s” (Mark 12:17), “vail” to “veil” (Mark 15:38), etc.] although some present KJV editions have gone back to the earlier spelling in same cases. Some words were changed after 1840 in Oxford editions [“houfhold” or “houshold” to “household” (Gen. 18:19), “houfholds” or “housholds” to “households” (Gen. 42:33), “houfholder” or “housholder” to “householder” (Matt. 13:27), “broidered” to “broided” (1 Tim. 2:9), “injoined” to “enjoined” (Heb. 9:20), etc.]. A few spelling changes were made after 1880 in Oxford editions: [“enquire” to “inquire” (Gen. 24:57), “ax” to “axe” (Deut. 19:5), “ancles” to “ankles” (Ezek. 47:3), “sope“ to “soap“ (Mal. 3:2), “ancle” to “ankle” (Acts 3:7), “enquired” to “inquired” (1 Pet. 1:10), etc.].

    KJV editions in the late 1700’s and early 1800’s also had some spelling changes or updates that are not found in all present KJV editions. The 1762 Cambridge edition already had “Rachel” instead of “Rahel” (Jer. 31:15). Some other examples can be found in a KJV edition printed at Oxford in 1804 [“plucked” for “pluckt” (Gen. 8:11), “fetched” for “fetcht” (Gen. 18:7), “stripped” for “stript” (Gen. 37:23), “rye” for “rie” (Exod. 9:32), and “crook-backed” for “crookbackt” (Lev. 21:20), etc.]. Oxford editions printed in 1795 and 1810 had “Nineveh” for “Nineve” (Luke 11:32). An Oxford edition printed in 1795 had “brazen” for “brasen” (1 Kings 14:27).


    Present Oxford KJV editions are not every word the same in text as the standard 1769 Oxford edition. The 1769 Oxford had a few renderings from the 1762 Cambridge that are not in present editions [Gen. 36:22, Deut. 10:2, 1 Sam. 2:13]. The 1769 Oxford edition had “LORD” [Jehovah] at several verses where present Oxford editions have “Lord.” Most of these changes of “LORD” to “Lord” were not introduced until after 1828. The standard 1769 Oxford edition had several other renderings that are not found in present Oxford editions [“thy progenitors” instead of “my progenitors” (Gen. 49:26), “Zithri“ instead of “Zichri“ (Exod. 6:21), “Beer-sheba, Sheba” instead of “Beer-sheba, and Sheba” (Josh. 19:2), “children of Gilead” instead of “elders of Gilead” (Jud. 11:7), “coast” instead of “coasts” (Jud. 19:29), “hasted” instead of “hastened” (1 Sam. 17:48), “on the pillars” instead of “on the top of the pillars” (2 Chron. 4:12), “thy companions” instead of “the companions” (Job 41:6), “unto me” instead of “under me” (Ps. 18:47), “feared” instead of “fear” (Ps. 60:4), “part” instead of “parts” (Ps. 78:66), “gates of iron” instead of “bars of iron” (Ps. 107:16), “mighty is spoiled“ instead of “mighty are spoiled“ (Zech. 11:2), “Now if do” instead of “Now if I do” (Rom. 7:20), “not in unbelief” instead of “not still in unbelief” (Rom. 11:23), “the earth” instead of “the world” (1 Cor. 4:13), “about” instead of “above” (2 Cor. 12:2), “you were inferior” instead of “ye were inferior” (2 Cor. 12:13), and “our joy” instead of “your joy” (1 John 1:4). Several of these 1769 renderings remained in Oxford editions over 70 years since they can still be found in a 1840 Oxford edition. At least one (Exod. 6:21) remained over 100 years since it is still in a 1872 Cambridge edition, a 1880 Oxford edition, and in many Oxford editions between 1769 and 1880. Oxford editions printed in 1795, 1799, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840, 1847, 1850, 1857, 1859, 1868, 1870, 1876, 1880, and 1885 have “travel” instead of “travail” at Numbers 20:14 and Lamentations 3:5. Oxford editions printed in 1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, and 1828 have “the holy apostles” instead of “his holy apostles” (Eph. 3:5). Other differences could be given.
     
  8. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    The 1967 edition is the New Scofield Reference Bible which did make a number of changes in the text of the KJV [the KJV's renderings were kept as marginal notes]. Several KJV-only authors have made accusations against the New Scofield, and they would also claim that it is not really a KJV.
     
  9. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Most of the differences between the Oxford KJV edition in the Scofield Reference Bible and a Cambridge KJV edition such as its Concord edition
    do involve spelling, but not all.

    Some are different words such as "or" versus "and" (Josh. 19:2),
    "flieth" versus "fleeth" ((Nah. 3:16), "ye" versus "he" (Jer. 34:16), and some involve singular/plural forms such as "sins" for "sin" (2 Chron. 33:19), "vapours" for "vapour" (Ps. 148:8), and "wit's end" for "wits' end" (Ps. 107:27).
     
  10. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    The 1769 is essentially made in the image of the 1611 KJV. A majority of KJVO folks would agree. The 1967 edition is essentially the KJV. It remains more "in the KJV fold" than the NKJ, wouldn't you agree?
     
  11. Samuel Owen

    Samuel Owen
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    0
    The 1967 Scofield KJV, other than changing most of the older words also has some alternate text, not KJV. This happens in Isaiah, I can't remember exactly the verses involved. But I found this! after I obtained a Old Scofield myself. And I am certain if I go a hunting for some, I could fine more places.

    The big rub with this, is the Editors of the 1967 edition did not say they altered some of the text, only some of the older words. But if you want, it is still more a KJV than the New KJV.
     
  12. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Overall, the 1967 New Scofield is probably closer to the KJV's renderings than the NKJV.

    In at least a place or two, the 1967 New Scofield made a change where the NKJV did not. There might be some others.

    Rev. 22:14 who do His commandments (NKJV)
    that wash their robes (New Scofield)

    Rev. 22:19 the Book of Life (NKJV)
    the tree of life (New Scofield)
     
  13. Samuel Owen

    Samuel Owen
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    0
    Verses as they appear in the Old Scofield (1917 V.) 1769 Oxford text.

    Rev:22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments (closer to the NKJV), that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
    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 (closer to the NKJV), and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

    So in this case the NKJV is closer to the Oxford Text, than the Scofield 1967 edition. The Scofield 67 edition in fact, is exactly like the NASB, following the Alexanderian text, not the TR. :)
     
    #13 Samuel Owen, May 1, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2009
  14. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry, but that response fails the "So what?" test. We do know and do have true reprints of the 1611 editions and others available for the public to purchase or acquire.

    The study Bibles with the notes, yes, for they include commentary, effectively, qnd are not to be taken as any 'inspired" commentary.

    But who has determined this standard of arbitrary 'reliability'? Where does one find this in stone, anywhere. A "change" is still a "change" is still a "change".

    FTR, I do believe the Paris, Blaney, and Scrivener editions are 'improvements' upon earlier editions, and also the 1967. I further believe the NKJV to have some improvement, as well, on the much earlier editions.

    But I am not the one who argues for some arbitrary "unchanged" edition, either.

    Ed
     
  15. Samuel Owen

    Samuel Owen
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    0
    The so called reprints of the 1611 KJV edition, are photocopies, as are the Geneva editions. They are very poor in quality, and not very readable.

    I would not even want to attempt to read one, the English, if that's what you call it is atrocious. The folks that feel the 1769 edition is out of date, need to see a 1611 photocopy. :laugh:

    My son bought one a long time ago (1611 kjv), it was actually a reprint. Anyway he took it to a Bible study, and drove everyone crazy. He was asked not to bring it back. :)
     
  16. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    It is not accurate to claim that the 1967 New Scofield was "following the Alexanderian text" since the majority of Byzantine text manuscripts are said to have the reading "tree of life" at this verse. Erasmus is said to have translated the last few verses of the book of Revelation from the Latin Vulgate, and thus the Textus Receptus reading "book of life" at Revelation 22:19 comes from the Latin Vulgate. The later printed TR editions kept this rendering where Erasmus translated the Latin reading into Greek. The Majority Text based on Byzantine manuscripts has the reading "tree of life" at this verse.
     
  17. Samuel Owen

    Samuel Owen
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    0
    No its fact, the word changes, and phrase changes in the 1967 Scofield follow the Alexanderian text.

    I have the Old Scofield, New Scofield 1967, and Scofield lll versions. It does not break my heart at all, to say the 67 Scofield differs from the other two greatly. It is not a true Scofield, or a true KJV. The Scofield lll contains the notes from the Old Scofield, the 67 version, and additional helps, so it cannot be considered a true Scofield, but is a true KJV, 1769 Oxford Standard text.

    The Old Scofield version of 1917 is the only true Scofield, and KJV. Since Scofield's notes have not been changed, or added to, and the text is the unaltered 1769 Oxford Standard.
     
  18. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, I believe that every known Greek MSS, be it MT, Alex., and/or any and all others has 'tree of life"' in Rev. 22:19.

    Even the MNT (1729) and WES (1755) had recognized this erroneous reading in the TR, by their time, with both rendering this correctly as "tree of life".

    Note, I did say MSS, not text, for there is a difference, as I'm sure you know, albeit I'm not sure that all the denizens of the BB recognize that difference. FTR, this is not any indictment of Erasmus for supplying this from what he had available. Unfortunately, his computer had not been invented yet, so was not available at that time. :type:

    FTR, We are not supposed to read theology "onto" or "into" the text, if I'm not mistaken [not being a member of some group that does so, such as the ______ (You can fill in this blank, in any manner you choose.)] but are supposed to get our theology "from" the text.

    Or did I somehow misunderstand that basic Biblical principle?

    Ed
     
    #18 EdSutton, May 1, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2009
  19. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    How do you know that C. I. Scofield would not have approved of the updatings and changes in the 1967 New Scofield?

    In 1911 just a couple years after the printing of the 1909 Scofield, C. I. Scofield was involved in the making or editing of a revised edition of the KJV. Its text has those same two changes in Revelation 22.

    It is known as the 1911 Tercentenary Commemoration Edition issued by Oxford University Press in New York. The following was stated on its title page: “The text carefully corrected and amended by American scholars.“ C. I. Scofield is said to have been one of the men involved in the making of this edition. William Paul asserted that “Scofield edited the 1911 Tercentenary Commemoration Bible” (English Language Bible Translators, p. 207). It has the chain references prepared by Scofield. The preface to this edition stated that it is “neither a new translation, nor a revision, but a scholarly and carefully corrected text of the historic English Bible” (p. 1). KJV-only author Laurence Vance acknowledged that "this revision of the Authorized Version introduced moderate corrections and improvements to the text" (Brief History, p. 65). Bruce pointed out that in this edition "the text of the A. V. was reproduced with light corrections and improvements" (History, p. 166). Philip Mauro claimed that its editors accepted less than two percent of the changes introduced by the revisers of 1881 (Fuller, True or False, p. 106). That claim suggests that its changes could number in the hundreds (possibly in the 500-700 range). The renderings of this 1911 edition were obviously not included in Scrivener's 1884 list of differences.

    Some example changes or differences in the Old Testament of this edition include “Cherubim“ for “cherubims“ (Gen. 3:24), “show“ for “shew“ (Gen. 12:1), “test“ for “tempt“ (Gen. 22:1), “warm springs” for “mules” (Gen. 36:24), “aught“ for “ought“ (Gen. 39:6), “ask” for “borrow” (Exod. 3:22), “showbread“ for “shewbread“ (Exod. 25:30), “turtle doves” for “turtles” (Lev. 12:8), “avenger“ for “revenger“ (Num. 35:19), “Anakim“ for “Anakims“ (Deut. 1:28), “wild oxen” for “unicorns” (Deut. 33:17), “plow“ for “ear“ (1 Sam. 8:12), “baggage“ for “carriage“ (1 Sam. 17:22), “weapons” for “artillery” (1 Sam. 20:40), “pipe“ for “organ“ (Job 30:31), “ask of thee“ for “demand of thee“ (Job. 42:4), “lies” for “leasing” (Ps. 5:6), “increased the joy“ for “not increased the joy“ (Isa. 9:3), “since“ for “sith“ (Ezek. 35:6), “outer“ for “utter“ (Ezek. 40:31), and “wormwood” for “hemlock” (Amos 6:12). In the New Testament, this edition has “Holy Spirit“ for “Holy Ghost“ (Matt. 1:18), “boat“ for “ship“ (Matt. 8:23), “demons“ for “devils“ (Matt. 8:28), “at once“ for “by and by“ (Matt. 13:21), “strain out” for “strain at” (Matt. 23:24), “disciple“ for “teach“ (Matt. 28:19), “Isaiah the prophet” for “the prophets” (Mark 1:2), “wine-skins” for “bottles” (Mark 2:22), “honour” for “worship” (Luke 14:10), “flock” for “fold” (John 10:16), “assembly” for “church” (Acts 7:38), “Joshua” for “Jesus” (Acts 7:45), “Passover“ for “Easter“ (Acts 12:4), “temples” for “churches” (Acts 19:37), “Spirit himself” for “Spirit itself” (Rom. 8:16), “hope” for “faith” (Heb. 10:23), “our God and Saviour Jesus Christ” for “God and our Saviour Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 1:1), “living creature“ for “beast“ (Rev. 6:3), “wash their robes“ for “do his commandments“ (Rev. 22:14), and “tree of life“ for “book of life“ (Rev. 22:19).
     
  20. Samuel Owen

    Samuel Owen
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    0
    If Scofield thought these changes to be so good, then why did he not include them in his 1917 study Bible edition. Since he made changes to some of his notes, in that edition (1917), and that was several years after 1911.

    Or maybe it was like the NASB, of which; one of the editors repented of having anything to do with. Since changing his notes required a re-typeset, there would have been no problem with changing text also.

    I am not kicking the 1967 edition to the curb, since that is the one I use for a lay around Bible. One I can pick up quickly, and that has already been worn out. It belong to my dad, and is a real genuine 67 edition bought in 1967. I am just saying what it is, and what it isn't.
     

Share This Page

Loading...