KJBible Quest!

Your not the only one, Robin! I'm beginning to wonder about some of them as well. Such as the Nelson, and I still havn't quite figured out exacly what the verse was, but I was glad for the info everyone posted though.
I have a Scolfield KJV, and I have to be careful about the notes.
I don't have that many Bibles in my house, by diffrent publishers, most are Nelson or Scholfield, but all KJV, so I can't really compare.
I have compared KJV with NIV, and KJV with NKJV, KJV with NLT, and I still prefere my KJV over all. It's easier for me, and I just plain belive it's the truth and that's final.
And please! let's not start a debate on this! Let's just study to see what we find.
~Abby

 

Hi! I have also been doing some investigating lately. LOL How could I not? I have just always used a KJB. Everyone in my family has also and I have always been told that it's the best, most accurate translation in english. I have read passages from some modern translations (can't remember exactly which ones) and still prefer the language of my KJB. I am with you in not knowing that there were inaccuracies not only in the translation itself, but between publishers. Now don't get me wrong, I'm nowhere near ditching my KJB for a MT, But I just feel compelled to investigate this fully.

Now for my question (about time I got around to it, amen? ). Do you remember the forum and title of the thread where Brian listed the differences in those verses? I would like to see what my Bibles have. The one I take to church with me is a Zondervan printed in the early '70's. I have had it since I was a kid. I also have an Oxford printed in 1935 and I'm curious to see if the differences you spoke of show up in that one. I have one from DeVore & Sons printed in '51, and my husband has a Nelson that is only 3 years old. My kids have KJB's from Holman publishers and also World publishers. Whew! That's a bunch, isn't it?

Anyway, thanks for any information and I hope you get an answer about a good book on the subject.

 

Holy Smoke Farmer's Wife, a KJVO textual critic!

Who could have guessed?



HankD

 

I don't see why you ladies worry about such trival matters. From John Gill the great expositor of the whole Bible... And they had in their inheritance Beersheba and Sheba,.... Or, Beersheba, that is, Sheba; for so the particle "vau" is sometimes used {z}, and must be so used here; or otherwise, instead of thirteen, it will appear that there are fourteen cities, contrary to the account of them, Jos 19:6; so Kimchi and Ben Melech make them one city. And it may be observed, that in the enumeration of the cities of Simeon, 1Ch 4:28; Sheba is left out, and only Beersheba is mentioned; which, was a well known place in, the farthest border of the land of Israel southward, and the reason of its name is manifest, Ge 21:31;... They are the same city and you should know that cities have changed names all through the bible and were the same city with a different name. The reason for the name change was in regards to the inhibitants and their culture! That is why acheologist find cities on top of cities... Beersheba and Sheba were the same place. The interpretation for Beeersheba is... well of an oath... The interpretation for Sheba is... swear seven times by an oath.

Genesis 21:29 And Abimelech said unto Abraham, What mean these seven ewe lambs which thou hast set by themselves?

30 And he said, For these seven ewe lambs shalt thou take of my hand, that they may be a witness unto me, that I have digged this well.

31 Wherefore he called that place Beersheba; because there they sware both of them.

32 Thus they made a covenant at Beersheba: then Abimelech rose up, and Phichol the chief captain of his host, and they returned into the land of the Philistines.

33 And Abraham planted a grove in Beersheba, and called there on the name of the LORD, the everlasting God... Now the way I understand this is Abraham called the place Beersheba and Abimelech called it Sheba... Since Abraham digged the well it is Beersheba but the oath was of importance to Abimelech not the well so he called it Sheba... I hope this clears up the so called error which wasn't one!... Brother Glen

[ July 24, 2002, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]

 

Wow!!! Thanks, Bro.Glen! I knew there weren't any "errors" per se, but that did throw me about the "and/or" thingie...Many of my older relatives were Primitive Baptists somewhere back in the woods & hollers of Mississippi & all I'd ever known was the King James...that WAS the Bible...know what I mean?

 

That is why the KJV is unlike any other translation you have to dig out the Gospel truths. Rule of thumb... "There is never contradiction of scripture"... If you think you have found one look harder the answer is always there hidden in the word of God... That has been my experience of 35 years of study!... Brother Glen

 

Farmers wife I don't own a Cambridge but I know they are the best for quality. Speaking about buying a new Bible here is a link I started on quality KJV Bibles. Hope this helps... Brother Glen

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=15&t=000160&p=

 

Wow. Most KJV-only supporters I show this to just brush it off, I'm glad to see you're running with this. Keep going!!!!

So now you've decided on Cambridge (now you can tell other KJV-only supporters to get a REAL Bible, and not a perverted counterfeit ), you now have to figure out which edition of Cambridge's text. Say you decide on the 1789. Then you can start a whole new "-ism": 1789-Cambridge-KJV-onlyism, and you can tell everyone else that other edition/publisher/translation is not "God's word". Once you decide on an edition, you then have to decide on the one with the right font (jots and tittles, you know), date of publication, etc.

It's good to see you running down this path, because when you reach the end, you may just finally realize (like I did when I ran down this same path several years ago) that people, even KJV translators, printers and publishers, make mistakes - and a mistake does not strip a translation of the title "the word of God". Eventually on this path, it becomes so narrow just before a fork in the road, where the sign on one path is "I and only I have the 'word of God'" and the sign on the other path is "Hey, maybe I misunderstood the definition of "preservation" after all."



God bless you in your quest,
Brian Tegart

 

This is an interesting statement since no concrete proof is offered when someone asks how you know that the KJVO view is true.

So effectively, you decided what the truth was then began to look for evidence to support your conclusion?? This is the same basic logic that creation apologists often confront evolutionists with... decide what the conclusion is then ignore or explain away all evidence to the contrary.

Based on what? This whole thread is based on a misunderstanding of what is meant by Word of God. Here are Webster's definitions for "word":
1. The spoken sign of a conception or an idea; an articulate or vocal sound, or a combination of articulate and vocal sounds, uttered by the human voice, and by custom expressing an idea or ideas; a single component part of human speech or language; a constituent part of a sentence; a term; a vocable.
2. Hence, the written or printed character, or combination of characters, expressing such a term; as, the words on a page.
3. pl. Talk; discourse; speech; language.
4. Account; tidings; message; communication; information; -- used only in the singular.
5. Signal; order; command; direction.
6. Language considered as implying the faith or authority of the person who utters it; statement; affirmation; declaration; promise.
7. pl. Verbal contention; dispute.
8. A brief remark or observation; an expression; a phrase, clause, or short sentence. [/b]

Since we no longer have the originals that God inspired, neither #1 nor #2 are applicable. #4 and #5 combined express the concept best. (Example. "Give them word to start.""Let me have a word with you.") The critical thing is not how something is said but the substance of what is communicated.

This concern over whether the Oxford or Cambridge, this publisher or that publisher has the correct KJV is folly. They are all the Word of God as defined correctly. God never inspired (chose) English words (definition #1/2) to communicate His Word (definition #4/5). This fact is why we persistently ask you to prove your views with historical facts or scripture.

 

My KJV of choice is the Cambridge because of the wide margin edition. I love to be able to take notes in it. I still look back frequently at the margins in teh Bible taht I used for 10 years until it fell apart. No other Bible that I know of has margins that wide for note taking (and I wouldn't have a Bible that I wouldn't write in). Now they have a new one (which I also have) that has the wide margin on 4 sides (instead of 3 like my old one). The four-sided wide margin is a built bigger and bulkier and I found that the inner margin was too hard to write in.

Anyway, for those looking for a KJV, I heartily recommend the Cambridge wide margin edition.

 

The main Cambridge editions include 1629, 1638 and 1762, there are probably others. I think the common "1769" which you may hear about the most (because it is "the KJV" used today) is from Oxford.

Some info to help you one your quest:

This link is useful: http://www.bible-researcher.com/kjv.html

This book is useful: "The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), its subsequent Reprints and modern Representatives" by F.H.A. Scrivener Cambridge: University Press, 1884).

I've never seen a copy of the book in person, but I've seen quite a bit of info from it on various websites (use a search engine).

I'm kind of interested to see where this quest takes you.

Brian

 

Here's something I dug up. It is some notes from Rick Norris, who probably knows more about differences between editions and publishers than anyone I've ever met. This list is NOT exhaustive, it is just some examples. You may want to check out these differences between a 1611 reprint and the Cambridge (or even an Oxford if you are curious), to help you in the "edition" part of your quest:

"For example, the 1611 KJV has "he came and worshipped" at Mark 5:6 while present KJV's have "he ran and worshipped." The 1611 KJV has "seek good" at Psalm 69:32 while present KJV's have "seek God." The 1611 KJV does not have "of silver" at Exodus 21:32 where present KJV's have it. Following the Latin Vulgate, the 1611 KJV omitted "Amen" at Ephesians 6:24 while present KJV's have it (Textual Emendations in the Authorized Version, p. 6). The 1611 KJV omitted "of God" at 1 John 5:12. While present KJV's have 'godly edifying" at 1 Timothy 1:4, the 1611 KJV had only "edifying." At 2 Chronicles 13:6, the 1611 KJV ended the verse with "his LORD" [Jehovah] while present KJV's have "his lord." At 2 Chronicles 28:11 and Isaiah 49:13, the 1611 KJV has "God" while present KJV's have "LORD." The 1611 has "the LORD" (Deut. 26:1) where present KJV's have "the LORD thy God." It has "the Temple" (2 Kings 11:10c) where others have "the temple of the LORD." Present KJV's change the 1611's "LORD" (Neh. 3:5) to "Lord" and the 1611's "Lord" (John 15:30) to "lord."

The 1611 KJV began Jeremiah 38:16 with this wording "So the king sware" while present KJV's have "So Zedekiah the king sware." Present KJV's add the words
"of the weight" after the word "charger" (Num. 7:31, 55). At 2 Corinthians 11:32, the 1611 KJV has "the city" while present KJV's have "the city of the Damascenes." Present KJV's have "made for them a statue" (Exod. 15:25) while the 1611 does not have "for them." The 1611 KJV has "thee" at 2 Timothy 4:13 while present KJV's have "thee and the books." Present KJV's add to the 1611 after "seek it out" the words "yet he shall not find it" (Eccl. 8:17). Following Beza's Latin translation only, the 1611 KJV has "Jesus Christ" at Romans 3:24 while present KJV's have "Christ Jesus." The 1611 has "prepared Millo" (2 Chron. 32:5) where present KJV's have "repaired Millo." Present KJV's have "holy house" (2 Chron. 3:10) where the 1611 has "holy place." Present KJV's have "one place" (1 Cor. 14:23) where the 1611 has "some place". "