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!

KJV Versions.

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by 37818, Mar 19, 2021.

Tags:
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 37818

    37818 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2018
    Messages:
    6,702
    Likes Received:
    558
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Generally there is the Cambridge edition and the Oxford edition. But it really is not all that simple. Just looking at two variant readings. There are 4 variant KJV's.

    Jeremiah 34:16, "But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom ye had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection, to be unto you for servants and for handmaids." Cambridge

    Jeremiah 34:16, "But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom he had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection, to be unto you for servants and for handmaids." Oxford

    Notice the change from ye to he. The 1611 has ye. Which is correct.

    The next is an alternate spelling for Joshua unique in the KJV.

    Numbers 13:16, "These are the names of the men which Moses sent to spy out the land. And Moses called Oshea the son of Nun Jehoshua."

    1 Chronicles 7:27, "Non his son, Jehoshua his son." Cambridge also the reading for the 1611.

    Now there is a third spelling.

    1 Chronicles 7:27, "Non his son, Jehoshuah his son." Oxford

    Now the Strong's Concordance for Jeremiah 34:16 lists both the he and the ye(2).

    But for 1 Chronicles 7:27 the Strong's Concordance only shows the Jehoshuah for that reference.
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
  2. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    50,786
    Likes Received:
    2,622
    Faith:
    Baptist
    So which is the perfect translation?
     
  3. 37818

    37818 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2018
    Messages:
    6,702
    Likes Received:
    558
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Since there is no perfect transalation do you think that means we cannot and therfore do not have God's word which is perfect? The KJV is being used for God's perfect word with all its known faults better than any modern translations with their not recognized faults.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  4. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    11,768
    Likes Received:
    998
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The KJV needed cleaning up several times, mostly for printers' errors, which eventually led to the two standard editions.

    Because the royal copyright was not recognized in the United States, printers were free copy (with various fidelity to the exemplars) various versions of the KJV, which then were copied by others, etc. In some respects it is a wonder that the various editions don't have even more differences.

    As to the specifics of the first case, the correct reading is probably you, having been adopted by the vast majority of English translations, whether old or new.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. 37818

    37818 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2018
    Messages:
    6,702
    Likes Received:
    558
    Faith:
    Baptist
    It is correct to the Hebrew.

    The first release of the NKJV correct reading was changed to the wrong reading prior to its released edition because it was checked against a KJV which had "he." It has since been fixed back to "you."
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  6. Conan

    Conan Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2019
    Messages:
    469
    Likes Received:
    103
    Faith:
    Baptist
    • Informative Informative x 1
  7. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    11,768
    Likes Received:
    998
    Faith:
    Baptist
    And to prove that the more things change, the more they're the same: The same he/you discrepancy is online as well. Biblestudytools.com and biblia.com (the Logos software folks) have he, as do some commentaries that use the NKJV.
     
  8. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    5,084
    Likes Received:
    210
    Faith:
    Baptist
    There have been several varying standard Cambridge editions of the KJV. The standard 1629 Cambridge edition is not the same as a present Cambridge edition. The standard 1638 Cambridge edition is not the same as a present Cambridge edition. The 1743 or 1762 standard Cambridge edition is not the same as a present Cambridge edition.

    What is considered the present Cambridge edition [a post-1900 edition] is not the same as Cambridge editions in the 1600's, in the 1700's, or in the 1800's. There is not actually one present Cambridge edition of the KJV.

    In 2011, Cambridge University Press was printing six varying editions of the KJV. Those six editions are the Concord edition, the Pitt Minion edition, the Standard Text Edition or Emerald edition, the 2011 Clarion edition, the 2011 Transetto Text edition, and the 2011 edition of the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible edited by David Norton.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  9. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    5,084
    Likes Received:
    210
    Faith:
    Baptist
    For many years there were at least three different publishers of the KJV: the king's printer in London, Cambridge beginning in 1629, and Oxford in 1675. There were often differences between the London edition, the Cambridge edition, and the Oxford edition and even several differences between each edition printed in different years by these publishers. There was also a fourth official publisher of the KJV: the king's printer in Edinburgh. There was an Edinburgh edition printed in 1638, even before Oxford printed their first edition. The Edinburgh editions of the KJV often had some differences with the other three.

    One reason for some of the differences in American KJV editions was the influence of Edinburgh editions of the KJV. Some of the early printers of the KJV in America were from Edinburgh.

    In the 1700's, a king's printer in Dublin also printed some editions of the KJV.
    A 1762 Dublin edition of the KJV had the spelling "goaler" at Acts 16:23.
     
    #9 Logos1560, Mar 20, 2021
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2021
    • Informative Informative x 2
  10. Stratton7

    Stratton7 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2020
    Messages:
    210
    Likes Received:
    19
    Faith:
    Baptist
    If coming from the KJ then “ye” would be mean “you all.”


    “Most languages have a singular and a plural form of the second person - the person being spoken to - "you". There is the singular "you" and then there is the plural, like "you all". This is found in the Hebrew and Greek languages as well as Spanish, French, Italian, Portuguese and many other world languages.

    In English this distinction is expressed by "Thou" meaning "you singular, and you alone" and "Ye" meaning "all of you, plural". This distinction makes a big difference in hundreds of passages in the Bible.”
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  11. 37818

    37818 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2018
    Messages:
    6,702
    Likes Received:
    558
    Faith:
    Baptist
    OK. There was also an Edinburgh edition as well. Which I did not know about until now. Checking King James Onlyism: A New Sect, by James D. Price.

    I do not have any information on how the London and Edinburgh editions differ. But there is a list of some over 600 differences between modern KJVs. Of which two different editions of the Oxford and the 1980 Cambridge edtion are listed amoung some others. And that is not exhaustive.
     
    #11 37818, Mar 21, 2021
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2021
  12. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    5,084
    Likes Received:
    210
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Jeremiah 34:16 [whom ye--1560 Geneva, 1568 & 1602 Bishops]

    whom you (2002, 2010 KJVER)

    whom ye (1968 Oxford, Oxford Classic, 1996 SSB, NPB) [1812, 1816, 1817, 1873, 1985, 2005, 2011 Cambridge, 1953 PM, CCR, CSTE, DKJB, 2011 PMR, 2011 Transetto Text, 2011 Cameo, 2011 Clarion] {1611, 1614, 1617, 1626, 1630, 1631, 1634, 1640, 1976 London} (1637 Edinburgh) (1816 Albany) (1816 Collins) (1818 Holbrook) (1821 Brown) (1827 Smith) (1828 MH) (1832 PSE) (1835 Towar) (1839, 1845, 1854 Harding) (1843 AFBS) (1846 Portland) (1848 Hartford) (1952 Judson) (1956, 1957, 1958, 1975, 1999 Collins) (1966 SC) (1968 Royal) (1970, 1976 TN) (1972 NMRB) (1973, 1976 REG) (GPB) (1975 Open) (1976 OGH) (1976 TBR) (1987, 1988 IBS) (1991, 2012 FWP) (1990’s, 2010 LCBP) (1983, 1984, 1994, 2000, 2002, 2010 ZOND) (DSB) (JVIPB) (LPB) (VFC) (1996 ELKJV) (2001, 2002, 2003, 2011, 2012, 2015, 2016 Barbour) (2003 IGC) (KJVJB) (TPB) (HPB) (2006 PENG) (2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2011p HEND) (2008, 2012 ROASB) (NHPB) (2009 Ruckman) (2009 Strand) (ASB) (2011 AMP) (TBS-WT) (2011 KJVDB) (2011 WB) (HKJVSB) (NCE) (2012 Biblica) (2013 CC) (2013 HMB) (2013, 2014 TGS) (2014 HKJVSBps) (2014 RHKJVSB) (2015 KAPPA)

    whom he (1675, 1681, 1709, 1713, 1720, 1737, 1743, 1762, 1764, 1765, 1769 Oxford, 1952 PE, SRB) [1629, 1635, 1637, 1638, 1648, 1683, 1743, 1747, 1756, 1760, 1761, 1762, 1763B, 1765, 1767, 1768, 1769, 1775, 1778, 1783, 1790, 1792, 1795, 1800, 1822, 1824, 1833, 1837, 1842, 1844, 1865, 1869, 1872, 1887 Cambridge] {1613, 1616, 1644, 1648, 1652, 1655, 1657, 1660, 1672, 1684, 1698, 1703, 1706, 1711, 1730, 1735, 1741, 1743, 1747, 1750, 1759, 1760, 1763, 1764, 1767, 1768, 1772, 1795, 1811, 1813, 1817, 1820, 1824, 1825, 1827, 1838, 1853, 1860, 1877, 1879 London} (1755 Oxon) (1638, 1715, 1722, 1735, 1751, 1756, 1760, 1764, 1766, 1769, 1787, 1789, 1791, 1793, 1796, 1806, 1810, 1820, 1827, 1842, 1843, 1851, 1858 Edinburgh) (1860, 1866 Glasgow) (1722, 1762, 1782, 1801, 1809 Dublin) (1645 Dutch) (1696, 1700 MP) (1746 Leipzig) (1774 Fortescu) (1776 Birmingham) (1776 Pasham) (1777 Wood) (1782 Aitken) (1790 Bolton) (1790, 1804 MH) (1791 Collins) (1791, 1841 Thomas) (1799 Helston) (1801 Hopkins) (1802, 1813 Carey) (1803 Etheridge) (1804 Blomfield) (1804 Gower) (1807 Johnson) (1809, 1810, 1813, 1818, 1826, 1828 Boston) (1810, 1814 Woodward) (1815 Walpole) (1816, 1836 Hartford) (1818, 1819, 1827, 1829, 1830, 1831, 1840, 1843, 1851, 1853, 1854, 1855, 1858, 1888, 1894, 1902, 1954, 1956, 1957, 1963, 1968, 1970, 1971, 1984, 1988, 2004, 2008 ABS) (1824, 1826 Bagster) (1826 Clarke) (1831 Brown) (1832, 1835 Scott) (1836 Stebbing) (1840 Roby) (1843 Robinson) (1846 Coldstream) (1846 Benson) (1850, 1856 AFBS) (1859, 1868 RTS) (1876 Harding) (1895, 1958, 1997 NPC) (1897 ABU) (1876 Porter) (1905, 1945, 1954, 1989, 1991, 1998, 2004 World) (1908, 1957, 1964, 2007 TCRB) (1910 Collins) (1911 TCE) (1923 NIB) (1924, 1958 Hertel) (1940, 1976, 1979-1, 1979-2, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2010, 2013 Holman) (1942 UBBH) (1947 SP) (1948 WSE) (1959 Little) (1961, 1975, 1978, 2008 GID) (1961 NBP) (1972, 1987, 1989, 1991, 1994, 2001, 2002, 2003 TN) (1973 WAP) (1974 MBI) (1975 CBP) (Nave’s) (1976 BH) (1985 Open) (1985 VB) (1987 Dugan) (1987 PSI) (Dake’s) (CSB) (RRB) (WMCRB) (MSB) (LASB) (1984, 1991, 2008 AMG) (1990 REG) (2000 Rainbow) (CHSB) (EB) (RSB) (Life) (KJVCB) (2005 ICC) (2006 PP) (2007 SFCB) (CNB) (2008 Pilot) (2010, 2015 Baker) (2010 BEAMS) (2010 BRO) (APB) (2011 PJB) (2012 F-S) (2012 WSB) (HMSB) (2014 TSB) (2015 KJVFSB) (2017 KWSB)

    "Whom he" had been introduced in the 1613 London edition of the KJV and was kept in the 1629 Cambridge and was standard in most Cambridge KJV editions even in the 1800's. This rendering in many Oxford editions was kept from earlier Cambridge editions. Cambridge editions in the 1900's were likely influenced by the 1873 Cambridge edition by Scrivener in returning to "whom ye."
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  13. 37818

    37818 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2018
    Messages:
    6,702
    Likes Received:
    558
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The correct translation from the Hebrew at Jeremiah 34:16 in the KJV is "ye." Today there are more than a half dozen editions of the KJV.

    What is wanted is to be known are the readings which are true to the word of God handed down to us. My thread was looking at two variants unique to the KJV. One of which is a matter of being true and not true to the given word of God. "ye" was correct and "he" was an error.
     
  14. 37818

    37818 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2018
    Messages:
    6,702
    Likes Received:
    558
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The KJV uses the old English with the plurals and singulars which the modern translations loose in translation from the Hebrew and Greek.
     
  15. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    5,084
    Likes Received:
    210
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Scrivener and David Norton in their collations and comparisons of KJV editions compared some London, Cambridge, and Oxford editions, but they did not include any Edinburgh editions in their collations. Many have depended on Scrivener's and Norton's comparisons, which may be one reason that any differences in Edinburgh KJV editions are not well-known. There is not one Edinburgh KJV text just as there is not one Cambridge KJV text nor one Oxford KJV text.


    It would take many posts to list all the differences. Here are a few examples from the book of Genesis.

    At Genesis 8:11, Edinburgh KJV editions printed in 1787, 1789, 1791, 1793, 1796, 1802 have the spelling "plucked" as did London KJV editions printed in 1763, 1764, 1877, 1976, and as did a Cambridge edition printed in 1763 by John Baskerville while typical Cambridge and Oxford editions have "pluckt."

    At Genesis 11:3, Edinburgh KJV editions printed in 1787, 1789, 1791, 1793, 1796, 1802, 1806, 1810 have the spelling "thoroughly", which may explain why many American KJV editions adopted it.

    At Genesis 13:7, Edinburgh KJV editions printed in 1787, 1789, 1791, 1796, 1802, 1806, 1810, 1820, 1827, 1834, 1855, 1858 have the spelling "dwelt" [instead of "dwelled"] as did one London KJV edition printed in 1660, which may explain why American Bible Society KJV editions in the 1800's had this same spelling.

    At Genesis 14:22, Edinburgh KJV editions printed in 1637, 1787, 1789, 1791, 1793, 1796, 1802 have the rendering "have lifted" as did some London KJV edition printed in 1750, 1760, 1761, 1763, 1764, a Cambridge KJV edition printed in 1747 as do many American Bible Society KJV editions while typical Cambridge and Oxford editions have "have lift."

    At Genesis 18:2, Edinburgh KJV editions printed in 1787, 1789, 1791, 1793, 1796, and 1802 have the rendering "lifted ...looked" as did some London KJV editions printed in 1750, 1759, 1760, 1761, 1763, 1764, and 1768, a Cambridge KJV edition printed in 1747 along with David Norton's 2005 and 2011 editions, Oxford editions printed in 1765, 1766, 1763, 1784, and 1804 as do many American Bible Society KJV editions while typical Cambridge and Oxford editions have "lift...looked"
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
  16. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    5,084
    Likes Received:
    210
    Faith:
    Baptist
    At Genesis 15:18, Edinburgh KJV editions printed in 1769, 1787, 1789, 1791, 1793, 1706, 1802, 1806, 1810, 1812, 1820, 1827, 1834, 1842, 1843, 1855, 1858 kept the pre-1769 Oxford rendering "In that" instead of the 1769 Oxford "In the." This example may again indicate the influence of Edinburgh KJV edition on American KJV editions in the 1800's since many of them also kept the pre-1769 "In that" rendering. While the collation of KJV editions by the American Bible Society is said to have helped establish the Oxford text as the standard, it is interesting that ABS editions to this day still keep the pre-1769 rendering "In that" at this verse.

    At Genesis 26:10, Edinburgh KJV editions printed in 1787, 1789, 1791, 1793, 1796, 1802 have the spelling "lain" in agreement with London KJV editions printed in 1747, 1750, 1759, 1760, 1761, 1763, 1764, 1767, 1768 and Oxford KJV editions printed in 1765, 1768, 1784 while many KJV editions have the old spelling "lien."

    At Exodus 6:21, Edinburgh KJV editions for many years as seen in editions printed in 1769, 1787, 1789, 1791, 1791, 1793, 1802, 1806, 1810, 1820, 1827, 1834, 1842, 1843, 1858 did not adopt the printing error "Zithri" that was introduced in the 1769 Oxford and that remained in most editions printed by Oxford and Cambridge for over 100 years although I have seen a couple Edinburgh editions printed in 1851 and 1855 that followed this Oxford error. Again Edinburgh KJV editions may be the reason that many American KJV editions in the 1800's did not adopt the Oxford error at Exodus 6:21.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  17. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    50,786
    Likes Received:
    2,622
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The Kjv is a good translation, but so would be the Nas/esv/Nkjv also!
     
  18. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    50,786
    Likes Received:
    2,622
    Faith:
    Baptist
  19. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    50,786
    Likes Received:
    2,622
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Thought that the 1873 Cambridge was the one considered to have "fixed" the kjv?
     
  20. 37818

    37818 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2018
    Messages:
    6,702
    Likes Received:
    558
    Faith:
    Baptist
    For different reasons those are both better and worse than the KJV.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...