Why were the sidenotes removed?

I can't answer your question, TT, but I know if all the translators' extratextual material, including the preface, had been left in subsequent editions of the KJV, the KJVO doctrine might not have ever been born.

Maybe for brevity? Shoot, I dunno....

 

Don't know why. But obviously it was the translators intention to have them included. Somehow people responsible for reprinting and reediting newer version of the King James took the liberty to exclude all that the translators had intended for the readers to have available to them.

 

It would be nice to see a publisher print a KJV that included all the original translators notes. But sadly, I assume the majority of people who buy KJV Bibles would not buy that edition, but rather smear it and shun it. So like you said, it is about the money, hence nobody would do it.

 

Just my opinion, but I would think no. I think they wear the badge of 1611 for what they believe it now represents to them, and translators notes is not part of that.



I agree with you, though on the value it offeres. I would buy one also.

 

I would buy one.

In fact, many of my KJVs have alternate readings in the margins. Sometimes though, they just add confusion to the reading of that particular passage. And sometimes the marginal readings change the meaning altogether. And sometimes (rarely) it is helpful.

Example of a total change:
From my grandfathers' 1934 Oxford 1 Kings 19:18;

Text: Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel....

Margin: * I will leave....

One is past tense the other is future tense. Totally different. Opposite.

 

Would that be the A-Team's "Howling Mad" Murdoch of several years ago? Sorry, don't have a number for him or any other Murdoch...

 

TT was right in post #4 . I think it would eliminate a great deal of the dispute between the KJV Only faction and others who appreciate some of the modern versions . I would buy a KJV edition with the original notes ( in modern typeset and updated spelling ) . I also think that the original Preface to the Reader ( by Miles Smith ) should be included . It would take a lot of wind out of the sails of most KJV'ers . However , the most extreme wing would continue on unabated , facts notwithstanding .

 

I did have a large group of KJVO's here locally who informed me that the text was inspired by God, but their notes were of their own accord.

 

A publishing company called "Lifeline Philippines" does a copy of the 1611 NT with notes and all.

I bought mine from:

Larry Harrison, Christian Book Gallery, (219)365-4905

You can buy it directly online at: http://www.lifelineprinting.com/

There is an old thread on BB that deals with that copy as well.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=29347&page=2

Finally, not sure on the OP question, if I come across it, I will share.

(also, I have swordsearcher, which has the 1611 text as well... but no notes.)

 

The Hendrickson repro AV1611 I have DOES have all the translators' extratextual material. I have consulted with several museums that have authentic AV1611s to confirm this.

 

Ya know, TT, I aint NEVER saw one that has ALL the translators' extratextual materials...but that don't mean it don't exist. I hopeya find one.

Meanwhile, here are some of the translators' remarx that, if they were included in the currently-used KJV editions, would put an end to a lotta the bickering:

For is the kingdom of God to become words or syllables?
Why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free,
use one precisely when we may use another
no less fit, as commodiously?

 

I believe there is one online at Bibles.net Google it!

 

The 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV did still include the 1611 marginal notes plus a few additional notes added in 1762/1769, and it also still had character shaped like f for a long "s." All the many words with that character were not updated until around 1810. Some KJV editions printed at Oxford and Cambridge in the 1800's still had the 1611 marginal notes for I have copies of a few that do.

The first KJV printed in America in 1782 did not have any marginal notes, supposedly in order to save paper. The American Bible Society in its effort to print Bibles as cheaply as possible and to get Bibles in the hands of as many people as possible in the 1800's did not include marginal notes in most of their editions. On the other hand, other publishers added so many study notes to their KJV editions that they may have decided to leave out the original 1611 marginal notes.

The 2005 New Cambridge Paragraph Bible edited by David Norton includes the marginal notes from the 1611 KJV along with the additional notes added in 1762/1769. The additional notes are placed in square brackets to distinguish them from the notes from the 1611 edition. It also includes the orginal preface to the 1611 "The Translators to the Reader."