Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

KJV vs. the 1611 edition


Recommended Posts

  • Members
1 hour ago, 1Timothy115 said:

Hi. I use a 1769 KJV, the commonly referred to Authorized Version. I've had the same exact version since the 1980s. It is a 1769. Also, my current Bible is a Cambridge Bible, 1769, which I have diligently compared to the first one I bought in 1982. I don't buy anything but Cambridge Bibles and the last two I bought are wide margin but, the text on each page is identical which allows for easy transpose notes from my older to my newer ones. There is no Apocrypha in my 1769 Cambridge Bible.

Which actual present edition of the KJV printed by Cambridge University Press do you use?

In 2011, Cambridge University Press was evidently printing at least 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.  Examples of actual differences between these six editions can be found.  These six present editions also differ from many earlier Cambridge editions including the 1629, 1638, 1743, 1762, and 1769 Cambridge.  

D. A. Waite claims that the KJV text in his Defined King James Bible is the "Cambridge 1769 Text unaltered," but that claim is incorrect.  There are actual differences in the text of an actual edition of the KJV printed by Cambridge in 1769 and the present KJV text in Waite's Defined KJB.  For one example, the 1769 Cambridge edition of the KJV has "killedst" in its text at Acts 7:28 in agreement with the 1743 and 1762 Cambridge and some other 1700's editions where present Cambridge editions would have "diddest" or "didst."

Edited by Tyndale
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I have examined a KJV edition printed in 1769 at Cambridge by John Archdeacon.  It still included the Apocrypha. 

Here are twelve example renderings from a 1769 Cambridge edition of the KJV that would distinguish it from 1900's and later Cambridge editions.

Genesis 49:11  fole [spelling in agreement with 1769 Oxford and many KJV editions in the 1700's]

Genesis 50:16 sent messengers [plural in agreement with 1638 Cambridge, 1762 Cambridge and different from the 1769 Oxford that has "sent a messenger"]

Joshua 19:2   Beer-sheba, Sheba [in agreement with 1769 Oxford]

1 Samuel 2:13 priest's custom [in agreement with 1769 Oxford] [corrected to plural (priests' custom) in 1873 Cambridge and later Cambridge editions]

2 Chronicles 33:19  all his sins [in agreement with 1769 Oxford]

Psalm 18:47 unto me [in agreement with 1769 Oxford]

Psalm 31:8 my foot [in agreement with 1769 Oxford]

Psalm 60:4 feared [in agreement with 1769 Oxford]

Psalm 68:2 in the presence [in agreement with 1769 Oxford]

Psalm 141:9 snares [plural in agreement with 1769 Oxford]

Jeremiah 34:16 whom he [in agreement with 1769 Oxford]

Nahum 3:16 and fleeth away [in agreement with 1769 Oxford]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On ‎4‎/‎9‎/‎2017 at 8:55 AM, Tyndale said:

Which actual present edition of the KJV printed by Cambridge University Press do you use?

In 2011, Cambridge University Press was evidently printing at least 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.  Examples of actual differences between these six editions can be found.  These six present editions also differ from many earlier Cambridge editions including the 1629, 1638, 1743, 1762, and 1769 Cambridge.  

D. A. Waite claims that the KJV text in his Defined King James Bible is the "Cambridge 1769 Text unaltered," but that claim is incorrect.  There are actual differences in the text of an actual edition of the KJV printed by Cambridge in 1769 and the present KJV text in Waite's Defined KJB.  For one example, the 1769 Cambridge edition of the KJV has "killedst" in its text at Acts 7:28 in agreement with the 1743 and 1762 Cambridge and some other 1700's editions where present Cambridge editions would have "diddest" or "didst."

I have a Cambridge, wide margin, 1769 KJV, commonly more commonly referred to as the AV. Printed in Great Britain at the University Press, Cambridge. That's all I have for you...sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This is my KJV, it can be bought in many Walmart stores and many book stores.

 411+gcVdUiL.jpgbible.jpg

 

Here is a pic of the real 1611, John 3:16

3-16.jpg

And here is a pic from my Bible

316.jpg

I belong to a KJV only church that uses the common AV but many and I was one of them call it the 1611. It is the AV but not the 1611. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I could be wrong but I think that in general, people are not referring specifically to the first 1611 edition when referring to the (1611) KJB.  "1611" is merely a "label."  Again, this is true in general conversation - not conversations about "The HIstory of the Bible" where these differences are important.!  But I could be wrong.

My userid (1611mac) hints that for me God gave us the KJB through the circumstances that He created in 1611.  Yes, there were some MAN MADE errors and mistakes but the "1769" edition (and others) is really simply the 1611 with all appropriate corrections made.   People often try to "correct" me when I refer to the 1611 KJB trying to educate me about all the later "corrected" editions.  My reply is... God gave it to us....  so I'm sticking with the "1611" term even if man did mess it up with transcribing and printing errors, including the Apocrypha, etc.   Remember.. the men who "assembled" God's word were not perfect.  I believe the Apocrypha was included for reference much like the Dedicatory, and as Notes and References in our Bibles today.  

Note that I do NOT believe that the KJB was given by inspiration or "advanced" or "additional" revelation.  Similarly, no "new" revelation was given between 1611 and 1769....  the existing text was "fixed" and "corrected."

I also refer to the "1611" or "Authorized Version" sometimes as in these days if you tell someone to "Buy a King James Bible" they come back with a NEW King James Bible.

So for me... whether one refers to the 1611, the 1769, the Authorized Version, etc... we all know what we mean... no big deal.  (Just don't refer to the NEW KJB).   But I'm no expert...  

As info... The following is from David Cloud's "Bible Version Question and Answer Database" in regard to The Apocrypha in the KJB.

 

 1. Early editions of the English Bible (as well as other Reformation Bibles, including the

German Luther and the Olivetan French) contained the Apocrypha, but these books were

included for historical reference only, not as additions to the canon of Scripture. Alexander

McClure, a biographer of the KJV translators, says: “... the Apocryphal books in those times

were more read and accounted of than now, though by no means placed on a level with the

canonical books of Scripture” (McClure, Translators Revived , p. 185). He then lists seven

reasons assigned by the KJV translators for rejecting the Apocrypha as canonical. (1) Not one of

them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the

Old Testament. (2) Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration. (3) These books were

never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never

sanctioned by our Lord. (4) They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the

first four centuries of the Christian Church. (5) They contain fabulous statements, and statements

which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of

Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different

places. (6) It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and

sinless perfection. (7) It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination, and

magical incantation.

2. The Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England clearly state that the Apocryphal books

have no scriptural authority. “... [the Church of England] doth not apply to them to establish any

doctrine.”

3. It is important to understand that in the early King James Bibles, the Apocryphal books were

placed by themselves between the Old and New Testaments rather than intermingled among the

canonical O.T. books as is done in Catholic Bibles. In the Jerusalem Bible (a Catholic Bible), for

example, Tobit, Judith, and the Maccabees follow Nehemiah; the Book of Wisdom and

Ecclesiasticus follow Ecclesiastes; Baruch follows Lamentations; etc. Thus the very location of

the apocryphal books denotes the canonical authority (or lack thereof) attributed to them by a

Bible’s publisher.

[from David Cloud's "The Bible Version Question and Answer Database"

 

Edited by 1611mac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
14 hours ago, 1Timothy115 said:

I have a Cambridge, wide margin, 1769 KJV, commonly more commonly referred to as the AV. Printed in Great Britain at the University Press, Cambridge.

So the edition you have is not actually a KJV edition printed in 1769 at Cambridge by John Archdeacon, and it is instead one of the post-1900 KJV editions presently printed by Cambridge. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
10 hours ago, MountainChristian said:

This is my KJV, it can be bought in many Walmart stores and many book stores.

 411+gcVdUiL.jpgbible.jpg

 

 

KJV editions printed by the same publishers with the same copyright can sometimes have a few differences or variations when those editions are printed in different years.

I have several KJV editions printed by Holman and other publishers.  Some of the differences seem to have been introduced when some Bible publishers switched to a computer-based text, and the publishers may have been unaware that this computer-typed edition of the KJV differed from what was in the earlier edition with the same copyright.  At some unknown date likely after 1980, someone typed up a KJV on a computer, and that person introduced some likely unintentional changes or differences in its KJV text.  A larger number of differences were evidently in the first edition of this computer-based KJV text, and someone noticed and corrected some of them in a later edition of this computer-based text.  Different publishers have printed this same KJV text.  Sometimes the variation introduced by the typist involved only spelling while a few times a word was added or omitted.

Here are some examples of some changes that were evidently introduced in a computer-based KJV text used in some Holman KJV editions and some editions by other publishers including Thomas Nelson, World, and Barbour.

At Genesis 5:3, an extra "and" was introduced--"and after his image" instead of "after his image."

At Genesis 14:5, "Emims" in most KJV editions was typed as "Emins" in the computer-based text.

At Genesis 29:33, "that" is omitted in the computer-based edition--"heard I" instead of "heard that I."

At Leviticus 24:11, "of the LORD" in many KJV editions was typed as "of the Lord."

At Deuteronomy 2:11, "call them" was typed as "called them."

At Joshua 13:14, "the tribe of Levi" was typed as "the tribes of Levi" in the computer-based text.

At Joshua 24:11, "And ye" was typed as "And you" in the computer-based text.

Holman's KJV Study Bible introduced and printed first in 2012 used this computer-based KJV text, but editions of it printed at some point in 2014 have corrected them back to the typical KJV text.  I do not know if Holman has changed them in all its other editions printed in 2014 and afterwards.

Edited by Tyndale
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
4 hours ago, Tyndale said:

So the edition you have is not actually a KJV edition printed in 1769 at Cambridge by John Archdeacon, and it is instead one of the post-1900 KJV editions presently printed by Cambridge. 

The version I have is a Cambridge, wide margin, 1769 KJV, more commonly referred to as the AV. Printed in Great Britain at the University Press, Cambridge. No I did NOT buy the original Cambridge of 1769, I'm not rich outside the riches of my Lord Jesus. As I said before I bought my first in 1982. I diligently compare any I buy with that one which I still have. If its important to you to have editions, I'm O.K. with that, I'll try to help you out with more info. on mine. But I won't be available for a week. Please remind me next time you see me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
20 hours ago, 1Timothy115 said:

The version I have is a Cambridge, wide margin, 1769 KJV, more commonly referred to as the AV. Printed in Great Britain at the University Press, Cambridge. As I said before I bought my first in 1982. I diligently compare any I buy with that one which I still have.

In 1982, the two main KJV editions printed by Cambridge University Press were likely its Concord edition and its Pitt Minion edition.

Some places were the Concord edition of the KJV printed by Cambridge University Press may differ from its Pitt Minion edition are the following:

Exodus 23:23

and the Hivites [Pitt Minion]   the Hivites [Concord]

2 Samuel 15:12

counseller [Pitt Minion]  counsellor [Concord]

1 Chronicles 2:55

Hammath [Pitt Minion] Hemath [Concord]

1 Chronicles 13:5

Hamath [Pitt Minion] Hemath [Concord]

Ezra 7:14

counsellers [Pitt Minion] counsellors [Concord]

Amos 6:14

Hamath [Pitt Minion] Hemath [Concord]

Acts 3:7

ancle [Pitt Minion] ankle [Concord]

Acts 11:12

the spirit [Pitt Minion] the Spirit [Concord]

Acts 11:28

the spirit [Pitt Minion] the Spirit [Concord]

Acts 19:30

inquire [Pitt Minion] enquire [Concord]

I have seen one Pitt Minion edition printed by Cambridge that seems to have the Concord KJV text instead of its typical Pitt Minion edition so these variations may not be always found between the two editions.

Edited by Tyndale
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On ‎4‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 0:44 PM, Tyndale said:

In 1982, the two main KJV editions printed by Cambridge University Press were likely its Concord edition and its Pitt Minion edition.

Appears to be a Pitt Minion and I found...Published by the Syndics of the Cambridge University Pres
The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge CB2 1RP
Bently House, 200 Euston Road, London NW1 2DB (this all was in small print further inside and just before the dedicatory to James.).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...
  • Members
On ‎4‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 6:06 PM, 1Timothy115 said:

Appears to be a Pitt Minion and I found...Published by the Syndics of the Cambridge University Pres
 

Thanks for providing more information to identify the Cambridge edition that you have.

I have compared a post-1900 Pitt Minion Cambridge edition with a 1769 Cambridge edition, and there are over 400 differences between them if spelling is included.

Two reasons for some of the more significant differences are the fact that a 1769 Cambridge edition did not have all the changes found in a 1769 Oxford edition that are found in typical post-1900 Cambridge editions and that a 1769 Cambridge had many of the renderings typical of a 1743/1762 Cambridge edition that are not found in typical post-1900 Cambridge editions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

In 2017, a large reprint edition of an actual 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV was produced by the Bible Museum. 

It was available at Bible Museum's greatsite web site and at E-bay.

This 1769 KJV reprint would demonstrate that today's KJV editions are not the 1769.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On ‎3‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 11:53 AM, No Nicolaitans said:

 

Here's an interesting article that may help in showing the differences...

https://www.wayoflife.org/reports/changes_to_kjv_since_1611.html

After being mailed a list with over 2,000 differences that would affect the sound between the 1611 edition and a post-1900 KJV edition, D. A. Waite changed his earlier inaccurate count of only 421 such differences to 1,095.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On ‎3‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 11:19 AM, Disciple.Luke said:

 what is the difference between today's common KJV and the 1611?

D. A. Waite claimed that “only 136 of these [changes to the ear] were of any consequence” (Fundamentalist Mis-Information, p. 53).  When his inaccurate 421 count of differences that affect the sound was revised up to 1095, why was the inaccurate 136 count also not revised?  Out of the additional 674 changes that Waite now acknowledged in his new count of 1095, were there none that would be considered to belong to the categories that Waite himself identified as substantial? 

In his 1985 booklet, Waite himself had listed and identified the following categories as substantial or changes of substance:  “adding a word,” “omitting a word,” “changing a tense,” “changing a word,” “changing number [plural/singular],” and “changing a case” (AV1611 Compared, pp. 4-5, 20-23). 

Clearly and justly, some of the changes that Waite had not listed in 1985 belonged to those categories of changes of substance. 

There were over 170 whole words added to the 1611 edition in most post-1900 editions.  Over 45 whole words found in the 1611 edition are omitted in the post-1900 KJV edition in the Scofield Reference Bible if the 21 words omitted at Exodus 14:10 are included in the count.  Over 65 times the number [singular/plural] of nouns or pronouns is changed from what it was in the 1611 edition.  Twenty or more times the tense of a verb is changed.  Sixty, seventy, or more changes would belong to the category of changing a word.  Under his category of substantial changes described as “changing the case,” Waite listed the examples of “who” to “whom” at Acts 21:16 and “him” to “he” at Proverbs 6:19 (pp. 21, 22).  Other examples of changing the case of pronouns would be “who” to “whom” at Genesis 24:44, Psalm 69:26, Acts 22:8, and Hebrews 7:4 and the changing of “it” to “its” at Leviticus 25:5.  If all the changes of “you” to the nominative case “ye” were included in this category of changing the case of pronouns, it would add over 200 to the count of substantial changes. 

Edited by Tyndale
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Members
On 5/12/2020 at 10:24 PM, Tyndale said:

Thanks for providing more information to identify the Cambridge edition that you have.

I have compared a post-1900 Pitt Minion Cambridge edition with a 1769 Cambridge edition, and there are over 400 differences between them if spelling is included.

Two reasons for some of the more significant differences are the fact that a 1769 Cambridge edition did not have all the changes found in a 1769 Oxford edition that are found in typical post-1900 Cambridge editions and that a 1769 Cambridge had many of the renderings typical of a 1743/1762 Cambridge edition that are not found in typical post-1900 Cambridge editions.

I appreciate your concern, but I'm still using it and will continue to as long as it lasts. I trust God preserved what I need to know in the one I have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...