Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Disciple.Luke

KJV vs. the 1611 edition

Recommended Posts

Our church uses the KJV in preaching, and always uses Study materials with KJV quotes, but I am aware of another IFB in town and their website states they only use 1611 version.

Forgive me for my ignorance on the issue, but what is the difference between today's common KJV and the 1611?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 1Timothy115 said:

The commonly used 1769 version KJV is the one most often read in IB and IFB congregations. Look up the 1769 on line, much of the 'ye' is gone, etc. in the 1769. The 1769 is all I use.

Thanks for the reply. I will look that up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 1Timothy115 said:

Also, no Apocrapha :)

Really? I wasn't  aware that any of the King James variants had the apocrypha in them. I assumed only catholic editions inserted those texts. Interesting.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Disciple.Luke said:

Really? I wasn't  aware that any of the King James variants had the apocrypha in them. I assumed only catholic editions inserted those texts. Interesting.

Thanks for the spelling correction...yep the 1611 KJV has the apocrypha.

Hey do you know any of the  Lindseys? They live over around central Ind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 1Timothy115 said:

Thanks for the spelling correction...yep the 1611 KJV has the apocrypha.

Hey do you know any of the  Lindseys? They live over around central Ind.

I don't believe I know any of the Lindseys. I am in Anderson, IN. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Disciple.Luke said:

I don't believe I know any of the Lindseys. I am in Anderson, IN. 

They are in Indianapolis and one of them has a church there...Tim.

 

Edited by 1Timothy115

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife bought me a 1611 photocopy bible when they were selling them for the 400th anniversary-what 2014?

Biggest differences are font styles and spelling-many words with older English style spelling, use of "f" for 's' in some cases, 'v' for 'u', and such things. and yes, Apocrypha. Thelater editions, for the most part, just updated spelling and letters and punctuation issues. And removed the Apocrypha. But it is fun to get our and read-tried preaching from it once but the spelling can throw you off sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 11:43 AM, 1Timothy115 said:

The commonly used 1769 version KJV is the one most often read in IB and IFB congregations. Look up the 1769 on line, much of the 'ye' is gone, etc. in the 1769. The 1769 is all I use.

It is true that there is a web site online that identifies its post-1900 edition of the KJV as being the 1769.  Also there are books about the KJV that say that our present KJV editions are the 1769.

It would be accurate and true to say that most present KJV editions are based on the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV.  At least a few KJV editions printed in 2000 and afterwards by Zondervan and Hendrickson are based on the 1873 Cambridge edition of Scrivener instead of on the 1769, and Cambridge printed one edition in 2005 and in 2011 [New Cambridge Paragraph Bible] edited by David Norton that is not based on the 1769.

According to the actual KJV edition edited by Benjamin Blayney and printed at Oxford in 1769, it would not be accurate to suggest that present KJV editions are identical in their English text to that edition.  The KJV edition identified as being the 1769 at a web site is not actually identical to the KJV edition printed at Oxford in 1769.  I know of only one present edition of the KJV that is a reprint of the 1769 Oxford, and it is only a partial edition ending after the book of Jeremiah.  It was available at Amazon, and in the copy I obtained it is identified as being "Nabu Public Domain Reprints."  This same partial edition of the KJV was available at the website books.google so that may be where its text was obtained.

At the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C., I have examined an actual edition of the KJV that was printed by Oxford in 1769.  I also have the complete text of the 1769 Oxford KJV edition that I downloaded from a computer data base called The Eighteenth Century Collection, that can be found at some large university libraries.

The 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV still included the Apocrypha.  The 1769 Oxford KJV still used a character that looked identical to an "f" for a long "s."  Thus, on the title page of the 1769 Oxford, the word "Revised" is printed as "Revifed."  In its 1769 English text, wise is printed as "wife."  Not including the hundreds or thousands of words in the 1769 that have a letter that looks like an "F" to stand for a long "s" sound, there are other spelling differences in it.  This use of "f" for a long "s" was not removed from KJV editions until around 1810.

Besides just the differences in spelling, the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV has its own set of differences that would distinguish it from present post-1900 KJV editions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Tyndale said:

It is true that there is a web site online that identifies its post-1900 edition of the KJV as being the 1769.  Also there are books about the KJV that say that our present KJV editions are the 1769.

It would be accurate and true to say that most present KJV editions are based on the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV.  At least a few KJV editions printed in 2000 and afterwards by Zondervan and Hendrickson are based on the 1873 Cambridge edition of Scrivener instead of on the 1769, and Cambridge printed one edition in 2005 and in 2011 [New Cambridge Paragraph Bible] edited by David Norton that is not based on the 1769.

According to the actual KJV edition edited by Benjamin Blayney and printed at Oxford in 1769, it would not be accurate to suggest that present KJV editions are identical in their English text to that edition.  The KJV edition identified as being the 1769 at a web site is not actually identical to the KJV edition printed at Oxford in 1769.  I know of only one present edition of the KJV that is a reprint of the 1769 Oxford, and it is only a partial edition ending after the book of Jeremiah.  It was available at Amazon, and in the copy I obtained it is identified as being "Nabu Public Domain Reprints."  This same partial edition of the KJV was available at the website books.google so that may be where its text was obtained.

At the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C., I have examined an actual edition of the KJV that was printed by Oxford in 1769.  I also have the complete text of the 1769 Oxford KJV edition that I downloaded from a computer data base called The Eighteenth Century Collection, that can be found at some large university libraries.

The 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV still included the Apocrypha.  The 1769 Oxford KJV still used a character that looked identical to an "f" for a long "s."  Thus, on the title page of the 1769 Oxford, the word "Revised" is printed as "Revifed."  In its 1769 English text, wise is printed as "wife."  Not including the hundreds or thousands of words in the 1769 that have a letter that looks like an "F" to stand for a long "s" sound, there are other spelling differences in it.  This use of "f" for a long "s" was not removed from KJV editions until around 1810.

Besides just the differences in spelling, the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV has its own set of differences that would distinguish it from present post-1900 KJV editions. 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   2 Members, 0 Anonymous, 33 Guests (See full list)

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...