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

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • Members
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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
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.

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...