KJV Version Years Differ?

sermonindex Dec 3, 2004

I found this on the blueletterbible.org website:"The Blue Letter Bible utilizes the King James Version of 1769. Note that the King James Version went through many editions to correct wording of the 1611 text. These were not new translations, but corrections of the original. Such editions came out as early as 1612 and number at least a dozen. Unfortunately, some of the intermediate editions that corrected printing errors in earlier editions, brought in their own errors, mostly dealing with spelling and punctuation. Most of the King James Versions that you see today are the revision by Benjamin Blayney completed in 1769, which dealt with these issues, as well as added thousands of marginal references."I am just wondering if anyone knows more about this and most of the KJV off the shelf what version are they? ie 1611 or 1769. I have an cambridge standard text bible. Thanks to anyone with ideas on this.

sermonindex Dec 3, 2004

Heres another interesting tidbit:"The KJV is in the public domain (several of the newer versions are still copyrighted). Note that the KJV originally was protected by similar legal privileges that were owned by the Crown of England and expired approximately 100 years after its initial printing."Hmm what versions are those that are still copyrighted? my assumption was gullibly that all KJV bibles were 'public domain' writings to be used how the user so deems.

P

philologos Dec 3, 2004

All you could possibly want to know about the King James Version (and perhaps a bit more) can be found on Michael Marlowe's Bible Research site.Just be warned however that Marlowe is not a supporter of the Bizantine text and at times is a virulent opponent. Some of the so called 'defects' he mentions are the consequence of different source manuscripts for the original Greek.

sermonindex Dec 3, 2004

All you could possibly want to know about the King James Version (and perhaps a bit more) can be found on Michael Marlowe's Bible Research site.Thanks brother Ron I will take a look at this as time permits.“Truly, good Christian Reader, we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one ... but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark.” - Preface to the King James Bible

I

InigoMontoya Dec 3, 2004

Most of the King James Bibles on the market are the 1769 version. I believe that the ones which use the Cambridge Oxford text are supposedly the most unchanged. I've heard that Hedrickson Publishers just recently released a KJV 1611 facsimile edition. Supposedly its all original, including the Apocrypha and all the footnotes King James insisted be removed in the 1614 revision. However, their were "alot" of changes made between than and 1769. I doubt it would be a good read, although the foot notes might be interesting. This reminds me of a quote, which I really like."Some people read their Bible in Hebrew, some in Greek; I like to read mine in the Holy Ghost." -Smith WigglesworthShh... don't say that quote near any KJV onlyist though!

sermonindex Dec 3, 2004

I've heard that Hedrickson Publishers just recently released a KJV 1611 facsimile edition.Yes I saw that version its quite unreadable, I have a few older commentaries also from the 1880's and the text of the bible in them is very archaic, I think its the 1611 text also.

P

philologos Dec 3, 2004

I have a pdf I did of Tyndales 1536 translation which is modern fonts but with the frontispiece in gothic. Would you like a copy for your archives? It comes complete with bookmarks for the books.