Featured KJV Bibles

oh bummer! I have his NKJV...now that i think about it, i've never seen a KJV version...no wonder!

 

Except in places like 1 John 5:7..

Let's be honest there are a lot of differences between the KJV and Modern translations than changes from older english to modern english.

There is a big difference in the texts used to produce the KJV and the MVs.

 

"The Comma probably probably originated as a piece of allegorical exegesis of the three witnesses and may have been written as a marginal gloss in a Latin manuscript of 1 John, when it was taken into the text of the Old Latin Bible during the fifth century." (Bruce Metzger)

"[We] need to recognize that, on a conservative estimate, 80 percent of the text is established (some say 90% or more), regardless of the textual variants present in the manuscripts." (How We Got The New Testament by Stanley E. Porter, p.66).

 

This is not a thread to discuss 1st John 5:7, If you wish to really discuss this make a new thread.

I will say of Bruce Metzger that he is the last person I want telling me what to believe about the bible:

"believed Moses did not write the Pentateuch, Deuteronomy was not written until 700 years before Christ, the Old Testament is a mixture of “myth, legend, and history,” the record of the worldwide flood of Noah’s day is exaggerated, the book of Job is a folktale, the miracle accounts about Elijah and Elisha contain “legendary elements,” Isaiah was written by Isaiah plus two or three unknown men who wrote centuries later, the record of Jonah is a “legend,” Daniel does not contain supernatural prophecy, Paul did not write the Pastoral Epistles, Peter did not write 2 Peter, etc. All of these unbelieving lies can be found in the notes to the Reader’s Digest Condensed Bible, which were written by Metzger, and in the New Oxford Annotated Bible, of which Metzger is a co-editor. " http://www.wayoflife.org/database/wellsofinfidelity.html

 

Yet you were the one who brought it up in post 43!

 

I am being honest in spite of your seeming improper attempt to question my honesty.

There is no big difference between the texts used to produce the pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV and the texts used to produce the 1833 Webster's Bible, the 1842 revision of the KJV, the 1982 NKJV, the Modern KJV, the 1994 21st Century KJV, the 1998 Third Millennium Bible, Green's Literal Translation, the KJ2000, or the 2014 Modern English Version so your second quoted statement is not true.

 

If u want a top quality kjv bible, go to Local Church Bible Publishers. Search reviews on Youtube.

Their quality is ALMOST indestructible. Close to the R Allen. But they only have a Scofield study bible. They also have a reference bible....same thing as a Cambridge Cameo.

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk

 

I do not know if the KJV text in all the editions published by Local Church Bible Publishers is the same.

I have a hardback KJV edition published by Local Church Bible Publishers, and I found its KJV text to the same as that in a Cambridge Pitt Minion edition.

Cambridge republished a Cameo edition in 2011, and its KJV text was the same as the KJV text in a Pitt Minion reduced size edition in some of the typical places where a Concord Cambridge edition differs with a Pitt Minion [Exodus 23:23, 2 Samuel 15:12, 1 Chronicles 2:55, 1 Chronicles 13:5, Ezra 7:14, Amos 6:14, Acts 3:7, Acts 11:12, Acts 11:28, Acts 19:39, Romans 11:34, 1 Peter 1:11]. The 2011 Cameo edition did agree with a Concord edition in at last one place where it differs from a Pitt Minion edition by having "housetops" [one word] instead of "house tops" [two words] (2 Kings 19:26).

1 Chronicles 2:55 [Hammath--1560 Geneva Bible] [see Josh. 19:35--same Hebrew word]
Hammath [1985 Cambridge, 1953 Pitt Minion, Cambridge Standard Text Edition, 1972, 2011 Cambridge Cameo, 2011 Pitt Minion Reduced] [2010 Local Church Bible Publishers] (Norton Critical Edition)
Hamath [2005, 2011 Cambridge edited by David Norton] (2006 Penguin)
Hemath (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

 

Evan, did your Wife find a King James study bible she liked when you visited Lifeway?

 

It is large, and bulky, but one of the KJV bibles that is NOT influenced by commentary is the Thompson Chain Reference.

I don't even know if it is printed anymore, because the popularity of commentary type Bibles are so the modern desire to chase after a person (imo). Seems that the phenomena may have started with the charismatics who wanted to offer more than holy water from the Jordon River or a bottle with a demon in it.

Thompson (at one time) was THE bible to have for serious students of the Scriptures. It was expensive and it was well worth the money.

 

There's a free app for the Thompson Chain Reference in the google play store. Looks like it has ads, and the ad free version is 3 bucks.

And a company called Kirkbride prints hardcopies.

 

Their website has a FAQ area which tells which bibles are Cambridge and which are Oxford.

They make nearly indestructible bibles. I'd buy one of their quality bound bibles over a glued one at a store any day. Their quality is close to R Allen.

Sent from my SM-T230 using Tapatalk

 

I've owned all three types. The Oxford and Cambridge are of no comparison to the R L Allan bibles. The type face of the Allan is superior to the other two. Broken type face is frequent in the Oxford and Cambridge while the Allan has a much cleaner more consistent type face, not to mention the leather quality of the Highland Goatskin being far better, bar none.

 

Break out the dollars! But you buy one and it won't fall apart.

Sent from my SM-T230 using Tapatalk

 

My Oxford and Cambridge have both fallen apart.

 

What do you do with falling apart bibles?

I have some, but cannot seem to get enough steam up to throw God's word in the trash!

 

Ace Binding. Or Caloca Rebinding. Either one can rebind your old bibles. There are other folks who rebindm but these two I hear about the most.

Sent from my SM-T230 using Tapatalk

 

Nonsense, it was well after the truth of so-called Lordship Salvation that Scofield and others had written their notes.

True Gospel conversion was merely termed Lordship Salvation as of late, but these truths were well known well prior to this term. The naming of Lordship Salvation was meant to malign others while in favor of easy-believe-ism and the false dichotomy of believer/disciple teachings. Conflating works with evidence of salvation is at the forefront of this error which is against so-called Lordship Salvation. Thus it was a topic of discussion long before Scofield was ever around.

 

Do you have proof to these claims?

There perhaps is evidence that Scofield had the approval of BOTH the Reformed groups and the Wesleyan thinking when incorporating his notes into the Bible.