Featured Any know about the 1873 Cambridge Kjv Bible?

No. But that is not what was printed in 1611, 1612,1613, 1629, 1638 and all other editions until only Scrivener in 1873. Maybe that's what the 1611 translators/printers and following correctors/revisors/printers should have printed, but did not.

True, but
the Rheims New Testament has "that straine a gnat". Again, its what they should have printed, but they did not.

No.

Yes it is an unnecessary change, but that's what was printed in all editions of the KJV but Scriveners. Did Scrivener have the right to make the change? Perhaps, but it changes the 1611, 1612, 1613, 1629, 1638 and all other editions of the KJV. Perhaps the original words should not have been changed.

 

Well that Matthew 23:24 1873 proper correction got lost to later editions. And maybe a number of other corrections as well.

 

LOL, a correction?!
As if it were an error?!

Oh brother.

REALITY CHECK: the phrase "strain at a gnat" was employed a number of times in theological and other works in the nearly half century interval between the last of the 1500s English Protestant Bible translations (Bishops, in 1568) and the KJB in 1611.

It wasn't a KJB misprint. It wasn't 'coined' in 1611 either; it had gained currency over the decades since the last Bible translation was done.

 

Some think that "strain at" is a printer's error. Strain at was found in some books that were not Bibles, but that does not prove for sure that it could not have been a printing error. The evidence from those other books only suggest the possibility that it could have been a deliberate unnecessary change, but it is does not prove with absolute certainty that the KJV translators actually made the change. It has not been proven that the KJV translators were actually using those other sources that are not named in their rules.

It has not been demonstrated soundly from the Greek that the change to "strain at" was required by the original language words. I did not claim that "strain at" was first coined in the 1611 so perhaps that incorrect allegation need a reality check.

Some errors in the 1611 were left uncorrected for many years. Including over 160 words added not in the 1611 and including the omission of some words in the 1611 and not including the hundreds and thousands of changes to the italics, over 2000 changes were made to the 1611 in most post-1900 editions.

A good number of changes were not made to the 1611 text until the mid-1700's in the 1743 Cambridge, the 1762 Cambridge, and the 1769 Oxford. Including some spelling changes, over 400 changes were made to the text of the 1769 Oxford in later 1800's editions and even up to 1900. The actual history of the printing of the KJV is a history of continued changes and variations.

 

Did you mean earlier editions? While that could have been the intensions of the 1611 Translators, there is no record of it. Scrivener may have thought it a printing error, but there is not direct proof. It's just a guess. It may be a very excellent guess. It may have been what they should have wrote, but there is no direct evidence of it. As pointed out by Logos1560 all of the earlier Protestant Versions has "strain out a nat". The 1611 KJV Translators usually followed Tyndale, Matthew, Coverdale/Great, Bishops, Geneva and so forth. But usually is not always. Sometimes they followed the 1582 Rheims New Testament which has, "that straine a gnat". Perhaps the 1611 went their own way against all others. Certainly they do that some, even if rarely.

Yes there is no doubt that Scrivener restored genuine 1611 reading's back to his Paragraph Bible. He even followed later editions against the 1611 as better readings. No doubt he could be correct there as well. But he may not always be correct. The Cambridge Paragraph Bible of 1873 may be the best edition of the KJV, but it will not always be correct against the 1611 translators intensions. It will not always have the correct reading as intended by the original Translators.

 

They were wrong on occasion no doubt. That is why later editors/revisors felt a need to improve readings. But who is authorised to do so? @ what time? When?

 

They put William Tyndale to death to early for a perfect translation. It is beyond our grasp! Cobble together what you can.

 

Excellent point Yeshua1!