Which KJV do you Use?

And all this time I thought the original autographs were written in King James English!

Click to expand...

I guess no one knows what they were written in since they don't exist! Maybe the Hebrew and Greek are translations.

God Bless!

I am intrigued by two who "regularly use" the AV1611. I have Nelson's reprint of edition 1 (in better type face so one can actually read it) and it is TOUGH to use under the best of conditions.

Wonder who will fess up and explain actually using an AV1611??

Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by C4K:
Can you give us solid textual evidence as to why the Cambridge is more accurate than Oxford?

Click to expand...

"he" vs "ye" on Jeremiah 34:16 is an example -- I answered my posts on Bible versions/translatiions many times.

BTW, I think you have it backwards it was the 1762 Cambridge and the 1769 Oxford.

Click to expand...

I opened my Bible and read it saying, "The Authorized King James Bible, Cambridge 1769 Text." </font>[/QUOTE]Interesting, anyone else ever heard of a 1769 Cambridge KJV. All of my Oxford Bibles have a 1769 date and my Cambridge has a 1762 date. These are published by those publishers. Thanks for the info, so both Cambridge and Oxford did Bibles in 1769. I honestly did not know that.

BTW, picking out one word in Jeremiah is hardly textual reasoning for why you prefer Cambridge as your KJV of choice.

I use multiple KJVs.

On my computer (not on-line, it is ON MY COMPUTER so i can study
when my on-line service is down) I have e-sword.

I've got these Bibles on E-sword:

1. Geneva Bible of 1587
2. KJV1769 with Strong's numbers
3. KJV1611 Edition (without translator footnotes)

I've been a Christian for 53 years now and over 30 of them
I used the KJV1769. So most of what i've memorized over the
years is from the KJV1769. So I use that with Strong's numbers
to study both the existing text and the source text.
To search, you have to know the exact wording. But then when
I find the verse or passage I want in the KJV1769 with Strong's
nubmers, I don't use the verse, cause it has the numbers in it.
SO I highlight the verse in the KJV1769 and switch to the KJV1611.
Likely I will use the KJV1611, complete with it's wierd spelling
to post for BB and other boards.

I've got a paper KJV1611 with the translator footnotes that
I use to check the variant sources documented in the KJV translator
footnoetes. I also have the footnotes in a KJV1873 which I probably
check on a weekly basis (not daily like in the KJV1769 and the KJV1611
editions).

(Being a Southern Baptist, I use mostly the new Southern Baptist Bible:
HCSB = Christian Standard Bible (Holman, 2003) for Sunday School
work, perpartion, and private devotions. But that ain't the KJV )

Elnora: //Mine says Authorized King James Version//

Nearly all KJVs say that. It means exactly nothing.
Originally it mean: "the King of England(or when appropriate the Queen)
gets a Pound everytime someone buys this book.
This is true of the Oxford Press (associated with the English
University of Oxford) and others authorized by the Monarch of England.

In 1776 one of the things that the 13 Colongies that later became
the United States of America revolted about was THE BIBLE TAX.
Come on, a Bible cost like three pounds in 1776 and one of those pounds
went direct to the King of England. Three pounds is only like us$6.66
in 2006. If you don't make more than us$6.66 an HOUR you don't have
enough to live nor raise a family. But in 1776 Three Pounds was
¼-of-a-year's-wages. Yes, in 1776 if you wanted to have a Bible you
had to work a SOLID MONTH (that wasn't a 40-hour a week job, that was
a dawn-t0-dusk job) for the King of England. Needless to say, there
were lots of BIBLE POOLS (shared reading of the Bible). Anway,
there were some KJV Bibles printed that were sold BUT NO MONEY GIVEN
to the crown. But they all dutifully said "Authorized Version".
But this was, in this case, a lie - no pound when to the King of England.

The histories of the American Revolutionary War i've read indicate
that the Baptists were big backers of the revolution and Freedom from
England.

Rachel: // don't have a clue what KJV's I have. lol//

There are three you can go out (or stay in and use the internet) and
buy:

1. KJV1611 Edition reprint
2. KJV1769
3. KJV1873 (probably 1850)

You can tell the difference between these three families of
KJVs by checking Ruth 3:16, the last phrase:

1. KJV1611 he went into the citie
2. KJV1769 - she went into the city
3. KJV1873 - he went into the city

Variants within these families can be checked by other methods.
Note that if you read Ruth 3:17 that Ruth's Mother, Naomi, Ruth,
and Boaz all ended up in the village the next day, so the verse
doesn't make or break any doctrines

Rachel: "I didn't know there were so many."

This information is suppressed by:

1. ignorant preachers (they don't know either)
2. mean preachers (they know but have a mean streak)
3. lazy preachers (they know don't want to have to explain it to others)

The most common is the KJV1769 Edition which is really a family of editions:

KJV1762 Oxford Edition
KJV1769 Cambridge Edition
American non-'authorized versions'

BTW, King James did NOT authorize the KJV1769 family of versions,
he was long dead. God did NOT authorize the KJV1769 versions.
The KJV1762 and KJV1769 versions are 'authorized versions', the
American rip-offs were NOT really authorized but usually said they were.

BTW, there are variants among the on-line and down-loadable King
James Versions. All I know to do is talk about the plural KJVs.

Originally posted by Dr. Bob:
I am intrigued by two who "regularly use" the AV1611. I have Nelson's reprint of edition 1 (in better type face so one can actually read it) and it is TOUGH to use under the best of conditions.

Click to expand...

Wasn't me, since I didn't vote. But I have the Nelson 1611 reprint, have read it completely through -- kiver to kiver, and even the kiver -- and use it from time to time. I am quite surprised at the number of people who say it is too hard to read, and some who even claim they can't read it. Sure, it requires a tad more concentration (not a bad thing) for modern readers than current English type, but I worry about those who can't read it.

I use the KJV Webster's edition (1833)

Originally posted by Askjo:
I opened my Bible and read it saying, "The Authorized King James Bible, Cambridge 1769 Text."

Click to expand...

The only edition of the KJV that I know of that states that on the title page is D. A. Waite's DEFINED KING JAMES BIBLE: "The Authorized King James Bible Unaltered, Large Print, with Uncommon Words Defined Cambridge 1769 Text."

Based on my research, the text of Waite's DEFINED KJB is not every word the same as the text of the 1769 Cambridge KJV edition. While the standard Cambridge KJV edition was first printed in 1762, there was a KJV edition printed at Cambridge in 1769. I have seen one offered for sale before, and I checked with the owner of it and found that it had the same unique rendering that was in the 1762 Cambridge KJV
at Acts 7:28 ["killedst" for "diddest"}. Another unique rendering in the 1762 Cambridge KJV was at James 2:16 ["be ye warned and be ye filled"].

By the way, KJV editions printed in the late 1700's and even as late as the 1804 Oxford KJV still have a letter shaped like "f" for a long "s."

Is the text of Waite's DEFINED KJB "unaltered" from the actual text of the 1762 Cambridge KJV or even a 1769 Cambridge KJV edition?

Poll Results: Which KJV do you Use? (31 votes.)
Which KJV do you Use?
Choose 1

AV1611, First Edition ------------------------------------------------- 06% (2)
1762 Cambridge Revision ----------------------------------------------- 06% (2)
1769 Oxford Revision -------------------------------------------------- 23% (7)
Other KJV (6 major revisions, 100's of different minor editions)------- 13% (4)
I do not regularly use the KJV----------------------------------------- 35% (11)
I have no clue - mine just says KJV ----------------------------------- 16% (5)

I really thought the last 'I have no clue' would get about 1/3
of the vote. Maybe we just have sharp BB Members?

I couldn't answer the poll becaue I use both an Oxford edition and a Cambridge edition for preaching.

Frankly, if one word alters the thought that much, the whole doctrine around that one word needs serious examination.

Surely even for the layperson a comparison of various translations will give the essence of the meaning of scripture.

I really think some people make a mountain out of a mole hill regarding translations. Most preachers have taken Greek and Hebrew and use it to help rendering the full thought of the word. We also have access to good, sound commentaries and other aids.

I use my 1945 KJV (Cambridge) simply because I did all my memorization from this particular Bible. I'm getting too old to change now.

Cheers,

Jim

Sorry brother Ed. I haven't been keeping up here lately, you said:
"You can tell the difference between these three families of
KJVs by checking Ruth 3:16, the last phrase:

1. KJV1611 he went into the citie
2. KJV1769 - she went into the city
3. KJV1873 - he went into the city"

So mine is KJV1769 but "and she went into the city" but is the end of verse 15 in my bible.

Typos happen it is Ruth 3:15 not Ruth 3:16.

The 'reason' for changing the KJV is given:
Typos, spelling changes, etc.
But this shows a typo being changed, then
changed back; a spelling change is out of
the question. Fortunately this is a trivial
case, they (both he and she) ended up
in town the next day.

Jim 1999: //Frankly, if one word alters the thought that much,
the whole doctrine around that one word needs serious examination.//

Amen, Brother Jim1999 -- Preach it!

We shouldn't tie our main doctrines to one verse.
We especially shouldn't tie our doctrine to a minor
(not critical) element of a parable. I keep seeing a
parable where the weeds are gathered first and
the wheat gathered second and it is used to dictate
the timing of the last day gathering of the saints
AFTER the last day gathering of the unjust
(the parable is given priority in direct contradiction
to Revelation chapter 20 which shows a distinct
1,000 year break between the gathering of the Just
for judgement and the resurrection of the unjust for
judgement.

Brother Ed, I just now saw your answer to my post. Thank you, you look like an expert on KJV's. I'll have to check mine later to see what they are.