1873 vs 1769 KJV?

[tinytim]

I recently purchased a Bible with the 1873 edition of the KJV in it. I had never seen one until I bought this one. I also recently posted under "Scofield question" a response concerning the 1873 edition. So I thought I'd ask a few questions about it.

1. What are the major differences between the 1769 ed. and the 1873 besides the obvious paragraph form change?

2. What do KJVO think about the footnotes that are in it, considering most kick the notes in MVs stating that they cause confusion? (The 1873 has 6,637 marginal notes that were in the 1611, and 473 notes that have appeared in all the other previous editions.

3. Which KJV is preserved the 1769 or 1873? According to the "If it's different, than it can't be the same" argument one can't be preserved, so which one is the preserved one?
(Ruth 3:15 for ex. "he" or "she", yeah I know "printer error" but which one is right. If 1611 and 1873 are right then 1769 has an error in it.)

 

[Walls]

What?! Another edition! I can't take any more, my head is spinning now.

Who instigated another edition? What was the purpose? I wonder which one I have?

 

[BrianT]

The 1769 is Blayney's, from Oxford, and the 1873 is Scrivener's, from Cambridge. Scrivener is well-known for documenting all the differences between all the editions, in his book "The Authorized Edition of 1611: The History and Changes In It", so maybe finding that book would document some of the differences between the 1769 and the 1873.

I would guess that since the 1769 is from Oxford and the 1873 is from Cambridge, the common differences between Oxford and Cambridge in general would be found between the 1769 and the 1873 specifically - such as Joshua 19:2, 2 Chron 33:19, Jer 34:16, etc.

 

[tinytim]

I'm still waiting for a KJVO to answer my bove questions. Or do you have any answers?

 

[Daniel David]

Tinytim, they don't have any answers, only accusations. I have grown weary of the countless threads I have started trying to get a straight answer from them. Check out the one I just started. It is incredible.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Originally posted by tinytim:
I'm still waiting for a KJVO to answer my bove questions.

I have stated before on this forum that silence should never be mistaken for ignorance. Some people know what they believe but cannot express it in a way that would do their belief justice.
Proverbs 17:28 Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.

However, since everyone knows that I am not a man of understanding, I'll add my thoughts to the discussion.

1. What are the major differences between the 1769 ed. and the 1873 besides the obvious paragraph form change?

There are no "major" differences as far as I can tell.

2. What do KJVO think about the footnotes that are in it, considering most kick the notes in MVs stating that they cause confusion? (The 1873 has 6,637 marginal notes that were in the 1611, and 473 notes that have appeared in all the other previous editions.

I don't have a problem with footnotes. I rarely look at them any way. I use a Thompson Chain Reference in the pulpit and I've already studied any words I might have needed further light shed upon.

For my personal and family devotions, I use The Defined King James Bible edited by D.A. Waite. It uses the Cambridge 1769 text. It places, as a footnote, the definition of some uncommon or archaic words in the text.

3. Which KJV is preserved the 1769 or 1873? According to the "If it's different, than it can't be the same" argument one can't be preserved, so which one is the preserved one?

The underlying text of both of these editions is preserved. If these two translations accurately represent the text then they are both preserved as well.

 

[Daniel David]

Pastor Bob, do I understand you to be TR only?

 

[Pastor_Bob]

I would classify myself as "Preserved Text Only," or "Received Text Only." I would define this position as being a view that God has preserved His Word through the traditional Received Text.

When you say "TR only," it leaves the door open for some to say, "Which TR are you referring to?" If you mean the term "TR" to be synonymous with the Received Text, then I would say, "yes" to your question.

I realize that many people would lump the position that I stated above with the KJVO position, simply because the KJVO position is much easier to attack.

 

[Pastor KevinR]

Pastor Bob, I appreciate your fair view of the matter at hand. Personally, I accept the Majority Text even over the TR (or Rec'd Text)as the TR is based upon the M.T. As far as the W/H Text, Critical Text, I won't go so far as saying the're heretical, but inferior. That is my opinion. I used to be KJVO, and one positive thing (there are too many negatives )that I got from the movement was my view about the M.T. Although they didn't teach this directly, but I drew my own conclusions. As far as the MV's are concerned, I use mostly the NKJV, and read sometimes the NASV,ESV,NIV, and even the NLT, basically to compare. I know churches that use these named mentioned MV's and they're doing a good work..some KJV churches, too...some KJV churches are off the deep end though, whether Baptist, Pentecostal, etc. (sorry to ramble)

 

[Walls]

Originally posted by Walls:
I wonder which one I have?

I how can I tell which edition of the KJV do I have?

Also, are you sure that the 1611 and 1873 are the same?

 

[tinytim]

Originally posted by Walls:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Walls:
I wonder which one I have?

I how can I tell which edition of the KJV do I have?

Also, are you sure that the 1611 and 1873 are the same? </font>[/QUOTE]I had never seen a 1883 edition until I bought this new parallel Bible. I knew I had something different when I opened it up and saw the KJV written in Paragraphs and then I saw all the footnotes at the bottom. I then turned to the front and read the preface to the 1883 edition.

As for the 1611 and the 1873 being the same, I have no idea for the whole Bible. (I've never read a 1611 all the way through.) I do know that there are some footnotes in the 1883 that are from the previous editions (1611 -1769). The only way I knew that was because the preface said so.

 

[Walls]

Thanks TinyTim! The Bible's we have just show their copyright dates.

 

[LRL71]

Originally posted by Pastor_Bob:
I would classify myself as "Preserved Text Only," or "Received Text Only." I would define this position as being a view that God has preserved His Word through the traditional Received Text.

When you say "TR only," it leaves the door open for some to say, "Which TR are you referring to?" If you mean the term "TR" to be synonymous with the Received Text, then I would say, "yes" to your question.

I realize that many people would lump the position that I stated above with the KJVO position, simply because the KJVO position is much easier to attack.

Pastor Bob-

Thank you for your clarification in regard to where you stand. I do not intend to be contentious with this post, but rather I wish to further inquire whether you claim that your position is a doctrinal position or rather a personal preference? If your position is doctrinal (or, at least if it leans in that direction), please state where you find in the Bible that supports your doctrinal position. I would think that it would be helpful for yourself to distinguish yourself from the "KJV" (English Bible) Onlyists who make that case of a 'providentially/perfectly preserved' English Bible. Thanks.