1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

only present KJV that follows 1769?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Logos1560, Aug 2, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Top Posters
Page 1 of 3
  1. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,602
    Likes Received:
    464
    Faith:
    Baptist
    At 1 Samuel 2:13, the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV has this rendering "priest's custom."

    The 1846 KJV edition published by the American
    Bible Society has this same rendering as does
    the 1853 edition by the same publisher. From the 1830's and for a number of years, the KJV edition published by the American Bible Society was considered the standard KJV edition by many publishers in America. A present-day edition of the KJV published by the American Bible Society
    still has this same rendering. This ABS edition of the KJV may be the only present KJV that keeps the 1769 Oxford's rendering at 1 Samuel 2:13.

    On the other hand, the present-day Oxford edition of the KJV in the Scofield Reference Bible has "priests' custom."

    When was this change first made in the KJV
    and who made the change? What was the greater authority or standard that was used for making this change?
     
    #1 Logos1560, Aug 2, 2005
  2. av1611jim

    av1611jim New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    straining at a gnat again
     
    #2 av1611jim, Aug 2, 2005
  3. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Actually, Logos has pointed out two seperate renderings with two seperate meanings. His question is quite legitimate.
     
    #3 Phillip, Aug 2, 2005
  4. David J

    David J New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    (Mat 23:24) Ye blinde guides, which straine out a gnat, and swallowe a camell. Geneva 1599

    "straining at a gnat again' AV1611Jim

    should be

    straining out a gnat again

    LOL....the Holy Geneva Bible of 1599 correct the "at" KJV error. [​IMG]

    Also consider this:

    (Mat 23:24) Ye blynde guides, which strayne out a gnat, and swalowe a Camel.-Bishops Bible

    Sorry but I cound not resist that one!

    Back to the topic...


    Anyway Logos has a good point that deserves an answer from our KJVO friends.
     
    #4 David J, Aug 2, 2005
  5. James_Newman

    James_Newman New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    What do you use to strain out gnats? A gnat strainer? Surely this would catch the camels too.
     
    #5 James_Newman, Aug 2, 2005
  6. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    James, I think maybe the "word picture" you are getting here is a little on the skewed side. :D
     
    #6 Phillip, Aug 2, 2005
  7. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,396
    Likes Received:
    672
    Faith:
    Baptist
    A camel strainer won't strain out the gnats.
     
    #7 robycop3, Aug 2, 2005
  8. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    228
    Faith:
    Baptist
    To quote from another thread in this forum - "a 'contradiction' is defined as follows: 'either of two propositions related in such a way that it is impossible for both to be true.'"

    By this definition, there is no contradiction in either rendering, making this a mute point.

    By using "priests'" we learn that Eli and the other priests had a custom. By using "priest's" we learn that Eli specifically had this custom.
     
    #8 Pastor_Bob, Aug 2, 2005
  9. natters

    natters New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pastor_Bob, Logos1560 never claimed it was a contradiction.

    It is however, a textual difference, and he's asking which, if either, is textually accurate, and by what authority (and who, and when) the change was made to produce the textually inaccurate one.
     
    #9 natters, Aug 2, 2005
  10. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    228
    Faith:
    Baptist
    natters, I agree that Logos1560 did not introduce this as a contradiction, but it would be a short step in becoming a debate as such in my opinion. I was merely doing a bit of "preventative maintenance."
     
    #10 Pastor_Bob, Aug 2, 2005
  11. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    11,864
    Likes Received:
    1,098
    Faith:
    Baptist
    What was the 1611 rendering?
     
    #11 rsr, Aug 2, 2005
  12. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mat 23:24 (KJV1611 Edition):
    Ye blind guides, which straine at a gnat,
    and swallow a camel.

    Mat 23:24 (Geneva Bible):
    Ye blinde guides, which straine out a gnat,
    and swallowe a camell.

    Remember, the flaw is NOT straining out the gnat;
    the problem is when you swaller 'dem camels :(
    (smokin' 'dem camels be bad also).

    STRONG'S sez:

    G1368
    διῦλίζω
    diulizō
    dee-oo-lid'-zo
    From G1223 and ὑλίζω hulizō (to filter); to
    strain out. (“strain at” is probably by
    misprint.): - strain at [prob. by misprint].
     
    #12 Ed Edwards, Aug 2, 2005
  13. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    My KJV1873 sez strain out
     
    #13 Ed Edwards, Aug 2, 2005
  14. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    11,864
    Likes Received:
    1,098
    Faith:
    Baptist
    #14 rsr, Aug 2, 2005
  15. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    1Sa 2:13 (Geneva Bible):
    For the Priestes custome towarde the people was this:
    when any man offered sacrifice, the Priestes boy came,
    while the flesh was seething, and a fleshhooke
    with three teeth, in his hand,

    1Sa 2:13 (KJV1611 Edition):
    And the priests custome with the people was, that
    when any man offred sacrifice, the priestes seruant came,
    while the flesh was in seething, with a fleshhooke
    of three teeth in his hand,

    Is the lower case of the KJV1611 more inspired
    than the capital in the Geneva Bible?
     
    #15 Ed Edwards, Aug 2, 2005
  16. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,602
    Likes Received:
    464
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The 1611 has "priests custom." I don't think that any apostrophes were used in the 1611 edition. I think that Paris in the 1762 Cambridge edition and Blayney in the 1769 Oxford edition were the first editors to introduce apostrophes into the KJV. It may be some earlier edition had some, but I am not aware of one. Since the first American edition of the KJV printed in 1782 does not seem to have been based on the 1762 nor the 1769, its apostrophes were added independently.

    David Norton observed that most present-day editions of the KJV "have nine singular possessives that should be plural, seven inherited from Parris, two from Blayney, and another six plural that should be singular from Blayney" (TEXTUAL HISTORY OF THE KJB, p. 109). Norton noted that "A century later Scrivener corrected these, but his changes were not adopted" (p. 109). I think that Norton's 2005 New Cambridge Paragraph Bible does adopt these
    corrections. The 1782 American edition of the KJV
    already had some of these correct uses of the apostrophe.
     
    #16 Logos1560, Aug 2, 2005
  17. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    11,864
    Likes Received:
    1,098
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Circumstantial evidence would argue for a pre-1769 origin of the singular rendering. Matthew Henry has the plural construction in his 1706 commentary; John Gill has a singular construction. I have been unable to find a publication date for Gill's exposition on I Samuel, but it was before 1771 (when he died) and perhaps before 1762. (The last of his three-volume exposition on the New Testament was published in 1748.) That also assumes, of course, that current versions of Gill's work maintain the original punctuation.
     
    #17 rsr, Aug 3, 2005
  18. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,602
    Likes Received:
    464
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I have just obtained an edition of the KJV
    printed in Oxford in 1804.

    This 1804 Oxford KJV also has "priest's custom"
    following the 1769 edition instead of the present Oxford rendering "priests' custom."

    In briefly looking at this 1804 Oxford KJV,
    it suggests that the 1846 and 1853 American Bible Society editions of the KJV that I have were actually in agreement with the 1804 Oxford text in some of the places where they disagree with the present-day Oxford text. It seems that there may be more differences between the 1769 Oxford text as found in this 1804 edition and the present Oxford text than most KJV-only advocates realize.
     
    #18 Logos1560, Aug 9, 2005
  19. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    D. A. Waite wrote:
     
    #19 Askjo, Aug 24, 2005
  20. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
     
    #20 Askjo, Aug 24, 2005
Page 1 of 3
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...