Oxford/Cambridge Comparison Chart

[Logos1560]

The 1967 Scofield KJV, other than changing most of the older words also has some alternate text, not KJV. This happens in Isaiah, I can't remember exactly the verses involved.

Perhaps one of the verses that you refer to in Isaiah is Isaiah 9:3.
There the 1967 Scofield has the same rendering as the 1911 Bible that Scofield was associated with ["increased the joy" instead of "not increased the joy"].

At this verse, the 1967 Scofield followed the reading indicated by the marginal note in the Masoretic Text as the KJV does in several other verses.


Concerning Isaiah 9:3, Ginsburg noted that the official Keri substitutes "to him" for "not," but he maintained that the difficulty was caused by the original Hebrew orthography being wrongly divided into two words (Introduction, p. 161). John Eadie observed that “the Masora gives fifteen instances where lo should be written so as to signify ’to him’--and not to signify ’not.’ Thus in Isaiah 9:3, in the clause ’thou hast not increased the joy,’ which contradicts the rest of the verse, ’they joy before Thee,’ the translators put the note ’to him’ into the margin--though it should have been in the text. In Exodus 21:8, ’not’ should be ’to himself’ as the Masora intimates, and this is accepted into the text without any remark” (English Bible, II, p. 209).

 

[Dale-c]

Or maybe it was like the NASB, of which; one of the editors repented of having anything to do with. Since changing his notes required a re-typeset, there would have been no problem with changing text also.

Could you please name the "editor" of the NASB that repented of having any thing to do with the NASB?

I think you are passing on a rumor that is untrue.

 

[Amy.G]

Could you please name the "editor" of the NASB that repented of having any thing to do with the NASB?

I think you are passing on a rumor that is untrue.

Dr. Frank Logsdon.

Link

 

[sag38]

He didn't repent of having anything at all to do with the NASB. Rather, it concerned attachments to the NASB.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Or maybe it was like the NASB, of which; one of the editors repented of having anything to do with. Since changing his notes required a re-typeset, there would have been no problem with changing text also.

Here's the WHOLE story:

First, some have found an endorsement page included in some of the printings of New Age Bible Versions to be troubling. The longest of the endorsements`though an endorsement not of the book, but of the King James Version`is from Frank Logsdon (probably known more widely as S. Franklin Logsdon). It is a repudiation of the NASB with which he had a loose association for a while. This reviewer knew Logsdon (who died about four years ago) and knows to be false the endorsement's claim that he was "Co-founder" of the NASB. Logsdon's only tie to the NASB was his personal friendship with Dewey Lockman. Lockman was the sole founder of the NASB project, and Logsdon's role was extremely minor as an occasional adviser to Lockman. This reviewer remembers well the meeting of the Editorial Board of the Lockman Foundation when Lockman read the letter from Logsdon declaring his desire not to have any further association with the NASB. Lockman was crushed personally, but Logsdon's role was so minor that Lockman saw no need to interrupt the project in even the slightest way when he received this letter.

(From http://www.kjvonly.org/other/riplinger_new_age_bible_pr.htm)

(Edit: I see that someone else got to this first.)

 

[EdSutton]

The so called reprints of the 1611 KJV edition, are photocopies, as are the Geneva editions. They are very poor in quality, and not very readable.

I would not even want to attempt to read one, the English, if that's what you call it is atrocious. The folks that feel the 1769 edition is out of date, need to see a 1611 photocopy. :laugh:

My son bought one a long time ago (1611 kjv), it was actually a reprint. Anyway he took it to a Bible study, and drove everyone crazy. He was asked not to bring it back.

"Samuel Owen, your hand has been 'called' on this one, before.

Why the cracks directed at the English of the KJ-1611? (And from one who supposedly is a strong KJV advocate, no less! ) The English words and spellings found in the KJ-1611 are entirely consistent with and fairly representative of the Elizabethan/Jacobean Era English of the time, excepting maybe some terms of 'theology-speak'. Likewise, the KJ- 1762 and KJ-1769 are consistent with and fairly representative of the words and spellings of the Georgian Era.

And By What Standard? do you halfway ascertain the language of 1769 is some "improvement" but that English, as spoken today is some regression, somehow?? (Figure it out!!) Did the English language beginning with the time of the American Revolution somehow start and irreversible "downward slide" midway through that Beorgian era and continue the slide under one who was arguably one of the greatest of the English monarchs (Queen Victoria), and who along with Prince Albert were considered to be among the stronger of Christian Monarchs, as well?

The 'quality' of the paper and appearance of some of these reprints and even some Bible editions of today or yesteryear may well be atrocious. (FTR, I just purchased a new Bible at the SBC, last year, as a gift for my bride, which, when I actually started using it occasionally, caused me to declare the printing therein as 'atrocious' as well, so that this 'poor workmanship' is not merely some historical shortcoming!)

Likewise, some of the Bible MSS are obviously of better penmanship and material than some others, but all that has absolutely zero to do with the words written therein."

Signed, Language Cop

 

[EdSutton]

I would not even want to attempt to read one, the English, if that's what you call it is atrocious. The folks that feel the 1769 edition is out of date, need to see a 1611 photocopy. :laugh:

My son bought one a long time ago (1611 kjv), it was actually a reprint. Anyway he took it to a Bible study, and drove everyone crazy. He was asked not to bring it back.

I only wish I had known as much 40 years ago, as I do now, about this.

The 'KJV' was the required version for memorizing verses at the Bible College I attended, and graduated from. One could use any other, I assume, for other purposes, although 'The 1917 'Old Scofield®© '' was definitely recommended. (Personally, I started using 'The 1967-KJV 'New Scofield®©'' for my own personal use, around 1970 or '71, apart from these memory verses.)

Looking back on it, I now wish I had had an actual KJ-1611 for this purpose of memorizing, along with my KJ-1967 and my '1917 Scofield', (plus a 'counterfeit American' Edition, all of which to use when the occasion called for it), solely for the purpose of annoying the Administration, and eliciting a 100% honest response from them.

This would have been my basic approach, when I appeared in front of the Dean (holding all four copies, no less), and before whom I no doubt would have had to appear!

"Hey! What gives?? You said we were to use the KJV. That is exactly!! what I am doing, and I want and expect my full credit! Exactly how much more 'KJV' can one get, and do you expect?? I have here three "genuine KJVs" (Note the Oxford copyrights on two of them, and the 'Crown Copyright' on the third), yet you are not willing for me to use two of the three! Yet you would apparently have no problem in the least with accepting a "counterfeit" KJV. What exactly is going on here??"

(I also have little doubt, that had I been adamant enough with this, I would not have had to worry about being around for the graduation ceremony, as I would have long since been summarily dismissed, by then. However, I would, at least, have caused an honest look, evaluation, and/or statement from the brass'.)

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

I apologize for the typo in post # 26 where this should read "Georgian" rather than "Beorgian" as it does. The computer locked up, while I was actually on the BB, and I was unable to correct this in a timely manner.

[Edited to add] More likely our computer actually engaged itself in its "self-destruct" mode, at my hands! :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

[sag38]

Writest thineself a ticket ye olde language cop.

 

[EdSutton]

Writest thineself a ticket ye olde language cop.

"I already have done this! I wrote myself a ticket for 'operating with "defective equipment"'!"

Signed, Language Cop