Differences in the KJB
 

:)
1.I just want to to know why the KJB of the Cambridge and Oxford are different sometimes?
2. What is standard for the KJB edition that we should get?
3. Why there are differences in the edition?
Bob

I think the answer is because of different publishers.
Currently, I am a 1769 guy. (That's the "final edition" for the KJV 1611 - spelling updates). But no, the words ought not be changed, which is the difference between an "edition" and a "revision" (modern versions).
if there are word differences, I'm sure there are "experts" in this forum who has well-studied the issue. So, hold on.

I am no expert on changes, but I can site a few things. The 1967 New Scofield for one, has word changes, and some alternate readings. There have been printer/editor changes in some KJV's, after the 1769 date.

Someone will comment on the 1885 edition, which there was none ( actually the RSV of 1885, some called a KJV). But there was an 1883 edition, called Lincoln's Bible supposedly a KJV, but wasn't; it was actually a reprint of the Geneva Bible. The one Obama was sworn into office on.

Some later Cambridge Bibles have had word updates (I'll catch it on that one). But I read of one occurrence where someone purchased one, and found it not as he had expected (word changes, not his Grandmothers Bible), and he returned it. In fact he went so far as to show them, and the original words he had expected.

At present the Old Scofield, and the Scofield lll study Bibles, are the only (for sure) true Oxford Standards remaining. My Thompson Chain should be 1769, but checking it against my Scofield, has some small amount of word changes. Nothing that would make any real difference, just enough to say its not a 1769 printing. Since Kirkbridge printed that one, that's probably the reason why.

Cambridge actually owns the Plates for the 1769 KJV, and Oxford was allowed to copy them. So other printers probably have to make a few word changes (not fact, my thoughts), to keep from breaking some copyright law. The KJV is public domain, but I don't imagine Cambridge's printing plates are. There is always some loop hole in this World. :)

There is lots of information on this issue at my website.

Because both University Presses have different standards for spelling; different editors made different alterations; there are slight differences between Bibles printed by the same publisher.

You mean, "which edition is the right one?" People recognise that the Cambridge ones are the best, there is one Cambridge one which is, I believe, exactly correct in its presentation. It is called "The Pure Cambridge Edition".

You should see that there is one King James Bible that has been printed many times in the last 400 years. In that time, there has been a lot of different editions, but the same Bible.

There are tiny differences in all editions since 1769, including in spelling. Also, any deliberate change within the KJB to standardise the spelling or correct a printer mistake is a "revision". It is an "editorial revision", not updating the underlying text or the translation.

The "1769" is not a "final answer", look at www.bibleprotector.com/purecambridgeedition.htm

Actually, the Scofield is not the standard "Oxford".

Cambridge does not own the plates of the 1769 KJV. There is no fact to the whole scenario about Oxford copying them or whatever.

What happened is this:

Both Cambridge and Oxford were printing KJBs in the 1750s, which went back to the 1638 Cambridge Edition. Cambridge did an edit in 1762, and then Oxford did one in 1769, which became the basis of all editions afterwards.

Only Oxford followed its own 1769 Edition. It was then followed by the London printers. The London printers also said (in about 1805) that there were 116 errata with the 1769 Edition. Already small differences appeared in the late 1700s.

An edit was done in 1817 by D'Oyly and Mant for Oxford, and only small changes occurred in the late 1800s, such as the word "spirit" at 1 John 5:8 being made "Spirit". The London Editions were clones of the 1800s Oxford.

In the 1830s a controversy arose about how accurate the KJB printing and editorial work was, and Cambridge decided to follow the 1769 Edition, but with corrections, so that "their's" would be "theirs". The Cambridge edition underwent minor changes in the 1800s, but around 1900, another edit took place, which made the Pure Cambridge Edition.

In the twentieth century, the London Edition was edited noticeably, and finally turned into (with some changes) the Cambridge Standard Text Edition. The Oxford has remained fairly static. Also, a new Cambridge edit occurred creating the Concord Edition, which some mistake as the "normal Cambridge" today. However, this Concord Edition is really a mixture with the Oxford.

In conclusion, I will point out that no edition is “1769” unless it comes from that year, but that the 1769 Edition does form the basis of all the editions of today. (There are some radically altered editions, such as Webster’s, Scrivener’s, the American Revisions and Norton’s, but they do not count as normal editions.)

All of this is exactly the same in my Scofield Oxford 1769. :) So does that make it a Cambridge, or Oxford. Some say Schofield made a few changes himself, perhaps these are those.

Scofield's edition that I have dates to 1917, the American Branch of Oxford University Press. I have a copy, and it is not a PCE.

Samuel, does your particular Scofield have "Gaba" or does it have "Geba" in Ezra 2:26?

What about other edition differences listed at www.bibleprotector.com/editions.htm ?

The 1967 Scofield from Oxford is said (e.g. on Wikipedia) to be a modernised KJV (although I have never actually examined this edition).

I have NSRB given to me by the Swiss Seamens Mission based on France. Most of the texts have been changed and follows the standard of a Wescott-Hort Theory. Some of it's footnote are very dangerous like that of 1 John 5:7. To qoute: "It is generally agreed that this verse has no mss. authority and has been inserted." To have the old scofield is better than the new one.

FredLLangit
Jude 25
www.fredsites.weebly.com

Ezra 2:26, reads "Gaba" in my Scofield lll.

I have a 1967 edition of the New Scofield Study Bible, and it does replace most of the older words. Most damaging are alternate readings here and there, with no warning of such. And these follow the NASB readings, and we know what that is.

All most all new editions of the KJV carry footnotes, indicating certain verses are not in the "best text". The Scofield lll at least identifies which text these "best text's" are (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus). But it does not bracket them, as far as the text - it is left alone.

Rather than a bad thing, I find it helpful so I can point out what changes have been made in the new bibles. But yes to a new reader, if he did not read the introduction, might be some bad news. The intoduction clearly states; these are made for comparison purposes only.

I would like to find an Old Scofield original, but they are hard to find, around here anyway. Also a lot of them are reprints, not made by Oxford. I don't think I would trust ordering one, unless I could examine it.

Nearly all of the research I did stated the Scofield lll, which is a reprint of the 1901-1917 editions (by Oxford), follows the KJV 1769 faithfully.

I checked a lot! but not all the examples on the Bible Protector, when I first got the Scofield lll. And everyone I checked, came out like the Oxford 1611 reprint examples.

In Genesis 30:31 it follows the L, O, OE examples rather than the 1611. Where it does not follow 1611 examples it mostly follows the Cambridge. With exception of the Gen. 30:31 grammatical example, being a [.] instead of [:]. so I must conclude it is KJV 1769.

In my now-lost collection, I had a Gideons KJV and I think a Holman Dime Store Special that had changed out "colour, labour", etc., for "color, labor".

The "New" Schofield KJV of 1967 is neither a Schofield or a KJV due to internal textual changes, and notes Schofield did not add, plus "footnotes" impeaching the various contested verses between the KJV and W&H. Dr. Ruckman publishes a small booklet outlining the differences between the NSRB and the KJV.

Grace and peace

Tony

The Scofield lll, retains both Labour, and Colour, no change here. I also have a 1967 Scofield, and know it contains many word changes, plus some variant readings. :(

The Introduction to the 1967 scofield talks about a group of 9 men changing what Dr. Scofield had written. Its bad enough that these men changed scofields notes,but these are the same kinds of men aka scholars who perverted our KJB. People think that the New Scofield (1967) is the correct scofield just because its old. Thel Old Scofield is the one with the 1917 notes.
I hear people say,well,i have an old scofield,yeah, buutttt its the 1967 revision,which is not even a Scofield.

A friend of mine got a "deal" on a NSRB" the other say and it was my sad duty to inform him he did not have a KJV.

Besides spelling and punctuation standardization, the original 1611 KJV was also printed in the old German Gothic script rather than our modern Roman type.

Grace and peace to you Samuel

Tony

Dr. Ruckman would likely, have a problem with the Scofield lll. While it is the text of the 1907-1917 Oxford KJV, and has Scofields original study system and notes, it also retains the extra notes of the NSRB 1967. But as far as Bibles with notes, they have never been a distraction for me.

Also it has some other period, and archeological information plus a few in text maps. It much resembles an Open Bible in layout if you have ever seen one of those, only in KJV rather - than NKJV.

Which is just what I was looking for, I have always liked the Open Bible for the additional information, just not the NKJV part.

Like Hunter says "works for me", and that is what counts. :)

I had a 1917 schofield I used in school but hardly consulted the notes. I read them and were familiar with them, I hardly used them.

Grace and peace

Tony

I don't trust the Jerry Falwell Version(NKJV). It's not a King James. The NSRB was what I guess is referred to as "leaven".

Grace and peace

Tony

I used the NSRB for years, and never realized the alternate readings; until I got the Scofield lll. Of course I was aware of the word changes, which are pretty conservative in nature. But never noticed the occasional sneaky alternate readings.

I was checking last night, and Scofield lll does not retain ALL of the 1967 NSRB notes, just a few. And these few, may have been Dr. Scofield's to begin with?. Anyway when you compare the two, its an all together different Bible.

I know for sure the "This verse was not contained in the best manuscripts" part in not Dr. Scofield's. But like I said they come in handy, when I am telling someone this is not in your Bible, or it is not a King James. :)

Your average persons jaw drops when you tell them, unlike the self made scholarly types you meet on some of these internet forums.
They are not aware the Bible they carry, is not the Bible after all. I have decided this is part of my mission in life, to convert the re-converted.

If Dr. Ruckman didn't think Scofield was worth anything,why would they offer the Old Scofield reference bible in there bookstore ,and why would Dr. Ruckman write a book called About the New Scofield reference bible. Here is another,a article in the Bible Believers Bulletin July 2004 by David Cagle "Indisputable facts of CI Scofield.

Don't like Scofield? get a plain text bible and forget any type of Study Bible.

Sam,i am with you,those Scofield notes are handy.

Better get a PCE before they run out.
What to do when they are all gone?:confused:

Yes you can get a KJV Pew-Bible for around $10.00, that will not have notes. There may be a few changed words from the 1769, but are a big improvement on using any modern version.

The only problem I have with Cambridge, is their use of 6.5 point print. Being on my 5th pair of glasses, this is just not comfortable to read. My Scofield uses 10 point bold type, much better for me at least. Its not what you would call large print, but maybe medium.

It does come out to 1948 pages though, and 1.5 inches thick, or maybe a tad over. But a lot of that is attributed to the additional information, on many of the pages.

I have a Thompson Chain, they do not have notes, and follow the KJV 1769 version pretty close, but not altogether. But again 6.5 point print, and not bold either, but standard. The text seems to be sometimes Oxford, and at others Cambridge.

Is the 1873 one good? That's what I have.

Do you mean Scrivener's edition?

I'm not sure, although I do know it's in most Cambridge editions and it's paragraphed

What's in most Cambridge editions?

I just found one!. A small old, old, Bible store out the street from me had a 1917 Old Scofield edition. They said they have had them for a long time, and the boxes show it.

Anyway it is smith-sewn, leather bound. The only thing is it is an all black letter edition. But that doesn't bother me in the least. :)

I even got a leather case for it, the final price was $91.00, but I am very happy with it.