| FAQ |
| Calendar |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
 |
Menu
| Bible Versions Questions and discussion about the Bible version issue. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
| Bible Versions Questions and discussion about the Bible version issue. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#2
03-20-2009, 05:16 AM
|
||||
|
||||
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. |
|
#3
03-20-2009, 07:06 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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. 
Last edited by Samuel; 03-20-2009 at 07:26 AM. |
|
#4
03-20-2009, 07:15 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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.) |
|
#5
03-20-2009, 07:01 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
The "1769" is not a "final answer", look at www.bibleprotector.com/purecambridgeedition.htm |
|
#6
03-20-2009, 07:22 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
So does that make it a Cambridge, or Oxford. Some say Schofield made a few changes himself, perhaps these are those.
Last edited by Samuel; 03-20-2009 at 07:31 PM. |
|
#7
03-20-2009, 10:10 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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). |
|
#8
03-21-2009, 02:18 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
FredLLangit Jude 25 www.fredsites.weebly.com |
|
#9
03-20-2009, 06:57 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
There is lots of information on this issue at my website.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
|
Hybrid Mode
