AV1611 Bible Forum Archive
The King James Bible Page
SwordSearcher Bible Software

Go Back   AV1611 Bible Forum Archive > Bible Versions

Bible Versions Questions and discussion about the Bible version issue.

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-31-2009, 08:03 PM
jdk jdk is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2
Default "Alway" vs. "Always"; "Shew" vs. "Show"

Hello.

Among the KJV bibles I have here at home is a large print edition that performs some apparently minotr substitutions, such as I have indicated in the title of this post? Have any of you seen this in your Bibles? Any reason to be concerned?
  #2  
Old 01-31-2009, 10:34 PM
bibleprotector's Avatar
bibleprotector bibleprotector is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 587
Default

Be very concerned. All traditional, normal King James Bibles have "shew". Once there are changes like "alway" to "always", there are meaning differences. If there are differences like this, there will be differences in words like "intreat", "mortar", "bewray", etc.

The meaning of “alway”. The following is a great example of the exactness of the words of the Authorized King James Bible (using the Oxford English Dictionary for reference). The world “always” means “at every time” and “on every occasion”, whereas the word “alway” means “all the time” and “perpetually”. For example, Jesus said, “lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” (Matthew 28:20b). Yet He also said, “but me ye have not always.” (John 12:8b). This is not a contradiction, since John is describing Jesus’ personal physical presence. Even though Jesus is not “always” on Earth by His own physical person, yet He is “alway” with His people on the Earth, for example, by the Holy Ghost and the Word.
  #3  
Old 01-31-2009, 11:49 PM
Kiwi Christian's Avatar
Kiwi Christian Kiwi Christian is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Aotearoa
Posts: 242
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector View Post
Be very concerned. All traditional, normal King James Bibles have "shew". Once there are changes like "alway" to "always", there are meaning differences. If there are differences like this, there will be differences in words like "intreat", "mortar", "bewray", etc.

The meaning of “alway”. The following is a great example of the exactness of the words of the Authorized King James Bible (using the Oxford English Dictionary for reference). The world “always” means “at every time” and “on every occasion”, whereas the word “alway” means “all the time” and “perpetually”. For example, Jesus said, “lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” (Matthew 28:20b). Yet He also said, “but me ye have not always.” (John 12:8b). This is not a contradiction, since John is describing Jesus’ personal physical presence. Even though Jesus is not “always” on Earth by His own physical person, yet He is “alway” with His people on the Earth, for example, by the Holy Ghost and the Word.
That's a wonderful example of the subtle butchering to the word of God that some KJB publishers have mischievously done.

As far as "shew" and "show" are concerned, I believe the definition is the same for both words, yet the publishers have take the liberty to change it, maybe to lessen any confusion or update the 'archaic' spelling or something, either way there's no justification for tampering with the text.
  #4  
Old 02-01-2009, 01:24 AM
stephanos's Avatar
stephanos stephanos is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Wenatchee WA
Posts: 885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector View Post
Be very concerned. All traditional, normal King James Bibles have "shew". Once there are changes like "alway" to "always", there are meaning differences. If there are differences like this, there will be differences in words like "intreat", "mortar", "bewray", etc.

The meaning of “alway”. The following is a great example of the exactness of the words of the Authorized King James Bible (using the Oxford English Dictionary for reference). The world “always” means “at every time” and “on every occasion”, whereas the word “alway” means “all the time” and “perpetually”. For example, Jesus said, “lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” (Matthew 28:20b). Yet He also said, “but me ye have not always.” (John 12:8b). This is not a contradiction, since John is describing Jesus’ personal physical presence. Even though Jesus is not “always” on Earth by His own physical person, yet He is “alway” with His people on the Earth, for example, by the Holy Ghost and the Word.
Amen to that! Gotta love the jots and tittles!

Peace and Love,
Stephen
  #5  
Old 02-01-2009, 08:46 AM
Just_A_Thought's Avatar
Just_A_Thought Just_A_Thought is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 105
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector View Post
Be very concerned. All traditional, normal King James Bibles have "shew". Once there are changes like "alway" to "always", there are meaning differences. If there are differences like this, there will be differences in words like "intreat", "mortar", "bewray", etc.

The meaning of “alway”. The following is a great example of the exactness of the words of the Authorized King James Bible (using the Oxford English Dictionary for reference). The world “always” means “at every time” and “on every occasion”, whereas the word “alway” means “all the time” and “perpetually”. For example, Jesus said, “lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” (Matthew 28:20b). Yet He also said, “but me ye have not always.” (John 12:8b). This is not a contradiction, since John is describing Jesus’ personal physical presence. Even though Jesus is not “always” on Earth by His own physical person, yet He is “alway” with His people on the Earth, for example, by the Holy Ghost and the Word.
BP, you have a lot of info on the subject. My question to you is how do we know the the PCE is perfectly the same as the original AV1611? Do we have the authors original writings instead of the original printing with the misprints and such?

I know we have some facsimiles of other versions about that time period but I have not found a true facsimile of the AV1611. You would probably know better as to where to find one. I do not want one in new type but an actual photo copied one.

I guess there are 2 questions here...

1) Where are the authors original writings to know what were typos or spelling differences?

2) Where can I get a true facsimile of the original printing of the AV1611?

Thanks!
  #6  
Old 02-01-2009, 09:55 PM
bibleprotector's Avatar
bibleprotector bibleprotector is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 587
Default

Quote:
BP, you have a lot of info on the subject. My question to you is how do we know the the PCE is perfectly the same as the original AV1611?
I have looked at the 1611 Edition scanned online, digitised copies (e.g. in SwordSearcher), facsimile(s) (1833 Oxford/1911 Pollard/1980s Thomas Nelson) and the Cambridge reprint of 1905 by W. A. Wright, Scrivener's lists, Norton's lists and the 1850s American Committee's report. We definitely know what was first printed in 1611.

Quote:
Do we have the authors original writings instead of the original printing with the misprints and such?
We have some partial drafts, but they are not very helpful. However, we do observe that there were corrections made by the printers in the early editions, and that Cambridge had the original manuscript copy for consultation in the 1630s, and that some of the translators were involved in the editing at Cambridge University in 1638.

Quote:
I know we have some facsimiles of other versions about that time period but I have not found a true facsimile of the AV1611. You would probably know better as to where to find one. I do not want one in new type but an actual photo copied one.
http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti...PagePosition=1

Quote:
1) Where are the authors original writings to know what were typos or spelling differences?
Some cases are obvious, however, it can be observed by what is corrected in subsequent editions also.

When comparing the editions of the KJB, it is clear that there are no changes to the actual text or translation, and that all the changes may be described to correction of typos, standardising of the language and regularisation. While editors may have looked at one or other edition of the originals when doing this work, there is no change in the King James Bible from one text-type to another.

Therefore, the 1611 Edition is the same version as the Pure Cambridge Edition, and vice versa. One version and translation are represented in a host of editions from 1611 till now.

Quote:
Thanks!
In November 1833, Thomas Turton of Cambridge University wrote, “Let me take this opportunity to state, as my deliberate opinion, that the Text of 1611 is, in consequence of its incorrectness, quite unworthy to be considered as the Standard of the Bibles now printed; and to express my conscientious belief, that to revert to that Text, as the Standard, would be productive of serious evils.”

Turton wrote, “As early as the year 1638, the Text of 1611 underwent a systematic revision the nature of which will be in some degree ascertained ... If it should hereafter appear that an earlier revision had taken place, the argument from antiquity will be so much the stronger.”

Turton went on, “The revision, indeed, was a work of great labour; and it cannot be too steadily borne in mind that, two centuries ago, there lived men who possessed learning to discover the anomalies with which the Text of 1611 abounded; formed resolutions to remove them; and had diligence sufficient to carry their purposes into execution. In this way was transmitted to succeeding times a Text which compared with that of 1611, may be considered as a model of correctness. The Italics of 1638 were speedily adopted. They became part of the established Text; which Text, after having been more than once subjected to the scrutiny of persons well qualified for the undertaking, was revised, for the last time, in the year 1769.”

Turton stated that his conclusion “is the result of much inquiry and much thought, is beyond doubt. Moreover, the name of the author is given with his opinions. Under these circumstances, I declare, in all the sincerity of honest conviction, that it would not be easy to point out a mode in which the learned persons, to whom we owe the revisions already mentioned, could have been employed more beneficially to mankind.”
  #7  
Old 02-04-2009, 09:29 PM
solabiblia
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_A_Thought View Post
BP, you have a lot of info on the subject. My question to you is how do we know the the PCE is perfectly the same as the original AV1611?
JAT:
The PCE is not exactly the same as the AV 1611. The current PCE is at least the fourth correction of the AV since 1611. F.H.A. Scrivener went through and did a meticulous comparison of the PCE and the AV1611, and here are some of the differences he found. You can look at them yourself using the link to the Robert Barker text that BP provided:

Deuteronomy 26:1 -- PCE adds "thy God"
Joshua 13:29 -- PCE adds "the children of"
Psalm 69:32 -- PCE changes "seek good" to "seek God"
Jeremiah 49:1 -- PCE changes "inherit God" to "inherit Gad"
Matthew 16:16 -- PCE adds "the" before "Christ"
Mark 10:18 -- PCE changes "no man" to "none" and italicizes "there is"
1 Corinthians 4:9 -- PCE changes "aproved" to "appointed"

These are just a few examples for your review. True, some of the changes could be called spelling corrections, but not all. The PCE does have more words than the AV 1611.
  #8  
Old 02-04-2009, 10:10 PM
stephanos's Avatar
stephanos stephanos is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Wenatchee WA
Posts: 885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by solabiblia View Post
JAT:
The PCE is not exactly the same as the AV 1611. The current PCE is at least the fourth correction of the AV since 1611. F.H.A. Scrivener went through and did a meticulous comparison of the PCE and the AV1611, and here are some of the differences he found. You can look at them yourself using the link to the Robert Barker text that BP provided:

Deuteronomy 26:1 -- PCE adds "thy God"
Joshua 13:29 -- PCE adds "the children of"
Psalm 69:32 -- PCE changes "seek good" to "seek God"
Jeremiah 49:1 -- PCE changes "inherit God" to "inherit Gad"
Matthew 16:16 -- PCE adds "the" before "Christ"
Mark 10:18 -- PCE changes "no man" to "none" and italicizes "there is"
1 Corinthians 4:9 -- PCE changes "aproved" to "appointed"

These are just a few examples for your review. True, some of the changes could be called spelling corrections, but not all. The PCE does have more words than the AV 1611.
I'm going to let Bibleprotector properly respond to this.

For Jesus' sake,
Stephen
  #9  
Old 02-05-2009, 07:04 AM
bibleprotector's Avatar
bibleprotector bibleprotector is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 587
Default

I believe that differences between traditional editions of the KJB can be reasonably explained as never altering the version-text or translation (a fact which even James White acknowledges).

It seems that there too often is a readiness to put a negative spin on anything about the KJB by those who are ardently anti-KJBO. This is not reasonable. If we are honest and fair, and Biblically consistent and spiritual, we would not instantly relegate a sound KJBO view as being black/evil.

Quote:
The PCE is not exactly the same as the AV 1611.
The PCE is the same version-text and translation. It does not appear the same in presentation, if we were comparing jots and tittles, e.g. one says “bee” and one says “be”.

Quote:
The current PCE is at least the fourth correction of the AV since 1611.
Corrections have happened in the printing of the KJB, not because the translators were “wrong”, but because of typographical errors, language standardisation and other regularisation. We can fully expect that the translators themselves probably spelt “be” as “bee” sometimes.

Quote:
F.H.A. Scrivener went through and did a meticulous comparison of the PCE and the AV1611, and here are some of the differences he found.
No, Scrivener looked at the Victorian Cambridge Edition, which preceded the PCE.

Victorian Cambridge 1835 to the early 1900s.
Scrivener’s Edition 1873. Book 1884.
PCE early 1900s.

Yes, Scrivener listed many differences he found between 1611 editions, 1613, 1629, 1638, 1769, etc.

Quote:
You can look at them yourself using the link to the Robert Barker text that BP provided:
You can also get Scrivener’s helpful but unbelieving book at http://www.archive.org/details/autho...ible00scriuoft

Do not get the idea that the PCE is radically different, or that all the following differences are only PCE, or relatively recent. They are not. They are all early corrections or standardisations made in the KJB when the translators were still alive (except for one example), and since some were involved in revision of the 1638 Edition at Cambridge which kept the PCE form of the readings then, they (it can be implied reasonably) approved of them. If a word was changed within a few years of the first printing, and it was kept changed in 1638, it indicates that the 1638 wording is probably what the translators originally had or intended.

Furthermore, to say the PCE “adds” something is really wrong terminology, and almost sounds like the PCE itself has added to and changed the KJB. This is incorrect. What the PCE shows is what the translators intended, or at least, what it may be deduced that they intended. Remember that the PCE is the result of the editing that took place over the years when the translators were still alive, and when the English Christians had a vested intrest in keeping their Bible as one standard. Most certainly the providence of God and millions of English users (including decades of Anglican Bishops) approved and used the following as they stand in their proper form as given in the PCE:

Quote:
Deuteronomy 26:1 -- PCE adds "thy God"
This reading was accidentally omitted by the printers of 1611 (it appeared in the Geneva and Bishops’ Bibles) already corrected in 1629.

Quote:
Joshua 13:29 -- PCE adds "the children of"
This reading was probably accidentally omitted by the printers of 1611 (it appeared in the Geneva), corrected in 1638.

Quote:
Psalm 69:32 -- PCE changes "seek good" to "seek God"
This printer’s error was corrected in 1617 and 1629.

Quote:
Jeremiah 49:1 -- PCE changes "inherit God" to "inherit Gad"
This printer’s error was corrected in 1616.

Quote:
Matthew 16:16 -- PCE adds "the" before "Christ"
This standardisation of the language occurred in 1762. This is still long before the PCE ever existed. The Geneva Bible read “that Christ”.

Quote:
Mark 10:18 -- PCE changes "no man" to "none" and italicizes "there is"
This standardisation of the language occurred in 1638.

The changes in italics (e.g. in 1638) are perfectly in order as they do not change the actual words of Scripture. They were executed in line with what would be called regularisation (editorial and technical consistency).

Quote:
1 Corinthians 4:9 -- PCE changes "aproved" to "appointed"
An example of where the printer accidentally typeset the wrong word. Corrected in 1616 and 1629.

Quote:
These are just a few examples for your review. True, some of the changes could be called spelling corrections, but not all.
This is factual enough.

Quote:
The PCE does have more words than the AV 1611.
But then, there is an example where 1611 accidentally repeats half a verse... surely we wouldn’t accuse the PCE or any edition back to 1612 of “taking away” these words from the 1611 edition... Clearly, they did not belong in the KJB to start with.

“And when Pharaoh drew nigh, the children of Israel lift vp their eyes, and behold, the Egyptians marched after them, and they were sore afraid: and the children of Israel lift vp their eyes, and beholde, the Egyptians marched after them, and they were sore afraid: and the children of Israel cried out vnto the Lord.” (Exodus 14:10, 1611 Edition).

“And when Pharaoh drew nigh, the children of Israel lifted up their eyes, and, behold, the Egyptians marched after them; and they were sore afraid: and the children of Israel cried out unto the LORD.” (Exodus 14:10).

Last edited by bibleprotector; 02-05-2009 at 07:10 AM.
  #10  
Old 02-07-2009, 09:33 AM
jdk jdk is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2
Default Wow...

As a relatively new arrival to the KJVO position, I see that I have a lot to learn.

As I grew up in the faith, I was taught, in not so many words, that you had to have access to Greek and Hebrew sources to fully understand the Bible. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I'm seeing here is that God has presented a pure delivery of His Word in the KJV.

Thanks for all your insights.
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Website © AV1611.Com.
Posts represent only the opinions of users of this forum and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the webmaster.

Software for Believing Bible Study  The Fundamental Top 500