[bibleprotector]

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.

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.

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

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.

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.”