PDA

View Full Version : KJV vs PCE



Stan777
Jul 12th 2009, 02:43 AM
What is the difference between the Authorized KJV and the KJV Pure Cambridge Edition? Thanks Stan

grit
Jul 12th 2009, 05:01 PM
Hi Stan. Welcome to Bibleforums. :wave:
You're sure to run into a lot of debate on a lot of issues and quite a lot of perspective and opinion when discussing the KJV almost anywhere, and including the good folk of BF. Some of it is well worth the effort, but I find a lot of it somewhat bothersome and difficult to safely navigate in loving respect and concern for contributors and the community at large.

I only start with that, because there's sure to be a diversity of opinion even on defining both the "Authorized KJV" and the "KJV Pure Cambridge Edition". However, generally the latter is an edition of the KJV initially from Cambridge publishers which over time has standardized and 'corrected' an 1611 KJV in ways which many KJV proponents have found to be "pure" to concerns over standardizing and correcting an authorized KJV. That is, essentially it preservingly modernizes an English KJV text of 1611 in terms of spelling, punctuation, and revision to an acceptable degree of editing an authorized KJV while also purifying it or keeping it pure.

Though there are substantial differences in what folk mean by an authorized KJV, most associate it with some manner of official approval of the English king of the Church of England, though indeed some take a further step of claiming official sanction and authorization from God. The English king (James I, at the time of the KJV) gave some manner of approval or authorization to 3 English versions in succession, of which the KJV was the final edition, though only officially authorized as such in its completion by the English Parliament (see Wikipedia on Authorized KJV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_Version)). A plethora of attempts have been undertaken at standardizing the KJV with modern spellings, grammar, and other concerns. Many think that F.H.A. Scrivener succeeded at this in his edition of the KJV, and the Cambridge edition of 1873 reflects his work. I would suggest a reading of this blog (http://blog.logos.com/archives/2006/03/in_search_of_the_king_james_ve_1.html) from Logos Bible Software (Libronix) to gain further clarity on both the difficulties involved with presenting a definitive KJV and the relative success many attribute to the KJV Pure Cambridge Edition. You might also benefit from taking a peek at this (http://www.dyeager.org/blog/2008/11/kjv-only-best-king-james-bible.html) Darrin Yeager KJV-Only blog on the overall depth of the matter among proponents of the KJV. In essence, many think the Cambridge Bible of that time is purer than other more recent editions of Cambridge KJVs or KJV editions from other publishers (who generally rely on some form of the 1769 standardized edition of Benjamin Blayney).

It's important to note that there are a variety of editions of the KJV from Cambridge publishers, and that Cambridge does not classify a particular edition as a "Pure Cambridge Edition". But here's a little test, generally attributed to Matthew Verschuur (http://bibleprotector.99k.org/PUBLICK.htm), prevalent on the Web regarding which Cambridge Bible qualifies as "pure", or how to know if the KJV you're using is indeed a "Pure Cambridge Edition":


1. “or Sheba” not “and Sheba” in Joshua 19:2
2. “sin” not “sins” in 2nd Chronicles 33:19
3. “Spirit of God” not “spirit of God” in Job 33:4
4. “whom ye” not “whom he” in Jeremiah 34:16
5. “Spirit of God” not “spirit of God” in Ezekiel 11:24
6. “flieth” not “fleeth” in Nahum 3:16
7. “Spirit” not “spirit” in Matthew 4:1
8. “further” not “farther” in Matthew 26:39
9. “bewrayeth” not “betrayeth” in Matthew 26:73
10. “Spirit” not “spirit” in Mark 1:12
11. “spirit” not “Spirit” in Acts 11:28
12. “spirit” not “Spirit” in 1st John 5:8

Stan777
Jul 13th 2009, 03:04 PM
Hi Stan. Welcome to Bibleforums. :wave:
You're sure to run into a lot of debate on a lot of issues and quite a lot of perspective and opinion when discussing the KJV almost anywhere, and including the good folk of BF. Some of it is well worth the effort, but I find a lot of it somewhat bothersome and difficult to safely navigate in loving respect and concern for contributors and the community at large.

I only start with that, because there's sure to be a diversity of opinion even on defining both the "Authorized KJV" and the "KJV Pure Cambridge Edition". However, generally the latter is an edition of the KJV initially from Cambridge publishers which over time has standardized and 'corrected' an 1611 KJV in ways which many KJV proponents have found to be "pure" to concerns over standardizing and correcting an authorized KJV. That is, essentially it preservingly modernizes an English KJV text of 1611 in terms of spelling, punctuation, and revision to an acceptable degree of editing an authorized KJV while also purifying it or keeping it pure.

Though there are substantial differences in what folk mean by an authorized KJV, most associate it with some manner of official approval of the English king of the Church of England, though indeed some take a further step of claiming official sanction and authorization from God. The English king (James I, at the time of the KJV) gave some manner of approval or authorization to 3 English versions in succession, of which the KJV was the final edition, though only officially authorized as such in its completion by the English Parliament (see Wikipedia on Authorized KJV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_Version)). A plethora of attempts have been undertaken at standardizing the KJV with modern spellings, grammar, and other concerns. Many think that F.H.A. Scrivener succeeded at this in his edition of the KJV, and the Cambridge edition of 1873 reflects his work. I would suggest a reading of this blog (http://blog.logos.com/archives/2006/03/in_search_of_the_king_james_ve_1.html) from Logos Bible Software (Libronix) to gain further clarity on both the difficulties involved with presenting a definitive KJV and the relative success many attribute to the KJV Pure Cambridge Edition. You might also benefit from taking a peek at this (http://www.dyeager.org/blog/2008/11/kjv-only-best-king-james-bible.html) Darrin Yeager KJV-Only blog on the overall depth of the matter among proponents of the KJV. In essence, many think the Cambridge Bible of that time is purer than other more recent editions of Cambridge KJVs or KJV editions from other publishers (who generally rely on some form of the 1769 standardized edition of Benjamin Blayney).

It's important to note that there are a variety of editions of the KJV from Cambridge publishers, and that Cambridge does not classify a particular edition as a "Pure Cambridge Edition". But here's a little test, generally attributed to Matthew Verschuur (http://bibleprotector.99k.org/PUBLICK.htm), prevalent on the Web regarding which Cambridge Bible qualifies as "pure", or how to know if the KJV you're using is indeed a "Pure Cambridge Edition":


1. “or Sheba” not “and Sheba” in Joshua 19:2
2. “sin” not “sins” in 2nd Chronicles 33:19
3. “Spirit of God” not “spirit of God” in Job 33:4
4. “whom ye” not “whom he” in Jeremiah 34:16
5. “Spirit of God” not “spirit of God” in Ezekiel 11:24
6. “flieth” not “fleeth” in Nahum 3:16
7. “Spirit” not “spirit” in Matthew 4:1
8. “further” not “farther” in Matthew 26:39
9. “bewrayeth” not “betrayeth” in Matthew 26:73
10. “Spirit” not “spirit” in Mark 1:12
11. “spirit” not “Spirit” in Acts 11:28
12. “spirit” not “Spirit” in 1st John 5:8


Thanks for the info. God bless.;)