I like reading the original printed versions of Reformation era Bibles because it slows me down and makes me me think about each word, and puts me in the "zeitgeist" of their historical era. The same goes for hand written Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Anglo Saxon, and Middle English manuscripts. (Actually, I do more "slogging through" these than fluently reading them.) Praise God for the many libraries and scholarly sites which make such materials so readily available! Having said that, I got tired of consulting dictionaries to understand the KJV. I haved moved on to the ESV, NASB 2020 and LSB for regular use. Your channel is truly a blessing. Thanks & Blessings!🙋🏼♂️📖
Wow-so interesting! I like slogging, too! And I love to look at old translations, because once you see what's going on you see that the task of translation hasn't really changed in 2,000 years. But I know what you mean about KJV weariness; sometimes I don't have the energy. Thanks for the comment!
Thank you for this video. I will consider ordering this edition. My preferred translation is NLT (both because it's so close to how I really talk in real life and I believe it's most useful for others, younger generations and Bible-illiterate) but I have a much deeper need. I'm married to a KJVo and in 22 years Bible translation has been a source of conflict, not unity. Due to your gentle sincerity, I have come to believe that finding a more loving approach is a good idea. For us to go to one church, I have moved. In church I carry the NLT and Greek interlinear (on my phone), how's that for bookending a solution? Thank you please be encouraged that your work is oh so relevant.
On reflection, I ordered this edition of the KJV, and I will start carrying it on Sundays. I realized there is no benefit of being an NLT or Greek proponent in a KJO church. I have to shew myself willing and able to handle the KJV and make a sincere effort, just as I have to learn some Greek. Your false friends teaching is a tremendous benefit to me.
You'll get funny looks. =) In my experience, our KJV-Only brothers have never heard of Norton or his work-though, theoretically, they should be ecstatic about it.
Quite literally the King's English. It is the only version of the Binle I will read. Something about being introduced to that book at age seven, and looking at the unusual speech, so I challenged myself, and fell in love with the translation.
I grew in Southern Illinois in the Weslyan Church, or Pilgrim Holiness Church, then changed to Allegheny Weslyan Methodist Church. We used the original 1611 translation of the King James version, and at the age of seven inning fell in love with the "They, Thou, and Verily i say unto you," that made the reading so fluid. To this very day, I still look at the original 1611 KJV translation, not only due to the positive memories but the very challenge of not only reading and understanding the Old English at age of seven in the mid 1970's, but mastering the language. Please do not mistake my love of challenges as being dismissive of the Bible. On the contrary, God only allows you what you can handle, right? If only there was an answer to that question, as i have been looking since I volunteered at the Johns Hopkins Children's Cancer Center in 1992...
I love the Cambridge Paragraph Bible. Reading the Bible this way feels more like you're reading a novel and it just makes the text flow more naturally, in my opinion. My edition is calfskin and has the Apocrypha included. Even though I don't regard the Apocrypha as scripture, I like to have it, as the original King James Bible had it, up until the late 1800s. Also, I think it has a lot of historical value, in understanding what the Jews believed during the intertestamental period between Malachi and Matthew, even though they have historical and doctrinal problems.
I like the Cambridge Paragraph Bible (i.e., Scrivener's 1873 version) but I feel some of David Norton's editorial choices with the NCPB, mainly modernizing the grammar, are a bit excessive. I feel that most of what the NCPB does, the Cambridge Clarion does better.
@@swamprat22 More or less - less more, more less. It's a standard Cambridge text, but it's not exactly the 1769 standard text (I have a facsimile of a 1769 KJV; there's a couple readings not that of standard Oxford _or_ Cambridge KJVs.)
Hey Mark, I have the 2005 edition of the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible. It's the leather bound, large edition. I like it except for one thing. I have found that in at least one place, entire phrases are left out for some reason. In 1st Peter 5:1, in all KJV's, going all the way back to the 1611, it has always read," The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed." In the 2005 edition, the beginning phrase, " The elders which are among you" is completely left out. Instead verse one begins with 'I exhort". I don't know if it's just a printing error in my particular copy, or if it reads that way in all the 2005 editions, or if it was intentional. I wonder if it reads that way in the later editions, the personal size ones? I purchased this Bible just recently directly from Cambridge. They sent it to me from their warehouse in England. I was really disappointed when I saw that that part of the verse was not there. If you have a copy of this, would you mind checking to see if it reads the same way in yours? Thanks, and I really like your channel.
Very interesting. I took a look, and my Logos version is as you describe. I initially believed it was intentional. Norton did *INCREDIBLY* careful work. It must be that the KJV translators did this originally, I thought. But I happen to have a PDF copy of Norton's NCPB, and those words are present. Here's a screenshot. drops.forwarddesigner.net/hjOnvp I have no explanation for this.
@@markwardonwords Thanks for checking Mark. I was wondering if the PDF copy you looked at is from the later 2011 edition or the original 2006 edition. I believe it was in 2011 when they began publishing the personal size, but I could be wrong about that. I can live with mine the way it is. There was enough room on the page to write those first six words with a black ink pen. So you're saying that the Logos version leaves those words out too? I considered getting the personal size, but I believe the paper in the 2006 edition is better and it's certainly easier to read. Thanks again.
@@markwardonwords Thanks Mark. I received an email from Cambridge about this. They told me that they spoke with David Norton, and that he said that it was a printing error in the first publication, but they also said that it went unnoticed for several years. Cambridge told me that the next printing of it would be corrected. I'll keep mine and make any other corrections in it, if I find anymore.
I just watched BIBLE BUYING GUIDE'S review of this Bible. I'm excited 😊. Original translator's notes, the apocrypha, translators to the reader's... It's the real King James! And the formatting looks condusive to really understanding it . But one question... Spake is gone 😔. Isn't spake the proper past tense form in 1611? Or is this some residue spelling from the great vowel shift and I've not known better?
I'd love to hear others' answer to this, but I prefer the format of the Clarion while certainly also wishing to have the text of the NCPB. I need both!
Appreciate this video much.I started reading the OT again earlier than scheduled.In Genesis 24:59 I came across the phrase Rebecca's nurse.Going to the NASB,ESV,NKJV,and NIV all rendered it nurse.When I opened my NLT I find it childhood nurse.We all know what the modern nurse means as an assistant to doctors or medical personnel and so that's what i learned from NLT's take on this verse.
Interesting. Yes, “nurse” is used far more commonly today in the medical field than in childcare. But this is probably a hard *thing* not a hard *word.* That is, Rebecca had a “nursemaid,” and we don’t really have those anymore except on TV (or we call them “nannies”). So the translator has to weigh whether to bring the reader into the world of the text or bring the text into the world of the reader.
@@markwardonwords Thank you for replying to my comment.You mentioned the words"nursemaid" and "nanniy" a very good suggestion which I'm going to add to my notes for plowboy's notebook on the archaic KJV Bible words.
@@markwardonwords 'Nursemaid' is a 'wet nurse', i.e. a person who suckles the child by the breast instead of its mother. This practice continued In England up to the 1800s/early 1900s.
Honestly, both are excellent. I would tend to vote for Norton's work if readability is your sole criterion. He makes it just that much easier to read. But they are very, very similar.
Despite the fanciful tales that have been levied against us, I personally know of no one that believes the actual 1611 edition descended in a cloud. Most of us have viewed the entire Reformation as a Providential process that basically began with Wycliffe and includes the subsequent corrections of 1611 and post-1611 printing errors. Nor do most of us believe that the KJV is the only true Bible, or that that there hadn't been one before, or that there hasn't been another since. Even though I'm an absolutely faithful KJV user, I see where there could be improvements. I don't need them though since I have access to the underlying texts. Plus, I have no expectation that a better English version will ever be produced before the Lord comes, though many have tried. _"A translator of the Bible needs, far more than the commentator, to be acquainted with the entire Bible, and thoroughly imbued with its spirit. We very much doubt if it is possible for any body of men to agree upon a version of the Bible that will be superior to King James's version."_ (Signs of the Times, 10-29-1885, p. 10.) Blessings -> Isa. 56:1-8.
Hello, great job on this video. The King James translators used unbound folio copies of the 1602 Bishop's Bible to make their textual suggestions and changes. I like this book by David Norton by the way. I have both the hardback & paperback copies. Many people think that Blayney's 1769 Bible was the final revision of the King James but as you can see in the 1769 Blayney facsimile it is inundated with many changes in the text itself, as well as the orthography. Blayney introduced new textual changes as David Norton points out in his book. No Bible since 1881 is a revision of the King James Bible, they are new translations from inferior manuscripts. I think I'll stick with my Cambridge King James Bible. To me it is the top of the pyramid of the English bibles before 1611 and since 1611. After 1611 Bible translations all fell downward like Dagon the Philistine god sitting beside the Ark of the Covenant in the O.T. Again, God bless you in your work for Christ.
@@markwardonwords I like that. I’ve been reading about the wonderful bookbinder, Legatoria Editoriale Giovanni Olivotto in Vicenza, Italy. I want to know everything about this edition! Font by Gerard Unger is Swift; 10 / 12.5 pt (personal edition reduced 87%, ~ 8.7 / 10.9 pt. Printed and bound in their Vicenza plant. Still researching the paper - it’s exquisite, very fine, unlike other premium bible paper. * Legatoria Editoriale = Editorial Bookbinder… They really do the comprehensive work.
@@markwardonwords tried to send pics - I’ll email you a few. All books start on the recto - right page - leaving the verso (left) blank if needed. And a first (for me): Under the last verse of Revelation c.22 is printed: THE END
Mark Ward, I’d love to know what you think of “Young’s Literal Translation” - same era as KJV but he felt it necessary to create a more accurate version than the KJV !! Being a ‘literal’ translation it’s not always very readable, but used alongside other versions, I find it very helpful to see the intent of the original languages.
I should probably do a video on it-which would require a little more research. Over the years my impression has been that, like italics, Young’s Literal Translation is mostly useful for people who already know at least a little of the original languages. The Lexham English Bible is somewhat like the YLT; it was formed initially by stringing glosses together on a computer.
The Best. I have the full size version you are showing, the goatskin personal and hard cover personal. Not for everybody but my favorite English version. I have the Textual History also.
I just remembered that I used to have an edition of the KJV where the spelling had been Americanised, e.g. honor instead of honour and things like that. I don't recall there being any explanation of this, on the copyright page or elsewhere. If I remember correctly, I gave it away.
I actually own a reprint of the 1611 KJV. Boy it is hard to read too! It's got all the books that the 1611 came out with. Its interesting that in the front of Hebrews they allude to Paul as the author. I think that's probably correct. Mark, I suspect that a KJV onlyist would probably reject that Companion volume you have as well. Probably so. What you've said here in the video is another reason I treasure my 1560 Geneva Bible so much. Less stigma attached to it. I truly wish someone would take that 1560 Geneva Bible, without those notes, and publish it in a quality leather-bound volume with modern font. I'd buy it in a heartbeat!!
I think the NCPB should have an update, returning to indicating the supplied words, but how they were originally done: not in italics, but in a different font. The NCPB should have its current font its main font, and something like Times New Roman for its supplies words font. You can see how the original KJV did it in the video at 4:11.
I am simply not convinced that the Masoretic text is the best OT text. That being said, scripture is given to be OBEYED, to make us DISCIPLES, and not just scholars or theologians. And clearly, a KJV that's obeyed is preferable to the best other version if the version is not obeyed. Thanks for your good work, Mark.
I got the NCPB when it was first released on Logos, and I didn’t realize that there would be grammatical changes (like you explained in the video). I thought it was going to be like the old KJV but just in paragraph form. So I was surprised when I came a-crossed the great commission verses in Mat. 28.
I tend to avoid anything published by Cambridge or Oxford due to their liberal, critical bent, but Cambridge Bibles have retained their quality. I will have to look at this one.
Why don’t these king James only guys speak in king James English I understand wanting to be careful but I can not buy into all that stuff I do and always have for the most part have used it but I am not KJ V only only
My friend, the New King James Version and the Modern English Version both use the same underlying Hebrew and Greek texts as the King James. And they translate those texts into fully intelligible contemporary English, which means they meet the principle of 1 Corinthians 14, edification requires intelligibility. I recommend the NKJV and MEV to you.
@@markwardonwords thank you so much for the response Mark, I greatly appreciate it! I always learn an abundance of new things watching your videos! I’ve only been delving into the KJV for a little time now, but I love the earlier English and the beauty of the language that is put forth throughout the text.
When I was first confronted with the "tens of thousands" of changes since the 1611 I went out and bought a leather bound photo copy of that Bible. Yes, it is hard to read with all the spelling changes, but except for adding of the "Ye" it really has not changed..... Rightly or wrongly, this realization is what really pushed me to KJV-Only.... Any thoughts on "The Defined King James Bible" by DA Waite?
Have you seen the work of David Norton? The Textual History of the KJV? Waite’s Bible is a big step in the right direction. Numbers of my false friends are contained therein. But the typography is horrible. :(
@@markwardonwords I just ordered the David Norton book, it looks interesting based on your review. From a KJV-Only standpoint the false friends as you call them is annoying (refill in Genesis being the most annoying to me) but something we sort of accept. Yes, the typography in Waite's Bible is horrific, which exemplifies the lack of financial incentive to put a lot of money into "new" KJV editions, the sales are just not going to be there to justify the initial investment. I frankly don't see any way there could be an updated KJV that would take hold even if we all agreed every change was correct. Have you read "A History of The Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8" by Michael Maynard? I would be more than happy to send you my copy if you have not seen it, it is interesting. My predication is based on what is going on with the Church as a whole is the next revision of major translation (ESV, NIV, NLT) will become gender neutral and LGBTQ friendly. The push against this from major denominations is going away as you see the bifurcating of denomination between liberal and conservative associations. (It is just like WA becoming more liberal as our conservative friends move to Texas and Florida) For example the Methodist... ua-cam.com/video/VjydUH-lfDo/v-deo.html
I have a leather bound reprint of the 1611 with Apocryphal books, original translator notes and alternate readings (very telling…😳😂). The F and I (J) letters make it very difficult to study and is unreadable for any extended period. It is pretty much a novelty item as I don’t read it daily. I like it for the historical value as a step in the progression of translations throughout the centuries.
That facsimile is the real KJV 1611 and not the ones available in christian bookstores as claimed by misguided KJV onlyist like those whose church signs or church bulletin contain the phrase We only use the KJV 1611 here.Its hard to believe you can buy a 1611 KJV in handy size edition or even KJV new testament with Psalms and Proverbs with Gothic letterings on it.Wow the KJV is a revision of the Bishop's Bible which is a revision of The Great Bible that info is new to me.
The thing is that there is no “real” KJV. As I said in the notes to this video, it’s not clear which KJV is the letter-perfect one, if indeed there must be one at all.
@@markwardonwords There is in fact a subset of KJVOs who actually believe in a serif-perfect KJV, though I think they're pretty small and amplified by the power of the Internet. They refer to a "Pure Cambridge Edition of 1900" (basically the text of the Cambridge Cameo and Turquoise, and some editions of the Collins Iona) as the sevenfold purification of the sevenfold purification that they think the KJV is (i.e., they're generally Riplingerites rather than Ruckmanites).
No if the kjv only folks are going to be consistent In Their Viewpoint Than They Must Only Use The 1611 Edition Of The kjv so called bible their doctrine leads the kjv only folks into this position !!!!!!!!!! March 28,2021 Sunday 11:34 AM from South Louisiana .
Many/most (?) of my KJV-Only brothers, in my experience, aren't aware that they're using the 1769 KJV and not the 1611. I just heard an ex-KJVO pastor say that he didn't know this until well into adulthood. But those who do know have various explanations. They tend to say either that the 1769 is a fully purified edition of the KJV or that it made only spelling changes.
@@markwardonwords have you heard of the word on fire Bible? It's a new testament or I think it's just the gospels I ordered one. www.wordonfire.org/bible/?gclid=Cj0KCQjw5eX7BRDQARIsAMhYLP-151Lw8V6zoKbD_ShyNIiAJ1edXgjHkFhpFesjtI5Wq0Tr-oibpt4aAl6yEALw_wcB
I don’t know how you can say it is alright to spake to spoke but not alright to change saith to says because that would be major alteration of the character of the language.
@@warblerab2955, I myself have worked on a proposal for updating the KJV. It is very difficult to know where to draw the line-how many changes are too many, and will alienate people unnecessarily? Does that make sense?
@@markwardonwords Here is another question: when do changes cause it to no long be the KJV? I think when you start changing words where you can't prove it was a typo or something like that(changing spake to spoke), you enter the territory of created a a revised or new version of the KJV and no longer the KJV itself anymore.
Excellent and important question. There is no Bible verse to answer it. The KJV has undergone multiple revisions (six or seven, depending on who's counting). Most changes, I'm told, were minor. Some were more significant. David Norton details this in his amazing Textual History of the KJB.
You said that the KJV translators were only "revising" the Bishops Bible, a revision of a revision. You even state the opening of the KJV Bible as proof "...with the former translations diligently compared". However you forgot to quote the whole thing, which isn't surprising. Here you go... "The Holy Bible, containing the Old Testament, and the New. Newly translated out of the original tongues: and with the former translations diligently compared and revised..." Notice: NEWLY TRANSLATED out of the original tongues...Not a revision of an older English Bible from 1568, but a NEW one. Notice: The "original tongues" are what's used for their new translation, the other language translations are secondary, and only used for "comparison"...
@@lonestarstate6570 Something can be a new translation while still being a revision of an earlier work. The RV from 1800s was considered both a revision of the KJV as well as a new translation.
@@markwardonwords it would be beneficial to note that all of the English translations prior to the KJV are nearly identical to it apart from spelling and some phrasing changes right up to the 1769 and later editions. The only English Bibles in error are the modern English translations that use corrupt inferior manuscripts for the most part.
Have you addressed somewhere the idea that Psalm 12:6 is a prophecy of the coming of the KJV? All of your arguments fall flat if we’re dealing with fulfilled prophecy. The original Hebrew and Greek are not “perfect” which is why we don’t need to care that the originals no longer exist. The Psalm 12:6 thing is what negates everything else you say. I know it’s nuts but if you articulated it somewhere it would be just swell if I could find it.
I am finishing up a long academic paper tackling this very subject. Of course, even if Psalm 12:6-7 were promising perfect manuscript copies of the Greek New Testament and Hebrew Bible, and I most certainly do not believe that it is, this still wouldn't get us to the KJV, or even "the TR." Which KJV? Which TR? Every "textual absolutist" interpretation of this text ends up making an ultimately arbitrary choice to prefer one translation or text over another. I don't think the differences among these texts are large; they're not. But the jots and tittles are not the same; perfect is perfect; preserved is preserved.
Mark, why oh why do you resist the KJV... You & James. You study it everyday to gnaw at it. We love it and hold it as God's Scared word, but just like Lucifer, there are gnawing creatures trying to shake the people from clinging to His Book. That why we can't follow you.
Only if “his word” equals “the KJV in every detail,” which is not what the KJV translators thought. That is, only if the KJV is perfect can it be that any differences from it mean tampering with the Word.
He didn't change it. I checked the original 1611, and that is how it was written originally by the translators. Later in the verse of the NCPB, it does still say the LORD thy God, but not at the beginning as in the first 1611 version.
I like reading the original printed versions of Reformation era Bibles because it slows me down and makes me me think about each word, and puts me in the "zeitgeist" of their historical era. The same goes for hand written Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Anglo Saxon, and Middle English manuscripts. (Actually, I do more "slogging through" these than fluently reading them.) Praise God for the many libraries and scholarly sites which make such materials so readily available!
Having said that, I got tired of consulting dictionaries to understand the KJV. I haved moved on to the ESV, NASB 2020 and LSB for regular use. Your channel is truly a blessing. Thanks & Blessings!🙋🏼♂️📖
Wow-so interesting! I like slogging, too! And I love to look at old translations, because once you see what's going on you see that the task of translation hasn't really changed in 2,000 years. But I know what you mean about KJV weariness; sometimes I don't have the energy. Thanks for the comment!
Thank you for this video. I will consider ordering this edition. My preferred translation is NLT (both because it's so close to how I really talk in real life and I believe it's most useful for others, younger generations and Bible-illiterate) but I have a much deeper need. I'm married to a KJVo and in 22 years Bible translation has been a source of conflict, not unity. Due to your gentle sincerity, I have come to believe that finding a more loving approach is a good idea. For us to go to one church, I have moved. In church I carry the NLT and Greek interlinear (on my phone), how's that for bookending a solution? Thank you please be encouraged that your work is oh so relevant.
On reflection, I ordered this edition of the KJV, and I will start carrying it on Sundays. I realized there is no benefit of being an NLT or Greek proponent in a KJO church. I have to shew myself willing and able to handle the KJV and make a sincere effort, just as I have to learn some Greek. Your false friends teaching is a tremendous benefit to me.
You'll get funny looks. =) In my experience, our KJV-Only brothers have never heard of Norton or his work-though, theoretically, they should be ecstatic about it.
Quite literally the King's English. It is the only version of the Binle I will read.
Something about being introduced to that book at age seven, and looking at the unusual speech, so I challenged myself, and fell in love with the translation.
I grew in Southern Illinois in the Weslyan Church, or Pilgrim Holiness Church, then changed to Allegheny Weslyan Methodist Church.
We used the original 1611 translation of the King James version, and at the age of seven inning fell in love with the "They, Thou, and Verily i say unto you," that made the reading so fluid.
To this very day, I still look at the original 1611 KJV translation, not only due to the positive memories but the very challenge of not only reading and understanding the Old English at age of seven in the mid 1970's, but mastering the language.
Please do not mistake my love of challenges as being dismissive of the Bible. On the contrary, God only allows you what you can handle, right?
If only there was an answer to that question, as i have been looking since I volunteered at the Johns Hopkins Children's Cancer Center in 1992...
Love the new Cambridge paragraph bible. Actually made me love the kjv more...
Me too!
Me too!
I love the Cambridge Paragraph Bible. Reading the Bible this way feels more like you're reading a novel and it just makes the text flow more naturally, in my opinion. My edition is calfskin and has the Apocrypha included. Even though I don't regard the Apocrypha as scripture, I like to have it, as the original King James Bible had it, up until the late 1800s. Also, I think it has a lot of historical value, in understanding what the Jews believed during the intertestamental period between Malachi and Matthew, even though they have historical and doctrinal problems.
Totally with you.
I like the Cambridge Paragraph Bible (i.e., Scrivener's 1873 version) but I feel some of David Norton's editorial choices with the NCPB, mainly modernizing the grammar, are a bit excessive.
I feel that most of what the NCPB does, the Cambridge Clarion does better.
@@fnjesusfreakyeah, but the clarion is just cambridge's 1769 text right?
@@swamprat22 More or less - less more, more less. It's a standard Cambridge text, but it's not exactly the 1769 standard text (I have a facsimile of a 1769 KJV; there's a couple readings not that of standard Oxford _or_ Cambridge KJVs.)
@@fnjesusfreakoh alright. thank you lol, didnt really expect a response
Hey Mark, I have the 2005 edition of the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible. It's the leather bound, large edition. I like it except for one thing. I have found that in at least one place, entire phrases are left out for some reason. In 1st Peter 5:1, in all KJV's, going all the way back to the 1611, it has always read," The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed." In the 2005 edition, the beginning phrase, " The elders which are among you" is completely left out. Instead verse one begins with 'I exhort". I don't know if it's just a printing error in my particular copy, or if it reads that way in all the 2005 editions, or if it was intentional. I wonder if it reads that way in the later editions, the personal size ones? I purchased this Bible just recently directly from Cambridge. They sent it to me from their warehouse in England. I was really disappointed when I saw that that part of the verse was not there. If you have a copy of this, would you mind checking to see if it reads the same way in yours? Thanks, and I really like your channel.
Very interesting. I took a look, and my Logos version is as you describe. I initially believed it was intentional. Norton did *INCREDIBLY* careful work. It must be that the KJV translators did this originally, I thought.
But I happen to have a PDF copy of Norton's NCPB, and those words are present. Here's a screenshot.
drops.forwarddesigner.net/hjOnvp
I have no explanation for this.
@@markwardonwords Thanks for checking Mark. I was wondering if the PDF copy you looked at is from the later 2011 edition or the original 2006 edition. I believe it was in 2011 when they began publishing the personal size, but I could be wrong about that. I can live with mine the way it is. There was enough room on the page to write those first six words with a black ink pen. So you're saying that the Logos version leaves those words out too? I considered getting the personal size, but I believe the paper in the 2006 edition is better and it's certainly easier to read. Thanks again.
I've got the 2011 edition, yes. Will add screenshot in a sec…
Here's a screenshot of the copyrights page: drops.forwarddesigner.net/vUYhqJ
@@markwardonwords Thanks Mark. I received an email from Cambridge about this. They told me that they spoke with David Norton, and that he said that it was a printing error in the first publication, but they also said that it went unnoticed for several years. Cambridge told me that the next printing of it would be corrected. I'll keep mine and make any other corrections in it, if I find anymore.
I just watched BIBLE BUYING GUIDE'S review of this Bible. I'm excited 😊. Original translator's notes, the apocrypha, translators to the reader's... It's the real King James! And the formatting looks condusive to really understanding it .
But one question... Spake is gone 😔. Isn't spake the proper past tense form in 1611? Or is this some residue spelling from the great vowel shift and I've not known better?
I believe Norton explains this alteration in the front matter. He made a minor few select spelling updates.
How does the personal size NCPB compare to the Clarion? I already have a Clarion and love it, Is there any point in having both?
I'd love to hear others' answer to this, but I prefer the format of the Clarion while certainly also wishing to have the text of the NCPB. I need both!
Appreciate this video much.I started reading the OT again earlier than scheduled.In Genesis 24:59 I came across the phrase Rebecca's nurse.Going to the NASB,ESV,NKJV,and NIV all rendered it nurse.When I opened my NLT I find it childhood nurse.We all know what the modern nurse means as an assistant to doctors or medical personnel and so that's what i learned from NLT's take on this verse.
Interesting. Yes, “nurse” is used far more commonly today in the medical field than in childcare. But this is probably a hard *thing* not a hard *word.* That is, Rebecca had a “nursemaid,” and we don’t really have those anymore except on TV (or we call them “nannies”). So the translator has to weigh whether to bring the reader into the world of the text or bring the text into the world of the reader.
@@markwardonwords Thank you for replying to my comment.You mentioned the words"nursemaid" and "nanniy" a very good suggestion which I'm going to add to my notes for plowboy's notebook on the archaic KJV Bible words.
@@markwardonwords 'Nursemaid' is a 'wet nurse', i.e. a person who suckles the child by the breast instead of its mother. This practice continued In England up to the 1800s/early 1900s.
I'm awaiting my copy of Peguin Classics of David Norton's paragraph Bible. I ordered the last in stock from the KJV Store.
Thank you for highlighting this item. This is the first time I've heard anything about it, but I will definitely be looking it up!
My pleasure!
I love your videos. Very enlightening and enjoyable, keep going.
Thank you!
WHATS YOUR THOUGHS ON THE CLARION VS THIS VERSION. WHICH IS MORE READABLE. I AM LESS CONCERNED WITH THE LEATHER AND BINDING.
Honestly, both are excellent. I would tend to vote for Norton's work if readability is your sole criterion. He makes it just that much easier to read. But they are very, very similar.
Your content and insight are always 10+, but you get an A as well for your lighting and backgrounds. Keep up the great work and Good bless🙌🏻❤️📖
Thank you so much!
If someone is going to insist on King James only, and not use the 1611 version... I don't even know what to say.
Despite the fanciful tales that have been levied against us, I personally know of no one that believes the actual 1611 edition descended in a cloud. Most of us have viewed the entire Reformation as a Providential process that basically began with Wycliffe and includes the subsequent corrections of 1611 and post-1611 printing errors. Nor do most of us believe that the KJV is the only true Bible, or that that there hadn't been one before, or that there hasn't been another since. Even though I'm an absolutely faithful KJV user, I see where there could be improvements. I don't need them though since I have access to the underlying texts. Plus, I have no expectation that a better English version will ever be produced before the Lord comes, though many have tried. _"A translator of the Bible needs, far more than the commentator, to be acquainted with the entire Bible, and thoroughly imbued with its spirit. We very much doubt if it is possible for any body of men to agree upon a version of the Bible that will be superior to King James's version."_ (Signs of the Times, 10-29-1885, p. 10.)
Blessings -> Isa. 56:1-8.
Hello, great job on this video. The King James translators used unbound folio copies of the 1602 Bishop's Bible to make their textual suggestions and changes. I like this book by David Norton by the way. I have both the hardback & paperback copies. Many people think that Blayney's 1769 Bible was the final revision of the King James but as you can see in the 1769 Blayney facsimile it is inundated with many changes in the text itself, as well as the orthography. Blayney introduced new textual changes as David Norton points out in his book. No Bible since 1881 is a revision of the King James Bible, they are new translations from inferior manuscripts. I think I'll stick with my Cambridge King James Bible. To me it is the top of the pyramid of the English bibles before 1611 and since 1611. After 1611 Bible translations all fell downward like Dagon the Philistine god sitting beside the Ark of the Covenant in the O.T. Again, God bless you in your work for Christ.
We need a designation for this beautiful version. KJV-NCP (New Cambridge Paragraph)? Norton KJV? OKJT (Original King James Translation)?
I’ve seen NCPB.
@@markwardonwords I like that. I’ve been reading about the wonderful bookbinder, Legatoria Editoriale Giovanni Olivotto in Vicenza, Italy. I want to know everything about this edition! Font by Gerard Unger is Swift; 10 / 12.5 pt (personal edition reduced 87%, ~ 8.7 / 10.9 pt. Printed and bound in their Vicenza plant. Still researching the paper - it’s exquisite, very fine, unlike other premium bible paper.
* Legatoria Editoriale = Editorial Bookbinder… They really do the comprehensive work.
@@markwardonwords tried to send pics - I’ll email you a few. All books start on the recto - right page - leaving the verso (left) blank if needed. And a first (for me): Under the last verse of Revelation c.22 is printed: THE END
Mark Ward, I’d love to know what you think of “Young’s Literal Translation” - same era as KJV but he felt it necessary to create a more accurate version than the KJV !! Being a ‘literal’ translation it’s not always very readable, but used alongside other versions, I find it very helpful to see the intent of the original languages.
I should probably do a video on it-which would require a little more research. Over the years my impression has been that, like italics, Young’s Literal Translation is mostly useful for people who already know at least a little of the original languages. The Lexham English Bible is somewhat like the YLT; it was formed initially by stringing glosses together on a computer.
I have a 1611 KJV repro, very hard to read. But I am so glade I bought it as a reference Bible.
The Best. I have the full size version you are showing, the goatskin personal and hard cover personal. Not for everybody but my favorite English version. I have the Textual History also.
Nice! I just have a hardcover.
What about the American KJV
I will appreciate your answer
Thank you
Heard of it. Haven't had a chance to look into it in any detail!
I just remembered that I used to have an edition of the KJV where the spelling had been Americanised, e.g. honor instead of honour and things like that. I don't recall there being any explanation of this, on the copyright page or elsewhere. If I remember correctly, I gave it away.
I actually own a reprint of the 1611 KJV. Boy it is hard to read too! It's got all the books that the 1611 came out with. Its interesting that in the front of Hebrews they allude to Paul as the author. I think that's probably correct. Mark, I suspect that a KJV onlyist would probably reject that Companion volume you have as well. Probably so. What you've said here in the video is another reason I treasure my 1560 Geneva Bible so much. Less stigma attached to it. I truly wish someone would take that 1560 Geneva Bible, without those notes, and publish it in a quality leather-bound volume with modern font. I'd buy it in a heartbeat!!
✔
I have a 1599 Geneva Bible on my phone. KJV onlyists reject it too.
I own a Cambridge Schuyler KJV circa 1900~, a Pure Cambridge Edition, it isn't an update though, it's just the cambridge version
My personal size calfskin edition just arrived. It’s beautiful!
Ooh-nice!
The KJV contained 'the apocrypha' so if you want a KJV as it was intended to be then the paragraph bible with apocrypha is what you need.
Right!
I’m reading this book as we speak. After the first couple chapters, whoever thinks the KJV was re-inspired are just foolish.
Do you think this will be coming to Logos?
Already done! www.logos.com/product/24557/the-new-cambridge-paragraph-bible-with-the-apocrypha-rev-ed
Mark Ward boom! Thank u!
Just ordered! Thanks, man!
You’re welcome!
I think the NCPB should have an update, returning to indicating the supplied words, but how they were originally done: not in italics, but in a different font. The NCPB should have its current font its main font, and something like Times New Roman for its supplies words font. You can see how the original KJV did it in the video at 4:11.
I am simply not convinced that the Masoretic text is the best OT text. That being said, scripture is given to be OBEYED, to make us DISCIPLES, and not just scholars or theologians. And clearly, a KJV that's obeyed is preferable to the best other version if the version is not obeyed. Thanks for your good work, Mark.
Agreed! Obedience is better than sacrifice.
I have to admit, the change from "spake" to "spoke" threw me off in Mat 28:18
Not sure I follow…
I got the NCPB when it was first released on Logos, and I didn’t realize that there would be grammatical changes (like you explained in the video). I thought it was going to be like the old KJV but just in paragraph form. So I was surprised when I came a-crossed the great commission verses in Mat. 28.
Yeah, that's my main issue with the NCPB.
I love the Old English typeface, sadly it does little good in today's world ...
I tend to avoid anything published by Cambridge or Oxford due to their liberal, critical bent, but Cambridge Bibles have retained their quality. I will have to look at this one.
cambridge doesnt appear to have a liberal bent. some of the people do, sure, but most of them dont.
@@swamprat22 It’s more about the resources they publish. It seems “scholarly” today often just means skeptic or revisionist.
And many have probably never really seen the KJB.
Good analogy with Paul and Spurgeon
Thank you!
Have you ever heard of the Third Millennium Bible? It's the same as the KJ21, but it includes the apocrypha just like the 1611 KJV did.
Heard of it; never taken a close look. I should do so! Thanks for the tip.
Really helpful and interesting. Thanks
Thanks!
Why don’t these king James only guys speak in king James English I understand wanting to be careful but I can not buy into all that stuff I do and always have for the most part have used it but I am not KJ V only
only
I've never heard any of them address this question. Wait: just one. Peter Van Kleeck Jr. Sort of.
The NIV is not a revision of the KJV, the NIV was translated from completely different text from the KJV.
My friend, the New King James Version and the Modern English Version both use the same underlying Hebrew and Greek texts as the King James. And they translate those texts into fully intelligible contemporary English, which means they meet the principle of 1 Corinthians 14, edification requires intelligibility. I recommend the NKJV and MEV to you.
Human nature will always diminish what it touches
I always thought saith was pronounced “say-ith” and not “seth”
It can be pronounced that way correctly. But "seth" is the preferred pronunciation!
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/saith
@@markwardonwords thank you so much for the response Mark, I greatly appreciate it! I always learn an abundance of new things watching your videos! I’ve only been delving into the KJV for a little time now, but I love the earlier English and the beauty of the language that is put forth throughout the text.
Enjoyed this
Glad to hear!
Niv is not a revision. They use a different text like most modern bibles
I’ve put the two texts side by side at kjvparallelbible.org.
When I was first confronted with the "tens of thousands" of changes since the 1611 I went out and bought a leather bound photo copy of that Bible. Yes, it is hard to read with all the spelling changes, but except for adding of the "Ye" it really has not changed.....
Rightly or wrongly, this realization is what really pushed me to KJV-Only....
Any thoughts on "The Defined King James Bible" by DA Waite?
Have you seen the work of David Norton? The Textual History of the KJV?
Waite’s Bible is a big step in the right direction. Numbers of my false friends are contained therein. But the typography is horrible. :(
@@markwardonwords I just ordered the David Norton book, it looks interesting based on your review.
From a KJV-Only standpoint the false friends as you call them is annoying (refill in Genesis being the most annoying to me) but something we sort of accept.
Yes, the typography in Waite's Bible is horrific, which exemplifies the lack of financial incentive to put a lot of money into "new" KJV editions, the sales are just not going to be there to justify the initial investment. I frankly don't see any way there could be an updated KJV that would take hold even if we all agreed every change was correct.
Have you read "A History of The Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8" by Michael Maynard? I would be more than happy to send you my copy if you have not seen it, it is interesting.
My predication is based on what is going on with the Church as a whole is the next revision of major translation (ESV, NIV, NLT) will become gender neutral and LGBTQ friendly. The push against this from major denominations is going away as you see the bifurcating of denomination between liberal and conservative associations. (It is just like WA becoming more liberal as our conservative friends move to Texas and Florida) For example the Methodist... ua-cam.com/video/VjydUH-lfDo/v-deo.html
I have a leather bound reprint of the 1611 with Apocryphal books, original translator notes and alternate readings (very telling…😳😂).
The F and I (J) letters make it very difficult to study and is unreadable for any extended period. It is pretty much a novelty item as I don’t read it daily. I like it for the historical value as a step in the progression of translations throughout the centuries.
Right on. I don’t have one; I want one. But I have access to a replica like that at work.
NCPB is great.
Yeah, it’s really amazing.
That facsimile is the real KJV 1611 and not the ones available in christian bookstores as claimed by misguided KJV onlyist like those whose church signs or church bulletin contain the phrase We only use the KJV 1611 here.Its hard to believe you can buy a 1611 KJV in handy size edition or even KJV new testament with Psalms and Proverbs with Gothic letterings on it.Wow the KJV is a revision of the Bishop's Bible which is a revision of The Great Bible that info is new to me.
The thing is that there is no “real” KJV. As I said in the notes to this video, it’s not clear which KJV is the letter-perfect one, if indeed there must be one at all.
@@markwardonwords There is in fact a subset of KJVOs who actually believe in a serif-perfect KJV, though I think they're pretty small and amplified by the power of the Internet. They refer to a "Pure Cambridge Edition of 1900" (basically the text of the Cambridge Cameo and Turquoise, and some editions of the Collins Iona) as the sevenfold purification of the sevenfold purification that they think the KJV is (i.e., they're generally Riplingerites rather than Ruckmanites).
No if the kjv only folks are going to be consistent In Their Viewpoint Than They Must Only Use The 1611 Edition Of The kjv so called bible their doctrine leads the kjv only folks into this position !!!!!!!!!! March 28,2021 Sunday 11:34 AM from South Louisiana .
Many/most (?) of my KJV-Only brothers, in my experience, aren't aware that they're using the 1769 KJV and not the 1611. I just heard an ex-KJVO pastor say that he didn't know this until well into adulthood. But those who do know have various explanations. They tend to say either that the 1769 is a fully purified edition of the KJV or that it made only spelling changes.
I read Romans 1 through 11
Me too! Love em!
I will Buy It on eBay.
I have it in Logos… I do wish I had a physical copy. It’s a beautiful book.
@@markwardonwords have you heard of the word on fire Bible? It's a new testament or I think it's just the gospels I ordered one.
www.wordonfire.org/bible/?gclid=Cj0KCQjw5eX7BRDQARIsAMhYLP-151Lw8V6zoKbD_ShyNIiAJ1edXgjHkFhpFesjtI5Wq0Tr-oibpt4aAl6yEALw_wcB
I confess I haven't!
Good
Thanks!
I don’t know how you can say it is alright to spake to spoke but not alright to change saith to says because that would be major alteration of the character of the language.
It’s a tough set of judgments.
@@markwardonwords That doesn't explain anything.
@@warblerab2955, I myself have worked on a proposal for updating the KJV. It is very difficult to know where to draw the line-how many changes are too many, and will alienate people unnecessarily? Does that make sense?
@@markwardonwords Here is another question: when do changes cause it to no long be the KJV? I think when you start changing words where you can't prove it was a typo or something like that(changing spake to spoke), you enter the territory of created a a revised or new version of the KJV and no longer the KJV itself anymore.
Excellent and important question. There is no Bible verse to answer it. The KJV has undergone multiple revisions (six or seven, depending on who's counting). Most changes, I'm told, were minor. Some were more significant. David Norton details this in his amazing Textual History of the KJB.
Interesting. I'll have to check this out.
Yeah, Norton did amazing work.
You said that the KJV translators were only "revising" the Bishops Bible, a revision of a revision. You even state the opening of the KJV Bible as proof "...with the former translations diligently compared". However you forgot to quote the whole thing, which isn't surprising. Here you go...
"The Holy Bible, containing the Old Testament, and the New. Newly translated out of the original tongues: and with the former translations diligently compared and revised..."
Notice: NEWLY TRANSLATED out of the original tongues...Not a revision of an older English Bible from 1568, but a NEW one.
Notice: The "original tongues" are what's used for their new translation, the other language translations are secondary, and only used for "comparison"...
Read the Bishop’s Bible, my friend. And read the 14 rules given to the KJV translators. I stand by what I said.
@@markwardonwords "I stand by what I said"... regardless of what the KJV translators said...real sharp!
@@lonestarstate6570 Something can be a new translation while still being a revision of an earlier work. The RV from 1800s was considered both a revision of the KJV as well as a new translation.
@@markwardonwords it would be beneficial to note that all of the English translations prior to the KJV are nearly identical to it apart from spelling and some phrasing changes right up to the 1769 and later editions. The only English Bibles in error are the modern English translations that use corrupt inferior manuscripts for the most part.
Have you addressed somewhere the idea that Psalm 12:6 is a prophecy of the coming of the KJV? All of your arguments fall flat if we’re dealing with fulfilled prophecy. The original Hebrew and Greek are not “perfect” which is why we don’t need to care that the originals no longer exist. The Psalm 12:6 thing is what negates everything else you say. I know it’s nuts but if you articulated it somewhere it would be just swell if I could find it.
I am finishing up a long academic paper tackling this very subject. Of course, even if Psalm 12:6-7 were promising perfect manuscript copies of the Greek New Testament and Hebrew Bible, and I most certainly do not believe that it is, this still wouldn't get us to the KJV, or even "the TR." Which KJV? Which TR? Every "textual absolutist" interpretation of this text ends up making an ultimately arbitrary choice to prefer one translation or text over another. I don't think the differences among these texts are large; they're not. But the jots and tittles are not the same; perfect is perfect; preserved is preserved.
@@markwardonwords Amen. And thank you. I’ll be on the lookout on Amazon etc. for your paper.
On earth as it is in heaven is proper not in earth man changed the word
Not sure I follow!
Actual KJV text does say "in earth" at Mt 6.10
Hopefully you are und some authority and not just working on your own
I am under multiple authorities, and happily so.
i cannot imagine how it must feel to hate the word of God like this.
I am a firm biblical inerrantist. Therefore I stand with Scripture and the King James translators against KJV-Onlyism.
Do you believe in God Jesus Christ son of God Amen
YES AMEN
Mark, why oh why do you resist the KJV... You & James. You study it everyday to gnaw at it. We love it and hold it as God's Scared word, but just like Lucifer, there are gnawing creatures trying to shake the people from clinging to His Book. That why we can't follow you.
Why did Norton change this?
Deuteronomy 26.1 ‘the LORD thy God’ to ‘the LORD’?
Friend, he wrote out all his principles in great detail. I’d encourage you to get his Textual History of the KJV and read it!
@@markwardonwords That really didn't answer the question. God may consider this tampering with His Word.
Rev 22:18 - 20
Only if “his word” equals “the KJV in every detail,” which is not what the KJV translators thought. That is, only if the KJV is perfect can it be that any differences from it mean tampering with the Word.
He didn't change it. I checked the original 1611, and that is how it was written originally by the translators. Later in the verse of the NCPB, it does still say the LORD thy God, but not at the beginning as in the first 1611 version.
Jesuit (wolf in sheep's clothing) and with a smile too.
Decidedly Protestant, my friend.