Which Kjv is the correct versions, and which TR greek text?

Shoonra

Member
As I am not KJVO, I am satisfied with any KJV edition - but I use particularly the Nelson 1611 roman letter facsimile edition, which I think is a reprint of Alfred Pollard's 1911 edition.
For TR Greek editions I use Scrivener's Novum Testamentum ...Textus Stephanici A.D. 1550 (I have a 1902 edition) and Scrivener's The New Testament ... according to the text followed in The Authorised Version (1881).
 

YeshuaFan

Active member
As I am not KJVO, I am satisfied with any KJV edition - but I use particularly the Nelson 1611 roman letter facsimile edition, which I think is a reprint of Alfred Pollard's 1911 edition.
For TR Greek editions I use Scrivener's Novum Testamentum ...Textus Stephanici A.D. 1550 (I have a 1902 edition) and Scrivener's The New Testament ... according to the text followed in The Authorised Version (1881).
Believe there was the 1894 Scriveners also!
and that the 1873 Cambridge is seen as "best" corrected kjv
 

robycop3

Well-known member
I have a Cambridge KJV, which I prefer over other editions, except the original AV1611. The original contains the preface, "To The Reader", which pretty well destroys the KJVO myth, as well as the apocryoha & other extratextual material.

If all KJV editions contained that informative preface, written by the very translators of the AV 1611, & people took time to read it, there'd likely be no false KJVO myth today !

As for TR editions, the TR has been revised over 30 times, & I'm not qualified to vame a fave, or declare which is the most-accurate. I DO know that Dean John Burgon, who WAS thus-qualified, wrote that the TR he was familiar with in the 1870s could stand yet another thorough revision.
 

YeshuaFan

Active member
I have a Cambridge KJV, which I prefer over other editions, except the original AV1611. The original contains the preface, "To The Reader", which pretty well destroys the KJVO myth, as well as the apocryoha & other extratextual material.

If all KJV editions contained that informative preface, written by the very translators of the AV 1611, & people took time to read it, there'd likely be no false KJVO myth today !

As for TR editions, the TR has been revised over 30 times, & I'm not qualified to vame a fave, or declare which is the most-accurate. I DO know that Dean John Burgon, who WAS thus-qualified, wrote that the TR he was familiar with in the 1870s could stand yet another thorough revision.
Yes, if he was alive today, no doubt he would have approved of ther NKJV!
 

Septextura

Well-known member
I have 4 Cambridge KJV bibles, it is simply the best. There are publishers that use their text and do their own binding or outsource it through their own logistics (LCBP, CBP etc). Cambridge is the original printer of the Authorized Version by King James' decree. They have been doing it for 400 years.

Trinitarian Bible Society's Westminster is next in line, though some would place it as #1.

Then comes the Oxford text, which you can usually buy from Allan Bibles UK.

I'm not sure where the "KJVO" thing started but it makes little sense to me because 100 years from now English may not be the language of the world, so whatever follows will be translated from the Textus Receptus and Masoretic Text. Most Bibles translated in different languages out there come from this text base and are the words of God perfectly preserved for all the nations.

As for the TR, you want the one TBS is selling, the Scrivener 1894 edition, which is essentially Beza's TR with KJV translators preferred grammatical variants and locations spelling (all total of 20-ish variants, very few).


 
Last edited:

preacher4truth

Well-known member
I have 4 Cambridge KJV bibles, it is simply the best. There are publishers that use their text and do their own binding or outsource it through their own logistics (LCBP, CBP etc). Cambridge is the original printer of the Authorized Version by King James' decree. They have been doing it for 400 years.

Trinitarian Bible Society's Westminster is next in line, though some would place it as #1.

Then comes the Oxford text, which you can usually buy from Allan Bibles UK.

I'm not sure where the "KJVO" thing started but it makes little sense to me because 100 years from now English may not be the language of the world, so whatever follows will be translated from the Textus Receptus and Masoretic Text. Most Bibles translated in different languages out there come from this text base and are the words of God perfectly preserved for all the nations.
Take a look at R. L. Allan bibles, nothing like them. I have Cambridge and Oxford and there is no comparison.
 

Septextura

Well-known member
Take a look at R. L. Allan bibles, nothing like them. I have Cambridge and Oxford and there is no comparison.

For the binding there is truly no comparison, but the text of the Cambridge is better than the Oxford, less printers errors. I'm not sure if Allan does bindings with the Cambridge text printed at Royal Jongbloed on that premium French milled paper. That would be the apex of all Bibles.
 

preacher4truth

Well-known member
For the binding there is truly no comparison, but the text of the Cambridge is better than the Oxford, less printers errors. I'm not sure if Allan does bindings with the Cambridge text printed at Royal Jongbloed on that premium French milled paper. That would be the apex of all Bibles.
I've found lots of broken type in my expensive (at the time in 1996 I believe it was $160.00) Oxford Wide Margin KJV. But I do not own any Allan KJV's. I do have an ESV and NASB though, and the quality of the binding and typeface is excellent.
 

robycop3

Well-known member
I have 4 Cambridge KJV bibles, it is simply the best. There are publishers that use their text and do their own binding or outsource it through their own logistics (LCBP, CBP etc). Cambridge is the original printer of the Authorized Version by King James' decree. They have been doing it for 400 years.

Trinitarian Bible Society's Westminster is next in line, though some would place it as #1.

Then comes the Oxford text, which you can usually buy from Allan Bibles UK.

I'm not sure where the "KJVO" thing started but it makes little sense to me because 100 years from now English may not be the language of the world, so whatever follows will be translated from the Textus Receptus and Masoretic Text. Most Bibles translated in different languages out there come from this text base and are the words of God perfectly preserved for all the nations.

As for the TR, you want the one TBS is selling, the Scrivener 1894 edition, which is essentially Beza's TR with KJV translators preferred grammatical variants and locations spelling (all total of 20-ish variants, very few).


Well, actually, the AV1611 was printed for years by Robert Barker & Sons printers. Robt. Barker was the first such printer. He was fined 300 pounds in 1631, a substantial sum at the time,(equal to over $50,000 today) for two printing errors that produced the "Wicked Bible". It reads"Thou shalt commit adultery" in Ex. 20:14, & in Deut. 5:24, it reads “And ye said, Behold, the LORD our God hath shewed us his glory and his great-asse,”. It's now suspected that Bonham Norton, a partner of Barker's, injected the errors to get Barker in trouble so Norton could replace him as royal printer. it didn't work, as Barker's sons kept the printing rights for the AV for many years later.

Now, I don't know if anyone will do a revision of the TR any time soon, which Burgon said it needed. (Burgon himself didn't do it; he said that was not his calling.)

While I don't use the KJV much, I'll agree the CE is the best, though it contains the same goofs & booboos found in virtually all KJV editions, such as "Easter" in Acts 12:4.
 

Septextura

Well-known member
It's now suspected that Bonham Norton, a partner of Barker's, injected the errors to get Barker in trouble so Norton could replace him as royal printer. it didn't work, as Barker's sons kept the printing rights for the AV for many years later.

Interesting info, I didn't know that. Thanks for sharing.
 

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
As per Kjvo there can only be one correct for each!
SInce I'm KJVP, it's all rather unimportant to me. I've been using the KJV since 1948, or so (learned to read in it in fact) so I'll not be changing any time soon). Being familiar with the language in the KJV makes finding stuff in a concordance easy, and since the Holy SPirit is the one who leads into all truth (not "theologians"), one translation is as good as another. for a NEW Christian in 2020, the NIV, or the ASV would probably be a better choice. But in the final analysis The BEST TRANSLATION will always be the one you'll actually READ.
 
Top