THE KING JAMES BIBLE (PDF) 100 - TRY IT

adminComment(0)

The Original King James Bibles PDF – Authorised Version Check out Lazarus Publishing in Ohio to download an Authorized King James Bible. “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” Psalm 4 of God — the Bible (the Authorized King James Bible in English). It is appropriate. King James Version . for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes . And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his.


The King James Bible (pdf) 100 - Try It

Author:ILONA CHAHAL
Language:English, Portuguese, Japanese
Country:South Africa
Genre:Religion
Pages:472
Published (Last):22.12.2015
ISBN:670-2-43125-428-3
ePub File Size:17.32 MB
PDF File Size:12.87 MB
Distribution:Free* [*Registration Required]
Downloads:43259
Uploaded by: ZACHARIAH

king became, against all odds, the most beloved English book. Issue . Test your Bible knowledge by identifying the book of the KJV (and if you're Abridged (four minute sessions) — a companion guide in PDF for this version can. I do not want to be silent on the very important subject of the KJV. Bible. .. prophecies, all % right, then we know that book had to be produced by someone. Forgotten and Lost Books of the Bible, KJV Apocrypha and other lost scriptures FREE PDF's DOWNLOADS - All Of The Apocryphal Books Of The King James Version .. Click Here And Check Out Her YT Page. . ALL the early gospels into a single 'super gospel,' consisting of over different sources .

Then a general meeting is to deal with all remaining points of difference. In short every effort is made to include the whole country in the work and to ensure that every decision is made with the maximum of care and consensus. The KJB is to be a perfect work that will bring the whole kingdom together. Companies at work Within five months of the Hampton Court Conference translators had been selected, probably through a mixture of invitation and petition both by and on behalf of individuals. And for as much as his Highness is very anxious that the same so religious a work should admit of no delay, he has commanded me to signify unto you in his name that his pleasure is, you should with all possible speed meet together in your University and begin the same.

Moreover, I have signified since unto you that unless of yourself you were willing, no man would enforce you, offering, if need were, to talk with the B. Work at Westminster also started early, though perhaps less diligently. This does not square easily with each man making his own translation and comparing the results rule 8 , but it probably has a degree of truth.

This stage of the work took three to four years. Wood, II, p. Paine, p. Two of every company are chosen to revise and confer the whole at London. Hereupon I am earnestly requested to get again that copy of our part which I lent you for D.

Item Preview

And this wy[ qyrx [i. Allen, who argues keenly that all the procedural rules were followed, takes it as confirmation that rules 11 and 12 were followed,20 but other inferences may be more probable.

It would be stretching rule 12 to think that it envisaged learned men reviewing drafts of the work; the more obvious sense is that the rule is a mechanism for obtaining comments on problems in the originals or in the extant English translations.

Now, the only known manuscript that appears to have been prepared for consultation, Lambeth Palace MS 98, contains not one book but most of the text of all of the Epistles, so the specification 17 18 19 20 Bodleian MS Rawlinson, C. Allen Epistles, p. Less certain still is that Eyre made his copy after the work was completed, and then studied and marked his copy. Eyre could have been working as a secretary, making a fair copy of the work as it proceeded and marking on it where the company was in doubt.

Allen, Epistles, p. There is more about the letter that is mysterious. Eyre, who was appropriately learned, is not otherwise known to have been one of the translators, yet he writes as one of a company presumably the Cambridge OT company , and has clearly had a part in the work.

Whether this was as a translator or as an overseer or as a secretary is not clear. Dr Daniel must be William Daniel D. If he remembered the business of consulting with the other companies when he did this, he must have considered the two fair copies sufficient for the purpose.

While this is true, the homogeneity of the manuscript shows that it was prepared at one time rather than in pieces as each Epistle was finished; that it remains complete shows that it was never divided up, and the excellent condition of the manuscript suggests that it was not subjected to the rigours of travel and that it was little worked on once it had been completed. Allen thinks otherwise, Epistles, p. Dictionary of National Biography.

Scrivener makes the same identification p. Another possibility is that he was thinking of or actually working on a translation of the OT into Irish; he was reputed to be a good Hebraist. Making the text that the general meeting needed to deal with particularly. They needed this information in addition to the master copy. Processes were cut short, and the envisaged consultations came to little.

The paper is of high quality, Each page is ruled in red like a two column Bible: a centre line divides the page, and there are lines for the margins and at top and bottom.

Together with the use of a larger formal script for titles in the early part of the manuscript, all this gives an impression of care and formality.

Only the left hand column and the left hand margin are used, recto and verso, so half the manuscript is blank: ample space is left for annotation and revision.

Either way, the intended annotation or revision in the right hand column did not happen. MS 98 appears to have been made for a purpose that was not fulfilled.

The manuscript has some corrections but not enough to show whether it passed out of the hands of the Westminster NT company. They show attention to spelling and punctuation, and occasionally words and phrases are inserted, but it is not clear that they go beyond changes an individual 25 Allen, Epistles, introduction, especially pp. The possibility that MS 98 was a master copy of this part of the work needs to be canvassed further, because the nature of the copy the printers worked from is of real importance for the textual history.

The other chief characteristic of MS 98 besides the blank column is that it does not supply a translation of all the verses. On the first page, for instance, there is nothing written in for Rom. Consequently, there is enough space in the right column either for a complete manuscript version or for writing in changes subsequently agreed upon.

As a master copy, with the missing verses added, MS 98 could have reached two possible final forms. In one form, the right hand column would give the complete final translation, and the printer would simply set the text from that column. In the other possible form, the right column would only have entries where the initial version in the left column had been changed, or where the left column was blank; the printer would then follow the right column but revert to the left column where that had no entry.

Either form would represent a practical way of working; arguably the second would be more efficient, since it would keep the amount of transcribing to a minimum. However, such possibilities are far from proof that the translators created a master copy in one of these forms, or that the final copy was a complete manuscript. Allen notes that 1, verses are found in MS 98 and that 1, verses are left blank Epistles, p.

MS 98 is most illuminating as evidence of how much work was done in the first stage of revision and of how much remained to be done in later stages. Allen gives the following figures p. Making the text Counting in the changes in MS 98 that do not appear in the KJB, the later stage of the work made 3, changes to the work done in the first stage. So the two stages each made a similar number of changes to their working text, 4, and 3, There are six important pieces of evidence as to what happened in the next two to three years.

Two of them are the most important evidence of all: the two printings of the KJB. One point needs noting from it immediately, though, that it suggests that the finished work of the companies may have supplied up to five sixths of the changes eventually made by the translators — considerably more than the half suggested by MS Unfortunately, they are not entirely consistent with each other, and they do not provide answers to the two main problems: what was the nature of the final copy given to the printers, and, what influence did the printer have on the text?

The report to the Synod of Dort states: After each section had finished its task twelve delegates, chosen from them all, met together and reviewed and revised the whole work.

Smith, now Bishop of Gloucester, a distinguished man, who had been deeply occupied in the whole work from the beginning, after all things had been maturely weighed and examined, put the finishing touches to this version. The details here also appear first-hand. The silence on matters of consultation is in keeping with the other suggestions that there was little if any consultation. Instead, there were two final stages, one involving a dozen men, one involving two.

So the report is more likely to be correct about the number of translators involved in the general meeting.

Yet it is possible that Walker is, in his own way, true. First, it is a well-based assumption, but still an assumption, that there were six companies. This rests on the unequivocal evidence of the lists of translators that there were two groups working in each place. The individual groups could have been thought of as divisions of single companies, subcommittees of a committee I have already noted the possibility that there were further subdivisions.

It is also possible that, for some parts of the work, the two groups in one place acted as a single company. If this is true, the pairs of companies put their work together. Allen, Translating, pp. Allen makes the same suggestion, Translating, p. Making the text which would have been enough to give each pair of groups a single identity. There still seems to be the numerical problem that either there were six men or there were twelve. We could solve this at a stroke if we changed our idea of the general meeting: what if it too subdivided its work?

The notes contain page references to a volume of Chrysostom that appeared in but not to a volume that appeared in , showing that the notes were made in and so lending credibility to the nine months Translating for King James, pp.

This is, I think, beyond doubt.

If the meeting was not as general as has been previously supposed, the answer could be this: that it did different parts of its work at different times involving different people. The notes cover discussion of the Epistles and Revelation only, forcing one to ask whether he was present only for this part of the work: either he took no notes on the bulk of the work or he was only involved with this part of it.

However, it cannot be taken as confirmation of how many people attended the meeting, since Bois and Downes could have gone either as representatives of the Apocrypha group or of the Cambridge translators at large. Much more work happened between the preparation of MS 98 and the printing of the text than his notes account for. Even if each of these items of discussion led to a change in the text which did not happen , they would account for less than a twelth of the changes. It may be that he did not record all the discussions he was present at, but somewhere and somehow there is significantly more work to be accounted for.

Yet it too presents major problems for understanding just how the work was done. Bod , as I shall call it, appears now as a finely bound single volume, and there is nothing about its physical make-up to suggest that its sheets did not always belong together.

But when the translators worked on it, it was unbound: the annotations frequently disappear into the fold of the leaf, which would have been impossible if the sheets were already bound. They clearly represent work in progress from the Oxford NT company.

As Jacobs has shown, they are the work of three scribes and represent two stages of the work. Making the text but this hardly accounts for the presence of annotations on the last chapters of John. If this is a mystery, so too is the intended purpose of this copy of the work. That it eventually became part of a single volume with work from other companies strongly suggests that it was sent to the general meeting.

But we have seen that Walker is not necessarily reliable: it may be that the work was sent in parts, or it may be that a copy other than the official copy was taken to the meeting by one of the Oxford company.

Whether or not the process was as orderly as Walker suggests, the NT part of Bod remains authentic evidence of the work of the translators before it was developed by the general meeting.

At certain places, such as Luke and , these results occasioned differences among the translators. The revisions making up stages 1 and 2 do not represent the complete text of the av Gospels. It is clear, therefore, that additional Stage 3 revision took place in order to arrive at that version which has long been familiar to us as the Authorized Version. Allen and Jacobs, p. The inference that the second time followed review by other companies, however, must be weighed against the evidence that suggests such review did not take place.

If it did not, we must simply observe that the Oxford NT company went over its work twice. It is unlikely that the stage 2 revisions were made by the general meeting because the same three scribes are involved, which goes against the evidence from elsewhere that only two members of each company attended the general meeting. The NT annotations, then, show the decisions the Oxford NT company made in two stages prior to sending their work to the general meeting.

As we turn to the OT annotations, the most perplexing thing about Bod becomes apparent: it is the extent of the annotations. So, as a whole, Bod represents work done at Westminster, Oxford and Cambridge and by four of the six companies. The likeliest inference is therefore that the OT annotations date from the general meeting, for this is when the work of the different companies came together. One of their other characteristics also points to this inference: there is little evidence of subsequent correction,32 so, unlike the NT annotations, the OT annotations seem to represent the work at a single point in its history.

Bod may represent a transcript of the earlier work made for the general meeting,33 or it may be a record of work done at the general meeting.

A Textual History of the King James Bible

Both possibilities present difficulties. A transcript makes sense if the companies had produced work in the form we see in the NT, that is, with revisions, and revisions of revisions, for parts of the OT are much more heavily revised than the Gospels and so would have been difficult to use as working copy.

Alternatively, the work of the companies could already have been in the form represented by the OT work, in which case it is either a duplicate, allowing more people to see what the companies had done, or it is a back-up copy.

Duplicates and back-ups have their uses, but they are modern concepts: the KJB was made long before the inventions of carbon paper and computer disks. So, if the OT work is a transcript, the likelihood is that it was made as a fair copy.

There was a solution 32 33 Genesis 14, for instance, seems from the variation in the ink to have been worked over twice. So think Willoughby and Jacobs. Willoughby takes them as a copy prepared in advance of the general meeting recording how far the various companies had gone with their work pp. Making the text to this difficulty: a final text could have been created from text in the form represented by the OT work by interleaving blank sheets and writing the remaining changes on them.

The result would have been rife with possibilities of error, but printers did manage to produce good results from such material. The difficulty with supposing that the annotations record work done at the general meeting is simply that they leave so much work still to be done.

One sixth of the readings were still to be changed. The italics and the margin, both of which were given some attention in MS 98 and the NT annotations, are untouched. Chapter summaries still had to be created. All that can be safely concluded, therefore, is that the OT work is late but not final.

Whether it includes work from the meeting or not, it still gives vital evidence about the near-complete state of the text. These possibilities do not necessarily contradict the conclusion that the NT work predates the general meeting. What may have happened is this: the NT sheets were sent to the general meeting as part of the Oxford work. Statistics — though they have a degree of roughness to them35 — confirm that the OT work is late. In several places these are revised.

The figures are not based on all the annotations full analysis would be an enormous task , but on an analysis of places where there are variations in the printed history of the text; multiple instances of the same change have mostly been ignored, but notice is taken of places where more than one change is involved, even if that change does not show in the printed history.

That there are just over a hundred instances where the OT work in Bod does not give the reading shows that it was not the final copy and also rules out any possibility that it was a collation of with made after the KJB had been published. Only 12 of the readings involve annotations. The OT is much more heavily annotated than the NT, and gives much more evidence for editorial judgements; it is the most important evidence for the text other than the printed text itself.

It frequently confirms readings that later editors have found dubious, and it sometimes reveals where the printed text has gone wrong. Bod contains within it one good reason why it should be printed from: it had become so unwieldy in places because of the extent of the annotation that the translators may have felt that further interleaved corrections would have been too difficult both for themselves and for the printer.

If they could have persuaded Barker to print an intermediate version for them they would have had a copy that preserved characteristics of Bod and the best possible material on which to do their final work. Such a fair copy could not have been proofs as we now understand them, for the amount of type involved about five million characters was probably more than Barker possessed and certainly would have been too much to be locked up in one project.

Moreover, such a copy would have been unprecedented. If Barker did go to the considerable — and unprecedented — expense of printing a fair copy, the general meeting perhaps and the final editors Thomas Bilson and Miles Smith marked it up with all the remaining work. These markings could come from a curious later scholar, or they may represent some interest among the translators themselves in keeping a track of their sources. Whoever made the effort, it was partial and imprecise: not all the places marked g coincide with Geneva.

Making the text modern ideas of sensible procedure: just how the last part of the work was done we will probably never know, apart from the fact that there was a final stage or two to it, the work done by Miles Smith and Thomas Bilson and the work done by the printer. These stages created some more manuscript, but it may have been no more than chapter summaries and the dedication and preface.

A Textual History of the King James Bible

A contribution from the printer? He and his men also influenced the readings in the text by making errors. If a compositor could make irresponsible changes, a printer could make responsible changes, especially as editorial responsibility for the text was usually in his hands. I guess that representatives of the translators were involved with the first printing, perhaps along with a scholar or scholars retained by Barker, but that thereafter the responsibility for the text rested with Barker, who retained at least one person capable of advising on doubtful points.

One other piece of evidence supports this guess. When Cambridge University Press issued its first edition in , the fact that some of the original translators were involved in the work is remarked on; this is less 37 38 Ps. See H For this reason it is safer to think of it as final copy rather than as the master copy.

Only a little is known of what happened to it, and that little does not reveal anything of its nature. Whatever it was that Field and Hills had downloadd, its real value was not the light it shed on the text but the added authority it gave to their claim to have a monopoly on the printing of the KJB. The later references to the original are all second-hand and of little value.

McKitterick, I, p. See what happens when the lines are blurred and the hidden connections are revealed in this most astonishing of documents. Boldly break the rules of theology and scholarship. Transcend the barriers of conventional thought and grasp what lies beyond it. God is speaking to us by His Eternal Word, through which these things can now be known. One of the great hallmarks of the four canonical gospels is that despite their many similarities, each of them presents Jesus in a slightly different way.

Even so, there were far more than four gospels that emerged during the early years of Christianity.

In fact, there were, dozens, perhaps hundreds of gospels, each focusing different periods of Jesus' life, as well as differing aspects of his teaching and ministry. Could there be the same unity between these gospels as there is between the four? One way to find out would be to combine them all into a single work and simply see what kind of Jesus they collectively present.

The Super Gospel represents the first systematic effort to integrate all of the ancient gospels into a single readable text.And it does it very well. Originally Posted by wwjd. January 11 - 5 comments.

The Original King James Bible 1611 PDF

Amplified Bible - Exposed! All of these scholars were members of the Church of England CoE. From Scriptural-Truth. Ich bin schon sehr gespannt, weitere Neuigkeiten zu lesen.