King James Bible online

[qandy1]

Every time I need a Bible citation in English I must go to kingjamesbibleonline.org to get the original King James text.  Helen told me to post a message to drum up interest in a module.  Otherwise- she said - I can create a "user Bible."  Please give me tips on how to create a searchable 1611 Accordance module using the text at kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611-Bible or some other version of the text - preferably with long s (ſ) instead of s. 

Andrew

The zeale of thine houſe hath eaten me vp.    John 2:17

[Fabian]

you are not the first who request this Bible. 

 

Because of the Side Notes it would be best Accordance create such a module.

 

The e-text is not bad but not perfect. I only check Gen 1 and 2 and in Gen 2:19 the word was is smaller in the image than as in e-text.

 

The programmer has to support þ in the User Bibles. Please Joel add this.

 

Maybe you can ask the publisher on this website if they give you the e-text, after they had corrected their e-text. And with the long s etc.

 

How to create a User Bible you'll find it in the Help Files.

[R. Mansfield]

That would be a nice Bible to have in Accordance, especially with all the marginal notes. However, I'm not certain how much wide appeal it would have. 

[qandy1]

I was trying to figure out "&thorn" in Fabian's post until it struck me that at 1 Sam. 2:1 “the” is spelled ye with the e directly over the y.  A search for the Unicode number of the ligature brought me to the Wikipedia article on “Thorn,” which – I learned - is an Old English letter which in the 1611 King James printing replaces “the.”  I’m happy with y^e as replacement.  It’s amazing that the 1611 text is still the closest to an exact representation of the Hebrew.  ESV corrects the 1611 at places, but mostly fails to achieve the 1611 exactness, and really loses by omitting the italicization that tells us what is in the original and what is editorially added. 

The sinne of Iudah is written with a pen of yron, and with the✝point of a diamond:  Jer. 17:1

✝Heb. nails

[qandy1]

Correct is, of course,

The ſinne of Iudah is written with a pen of yron, and with the✝point of a diamond:  Jer. 17:1

✝Heb. nails

 

 

Apart from the alternative reading, italicized is only the word "and."

 

All ſcripture is giuen by inſpiration of God,  2 Timothy 3:16

[Fabian]

That would be a nice Bible to have in Accordance, especially with all the marginal notes. However, I'm not certain how much wide appeal it would have. 

The KJV onlyism people would love it and then they had to go to another BibleSoftware company.

[Solly]

I have the 1611 authorized version in electronic format with some other software systems, but when I am in the mood to work with it, I really prefer a direct facsimile of an early printing. There is something about Blackletter font, older spellings, and the vowel changes that make the bound organization of knowledge version appealing. ;-)

 

Shalom

Joseph

[ukfraser]

I have the tyndale nt in print. Know what you mean, there is something about hard copy. Nice to handle and read but not to work with.

 

But i do prefer working with etext in accordance.

 

;o)

 

Just need to find a nice leather binding that meets my requirements for my iPad.

Edited January 6, 2017 by ukfraser

[qandy1]

The textual history – as I understand it – of the King James text is:

1) 1611 printing;

2) Through 1630 reprints by the government left the text and notes intact without changing the lines and pages;

3) After 1630 the printing was shared with Cambridge University, which undertook a “systematic revision of the text, of the italics, and of the margin” (Scrivener, The Authorized Edition of the English Bible, 21) and “began the habit of adding to the parallel textual references in the margin” (idem, 22).

4) “Marginal dates” and “sundry marginal annotations ... discussing chronological difficulties” appeared in a 1701 government printing, accompanied by ”Bp. Cumberland’s Tables of Scripture measures, weights, and coins” (idem, 27). 

5) In 1762 (Cambridge) and 1769 (Oxford) appeared the Paris and Blayney versions, which together achieved the “modernization of the diction of the version, from what it was left in the seventeenth century, to the state wherein it appears in modern Bibles” (idem, 30).  Scrivener goes on:

The marginal annotations ... were finally received into the place they have occupied ever since, sundry new ones being added ...  Bp. Lloyd’s dates and chronological notes were also received and added to at the same time, and the two editions contributed largely ... to swell the catalogue of textual references to parallel passages of Scripture.  ...  Each of (the editions)  helped to amend or corrupt the Translators’ text ... (and) much ... labour ... has been rendered necessary for the undoing of their tasteless and inconsistent meddling (idem). 

6) Scrivener, 35:

The public attention was claimed in 1831 by Mr Curtis of Islington, who complained that all modern reprints of Holy Scripture departed widely from the original edition of 1611, to the great deterioration of our Vernacular Translation. (Thomas Curtis, The Existing Monopoly an inadequate protection of the Authorized Version of the Scripture, &c. London, 1833)  ... (A) controversy .. ensued,

resulting in the appearance in 1833 of an exact replica of the 1611 edition set in Roman type and having "s" in place of "ſ".  Nelson’s 1993 reprint of this tome bears the title The Holy Bible: The King James Version: A Word-for-Word Reprint of the First Edition of the Authorized Version, Presented in Roman Letters for Easy Reading and Comparison with Later Editions.  The 2010 Hendrickson reprint of Oxford 1833 bears the 1611 title and has four different ISBNs depending on the cover material (leather hard, calfskin, deluxe).

Windows doesn't seem to have the thorn sign at Job 1:9.  Is it in MAC

 

And it came to paſſe in the morning, that Dauid wrote a letter to Ioab, and ſent it by the hand of Vriah.  2 Sam. 11:14

[Fabian]

Since the Tyndall Bible is available in Accordance I'm sure some people want the KJV from 1611 too.

 

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Genesis-Chapter-1/has it. 

 

BUT one of the supporter of the 1611 should add first the  tags to the text. Or the [ ], or something else. Unfortunately this is not done by the electronic publisher. I have wrote them twice, but I got no answer.