By the way, at about the 11:28 point I speculate on the liner material. It turns out that the liner is leather, as I suspected. In fact, it's calfskin.
I wish they could reduce the thickness to no more than 1.25 or so. At this thickness, it’s truly a tome- might as well have a study Bible. They probably need a paper similar to the 28 gsm indopaque used by Cambridge.
I really like this bible.. however i wish it had paragraph markers. Why has thomas nelson went away with the paragraph markers? I guess i could still buy this bible and make my own paragraph markers as a project
Thanks for commenting, Prentiss! I haven't seen their preaching Bible, so I can't compare the two. But this one is printed so nicely it's a pleasure to read.
Hi there! Appreciate the channel. I have trouble reading along while in church with my Pasture. Flipping and finding the next chapter and verse has been a challenge for me. Going back to the index then flipping to the page I am always behind in reading along. So I bought a Kindel 11gen paper white. I tlooks like I still have to go back to the index on the kindel find the book, hit next page until I find the chapter and verse I am looking for. Is there a better way to quickly find books, verses, and chapters so read along with my pature?
Agreed I do not like bottom of the page references, I have tried to use it but find it very annoying. Actually the worst is the ESV bottom right corner style it's horrible. Trying to find references and alt readings is so difficult, once you look away you lose it again .
I took out my ESV Creeds and Confessions Bible last night and noticed again how small the font is in the references and how difficult they are to locate, crammed as they are in that paragraph in the corner. Thanks for commenting, Airik1111!
@@RGrantJones It's the worst .. It's like the designers forgot it was a reference bible and had to think of quick way to fix the problem . 😆 God bless ya my fellow night owl.
@@Airik1111bibles - God bless you too, Airik1111! But I just woke up. I'm one of those Ben Franklin early to bed, early to rise people. Not sure I'm getting all those advertised benefits (i.e., the wealthy and wise bits in particular).
Great review! I like the blue, as opposed to red. I wonder why they came out with this-something ver similar to the Canterbury, right after they released the Sovereign Collection-something very similar to the Canterbury.
Great video, as always. Something I would love to see you review is the Comparative Bible New Testament Edition in Four Complete Versions. It's a parallel New Testament with the KJV, ASV, RSV, and Confraternity translation. It can be found used online pretty cheaply.
I really like the blue chapters and headings! I'm guessing American spelling because Thomas Nelson e.g. Savior instead of Saviour? I really enjoy your reviews! Blessings!
Genesis 27:39 is interesting. The KJV , ASV and DR along with the Jewish Publication Society all agree on the translation, while all the modern translations (except the NET) have it quite different
Very interesting, Fernando. That verse may appear in videos on this channel in the future. By the way, skimming through the list of translations available at Bible Gateway, it appears that the NKJV, Young's Literal Translation, and the LEB also align with the KJV/ASV/DRB there.
Hi Grant, great review, thank you. It looks like a fine Bible. I was waiting for you to demonstrate how this Bible is specifically tied to Alexander MacLearn. As you know he’s a 19 century Scottish Baptist minister who’s Exposition of Holy Scripture is a classic multi volume work based on the OT Hebrew & the NT Greek. I owned all 25 hardback volumes back in the 80’s & 90’s & now have them for only a few dollars on my kindle. Perhaps the connection between this Bible & his Exposition is found in the references or explained in the preface. Surly Nelson didn’t just borrow his name. Thots? Blessings John
John - thanks much for the kind comment! As far as I can tell, Nelson needed a name for this series, and they settled upon 'Maclaren'. I showed Nelson's Maclaren series brochure in my channel update video last week. These words from that brochure approach an explanation: 'The Maclaren Series draws its name from Alexander Maclaren, one of history's greatest expository preachers, an individual whose study and devotion of Scripture was second to none. We created a Bible that you will want to return to often for devotion and study, much like Maclaren did.' That's it. There's no preface in this edition, by the way -- just the dedication to King James.
@@johnwilderspin1633 - I just heard that the publisher at Nelson is a huge fan of Maclaren’s preaching, and he wanted to name a line of beautiful Bibles after Maclaren.
Thanks for such a thorough review. Enjoyed it very much. How would you compare this Bible with their Premier Collection Large Print Reference KJV Bible?
Thanks for the comment and question, David! Unfortunately, I haven't seen their Premier Collection Large Print Reference KJV Bible. Perhaps someone who has can comment.
Fernando - yes, there's a typo, but no, I didn't find it. (The person who did likely left a comment here.) The typo is in 2 Cor 1.24, where 'domination' is substituted for 'dominion'. The publisher is aware of it and intends to correct it in future printings.
This appears to be the KJV Preaching Bible rebranded with a goatskin cover. Probably a good move as the title “Preaching Bible” probably limited it’s sales.
I hope Thomas Nelson has corrected the typo at 2 Cor 1:24. On another subject, putting aside translation preferences, but solely based on texts used in translation, would you give priority to the KJV or more modern ones like CSB, NRSV, etc?
As far as references, I think in the age of the Internet reference Bibles are almost unnecessary. These days I prefer only translator's notes. I'm not a fan of all the reference superscripts, they're the number one most distracting thing for me. Just a few with translator's notes is fine.
Thanks for the question, Peter! This edition is in a modern typeface, so it differs in that way from the original, which was in blackletter. Spellings aren't the same as in 1611 either: 'grasse' has become 'grass', 'herbe' has become 'herb', and 'kinde' has become 'kind', etc. The original KJV included a set of apocryphal books in a separate section between the testaments; that section is absent here. And there are likely a few changes in readings due to the 18th century corrections of Paris and Blayney.
@@RGrantJones Thank you for the prompt reply and the info. I have an Oxford University Press replica of the 1611 KJV, and have noticed some very minor changes in later versions, some of which change context and implied meanings. The Apocrypha is a fascinating read!
The metric measurement unit you’re using for paper thickness is incorrect. Microns which are thousandths of a meter and not Micrometer which are millionths of a meter. No offense but paper thickness of 40 micrometers is impossible. Please look into it and start saying microns which is the third decimal place and not micro- which is the 6th decimal place. (.040= 40 microns opposed to .000040= 40 micro)I’m just letting you know. Don’t get me wrong, I love your reviews but I had to point it out.
I think the two are the same: Micron and micrometer are two words for the same unit. www.britannica.com/science/micrometre A thousandth of a meter is known as a millimeter. www.britannica.com/science/millimetre
Just received this bible and found a word change or error in 2 Cor 1:24. The word "dominion" is changed to "domination". Can't seem to find this wording in any other KJV text. Seems to just be in some Nelson bibles. Not sure if I like that, and I'm concerned there are other changes like that in this edition. It does mean the same thing, but it's an odd and unique word choice.
This is a very nice Bible, but I have a few criticisms. The cross references aren't where they should be, the columns are too wide, the text goes too far into the gutter, the translator notes are mixed in with the references. I'm still waiting for a double column paragraph formatting for the KJV. And I still think that the preface (Translator to the Reader) should be included in all KJV Bibles. Out of all the criticisms I have, the one that irks me the most is the bottom of the page references. I think I can be assured that the NKJV option will look the same, which is a bummer, but there is salvation at the end of this in that the verse by verse centre column edition with all black letters is due later this year. Great review of a classic Bible. The goatskin leather look slick too. One additional note. I think TBS would have something to say (and they do) about this so called pure Cambridge edition. That's another gripe I have with the KJV as there are at least 3 legitimate editions or maybe more, of the KJV. There's the more familiar 1769 Oxford Blayney text, the Pure Cambridge Edition, and the edition the Trinitarian Bible Society uses which I think is an amalgamation of the other two. These were the 3 centres where the KJV text was translated back the earlier 1600s. Cambridge has also done updates of the KJV text as recently as a few years ago with the David Norton Cambridge Paragraph Bible and with Cambridge University Press being the Crown copyright holder, they are perfectly within their right to update the text. And if my understanding of this is correct, the latest update done by the copyright holder is the official text edition. So therefore, neither the Pure Cambridge Edition, nor the Oxford edition nor even TBS edition is the official text of the KJV and that can be and is very confusing. The other thing is because the KJV is out of copyright outside of the UK and the Commonwealth, publishers, especially in the US, can print any edition they choose. If my memory serves me correct, I think Holman uses the Pure Cambridge Edition as well as Church Bible Publishers. Thomas Nelson and Zondervan uses the Oxford Text.
Thanks for commenting, Edward! You and I have similar views on Bible design. But even so, I really like this edition. I believe I'll overlook its major flaws and use it often, particularly for morning and evening prayer, and when I'm listening to anyone who teaches from the KJV. For private study, I'll likely continue with the Allan 53 or the Westminster, since the references are more accessible in them. I checked an old Oxford Brevier Blackface KJV in the six locations listed on the third chart, where this Nelson KJV differs from the Pure Cambridge Edition standard, and the Oxford and the Nelson agree in all six. So you could well be right, that Nelson uses the Oxford edition. The notion of a Pure Cambridge Edition seems somewhat arbitrary to me, but I take your point: Cambridge should decide what constitutes a Pure Cambridge Edition. The only reason I brought the topic up in the video is that I've been asked about it when I've reviewed KJVs in the past. At any rate, I believe the only significant error in the Oxford text is the 'he' in Jeremiah 34.16, which is easily fixed with a note in pencil in the margin. The spirit/Spirit question is a non issue, since the reader should be aware that either is possible and should let the context drive the choice.
@@RGrantJones Exactly. This is a really nice Bible and I like it. Even with the flaws that was mentioned, it's well constructed and I believe it will be a hit with many people, if your polls are anything to go by. And I agree that Cambridge should clarify the position of the text of the KJV, that would ease some of the confusion, at leat for me anyways, even though you have the other two editions of the Oxford and TBS texts. As things stands, I think I'm settling on using the NKJV and ESV going forward (the ESV mostly, I believe). The all black letter vbv to be released by TN in November will be my go to NKJV, and as for the ESV, that's proving to be a liitle bit more difficult than I thought. I have the Large Print Wide Margin (it has no reference and no concordance and the "wide" margin isn't that wide plus its only the outer margin), I also have the Thinline Reference Bible and though it's a small Bible, it's surprisingly quite readable (I'm just not sure I'm sold on the bottom page references), then I have the ESV Reference Bible, but that is a red letter edition, it won't be used much, it would have been perfect if it wasn't red letter. Actually, I gave that one away. Now I'm thinking about getting the Large Print Thinline Reference Bible, the print is larger and even though the references are at the bottom right hand corner of each page, it is in a position where they can be easily ignored and most importantly, the footnotes are separated from the references and I like the layout . After that, I'm not sure if I'll be buying anymore Bibles, I'll use these and rebind when necessary. But at my age (late 30s) one just doesn't know.
@@edwardgraham9443 - I reviewed the ESV Large Print Thinline a couple of years ago. I'm not a big fan of it, mainly because of the thin paper and skinny font. The ESV Creeds and Confessions Bible has the same font and layout, but it was printed more darkly -- and it has confessional material in the back that may not interest you. The paper in the ESV Creeds and Confessions Bible is somewhat glossy, but overall I like it better than the Large Print Thinline. Sorry that ESV Reference Bible didn't work out.
@@RGrantJones I've seen that video and the follow up to it as why it's hard to read. But I've seen some videos that say the newer ones made since 2019 are darker in print and much easier to read with better paper and less ghosting. The newer ones are all TruTone but Crossway's TruTone are very good. I also saw your video of the Creeds and Confession one, and your right, the creeds do not interest me, even though it's very well done. I think that's the way the newer editions are now being made, with this darker print and better paper. As for the ESV Reference Bible, although I "gave it away", it didn't leave the house, so I can have a second look at it. Everything about that Bible is great except for the red letters. I've noticed that Crossway has been using darker fonts since 2019 with all their Bibles I've seen videos of recently. Here's one of those videos ruclips.net/video/N97SOo1TX1w/видео.html
@@RGrantJones "The notion of a Pure Cambridge Edition seems somewhat arbitrary to me, but I take your point: Cambridge should decide what constitutes a Pure Cambridge Edition." Well, in all fairness, it's not Cambridge's problem. They didn't come up with this "Pure Cambridge Edition" nonsense. This fuss was started by an Australian Pentecostal man named Matthew Verschuur, who sits on the more extreme edge of the King James Only movement. His reasoning for championing the 1900 Cambridge text is based on his assertion that the PCE is the 7th edition of the KJV, and 7 is associated with purity. (In coming to this conclusion, he conveniently ignores the 1873 Cambridge Paragraph Bible in his numbering. Apparently, Cambridge wasn't "pure" that time.) He specifically alludes to Psalm 12.6, which he erroneously interprets as a prophecy about the KJV. (Never mind that you could use this same silly argument to declare a modern translation as the one "true" version: Great Bible -- Bishops' Bible -- King James Version -- Revised Version -- American Standard Version -- Revised Standard Version -- New Revised Standard Version. Voila! Lucky number 7!)
Right now (26 June 2021), it's $125 at Christianbook.com. Amazon.com has it for $121.11. www.christianbook.com/kjv-reference-maclaren-premium-goatskin-leather/9780785241973/pd/241972 www.amazon.com/Reference-Maclaren-Premium-Goatskin-Leather/dp/0785241973
Just curious why you prefer pronouns of deity to not be capitalized. I've watched many of your videos, but not all of them, so may have missed your reasoning. Also, why you prefer the words of Christ to be in black instead of red.
Sure. Regarding pronouns, I prefer it when translations leave ambiguities in the original language ambiguous in English. So take a look at Genesis 3.22. The NASB and NKJV both capitalize 'Us', implying one of the persons of the Godhead is addressing other divine persons. The MEV leaves 'us' lowercase, implying that God is not speaking to other divine persons. Since we can't be certain who is being addressed, it seems best to leave all the pronouns in the Bible lowercase, per the traditional practice, and so preserve the ambiguity. Another example is in 2 Thess 2.7, where the NKJV and MEV capitalize 'He' in 'He who is now restraining'. They thus imply that a divine being is the restrainer, but that isn't clear from the text. Regarding red letters, a number of us find them painful to read. In addition to eyestrain, red letters are difficult to print evenly, so it's not uncommon to run into sections of faded red text in red letter Bibles. When black letters are present on the opposite side of the page, they create background clutter. I find red print on the black background clutter harder to read than black text on the same clutter. Finally, it isn't always clear in the original whether Jesus is speaking or the author of the book is narrating. Hope this helps.
i missed the survey but i would have bumped that "do not capitalize pronouns that refer to deity" up a measly percent. I'm not surprised though, also most KJV bibles i notice are unfortunately red letter which is WACK.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
This channel is the very definition of Higher Culture (Hochkultur). Best reviews ever.
Thank you for saying so, Hassan!
I agree. Nothing fancy just straight to the important stuff. Love it.
Your videos are so calming. You should record your voice reading through the kjv and post it so I can fall asleep to it at night lol.
Thank you for those kind words, CJ Petty!
By the way, at about the 11:28 point I speculate on the liner material. It turns out that the liner is leather, as I suspected. In fact, it's calfskin.
Thorough and complete. Thank you! Beyond the raised hubs and the Goatskin, God's words are contained herein. Great reminder in ending your review.
Thank you for the encouraging comment, Philip!
I wish they could reduce the thickness to no more than 1.25 or so. At this thickness, it’s truly a tome- might as well have a study Bible. They probably need a paper similar to the 28 gsm indopaque used by Cambridge.
When anything reminds me of the Quentel I'm very happy because I've invested a lot in both kinds of Bibles and I really like this format.
Love your channel brother. Keep up the awesome work! God bless
Thanks so much for the encouragement, Stephen!
That is a very beautiful bible. I would like to see that with a center column that contains cross-references.
Great review 👌
✨✝️📖beautiful Bible
Thanks for commenting, Livian!
Excellent review, as usual. Always appreciate your thoroughness.
Thank you for the kind comment, Stephen!
I really like this bible.. however i wish it had paragraph markers. Why has thomas nelson went away with the paragraph markers? I guess i could still buy this bible and make my own paragraph markers as a project
I have considered the same thing.
Great review- This bible was previously their preaching bible, but boy, when Nelson improves a bible, the do so quite well.
Thanks for commenting, Prentiss! I haven't seen their preaching Bible, so I can't compare the two. But this one is printed so nicely it's a pleasure to read.
Beautiful bible thanks for the great reviews.
Thank you for the kind comment, Joseph!
Hi there! Appreciate the channel. I have trouble reading along while in church with my Pasture. Flipping and finding the next chapter and verse has been a challenge for me. Going back to the index then flipping to the page I am always behind in reading along. So I bought a Kindel 11gen paper white. I tlooks like I still have to go back to the index on the kindel find the book, hit next page until I find the chapter and verse I am looking for. Is there a better way to quickly find books, verses, and chapters so read along with my pature?
That is a gorgeous Bible, and it looks like it would be an easy reader.
I agree. Thanks for commenting!
Agreed I do not like bottom of the page references, I have tried to use it but find it very annoying. Actually the worst is the ESV bottom right corner style it's horrible. Trying to find references and alt readings is so difficult, once you look away you lose it again .
I took out my ESV Creeds and Confessions Bible last night and noticed again how small the font is in the references and how difficult they are to locate, crammed as they are in that paragraph in the corner. Thanks for commenting, Airik1111!
@@RGrantJones It's the worst ..
It's like the designers forgot it was a reference bible and had to think of quick way to fix the problem . 😆
God bless ya my fellow night owl.
@@Airik1111bibles - God bless you too, Airik1111! But I just woke up. I'm one of those Ben Franklin early to bed, early to rise people. Not sure I'm getting all those advertised benefits (i.e., the wealthy and wise bits in particular).
Great review! I like the blue, as opposed to red. I wonder why they came out with this-something ver similar to the Canterbury, right after they released the Sovereign Collection-something very similar to the Canterbury.
seems to me that Thomas Nelson is trying to learn from Crossway by offering as many popular models as possible.
Great video, as always. Something I would love to see you review is the Comparative Bible New Testament Edition in Four Complete Versions. It's a parallel New Testament with the KJV, ASV, RSV, and Confraternity translation. It can be found used online pretty cheaply.
Thank you for the recommendation, Aaron -- and for the encouragement! That looks interesting.
I really like the blue chapters and headings! I'm guessing American spelling because Thomas Nelson e.g. Savior instead of Saviour? I really enjoy your reviews! Blessings!
Thanks for the kind comment, Maestro Aki! No, it has 'Saviour', not 'Savior', and 'honour', not 'honor'.
Thank you for a good review. Question: what percentage of the KJV would you say is literal? NASB? ESV?
Genesis 27:39 is interesting. The KJV , ASV and DR along with the Jewish Publication Society all agree on the translation, while all the modern translations (except the NET) have it quite different
Very interesting, Fernando. That verse may appear in videos on this channel in the future. By the way, skimming through the list of translations available at Bible Gateway, it appears that the NKJV, Young's Literal Translation, and the LEB also align with the KJV/ASV/DRB there.
@@RGrantJones oh yes, it makes sense that the NKJV would follow suit. Blessings to you!
Hi Grant, great review, thank you. It looks like a fine Bible. I was waiting for you to demonstrate how this Bible is specifically tied to Alexander MacLearn. As you know he’s a 19 century Scottish Baptist minister who’s Exposition of Holy Scripture is a classic multi volume work based on the OT Hebrew & the NT Greek. I owned all 25 hardback volumes back in the 80’s & 90’s & now have them for only a few dollars on my kindle. Perhaps the connection between this Bible & his Exposition is found in the references or explained in the preface. Surly Nelson didn’t just borrow his name. Thots?
Blessings
John
John - thanks much for the kind comment! As far as I can tell, Nelson needed a name for this series, and they settled upon 'Maclaren'. I showed Nelson's Maclaren series brochure in my channel update video last week. These words from that brochure approach an explanation: 'The Maclaren Series draws its name from Alexander Maclaren, one of history's greatest expository preachers, an individual whose study and devotion of Scripture was second to none. We created a Bible that you will want to return to often for devotion and study, much like Maclaren did.' That's it. There's no preface in this edition, by the way -- just the dedication to King James.
Thanks Grant - J
@@johnwilderspin1633 - I just heard that the publisher at Nelson is a huge fan of Maclaren’s preaching, and he wanted to name a line of beautiful Bibles after Maclaren.
Thanks for such a thorough review. Enjoyed it very much. How would you compare this Bible with their Premier Collection Large Print Reference KJV Bible?
Thanks for the comment and question, David! Unfortunately, I haven't seen their Premier Collection Large Print Reference KJV Bible. Perhaps someone who has can comment.
Did you mention somewhere that you spotted a typo in the text of this edition?
Fernando - yes, there's a typo, but no, I didn't find it. (The person who did likely left a comment here.) The typo is in 2 Cor 1.24, where 'domination' is substituted for 'dominion'. The publisher is aware of it and intends to correct it in future printings.
@@RGrantJones OK, got it. Thank you
If this was Red Letter I would buy one right now.
This appears to be the KJV Preaching Bible rebranded with a goatskin cover. Probably a good move as the title “Preaching Bible” probably limited it’s sales.
I haven't seen their KJV Preaching Bible, so that's news to me. Thanks for commenting!
The preaching Bible says that it is 11.5 FONT and THIS one is 10.5 font.
I hope Thomas Nelson has corrected the typo at 2 Cor 1:24. On another subject, putting aside translation preferences, but solely based on texts used in translation, would you give priority to the KJV or more modern ones like CSB, NRSV, etc?
Deep down, do you justify buying more bibles for when the zombie apocalypse hits the fan?
LOL.
As far as references, I think in the age of the Internet reference Bibles are almost unnecessary. These days I prefer only translator's notes. I'm not a fan of all the reference superscripts, they're the number one most distracting thing for me. Just a few with translator's notes is fine.
The McLaren lost 1 FONT point from PREACHING BIBLE. But still good use of BLUE.
That looks like a version of the KJV in modern English. Most of the modern versions differ slightly from the original. Is this the case here?
Thanks for the question, Peter! This edition is in a modern typeface, so it differs in that way from the original, which was in blackletter. Spellings aren't the same as in 1611 either: 'grasse' has become 'grass', 'herbe' has become 'herb', and 'kinde' has become 'kind', etc. The original KJV included a set of apocryphal books in a separate section between the testaments; that section is absent here. And there are likely a few changes in readings due to the 18th century corrections of Paris and Blayney.
@@RGrantJones Thank you for the prompt reply and the info. I have an Oxford University Press replica of the 1611 KJV, and have noticed some very minor changes in later versions, some of which change context and implied meanings.
The Apocrypha is a fascinating read!
Is Maclaren a company that they bought up?
Thanks for the question! No, the Maclaren Series is named after a nineteenth century Scottish Baptist preacher named Alexander Maclaren.
The metric measurement unit you’re using for paper thickness is incorrect. Microns which are thousandths of a meter and not Micrometer which are millionths of a meter. No offense but paper thickness of 40 micrometers is impossible. Please look into it and start saying microns which is the third decimal place and not micro- which is the 6th decimal place. (.040= 40 microns opposed to .000040= 40 micro)I’m just letting you know. Don’t get me wrong, I love your reviews but I had to point it out.
I think the two are the same: Micron and micrometer are two words for the same unit. www.britannica.com/science/micrometre A thousandth of a meter is known as a millimeter. www.britannica.com/science/millimetre
Just received this bible and found a word change or error in 2 Cor 1:24. The word "dominion" is changed to "domination". Can't seem to find this wording in any other KJV text. Seems to just be in some Nelson bibles. Not sure if I like that, and I'm concerned there are other changes like that in this edition. It does mean the same thing, but it's an odd and unique word choice.
That's a great catch! It looks like an autocorrect error to me. I have a Nelson KJV from the 1980s, and it reads 'dominion' in that spot.
I sent a note to Thomas Nelson. It turns out that they're aware of the error, and they intend to correct it in future print runs.
This is a very nice Bible, but I have a few criticisms. The cross references aren't where they should be, the columns are too wide, the text goes too far into the gutter, the translator notes are mixed in with the references. I'm still waiting for a double column paragraph formatting for the KJV. And I still think that the preface (Translator to the Reader) should be included in all KJV Bibles. Out of all the criticisms I have, the one that irks me the most is the bottom of the page references. I think I can be assured that the NKJV option will look the same, which is a bummer, but there is salvation at the end of this in that the verse by verse centre column edition with all black letters is due later this year. Great review of a classic Bible. The goatskin leather look slick too.
One additional note. I think TBS would have something to say (and they do) about this so called pure Cambridge edition. That's another gripe I have with the KJV as there are at least 3 legitimate editions or maybe more, of the KJV. There's the more familiar 1769 Oxford Blayney text, the Pure Cambridge Edition, and the edition the Trinitarian Bible Society uses which I think is an amalgamation of the other two. These were the 3 centres where the KJV text was translated back the earlier 1600s. Cambridge has also done updates of the KJV text as recently as a few years ago with the David Norton Cambridge Paragraph Bible and with Cambridge University Press being the Crown copyright holder, they are perfectly within their right to update the text. And if my understanding of this is correct, the latest update done by the copyright holder is the official text edition. So therefore, neither the Pure Cambridge Edition, nor the Oxford edition nor even TBS edition is the official text of the KJV and that can be and is very confusing. The other thing is because the KJV is out of copyright outside of the UK and the Commonwealth, publishers, especially in the US, can print any edition they choose. If my memory serves me correct, I think Holman uses the Pure Cambridge Edition as well as Church Bible Publishers. Thomas Nelson and Zondervan uses the Oxford Text.
Thanks for commenting, Edward! You and I have similar views on Bible design. But even so, I really like this edition. I believe I'll overlook its major flaws and use it often, particularly for morning and evening prayer, and when I'm listening to anyone who teaches from the KJV. For private study, I'll likely continue with the Allan 53 or the Westminster, since the references are more accessible in them.
I checked an old Oxford Brevier Blackface KJV in the six locations listed on the third chart, where this Nelson KJV differs from the Pure Cambridge Edition standard, and the Oxford and the Nelson agree in all six. So you could well be right, that Nelson uses the Oxford edition. The notion of a Pure Cambridge Edition seems somewhat arbitrary to me, but I take your point: Cambridge should decide what constitutes a Pure Cambridge Edition. The only reason I brought the topic up in the video is that I've been asked about it when I've reviewed KJVs in the past. At any rate, I believe the only significant error in the Oxford text is the 'he' in Jeremiah 34.16, which is easily fixed with a note in pencil in the margin. The spirit/Spirit question is a non issue, since the reader should be aware that either is possible and should let the context drive the choice.
@@RGrantJones Exactly. This is a really nice Bible and I like it. Even with the flaws that was mentioned, it's well constructed and I believe it will be a hit with many people, if your polls are anything to go by. And I agree that Cambridge should clarify the position of the text of the KJV, that would ease some of the confusion, at leat for me anyways, even though you have the other two editions of the Oxford and TBS texts. As things stands, I think I'm settling on using the NKJV and ESV going forward (the ESV mostly, I believe). The all black letter vbv to be released by TN in November will be my go to NKJV, and as for the ESV, that's proving to be a liitle bit more difficult than I thought. I have the Large Print Wide Margin (it has no reference and no concordance and the "wide" margin isn't that wide plus its only the outer margin), I also have the Thinline Reference Bible and though it's a small Bible, it's surprisingly quite readable (I'm just not sure I'm sold on the bottom page references), then I have the ESV Reference Bible, but that is a red letter edition, it won't be used much, it would have been perfect if it wasn't red letter. Actually, I gave that one away. Now I'm thinking about getting the Large Print Thinline Reference Bible, the print is larger and even though the references are at the bottom right hand corner of each page, it is in a position where they can be easily ignored and most importantly, the footnotes are separated from the references and I like the layout . After that, I'm not sure if I'll be buying anymore Bibles, I'll use these and rebind when necessary. But at my age (late 30s) one just doesn't know.
@@edwardgraham9443 - I reviewed the ESV Large Print Thinline a couple of years ago. I'm not a big fan of it, mainly because of the thin paper and skinny font. The ESV Creeds and Confessions Bible has the same font and layout, but it was printed more darkly -- and it has confessional material in the back that may not interest you. The paper in the ESV Creeds and Confessions Bible is somewhat glossy, but overall I like it better than the Large Print Thinline. Sorry that ESV Reference Bible didn't work out.
@@RGrantJones I've seen that video and the follow up to it as why it's hard to read. But I've seen some videos that say the newer ones made since 2019 are darker in print and much easier to read with better paper and less ghosting. The newer ones are all TruTone but Crossway's TruTone are very good. I also saw your video of the Creeds and Confession one, and your right, the creeds do not interest me, even though it's very well done. I think that's the way the newer editions are now being made, with this darker print and better paper. As for the ESV Reference Bible, although I "gave it away", it didn't leave the house, so I can have a second look at it. Everything about that Bible is great except for the red letters. I've noticed that Crossway has been using darker fonts since 2019 with all their Bibles I've seen videos of recently.
Here's one of those videos
ruclips.net/video/N97SOo1TX1w/видео.html
@@RGrantJones "The notion of a Pure Cambridge Edition seems somewhat arbitrary to me, but I take your point: Cambridge should decide what constitutes a Pure Cambridge Edition."
Well, in all fairness, it's not Cambridge's problem. They didn't come up with this "Pure Cambridge Edition" nonsense. This fuss was started by an Australian Pentecostal man named Matthew Verschuur, who sits on the more extreme edge of the King James Only movement.
His reasoning for championing the 1900 Cambridge text is based on his assertion that the PCE is the 7th edition of the KJV, and 7 is associated with purity. (In coming to this conclusion, he conveniently ignores the 1873 Cambridge Paragraph Bible in his numbering. Apparently, Cambridge wasn't "pure" that time.)
He specifically alludes to Psalm 12.6, which he erroneously interprets as a prophecy about the KJV. (Never mind that you could use this same silly argument to declare a modern translation as the one "true" version: Great Bible -- Bishops' Bible -- King James Version -- Revised Version -- American Standard Version -- Revised Standard Version -- New Revised Standard Version. Voila! Lucky number 7!)
Can someone tell me how much The Bible cost Thank you
Right now (26 June 2021), it's $125 at Christianbook.com. Amazon.com has it for $121.11. www.christianbook.com/kjv-reference-maclaren-premium-goatskin-leather/9780785241973/pd/241972
www.amazon.com/Reference-Maclaren-Premium-Goatskin-Leather/dp/0785241973
Just curious why you prefer pronouns of deity to not be capitalized. I've watched many of your videos, but not all of them, so may have missed your reasoning. Also, why you prefer the words of Christ to be in black instead of red.
Sure. Regarding pronouns, I prefer it when translations leave ambiguities in the original language ambiguous in English. So take a look at Genesis 3.22. The NASB and NKJV both capitalize 'Us', implying one of the persons of the Godhead is addressing other divine persons. The MEV leaves 'us' lowercase, implying that God is not speaking to other divine persons. Since we can't be certain who is being addressed, it seems best to leave all the pronouns in the Bible lowercase, per the traditional practice, and so preserve the ambiguity. Another example is in 2 Thess 2.7, where the NKJV and MEV capitalize 'He' in 'He who is now restraining'. They thus imply that a divine being is the restrainer, but that isn't clear from the text.
Regarding red letters, a number of us find them painful to read. In addition to eyestrain, red letters are difficult to print evenly, so it's not uncommon to run into sections of faded red text in red letter Bibles. When black letters are present on the opposite side of the page, they create background clutter. I find red print on the black background clutter harder to read than black text on the same clutter. Finally, it isn't always clear in the original whether Jesus is speaking or the author of the book is narrating.
Hope this helps.
@@RGrantJones this is VERY helpful. I didn't know that about Genesis 3:22. That's concerning
This is nearly the exact bible as the Nelson's KJV Preacher Bible. The Preacher's bible does not have maps or goatskin.
Thanks for taking the time to comment, WordAflame!
As far as your polls go, for me:
Single column paragraph
Black ink
Bottom references
Yahweh
The variety in preferences represented by the poll results must be a challenge to publishers. Thanks for commenting, Cesar Gaming and Vlogs!
Everybody is copying the Quentel and I think that's probably a good thing. Bigger FONTs. Easier to READ.
i missed the survey but i would have bumped that "do not capitalize pronouns that refer to deity" up a measly percent. I'm not surprised though, also most KJV bibles i notice are unfortunately red letter which is WACK.