Which of the two 1611 editions of the KJV is the standard?

[logos1560]

Which of the two varying 1611 editions of the KJV does your present edition of the KJV follow: the 1611 'He' Bible or the 1611 'She' Bible?

The 1611 reprint editions available today are reprints of the 1611 'He' edition although most present KJV editions have departed from that 1611 'He' edition at Genesis 10:16, Exodus 14:10, 1 Chronicles 7:38, Ruth 3:15, and Song of Solomon 2:7 along with over 2,000 more changes and revisions to the text of that 1611 edition.

Genesis 10:16 [see Gen. 48:22, Exod. 33:2] [Emori--1560 Geneva, 1602 Bishops]
Emorite (1679, 1709, 1715, 1720, 1728, 1746, 1747, 1753, 1754, 1755, 1758, 1762, 1765, 1768, 1772, 1777, 1783, 1784 Oxford) [1629, 1637, 1638, 1648, 1677, 1683, 1743, 1747, 1756, 1760, 1762, 1763B, 1765, 1767, 1768, 1769 Cambridge] {1611 ‘He,’ 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1631, 1650, 1672, 1684, 1705, 1706, 1711, 1735, 1741, 1747, 1750, 1760, 1763, 1764, 1772 London} (1755 Oxon) (1638, 1722, 1735, 1756, 1760, 1764, 1766, 1769 Edinburgh) (1762 Dublin) (1746 Leipzig) (1776 Pasham) (1782 Aitken) (1791 Collins) (1790, 1804 MH) (1810, 1832, 1835 Scott) (1833 WEB)
Amorite (1675, 1769 Oxford, SRB) [DKJB] {1611 ‘She,‘ 1634, 1640, 1644, 1660, 1767 London}

Ruth 3:15 [went--1560 Geneva]
he went [1873, 2005, 2011 Cambridge] {1611 ‘He’ London} (1843 AFBS) (1853, 1854, 1855, 1858 ABS) (2000, 2002 ZOND) (TPB) (HPB) (2006 PENG) (2008, 2010, 2011 HEND) (NHPB)
she went (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB] {1611 ‘She’ London}

1 Chronicles 7:38 [Pispa--1560 Geneva, 1602 Bishops]
Pispa {1611 ‘He,’ 1614, 1616, 1617, 1634, 1640 London}
Pispah (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB] {1611 ‘She’ London}

Song of Solomon 2:7 [she please--1560 Geneva; she be content her self--1602 Bishops]
till she please {1611 ‘He” London} (1853, 1855, 1858 ABS)
till he please (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB] {1611 ‘She’ London}

On the other hand, most present KJV editions differ from the 1611 'She' edition in a number of places although some present 1873 Cambridge-based editions follow it.

Here are a few example places in the Old Testament where some present 1873 Cambridge-based KJV editions follow the 1611 'She' edition but where most do not.

Genesis 46:17 [see also 1 Sam. 14:49 for spelling of the same Hebrew name]
Ishui [1873, 2005, 2011 Cambridge] {1611 ‘She,’ 1631, 1640, 1644, 1650, 1684, 1741 London} (1755 Oxon) (1700 MP) (1776 Pasham) (2000, 2002 ZOND) (TPB) (HPB) (2006 PENG) (2008, 2010, 2011 HEND) (NHPB)
Isui (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

Genesis 47:27 [possessions--1602 Bishops]
they had possession therein [1873 Cambridge] {1611 ‘She’ London} (2000, 2002 ZOND) (TPB) (HPB) (2008, 2010, 2011 HEND) (NHPB)
they had possessions therein (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

Leviticus 18:30 [shall ye keep--1602 Bishops]
Therefore ye shall keep [1873 Cambridge] {1611 ‘She’ London} (2000, 2002 ZOND) (TPB) (HPB) (2008, 2010, 2011 HEND) (NHPB)
Therefore shall ye keep (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

Numbers 10:2 [shalt thou make them--1602 Bishops]
thou shalt make them [1873 Cambridge] {1611 ‘She’ London} (2000, 2002 ZOND) (TPB) (HPB) (2008, 2010, 2011 HEND) (NHPB)
shalt thou make them (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

Deuteronomy 8:7
of the valleys [1873 Cambridge] {1611 ‘She’ London} (2000, 2002 ZOND) (TPB) (HPB) (2008, 2010, 2011 HEND) (NHPB)
of vallies [1769 Cambridge] (1787, 1791, 1793 Edinburgh)
of valleys (1769 Oxford, SRB) [DKJB]

Deuteronomy 17:4 [it be true--1602 Bishops]
it is true [1873 Cambridge] {1611 ‘She’ London} (2000, 2002 ZOND) (TPB) (HPB) (2008, 2010, 2011 HEND) (NHPB)
it be true (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

Deuteronomy 32:15
thou art waxed [1873, 2005, 2011 Cambridge] {1611 ‘She’ London} (2000, 2002 ZOND) (TPB) (HPB) (2006 PENG) (2008, 2010, 2011 HEND) (NHPB)
thou art waxen (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

1 Kings 3:20 [And she rose--1560 Geneva; And she arose--1602 Bishops]
And she rose [1873 Cambridge] {1611 ‘She’ London} (2000, 2002 ZOND) (TPB) (HPB) (2008, 2010, 2011 HEND) (NHPB)
And she arose (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

1 Kings 9:22 [bondmen--1602 Bishops[
make no bondman [1873 Cambridge] {1611 ‘She’ London} (2000, 2002 ZOND) (TPB) (HPB) (2008, 2010, 2011 HEND) (NHPB)
make no bondmen (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

Job 19:15 [maids--1560 Geneva; maidens--1602 Bishops]
my maidens [1873 Cambridge] {1611 ‘She,’ 1631, 1644 London} (2000, 2002 ZOND) (TPB) (HPB) (2008, 2010, 2011 HEND) (NHPB)
my maids (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB] {1611 ‘He’ London}

Proverbs 11:20
unto the LORD [1873 Cambridge] {1611 ‘She’ London} (2000, 2002 ZOND) (TPB) (HPB) (2008, 2010, 2011 HEND) (NHPB)
to the LORD (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

Isaiah 65:2 [mine hands--1560 Geneva, 1568 Bishops]
mine hands [1873 Cambridge] {1611 ‘She‘ London} (2000, 2002 ZOND) (TPB) (HPB) (2008, 2010, 2011 HEND) (NHPB)
my hands (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

Jeremiah 25:15 [mine hand--1560 Geneva]
mine hand [1873 Cambridge] {1611 ‘She’ London} (2000, 2002 ZOND) (TPB) (HPB) (2008, 2010, 2011 HEND) (NHPB)
my hand (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

Ezekiel 6:14 [mine hand--1560 Geneva, 1568 Bishops]
mine hand [1873 Cambridge] {1611 ‘She’, 1631, 1644 London} (2000, 2002 ZOND) (TPB) (HPB) (2008, 2010, 2011 HEND) (NHPB)
my hand (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

Ezekiel 31:18 [see Ezek. 31:17--with the sword] [by the sword--1560 Geneva; with the sword--1602 Bishops]
with the sword [1873 Cambridge] {1611 ‘She’ London} (2000, 2002 ZOND) (TPB) (HPB) (2008, 2010, 2011 HEND) (NHPB)
by the sword (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

Daniel 2:34 [to pieces--1560 Geneva, 1602 Bishops] [in pieces--NKJV]
brake them in pieces [1873 Cambridge] {1611 ‘She’ London} (2000, 2002 ZOND) (TPB) (HPB) (2008, 2010, 2011 HEND) (NHPB)
brake them to pieces (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

Nahum 1:10 [see “they be folden”]
they be drunken [1873 Cambridge] {1611 ‘She’ London} (2000, 2002 ZOND) (TPB) (HPB) (2008, 2010, 2011 HEND) (NHPB)
they are drunken (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

 

[bgwilkinson]

Of course this is just my opinion.

But I would say the "he" Bible is the standard unmutilated edition.


If the KJV1611 had no mistakes we need to look back to the he Bible to correct our

modern revised KJVs.

 

[prophet]

Of course this is just my opinion.

But I would say the "he" Bible is the standard unmutilated edition.


If the KJV1611 had no mistakes we need to look back to the he Bible to correct our

modern revised KJVs.

Agreed.  It should read "he".
The context is unmistakeable.


Anishinaabe

 

[logos1560]

Agreed.  It should read "he".
The context is unmistakeable.

Likely you are referring to a different verse than the one by which the 1611 editions are named. 

The 1611 "He" edition is named from the use of "he" at Ruth 3:15 while the 1611 "she" edition is named from the use of "she" at Ruth 3:15.


Ruth 3:15 [went--1560 Geneva]
he went [1873, 2005, 2011 Cambridge] {1611 ‘He’ London} (1843 AFBS) (1853, 1854, 1855, 1858 ABS) (2000, 2002 ZOND) (TPB) (HPB) (2006 PENG) (2008, 2010, 2011 HEND) (NHPB)
she went (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB] {1611 ‘She’ London}

 

[prophet]

"Likely you are referring to a different verse than the one by which the 1611 editions are named. 

The 1611 "He" edition is named from the use of "he" at Ruth 3:15 while the 1611 "she" edition is named from the use of "she" at Ruth 3:15."




I am referring to SS 2:7

Anishinaabe

 

[logos1560]

I am referring to SS 2:7

That is what I thought that you were referring to, but it is not what you actually in effect stated.

You agreed with a statement that asserted that the 1611 "He" edition of the KJV was the standard edition, but the 1611 'He" Bible has "she" at Song of Solomon 2:7.

Of course this is just my opinion.

But I would say the "he" Bible is the standard unmutilated edition.

Agreed.  It should read "he".

 

[prophet]

I am referring to SS 2:7

That is what I thought that you were referring to, but it is not what you actually in effect stated.

You agreed with a statement that asserted that the 1611 "He" edition of the KJV was the standard edition, but the 1611 'He" Bible has "she" at Song of Solomon 2:7.

date=1393627366]

Of course this is just my opinion.

But I would say the "he" Bible is the standard unmutilated edition.

Agreed.  It should read "he".

[/quote]I really can't decipher your gibberish, here.

IDK if it's my APP, or the forum's new bugs, but not much.of your post is legible.

I hope we didn't cross signals.

I'll wait a few days n check back.

Anishinaabe

 

[bgwilkinson]

My opinion is that the he Bible should be the standard for the following reasons.

1. My favorite KJV1611 soft red leather photographic facsimile reproduction is a he Bible from GreatSite.com. he Bible

http://greatsite.com/facsimile-reproductions/kingjames-1611.html

2. Next favorite is the photographic 1st edition  on the U of Penn web site. he Bible  I use this one most, so accessible.

http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?textID=kjbible&PagePosition=1

3. Here is what Gill says about the he she dilemma.

"and she went into the city; of Bethlehem, with her burden; or rather he went (b); for the word is masculine, and to be understood of Boaz, who accompanied her to the city, lest she should meet with any that should abuse her; and so the Targum expresses it,"Boaz went into the city.'' "

4. Barnes says:

"And she went into the city - The Hebrew has “he went,” namely, Boaz, where, accordingly, we find him Rth_4:1."

5. K & D says:

"When Boaz had given her the barley he measured out, and had sent her away, he also went into the city. This is the correct rendering, as given by the Chaldee, to the words הָעִיר וַיָּבֹא; though Jerome referred the words to Ruth, but certainly without any reason, as יָבֹא cannot stand for תָּבֹא. This reading is no doubt found in some of the MSS, but it merely owes its origin to a mistaken interpretation of the words."

6. Pulpit Commentary says:

"And he went to the city. The Vulgate and Syriac versions, as also Castellio, Coverdale, and various other translators, but not Luther, have assumed that we should read וַתָּבְאֹ, "and she went," instead of וַיָּבְּאֹ, "and he went." So too Wright. But there seems to be no good reason for making the change. If there had been no division into verses, then the departure of both Boaz and Ruth on their respective routes, or in their respective order of sequence, would have been recorded close together: "and ’he’ went to the city, and ’she’ went to her mother-in-law"—each, let us bear in mind, with the heart elate."

7. My take on the change is that there is a legitimate argument to be made either way but if I had to say
it would be that the translators settled on the he reading. They would of course have known what the commentators cited above knew.

Now I'm just guessing on this, and I can not cite a source but, I think that someone that read the new translation objected to the new reading, not understanding the background, and had enough clout to get Barker to change it to she.

I picture the translators crawling all over Barkers print shop, checking to see that Barker didn't mess it up. Can you imagine the arguments going on back and forth.

 

[prophet]

My opinion is that the he Bible should be the standard for the following reasons.

1. My favorite KJV1611 soft red leather photographic facsimile reproduction is a he Bible from GreatSite.com. he Bible

http://greatsite.com/facsimile-reproductions/kingjames-1611.html

2. Next favorite is the photographic 1st edition  on the U of Penn web site. he Bible  I use this one most, so accessible.

http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?textID=kjbible&PagePosition=1

3. Here is what Gill says about the he she dilemma.

"and she went into the city; of Bethlehem, with her burden; or rather he went (b); for the word is masculine, and to be understood of Boaz, who accompanied her to the city, lest she should meet with any that should abuse her; and so the Targum expresses it,"Boaz went into the city.'' "

4. Barnes says:

"And she went into the city - The Hebrew has “he went,” namely, Boaz, where, accordingly, we find him Rth_4:1."

5. K & D says:

"When Boaz had given her the barley he measured out, and had sent her away, he also went into the city. This is the correct rendering, as given by the Chaldee, to the words הָעִיר וַיָּבֹא; though Jerome referred the words to Ruth, but certainly without any reason, as יָבֹא cannot stand for תָּבֹא. This reading is no doubt found in some of the MSS, but it merely owes its origin to a mistaken interpretation of the words."

6. Pulpit Commentary says:

"And he went to the city. The Vulgate and Syriac versions, as also Castellio, Coverdale, and various other translators, but not Luther, have assumed that we should read וַתָּבְאֹ, "and she went," instead of וַיָּבְּאֹ, "and he went." So too Wright. But there seems to be no good reason for making the change. If there had been no division into verses, then the departure of both Boaz and Ruth on their respective routes, or in their respective order of sequence, would have been recorded close together: "and ’he’ went to the city, and ’she’ went to her mother-in-law"—each, let us bear in mind, with the heart elate."

7. My take on the change is that there is a legitimate argument to be made either way but if I had to say
it would be that the translators settled on he reading. They would of course have known what the commentators cited above knew.

Now I'm just guessing on this, and I can not cite a source but, I think that someone that read the new translation objected to the new reading, not understanding the background, and had enough clout to get Barker to change it to she.

I picture the translators crawling all over Barkers print shop, checking to see that Barker didn't mess it up. Can you imagine the arguments going on back a forth.

I'm with #5 above.

Anishinaabe