Saviour or Savior?

[Anonymous]

Does your Bible say Saviour or Savior, seven letters or six? That's an interesting thought, not of my own, but of Dr. Eric Capaci of Gospel Light Baptist Church in Hot Springs, Arkansas, from a message I recently listened to (http://www.gospellight.org) I think the message was "The Gospel According to Joesph." Anyway, the point was this: the modern versions all spell Saviour with six letters, s-a-v-i-o-r instead of seven, s-a-v-i-o-u-r. Now we all know what seven means; complete, whole, etc. That to me is an interesting thought.

Now I must admit something and I'm wondering if anyone knows anything about this. I bought my Bible about four years ago, it is the Nelson Study Bible, but for some reason it spells Saviour with six letters, Savior. Yes, yes, yes, it is the King James Version of the Bible, and so is every Bible I own, but has annoyed me every since I heard it. Another thing in the Nelson Study Bible that has annoyed me is this: in the New Testament, where the Old Testament Saints are mentioned, my Bible mentions the names in the Hebrew rather than the Greek. Examples are: Noah instead of Noe, Elijah instead of Elias; Isaiah instead of Esais. Any thoughts on this?

This has annoyed me to the point of actually considering buying a new Bible, but I don't get used to new Bibles easily. Is there something about the Nelson Study Bible any of you know that I don't, the reason why Saviour is spelled with six letters and the OT saints are mentioned in the NT differently? Just wondering.

One more thing: by new Bible I DO NOT mean a new version. Just clarifying for those that might be new to this site.

[Jim]

Yes brother Scott, I too have noticed this. It actually feels strange to me to write the word "Savior" instead of Saviour as I have always spelled it.

I am very interested to know why the Nelson study bible would have done this? It is strange indeed.


Jim

[Moodee]

I think it's called morphology of the English language. I think I need
to go eat something... bye

[Jim]

Not morphology Moodee, perversion is a better term......

BTW, how was your food?

Love in Christ,

Jim

[George]

If you will look in the front of that Nelson Study Bible you will most likely find a copyright notice. The King James Version of the Bible is in the public domain and is NOT copyrighted.

About the only way that a publisher can receive a copyright on any publication of the King James Version of the Bible is to CHANGE it! Words must be changed. Spelling must be changed.

I know there are a lot of folks out there that do not believe this fact. However, if you look inside one of the true to the 1611 Bibles that Bearing Precious Seed, Local Church Publishers prints there is no copyright notice posted. If you look at a web site that has a true version of the King james Version of the Bible such as biblegateway.com among others, you will see something similar to the following:

"King James Version (KJV)

Public Domain
A Public Domain Bible"

If it is in the public domain it cannot be copyrighted. It is not only the publishers of the modern versions of the Bible that are in business to make money.

I have on my desk in front of me at the present time a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, a Scofield Reference Bible printed in 1945, a copy of "The New Standard Alphabetical Indexed Bible, School and Reference Edition," published in 1951 and a copy of the Bearing Precious Seed Bible that I mentioned above that was just printed sometime in the past couple of months.

Each of those Bibles renders the word "Saviour."

I could go downstairs and look in some of the older Bibles I have, including the 1688 King James Bible I am steward of, but I am fairly certain they spell it "Saviour."

Perhaps it is a modernization of English as was offered. I tend to agree with the statement that it is a perversion. It is a changing of God's Word. I sincerely believe that by the time the English in the King James Version was standardized in 1769 there is no further need to change words.

Interestingly enough if you consult the Webster's 1828 you will find an entry for "Savior" but not for "Saviour." Hmmmm.

I don't think that this point really matters that much though. However, if you want a Bible that is true to the 1611 version you most likely need to check with Local Church Bible Publishers of Lansing, Michigan. There are other Bearing Precious Seed publishers out there also. I personally prefer the one cited for a number of reasons the biggest of which is their outstanding customer service. They print reference Bibles also. In fact they print the Old Scofield as well as other reference Bibles. The big difference again is that the Bearing Precious Seed publishers only print Bibles that are true to the 1611 version without actually being facsimile copies of the 1611. They print those too if anyone is interested.

Thomas Nelson, Baker, Zondervan and those big publishing houses don't seem to really care what they print as long as they can make a profit. All of the Bearing Precious Seed publishers are ministries of a local Church and as such sell Bibles at or near cost. They do request a donation with the purchase but I would rather make a donation to a local Church personally. I purchased a wonderful, real leather. gold-edged, thumb-indexed, large print Bible from them for $50.00. that Bible would easily cost $100.00 through a commercial publishing house.

Incidentaly, I checked on Noah/Noe in the BPS Bible. Noe appears in the New Testament and Noah in the Old Testament. I imagine the other names mentioned are the same although I did not check them.

Yours in Christ,
George Groce

[Brother_Mike]

George,

I would like to second your opinion of the Bearing Precious Seed (BPS) Bibles. I just received my Scofield Reference, Wide Margin Bible and it is a great Bible. To speak on the quality it is very good with Leather covers. Excellent. Also it does, as in your example, stick with the more proper spelling of Saviour, etc. Would recommend BPS Bibles to anyone looking for a new or replacement Bible. Support a local Church, buy USA, get God's Word!!
(Although the Scofield does contain a copyright message, I would think more for the notes, but it does not specify)

Blessings to all,
Mike Jones
(New member)

[George]

Quote:(Although the Scofield does contain a copyright message, I would think more for the notes, but it does not specify)

Brother Mike, I am glad you are enjoying that Bible. As I said before, I think they are great. What you have stated above is my understanding of why the Scofield is copyrighted. Scofield's reference system and the things he has to say are copyrighted by whoever holds the copyright at the present time.

Yours in Christ,
George Groce

[Brother_Mike]

Hello George,

I was under the same perception as you regarding the KJV and copyright. In essence, there not being one.

Quite by accident I stumbled on to a discussion of this. Apparently there is a Crown Copyright that is held by the Government of Great Britain. For a bit of a more detailed discussion, please see http://www.wayoflife.org/otimothy/tl070007.htm
Although I believe this applies only to Great Britain. Wikipedia has an bit more in-depth article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_..._the_Bible
I believe it is a perpetual, albiet unenforced copyright, although I don't know how it applies to the KJV being printing in Great Britain.

Blessings,
Mike

[mnwickens]

Evening,

The difference in spellings may be something to do with the fact that Americans spell a lot of things wrong. Being from England and well acquainted with the original English language I can think of a few other examples, but I will limit myself to the ones involving "u". The English version is first and the American second:

Saviour=Savior
Honour=Honor
Colour=color

Always enjoying the opportunity to lovingly tease my USA Brethren,

Martin

[Jim]

I kind of like the other problems with the English language.....


Which one is a "torch"?

A large stick dipped in a flammable liquid, resembling a large match, which is used to light dark areas, especially caves?

or

A metallic object, typically holding batteries, which provides power to a light bulb, used to illuminate areas of darkness


Which one is a "bonnet"?

A headpiece worn by conservative ladies in earlier times, and now by little baby girls.

or

A hood covering the engine of a car in Britian.


Well Martin?

Teasing can go both ways,

Jim

[mnwickens]

This could be fun. I would like to begin by stating that as an Englishman I reserve the right to be, well, right about everything. It is the privilege of the arrogant English.

Torch or Flash light?
Your definition of the original torch was good, compare that to a flash light. Does flash refer to the quality of the light? On...off...on...off...

Bonnet, boot, hood, trunk:
These words cast back to the days of the horse and cart. When the ladies travelled they needed somewhere to put their fancy hats: in the front in a box and it came to be known as the bonnet. Boot: where men kept their boots, trunk, the place the luggage was kept, etc.

When the UK and the USA when their separate ways technology also diverged and the usage of the horse and cart changed. Thus different names for different parts. Also, greater distances were covered so instead of a special place for hats they needed somewhere for luggage or trunks.

Sincerely,

MNW

[Jim]

[cedartree]

My frank response to this issue is "are you kidding?" I'm not concerned about how the English language has morphed but how the CHURCH has morphed. Is this what we're concerned about in 2006? I understand the concern about the accuracy of scripture and I'm sure your intentions are well placed -- I too am concerned about broader attacks against the Bible such as the gender neutralizing attempts we've recently seen but the number of letters in the word savior/saviour? Are you saying that in other languages of the world, the term "saviour" is not valid because it's not made up of 7 letters? How about Chinese where it may be represented with one character? In Arabic, it's 4 letters. One word for savior in the original Greek is 5 letters -- are we so arrogant regarding our anglo heritage that we believe the English is superior to the original Greek? Again, I understand your intentions but I'm concerned that the church is its own worst enemy when it comes to reaching the world around us.

[Raymond]

I think brother Martin summed it up pretty well. The english just have a goofy way of spelling "stuff" . But seeing how they were the ones who invented our language Ill give it to them.

In any case Im not going to get worked up over a difference in spelling. It doesnt change the meaning of anything.

I will agree with Cedartree that the Church needs to take a look at the direction its going in, in relation to reaching the lost.
By the way Cedartree, welcome to the forum.

Ray

[mnwickens]

I agree with Ray, mostly...