1611 Quote request

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by pops, Oct 28, 2007.

  1. pops

    pops
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2004
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    0
    Would someone please quote me Romans 5:20 from your 1611 version.
     
  2. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    And not onely so, but wee also ioy in God, through our Lorde Iesus Christ, by whom we haue now receiued the atonement.
     
  3. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    C4K, I do not have a 1611 version, but from some versions I do have, that seems much more likely to be Rom. 5:11, than Rom. 5:20. You might check that out, or that could possibly be an accidental transposition or even a misprint, it seems to me.

    Ed
     
  4. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78

    Whoops - I got the verse and the year mixed up ")

    Moreouer, the Lawe entred, that the offence might abound: but where sinne abounded, grace did much more abound.
     
  5. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK, I didn't know. But that a lot is more like what my versions also say. :thumbs:

    Ed
     
  6. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    3,837
    Likes Received:
    3
    An FYI that the following site includes the 1611 KJV in its list of translations available under the "Early Translations" section.

    http://www.studylight.org/
     
  7. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    It is also available free with E-sword
     
  8. pops

    pops
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2004
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    0
    quote request

    Moreouer, the Lawe entred, that the offence might abound: but where sinne abounded, grace did much more abound. (1611 KJV)

    The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, (NASB)

    Now I don't know about you but when I was young(er) many people including myself said things like I cant understand the bible so many thees and thous and words like that who speaks like that anyway etc ...

    How can you sit with an unbeliever and read to them from your 1611 version and try to explain it - you end up expalining words and not salvation.

    As you can see the above quote from the NASB (recognized as a literal translation) is much more readable don't you think?

    So I don't understand why all this fuss to go back - I think if the newer versions were all that bad they would have been discredited long ago besides is that how you speak in normal conversation?

    Well enough of this.
     
  9. Ed Franklin

    Ed Franklin
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    0
    I doubt too many people are using the 1611 for personal work. At the same time I say that, I have to admit that there are some fruitcakes around who might be doing just that! :laugh:

    The fact that the 1611 AV, Tyndale, Wycliffe, etc, are fraught with archaic language and are not (imo) useful for personal work, there's no reason to abandon them altogether. I like to look at them now and then and consider the "evolution" of language.

    From a literary standpoint, I find the NASB far inferior to the KJV.....it's downright "clunky" in some places. The ESV "reads" better than any other modern language version I know of.
     
  10. pops

    pops
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2004
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    0
    bible versions

    clunky you say ?
     
  11. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    I have t agree - "clunky" is a good word for how I see the NASV as well :)
     
  12. pops

    pops
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2004
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    0
    1611

    CLUNKY: gawky, lacking grace in movement or posture.

    So you suave linguistic folks please demonstrate how your version is smooth flowing -graceful, easy to understand - not confusing and defintly not clunky.
     
  13. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    It would help beautify the lanaguage if some curse
    words were removed.

    Sorry but HELL is a curse word.
    Sorry but certain bodily functions have
    curse words associated with them.
    The one about making water appears
    in 17th Century (1601-1700) versions
    of the Bible.
     
  14. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    No condemnation or criticism intended here.

    Its simky that I, me, personally, just find the NASV clunky in many places.
     
    #14 NaasPreacher (C4K), Nov 1, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 1, 2007

Share This Page

Loading...