Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Dale-c, Jun 21, 2006.
I see the numbers 1611 a lot and wonder if anyone is actually using the 1611 KJV?
Well, I am using the Authorized King James Bible... but I must admit it was printed a few hundred years after 1611...
But is it actually a reprint of the 1611 verseion? I mean word for word ?
I use, among other versions, a reprint of the AV 1611, complete with the Apocrypha & all the extra-textual material supplied by the translators. I have thumbed through an original, mainly looking at that extra-textual writing, and I assume it's all there in the Hendrickson Edition reprint I have.
I think the Apocrypha was in all of the original printings.
One of these days I may read the Apocrypha just for history sake.
No, it is difficult to understand Elizabethan English.
Do I hold the real bible?
While I would love to tell you "of course I do", I confess that I cannot. Since I haven't compared my personal Bible word for word with a text from 1611, I can only assume that I do. I know you have to be very, very careful when buying a KJB. I had a (supposed) KJB Daily Walk bible that I found half a dozen words changed! Twice it changed "wot not" to "know not" (referring to Moses in the mountain)...
What, exactly, is your point?
Yes, I do use it. My favorite KJV1611 Edition is the electronic one from
check here for your free copy of KJV1611 Edition:
I also have a reprint in paper from NELSON.
I used to have also the HENDRICKSON which was word for word,
comma by comma like the NELSON.
Here are the main changes from the KJV1611 Edition to the KJV1769 Editions:
1. The 'j' sounding 'I' constant is given it's own letter: 'J'.
(you have to remember when reading the KJV1611 Edition which 'I' is which)
2. the 'U' and 'V' have traded places.
(I always wondered why the 'double U' (AKA: 'W" looks like a double 'V')
3. internal 's'es like like a one sided bar 'f'.
4. some word changes, most (about 97%) of which are just spelling changes
So the KJV1611 Edition reads nearly a match with the KJV1769 Editions in popular use.
Most who use or consult an actual 1611 edition of the KJV or 1611 reprint are doing so for research or comparison purposes, checking to see how many differences there are between the 1611 edition and today's KJV editions, etc.
Perhaps the present-day edition of the KJV closest to the 1611 edition
[not including the reprint editions] but in modern spelling would be the
new 2005 Cambridge edition edited by David Norton.
Here is where you see a picture of
the Henderson KJV1611 Edition reprint:
That is a tad pricy though
There is a picture of the Nelson KJV1611 Edition reprint at:
BTW, the original was in Gothic fount and
the two above reprints use a Roman fount.
That makes it lot easier to read.
The word "wot" was used in the 1611 with the meaning "know" so why did that change bother you?
There are a few differences among the five or more KJV editions presently in print. However, these differences were not as many as can be found between the 1611 edition and today's Oxford KJV edition. I have been working on a comparison between the 1611 and today's Oxford KJV edition and have a list of 1900 differences that would affect the sound between them.
No, I don't use it.
The Apochrypha is interesting reading. You can find it online.
Yes as a matter of fact.
I use it nearly every day... along with the 1762 Cambridge, 1769 Oxford, Bishops, Geneva, LITV, Reina-Valera 1909, and a couple of Greek texts.
Why do you ask?
PS - I also have some beautiful framed pages of an Original 1611, 1625, and 1658 KJV.
Pastor MHG, I would say he was asking because of the many KJVOs who have "AV 1611" or some variation thereof in their handles, but who, when quoting Scriptures, quote from some other KJV editions. The 1611 IS different from the currently-used KJV editions, as has been often proven here.
That was the main reason why I posted, wondering if some did actually use the 1611.
I personally use the 1769 but I don't think that the KJV is "the only Bible that ever was" as some seem to think.
I am wanting to look into a new Cambridge edition. I believe it is a KJV with quotation marks and a different paragraph layout from what I hear.
I use the 1611 reprint. I put the cheater tabs on so I can find the books faster, but I still get messed up with the chapter numbers once in a while - especially the large numbers in the Psalms.
Is it hard to read? I tried to read one once and since an s looks like an f it was kind of hard.
It is amazing how readable the 1769 is though. I tried to read Lex Rex the other day and I couldn't but of course there were a ton of latin quotations.
I would love to see a modern english translation of that.
Four or five years ago this happened:
On a Bulletin board that said:
This is an independent, fundamental Baptist
discussion board that
accepts the King James Bible (AV 1611) as
the perfect word of God
and the final authority in all matters
of faith and practice.
I posted this:
Romanes X:9 (KJV1611):
That if thou shalt confesse with
thy mouth the Lord Iesus, and shalt
beleeue in thing heart, that God hath
raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saued.
It was edited out with this note:
"Note: Quotations from all other Bibles deleted
by the administrator."
The quote of the same verse from KJV1873 was
allowed to remain.
Tee hee, a KJB1611 site that
doesn't accept quotes from
the KJV1611. Tee hee.
And here is what was posted from the
administrator of that site
on a neutral site where the above appeared:
Dear Mr. Edwards,
Laugh now while you have the chance.
You came to our discussion board knowing
our stand on the King James Bible and
yet you decided to stir up a little trouble.
You quoted Romans 10:9 from many different
bible versions trying to prove that
they all stated the same thing.
In the middle you used King James Bibles
from 1611, 1769, and 1873 trying to
make it look like they were all different.
The deletion was to get rid of your redundancy
as well as your quotes from modern versions.
So laugh all you want to because
I am banning you from our board.
Tee hee, a KJB1611 site that
bans KJV1611 quoters ???
Ed that is really funny.
I met a lot of people like that in college.
By the way, I DO use the KJV (1769) and I do have a problem with many of the new versions as they are very weak on a lot of important doctrines.
But to elevate the 1611 to a point above the very Word of God is dangerous.
One chapel speaker when I was in college said that we used the KJV "because it was teh Authorized Version!"
lol, little did he know that before it was "Authorized" it was a crime punishable by death to publish it!