If KJVO's lived in 1611

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Dale-c, Feb 13, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Dale-c

    Dale-c
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    If the average KJVO such as I used to be, lived in England in 1611, do you think they would support or reject the KJV at that time?
     
  2. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Certainly, just as you reject it now.
     
  3. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,649
    Likes Received:
    158
    King James Revisions

    The KJO folk would most likely reject the 1611 as the spelling is such that most of us folk alive now could not read it and this is not the version they are reading today. Several revisions were made, i.e. 1613, 1629, 1638 and again in 1762 and 1769. I expect that only a few scholars have a reproduction of the 1611 version or any version before those in the 18th century. :tonofbricks:
     
  4. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Does that validate my person as a scholar?

    The language of the 1611 is the same. Only the text type was changed along with spelling updates.

    It is written in prose form to relate the eloquence intended by its Author in the English language which has proven that anything of the modern nature to be second class at best.

    The only lack of acceptance was on behalf of the "Bishop's Bible". The Geneva Bible.
     
  5. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,198
    Likes Received:
    376
  6. sag38

    sag38
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,394
    Likes Received:
    1
    That's very telling. My 1611 isn't really a 1611 then. It's some other version. But, it says KJV. Somethings wrong.
     
  7. Linda64

    Linda64
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    2,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's exactly what I was going to say! AMEN Bro!

    BTW, I thought KJVO DID live back in 1611:tonofbricks: Wasn't the KJV (with some minor spelling and typeset revision...NOT text revisions) all anybody used until 1881?
     
  8. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow. You can know the entirety of one's motives based upon a single post? How perceptive.

    (I'm sure that we've also "creatively" defined the word "reject" as well).
     
  9. Palatka51

    Palatka51
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,724
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen Linda64, a point that I was going to bring up as well.
     
  10. readmore

    readmore
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2007
    Messages:
    250
    Likes Received:
    0
    The only "Onlyism" back then was Vulgate Onlyism and a little of Bishops Bible Onlyism and possibly some Geneva Bible Onlyism. The KJV certainly wasn't the only Bible "anybody" used, even just counting those Bibles in English.
     
  11. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,198
    Likes Received:
    376
    Does yours say 1611 with revisions or something? Maybe that's the issue.
     
  12. Palatka51

    Palatka51
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,724
    Likes Received:
    0
    My dear brothers and sisters in Christ;

    This thread is set up to hurl flame. Nothing good will come of it. :tear:
     
  13. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    No, but that is probably a common misconception. In fact, several new translations of the New Testament appeared in the 18th century (including one by John Wesley in 1755); Anthony Purver had an entirely new translation of the Old and New Testaments published in 1764. American Noah Webster made his revision of the complete Bible in 1833; Robert Young completed his 'literal' version of the Holy Bible in 1863; and the first complete Bible translation from the original languages by a woman (also an American) was published in 1876. Many new translations of the New Testament were also made available in early to mid-19th century.
     
    #13 franklinmonroe, Feb 13, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 13, 2008
  14. ccrobinson

    ccrobinson
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    No doubt. Roger must not be online, as I have a feeling he would have crushed it long before it got going.
     
  15. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,429
    Likes Received:
    72
    That would be a big negative. There were other translations available during that time, including Tyndale's NT, the "Great Bible", the Geneva Bible, the Bishop's Bible, and the Douay-Rheims Bible (translation of the Vulgate). The KJV postdates all of these.
     
  16. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,649
    Likes Received:
    158
    Tyndale

    Eighty-five percent of the words in the New Testament portion of the King James Bible were the work of William Tyndale.

    The Geneva Bible remained the choice of Bibles for many until Charles appointed William Laud to the see of Canterbury. Laud passed an order forbidding the printing of the Geneva Bible in England. Later Laud issued an order forbidding the importation of the Geneva Bible citing that if this continued it would cause economic hardship on English printers. Strange how a political and economic decision fostered the popularity of the King James Bible.
     
  17. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

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

    This thread is only conjecture, and it will indeed only lead to hard feelings.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...