Passages in the AV 1611 reworded ? ? ?

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Jesus is Lord, Jun 15, 2004.

  1. Jesus is Lord

    Jesus is Lord
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2002
    Messages:
    260
    Likes Received:
    0
    I found this in another forum:

    "It is impossible to read the true 1611 version of the King James Version as all copies are owed and privately held by the Royal family of England and they do not allow access because of some of the actions endorsed therein (being that King James was historically a pedophile, he had some texts reworded so that his hobby was not a sin; he also had texts reworded so that the King of England was the final authority in all things, including spiritual). Besides I own a Bible from 1865 and it cannot be used as it's age is so great. As far as the accuracy of the version that King James ordered commissioned, the original texts have been retranslated more than 2 dozen times to remove the spin that the King ordered put into the text to make himself greater than God (the royal family is the head of the Church of England and the King could not tolerate that the existing (non-english) scriptures stated that his lifestyle was decidedly non-christian. Some assert that the translators were not motivated by money (although the King was) they were motivated by fear as those who tried to subsequently translate the text into Spanish were beheaded without trial. Therefore, the 'King James' has not existed since the late 1600s as it was retranslated by a group of scholars who were not afraid for their lives just before the turn of the 1700s this new work became known as The Authorized Version (of the King James Bible)…check your copyright on the version you own."

    Is this true :confused:
     
  2. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sounds far-fetched.

    I am no friend of KJVOnlyism but the accusations against King James came from devote enemies after his death without reasonable proof.
     
  3. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    You should have left it there! [​IMG]
    Pure stupidity! I own two copies of the edition of 1611. A first printing and a second printing. The first printing is the famous "he" bible and the second printing is the equally famous "she" bible.

    As to James being "historically a pedophile" - that is absolute nonsense! His love letters to his wife, Queen Anne (on whom he fathered nine children), are some of the most beautiful love poems ever written. And to his having the text "reworded" so pedophilia was not a sin is equally ignorant. The KJV clearly condemns homosexuality, including both pedophilia and pederasty.

    James had no input at all with the exception of approving the translational guidelines proposed by Archbishop Bancroft, and James made no changes at all to the text. There have been rumors that Bancroft changed the final draft to conform to his doctrinal ideology, but that is pretty hard to prove seeing that he died in 1610 before the final draft was completed and sent to the printers.
    More idiocy! The KJV of 1873 is essentially the same as the KJV of 1611, which some minor variants. And the British Royal family is still head of the Church of England!
    Once again this person displays his complete ignorance of the situation. When James because King in 1604 the nation was badly divided over religious issues and those religious issues were dividing the country politically. James ordered the new translation to help bring the two sides together, and to provide a bible the people would prefer over the Geneva bible the puritans preferred. The Geneva bible had marginal notes that were strongly against the very idea of a monarchy.
    More nonsense. Not only are the KJVs of today essentially the same as the 1611, we now also have access to a copy of the translator's notes taken by John Bois and thought lost until 1964 when Professor Ward Allen found the papers of William Fulman, a 17th century collector, including a handwritten copy of John Bois's original notes in the Corpus Christi College Library at Oxford University, where they had lain since 1688. These notes have been published by Professor Allen under the title "Translating For King James," and are available from Vanderbilt University Press, 1969.
    No. It is rather typical of the idiocy which can be found on the Internet.
     
  4. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    Check this out for yourself:

    1611 King James First Edition Pulpit Bible: “He” Variant

    One of the most highly sought-after items in the world of antiquarian books: the very first of the King James Bibles printed. One sold at a Sotheby's auction in 2001 for over $400,000. Ours sell for much less than that, and are in excellent condition. For details about the difference between the “He” and “She” variants of the 1611, see the description of the “She” variant below.
    An excellent investment opportunity; these Bibles have gone up in price over 25% every year for the past ten years. Imagine owning the first press run of the most printed book in history! Fewer than 200 original printings of the 1611 are known to exist (and out of that number, fewer than 50 are complete “He” variants). For better close-up images, be sure to check out our available stock of 1611 Leaves, starting under $300, in our Ancient Rare Bible Leaves section. Prices of our 1611’s vary depending on condition, page margin, and other factors. We have more than a dozen in stock, from which you may choose.
    Offered at $125,000 to $400,000

    1611 King James First Edition Pulpit Bible: “She” Variant

    This example is in a stunning, elaborate 18th Century silver binding. We have over a dozen others from which to choose. Because a typo in Ruth 3:15 is corrected to read "she went into the city" instead of "he went into the city", it is often assumed that these 1611 "She Bibles" are actually the SECOND printing of the original 1611 King James Bible, likely done within several weeks of the 1611 "He Bibles". Many scholars now agree that the much more likely explanation is that the "He" and "She" King James Bible First Editions of 1611 were done at approximately the SAME TIME on two different presses.
    There is no real evidence that one variant is any older than the other. The main reason “He” variants cost more, is simply because there are fewer of them (fewer than 50 known to exist). If you want an ORIGINAL 1611 King James First Edition, you can save a lot of money simply by choosing the "She" printing (of which fewer than 150 are known to exist).
    Offered at $75,000 to $150,000

    These are REAL offers to sell Bibles, made by a reputable dealer.

    http://www.greatsite.com/ancient-rare-bibles-books/platinum.html


    Many of the books in my personal library were printed before 1865. Indeed, a number of them were printed in the 1600's and 1700's, and they are all in good, usable condition.
     
  5. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    JIL, I'm certainly no KJVO, but I agree with thise who posted before me in this thread that the article you found is horse feathers.
     
  6. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

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

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1
    Heck, JIL, one real solution:

    Burn all them KJV'S !

    Ban KJV's !

    Kill all KJVO's and KJVP's !

    Paradise.
     
  8. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Okay. Do we need to have this thread for discussion? It was a legit question (there is a lot of hatred for kjvo and it spills into slander of a faithful translation of the Word of God and that is not allowed.

    Asked, answered and CLOSED.
     

Share This Page

Loading...