The REAL AV1611

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Phillip, Nov 5, 2004.

  1. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    My pastor made a joke last Sunday, but I would not doubt that it will come true.

    I brought in my new Hendrickson KJV1611 to show him and he made a statement that it wouldn't surprise him if the KJVo start requiring us to start using 1611 versions as the "word-perfect-Bible"

    You guys think I'm joking, just wait and see.

    When they realize they can't have twenty different versions, and call themselves AV1611, they'll have to do something! [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] :rolleyes:

    Let's all buy Hendrickson stock, when word gets around they are going to sell a bunch of the 1611 duplicates. (If it ain't got the apocrypha, it ain't the real deal.) :D

    (For Blue Falcon, this would be the 4,5 group. [​IMG] )
     
  2. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    There are several people here, including myself, who have replica AV 1611s & use them to debunk parts of the KJVO myth. This includes several discussions we've had right here.

    I still wonder why the current KJVs such as the Blayney's Edition omit the preface and the translators' notes if these later editions are supposed to be changed so little from the first editions. Seems as if the publishers believed their editions to be so different from the early ones that they believed the translators' thoughts didn't apply.
     
  3. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    While most current KJV editions may be based on the 1769 edition edited by Benjamin Blayney (1728-1801), they are not identical to it. According to my research, the actual 1769 edition by Blayney included the original marginal notes of the 1611, even adding a couple notes to them.
    I don't know if Blayney's edition included the preface.

    Supposedly, one reason that the preface and marginal notes were dropped from the first edition
    of the KJV printed in America in 1782 was to save paper.
     
  4. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Those missing notes and preface have led to the absolutism of modern "onlyism" that miss the variety of word choices and admission by the translators.

    Save paper? Lose truth.
     
  5. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    They may still do nothing. It seems that only rarely will KJV-only advocates discuss the differences between various editions of the KJV.
    When they do, they usually excuse the differences between the 1611 and present KJV's as being only
    the correction of printing errors and updating of spelling.

    Peter Ruckman wrote: "We recommend any edition of the AV (with any number of variations from any other edition) (BIBLE BELIEVERS' BULLETIN, Sept., 1985, p. 3). In this article, Ruckman also commented; "In our group, we hold that ANY edition of the AV is reliable" (p. 2).
     
  6. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,118
    Likes Received:
    319
    So things which are different are the same!

    HankD
     
  7. Ed Edwards

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

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    But things that are the same
    like THIRD MILLENNIUM BIBLE
    and 21ST CENTURY KING JAMES
    and KJV1769
    are different.

    And the nKJV that translates from
    the Textus Receptus (TR) is the
    same, but then the footnotes make
    it different cause the translator
    footnotes know there are sources
    other then the PLURAL TR.
     

Share This Page

Loading...