Why it is important 4 KJO to have KJ1611

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Plain Old Bill, Jan 9, 2009.

  1. Plain Old Bill

    Plain Old Bill
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    3,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    The KJ translators have 318 side notes in Genesis alone with different possible renderings in scripture. This is not made clear in the more modern KJ versions which are revised. It would also be wize to have a Nelson KJ dictionary or a David Cloud KJ dictionary to avoid the trap words( words we think we know but don't know how they were used in 1611). It is also good to be able to read the notes in the front of the 1611 KJV,
    None of this is said to criticize the KJV in any way, I am KJ Preferred myself it is the Bible I read, memorize,teach, and preach from.
     
    #1 Plain Old Bill, Jan 9, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 9, 2009
  2. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Uh- What's the question?

    Or is there one?

    Or are you just offering commentary? :confused:

    No disrespect intended, here, but I honestly do not know what you are driving at.

    Ed
     
  3. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    I do not know anyone who owns a 1611 translation. Most are the more modern version of the KJV which came later.
     
  4. Plain Old Bill

    Plain Old Bill
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    3,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am merely offering what I consider sound advice. a 1611 KJ Bible may be purchased thru CBD at a discount price. It is very interesting reading.
     
  5. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    I apologize for this post. I initially read the title as a question, not a statement, which makes it an entirely different situation, as to how I was reading the OP.

    Ed
     
  6. Jim1999

    Jim1999
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    Methinks it is useless to quote the KJV 1611 edition. I am English and I don't even understand it..................duh!!

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
  7. Samuel Owen

    Samuel Owen
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    0

    Methinks it's not wise either. My son had a 1611 original once, I tried to read it, and it gave me bad dreams. The spelling is so bad, you need a book for that alone. :)
     
  8. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Most American KJVOs have never laid eyes on a 1611 even though they boast that is "the only inspired Bible around". Further,if a native born Brit with some degree of academic excellence in his background tells you he doesn't understand it -- what's that say of the run-of-the-mill American KJVO'er?
     
  9. sag38

    sag38
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,394
    Likes Received:
    1
    My KJV Study Bible and my Ryrie KJV Study Bible are different. And, I'm not talking about the study notes. So, which one is the right one to read? One things for sure, I can't read the 1611 in the old english.
     
  10. Samuel Owen

    Samuel Owen
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    0
    My Thompson Chain, and Scofield lll, both have the 1769 edit version this was the last official edit. But my 1967 New Scofield has some of the archaic words updated, now I never saw anything wrong with that, but it also has some alternative readings. That makes it very different from the 1769 version.

    So if you want the 1611, with the last official edit make sure it says 1769 version. This one has no changes from 1611, except the bad spelling corrected. Others have been edited by the printing house, but it is never mentioned.

    Ones I know have this version are the Thompson Chain, the Old Scofield, and the Scofield lll in the KJV.
     
  11. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Okay - explain how 1 John 5v12 has no change from 1611 to 1769.


    I do think every one who claims to be KJVO needs to own a 1611 reprint so they can know what their 'only' is.
     
  12. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    That's a false statement.It may be unintentional on your part,but it's still untrue.Logos,Robocop,Rob,Franklin and others could set you straight on this one.
     
  13. Samuel Owen

    Samuel Owen
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes 1 John 5:12 has the word God, added to the 1611. But I think I said this before. That it was probably a typo, and was fixed in one of the other edits long before 1769.

    What I was trying to get across, is the 1769 edit has no alternative readings, as some of the later edits have. I have noticed these alternative readings, in several of the later KJV versions.

    But the strangest of all, is every time someone makes a statement; there has to be an argument over it.

    Again I really don't care what version you like, if you want to call Websters Dictionary the Bible; that's up to you.
     
  14. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    I can't tell if you are joking.Webster issued a modified KJV edition in 1833.That's still the Word of God;is it not?
     
  15. Samuel Owen

    Samuel Owen
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah, I forgot about that. Well it all depends on how it was modified, as to whether its the word of God.

    Well I can say one for sure, lets just say the Sears Catalog. If you want to call it a Bible, its your choice.

    (well I guess to some people, It Is.)
     
  16. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    He modified it very lightly.Webster just standardized the grammar to conform to early 19th century standards (Webster was largely the standardizer anyway).He updated only a limited amount of words as well.There are huge swaths that remained untouched.
     
  17. mcdirector

    mcdirector
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    8,292
    Likes Received:
    10
    I put a 1611 KJ in the Media Center so everyone / anyone could see it / check it out should they so desire.

    It's been there a while and I dust it occasionally. I don't think it's ever been moved.
     
  18. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    I think EdEdwards is one of the few who make use of the 1611 in 2009.And yet he still uses and appreciates many other English Bible translations.
     
  19. Ed Edwards

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

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    IF 1 John 5V12 has no change from 1611 to 1769:
    Then: 1 John 5V12 has:
    1. No name starting with 'J'
    2. no 'V' nor 'U' which have changed places from 1611 to 1769
    3. no spelling changes from 1611 to 1769
    4. no punctuation changes from 1611 to 1769

    I've posted lots of KJV1611 Edition verses next to KJV1769-like Bible verses and never noted no change what-so-ever. So I wrote the above 4 things before I check 1 John 5v12. Here is some scriptures i cut & pasted:

    1 John 5:12 (Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition, e-sword.com edition)
    He that hath that Sonne, hath that life: and he that hath not that Sonne of God, hath not that life.

    1 John 5:12 (KJV1611 Edition, e-sword.com edition):
    Hee that hath the Sonne, hath life; and hee that hath not the Sonne _____, hath not life.

    1 John 5:12 (KJV1769-like Edition, Crosswalk.com edition):
    He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life

    1 John 5:12 (nKJV, Crosswalk.com edition):
    He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.

    Note that the KJV1769-ish edition is more like the Modern Version (MV) [nKJV in this case] than like the original KJV1611 Edition.

    By using THAT to introduce LIFE in the Geneva Bible of 1599, we are reminded that what this verse is all about is (from 1 John 5:11) "that God hath giuen vnto vs eternall life'
     
  20. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,970
    Likes Received:
    128
    F. H. Scrivener's Introduction to the The Cambridge Paragraph Bible of 1873 provides a wealth of information about the history and mechanics of the King James Version.

    Rob
     

Share This Page

Loading...