1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Do you use the 1611 KJV?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Dale-c, Jun 21, 2006.

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

    Dale-c Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Ratings:
    +0
    I see the numbers 1611 a lot and wonder if anyone is actually using the 1611 KJV?
     
  2. Scott P.

    Scott P. New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2006
    Messages:
    16
    Ratings:
    +0
    1611 Kjb

    Well, I am using the Authorized King James Bible... but I must admit it was printed a few hundred years after 1611...
     
  3. Dale-c

    Dale-c Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Ratings:
    +0
    But is it actually a reprint of the 1611 verseion? I mean word for word ?
     
  4. robycop3

    robycop3 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,579
    Ratings:
    +22
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
  5. Dale-c

    Dale-c Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Ratings:
    +0
    I think the Apocrypha was in all of the original printings.
    One of these days I may read the Apocrypha just for history sake.
     
  6. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Ratings:
    +1
    No, it is difficult to understand Elizabethan English.
     
  7. Scott P.

    Scott P. New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2006
    Messages:
    16
    Ratings:
    +0
    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?
     
  8. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Ratings:
    +0
    Yes, I do use it. My favorite KJV1611 Edition is the electronic one from
    e-Sword.com

    check here for your free copy of KJV1611 Edition:

    http://www.e-sword.net/

    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.
     
    #8 Ed Edwards, Jun 21, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 21, 2006
  9. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,199
    Ratings:
    +30
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
  10. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Ratings:
    +0
  11. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,199
    Ratings:
    +30
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
  12. mcdirector

    mcdirector Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    8,292
    Ratings:
    +15
    No, I don't use it.

    The Apochrypha is interesting reading. You can find it online.
     
  13. PASTOR MHG

    PASTOR MHG New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    297
    Ratings:
    +0
    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.
     
  14. robycop3

    robycop3 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,579
    Ratings:
    +22
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
  15. Slambo

    Slambo New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    197
    Ratings:
    +0
    So????????
     
  16. Dale-c

    Dale-c Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Ratings:
    +0
    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.
     
  17. TC

    TC Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,238
    Ratings:
    +33
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
  18. Dale-c

    Dale-c Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Ratings:
    +0
    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.
     
  19. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Ratings:
    +0
    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.

    /name surpressed/

    -----------------------------------
    Tee hee, a KJB1611 site that
    bans KJV1611 quoters ???
     
  20. Dale-c

    Dale-c Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Ratings:
    +0
    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!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...