If KJVO's lived in 1611

Certainly, just as you reject it now.

 

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:

 

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.

 

That's very telling. My 1611 isn't really a 1611 then. It's some other version. But, it says KJV. Somethings wrong.

 

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?

 

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).

 

Amen Linda64, a point that I was going to bring up as well.

 

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.

 

My dear brothers and sisters in Christ;

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

 

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.

 

No doubt. Roger must not be online, as I have a feeling he would have crushed it long before it got going.

 

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.

 

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.

 

This thread is only conjecture, and it will indeed only lead to hard feelings.