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!

KJV1611 in Your Library?

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Ed Edwards, Mar 11, 2004.

?
  1. I'm KJVO, i have one

    11.4%
  2. I'm KJVO, i do not have one

    50.0%
  3. I'm not KJVO, i have one

    34.1%
  4. I'm not KJVO, i do not have one

    4.5%
  5. I still don't understand or i can't figure if i'm KJVO or not

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. TC

    TC Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,244
    Likes Received:
    10
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Then why do they say donation expected right there on the order page - gives me impression that if you don't give what they "expect" you won't get.
     
  2. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here are the results among the first 29 users:

    Poll Results: KJV1611 in Your Library? (29 votes.)
    KJV1611 in Your Library?
    Choose 1
    I'm KJVO, i have one 7% (2)
    I'm KJVO, i do not have one 3% (1)
    I'm not KJVO, i have one 59% (17)
    I'm not KJVO, i do not have one 24% (7)
    I still don't understand or
    i can't figure if i'm KJVO or not 7% (2)


    So 2/3 of the people answering
    have a KJV1611 in thier library.
    That is really more than i expected.
     
  3. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Strange, a larger number of MV-users
    have the real KJV1611
    than KJVOs who have the real KJV1611.

    Interesting, using a substitute as
    the Bible and NO EVEN KNOWING WHAT THE
    REAL KING JAMES VERSION looks like.
    What a shame, on has to cry ....
     
  4. David J

    David J New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have twp copies of the AV1611. When a KJVO comes knocking at my door ready to attack my NASB, I have a 1611 that they can use as I read from my 1611. [​IMG]

    Best tool in the world to prove KJVOism is a myth is the AV1611.

    Anyway, I would suggest that everybody order a reprint of the AV1611.
     
  5. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    AMen, Brother David J - Preach it! [​IMG]

    I've got one of the Nelson facimilies
    and one of the Henderson facimilies.
    (both in an easy to read Roman font).
    Both with the translator footnotes:

    "Gr." for Greek source variants
    "Heb." for Hebrew soruce variants
    "Or." for alternative translations

    (I keep repeating that, i keep finding
    people who
    1. don't read it
    2. don't understand what it means
    when they do read it)
    So i keep repeating the Translator note
    code.)

    [​IMG]
     
  6. Sir Joyful

    Sir Joyful New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2004
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't have one - Yet. We carry them where I work so I will probably be picking one up there soon. Just to see the translators themselves defeat KJVO [​IMG]
     
  7. Marcia

    Marcia Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    1
    I just looked at that Bible Believers site and they sell Sam Gipp and Gail Riplinger. So some people who disagree with those people might not want to buy from them. Of course, christianbook.com and other "Christian" book sites sell New Age authors. &lt;sigh&gt;

    I have no interest in getting a 1611 King James. I am not enamored of 17th century English.

    Isn't Gene Scott the guy who says that he doesn't call anyone back and then he uses a lot of 4-letter words?
     
  8. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    11,850
    Likes Received:
    1,084
    Faith:
    Baptist
    DavidJ said:

    Has this really happened?
     
  9. David J

    David J New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    rsr,
    I was a member of a local KJVO Church that did door to door visitation and we would attack modern bibles. One of our favorite slogans was "put up your butterknife and pick up a real sword". In the Bible Belt of SC we have some rabid KJVOist running around!

    In Greenville, SC at the Family Christian Bookstore in the Haywood Mall we had some KJVOist come into the store complaining about MV's and starting all kinds of confusion. The clerk this happened to told me that this has happened several times in the past. Funny thing is that this store sales the Cambridge 1762, Oxford 1769, and a Zondervan 1873 KJV but these KJVO drones never address that little issue...

    Anyway, back to your question. Yes, I have used this method on KJVOist. They are like a deer in the headlights when I tell them that I'm using a real AV1611 and they are using a corrected KJV. Funny thing is that the last KJVO I talked to at work was stunned when I showed him a printed page of the AV1611 that differs from his 1769 KJV.

    As I have said time and time again. The AV1611 destroys the KJVO myths simply bacause the AV1611 is:

    1.not what current KJVOist use.

    2.the marginal notes etc... make KJVO assumptions crumble. Refer to Psalm 12 in the AV1611 for example.

    3.it proves that the KJV changed and was updated to correct some errors etc...

    4. the Message to the Reader destroys BW's myths.
     
  10. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    AMen, Brother David J. -- Preach it! [​IMG]

    Also, when you say KJV1611AV and are
    NOT speaking of the King James Version,
    1611 Edition, authorized by King James;
    you are sending an uncertain sound.

    1 Corinthians 14:8 (KJV1769):

    For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?
     
  11. Ransom

    Ransom Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    1
    Precepts asked:

    And why wouldn't "some folks" not want to do business with him? Could it be the price? Or are you already suggesting some negative conotation again?

    Because "some folks," myself included, have ethical difficulties with doing business with false teachers if it's avoidable. And in the case of a $400 photoreproduction of a 1611 Bible, essentially a novelty item I can do without, that is especially true.
     
  12. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    I mentioned this before, here is the hot link:

    From Chick Cheap Theology
    THE ATTACK (Jack Chick, 1985)

    Regarding the 1655 Puritan "correction" to
    the King James Version:

    "In 1655 the surviving Puritans brought forth
    the entire 1611 edititon of the Bible without
    the Apocrypha. This was God's victory over
    the Jesuit Conspiracy.

    "Note: There were no footnotes by men.
    None of them dared to add to the Word of God."

    In English:
    The Jesuit's had corrupted the King James
    version, 1611 Edition (KJV1611) with the
    Apocrypha and the translator footnotes;
    the Puritans made in 1655 an unauthorized
    version without the evil Apo. and the
    pesky translator footnotes (which were actually
    sidenotes, but you know what i mean ;) )

    Anyway, this Chick Theology is why
    some KJVOs do not bother with the KJV1611 edition.

    [​IMG]
     
  13. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,534
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ed,

    Thank you so very much for the link to the Chick tract. I had not seen that tract before. What a disgrace! If I had not seen it for myself, I would not have believed that it could be such an evil publication.

    [​IMG]
     
  14. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    Well, at least the Chick tract does admit that he AV1611 was not "perfect"

    [ June 24, 2004, 06:09 AM: Message edited by: Christ4Kildare ]
     
  15. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    So what is wrong with the track exactly?
     
  16. David J

    David J New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    So what is wrong with the track exactly?

    Lies and slander....
     
  17. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    HomeBond, I have asked you this question in at least three different threads but you always refuse to answer it. Is the reason you refuse to answer it that you know you can't answer it because it proves your "perfect preservation" theory is wrong?

    "HomeBound, which KJV is perfect? The original edition of 1611 or the one you use, the 1762/1769? You are aware, are you not, that there are differences?

    I will just post a couple for you, and you can tell me which reading is the perfect word of God.

    In 2 Chronicles 28:11 which is correct, "LORD" or "GOD?"

    In Ezra 2:22 which is correct, "children" or "men?"

    In Acts 8:32 which is correct, "the shearer" or "his shearer?"

    In 1 Corinthians 12:28 which is correct, "helps in governments" or "helps, governments?"

    Please tell me which reading is correct, and thus the perfect word of God, and how you know which one is correct.

    If you can give me a definitive answer that conforms to the facts of both scripture and history, I will convert to KJVO.

    Thank you."
     
  18. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,534
    Likes Received:
    21
    Read the tract. If you can not find at least 10 absolutely false statements and implications, you have not studied the history of Bible translations and you NEED to do so before posting opinions regarding the perfection of the King James translation of the Bible as compared with other translations.

    Regarding the last post by Scanwmatos, if the data that he posted is accurate, his post proves that you believe a lie. Check out the data for yourself and find out who is telling the truth!
     
  19. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    NO, Brother Christ4Kildare, you are getting
    your two KJVO groups confused.

    Group one says that all KJVs read the same
    (or that they are pronounced the same) so it
    doesn't matter KJV1611, KJV1769(1762),
    KJV1873. I've joked before:
    [​IMG]
    KJV1611 - perfect
    KJV1769 - perfecter
    KJV1873 - perfectest

    Group two, who apparently get their theology
    from the comic book author: Jack Chick,
    believes that the translator note bearing
    KJV1611 edition is a RCC trick. So the
    KJV1611 is corrupt. Likewise, the KJV1873
    is corrupt for having translator footnotes.
    Only the KJV1769, KJV1762, and the numerous
    American ripoffs of the same -- the AV1611
    is the KJV1769 is the King James Bible (KJB).

    The KJV1873 is really bad cause the most
    common source now of new KJV1873s is via
    the TODAY'S PARALLEL BIBLE which also
    contains side-by-side the
    NIV = New International Version
    NASB = New American Standard Bible
    NLT = New Living Translation

    [​IMG]
     
  20. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here are the results among the first 40 voters:

    Poll Results: KJV1611 in Your Library? (40 votes.)
    KJV1611 in Your Library?
    Choose 1
    I'm KJVO, i have one 5% (2)
    I'm KJVO, i do not have one 5% (2)
    I'm not KJVO, i have one 50% (20)
    I'm not KJVO, i do not have one 35% (14)
    I still don't understand or i can't figure if i'm KJVO or not 5% (2)

    [​IMG]
     
Loading...