Featured Baptist churches that claim to use the "King James Bible AV 1611"

Well, at least you got one right when you switched!(just kidding!)

 

To broad a brush!

Me thinks thou paintest with too broad a brush....!!! While I am certain there are those that would carry their interpretation of that wonderful verse (Romans 10:17) too far let me state that I'm NOT one of them. There are also those that go over the edge and try to teach that the Bride of Christ will only be Baptists! That is equally as ridiculous and not in the slightest way logical. As an adherent of the teaching that the KJV is the best and only valid and reliable ENGLISH version I simply believe that I have a perfect Bible that I can depend upon that most certainly is the Word Of God as He wants me to have it. There are other versions that at least (contain) the truth even if they might have parts altered by faulty translating techniques or in some cases have entire portions removed. For example, I don't believe that the NIV is a very good translation (in my opinion) BUT...the gospel is clearly found in it. The same can be said of the Catholic Bibles. Would I use them....normally no....but if I got in a situation where that was all that was available to me I would at least turn to the verses I knew taught the basic truths and show them those. To my knowledge 1 Corinthians 15:1-5 is still in those versions as are most if not all of the verses in Romans the are normally used in witnessing to the lost.

I don't subscribe to the EXTREMES that are mentioned in the above quote. I just believe that the KJV...as we have it today...is the product of the natural progression of God's Preservation of His Word so that we could have it in our language (and others) in the end-times in which we live. I do,however, believe it is a finished work...at least in english. I don't believe there is any further need for MORE english language translations. Our language is being steadily perverted and corrupted. To follow the downward trends that are being pursued with our language in our day...(and I'm no linguist but I do have GOOD EARS) would be to cheapen and denigrate the Holy Words of our Holy God. I don't believe we ought to go there or do that just to try to be "culturally relevant". We ought to be teaching people how to get back to speaking and using good english (if they won't do it, then that is not our problem...it's theirs)....particularly when the Word of God is the subject of the discussion. I pray it will be so.raying:

Bro.Greg:type:

 

I agree that we have a glut of translations today, but language changes and for that reason bibles need updating every few years. The KJV is a perfect example. In fact most people can't even read the 1611. The NKJV is an overdue update and it is rejected because there are "different" words in it compared to the 400 yr old KJV.

The Lord's Prayer in Old English
Fæder ure
ðu ðe eart on heofenum
si ðin nama gehalgod
to-becume ðin rice
geweorþe ðin willa on eorðan swa swa on heofenum.
Urne ge dæghwamlican hlaf syle us to-deag
and forgyf us ure gyltas
swa swa we forgifaþ urum gyltendum
ane ne gelæde ðu us on costnunge
ac alys us of yfle.

Yes, English has changed!

The KJV Bible people read today is update of the 1611.

This is what you should be reading.
It's the REAL thing.

 

Bro. Greg (et. al.)
Let me see if I understand you correctly. You're saying that God the Holy Spirit in some unique way moved upon the KJV translators to produce a far, far better choice of words than all other Bible translations, past or present such as when He (the Holy Spirit) directed them to select the word "Easter" in Acts 12:4 as opposed to the word "Passover," right?

Moreover, are you saying that there is no need to further explain what any of the words in the KJV mean such as the expression "gay clothing" in James 2:3?

----------------

Lest any should mis-understand my position re: the KJV, I do not oppose its use for those who wish to use it. I'm not a "KJV-hater." My signature below is a quotation from the KJV. Moreover, I spent many long hours in research to show that the KJV's use of the words "baptism/baptize" was, for its day and time a very accurate translation of the Greek word BAPTIZO.

All I'm saying is that there are other quite reliable translations that have appeared subsequent to that of the KJV. (Of course there are also some very UNreliable translations that have been published as well.)

If somebody wants to "stick with the KJV," that's fine with me.....It's just when they roundly condemn people of some level of high heresy for not being as ardent, died-in-the-wool, as much a KJVO'er as they themselves may be that rankles my feathers.

It took years for the KJV to be accepted as a really accurate translation, even among very devout Christians of their day. EX: The Pilgrim separatists who sailed on the Mayflower to the Plymouth Colony--people who even many KJVO'ers will hold up as Christians after whose examples we need to emulate--didn't use the King James Bible as the sourcebook for their sermons and writings.

So, come Thanksgiving time, don't tell me that one reason those Pilgrim Fathers were able to endure the hardships and privations that they did was because they had their beloved KJV to warm their souls as the howling storms assailed them!

 

Let me clarify something

Brother...You never have nor ever will hear or read of of me calling anyone a heretic unless somebody comes on here and tries to deny that the KJV is the Word of God, or the Trinity is not biblical, or Jesus isn't God...or something like that. I even believe that the MV's CONTAIN the Word of God(at least in part). The word "heretic" is a word I don't throw around without deep consideration or caution. That other advocates of the KJV do use it recklessly is both wrong and unfortunate. I have heard and seen numerous occasions where MV advocates call KJVO's heretics as well and it bothers me terribly. The worst I might say is that I believe I have the finished Word of God for english speaking people in my KJV and those reading the MV's instead of the KJV are reading from books that contain some of the Words of God (since most of them omit portions of the text that "they say"(in footnotes) were not found in the "oldest and best known manuscripts")......but to call them heretics or even imply that they are is over the line and just plain wrong. They might be poorly informed and taught (in my opinion)(as we KJVO'ers are accused of being) but they are not heretics....and neither are WE!:thumbs:

Bro.Greg

 

And Another Thing!

To the first point...as a part of the dispensation of Grace and a member of the New Testament church instead the nation of Israel, the word "Easter" is relevant to me but apart from my knowledge of the meaning of the Passover and what it signified it is not an event that I celebrate (not to belittle it in any way) since our Saviour completed the picture of it....and a beautiful picture it is/was! On the other hand I do celebrate and commemorate the Resurrection of my Lord on "Easter". In that I believe the translators made the correct choice of words because their "audience" was to primarily be "the New Testament Gentile believers of the Church age in the last days. The was the Resurrection that sealed our salvation. The passover speaks of the shedding of the Blood of an innocent Lamb and death which spoke of the sacrificial offerings of the nation of Israel. Easter speaks of the Resurrection of our Lord...and LIFE Eternal in the age of Grace! Hallelujah!! The word Easter means more to a New Testament Christian in the Church Age!

Now...the word "gay"...well..last I looked in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the primary definition of the word was still "happily excited", "exuberent", etc. The last..or secondary definition was "homosexual". As far as I'm concerned the context of its use in the KJV is unmistakeable if it is used honestly. And just because the sodomites want to pervert it's meaning just gives us another opportunity and justification for correcting them as often as possible in public. I certainly would NOT change the Word of God to accomodate them. "Gay" is a perfectly good english word. These people are NOT "gay"...they are sodomites, homosexuals, sexual perverts. and queers ( a perfectly good word even THEY use on themselves)...(and are PROUD of it too). My Bible is just fine. In my opinion we have surrendered too much for the sake of this wicked culture.

As to your position on the word Baptizo/Baptise/Baptism...AMEN...just further proves that the translators were devout and honest men. They transliterated the Greek word rather than attempting to change/translate it into something that may not have been accurate.

Thanks for your post!

Bro.Greg:type:

 

Bro. Greg, let me apologize if I came across too harsh or judgmental. I have encountered many KJVO's that are harsh and woefully uninformed. But you have been very kind and loving in your responses and I appreciate that. I want you to know that I use the KJV everyday and in fact I just ordered a Matthew Henry KJV study bible. LOL!
I have a love of bibles and can't seem to get enough of them. Maybe I should call it an obsession? :laugh: I guess I could spend my money on worse things though.
Anyway, thank you for your graciousness. I enjoy your posts.

 

A Bible You Might Want....!

First of all this is not a paid advertisement and nobody put me up to this....but Amy...if you love KJV's I highly recommend the edition that is published by Dr.D.A.Waite's ministry at www.BibleForToday.org .It is a very useful study tool called "The DEFINED King James Bible" and it is based on the 1769 Cambridge text. It defines ALL the older "archaic" words that aren't in common usage today. It is an excellent Bible which I highly recommend for a reasonable price in large print 12 point type.

I also want to thank you for your gracious response to my posts. I did not take yours as harsh or judgmental. A "little" thunder and lightening (and a few claw marks:laugh always liven things up. "A merry heart doeth good like a medicine" Proverbs 17:22a ! Thanks!

Bro.Greg
(Here is a direct link to Dr.Waite's Bible Page:Defined King James Bibles)

 

That is not what the 1611 KJV says.... that, as you said, is OLD ENGLISH. The 1611 is Early MODERN English. I have a 1611 replica and it is readable, that's why it is considered Early Modern English. :BangHead:

From Matthew 6
9 After this maner therefore pray yee: Our father which art in heauen, hallowed be thy name.
10 Thy kingdome come. Thy will be done, in earth, as it is in heauen.
11 Giue vs this day our daily bread.
12 And forgiue vs our debts, as we forgiue our debters.
13 And lead vs not into temptation, but deliuer vs from euill: For thine is the kingdome, and the power, and the glory, for euer, Amen.

Don't believe it? http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-6_Original-1611-KJV/

The Below is directed at the entire thread. NOT just Amy

While I am in a KJO church and I am currently researching this issue myself I am astounded that self-proclaimed believers, on both sides of the aisle, use out right falsehoods to try and justify their position and slander their brothers in Christ! Really? I guess my KJV got John 13:35 wrong... i suppose it should say "slander" instead of "love"

EDIT:
All sides need to remember that none of us have the whole picture.. really. We don't. Each will accept the evidence they want to accept. I honestly don't think that this issue will be ever settled until English becomes an irrelevant language. And I apologize if I came off as harsh towards anyone. It wasn't my intention. Just I am really struggling with this issue a lot right now and I am seeing many Christians tearing down their brothers and sisters over this issue.

 

Amy's link actually is to an online replica of the original KJV.

Her post might have been a little confusing, but it was not a lie.

 

Perhaps not intentionally, but it was at the least misleading. Look at the book of Matthew from the exact same site and you will see my point.

 

I am well aware of the original KJV - have a facsimile copy printed last year.

Your point is valid - the main problem with the 1611 KJV is the Gothic font and the irregular spellings. When those are cleared up, as well as couple of minor errors corrected, the KJV1611 is quite usable.

The point is that the addition of '1611' to KJV only is not totally accurate. The best claim would be KJV1769.

Here is the KJV in Roman font from KJV1611


Our father which art in heauen, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdome come. Thy will be done, in earth, as it is in heauen. Giue vs this day our daily bread. And forgiue vs our debts, as we forgiue our debters. And lead vs not into temptation, but deliuer vs from euill: For thine is the kingdome, and the power, and the glory, for euer, Amen.


Quite readable if you ask me, but that is not what these 1611 churches will have in their bulletins or whatever.

 

Absolutely, 100% agree!

I also have one of the facsimiles that were printed last year. It's a neat little souvenir

 

Got mine at Walmart for $5 when we were back last year

 

There is a great old saint in my church that has one of these. The man is over 90, needs help out of his chair and can't walk with out his cane. But he is in church every Sunday and his Bible is one of the most beat up books I've ever seen. Such an inspiring man of God.

 

:thumbsup:
Got the same one. Mine was a gift from a friend though. Is it just me or is the cover texture one of the coolest things about the book? :laugh:
Beats the heck out of the over-priced facsimile from Family Christian http://www.familychristian.com/1611-bible-kjv-400th-anniversary.html...

 

Great for a $5 Bible

 

I did not say that the KJV was in "old" English. I used an example of old English to make a point. If you read my post, I said that languages change and that's the reason bibles need to be updated. My point was that the NKJV is an update of the KJV. Earlier in the thread the editors of the NKJV were accused of using the CT instead of the TR.

Sorry if that was confusing to you.

 

Ok. It just seemed as if you were saying that KJV was Old English.

And I read recently (Can't remember where so don't ask for a reference) that the translators of the NKJV wanted to make the translation more like the KJV but were unable because the changes were to insignificant to warrant a copyright. So for profits they kind of "blended" the KJV with MVs that use the critical text. Not sure how true that is but it seems possible, since the NKJV does seem to be translated from the TR but with omissions common to the CT.

 

What omissions?