Do Any of you Use an Actual 1611 AV

[Dr. Bob]

Thomas Nelson reprinted the first edition of the AV and I bought one. On another thread it was talking about Heb 1 & 2 and understanding the wording, I hoped that the first-edition footnotes (references to other verses, substitute words, explanatory notes) might help.

2:9 in the AV says "But we see Iesus, who was made a little lower then the Angels, for the suffering of death . . . "

The marginal note says "by" the suffering of death.

All of the modern translations agree with the marginal note (using "by" or "because" as the more accurate conveyance of the text meaning.

Interesting.

Also noted (in my reading of the translators' notes no longer included in the KJV revisions) cross references to Wis 7:26. (Heb 1:3). I have often said that the translators believed and practiced the Apocryphal books were actually "Scripture" since they included passages in the "daily reading guide". Here in the "Scriptural references" is a tie to a non-scripture (in thinking today) verse.

This thread is not to focus on Heb 1-2 or such, but to open up for those who regularly USE the AV1611 and comments on variant wording, marginal notes, etc.

Balcony is open.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Wonderful note in Heb 2:1 for the verse "lest at any time we should let them slip". Various Greek texts have two cognate words, one meaning to "move past", the other to "drift away" (both aorist passive).

But the AV translators added "Greek: run out, as leaking vessels".

Vessels here are not "ships", but buckets/containers. And if we do not give earnest focus/heed to the true Gospel, it will "leak out", leaving us with an empty shell.

Wow. I am going to use that in my Hebrews' study. Great pix of what happens to Christians who lose their focus.

 

[Jerome]

Also noted (in my reading of the translators' notes no longer included in the KJV revisions) cross references to Wis 7:26. (Heb 1:3).

Just like the Geneva:thumbs:

 

[Winman]

I guess this is another thread where the KJVOs are attacking the MVs, isn't it. :laugh:

And this by the man who just closed a thread saying this;

I found out much about people by my simple, straightforward attempt to solicit an answer and then discuss the "why" and "wherefore" of the particular "correct" translation. Got a half-answer from one and none from any others who might hold to an "only" correct translation.

Speaks volumes.

I would not advise anyone starting a new thread on this question, since this was truly a wasted effort.

And next will come all those ugly accusations of us KJVOs attacking your MVs.

"Boo-hoo! Those KJVOs are so mean and always attacking our versions."

 

[Trotter]

I guess this is another thread where the KJVOs are attacking the MVs, isn't it. :laugh:

And this by the man who just closed a thread saying this;



And next will come all those ugly accusations of us KJVOs attacking your MVs.

"Boo-hoo! Those KJVOs are so mean and always attacking our versions."

Want a little cheese with that whine? Dr.Bob is asking an honest question.

I have an electronic version of the 1611 on e-Sword, but it does not have the notes with it. I don't remember seeing a separate download for the notes but that doesn't mean it is not there. Time to go check.

EDIT: Nope. I downloaded the Geneva Bible Translation Notes but the 1611 notes are nowhere to be found. Maybe Google could find them for me.

 

[Winman]

Want a little cheese with that whine? Dr.Bob is asking an honest question.

That was not a whine, it was sarcastic ridicule. I guess you didn't understand the laughing smiley at the end of the sentence.

I don't mind discussing these subjects at all, I have tried to answer every question when I can. But if you go back through these posts you will see the MVs complain repeatedly that we are shoving our personal belief down their throats and insulting their preferred version. I have never started a single thread attacking the MVs. I might though, only seems fair.

Go back through the threads yourself, who is attacking who?

I am making fun because several MVs crybaby about fellows like me attacking their preferred version, but yet they start another thread on the subject.

 

[Trotter]

I am making fun because several MVs crybaby about fellows like me attacking their preferred version, but yet they start another thread on the subject.

How is this thread an attack on the KJV? Dr.Bob is asking if anyone uses a 1611 w/translators' notes. Simple, straight-forward question.

Incidentally I have been unable to find an e-Sword version of the 1611 notes. If anyone happens upon them please let me know.

 

[annsni]

That was not a whine, it was sarcastic ridicule. I guess you didn't understand the laughing smiley at the end of the sentence.

I don't mind discussing these subjects at all, I have tried to answer every question when I can. But if you go back through these posts you will see the MVs complain repeatedly that we are shoving our personal belief down their throats and insulting their preferred version. I have never started a single thread attacking the MVs. I might though, only seems fair.

Go back through the threads yourself, who is attacking who?

I am making fun because several MVs crybaby about fellows like me attacking their preferred version, but yet they start another thread on the subject.

So, you've posted twice in this thread and have nothing constructive to say regarding the OP? Who's acting childish???


_________

I've not held a 1611 but I have a facsimile bookmarked online. It's absolutely gorgeous to look at, although a little difficult to follow with the different letters and such. The KJV that I have is an Oxford edition from my FIL. I like it because the print is large but I do not like that it doesn't have the margin notes (not that any modern KJV does anyway).

 

[Dr. Bob]

Anyone use a 1611? Always amazed by simple questions I post to give ample opportunity for the "only" sect to jump in and be counted, and they just don't have anything to say. This would start a REAL discussion and nada.

Nada, except whine, but that is expected. <sigh>

I go by two BBF type churches (2 of 3 "only" churches in town; 1 closed down and I've not heard of a new location so may be defunct) on occasion. On one sign is AV1611 and the other KJV1611. Would like to be a mouse in the corner and see if either one actually uses a 1611 or just waves a slogan around.

Not holding my breath, but still wondering about anyone actually using the widely-touted 1611?

 

[Amy.G]

Not holding my breath, but still wondering about anyone actually using the widely-touted 1611?

Ok. I'll play. I have the 1611 on Swordsearcher that has alternate wordings. What would you like to know?

 

[Dr. Bob]

Ok. I'll play. I have the 1611 on Swordsearcher that has alternate wordings. What would you like to know?

For Amy and Anyone who has an actual 1611 (I have 100 translations online, but I like to open pages and need a real book personally)

Do you use it regularly?
Read from it?
Study the notes/cross references?
Enjoy the other offered English words?
Does anyone in your church actually carry one or use one in church?

Thanks.

 

[Amy.G]

For Amy and Anyone who has an actual 1611 (I have 100 translations online, but I like to open pages and need a real book personally)

Do you use it regularly?
Read from it?
Study the notes/cross references?
Enjoy the other offered English words?
Does anyone in your church actually carry one or use one in church?

Thanks.

1. No
2. Not for daily reading, just to compare.
3. Sometimes
4. Yes
5. No. Not that I am aware of.

 

[Winman]

Is this the original 1611 written with Gothic type and the old English words?

If so, I would love to have a link, especially if it has the margin notes.

 

[jbh28]

Is this the original 1611 written with Gothic type and the old English words?

If so, I would love to have a link, especially if it has the margin notes.

Here Winman, This is a scan of the 1611 KJV with all the margin notes in it.
http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Is this the original 1611 written with Gothic type and the old English words?

If so, I would love to have a link, especially if it has the margin notes.

I believe you can buy the Thomas Nelson reprint in Roman type from Amazon. There is why I got mine. It is a marvellous tool to see what was going on the minds of the translators as they worked.

With the 400th anniversary of the KJV in almost exactly a year I suspect we will have ample opportunity to buy any kind of edition we want of this immensely important and marvellous translation of God's word into English. I would love to buy one with the Gothic type and a nice leatherbound one.

 

[RustySword]

I have one...

I have one of the Nelson reprints.

Winman, for the most part, it is in a Roman typeface as C4K said, but the schedule of readings is left in the old type, which makes me thankful that they updated the type for the text, dedicatory epistle, etc.

I haven't read it very much, but this thread will probably spark my interest a little and make me read the next book in my reading out of it (I have dozens of Bibles and usually pick up a different one every time I move on to the next book in my daily reading).

I actually know a guy who carried one to church regularly a few years back. It's just a hardcover edition, so it was starting to look really worn.

 

[robycop3]

I have a Hendrickson reprint, with the only changes I know of being the Roman font. I once had the privilege of sitting down with a GENUINE AV1611 years ago, and far as I know, this reprint has everything that was in the original.

I use it as a study tool, carefully reading all the marginal notes, as well as the other commentary by the translators. I believe it would do the KJVOs well to obtain a copy to help'em see just how foolish their man-made doctrine is, and would be in the eyes of the AV translators were they around today.

 

[HankD]

For Amy and Anyone who has an actual 1611 (I have 100 translations online, but I like to open pages and need a real book personally)

Do you use it regularly?
Read from it?
Study the notes/cross references?
Enjoy the other offered English words?
Does anyone in your church actually carry one or use one in church?

Thanks.

I also have a Hendrickson facsimile in Roman typset.
It has the full content of the AD1611 First Edition including all the Introductory sections.
It contains the Apocrypha.
I read from it on occassion.
I have studied the notes and cross references, calendars, daily reading schedule, and other sections on rare occassions.
Once in a while I carry it to church.
No one I know of regularly carries a 1611 edition, facsimile or otherwise to church although my local church is 102 years old with a few KJV preferred.
If there are any KJVO they keep it to themselves, our pastor reads mainly from the NKJV.

HankD

 

[Jerome]

I believe you can buy the Thomas Nelson reprint in Roman type from Amazon. There is why I got mine. It is a marvellous tool to see what was going on the minds of the translators as they worked.

With the 400th anniversary of the KJV in almost exactly a year I suspect we will have ample opportunity to buy any kind of edition we want of this immensely important and marvellous translation of God's word into English. I would love to buy one with the Gothic type and a nice leatherbound one.

Hopefully some of these anniversary editions will be actual photographic facsimiles. The errors and misrepresentations of so-called "reprint" and "electronic text" editions of old Bibles have soured me on anything less.

 

[Dr. Bob]

The Nelson reprint of the 1611 I have appears identical to the pages on line. Just much easier to read/search a regular book. But same insides (and stinkin' hard to read!)