Do you use the 1611 KJV?

[william s. correa]

Sure do!

Every Red Blooded American Should Read it! Happy 4th of July !:thumbs:

 

[Ed Edwards]

Daily KJV1611 Edition reading

In the Apocrypha the books of 1 & 2 Maccabees along contain
the word 'blood' 11 times. Think how much of the sweet red
blood that Jesus would shead for us Sinners\
has been taken out of the
KJV1611 Edition to make the KJV1769 Edition

2Maccabees 14:45-46 (KJV1611 Edition):
Neuerthelesse while there was yet breath within him,
being inflamed with anger, he rose vp,
and though his blood gushed out like spouts of water,
and his wounds were grieuous, yet hee ranne through the midst of the throng,
and standing vpon a steepe rocke,
2Ma 14:46 When as his blood was now quite gone,
hee pluckt out his bowels, & taking them in both his hands,
hee cast them vpon the throng,
and calling vpon the Lord of life and spirit to restore him those againe, he thus died.


I wish Benny Hinn would read & head that :smilewinkgrin: :smilewinkgrin: :smilewinkgrin:

 

[DeadMan]

I've read a lot of stuff on the KJV, 1611 or not, and have concluded that most of the KJVO crowd, on this board and others, have turned their "cause" into an "idol". They seem to be more passionate about the KJV than about their Christian faith. That scares me! I think I'll stick with my NKJV and ESV.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Daily KJV1611 Edition Reading:

Tobit 10:12 (KJV1611 Edition):
And he said to his daughter,
Honour thy father and thy mother in law, which are now thy parents,
that I may heare good report of thee:
and hee kissed her. Edna also said to Tobias,
The Lord of heauen restore thee, my deare brother,
and grant that I may see thy children of my daughter Sara
before I die, that I may reioyce before the Lord:
behold, I commit my daughter vnto thee of speciall trust,
wherefore doe not entreate her euill.

Note the neat defintion of:
father-in-law and
mother-in-law.

 

[DesiderioDomini]

Double Standards

Where did you get 3948379384 times ?



I have been honest with you so far. How would you prove double standards from me?

Ephesians 3:9 again
the most MV's : God who created all things
KJV : God who creatred all things through Jesus Christ.

Manuscripts : over 500 supports KJV
A,B,C, Aleph, p46, etc less than 10 (maybe 8) MV's

For 1 John 5:7 - I showed you the sufficient reasons why KJV had to depart from the majority. You never brought the answer to the grammatical problem in the absence of COMMA.
Is this the proof of double standards ?

The cases like Gal 4:7 or Eph 3:9 are hundreds or thousands.

Any mention of greek manuscript evidence FOR a KJV reading is a double standard, since there are many readings with ZERO greek manuscript evidence, and it is your position that in those cases the greek manuscript record is completely worthless.

What is your opinion of the Greek manuscript record of Revelation 17:8?

What about Revelation 22:19?

What about 1 John 5:7-8?

All of these show cases of where you REJECT the Greek manuscript record. Who gave YOU the authority to pick and choose when you want to accept this record?

You know this is a double standard, which is why you will change the subject, like you did focusing on my exaggeration, rather than address the issue. If you address the issue, you will reject KJVO.

What subject would you like to change to?

 

[DesiderioDomini]

Ed

Double post

 

[sdonahue]

I have just started reading the KJV. I have always thought it to be absolutely the worst translation to use today because of the archaicisms, etc., and have always been a total advocate of MVs, especially literally translated ones. I was not brought up on the KJV at all, but on the RSV. But, I went out and bought a genuine leather Scofield 3 Bible (KJV) over the weekend and started reading it. I have to considerably slow down to get the understanding of the syntax, but, maybe that's a good thing. I like the Scofield KJV, because it has the archaic words defined in the margins. I've been studying the translation issue for about 15 years now. I really don't feel the KJVO folks have much of a leg to stand on, but there is certainly nothing wrong with the KJV; in fact, it is more exacting in the translation from the Greek.

 

[robycop3]

SDonahue, I have found the KJV to be better in some places and inferior to some others. Also, I have found it's easier to memorize because its language is so different from our everyday current English. It IS a fine translation, but it certainly isn't the be-all and end-all English translation.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I have just started reading the KJV. I have always thought it to be absolutely the worst translation to use today because of the archaicisms, etc., and have always been a total advocate of MVs, especially literally translated ones. I was not brought up on the KJV at all, but on the RSV. But, I went out and bought a genuine leather Scofield 3 Bible (KJV) over the weekend and started reading it. I have to considerably slow down to get the understanding of the syntax, but, maybe that's a good thing. I like the Scofield KJV, because it has the archaic words defined in the margins. I've been studying the translation issue for about 15 years now. I really don't feel the KJVO folks have much of a leg to stand on, but there is certainly nothing wrong with the KJV; in fact, it is more exacting in the translation from the Greek.

Welcome to the BB. This is a "Baptist Only" section of the board so we would ask you to refrain from posting in this section.

Feel free to post in any of the "Other Christian Denominations" areas.

Roger
C4K
Moderator

 

[Dr. Bob]

Also, I have found it's easier to memorize because its language is so different from our everyday current English. It IS a fine translation, but it certainly isn't the be-all and end-all English translation.

Part of the reason for the AV's translation was to have a "lilt" and "meter" in the words to make reading for public worship easier. And probably everyone here could "amen" that. It is easy to read and memorize. Sadly, some of the words have so drastically changed in meaning in 400 years that they give a totally wrong translation to the reader today.

Example is "let". It's common meaning, most often understood, is to "allow". A far-down-the-list meaning, still defined as such today only because of its use 400 years ago, is 180 degrees opposite - to "stop" or "hinder".

And glad to hear our brother likes the Scofield. My choice for my KJV1769 revision as well.

 

[TCassidy]

Example is "let". It's common meaning, most often understood, is to "allow". A far-down-the-list meaning, still defined as such today only because of its use 400 years ago, is 180 degrees opposite - to "stop" or "hinder".

You have obviously never played tennis!

 

[AntennaFarmer]

..... Who gave YOU the authority to pick and choose when you want to accept this record? .......

Absurd logic all around.....

 

[IronWill]

I see the numbers 1611 a lot and wonder if anyone is actually using the 1611 KJV?

I have one, but I really only have it out of curiousity...and whenever I visit a "KJV-Only" church that touts that they are KJV 1611 on their church sign, I take that with me. It can be rather interesting, especially because when they ask for volunteers in Sunday School to read a passage, I always volunteer. Especially when I know my reading is slightly different from the passage in the KJV 1769. :laugh:

 

[Ed Edwards]

Daily KJV1611 Edition reading

Wisdom 12:3-7 (KJV 1611 Edition):
For it was thy will to destroy by the handes of our fathers,
both those old inhabitants of thy holy land,
4 Whom thou hatedst for doing most odious workes
of witchcrafts, and wicked sacrifices;
5 And also those mercilesse murderers of children,
& deuourers of mans flesh, and the feasts of blood;
6 With their Priests out of the midst of their idolatrous crew,
and the parents that killed with their owne hands, soules destitute of helpe:
7 That the land which thou esteemedst aboue all other,
might receiue a worthy colonie of Gods children.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Twenty page limit reached - thread closed