Do you use the 1611 KJV?

[Ed Edwards]

Recall that a new edition of the KJV came out in
1762 (Cambrige) and 1769 (Oxford). By 1776 the 13 British
Colonies were in open rebellion against the crown.

In today's dollars a 'legal' Bible cost like $6,000 of which
$2,000 went straight to the King of England.
There were not a lot of buyers of newly the KJVs.
In the USofA most of the so called "authorized versions" were
NOT authorized, but were British Crown RIP-OFFs.

In general then, 'Authorized Version (AV)' in the USofA
was a deception.

So yes, I worry about people who claim AV1611 and
use not the KJV1611 Edition (reprint) but the KJV1769
family of KJVs.

The KJV1769 Family of KJVs include:
1762 (Cambrige)
1769 (Oxford)
and American rip-offs of the time.
Because of type-setting problems, each edition was
unlike the others :tear:

 

[Eliyahu]

av1611

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

Yes I use it, most of our church members use it. I guess 95% of our church members use KJV, about 4-5% use NKJV, that's adults. But some young kids use NIV.

 

[Dale-c]

Yes I use it, most of our church members use it.

I highly doubt you or they use the 1611 though. Perhaps the 1769?

 

[Ed Edwards]

1611 KJV - A Bible called 'The King James Version (KJV)' translated from
1605 to 1611 and lightly editied into dozens of versions since.

KJV1611 Edition - Specific editions of the KJV published in 1611
(there were several, about the third of which is being reprinted
in the 20-oughts by Henderson & Nelson.

 

[Trotter]

I highly doubt you or they use the 1611 though. Perhaps the 1769?

My though exactly.

So, 95% use a reprint of the 1611, where Jesus is written Iesus, and the "U"s and "V"s are reversed, and the original marginal notes showing varients and optional renderings? If so, your's is the only church in the world to do so.

 

[Phillip]

Yes as a matter of fact.

I use it nearly every day... along with the 1762 Cambridge, 1769 Oxford, Bishops, Geneva, LITV, Reina-Valera 1909, and a couple of Greek texts.

Why do you ask?

PS - I also have some beautiful framed pages of an Original 1611, 1625, and 1658 KJV.

I used to have some framed pages too until I found out that they were destroying entire Bibles because they could get a lot more per page than for the whole book. My pride and joy is an early 1700's Martin Luther German Bible. (BIG) with a pencil drawing of a clipper ship in the front. Printed in red and black with red and black woodcuts. Beautiful, but quite fragile. I wouldn't dream of ripping pages out even though each page would probably bring 30 or 40 dollars.

Back to the subject, Ed is one of the few that uses the 1611 quite often. I also like to read mine; my pastor thinks its too hard to read, but I find it easy to read; although I may be misunderstanding a lot of the words like "wot".

 

[Eliyahu]

you may be correct.

I highly doubt you or they use the 1611 though. Perhaps the 1769?

However, I don't distinguish between 1611 and 1769 very much because some corrections of scribal errors are within the tolerance and we are not very much childish to argue about them and therefore I don't differentiate them each other. There were many people on this board who claim all the versions are more or less the same. I wonder why they try to criticise very minor corrections from the scribal errors. My position is that KJV may contain very minor errors, which may be less than 1% of modern versions.

Mt 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

 

[Phillip]

1611 KJV - A Bible called 'The King James Version (KJV)' translated from
1605 to 1611 and lightly editied into dozens of versions since.

KJV1611 Edition - Specific editions of the KJV published in 1611
(there were several, about the third of which is being reprinted
in the 20-oughts by Henderson & Nelson.

At least two versions must be conssidered moderately edited, I would think--not to disagree here, but just a matter of perception.

I would also like to say that since the 1611 KJV is SOOO close to other versions, such as the Bishops, to the point that many, many verses are identical that it was more of an update of those earlier versions than a real translation, although the manuscripts may have been consulted.

 

[Phillip]

However, I don't distinguish between 1611 and 1769 very much because some corrections of scribal errors are within the tolerance and we are not very much childish to argue about them and therefore I don't differentiate them each other.

What exactly do you mean by "within the tolerance"? Isn't that some subjective opinion?

I don't think it is childish to "debate", which is what we do here---over the fact that there are versional differences between the 1611 and the later versions--at least enough to mention and bring to the table.

Besides, pulling out the Apocrypha is no small modification.

 

[Phillip]

However, I don't distinguish between 1611 and 1769 very much because some corrections of scribal errors are within the tolerance and we are not very much childish to argue about them and therefore I don't differentiate them each other. There were many people on this board who claim all the versions are more or less the same. I wonder why they try to criticise very minor corrections from the scribal errors. My position is that KJV may contain very minor errors, which may be less than 1% of modern versions.

Mt 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Let me say, however, that I certainly agree with you there are minor errors, but the modern versions have errors the same as the KJV may have errors and because the KJV has been corrected a lot, it may actually have fewer translational errors.

Then there is the question of whether or not the KJV or the Modern Versions use the best textual basis. This can be debated all night, but then again, there is no difference in doctrine between the KJV and the mainstream "accepted" modern versions.

 

[Phillip]

You edited that since my last post, haha, I guess I have a beam in my eye.:laugh:

 

[william s. correa]

using?

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

What Version do you use? The Word of God is not to be used or abused! Let the Word use you!Let it Mold you!2 Timothy 2:15-16 KJB
Study4704 to show3936 thyself4572 approved1384 unto God,2316 a workman2040 that needeth not to be ashamed,422 rightly dividing3718 the3588 word3056 of truth.225
But1161 shun4026 profane952 and vain babblings:2757 for1063 they will increase4298 unto1909 more4119 ungodliness.763 :thumbs:

 

[Trotter]

However, I don't distinguish between 1611 and 1769 very much because some corrections of scribal errors are within the tolerance and we are not very much childish to argue about them and therefore I don't differentiate them each other.

The whole point of the thread was to ask who uses a 1611 KJV, not if you use a 1769. The OP clearly stated "anyone is actually using the 1611 KJV?"

The 1611 is the one with the original spellings and the marginal notes, as well as the Apogrypha.

 

[Phillip]

Absolutely, Trotter. I can honestly say that I read from my 1611 at least once a week--usually a chapter or two and I also read a chapter of the Apocrypha simply because the history is quite interesting.

in answer to your question, William, I use about 12 translations, including at least two Greek NT and one Hebrew OT.

 

[Phillip]

What Version do you use? The Word of God is not to be used or abused! Let the Word use you!Let it Mold you!2 Timothy 2:15-16 KJB
Study4704 to show3936 thyself4572 approved1384 unto God,2316 a workman2040 that needeth not to be ashamed,422 rightly dividing3718 the3588 word3056 of truth.225
But1161 shun4026 profane952and vain babblings:2757 for1063 they will increase4298 unto1909 more4119 ungodliness.763 :thumbs:

What do you mean the Word is not to be used? It is used for both correction and teaching, the Word says so itself.

Your verse is very good, but what point are you making with it in this particular thread?

 

[Trotter]

Studie to shewe thy selfe approued vnto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly diuiding the word of trueth.
But shun profane and vaine bablings, for they will increase vnto more vngodlinesse.
~II.Timothie II:15-16, KJV (1611)

If you're gonna claim it, then quote it.

 

[Phillip]

Studie to shewe thy selfe approued vnto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly diuiding the word of trueth.
But shun profane and vaine bablings, for they will increase vnto more vngodlinesse.
~II.Timothie II:15-16, KJV (1611)

If you're gonna claim it, then quote it.

AMEN Trotter, preach it! By the way, is there a 1611 footnote that goes with it? I don't feel like getting my 1611 out and looking it up and my software version doesn't have the footnotes. The 1611 footnotes by the original translators are GREAT. They point out optional phrases and words that mean the same as the ones they used. Now, THAT'S a study Bible when the original Translators put their remarks in.

 

[Eliyahu]

gnats and beams

Let me say, however, that I certainly agree with you there are minor errors, but the modern versions have errors the same as the KJV may have errors and because the KJV has been corrected a lot, it may actually have fewer translational errors.

Then there is the question of whether or not the KJV or the Modern Versions use the best textual basis. This can be debated all night, but then again, there is no difference in doctrine between the KJV and the mainstream "accepted" modern versions.

I appreciate you for your understanding the key points.

The change from Iesus to Jesus or some change from singular to plural, etc are the corrections of minor matters.

Underlying Texts and the Historical background are the major issues and Beams.
The Roman Catholic which tortured and killed the Bible translators and bible preservers, by Crusade and Inquisition, etc have changed their strategy to spread the perverted texts and translations. If anyone doesn't know about this fact, she or he doesn't know about the history and texts.

Can anyone agree with Acts 8:37 while she or he perform the Infant Baptism? Is this a small thing?

Isn't deity of Jesus clear in 1 Tim 3:16, even though other verses support His deity? Can JW still deny the deity of Jesus while they still trust "God was manifest in flesh" ?

Even though the rest of the verses do not deny the main doctrines, in many verses the important doctrines are weakened.

 

[Ed Edwards]

The whole point of the thread was to ask who uses a 1611 KJV, not if you use a 1769. The OP clearly stated "anyone is actually using the 1611 KJV?"

The 1611 is the one with the original spellings and the marginal notes, as well as the Apogrypha.

I use it more than anybody here.

That gives me the moral high ground :wavey: :laugh:

 

[Dale-c]

Underlying Texts and the Historical background are the major issues and Beams.

I agree. And,

What Version do you use?

I use the 1769 KJV

The whole point of the thread was to ask who uses a 1611 KJV, not if you use a 1769. The OP clearly stated "anyone is actually using the 1611 KJV?"

I am glad someone figured out the OP.

I use the KJV but I have seen many pathetic reasons for using it. Many legalistic types use it as just one more way to be better than others.