-
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!
Do you use the 1611 KJV?
- Thread starter Dale-c
- Start date
- Status
AntennaFarmer
Member
Ed Edwards said:
I love it when you quote from the 1611 Ed!
A.F.
Dale-c said:
I agree on the other 2 points.
But there are stilll many believers who know the difference between KJV and MV's. I was surprised to hear from a lady who emphasized so much on TR. In my church many people simply remember that MV's omitted too much.
Only thing I can tell you is that my position in defending KJV is a little different from KJVO's, and I acknowledge certain corrections from 1611 and do not respond to childish criticism on scribal changes.
[vugalrity snipped - warn poster of improper language]
This position clears several problems, without claiming too much defense for KJV, but still acknowledging the accuracy of KJV and preservation of the Words of God.
We are not supposed to preach any translation or any translators, or any versions, but we are supposed to preach Jesus Christ and His death until He comes.
Yes, there must be some changes and differences between 1611 and 1769, but both were based on the same underlying texts and have the same historical background. I don't know how much MV's will evolve during the forthcoming 150 years, but can imagine they will change a lot more than the difference between 1611 and 1769 of KJV.
My position for the defense of KJV is different as I admit certain errors there and believe that Compilation (or editing) and Translation is the area where Holy Spirit is still actively working thru His people even today.
Wasn't Jesus Perfect before Crucifixion? Why did He become perfect? (Heb 5:9) Didn' Jesus know about the obedience before suffering ( Heb 5:8) ?
Difference is that we have become included in His perfection thru His crucifixion. Even the translation of Bible is adapting itself to the change of the languages and of the lifestyles and environment for each generation.
<Philip> pointed out that Apocrypha was not a small modification at all. If KJV inserted them as genuine Bible, then it could be a big problem.
Did any translators of KJV claimed that Apocrypha should be part of the Bible as today's Roman Catholic claims? Why did they separated them from the genuine Bible? Before KJV came out, weren't Apocrypha spread among the people? Certain portion of the work should be left to the preachers and commentators. I believe they didn't claim the Calendar was part of the Bible either.
Certain portion of work is being left with each generation and our generation is quite lazy and complicated with pluralism and hasn't done any good work for the language update. Even though there were some attempts of the language update like NKJV etc, their accuracy or philosophy didn't reach KJV itself. Here we see the worth of our discussion on the translation and versions.
Last edited by a moderator:
How did they seperate it from the Bible? In a 1611 printing it simply sits between the Old and New Testaments with a Title of "Apocrypha" in the same size and font at the beginning. There are NO side notes anywhere in the Bible that state that the Apocrypha is NOT scripture.Eliyahu said:
There is nothing to indicate that it should not be there and if I were to pick up a 1611 and start reading it without knowing how the translators may have actually felt (and a lot of this is speculation), then I would have no idea it wasn't scripture. In fact, it is located--time wise, eactly where it should be located--between the Old and New since it occurred in that gap of time.
Your theory of seperation does NOT exist in a real 1611 printing.
Phillip said:
Don't you know the order of Old Testament in Roman Catholic Bible?
Are the Apocrypha not spread inside the Old Testament?
Wisdom is before Isaiah, Baruch is before Ezekiel, Tobias is before Esther, Maccabees before Daniel, etc.
Or look at Spetuagint, which has Maccabees 1,2,3,4, before Job and Psalm, Sophonias before Haggai and Zechariah, Baruch before Ezekiel, Tobit and Judith before Esther, etc.
Look at Douay Rheims 1 Esdras 2 Esdras before Job, Canticles and Wisdom before Isaiah, Baruch before Ezekiel, Judith before Esther and Job, etc.
This type of Bible order with Apocrypha was overwhelmingly spread among the people and there must be much need for the debate and arguments on the matter of Apocrypha.
KJV screened those chaffs out there after the Old Testament and before NT. Such order of canon must have been a revolutionary work at that time. No translation did so before.
We must understand that Bible Translation is not the Preaching the Gospel, and that Translators are neither the Preachers nor Commentators and therefore there is a limit for the translators to struggle against. The first job to remove the chaffs is to separate them and gather them in one place, so that they may be removed properly, and KJV did it very wisely.
Then Roman Catholic vehemently criticized KJV as a Vulgar Bible for the lay people. We should not stand on that stance.
People at that time needed Calendars and even Apocrypha because they were so much spread, and therefore KJV had both as today's Bibles usually have geographic maps for Israel and Middle East even though they are not any part of the Bible.
[Vulgarisms removed] KJV is not perfect but the translators did everything possible for the correct compilation and for the accurate translation and that's why it still remains as the best translation among the Bible versions. More than 5 billion volumes have been sold so far and it has been the best seller, better than any other version, and I expect this will not change until Lord comes again, even though there are many people who try to find fault with it vehemently, whose behavior will be judged by God on the great day of the Lord's Judgment.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Dale-c
//I see the numbers 1611 a lot and wonder if anyone
is actually using the 1611 KJV?//
william s. correa: //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!//
Interesting word twist.
Also very illustrative.
I use the KJV1611 Editon and other Bibles.
Comparing different English Versions enhanses one's serve
of The Living Christ. Comparing these variations in wording
with my friends on the Version/Translation Forum
of the Baptist Board is useful to exhort, encourage
and edify one another - as Scripture Commands us to do.
My Dictionary, explaining the word 'use' says:
"As applied to prsons, USE implies some selfish
or sinister purpose: ... " The use of 'use' here shows
a personification of the Bible. To personify an object
is very close to idoltry
Misquote of the week
//The Word of God is not to be used ... //
BTW (by the way):
my dictionary lists 23 different meanings of 'use'.
Eliyahu: //Even though the rest of the verses do not
deny the main doctrines, in many verses the important
doctrines are weakened.//
This generality has been said often, demonstrated
rarely, and proved never.
I've been on this forum for four years (less 2 months),
I've never seen this generality PROVED.
I really can't understand a theory of doctrine that
hinges or even depends on one and only one verse.
God, in His infinite providence, said the main things
over and over again. Just think how many images of
Salvation there are:
born-again
adopted into the family of god
redemption
eternal life
elect
scantificed
glorified
justified
Our personal salvation is so important to God
that He sent His only begotten Son as a living
sacrifice.
//I see the numbers 1611 a lot and wonder if anyone
is actually using the 1611 KJV?//
william s. correa: //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!//
Interesting word twist.
Also very illustrative.
I use the KJV1611 Editon and other Bibles.
Comparing different English Versions enhanses one's serve
of The Living Christ. Comparing these variations in wording
with my friends on the Version/Translation Forum
of the Baptist Board is useful to exhort, encourage
and edify one another - as Scripture Commands us to do.
My Dictionary, explaining the word 'use' says:
"As applied to prsons, USE implies some selfish
or sinister purpose: ... " The use of 'use' here shows
a personification of the Bible. To personify an object
is very close to idoltry
Misquote of the week
//The Word of God is not to be used ... //
BTW (by the way):
my dictionary lists 23 different meanings of 'use'.
Eliyahu: //Even though the rest of the verses do not
deny the main doctrines, in many verses the important
doctrines are weakened.//
This generality has been said often, demonstrated
rarely, and proved never.
I've been on this forum for four years (less 2 months),
I've never seen this generality PROVED.
I really can't understand a theory of doctrine that
hinges or even depends on one and only one verse.
God, in His infinite providence, said the main things
over and over again. Just think how many images of
Salvation there are:
born-again
adopted into the family of god
redemption
eternal life
elect
scantificed
glorified
justified
Our personal salvation is so important to God
that He sent His only begotten Son as a living
sacrifice.
No, not revolutionary. Luther, in 1534, listed the Apocrypha as "books not equal to the Holy Scriptures, yet useful and good to read" and put them between the testaments.
Matthew's Bible (1537) put the Apocrypha into a separate section.
The Great Bible (1541) also segregated the books.
The Geneva Bible (1560) described the Apocrypha as "[FONT=arial, Arial, Helvetica]books which were not received by a common consent to be read and expounded publicly in the Church, neither yet served to prove any point of Christian religion save in so much as they had the consent of other scriptures called canonical to confirm the same.”
The 1602 [/FONT]Reina-Valera put the books between the two testamaments.
rsr said:
There is no Rule that "Revolutionary" can be applied only when KJV alone separated and located Apocrypha between the testaments. Other translations may have been struggling against then dominating Latin, LXX, etc. We can still see KJV was struggling against AP.
Your illustration confirms again that KJV followed then current orders of the Reformers Bible.
Returning to the main question, if you look at how the argument about Apocrypha started, you can find that I said Apocrypha insertion was not significant problem with KJV at that time.
Do you still think that it was a big mistake by KJV at that time?
So, you believe Luther, Geneva Bible, Matthew's Bible, Great Bible made big mistakes altogether ?
In such environment, if KJV omited Apocrypha entirely at that time, KJV had to be involved in the argument and controversy on Bible canon a lot more than on the accuracy of the translation for the evangelization of the Gospel. Such debate could have led the people in chaos, which would have pleased Satan.
As for this matter of apocrypha, we should not judge from the stance of today, but should think retrospectively as if we had lived 16-17c when all or most of the translation had APocrypha.
Bible Translation is not Bible Commentary Writing.
Last edited:
I agree he was wrong about earlier English versions, most of which removed the Apocrypha from the OT and segregated it between the testaments. However, how the translators felt about the Apocrypha was not speculation. All were confessing Anglicans and were required, as a condition of their position on the translation committees, to ascribe to the 39 Articles of Religion, the official doctrinal statement of the Church of England.Phillip said:
That document, dated 1577, reads,
As you can see the Apocrypha were not considered scripture by the 39 Articles.
In my 1611 reprint (Thomas Nelson) the original pages of the preface, daily reading, etc are also included.
In the section on Daily Readings from the Bible ARE passages from non-canonical books. This shows that, in spite of the "article" quoted by Doc Cassidy to which the men subscribed, the reality was that they considered it Bible and included passages mixed in with those from our 66 canonical books.
These men, then, had a scripture-like respect for the Apocryphal writing and advocated using it in daily devotions. Today, that would not be countenanced. BTW, the transition from Catholic to Anglican in time was no more than from WWII to today. Lots of baggage.
In the section on Daily Readings from the Bible ARE passages from non-canonical books. This shows that, in spite of the "article" quoted by Doc Cassidy to which the men subscribed, the reality was that they considered it Bible and included passages mixed in with those from our 66 canonical books.
These men, then, had a scripture-like respect for the Apocryphal writing and advocated using it in daily devotions. Today, that would not be countenanced. BTW, the transition from Catholic to Anglican in time was no more than from WWII to today. Lots of baggage.
1611 Kjv
I make frequent reference to the KJV of 1769. I, like many others, find the language differences of the 1611 very distracting. I can read the 17th century English, but it greatly slows my progress. I'll stick with the changes made in the later editions and reserve my use of the 1611 KJV to the occasional online reference.
Dale-c said:
I make frequent reference to the KJV of 1769. I, like many others, find the language differences of the 1611 very distracting. I can read the 17th century English, but it greatly slows my progress. I'll stick with the changes made in the later editions and reserve my use of the 1611 KJV to the occasional online reference.
TCassidy said:
That is true, but the Thirty-Nine Articles are not the only source of Church of England doctrine.
James Peirce wrote: "Few of the common people ever look into the Articles of the Church of England, to learn what her doctrine is; but what they know of it, is from daily use and custom. So that when the Apocrypha is read at certain times, instead of the Holy Scriptures, and the Book of Common Prayer, which is in every one's hands, after setting down the order how the Psalter is appointed to be read, prescribes the course of both the Canonical and Apocryphal Lessons, under this one general title: The order how the rest of the Holy Scriptures is appointed to be read: they give a handle to the crafty Papist of imposing upon the ignorant sort; nay, and the churchmen themselves sometimes lead them into a great mistake" (Vindication of the Dissenters, p. 537).
The actual high regard that the Church of England of the 1500's and 1600's had for the Apocrypha can also be seen in The Books of Homilies. These books were a collection of "authorized sermons" that were intended to be read aloud in the state churches. Horton Davies observed that "the first book of homilies was issued as a standard of Biblical doctrine and preaching for the nation" (Worship and Theology, I, p. 231). Philip Hughes noted that King James I laid down that "preaching ministers are to take the Articles of 1563 and the two Books of Homilies 'for a pattern and a boundary'" (Reformation in England, p. 399). Peirce pointed out that in the Church of England's Homilies: "Baruch is cited as the Prophet Baruch; and his writing is called, 'The word of the Lord to the Jews'" (Vindication, pp. 537-538). Peirce also claimed that in the Homilies "the book of Tobit is attributed to the Holy Ghost" (p. 538).
This regard is also clearly evident in the views of Church of England Archbishop John Whitgift (1530-1604). Thomas Smith cited Archbishop Whitgift as stating at a 1583 conference the following: "The books called apocrypha are indeed parts of the scriptures; they have been read in the church in ancient times, and ought to be still read amongst us" (Select Memoirs of the Lives, Labours, and Sufferings of those Pious and Learned English and Scottish Divines, p. 327). Several of the KJV translators, especially those of the High Church party who worked with, were taught by, or were associated with Whitgift, may have held similar views. Richard Bancroft, who was the next Archbishop and who was overseer of the translating of the KJV, is closely linked to John Whitgift and his views.
Eliyahu said:
You need to calm down a bit Eliyahu. You should be thinking before you write some of the vulgarisms you use. The moderators have enough on their hands than to edit your posts. Your position would look better if you would watch how you post.
Now, to the debate. I don't CARE what the Catholics did. All I said was the KJV translators DID indeed translate the Apocrypha and they placed them between the Old and New Testaments with absolutely NOTHING to tell people they were not part of the scripture.
If you were reading a book by an author and you read a chapter between two of the chapters and there was absolutely nothing tht said it shouldn't belong there...well, that's my ONLY point.
Whether or not the translators felt it was scripture is another matter, but they certainly did not indicate this anywhere in the 1611 version.
Have you REALLY read a 1611 version from cover to cover? Including the footnotes and the introductions?
You can say what you want to about how many KJV's have been printed. If I were to base this on whether or not it was the word of God then in the last few years Harry Potter has been giving it a run for its money. Not only that the NIV is now outselling the KJV.
Now before you go off and say something else untrue. I believe the KJV is AN EXCELLENT translation. I believe a lot of problems have been corrected since 1611 and the version we use today is about as good as you can get.
I also have a tendency to go along with Dr. Cassidy on the background text being superior, but the NKJV also has a decent background text along with some others Dr. Cassidy has mentioned. So, if you don't like a CT translation, then you cannot use the excuse that ALL MV's use nothing but CT.
The KJV was a best seller in its day because the King outlawed the Geneva Bible. Although anybody who has studied history knows that the Pilgrims, looking for freedom of religion carried their Geneva Bibles with them. There was ONE KJV aboard the MayFlower and it was owned by the Captian who kept it for sentimental reasons. The Bible of choice was the Geneva. The reason.
By the way, when you mention maps....they are usually stuck in the back of the Bible where all other additional information is added--not between the Old and New Testaments with a Title using the same fonts and then continuing with books and verses just like the Old Testament that you just finished reading. When you get to the end of the Apocrypha, then you go straight to the New Testament. No notes, no special announcements just more apparent scripture. What the Catholics did has NOTHING to do with what the King James Translators did.
Besides, the only reason they were not Catholic is because Henry wanted his divorces. You should know that. I have even had the people have the gall to tell me that the Church of England was just like the Baptist Church in the early 1600s, it only became evil later. Of course, this was someone arguing FOR the perfection of the transltors.
Your response to me was full of nothing but emotion and low on fact, so can we stick to relality and what YOU think the translators had in mind by placing books in different order than the Catholic verions?
I don't know why, but it seems as if I can read my 1611 version easier than I can read my 1769 version. I don't know why, but I find the Iesus and other words quite easy to pick up on. Of course, it is still slower than reading a modern English version of the Bible.Keith M said:
Dr. Bob said:
I have tried to explain this dozens of times, but it falls on deaf ears. Personally, I think the translators may have not felt the Apocrypha deserved full "scriptural" level (so to speak); but, I have no way to prove that and it certainly doesn't show when you read a 1611 reprint (or a real 1611).
I sincerely doubt that ANYONE who is here arguing this point has ever really and truly read a 1611 from front to back (which would include the translator's introductions and footnotes). This might make a good poll, but how would we know who is lying. Many appear to pull things out of their fingers without any background anyway, so how would we know they wouldn't do the same with a poll.:applause: :thumbs:
(There's that ROLLING EYES EMOTICON.):thumbs:As Dr. Cassidy says, the translators of the 1611 were GREAT scholars--I would NEVER argue with that, nor would I argue that the KJV (every version I'm familiar with).
WHY is it so difficult to understand that they WERE Anglicans and Anglicans were simply Catholics who had left the church due to the politics in England.
AMAZING.......
WHY is it so difficult to understand that they WERE Anglicans and Anglicans were simply Catholics who had left the church due to the politics in England.
AMAZING.......
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Gayla: //I have a Nelson reprint. Does it have the translator's notes?//
Yes, the translator notes are in the margin: left colum notes
to the left, right column notes to the right.
There are also some cross reference notes.
There are no comentary notes.
Yes, the translator notes are in the margin: left colum notes
to the left, right column notes to the right.
There are also some cross reference notes.
There are no comentary notes.
- Status