Do you use the 1611 KJV?

[Bro Tony]

Have you ever read her books?

Yes, I have read her book "New Age Bible Versions" after reading it or at least 3/4 of it I had to put it down because of the ridiculous adhominem attacks of others versions of the Bible. She is far from scholarly. She really could use some time studying both Hebrew and Greek.

Bro Tony

 

[robycop3]

What is wrong is wrong.
In Gal 4:7 there should be "through Christ."
Alexandrian Texts omit it, while the absolute majority of texts have it.

Without Christ we could not obtain the son-ship.

Galatians 4:7........

NIV: So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir.

NASB: Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.

NKJV: Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

HCSB: So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.

It's a simple matter of which manuscript(s) is/are used.

 

[robycop3]

Question:Do you use the 1611 KJV?

Answer: Yes, I do, but not at all exclusively. I use other KJV editions as well as newer Bible versions such as the NASV, NIV, & NKJV, and some older versions such as the Bishop's Bible & Geneva Bible. I have no reason not to use any of them to learn as much about God & His word that I can, as well as to carry out the work He has for me.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Cailiosa: //The KJV 1611 Bible was translated about the same time
as Shakespear was writing, so the English was the same type
of almost unreadable English. But God has overseen theses
changes, they have not changed the meaning of the words,
just the words spelling, or the sentance structure. (making it more understandable)//

Yes, the KJV 1611 Bible was first written about the same time
as Shakespear.
No, the changes to the KJV1611 Edition have not ALL
been just spelling, just sentence structure.
There have been changes that involve doctrinal differences
(But not any of the doctrinal differences that Riplinger et al
point out).

I've been the past few months denoting places where the
misunderstanding of 17th century (1601-1700) English
has caused a doctrinal difference. In fact, the following sects,
schisims, and denominations were started using variant readings of the
KJV1611 editions and/or KJV1769 editions:

7th day adventests
Mormans (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints /LDS/)
Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints /RLDS/)
Christian Science
Assemblies of God
Church of God (several different denominations)
Church of Christ
Southern Baptists
(about 34 other types of Baptists)
[this is 'for example only', off the top of Ed's head]

Here is a list of known denominations, sects, and schisims
started using MV (modern versions) other than the KJVs:

-
-
-

Sort of empty eh?
Can you spell 'null set'?

Cailiosa: //Also, all scripture is given by inspiration by God.. How can
something that changes the meaning from what it is intended by God, be scripture?//

I have yet to see a NIV reading that can be shown to
change the meaning from what the KJVs say. Oh, maybe a phrase
here is different, but God's message - the whole Bible is still totally there
THE SAME AS THE ETERNAL NON-CHANGE GOD.
The words are different (they even differ among the KJVs) but
God's eternal message, the Written Word of God, that is there in
every Bible.

Here is what I faith about Bibles:
All scripture is given by God: this includes all faithful translations
in English (including the KJVs). It is edifying, enlightening, and encouraging
to study multiple witnesses (different versions) in public and private
devotions.


I'm going to go through several listed 'changes' fromt he KJVs to
some MVs. In each case, there is NOT enough data listed to
judge the individual cases. In most cases Riplinger streched the
truth thin enough to be a lie In many examples, these from the
wisdom literature, the teaching is itself a lie of evil, but God and
used even the bad example for His honor and glory.

What is really ugly is the attack against the HCSB when it varies
from the KJVs - the 'no mention' when the HCSB follows the KJVs.



//KJV Proverbs 26:22 says that the words of the tale bearer are as wounds...
NIV says they are likie choice morsels, NASB dainty morsels, ESV delicious morsels, HCSB choice food.//

Proverbs 26:22 (NIV):
The words of a gossip are like choice morsels;
they go down to a man's inmost parts

- which part of this proverb are untrue?

It isn't like it says "the words of a gossip are like
choice morsels to THE LORD" but the words of a
gossip are like choice morsels WRONGLY TO HIMSELF.

//KJV Hosea 11:12 says Judah yet ruleth with God.
NIV, NASB, Judah is unruly against God.//

Look at Strongs, the alternate readings are just as good (and
probably more correct) than the KJVs readings.

// ... Judah3063 yet5750 ruleth7300 with5973 God,410 ... //

Ed's quick translation:
Judah still rules as God

 

[Phillip]

There is a myth but it aint and wasn't in 1611!It was a devine intervention! The myth started in the 1800's when the MV's were written!

How many times does a person have to be warned to follow the rules. This thread is specifically about whether or not you read the KJV1611. If you wish to discuss modern versions (positive or negative) then start your own thread.

Is there any other way that I can make this clearer to you?

 

[Phillip]

Off subject

Ever since I wrote William his note, I have continued to read and finding that many of us are going off the track. If you wish to discuss MV's then start a thread. Let's follow the rules or I will close this thread. Last warning!

 

[Askjo]

Galatians 4:7........

NIV: So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir.

NASB: Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.

NKJV: Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

HCSB: So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.

It's a simple matter of which manuscript(s) is/are used.

"God through Christ" is found many manuscripts. "God through Jesus Christ" is found in a number of other witnesses. Why did modern versions reject these MSS and delete "God through Christ"?

Eliyahu had a good point in his post concerning Gal 4:7. :thumbs:

 

[Ed Edwards]

Another Registered KJV1611 Edition reader

Cailiosa: //Also the biggest issue here is not nessasarily what manuscript
it came from, but wether the translaters used that manuscript
in the way God intended it. I can take a manuscript of anything
I want and change it anyway I want. If you want
to know if the Bible you are using is correct or
not then look at BOTH.//

Unfortunately there are those who damn my last three Bibles:

NIV = New Internatinal Version
nKJV = New King James Bible
HCSB = Christian Standard Bible (Holman, 2003)

without checking the translators or the source manuscript
in sufficient detail to make a rational judgement.
Thus they damn my Bible with unrighteous judgment -- I
don't want to be in their shoes.

The Old Testament (OT) requirement was two or more witnesses.
"One Book Only"-ism negates the OT requirement to have two
or more witnesses.

To have mulitple Bible witnesses,
I've got a paper Bible with these four side-by-side:

KJV1769 Edition = standard King James Version
NIV = New International Version
NASB = New American Standard Bible
NLV = New Living Bible

(off the top of my head, i'll check closer
if it doesn't seem right)

To have mulitple Bible witnesses,
I've got an electronic Bible from e-sword.com that has these
three witnesses side-by-side:

Geneva Bible (1587)
KJV1769 Edition with Strong's Numbers
KJV1611 Edition

Having used the KJV1769 as my primary Bible in excess
of 34 of my 54 years of Chrisitanhood, I am more familiar with
the wording and spelling of the KJV1769 than any other
witness.


A short history of Ed and the KJV1611 Edition.
Here are the definitions I suggested before:

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.

In the early 90s I went to the Bible Museum in Eureka Springs,
Arkansas. They have several ancient KJVs including an
Adulter's Bible (the 7th commandment is, OOPS!, 'thou shalt commit
adultry' )
Across the street in the book store they were selling photocopies
of pages of the KJVs (Gothic print and all). I bought a couple
of pages. I though my Daughter, in the Norman, Oklahoma
Authorian Order of Avalon (AOA), would be interested in a
nearly mideival Gothic font Bible.

I thought I might see if there were any reprints of the
original KJV1611 Edition around - there weren't any.
I got on the internet (or whatever proto-internet might have
been handy). I did a search of "1611" and "KJV" using the then
search engines (might take 45 minutes to do a whole search,
and one payed for the connection then BY THE MINUTE.)
I found out, nobody who uses 'KJV' and '1611' in their
web page name uses the KJV1611 Edition Bible.
There were only about 80 such sites then, only 1 or 2 of which
even knew (or would admit) of the existance of a KJV1611 Edition
different from the KJV1769 in common use.
I had done run into the proto-hyper-KJVO movement's
deception (often self-deception) about the Bibles, the KJVs,
and the Received Texts.

Phillip: //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.//

Amen, Brother Phillip - Preach it! :thumbs:


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

I respectfully disagree.
Consider your personal salvation, if i change it from
singular 'salvation' to plural 'salvations' then I have
changed the basic doctrine of salvation(s). A change of
singular to plural. Read the 'one passage':
one Lord, one faith, one Baptism - NOT 'just one Bible'.

RSR: //First, the translators had been told not to insert
commentary into the translation and to stick closely
to the Bishops' Bible and other previous editions.

Included in James instructions were commands
that "The ordinary Bible, read in the church,
commonly called the Bishop’s Bible, to be followed,
and as little altered as the original will permit"
and "No marginal notes at all to be affixed,
but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words,
which cannot, without some circumlocution,
so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text."//

Sometime along the way, it became common to drop the
'translator margin notes' concerning the Greek.
This was done likely by the unauthorized USA editions,
the printers not understanding what the marign notes ment.
But then the average literate person in the pew didn't
know what the 'translator margin notes' means and the
folks coming into the ministry straight from the
pew to the field (no training in between) didn't know
what the 'translator margin notes' were about.
Quite frankly the 'translator margin notes' in
the KJV1611 Edition Bible squash the
'God wrote only one book' movement in the bud:
the translaters of the 1611 KJV used multiple witnesses
(as required by the OT).

 

[Ed Edwards]

"God through Christ" is found many manuscripts. "God through Jesus Christ" is found in a number of other witnesses. Why did modern versions reject these MSS and delete "God through Christ"?

Which manuscripts contain 'God through Christ'?
Which manuscripts do not contain 'God through Christ'?
which Modern versions (MVs) reject the 'God through Christ'
witnesses? Which MVs accept the 'God through Christ' witnesses?

Do you use the KJV1611 Edition?

 

[DesiderioDomini]

And can we all please check our attitudes before we post, ya'll remind me of the athiests I used to debate, you have the same attitude, that what you believe is correct and smart, and if anyone else differs in their believe they are wrong and very stupid....

Here is a good way to avoid that. Stop guessing. Stop posting misinformation. Half the things I just read from you prove that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and that is putting it as nicely as I can.

There is no sane human alive who claims the AP was not included in the KJV 1611. This shows you have never read one, nor prolly even seen one.

There is no sane human alive who claims that the Bishops Bible was in greek. This statement of yours, even if it was just a guess, shows a complete ignorance of the subject.

Now, I'm not saying this to put you down. Hear this: IF YOU DONT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, STOP TALKING AND READ. Ask questions. Check the credibility of your sources. The fact that you read Riplinger and have yet to find out about her gross errors also shows you do not check to see if what you are reading is actually true.

So far, every single thing you have said points toward the conclusion that you are believing what someone else is telling you, and refusing to check it out yourself. Such actions are NOT CHRISTIAN. That is NOT what Christ would have you do.

Now, this is easily fixed. Start asking questions, and stop trying to educate people who actually know what they are talking about with your ignorance.
BTW, if you take offense at this, rather than taking a long hard look at yourself, you will simply prove everything I said, and more.

 

[DesiderioDomini]

What is wrong is wrong.
In Gal 4:7 there should be "through Christ."
Alexandrian Texts omit it, while the absolute majority of texts have it.

Interesting, since there are many times when the KJV chooses a reading that goes against EVERY SINGLE MANUSCRIPT EVER KNOWN TO EXIST, and yet you agree with their decision?

I would ask you to explain, but you wont. You will change the subject, and put up a smokescreen. I post this only to add to Ed's double standard list.

 

[Eliyahu]

Interesting, since there are many times when the KJV chooses a reading that goes against EVERY SINGLE MANUSCRIPT EVER KNOWN TO EXIST, and yet you agree with their decision?

I would ask you to explain, but you wont. You will change the subject, and put up a smokescreen. I post this only to add to Ed's double standard list.

Tell me which manuscripts support δια Θεου, except A, B, C, Aleph, p46?

[ATTACK on the Word of God snipped - Eliyahu warned]

We should remember these:
A,B,C,Aleph, p66, p75 omited Pericope Adulturae ( Jn 7:53-8:11)
Only B, Aleph omit Mark 16:9-20, with shorter ending, while 617 manuscripts have the longer ending.

p46 omits και καλεσασ δια τησ χαριτοσ in Gal 1:15 as well.

 

[DesiderioDomini]

yea yea yea

I understand your position, and you make a very valid point.

However, would you like to list and discuss those instances where the KJV does exactly the same thing? Its been asked 3948379384 times, and I am sure it wont be answered here, but why are you pointing fingers at the MVs for doing the exact same thing the KJV does? Actually, several readings in the KJV follow no greek manuscript, and at least one follows no ancient witness known to man!

My point is this, until you are ready to honestly discuss this, how can we get anywhere? As long as you are using CLEAR double standards, we are just gonna go around in a circle.

NOW, if you wanna explain why you are allowed to make whatever rules you want for each version, then we can discuss these issues you brought up. Otherwise, lets just stick to the OP, shall we?

No, I dont use the 1611, and most KJVO dont either.

 

[Eliyahu]

Its been asked 3948379384 times,

Where did you get 3948379384 times ?

My point is this, until you are ready to honestly discuss this, how can we get anywhere? As long as you are using CLEAR double standards, we are just gonna go around in a circle.

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.

 

[Askjo]

I understand your position, and you make a very valid point.

However, would you like to list and discuss those instances where the KJV does exactly the same thing? Its been asked 3948379384 times, and I am sure it wont be answered here, but why are you pointing fingers at the MVs for doing the exact same thing the KJV does? Actually, several readings in the KJV follow no greek manuscript, and at least one follows no ancient witness known to man!

My point is this, until you are ready to honestly discuss this, how can we get anywhere? As long as you are using CLEAR double standards, we are just gonna go around in a circle.

NOW, if you wanna explain why you are allowed to make whatever rules you want for each version, then we can discuss these issues you brought up. Otherwise, lets just stick to the OP, shall we?

No, I dont use the 1611, and most KJVO dont either.

I did not see how you answer to Eliyahu's point.

D-D, you are interested in MATERIALS rathar than God provided us the CERTAINITY of His Words. When you looked at these manuscripts, likewise you look for Noah's Ark. Eliyahu and I hold the KJB because it is the CERTAINITY of God's preserved Words. We do not need to look for Noah's Ark because we have FAITH in God's MOST CERTAIN Words.

 

[Askjo]

Where did you get 3948379384 times ?

That is D-D's unhonest answer to you.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Eliyahu:

Tell me which manuscripts support δια Θεου,
except A, B, C, Aleph, p46?

Many number of modern versions based on these few minority texts
are only to prove that the human beings are so quick follow
the perverted texts.

Your statement deriding original language Bible witnesses
goes against the spirit of the following rule.
This rule is found pinned to the top of this forum
in a topic called:

Eleven Simple Rules for Posting
Eleven Simple Rules for Posting


//9. Certain terms are off limits in this forum.
For example:

//The KJVO crowd will not not refer to the Modern Versions
as "perversions," "satanic," "devil's bibles," etc...nor call
those that use them "Bible correctors," "Bible doubters," etc.//

//The MV crowd will not refer to the KJVOs as "cults," "heretics,"
"sacrilegious," etc...nor refer to the KJV
in derisive terms such as "King Jimmy's Bible,"
"Pickled Preserved Version," etc.//


How, when, and under what circumstances do you use the KJV1611 Edition
Bible? It is testamony time!

Which MVs are in the error you see here?
Which MVs are being falsely maligned by 'one book onlyists' for
footnoting the Alexandrian texts?

BTW, if this were a KJVO v. MV-ite topic, we would also
note it is not nice to malign the church at Alexandria which
was no better, no worse than some other local church
in some other geographic location or temporal location.

BTW, if this were a KJVO v. MV-ite topic, we would also note
that the presences of multiple copies of documents made
over a 300 year period do not supplant ONE DOCUMENT made
earlier. Multiple copies of documents made
over a 300 year period are, in fact, only one witnesses.

DesiderioDomini: //No, I dont use the 1611,
and most KJVO dont either.//

Do you NOT use it out of conviction as do some
'one-book-only'ists - ignoring all other witnesses?
Or do you do you NOT use it out of preference,
preferring other KJVs or MVs?
I want the answer not that I might judge you
but that you might have an opportunity to witness.
I.E. are you an Acts 17:11 Berean?
(and I don't think you can be unless you have
access to on-line or paper versions of
the NIV, KJV1611, KJV1769, NSAB,
ESV, nKJV, HCSB, and other major versions/translations).

 

[Ed Edwards]

Yes, I read the KJV1611 Edition dailyl

Originally Posted by Eliyahu
Where did you get 3948379384 times ?

Originally Posted by Askjo
That is D-D's unhonest answer to you.

You are making an unhonest mountain out
of an exaggeration mole hill. You might want to
check and see if you halo is on too tight???

Now, Bro, back to the question:
Do you use the 1611 KJV?
Apparently your answer is:
" I have the KJV w/o it."

IMHO the definitions of terms are:

1611 KJV - any edition of the KJV, all KJVs

KJV1611 Edition(s) - editions of the KJV made in 1611
(especially the first one reprinted in the 21st century by
Henderson and Nelson)

Uptopic I've even given pictures of the specific books
i call 'KJV1611 Edition'.

Do you read the KJV1611 Edition?
'No' is a perfectely acceptable answer, for I can
cut some slack for you, will even pray that God cuts
you some slack also.

 

[Trotter]

you are interested in MATERIALS rathar than God provided us the CERTAINITY of His Words. When you looked at these manuscripts, likewise you look for Noah's Ark. Eliyahu and I hold the KJB because it is the CERTAINITY of God's preserved Words. We do not need to look for Noah's Ark because we have FAITH in God's MOST CERTAIN Words.

In other words, BLIND FAITH in a man-made myth takes precedence over any and all evidence that said myth IS a myth. Sorta like deciding a man is guilty before the trial, not caring that he was in Hawaii on business at the time of the crime.

Its been asked 3948379384 times

Uh, fellas, that's called hyperbole. Enough with the diversions.

 

[Trotter]

and wonder if anyone is actually using the 1611 KJV?

OK, we're way into the thread, and it keeps diverting off on rabbit trails (and I am guilty of helping it).

So, Cailiosa, Askjo, Eliyahu, william s. correa, can you just honestly answer the question? Do you use a 1611 KJV, or one of the later editions?