Do you use the 1611 KJV?

[Phillip]

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.
[/b]

Oh my word, Its been a horrible day. I find out I'm insane and Paul's favorite Bible wasn't the King James all in one day. What'd I do with that old bottle of Vallium? (Oh, forgot, can't use any drugs that have an effect on the brain either.)

This is "megastress"!

 

[william s. correa]

Love wrote the AV 1611!

I dont Know About you; but I Know What I am reading and I Know what I am hearing when it is beeing preached! If I had any other I wouldn't be sure in my heart of the message! I dont claim to Know about BV or Translations But One thing I Do Know is the Word of God came from God and not what man says! Yes I do read the AV 1611! Thank you for asking! raise:

 

[Trotter]

Yes I do read the AV 1611!

Straight answer, Will? The copy you buy in most bookstores ain't a 1611, no matter what your churches sign might say.

A 1611 uses the 17th century spellings, included the translators' notes and the Apocrypha?

So, is that the one you use, Will? Or are you just doing the KJVO spinneroo again?

 

[Keith M]

I suggest you take every one of your Riplinger books & put'em on your bookshelf under "Fiction".

Better yet, place those books right next to your fireplace. The pages would make great kindling!

 

[Ed Edwards]

Straight answer, Will? The copy you buy in most bookstores ain't a 1611, no matter what your churches sign might say.

A 1611 uses the 17th century spellings, included the translators' notes and the Apocrypha?

So, is that the one you use, Will? Or are you just doing the KJVO spinneroo again?

Daily dose of KJV1611 Edition:

---------------------------------------------------
Sirach 25:5 (KJV1611 Edition):
Oh how comely is the wisedome of olde men,
and vnderstanding and counsell to men of honour?
---------------------------------------------------
And so it is with men who post wisely on this
Forum. Amen. Trotter is a good example of the
'men of honor' and we should listen to his understanding
and counsel.



Which of the following is the 'AV 1611'?

Original post by Ed Edwards

IMHO the definitions of terms are:

1. 1611 KJV
- any edition of the KJV, all KJVs

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

P.S. it doesn't make any sense to talk about stuff
if nobody knows what stuff you are talking about.

1Co 14:8 (KJV1611 Edition):
For if the trumpet giue an vncertaine sound,
who shall prepare himselfe to the battell?

 

[Eliyahu]

We have to return to the question of OP again.
1. Do I use AV 1611 for daily use? No.
Not only myself the most KJV users do not use it for usual readings.
It may be used for reference sometimes, by some people.
I misunderstood the question in the beginning, as I explained.

2. If the question was intended to point out the uselessness or errors of AV1611.
That is a wrong approach, I believe.
The change of the trends has been made due to the scribal errors, printing errors, change of the language environment etc, which should be understood as minor matters.

3. As for verses pointed out by Ed, I would comment as follows:

//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

Proverb 26:22

Key Word for the issue is Lahaem (3859) which means swallow oneself. If we search the usages carefully, it cannot mean "choice morsel" but it means "gulp oneself" or "hurt oneself"

Therefore KJV is correct. Moreover, the meaning of the verse itself quite coincides with KJV. Talebearers words hurt the people, they cannot be a choice morsel. NIV is wrong!


Hosea 11:12

Key word for the issue is Rad conjugated from Rud, which means:

Wander, Roam like a lion. wander with freedom.

In Genesis 27:40 this word was used, and Isaac blessed Esau as follows:

When thou shalt have the dominion, that thou shalt break his yoke from off thy neck. ( Here Rud was used for "have the dominion")


This word may be difficult to interpret in the actual verses.
When you have the freedom for your self or the autonomy, you shall breaj his yoke from your neck.

So, Rud is used for ruling autonomously

im-El : means with God. Imanu-El means with-us- God.

NIV : Judah is unruly against God

This is absolutely wrong, and groundless.

Moreover, the next part of the same verse tells us the answer as well.

Judah is aman with Kadoshim ( saints)

Aman : support, verify, confirm, believe, trust, "Amen" comes from this word.
The conjugation is "Niphal" and is interpretted as " verified or faithful"

Therefore KJV is absolutely correct. I wonder why NIV made this riddiculous mistake since it is so easy to interpret and the meaning is very much clear.

Moreover, Judah ( Yehudah - Praise Jehovah) was told as a Lion ( Gen 49:9), and the septre shall not depart from Judah until Siloh ( Rest= True Sabbath= Messiah) comes. This coincides with KJV translation as well.

In conclusion:

Gal 4:7
KJV is correct, NIV is wrong

Eph 3:9
KJV is correct, NIV is wrong

Proverb 26:22
KJV is correct, NIV is wrong

Hosea 11:12
KJV is correct, NIV is wrong

I am very sure that if we compare one hundred controversial verses between KJV and NIV, the result will be :

KJV : NIV = 100 :0 ( or 99:1 if we count Rev 17:8)

 

[Ed Edwards]

By Ed Edwards:

//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

Eliyahu on Proverb 26:22:

//Key Word for the issue is Lahaem (3859) which means swallow oneself. If we search the usages carefully, it cannot mean "choice morsel" but it means "gulp oneself" or "hurt oneself"

//Therefore KJV is correct. Moreover, the meaning of the verse itself quite coincides with KJV. Talebearers words hurt the people, they cannot be a choice morsel. NIV is wrong!//

And if you are correct (and I don't conceed the point)

1. What doctrine must be changed?
2. What new insight into Bible truth and God's Truth have
we made by this study?
3. How have we helped each other edifying-wise?

Daily readings in the KJV1611 Edition Bible
(compare the clear Written Word of God between
the KJV1611 Edition and the New King James Version (nKJV)::

Rom 14:19 (KJV1611 Edition):
Let vs therefore follow after the things which make
for peace, and things wherewith one may edifie an other.

Ro 14:19 (nKJV):
Therefore let us pursue the things which make
for peace and the things by which one may edify
another.

1Co 10:23 (KJV1611 Edition):
All things are lawfull for me, but all things
are not expedient: All things are lawfull for mee,
but all things edifie not.

1Co 10:23 (nKJV):
All things are lawful for me, but not all things
are helpful; all things are lawful for me,
but not all things edify.

1Th 5:11 (KJV1611 Edition):
Wherefore, comfort your selues together, and edifie one another,
euen as also ye doe.

1Th 5:11 (nKJV):
Therefore comfort each other and edify one another,
just as you also are doing.

 

[TC]

In Galations 2:20 the KJV says "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me:" and the NIV says "I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me."

Hear we see that the KJV and the NIV say the same exact thing using slightly different wording. You are wrong and need to check your sources for veracity before you post them.

 

[Trotter]

2. If the question was intended to point out the uselessness or errors of AV1611.
That is a wrong approach, I believe.

Don't know of anyone trying to say the KJV (any edition) is useless, just not the perfect be-all-and-end-all that some claim it to be (which is not the premise of the thread).

1. Do I use AV 1611 for daily use? No.

Thank you for the honest answer, Eliyahu. That is all the OP was asking. I just wish some others would give a straight, honest answer.

 

[Dale-c]

Wow, i posted this thread and then it ran off without me! At any rate, Ed, those quotes from the 1611 are great! I love actually reading posts with the 1611, rather than just hearing about it all the time.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Daily reading from the KJV1611 Edition

Sirach 48:22-25 (KJV1611 Edition):
For Ezekias had done the thing that pleased the Lord,
and was strong in the wayes of Dauid his father,
as Esay the Prophet, who was great and faithfull in his vision, had commaunded him.
23 In his time the Sunne went backeward,
and hee lengthened the kings life.
24 Hee sawe by an excellent spirit what should
come to passe at the last, and hee comforted them that mourned in Sion.
25 He shewed what should come to passe for euer,
and secret things or euer they came.

Clue:
Ezekias = Ezekiel
Esay = Isaiah
'secret things or euer they came' = secret things before they happened

 

[Ed Edwards]

The KJV1611 NT cross references the Apocrypha

Heb 11:35 (KJV 1611 Edition):
Women receiued their dead raised to life againe:
and others were *tortured, not accepting deliuerance,
that they might obtaine a better resurrection.

Cross-reference margin note:
* 2 Macc 7:7

2 Maccabees 7:7 (KJV1611 Edition):
So when the first was dead, after this maner,
they brought the second to make him a mocking stocke:
and when they had pulled off the skin of his head with the haire,
they asked him, Wilt thou eate before thou bee punished
throughout euery member of thy body?

 

[william s. correa]

Paul would read the AV 1611!

If he spoke English! But since he spoke in the languages of his Time there is no difference in what the Scriptures were saying then and what they are saying Now! (other than what counterfits were there and what people were mishandleing,and misrepresenting the gospel in that Era as they are doing today! I Know there are some Good ones out there but there are those that have yet proven themselves to me! The AV 1611 and any KJB that is derived from that Translation is what I read.:Fish: is the Lord.

 

[EdSutton]

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.

Tack on one more "AMEN!", here. And that goes for any version (or reversion) used. A little honesty never hurts. I have no 1611 version of anything, and in fact, even the various versions I have- regardless of when compiled and/or copywrited- are all since 1930 in printing. In fact, I'm since 1947 in 'printing', being born in August 1948.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

I use it more than anybody here.

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

:laugh::laugh:

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

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.

Just outta' curiosity, was the "[vugalrity (sic) snipped...]" some quote of old language in either a 1611 or 1769 version, since some words there are sometimes consider 'vulgar' today? Just wonderin'.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Just outta' curiosity, was the "[vugalrity (sic) snipped...]" some quote of old language in either a 1611 or 1769 version, since some words there are sometimes consider 'vulgar' today? Just wonderin'.

Ed

Reading a little further, in the immortal words of Miss Emily Litella, late of Saturday Night Live, fame- "Nevermind!"

Ed

 

[Eliyahu]

Don't know of anyone trying to say the KJV (any edition) is useless, just not the perfect be-all-and-end-all that some claim it to be (which is not the premise of the thread).



Thank you for the honest answer, Eliyahu. That is all the OP was asking. I just wish some others would give a straight, honest answer.

Both points commented by are correct!

We should admit what is right, even though such admission is not very pleasant to each of us.

 

[Eliyahu]

Error in the above post: should read-

Both points commented by you (Trotter) are correct.

 

[Phillip]

If he spoke English! But since he spoke in the languages of his Time there is no difference in what the Scriptures were saying then and what they are saying Now! (other than what counterfits were there and what people were mishandleing,and misrepresenting the gospel in that Era as they are doing today! I Know there are some Good ones out there but there are those that have yet proven themselves to me! The AV 1611 and any KJB that is derived from that Translation is what I read.:Fish: is the Lord.

This is about the tenth warning I have given you. If you insist on continuing to bash any translation that is English and not the KJV, then I am going to see if I can get you an all expenses paid vacation from the BB. You seem to have a lot of difficulty understanding and/or following the BB rules for the translations section.