Questions for those holding to KJVO Position

[Conan]

Remember, this site sells 1611, 1612, so on and so forth Bibles for a lot of money. They have the ancient Bibles on hand , so they know what they are talking about.

Lost Books of The KJV Bible?

Finally, there was one last change made to the King James Version Bible in 1885: the removal of 14 Books of The Bible! Prior to 1885, all English Bibles, including all King James Bibles, had 80 Books. Since 1885, we only find 66 Books in our Bibles. The missing Books, which were called the Deuterocanonical or Apocryphal Books were so important to King James that he threatened anyone who printed his Bible without these books, with a year in jail and heavy fines. This is all shocking to people who do not know the full story of the King James Bible, and the mystery and intrigue does not end there. The actual printing of the 1611 King James Bible was an extremely complex and confusing endeavor, involving two dozen printers, resulting in thousands of copies that were actually printed in 1611 being given bewildering title pages dated 1613, 1617, 1634, and 1639. If you would like to know the full story, just read our article on the 1611 Bible.

Home

World’s Largest Dealer of Rare & Antique BiblesVIEW AVAILABLE ANCIENT BIBLES Rare & Antique Holy Bibles GREATSITE.COM is the premiere online showroom of rare and antique Bibles. Since 1996 we have been the world’s largest dealer of rare & antique Bibles... over 29 years! Our...

greatsite.com

 

[Salty]

That would require there to be errors in the KJV. However, there aren't any, and no one has actually been able to provide one. Simply all the "errors" are either 1) not errors or 2) are actually superior translations.

Does the KJV support immersion only for Baptism - or does it allow for sprinkling/pouring?

 

[Servant of Jehovah]

Lost Books of The KJV Bible?

Finally, there was one last change made to the King James Version Bible in 1885: the removal of 14 Books of The Bible! Prior to 1885, all English Bibles, including all King James Bibles, had 80 Books. Since 1885, we only find 66 Books in our Bibles. The missing Books, which were called the Deuterocanonical or Apocryphal Books were so important to King James that he threatened anyone who printed his Bible without these books, with a year in jail and heavy fines. This is all shocking to people who do not know the full story of the King James Bible, and the mystery and intrigue does not end there. The actual printing of the 1611 King James Bible was an extremely complex and confusing endeavor, involving two dozen printers, resulting in thousands of copies that were actually printed in 1611 being given bewildering title pages dated 1613, 1617, 1634, and 1639. If you would like to know the full story, just read our article on the 1611 Bible.

Home

World’s Largest Dealer of Rare & Antique BiblesVIEW AVAILABLE ANCIENT BIBLES Rare & Antique Holy Bibles GREATSITE.COM is the premiere online showroom of rare and antique Bibles. Since 1996 we have been the world’s largest dealer of rare & antique Bibles... over 29 years! Our...

greatsite.com

This us ignorant. King James did not find them "important." In fact, he himself states that he OMITTED THEM!

"And as to the Apocryphe bookes, I omit them, because I am no Papist. As I said before; and indeed some of them are no wayes like the dytement of the Spirit of God." King James I, in ΒΑΣΙΛΙΚΟΝ ΔΩΡΟΝ

And if you think a source stating 1885 was the last change made to the KJV text is correct, you are mistaken. The edition of the KJV I use in the Pure Cambridge Edition, which was printed in the 1900's. I've actually looked at photoscans. I will say this one time more, you should look at things yourself. If one does not want to actually look themselves, but instead wants to post a website that has no clue what it's speaking about, then I have no reason to continue talking, as it's clear they will not look at the evidence.

 

[Servant of Jehovah]

Does the KJV support immersion only for Baptism - or does it allow for sprinkling/pouring?

Baptism is just a transliteration of the Greek. Thus, the question you're really asking is whether the Greek supports immersion only—which I believe the Bible teaches Baptism by immersion.

 

[Conan]

This us ignorant. King James did not find them "important." In fact, he himself states that he OMITTED THEM!

"And as to the Apocryphe bookes, I omit them, because I am no Papist. As I said before; and indeed some of them are no wayes like the dytement of the Spirit of God." King James I, in ΒΑΣΙΛΙΚΟΝ ΔΩΡΟΝ

And if you think a source stating 1885 was the last change made to the KJV text is correct, you are mistaken. The edition of the KJV I use in the Pure Cambridge Edition, which was printed in the 1900's. I've actually looked at photoscans. I will say this one time more, you should look at things yourself. If one does not want to actually look themselves, but instead wants to post a website that has no clue what it's speaking about, then I have no reason to continue talking, as it's clear they will not look at the evidence.

Your word is no good compared to those that have the bibles and sells them. You look at old photo scans that simply may not have scanned them. You would have no way of knowing. The scanner may have simply not scanned them. The scanner may be like you and are embarrassed that the real KJV came with the Apocrypha printed right smack in-between the two Testaments. You are wrong. The King James Bible came with the Apocrypha both Originally and for many many editions afterwards. Regular KJV's did not regularly delete the Apocrypha until the late 1800s. Don't know why you are denying the plain fact. I guess you are embarrassed about the true fact that God allowed the Apocrypha to be printed in the KJV from the very beginnings to all the major editions, each one containing them. If there were many editions without it the Bible collectors and sellers would have these editions and report the true facts. You ln the other hand do not. God is not embarrassed about having the Apocrypha in all major editions of the KJV for a long time. So you do not need to be either. Who cares what a so called pure Cambridge edition printed late 1800's says. Has nothing to do with the Apocrypha being printed in all Major editions before then.

 

[Conan]

Interesting printing facts about the History of the KJV. 1611 and afterwards.

The 1611 King James Bible

The 1611 King James Bible The English King James Bible is the best selling book in history, by an extremely wide margin. With multiple billions of copies in print, no other book can claim even one billion copies in print. Even more impressive, the King James Bible remains one of the most...

greatsite.com

 

[Servant of Jehovah]

Your word is no good compared to those that have the bibles and sells them. You look at old photo scans that simply may not have scanned them. You would have no way of knowing. The scanner may have simply not scanned them. The scanner may be like you and are embarrassed that the real KJV came with the Apocrypha printed right smack in-between the two Testaments. You are wrong.

Don't presume to know how I feel. I'm not embarrassed in the slightest. In fact, I'm glad they translated the Apocrypha, I OWN a copy of it. It's a great resource to study, and it's good for one can realize why they aren't Scripture.

Additionally, I find it highly improbable that the tens of photoscans I've looked at all decided to collaborate together to "deceive people by 'not scanning the Apocrypha'". That's an assumption on your part, not evidence of anything.

Again, it seems to be contrary to your "evidence" that King James himself omitted the Apocrypha. He plainly stated he did. And if you know Anglican beliefs (the KJV translators were Anglicans), they view the Apocrypha as good to read, but not good for doctrine. Hence, they included them for the same reason Luther did—so that the reader may be edified by what they believed agreed with the actual canon.

Who cares what a so called pure Cambridge edition printed late 1800's says. Has nothing to do with the Apocrypha being printed in all Major editions before then.

Once again, how does one define "major editions"? That seems to be an arbitrary term. Is the first English Bible printed in the United States a major edition? If so, it didn't contain the Apocrypha. And the PCE is not from the 1800's. It's from the 1900's to the 1970's.

 

[Conan]

Don't presume to know how I feel. I'm not embarrassed in the slightest. In fact, I'm glad they translated the Apocrypha, I OWN a copy of it. It's a great resource to study, and it's good for one can realize why they aren't Scripture.

Additionally, I find it highly improbable that the tens of photoscans I've looked at all decided to collaborate together to "deceive people by 'not scanning the Apocrypha'". That's an assumption on your part, not evidence of anything.

Again, it seems to be contrary to your "evidence" that King James himself omitted the Apocrypha. He plainly stated he did. And if you know Anglican beliefs (the KJV translators were Anglicans), they view the Apocrypha as good to read, but not good for doctrine. Hence, they included them for the same reason Luther did—so that the reader may be edified by what they believed agreed with the actual canon.


Once again, how does one define "major editions"? That seems to be an arbitrary term. Is the first English Bible printed in the United States a major edition? If so, it didn't contain the Apocrypha. And the PCE is not from the 1800's. It's from the 1900's to the 1970's.

If King James did not want the Apocrypha, why was it included in all Major Editions? If he did not want it to be included, it would have not been in the 1611 or in any edition while he was alive.

I said nothing about collusion of Scanners. Just they no doubt did not scan them in. You wouldn't have had you been a scanner.

Major editions I would cut off at 1769. I suppose there could be some later Major edition. But for my purposes that would be it.

Changes in the King James version

 

[Servant of Jehovah]

If King James did not want the Apocrypha, why was it included in all Major Editions? If he did not want it to be included, it would have not been in the 1611 or in any edition while he was alive.

Based on his statement, it seems most likely he had a Bible without the Apocrypha included. If you look at the translation effort for the KJV, King James didn't have any say. The translators often didn't even follow the rules the King set.

I said nothing about collusion of Scanners. Just they no doubt did not scan them in. You wouldn't have had you been a scanner.

How do you know what I would or wouldn't do? Please, do not assume I would stoop so low. These colleges doing the photoscans, being mostly secular, have little reason to try and "hide" the Apocrypha.

Major editions I would cut off at 1779. I suppose there could be some later Major edition. But for my purposes that would be it.

That doesn't tell me anything. You can say, "It has to be before 1779" (which is still arbitrary), but there's many KJV's printed pre-1779 that do not have the Apocrypha. Please provide a proper list of qualifications to determine what a "major edition" is, else I will simply continue to believe each has a voice in this matter.

 

[Conan]

Based on his statement, it seems most likely he had a Bible without the Apocrypha included. If you look at the translation effort for the KJV, King James didn't have any say. The translators often didn't even follow the rules the King set.


How do you know what I would or wouldn't do? Please, do not assume I would stoop so low. These colleges doing the photoscans, being mostly secular, have little reason to try and "hide" the Apocrypha.


That doesn't tell me anything. You can say, "It has to be before 1779" (which is still arbitrary), but there's many KJV's printed pre-1779 that do not have the Apocrypha. Please provide a proper list of qualifications to determine what a "major edition" is, else I will simply continue to believe each has a voice in this matter.

You may be right, each has a voice in the matter. For my purposes 1769 I had thought the last major edition. But there may have been others that I am not familiar with. If an edition, corrects errors in the New Testament, I would consider it important, even if it only corrected one reading.

 

[Logos1560]

there's many KJV's printed pre-1779 that do not have the Apocrypha.

You may assume, but you do not prove that there are many pre-1779 KJV's printed without the Apocrypha.

The actual standard editions of the KJV such as the 1611 edition, the 1629 Cambridge edition, the 1638 Cambridge edition, the 1743 Cambridge edition, the 1762 Cambridge edition, and the 1769 Oxford edition are all known to have been originally printed with the Apocrypha.

As explained to you before, the fact that some KJV editions were later bound or rebound without the Apocrypha is not at all proof that they were originally printed without it. Before the 1800's, editions of the KJV were printed unbound, and they had to be taken to a book-binder to be bound.
Some copies of the KJV were even bound together with other books such as the Church of England's Book of Common Prayer or with a Psalter. My edition of the 1769 Cambridge edition of the KJV was bound together with the Book of Common Prayer. Some copies of the KJV were bound as multi-volumes, not as one volume. I examined one copy of the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV that had been bound as four volumes.

I have checked over 500 editions of the KJV including many printed in the 1600's and 1700's.

 

[Servant of Jehovah]

You may assume, but you do not prove that there are many pre-1779 KJV's printed without the Apocrypha.

The actual standard editions of the KJV such as the 1611 edition, the 1629 Cambridge edition, the 1638 Cambridge edition, the 1743 Cambridge edition, the 1762 Cambridge edition, and the 1769 Oxford edition are all known to have been originally printed with the Apocrypha.

As explained to you before, the fact that some KJV editions were later bound or rebound without the Apocrypha is not at all proof that they were originally printed without it. Before the 1800's, editions of the KJV were printed unbound, and they had to be taken to a book-binder to be bound.
Some copies of the KJV were even bound together with other books such as the Church of England's Book of Common Prayer or with a Psalter. My edition of the 1769 Cambridge edition of the KJV was bound together with the Book of Common Prayer.

I have checked over 500 editions of the KJV including many printed in the 1600's and 1700's.

That's assuming we agree those are the "standard editions." I simply believe that God worked it out that the KJV is technically the majority text now.

So while information is more avaliable for those printings, the fact remains that KJV's without the Apocrypha (whether you think proper or not) have shown up early in the KJV's history and there have been some ever since.

I think we've milked all edification we can from this discussion. It seems that we are beginning to go around in circles.

 

[Logos1560]

So while information is more avaliable for those printings, the fact remains that KJV's without the Apocrypha (whether you think proper or not) have shown up early in the KJV's history and there have been some ever since.

You do not prove that any editions of the KJV in the 1600's and in the 1700's were originally printed without the Apocrypha. The fact that some may have been found later bound or more likely rebound without it is not proof that they were printed without it. The person obtaining the old 1600's or 1700's edition could have had it rebound omitting the Apocrypha. Many old copies of the KJV do not have their original binding as they were rebound.

 

[Servant of Jehovah]

You do not prove that any editions of the KJV in the 1600's and in the 1700's were originally printed without the Apocrypha. The fact that some may have been found later bound or more likely rebound without it is not proof that they were printed without it. The person obtaining the old 1600's or 1700's edition could have had it rebound omitting the Apocrypha. Many old copies of the KJV do not have their original binding as they were rebound.

Or they were bound originally without them. It seems like a huge leap to say all KJV's without the Apocrypha ALL don't have it simply because some may have removed it at rebinding.

 

[Logos1560]

Or they were bound originally without them. It seems like a huge leap to say all KJV's without the Apocrypha ALL don't have it simply because some may have removed it at rebinding.

Perhaps you are mixing up the official printers of the KJV such as the king's printer in London, Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, the king's printer in Edinburgh who printed under the crown copyright and unauthorized printers of the KJV. You do not prove that any editions of the KJV in the 1600's and in the 1700's by the approved or authorized printers were originally printed without the Apocrypha.

The known KJV editions by the approved printers in the 1600's and 1700's included the Apocrypha in the printing. The binding of those editions was by a different business. The possibility that someone or a few managed to get an edition of the KJV bound or rebound without the Apocrypha does not prove that edition was originally printed without it.

After the founding of the British and Foreign Bible Society in 1804, this society would seek to have editions of the KJV printed without the Apocrypha. The American Bible Society in America in the 1800's printed many editions of the KJV without the Apocrypha.

 

[Servant of Jehovah]

The known KJV editions by the approved printers in the 1600's and 1700's included the Apocrypha in the printing. The binding of those editions was by a different business. The possibility that someone or a few managed to get an edition of the KJV bound or rebound without the Apocrypha does not prove that edition was originally printed without it.

In 1699, Edinburgh had a KJV without the Apocrypha:



Then, in 1700, London had a printing without the Apocrypha:

 

[Salty]

Baptism is just a transliteration of the Greek. Thus, the question you're really asking is whether the Greek supports immersion only—which I believe the Bible teaches Baptism by immersion.

SoJ you did NOT answer my question. Let me repeat my question "Does the KJV support immersion only for Baptism - or does it allow for sprinkling/pouring?" Note: Bold used this time for emphasis

 

[Servant of Jehovah]

SoJ you did NOT answer my question. Let me repeat my question "Does the KJV support immersion only for Baptism - or does it allow for sprinkling/pouring?" Note: Bold used this time for emphasis

I disagree with the framing of the question. I believe immersion is the only valid form of Baptism, but the KJV simply uses a transliteration. I'm glad it did, because as Anglicans, the KJV translators likely wouldn't have translated it as immersion.

Now, because it's a transliteration, the real question is not "What does the KJV support?" but instead, "What does the word being transliterated mean?" And of course, the Greek means to immerse.

 

[Salty]

Okay we will play the game your way" Why did the KJ translators used the term "baptism" instead of immersion?

 

[Servant of Jehovah]

Okay we will play the game your way" Why did the KJ translators used the term "baptism" instead of immersion?

I'm going to assume the reason is because previous translations (like Tyndale, Geneva, Bishops') use it as well as the term being used by English Christians.