The REAL AV1611

[Phillip]

My pastor made a joke last Sunday, but I would not doubt that it will come true.

I brought in my new Hendrickson KJV1611 to show him and he made a statement that it wouldn't surprise him if the KJVo start requiring us to start using 1611 versions as the "word-perfect-Bible"

You guys think I'm joking, just wait and see.

When they realize they can't have twenty different versions, and call themselves AV1611, they'll have to do something!

Let's all buy Hendrickson stock, when word gets around they are going to sell a bunch of the 1611 duplicates. (If it ain't got the apocrypha, it ain't the real deal.)

(For Blue Falcon, this would be the 4,5 group.

)

 

[robycop3]

There are several people here, including myself, who have replica AV 1611s & use them to debunk parts of the KJVO myth. This includes several discussions we've had right here.

I still wonder why the current KJVs such as the Blayney's Edition omit the preface and the translators' notes if these later editions are supposed to be changed so little from the first editions. Seems as if the publishers believed their editions to be so different from the early ones that they believed the translators' thoughts didn't apply.

 

[Logos1560]

Originally posted by robycop3:

I still wonder why the current KJVs such as the Blayney's Edition omit the preface and the translators' notes if these later editions are supposed to be changed so little from the first editions.

While most current KJV editions may be based on the 1769 edition edited by Benjamin Blayney (1728-1801), they are not identical to it. According to my research, the actual 1769 edition by Blayney included the original marginal notes of the 1611, even adding a couple notes to them.
I don't know if Blayney's edition included the preface.

Supposedly, one reason that the preface and marginal notes were dropped from the first edition
of the KJV printed in America in 1782 was to save paper.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Those missing notes and preface have led to the absolutism of modern "onlyism" that miss the variety of word choices and admission by the translators.

Save paper? Lose truth.

 

[Logos1560]

Originally posted by Phillip:

When they realize they can't have twenty different versions, and call themselves AV1611, they'll have to do something!

They may still do nothing. It seems that only rarely will KJV-only advocates discuss the differences between various editions of the KJV.
When they do, they usually excuse the differences between the 1611 and present KJV's as being only
the correction of printing errors and updating of spelling.

Peter Ruckman wrote: "We recommend any edition of the AV (with any number of variations from any other edition) (BIBLE BELIEVERS' BULLETIN, Sept., 1985, p. 3). In this article, Ruckman also commented; "In our group, we hold that ANY edition of the AV is reliable" (p. 2).

 

[HankD]

"In our group, we hold that ANY edition of the AV is reliable" (p. 2).

So things which are different are the same!

HankD

 

[Ed Edwards]

But things that are the same
like THIRD MILLENNIUM BIBLE
and 21ST CENTURY KING JAMES
and KJV1769
are different.

And the nKJV that translates from
the Textus Receptus (TR) is the
same, but then the footnotes make
it different cause the translator
footnotes know there are sources
other then the PLURAL TR.