What about the 1611 KJV?

Answering as a KJVO#2 since those more extreme may not answer.

1. Why do KJVOist refuse to use the AV1611?

I find it a very helpful study tool.

2. Why do KJVOist not trust the AV1611? Yes, I said that KJVOist do not trust the AV1611.

I do trust it.

3. Can a KJVOist pick up the AV1611 and trust every word?

Do you mean trust without further study? My answer would be no. All translations require study.

4. Can a KJVOist trust the advice of the AV1611 translators and trust their work 100%?

I can trust them like any other Bible scholar - not 100%.

5. Why did it take from 1611 to 1762/1769 to perfect the AV? Could not God get it right the first time?

God did get it right the first time, when the Bible was penned by its Holy Spirit inspired human writers.

6. Does God have power over a printing press and sinful man in order to preserve His word for us and get it right the first time? What happened in 1611?

Of course He does, but He does not inspire translators or printers.

 

In my opinion the KJV IS a VERY accurate and trustworthy translation. In fact, the later versions of the KJV have helped improve its accuracy. There is no doubt that it IS a good translation--maybe one of the most accurate.

The downside is that it is an archaic form of English which is not only difficult to read (especially for the new Christian or child), but we have to be aware that there ARE different meanings for many words used by the translators. These words are NOT wrong, or in error, they have simply changed over time.

The interesting thing about this post; however, is that the questions above cannot be answered by the hard-core "word-for-word, letter-perfect, punctuation perfect" KJVO. Attempts are made to blow it off as printer's errors. But, my thoughts are, if you hold a position of 100% perfection down to the punctuation then why would the translators be given this gift and not the printers.

I have mentioned before, that I agree with C4K that I tend to trust the Byzantine Texts more than the Alexandrian texts. But, again, this is MY OPINION.

I know this is off the subject a bit, but I wish we had a translation as good and modern as the NASB in the Byzantine Text-form.

I don't think you will receive ANY answers any closer than C4K's (especially from more hard-core KJVO levels).

It is a SHAME that the alternate renderings in the margins of the 1611 have not been maintained in new Bibles. I think they tell a lot about the translators position on many verses. They are excellent and well worth purchasing a KJV1611 replica for the margin renderings alone.

Oh, I forgot, I'm a Geneva man anyway.

Geneva Only, The ONLY WAY TO GO!

 

It's easier to keep 'em ignorant than tell them all they should know. It would probably confuse them to much.

 

C4K

That was one of the more eloquent answers that I have read ...

 

Not as much as the average [insult and attack deleted] makes it out to be.Propaganda!

Not as much as the Alexandrian "sect" skirts the FACT that the mss behind today's "bibles" contains the Apocrypha as INSPIRED writ.
Avoided like the plague!

The verse can be applied to the Byzantine/Syrian MSS(read Acts)of the reformation and Bibles from them.Set aside your pre-conceived notions and do a study into church history,you will QUICKLY see that the rejection of the Alexandrian counterfeits is nothing new.

News to me!! I dont know of any Bible believer that "rejects" the first edition of the AV;it is,however,a helpful tool against it's detractors though.

Where did you get that from?
Again,I dont know of any Bible believer that does not trust it.Pure nonsense.

I dont see why not!!!

Where they agree with the Bible,I will trust their advise;it is the PRODUCT they produced I am interested in defending.

PROPAGANDA!!!

And I suppose it took two necromancers to finaly show everybody how to "get it right?"

Ludicrous!!

I would rather have a AV1611(any edition) that is RIFE with printing,orthographical,or typographical errors that any of the 200+ "word perfect" Alexandrian counterfeits.


May the farce be with you!!!!!

[ March 06, 2005, 09:14 PM: Message edited by: Phillip ]

 

But you'll recommend one that denies God was manifest in the flesh,right??

 

I don't know of any translation that denies God was manifest in the flesh. Do you know of any?

 

There is no mainstream translation, of the ones accepted by the members of this board (NASB, ESV, NIV, HSCB, KJV1611, KJV1769 among other satisfactory translations) tht deny God was manifest in the flesh.

Now, THAT is PROPAGANDA from the KJVO sect.

I will be the first to say that I am somewhat Byzantine text prefered, but I find no doctrinal differences between the MT and the CT. None of been proven by anybody.

 

Let's keep away from insults and focus on the subject.

Insulting people can earn yourself a little vacation.


I would prefer this not to happen, so let's be nice and stick to the subject and not make it personal. We are Christian brothers, afterall.