BIBLE VERSIONS

[Guest]

I have been looking into different Bible Versions and have found a lot of them wanting. I am a KJV 1611 user. A former Pastor of mine is coming to my place on June 24 where we will be discussing his NIV and mine KJV. Any scriptual points most welcome. In Christ Jeff.

[Guest]

I am a KJV 1611 user.

You can still buy the 1611 edition? I thought they only sold the cleaned up editions now. I have a scan of the 1611 edition, but thought it was long out of print.

My advice...don't be too dogmatic about it.
D.

[Guest]

Thanks for the advice D. I believe the 1611 versions are freely available in the US.

In Christ
Jeff Bakhuizen

[Guest]

Thanks for the advice D. I believe the 1611 versions are freely available in the US.

Replicas are available on Amazon, but they are $250. According to this site, "Any so-called “1611” King James Version you buy today at the local Christian Bookstore is absolutely NOT the 1611. .. it is the 1769 Baskerville Birmingham revision, even though it admits that nowhere, and may even say “1611” in the front… it’s just not true. Prepare to be shocked! The spellings have been revised, and some words changed, in almost every printing done since 1769, and fourteen entire books plus extra prefatory features have been removed from almost every printing done since 1885!". Does your KJV look like this? If so, I'll send you $20 plus shipping for it. LOL
Daniel

[Guest]

I have been looking into different Bible Versions and have found a lot of them wanting. I am a KJV 1611 user. A former Pastor of mine is coming to my place on June 24 where we will be discussing his NIV and mine KJV. Any scriptual points most welcome. In Christ Jeff.

I was raised on the KJV, and learned all my Scripture passages with it when I was a kid in Sunday School. Even today, it is my version of choice for memorising Scripture; the language is just so beautiful, and verses stick in your mind easier because they sound so different to modern English.

I have a wide margin Oxford KJV Bible which was given to me for my 12th birthday and is still going strong 21 years later.

During Bible study, I look up passages in the KJV because that's how I've memorised them. But once I've found the verse I'm looking for, I use the NET for closer analysis because the translation is far superior, and the translators' footnotes are excellent.

My everyday Bible used to be a KJV; now it's an NET.

[Guest]

Any preacher who claims to be using the 1611 KJV in the pulpit is a liar. You can't read the 1611 as it was origionally printed. You can't read it because of the spelling differences. You can't read it because of the archaic language. Most who claim to use tho old 1611 better check to see if the middle filler books are in theirs because the Apocrphya was in the old 1611. And Finally their liars if they say their using the good old 1611 if theirs has Schoefield notes. Last time I checked he wasn't born yet in 1611and no the Apostle Pauls Scrolls didn't have C. I.'s notes either. The KJV is on it's 7th revision if I remember right. So get over it you 1611 only preachers are living in denial.

[Guest]

Any preacher who claims to be using the 1611 KJV in the pulpit is a liar. You can't read the 1611 as it was origionally printed. You can't read it because of the spelling differences. You can't read it because of the archaic language. Most who claim to use tho old 1611 better check to see if the middle filler books are in theirs because the Apocrphya was in the old 1611. And Finally their liars if they say their using the good old 1611 if theirs has Schoefield notes. Last time I checked he wasn't born yet in 1611and no the Apostle Pauls Scrolls didn't have C. I.'s notes either. The KJV is on it's 7th revision if I remember right. So get over it you 1611 only preachers are living in denial.

Um... maybe liar is a little strong. Maybe they are just mistaken.

[Guest]

Michell wrote [Um... maybe liar is a little strong. Maybe they are just mistaken.]

Point taken disillusioned or ignorant would have been a better term.[/quote]

[Guest]

Michelle had a better word with "mistaken" I believe. I was unaware myself of how great a difference there was...I like to consider myself "mistaken" and not ignorant...

[Guest]

aarondisney wrote [Michelle had a better word with "mistaken" I believe. I was unaware myself of how great a difference there was...I like to consider myself "mistaken" and not ignorant...]

aaron I am speaking of a group of preachers in the independant baptist movement. Many who have web sites proclaiming the 1611 only. They preach messages on why the 1611KJV os the only true bible. Many other reasons because i came out of that movementI have experience dealing with their 1611 version nonsense. They for the most part can't read the 1611 in it's origional print and font. Also it is so much different with the Iohns and Iesus and many other spelling differences they could NEVER read out of it and preach a message from it. So to get up in public and proclaim they use a 1611 version is a bit more than a mistake unless you get the defination of mistake from the Clinton Library dictionary. A mistake is something done in ignorance or accident so my updated use of ignorant would apply I suppose.[/quote]