Jump to content
Online Baptist

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Myself, I prefer KJB because I think it's more accurate. :smile

Some want it to be clear what they are quoting is from the KJB. Some use the 1611 because they actually quote from that edition of the KJB while some do it for other reasons I'm not clear on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Here is my statement on versions:

I believe the original texts are the divinely inspired Word of God in its entirety, written by men as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, and that it is the sole authority for the Christian's faith and conduct. I believe the King James Version of the Bible is the preserved Word of God for teaching and preaching to English speaking people. This is what I will use when I post scripture. I believe other English translations contain the Word of God including the latest Catholic authorized version, The New American Bible, Saint Joseph Edition. (2 Timothy 3.16-17; 2 Peter 1.20-21)

I have had a Cambridge Bible since the 1980s with the King James dedication and Epistle Dedicatory in the front. I love reading the Middle English words and phrases. I seem to be able to remember the scriptures better in my Bible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
I was just wondering why so many folks put (KJV) and others (KJV 1611) after Bible quotes?


Because there are several renditions of the King James Bible and 1611 let's the reader know the poster sticks to the 1611 version

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (KJV Revised)
Joh 3:16 For God so loued ye world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life. (KJV 1611)
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist


Because there are several renditions of the King James Bible and 1611 let's the reader know the poster sticks to the 1611 version

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (KJV Revised)
Joh 3:16 For God so loued ye world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life. (KJV 1611)


I think mine is a 1769 KJV Edition.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Most people's KJV's are the revised version and the idea that a person has or uses a 1611 version is typically erroneous.


Exactly correct. This is true in 99.9% of the time where the person claims KJV1611. It is also true that having several renditions somewhat undermines the KJV only argument as then you naturally have to answer the question, "Which rendition/revision?" Along with the what about other languages. I remember when I first got saved (almost 30 years ago now) that the KJV only stance was KJV only for all languages. Then as it got harder to defend, as the years have passed because our missionaries where having a hard time teaching English to the natives before they could hear the "Word" of God; we now add KJV only "for the English speaking people" in order to compensate. Things certainly do change, even though God and his Word never change (unless it is a revision)! {yes that was sarcasm at the end}
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist


Exactly correct. This is true in 99.9% of the time where the person claims KJV1611. It is also true that having several renditions somewhat undermines the KJV only argument as then you naturally have to answer the question, "Which rendition/revision?" Along with the what about other languages. I remember when I first got saved (almost 30 years ago now) that the KJV only stance was KJV only for all languages. Then as it got harder to defend, as the years have passed because our missionaries where having a hard time teaching English to the natives before they could hear the "Word" of God; we now add KJV only "for the English speaking people" in order to compensate. Things certainly do change, even though God and his Word never change (unless it is a revision)! {yes that was sarcasm at the end}


OK. I'm satified with what I have and defend your right to the KJV of choice. That said, I think I recall a quick ref. for which revision is which. Similar to...if your Bible has "this" then it is a 16XX or 17XX. Does anyone know where I could find that without an author's 3 page essay on why they use one or the other?
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators

Just because I say I use the KJV1611 Bible does not mean that was the last date the Bible went through an edition. It was the founding date (or building date) for that Bible. My house was built in 1974, but I have done many renditions and remodeling, but the house is still a 1974 house. Here is another example that I used a long time ago.

I went to a car show and saw a 1951 Crosley in mint condition. Through the life of this car it has had some revisions done. It has had a new paint job, the interior has had some work done, the engine oil has been replaced quite a few times, the exhaust pipes were changed to nice looking chrome, and many other revisions were done to the car. And yet it was still being advertised as a 1951 car.

Some will say my logic does not fit, but of course people will say that. We all say that when we do not agree with something.

That is why I say I use a KJV1611 Bible. It is the foundation for what I hold in my hands today.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators

Good question. I always say that the KJV is preserved perfectly in English, but also can be preserved in other languages. I only speak English, so it is KJV for me. To answer your question, if the other language has a Bible that was translated from the correct texts and is accurate, then I have no problem with them using that Bible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Just because I say I use the KJV1611 Bible does not mean that was the last date the Bible went through an edition. It was the founding date (or building date) for that Bible. My house was built in 1974, but I have done many renditions and remodeling, but the house is still a 1974 house. Here is another example that I used a long time ago.

I went to a car show and saw a 1951 Crosley in mint condition. Through the life of this car it has had some revisions done. It has had a new paint job, the interior has had some work done, the engine oil has been replaced quite a few times, the exhaust pipes were changed to nice looking chrome, and many other revisions were done to the car. And yet it was still being advertised as a 1951 car.

Some will say my logic does not fit, but of course people will say that. We all say that when we do not agree with something.

That is why I say I use a KJV1611 Bible. It is the foundation for what I hold in my hands today.


Me too. But, I don't fault any who use some other KJV revision, I have reservations about the "New." I would never recommend anything besides the one I use...personal preference. Also, it's read from the pulpit in my Church. I would still like to see that quick reference to revision item/date. I want to know
the date of the one I use since it's not specified.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
I like the illustrations about the house and car I will use those.
Thank you


Those analogies breakdown fairly quickly though. Any valuable antique car, the minute you go beyond the paint job and make any modifications and enhancements is no longer considered an original and certainly would not be considered OEM. Same thing with a house, in fact with a home, certain additions and modifications would make it more valuable......that part of the analogy will drive KJV 1611'ers crazy.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators


Those analogies breakdown fairly quickly though. Any valuable antique car, the minute you go beyond the paint job and make any modifications and enhancements is no longer considered an original and certainly would not be considered OEM. Same thing with a house, in fact with a home, certain additions and modifications would make it more valuable......that part of the analogy will drive KJV 1611'ers crazy.


The point was not the value, it was only about a date. Nobody was talking about value, but rather the original date. So to compare value to dates is apples to oranges. The car was still a 1951 Crosley and nobody complained about the date. The only thing that drove me crazy is the fact that you talked about value when we were talking about dates. :lol
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member


The point was not the value, it was only about a date. Nobody was talking about value, but rather the original date. So to compare value to dates is apples to oranges. The car was still a 1951 Crosley and nobody complained about the date. The only thing that drove me crazy is the fact that you talked about value when we were talking about dates. :lol


The point being that any KJV modified after 1611 has been modified and is not truly a KJV 1611 and for a true KJV only person should be suspect as to having "changes" to it and how those changes have affected the original meaning and intent of the translation.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators
The point being that any KJV modified after 1611 has been modified and is not truly a KJV 1611 and for a true KJV only person should be suspect as to having "changes" to it and how those changes have affected the original meaning and intent of the translation.


With that logic the 1951 Crosley should now be a considered a 2008 Crosley.
Also with that logic, you can't have the a true Bible in your hands, because you do not have the original manuscripts in your hands.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

You can't diminish or enhance the value of the Word of God.
I find that those that argue about the validity of the new versions always use the same argument. Much like those who believe in works salvation use the same verses (out of context) over and over again.
I am glad I settled the KJV 1611 issue a long time ago :clap:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member


With that logic the 1951 Crosley should now be a considered a 2008 Crosley.
Also with that logic, you can't have the a true Bible in your hands, because you do not have the original manuscripts in your hands.


You said it, by that logic. That's why the analogy breaks down quick.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I am 44 yrs old....undergone many changes since birth....more wrinkles...worn edges...weak knee....scars.... but I am no less me with my reading glasses than I was at birth. I am still quite me....not ought less or more. My finger prints are the same....my name in heaven is the same....the soul within me is the same and God knew me since I was concieved. It is rather foolish then, in my opinion, to suppose that because a wrinkle has been added by time, that I am no longer who I was at birth. The supposition that because spelling errors on the printer's part or mechanics of the printing process part altered the word of God or that correcting those errors changes the word of God....is too ignorant for consideration. Again (IMO).

When God gave his word to Moses, it was in Hebrew...not English, or Spanish....but Hebrew. Does that mean God is guilty of not being fair to those who speak those languages? Does translating it to those languages change it? How absurd.... The Word of God far exceeds the limitations of puny language....it sustains the planets...supports the universes both seen and unseen....it brings salvation, light and hope....it is the very thing from which life came forth...when all else passes it remains unchanged!

It cannot merely be confined to Hebrew but spills over and through all language walls....all our little gramatical blabbering means nothing to the word of God..... the word of God lines the orbits of the planets....fuels the sun.... and we think that it is impacted by language or spelling constraints? Thats like me taking a shovel to the yard, digging a hole and then proclaiming the earth to be a different planet. How small we think...how shallow are our thoughts.....

I suggest rather than the word of God is perfect and the Lord has blessed us with guiding in its translating into English....as always, just once.... Hebrew (once), Greek (once), English (once) and on and on and on.... the word of God in chineese is what? The word of God! The word of God in Spanish is what? The word of God!

The word of God did NOT come perverted from it's speaker.... but wicked men pervert it today just as they did in Paul's day.... The King James is "THE BIBLE" not merely a version of it. The word of God in Chineese is "THE BIBLE" not merely a version of it. The word of God cannot be confined to foolish little "original manuscripts"....but goes beyond such silly limitations.... It is unchanging....unfaltering...incorruptable....ageless...timeless....

I do not say the KJV for that suggest that the AV1611 is merely another "version" of what God said rather the reality of it being "Exactly what God said". As such I say KJB = King James "Bible". All others are mere "versions" of what God said. I am not interested in a version of what God said...I want to know the very words God said!!!!

Some say "well its good....but its not perfect" I say you and the devil are in agreement there... you may be at odds on other subjects, but when it comes to the word of God you and the Devil are hand in hand.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist


The word of God did NOT come perverted from it's speaker.... but wicked men pervert it today just as they did in Paul's day.... The King James is "THE BIBLE" not merely a version of it. The word of God in Chineese is "THE BIBLE" not merely a version of it. The word of God cannot be confined to foolish little "original manuscripts"....but goes beyond such silly limitations.... It is unchanging....unfaltering...incorruptable....ageless...timeless....

I do not say the KJV for that suggest that the AV1611 is merely another "version" of what God said rather the reality of it being "Exactly what God said". As such I say KJB = King James "Bible". All others are mere "versions" of what God said. I am not interested in a version of what God said...I want to know the very words God said!!!!



:amen:
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

There is thousands upon thousands out there that dislike the KJ Bible, so its not surprising that we get those that try to covert us, lead us astray, after all the old devil is hard at work and he has some very patriot hands working for him.



Thy word is very pure: therefore thy seruant loueth it.
Psalm 119:140 KJ 1611

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member
There is thousands upon thousands out there that dislike the KJ Bible' date=' so its not surprising that we get those that try to covert us, lead us astray, after all the old devil is hard at work and he has some very patriot hands working for him.[/quote']

And I'm one of them! ::insert evil villain laugh here::

Seriously now, people aren't workers of Satan simply because they aren't KJVO. That's just silly.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Lady Administrators
I am 44 yrs old....undergone many changes since birth....more wrinkles...worn edges...weak knee....scars.... but I am no less me with my reading glasses than I was at birth. I am still quite me....not ought less or more. My finger prints are the same....my name in heaven is the same....the soul within me is the same and God knew me since I was concieved. It is rather foolish then, in my opinion, to suppose that because a wrinkle has been added by time, that I am no longer who I was at birth. The supposition that because spelling errors on the printer's part or mechanics of the printing process part altered the word of God or that correcting those errors changes the word of God....is too ignorant for consideration. Again (IMO).

When God gave his word to Moses, it was in Hebrew...not English, or Spanish....but Hebrew. Does that mean God is guilty of not being fair to those who speak those languages? Does translating it to those languages change it? How absurd.... The Word of God far exceeds the limitations of puny language....it sustains the planets...supports the universes both seen and unseen....it brings salvation, light and hope....it is the very thing from which life came forth...when all else passes it remains unchanged!

It cannot merely be confined to Hebrew but spills over and through all language walls....all our little gramatical blabbering means nothing to the word of God..... the word of God lines the orbits of the planets....fuels the sun.... and we think that it is impacted by language or spelling constraints? Thats like me taking a shovel to the yard, digging a hole and then proclaiming the earth to be a different planet. How small we think...how shallow are our thoughts.....

I suggest rather than the word of God is perfect and the Lord has blessed us with guiding in its translating into English....as always, just once.... Hebrew (once), Greek (once), English (once) and on and on and on.... the word of God in chineese is what? The word of God! The word of God in Spanish is what? The word of God!

The word of God did NOT come perverted from it's speaker.... but wicked men pervert it today just as they did in Paul's day.... The King James is "THE BIBLE" not merely a version of it. The word of God in Chineese is "THE BIBLE" not merely a version of it. The word of God cannot be confined to foolish little "original manuscripts"....but goes beyond such silly limitations.... It is unchanging....unfaltering...incorruptable....ageless...timeless....

I do not say the KJV for that suggest that the AV1611 is merely another "version" of what God said rather the reality of it being "Exactly what God said". As such I say KJB = King James "Bible". All others are mere "versions" of what God said. I am not interested in a version of what God said...I want to know the very words God said!!!!

Some say "well its good....but its not perfect" I say you and the devil are in agreement there... you may be at odds on other subjects, but when it comes to the word of God you and the Devil are hand in hand.

:goodpost:
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

:goodpost:


Sad to say, some just don't have the ear to hear.

9 Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Matt 13:9 (KJV)

Many times you can tell them by their mocking ways. In the Bible we see that such people did Jesus the very same way.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 42 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

×
×
  • Create New...