Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

What's the Big Deal Saying KJV1611?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Administrators

This topic is not to discuss the accuracy of the KJV or other translations, but to discuss the use of saying "I use the KJV 1611 Bible"

Is it wrong to say that we use the KJV 1611 or should we say KJV 1763?

A common argument against the KJV is to say that we don't use the 1611 Bible but rather the 1763. I understand what took place in the English language for the updates that took place in 1763, and I also understand why I say KJV 1611. Nobody that I'm aware of says that the Bible I read is the original KJV 1611 style, but the foundation was from the KJV 1611.

It seems that that logic that is thrown in the KJV faces only applies to the Bible. I drive a 2013 Chrysler 200M. People always tell me that its a 2013, but there have been changes made to the car since 2013 (It does not have all the original 2013 parts) so why do those same people still say its a 2013 car? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I didn't know it was a common argument against the KJV when I say I use the KJV 1769 and not KJV 1611, because I do say this all the time and I am not against the KJV! I do think it is misleading to say 1611 if it's not the one you're actually using, though.  What's wrong with being accurate with the year of the KJV Bible you're using?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Yes, Sureword, the changes in 1762 and 1769 were correcting printing errors and standardizing spelling - so for all practical purposes, the 1769 is the same as the 1611, but with those changes (which do not change meaning).

I think if we need to clarify it because we are speaking about our English Bible’s history (and perhaps even discussing some of the modern attempts at editing the KJV to show that these other “re-translations” - for lack of a better word - are not the same - referring to ones such as the Modern KJV, KJV21, etc.), then mention the date - but otherwise I think it is simply just unnecessary. Most Christians that I have come across that use the KJV just assume it is the 1611, even if they aren’t aware of what “changes” were made in the 1760’s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, Jerry said:

Yes, Sureword, the changes in 1762 and 1769 were correcting printing errors and standardizing spelling - so for all practical purposes, the 1769 is the same as the 1611, but with those changes (which do not change meaning).

I think if we need to clarify it because we are speaking about our English Bible’s history (and perhaps even discussing some of the modern attempts at editing the KJV to show that these other “re-translations” - for lack of a better word - are not the same - referring to ones such as the Modern KJV, KJV21, etc.), then mention the date - but otherwise I think it is simply just unnecessary. Most Christians that I have come across that use the KJV just assume it is the 1611, even if they aren’t aware of what “changes” were made in the 1760’s.

If we really want to split hairs we shouldn't call it the KJV or the AV since it was not called that in the beginning. Neither title caught on until years later. Not until 1814 was it even called the KJV 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 28 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...