KJV-ER: Thoughts and Opinions

[ptwild]

Just a question are you using the 1611 or the 1769 AV? because it reads like the 1769 AV.

To call either of these publications the authorized version is technically false. The 1611 is considered the authorized version, but King James nor Queen Elizabeth I ever officially authorized them. In any event, the only one ever officially sanctioned by the Anglican Church is the 1611.

[Guest Guest]

Candlelight,

Just a question are you using the 1611 or the 1769 AV? because it reads like the 1769 AV.

Yes, Kayla! It is the KJV 1611 AV. I don't own a 1769 Version of the Bible.

candlelight

[Marcus2Israel]

Wow........ :nutty I would have quoted all the stuff i'm wowing about but it would fill the page.

[Guest Guest]

Marcus2Israel...Believe me, the thought was very tempting. :dead:

candlelight

[Kayla]

Yes, Kayla! It is the KJV 1611 AV. I don't own a 1769 Version of the Bible.

candlelight

Who is the publisher of your Bible?

[Jerry]

The 1611 is the exact same as the 1769 - with the spelling standardized and the printing errors corrected. If you literally have a 1611 reprint, must be hard to read in that Gothic type with all those printing and spelling errors...

As far as being authorized, the King James Bible was authorized by the people of God, regardless of whether certain political leaders may have authorized it or not. Look up the definition of "authorize(d)" in Webster's 1828 Dictionary, and you will see that fits.

[Kayla]

The 1611 is the exact same as the 1769 - with the spelling standardized and the printing errors corrected. If you literally have a 1611 reprint, must be hard to read in that Gothic type with all those printing and spelling errors...

As far as being authorized, the King James Bible was authorized by the people of God, regardless of whether certain political leaders may have authorized it or not. Look up the definition of "authorize(d)" in Webster's 1828 Dictionary, and you will see that fits.

My point exactly. Most people who say they are 1611, are really using the 1769...which really makes no difference what so ever. Both are the Word of God, the 1769 is cleaned up a little. The search here on OB is the 1769 AV. To my knowledge Hendrickson is the only publisher that still prints actual reproductions of the 1611.

[Guest Guest]

Who is the publisher of your Bible?

Hi Kayla! I use The Scofield Study Bible. It is published by Oxford University Press, Inc.

I believe that the problem isn't the Bible, though, it is my eyes. The scripture should read: Romans 5:9-10...Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. KJV 1611 AV.

candlelight

[ptwild]

As far as being authorized, the King James Bible was authorized by the people of God, regardless of whether certain political leaders may have authorized it or not. Look up the definition of "authorize(d)" in Webster's 1828 Dictionary, and you will see that fits.

Jerry, I agree. Although I probably wouldn't use "people of God," as CERTAIN (not all) "people of God" have "authorized" other versions. And I wasn't disputing the meaning of the word "authorized," just pointing out that the phrase "authorized version" that appears alongside the KJV regularly, is a misnomer. The reason it is often referred to as the "authorized version" is because most people mistakenly assume it was officially authorized by the Elizabeth I.

[Kayla]

I was always taught that it was called authorized because King James authorized the men to translate the original texts into English...

[Guest Guest]

I was always taught that it was called authorized because King James authorized the men to translate the original texts into English...

In addition to this...The greatest group of scholars that the world has ever known used the original works. These scholars knew thousands of different languages...including Egyptian, Arabic, Hebrew, etc. They had mastered thousands of different languages. This Bible is a masterpiece!

candlelight

[Guest Guest]

thousands? I would like to see some documentation for that, I don't doubt that they were well learned and knew a number of languages but I find myself sceptical of the claim of "thousands" and will remain so until I see some proof that is actually the case.

[Guest Guest]

I believe Seth, that, the intention was and should have been, they had access to an untold number of manuscripts to work from and compare.....




mksj1611

[Guest Guest]

thousands? I would like to see some documentation for that' date=' I don't doubt that they were well learned and knew a number of languages but I find myself sceptical of the claim of "thousands" and will remain so until I see some proof that is actually the case.[/quote']

I will check on that for you, Seth. I was saved in May of 2003 after an evangelist preached Baptist history. He was saved at the age of 3. His dad was an Independent Baptist preacher. He has been preaching and teaching Theology his entire adult life. He is a historian...so, unless I copied my notes incorrectly, I believe it is accurate. Again, I will check for you.

candlelight

P.S. ~ He also has a radio program in Northern Ohio called, "Where's the Word." It is IFB, and has led many to Jesus Christ.

[Guest Guest]

Thank you. I do hope that you misunderstood and he wasn't just preaching and allowing truth to be carried away by eloquence for the sake of a point. Sadly, I have seen that occur even among teachers who are generally correct doctrinally. Exaggeration is a easy trap to fall into, especially when you are passionately trying to make a point.