1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

1611 version?

Discussion in 'Christian Theology Forum' started by Sean A., May 11, 2007.

  1. Sean A.

    Sean A. New Member

    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have a feeling from some of the things I've seen on this forum that most on here use this version. What is so special about this version? Let the harassment begin!!
     
  2. Jordan

    Jordan Active Member

    Messages:
    4,884
    Likes Received:
    4
    (Sean A.)
    What is so special about this version?
    It is simply the best bible...the truth to mankind. (along side with Geneva, and Tyndale which is older than the KJB)(Sean A.)
    Let the harassment begin!!
    You mess with this Bible, you mess with God's Words (in English, which is translated from Hebrew to English and Greek to English) *sigh* Don't make me start listing everything. Lucy hates this Bible.Lovest ye in Christ Jesus our Lord and Saviour.
     
  3. HammerStone

    HammerStone Well-Known Member Staff Member

    Messages:
    5,111
    Likes Received:
    243
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    The KJV is simply the best Bible. It does the best job in translating from the Hebrew and Greek while trying to keep the original meaning intact. It also does the best job, of any translation, in capturing the beauty and depth of what has been said.
     
  4. Sean A.

    Sean A. New Member

    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is it the only Bible or is it just the best? When you say KJV do you mean 1611 KJV?
     
  5. Jordan

    Jordan Active Member

    Messages:
    4,884
    Likes Received:
    4
    KJB whether it was 1611, or today...they are still the same. (except for the spelling)Lovest ye in Christ Jesus our Lord and Saviour.
     
  6. Sean A.

    Sean A. New Member

    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    0
    (thesuperjag;10597)
    *sigh* Don't make me start listing everything. Lucy hates this Bible.
    Do you think I'll want you to list everything?? Probably so![​IMG]
     
  7. HammerStone

    HammerStone Well-Known Member Staff Member

    Messages:
    5,111
    Likes Received:
    243
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Is it the only Bible or is it just the best? When you say KJV do you mean 1611 KJV?
    KJV = King James Version, authorized 1611. I have a copy of the original manuscript as well as the slightly modernized version that updated the alphabet. It is the best by far for English translations and I'd say the best outside of the original manuscripts. There are other versions that offer decent interpretations out there, but they pale against the KJV.
     
  8. Jordan

    Jordan Active Member

    Messages:
    4,884
    Likes Received:
    4
    That's what Lucy wants. He wants to give us an imperfect bible that removes key words, key verses and attack the doctrine. Lucy gives us like so many english bibles. God gaves at least 3 english bibles. Yes I am completely ignorance to modern bibles.Lovest thou in Christ Jesus our Lord and Saviour.
     
  9. Sean A.

    Sean A. New Member

    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    0
    KJV = King James Version, authorized 1611. I have a copy of the original manuscriptI have one as well so how many books in yours? This will tell if you have the 1611 or a slightly new version 1640 or later.When you say original do you mean original English or Greek or Latin or German?
     
  10. HammerStone

    HammerStone Well-Known Member Staff Member

    Messages:
    5,111
    Likes Received:
    243
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    I have one as well so how many books in yours? This will tell if you have the 1611 or a slightly new version 1640 or later.
    To answer your question, I do have the apocrypha included. As stated, the original copy is 1611. That shouldn't need to be stated. I also have later copies excluding them.
    When you say original do you mean original English or Greek or Latin or German?
    The original would be the Hebrew (Chaldee, Aramaic, etc.) and the Greek. Hebrew far surpasses English when it comes to meaning. Our language, as good as it is, fails to capture the depth.
     
  11. betchevy

    betchevy New Member

    Messages:
    518
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't have the 1611 or at least not that I know of..., but I use a KJV and the reason wy is because I also use a Strongs to go deeper and understand the orginal languages and their meanings... I do not think it is perfect there are some words that are just not good translating... I study with a lingust who can read the orginal texts and update me as I am not educated in the Greek Chaldee or Hebrew enough to read.. I have a Greens interlinear and a Companion Bible also...the work done by Bullinger in the appendixes are worth it.. To have the acrostics and and his language education available is a blessing...
     
  12. Sean A.

    Sean A. New Member

    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    0
    So you must consider the apocrypha canon?I only question the number of times it was translated. Greek to Latin, Latin back to Greek, and then from that version of Greek to English. It seems like a lot of opportunity for things to be lost in translation. Take the NIV for example it is translated straight from the Greek. Less opportunity for error in my opinion.
     
  13. Jordan

    Jordan Active Member

    Messages:
    4,884
    Likes Received:
    4
    The NIV contains full of errors. The fact is why must they remove at least 7 verses that was in the KJB? Huh? Every word is needed. God told us not to remove, add, or change His words. God hates it. That's why we must be careful on how we pick.Lovest ye in Christ Jesus our Lord and Saviour.
     
  14. HammerStone

    HammerStone Well-Known Member Staff Member

    Messages:
    5,111
    Likes Received:
    243
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    [​IMG] I only question the number of times it was translated. Greek to Latin, Latin back to Greek, and then from that version of Greek to English. It seems like a lot of opportunity for things to be lost in translation. Take the NIV for example it is translated straight from the Greek. Less opportunity for error in my opinion. http://www.christianityboard.com/editpost....ditpost&p=10614
    Of course that ignores who did the translation. With the KJV and even some of the initial more modern versions, the translators believed what they were translating. I'll refrain from naming versions here, but modern versions - and trusted ones at that - are translated by a scholarly community that denies anything before the period of the Judges is true, believes the Pentateuch and much of the OT to have been written by four groups, denies prophecy in that anything was prophesied about was done so after it occurred, and maintains that the Bible itself is nothing more than an elitist view of religion in Israel. The Bible is merely a collection of biased stories and fables to them.If you don't believe me, research the viewpoints that are commonly held. I've studied in this community and I know what it's all about. You don't need me though, it's in Scripture as well as to what will happen.Do we really want someone like that telling us what the Word says?If you're comfortable with that, jump right in. You'll have to make your own choice there, but I've made mine and it won't change.To address your Apocrypha question, there's a reason they were dropped from subsequent versions. It was a casting off of the old via the Church in the period. On some accounts they do seem to substantiate and agree with Scripture, but on others they directly conflict. One has to study with caution and remember they're removed for a reason.
     
  15. betchevy

    betchevy New Member

    Messages:
    518
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sean do you know what the acrostics are?
     
  16. jesse7

    jesse7 New Member

    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    Betchevy, U do have the 1611 version if you have the companion bible by kregel. I did a study yesterday on the 1611 and it was very interesting.
     
  17. betchevy

    betchevy New Member

    Messages:
    518
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bullingers study of the Book of Esther 1:It has been noted by many shcolars that the name of God does not appear anywhere in the book of Esther it has only 167 verses Yahneh declared in Deut. 31:16-18 if His people looked for Him they would find Him , but if they forsook HIm He would HIDE HIS FACE FROM THEM... so in Esther the name is there for those who would SEEK HIM and HIS TRUTH, not satans truth but GOD"S HOLY TRUTH...so the Holy name is hidden in Esther four times ... plainly in sight for those who have eyes to see...1. in each acase the four words forming the acrostic are consecutive.2. in all but the first they form a sentence complete in itself.3. there are no other such Acrostics in the whole book except the fifth acrosctic at the end forming another Devine title.4. in their consturction there are not 2 alike, but each on in arranged in a manner quite different form the other three,5.Each is utter by a different speaker. the 1st by Memucan (1:20) the 2nd by Ester(5:4), the 3rd by Haman (5:13)the 4th by the inspired writer.(7:7).6. the first 2 Acrostics are a pair, haing formed the Name by the INITIAL letters.7. the last 2 are a pair, having the name form by the final letters or the four words. 8. the first and 3rd are a pair haing the name spelt backwards.The True Holy Name of God Yod Hay VAV Hay is there hidden for those who will seek it... ONLY IN THE KJV can you see it... and find it... the other versions have lost this ... and so much more ... There are other Acrostics in the Word...in Psalms using the aleph-bet..Heres fifty points that most likely will be changed form the original in any translation sine 1811.... these are the point scholors check first to see whether the text holds true on not.. this is priinted from http://www.av1611.org/kjv/fight.html#fight21. Genesis 1:29. Omit the word "meat" since there is no real flesh in the verse, only plant life. This will destroy the cross reference to the "meat offering" of Leviticus 2, which is really a GRAIN offering with no flesh. The Bible has it's own built in dictionary, but let's not allow people to know it. 2. Genesis 3:5. Alter the word "gods" and the cross references to Psalm 82, I Corinthians 8:5, and II Corinthians 4:4 will be destroyed. 3. Genesis 22:1. The word "tempt" in the verse should be replaced with "try". Here's another case of the "built-in dictionary". James 1:2-3 explains the kind of tempting that this was, but let's hide it from as many Christians as possible. 4. Numbers 33:52. Someone might use the word "pictures" as a reference to television. Throw it out! 5. Isaiah 7:14. Attack the virgin birth by omitting the word "virgin". After all, the Hebrew word "almah" can mean a virgin, a damsel, or just a young woman. Laodicean Christians are too lazy to check Matthew 1:23 to see how Matthew translated it. 6. Daniel 3:25. There's Jesus Christ in the Old Testament! Can't have that! Someone might get the idea that He's eternal. Change "the Son of God" to "a son of the gods." 7. Micah 5:2. Another chance to attack the eternal existence of Christ. Throw out "everlasting". 8. Zechariah 9:9. We're not interested in anyone being SAVED, so omit the words "having salvation". 9. Matthew 1:25. Omit "firstborn" because it shows the reader that Mary had other children after Jesus and did NOT remain a perpetual virgin. They'll never think to check Psalm 69:8, Galatians 1:19, or John 7:5. 10. Matthew 5:22. Let's create a contradiction by omitting the words "without a cause". This will make Jesus contradict Paul in Ephesians 4:26. 11. Matthew 6:13. Omit the "kingdom", the "power", and the "glory". 12. Matthew 27:54. Change "the Son of God" to "a son of God". 13. Mark 1:1. This is the only Gospel which refers to Christ as the "Son of God" in the very first verse. Throw it out. 14. Mark 16:9-20. Either throw out the last twelve verses of Mark or raise doubt about them in the margins and footnotes. The less we read of a resurrected Christ the better. 15. Luke 1:34. Change Mary's words "I know not a man" to "I have no husband". This will allow for possible fornication between Mary and Joseph, which could make Joseph the father of Jesus. 16. Luke 2:33. Attack the virgin birth again by replacing "Joseph" with "father". 17. Luke 4:4. Omit "by every word of God". No one will think to check Deuteronomy 8:3. 18. Luke 23:42. Here's a sinner being saved by calling upon the name of the "Lord", which is in perfect tune with Romans 10:13. Replace the divine title "Lord" with the human name "Jesus". 19. Luke 24:51. Raise doubt about the ascension of Christ by omitting the words "carried up into heaven". Hopefully, no one will check Luke's later comments in Acts 1:1-2. 20. John 1:14. Omit the word "begotten", just like in John 1:18, 3:16, and 3:18. 21. Acts 1:3. Omit the word "infallible". Nothing is infallible. 22. Acts 4:27. Jesus wasn't God's "child". He was only His "servant". 23. Acts 8:37. Either omit the entire verse or raise doubt about it, because this verse states that scriptural water baptism is conditional upon BELIEF. 24. Acts 12:4. Change "Easter" to "passover". No one will ever read Exodus and Numbers to find the truth. 25. Acts 17:22. Change "superstitious" to "religious". 26. Romans 1:18. Let's change "hold the truth in unrighteousness" to "suppress the truth", which is a much weaker reading. 27. Romans 1:25. Let's say they "exchanged the truth of God for a lie" instead of "changed the truth of God into a lie". 28. Romans 1:29. Throw out "fornication". 29. Romans 10:17. Replace the word "God" with "Christ". This will teach that faith comes by rallying around the person of Jesus alone and not by feeding on every word of God (Luke 4:4). 30. Romans 14:10. Change the word "Christ" to "God". This will prevent anyone from realizing that Jesus Christ is God when they read verse twelve. 31. I Corinthians 1:22. Change "require" to "request", and destroy the great truth about signs being for Israel. 32. II Corinthians 2:17. Since we are guilty of corrupting the word of God, replace the word "corrupt" with "peddle". 33. II Corinthians 5:17. Replace the word "creature" with "creation", although Mark 16:15 says "creature". 34. Ephesians 1:7. Throw out the "blood". 35. Philippians 3:21. People don't have "vile" bodies. They just have "lowly" bodies. 36. Colossians 1:14. Throw out the "blood". 37. I Thessalonians 5:22. Omit the word "appearance" so Christians will not be very concerned about their testimony. 38. I Timothy 3:16. The verse says that "God was manifest in the flesh". Attack the Deity of Christ and the Incarnation by throwing "God" clear out of the verse. 39. I Timothy 6:10. Change "all evil" to "all kinds of evil". 40. I Timothy 6:20. Since many heresies are taught today in the name of "science", and this verse gives a strong warning against "science falsely so-called", change the word "science" to "knowledge". 41. II Timothy 2:15. This is the only command in the Bible to "study" the word of God. Omit the word "study". 42. James 5:16. Let's justify Roman Catholic confessionals by changing the word "faults" to "sins". 43. I Peter 5:11. Omit "glory" and "dominion". 44. I John 1:7. Omit the word "Christ". 45. I John 4:3. Omit the words "Christ is come in the flesh". 46. I John 5:7. There's the Trinity! Throw out the whole verse or insert marginal notes to raise doubt about it. 47. Revelation 1:5. Omit the word "blood". 48. Revelation 5:9. Omit the word "blood". 49. Revelation 11:15. Change the many "kingdoms" that Jesus Christ will receive to one singular "kingdom". 50. Revelation 11:17. Attack the Second Coming of Christ by omitting the words "art to come".I seek TRUTH and those who do not are seeking foolishness... why study fairy tales when you can study and KNOW God by His Holy Word?
     
Loading...