KJV versus Modern Translations

[farouk]

Modern versions are after 1611 . To be exact the one published in 1769. That's the one on the shelves today . I did not mean to imply mean ones like niv esv or the like my apologies about any misunderstanding
Blessings
Bill

I do like your Lion quote! :)

 

[Preacher4Truth]

169?

What are the differences between the 1611 KJV, and the KJV today?

LMGTFY

 

[Stranger]

Sorry, I meant 1629.

The mainly spelling of the original 1611 is completely different. I guess a photo search engine with 'original 1611' might show a page.

Gee. spelling is really a big difference? No. It's not.

Stranger

 

[farouk]

LMGTFY

Looks like an interesting search tool...

 

[Preacher4Truth]

Gee. spelling is really a big difference? No. It's not.

Stranger

Actually the letter styling of the 1611 is confusing comparatively. Makes a bit of a difference. You haven't seen this yourself?

 

[Stranger]

Actually the letter styling of the 1611 is confusing comparatively. Makes a bit of a difference. You haven't seen this yourself?

Oh, the letter styling, that really makes a big difference. Makes you so 'confused'.

Stranger

 

[Laish]

Stranger Maybe I misunderstood you in my first post quoting you those are the differences between the 1611 and the modern 1769 on the shelves today . It's probably the one your most familiar with. The list is from a kjv only site that only excepts the original 1611
Blessings
Bill

 

[Stranger]

Stranger Maybe I misunderstood you in my first post quoting you those are the differences between the 1611 and the modern 1769 on the shelves today . It's probably the one your most familiar with. The list is from a kjv only site that only excepts the original 1611
Blessings
Bill

So, what is the problem?

Stranger

 

[farouk]

Actually the letter styling of the 1611 is confusing comparatively. Makes a bit of a difference. You haven't seen this yourself?

Style is certain part of it! (Interestingly, some of characteristics of the KJ21 lie in the difference in format and font, rather than in huge changes in wording.)

 

[farouk]

Stranger Maybe I misunderstood you in my first post quoting you those are the differences between the 1611 and the modern 1769 on the shelves today . It's probably the one your most familiar with. The list is from a kjv only site that only excepts the original 1611
Blessings
Bill

Such comparisons between the different King James versions can be very interesting, especially given some of the strong statements that are sometimes made about the KJV (which I love and use).

 

[Preacher4Truth]

Oh, the letter styling, that really makes a big difference. Makes you so 'confused'.

Stranger

So you just want to argue.

When people see the letter style of the 1611 it is odd and confusing.

You should follow the link provided you and read up on the differences.

 

[Laish]

So, what is the problem?

Stranger

No you asked for differences. So there is a few .
For me I have no problem. I like it I understand it . I know that word meaning have changed from what is used today .
Blessings
Bill

 

[farouk]

So you just want to argue.

When people see the letter style of the 1611 it is odd and confusing.

You should follow the link provided you and read up on the differences.

Thanks anyway for the link.

 

[farouk]

No you asked for differences. So there is a few .
For me I have no problem. I like it I understand it . I know that word meaning have changed from what is used today .
Blessings
Bill

It's probably a case of both meanings and spellings; but if the basic spellings are standardized - as they were - then the meanings should probably not be too difficult - in my humble view - in what is basically a very reliable and time honored version.

 

[CoreIssue]

The KJV never accepted the apocrypha as Scripture. Try again.

Show the differences between the 1611 and the present day KJV.

Stranger

I did post 39

The apocrypha was in the 1611.

 

[Laish]

It's probably a case of both meanings and spellings; but if the basic spellings are standardized - as they were - then the meanings should probably not be too difficult - in my humble view - in what is basically a very reliable and time honored version.

No not at all for me. I get it I had experience with early modern English . Where many don't . Never knew doing Shakespeare was going to come in handy .
I will say many people have problems with the language. For younger folks I recommend ESV or NKJ
I also like the poetic sense of the KJV .
I also have it among other translations for Bible study .
Blessings
Bill

 

[CoreIssue]

This is not the language of the 1679. And it contained the apocryphal which was later removed.

A lot of work meaning changed. Some words stopped even being used.

Anyone who says the KJV of today is the 1611 version either doesn't know what they're talking about or is flat out lying.

Unicorn is use seven times in the KJV.

The KJV replaces Passover with Easter.

If the 1611 is only true Bible why do you use the 1679 version?

 

[Stranger]

So you just want to argue.

When people see the letter style of the 1611 it is odd and confusing.

You should follow the link provided you and read up on the differences.

No, it seems everyone else wants to argue. I am saying what is the 'so called' big differences' in the KJV of 1611 and that of today? So far it is just spelling. Oh gee, that is really big!

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

I did post 39

The apocrypha was in the 1611.

The apocrypha was never considered Scripture by the KJV. Thus it was placed at the end by itself. What now?

Stranger

 

[CoreIssue]

The apocrypha was never considered Scripture by the KJV. Thus it was placed at the end by itself. What now?

Stranger

Then why was it included between the old And new testaments and listed in the index as just other books of the Bible?