1611 or 1769. Which King James Bible do YOU read?

[Jayne]

I've asked this question twice in another thread and it's twice been ignored.

I like the King James.  It was all we had growing up.  

It is not my preferred version today.  My pastor will only preach from the 1769 King James, but will often say, "What does the ESV or NIV say here?" or he will say "This is better translated as 'such and such".

So he is not King James Only, just King James preferred.  I'm ESV or NIV preferred, but still like the 1769 King James and will read it. occasionally.

My question for those who prefer the King James and speak of its value, in part, of being around for over 400 years.......

Do you read the 1611 or the 1769?

There are vast differences in spellings [which doesn't matter a hill of beans - it just makes for difficult reading for most]......

Example:  John 3:16 - [1611] = "For God so loued þe world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne:

that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.”

 

But there ARE very few content differences that are minor in number, but significant in meaning.  Some examples:

 

• Ezekiel 24:7 [1769] - Jerusalem is a very bloody city and sinful city.  The poetic language in the 1769 says that "For her blood is in the midst of her; she set it upon the top of a rock; she poured it not upon the ground, to cover it with dust..." - implying no humility and no repentance.  Jerusalem would not humble itself.
• Ezekiel 24:7 [1611] - This Bible says, "For her blood is in the middest of her: she set it vpon the toppe of a rocke, she powred it vpon the ground to couer it with dust...”  The 1611 says that they DID pour their blood upon the ground - implying humility and repentance.

There are more, but this one will do.

Please do not:

• Post on here bashing the King James.  The 1769 is a good Bible.
• Post on here claiming the King James is perfect and has been for 400  years.  It's not perfect.  It's GOOD,  but not perfect.

I just want to know - for those professing the King James as being the best Bible for 400 years - which one do you read and trust.

The 1611 or the 1769.  And why.

 

 

 

 

 

[Dave-regenerated]

I cannot see any differences between the two version in this you posted: - 

• Ezekiel 24:7 [1769] - Jerusalem is a very bloody city and sinful city.  The poetic language in the 1769 says that "For her blood is in the midst of her; she set it upon the top of a rock; she poured it not upon the ground, to cover it with dust..." - implying no humility and no repentance.  Jerusalem would not humble itself.
• Ezekiel 24:7 [1611] - This Bible says, "For her blood is in the middest of her: she set it vpon the toppe of a rocke, she powred it vpon the ground to couer it with dust...”  The 1611 says that they DID pour their blood upon the ground - implying humility and repentance.

One of them is simply updated English and they are both saying exactly the same thing.

[Jedi4Yahweh]

57 minutes ago, Jayne said:

I've asked this question twice in another thread and it's twice been ignored.

I like the King James.  It was all we had growing up.  

It is not my preferred version today.  My pastor will only preach from the 1769 King James, but will often say, "What does the ESV or NIV say here?" or he will say "This is better translated as 'such and such".

So he is not King James Only, just King James preferred.  I'm ESV or NIV preferred, but still like the 1769 King James and will read it. occasionally.

My question for those who prefer the King James and speak of its value, in part, of being around for over 400 years.......

Do you read the 1611 or the 1769?

There are vast differences in spellings [which doesn't matter a hill of beans - it just makes for difficult reading for most]......

Example:  John 3:16 - [1611] = "For God so loued þe world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne:

that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.”

 

But there ARE very few content differences that are minor in number, but significant in meaning.  Some examples:

 

• Ezekiel 24:7 [1769] - Jerusalem is a very bloody city and sinful city.  The poetic language in the 1769 says that "For her blood is in the midst of her; she set it upon the top of a rock; she poured it not upon the ground, to cover it with dust..." - implying no humility and no repentance.  Jerusalem would not humble itself.
• Ezekiel 24:7 [1611] - This Bible says, "For her blood is in the middest of her: she set it vpon the toppe of a rocke, she powred it vpon the ground to couer it with dust...”  The 1611 says that they DID pour their blood upon the ground - implying humility and repentance.

There are more, but this one will do.

Please do not:

• Post on here bashing the King James.  The 1769 is a good Bible.
• Post on here claiming the King James is perfect and has been for 400  years.  It's not perfect.  It's GOOD,  but not perfect.

I just want to know - for those professing the King James as being the best Bible for 400 years - which one do you read and trust.

The 1611 or the 1769.  And why.

 

The KJV 1611 includes 15 other books of the apocrypha as did the Geneva bible which most of the reformation fathers used.  I enjoy reading the apocrypha books. I really don't have a preference of any particular bible.  I find reading scriptures from different translation helps to better clarify scriptures.  I also spend much time reading the English version of Septuagint/LXX and comparing that to modern translations.  I find the Septuagint to be more accurate than the KJV mesocratic text which predates the mesocratic text by over 1000 years and was believed to the used by the apostles and 1st century Christians.

Edited October 26, 2022 by Jedi4Yahweh

[Willa]

I use New King James or else ESV, and occasionally Amplified or ALT3.  Never use 1769 or 1611 because I am dyslexic and have enough problems with comprehension without the use of antiquated English.

[DeighAnn]

I tried the 1611 and though it is 'English'  , it is too hard for me to read, so I stick with the King James, must be the 1769.  I don't like other Bible translations.  Maybe it is because my brain learned His words in that manner, and not modern.  It feels like my 'bible' language,  different than anything else.  I like that distinction of being 'set apart', I guess.  

[other one]

3 hours ago, Jayne said:

I just want to know - for those professing the King James as being the best Bible for 400 years - which one do you read and trust.

If there are only two then i use the 1769.   I read it in Biblesoft's digital Bible and it's copy-write date is 1988.   However I rarely read this version just use it when researching a subject along with six or seven others.

However I do have the Bible read by Alexander Scorby of what I assume is the 1769 and I do listen to it often.   I try to listen to the whole bible once a year.  Back when I was working and driving 3,500 miles a month I listened to it all twice a year and the new testament at least once a month.  If I had some question about doctrine I would just listen to the whole thing with two or three subjects in mind and take notes as it was read.

I also found some non Biblical books very helpful in learning history and the customs and general cosmology of the people during the times the bible was written.   It adds a lot of context to the scripture especially if going all the way back to the Hebrew and Greek.

[David1701]

4 hours ago, Jedi4Yahweh said:

The KJV 1611 includes 15 other books of the apocrypha as did the Geneva bible which most of the reformation fathers used.  I enjoy reading the apocrypha books. I really don't have a preference of any particular bible.  I find reading scriptures from different translation helps to better clarify scriptures.  I also spend much time reading the English version of Septuagint/LXX and comparing that to modern translations.  I find the Septuagint to be more accurate than the KJV mesocratic text which predates the mesocratic text by over 1000 years and was believed to the used by the apostles and 1st century Christians.

The KJV only included the apocrypha because King James insisted.  The translators gave 15 reasons for not including it, if I recall correctly.  Although they included it, they separated it from the inspired OT books and slapped "Apocrypha" on every page, so that people would know not to treat it as inspired.

If you like the Septuagint, what do you think of Psalm 151 (a serious question)?

[TheBlade]

Matters not to me also. What we know is Apocrypha is not the inspired Word of God was some say written 200bc up to 400ad. This is huge! To just ignore this and run with its of GOD! For me is very unwise. 

Edited October 26, 2022 by TheBlade

[Jedi4Yahweh]

1 hour ago, David1701 said:

The KJV only included the apocrypha because King James insisted.  The translators gave 15 reasons for not including it, if I recall correctly.  Although they included it, they separated it from the inspired OT books and slapped "Apocrypha" on every page, so that people would know not to treat it as inspired.

If you like the Septuagint, what do you think of Psalm 151 (a serious question)?

Martin Luther who pushed for the the 15 books of the apocrypha removed from the bible also wanted Hebrews, James, Jude, Daniel, and Revelation removed as well, should we consider those books as uninspired as well?  These books where considered inspired writings up until the 1800's and were found in most bibles.

[creativemechanic]

sticking to the KJV isnt wrong but the mindset accompanying it can be destructive. Many Christians have been conditioned into thinking it is THE Bible and not just one of many translations of it.

Gods word is perfect, but man-made translations can and have been shown to be flawed.

Thus they'll refuse to change from it to the newer ones with more updated /accurate to today language or acknowledge them as viable versions. They can be rabidly defensive

Problem is- due language changing  over the centuries and man made errors, there are some parts of the KJV that can be misleading and have been fixed in some of the newer translations but the KJV only proponents refuse to listen and stick to what they are accustomed to