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

[Omegaman 3.0]

Currently I am reading the 1560 Geneva Bible (seriously), I lack some confidence in some of those "modern translations" like the KJV, especially knowing it was authorized by a King who did not like what many protestants had to say and was the supposed 'head of the church' sort of a non-Roman Catholic pope! That being said, I think the KJV is a good translation, just not the best!

We could go back to an earlier textus receptus, 1175, the read a translation like this (the first few verses of Matt 5:

Videns iesus turbas ascendit in montem.  Soðlice þa se hælend geseah þa manige. he astah on þanne munt. þa he sæt þa geneahlahten his leorning-cnihtes to hym.
he untynde hys muð lærde hyo cwæð.
Eadige synde þa gastlice þearfan forþan hyora is heofena riche.
Eadige syndde þa lyðan. forðan þe hyo eorðan agunnen.
Eadige sind þa þe nu wepeð for-þan þe hyo beoð gefrefrede.

but my Anglo-Saxon  (proto English) is a bit rusty and I have  hard time reading, so I prefer translations from my own time and language 20th and 21st century English.

 

[Selah7]

15 hours 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.

 

 

 

 

 

I use the 1611, Jayne, but mine reads a little differently. 

Ezekiel 24:7

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;

Divine pronouns are capitalized in my version, which I really love.  
 

Selah

[BibleStudent100]

8 hours ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

Currently I am reading the 1560 Geneva Bible (seriously), I lack some confidence in some of those "modern translations" like the KJV, especially knowing it was authorized by a King who did not like what many protestants had to say and was the supposed 'head of the church' sort of a non-Roman Catholic pope! That being said, I think the KJV is a good translation, just not the best!

There is no way to argue against the notion that the King James is the best Bible ever regarding the crafting of beautiful language; it is a true literary work!  But it did not draw upon the extant Bible documents of the day, but rather was a reworking of the works of both Tyndale and Coverdale, which were revisions of the Bishops’ Bible. Additionally, the KJ scholars also relied on the Geneva Bible and the Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament of 1582.

I prefer to read modern day Bible translations that seek to use original source documents as much as possible in their translations, which include early Bible transcripts. 

[Dennis1209]

 A very thought-provoking subject, Jayne. I’ll try to do something difficult for me and stay on topic. 😊

There is a 99% chance everyone owns and uses the 1769 translation for apparent reasons; it’s more understandable and readable than the original 1611 by comparison. Responding to your question, I went through the very first dozen pages of my KJV Bibles (those pages that few seldom read). I was amazed that some of my KJV Bibles are printed in “China.” But that was not what I was searching for.

In the copyright, forward, editing, etc., nothing is mentioned as a 1769 translation of the 1611 translation (interesting).

I want to mention one thing in general that pertains to any translation—singing in harmony off the same sheet of music. How often from the pulpit with a guest speaker or your paster at another church? Has the speaker said, “turn to such and such verse and follow along with me?” You cannot follow along because he is reading, and you are hearing something different than what you are reading. It is babel in my head, and it is probably just me.

For me, the accuracy of the translation trumps archaic language, ease of flow, readability, and modern language (thee, Thou's, thy, etc.). I do love Old English, though! Doest thou?

Without delving into the massive task of the history of our translations of the various Bibles. The Textus Receptus (Majority Text) was the most accepted by the 2^nd, 3^rd, 15^th, 16^th, and 17th-century churches, save the RCC.

The history of how we got our Bible(s) (the majority and minority copies of texts, Geneva, Bishop’s, 1611, 1769, et al.) is fascinating. I’ll insert a standalone opinion at this point. Since the 19^th century, I think the best-selling Book of all time was turned into a cash cow with 300+ English translations and versions.

The following is something I find thought-provoking and exciting for the generation in which we live. As the Lord foretold, we and this generation witnessed the rebirth of Israel in a single day (May 14, 1948). As predicted, we witnessed Israel taking back the mountains of Israel and control of Jerusalem again (1967 Six-Day War).

Isaiah 29:4 (KJV) And thou shalt be brought down, and shalt speak out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust.

Many respected biblical scholars think the above verse references the discovery of the Qumran Dead Sea Scrolls in 1946. Most scholars agree these scrolls were written in the 2^nd or 3^rd centuries B.C. Historically that was about the same time as the translation of the LXX. The Dead Sea Scrolls predate all source material used for our Bibles.

Not that we needed it, but the Dead Sea Scrolls validate the authenticity and accuracy of the manuscripts and our KJV Bible.

Several Bibles have been revised and eliminated many inserted italics in our Bibles. The KJV Bible was not revised to reflect those changes. However, all my modern copies of the KJV are footnoted with any corrections and additions.

I hope I didn’t go off-topic too awful bad.  😊

[Selah7]

3 hours ago, BibleStudent100 said:

There is no way to argue against the notion that the King James is the best Bible ever regarding the crafting of beautiful language; it is a true literary work!  But it did not draw upon the extant Bible documents of the day, but rather was a reworking of the works of both Tyndale and Coverdale, which were revisions of the Bishops’ Bible. Additionally, the KJ scholars also relied on the Geneva Bible and the Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament of 1582.

I prefer to read modern day Bible translations that seek to use original source documents as much as possible in their translations, which include early Bible transcripts. 

Would you mind sharing which Bible translations you read? Bible shopping is exciting, and I'm always on the lookout for those that provide additional nuggets of info.      —Selah 

[Jayne]

5 hours ago, Selah7 said:

I use the 1611, Jayne, but mine reads a little differently. 

Ezekiel 24:7

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;

Divine pronouns are capitalized in my version, which I really love.  
 

Selah

I'm no expert, but are you sure you have the original 1611?  The spellings in what you cited are different.

Here is a link to a side by side comparison.  KJV 1611-1769 Parallel Ezekiel Chapter 24 (blackletterkingjamesbible.com)

[Selah7]

21 minutes ago, Jayne said:

I'm no expert, but are you sure you have the original 1611?  The spellings in what you cited are different.

Here is a link to a side by side comparison.  KJV 1611-1769 Parallel Ezekiel Chapter 24 (blackletterkingjamesbible.com)

[Selah7]

Hey Jayne, it must be a revised edition.  Perhaps?   
S.

[Jayne]

7 minutes ago, Selah7 said:

Hey Jayne, it must be a revised edition.  Perhaps?   
S.

Yes, that's what I think.  

[Omegaman 3.0]

2 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

or me, the accuracy of the translation trumps archaic language, ease of flow, readability, and modern language (thee, Thou's, thy, etc.). I do love Old English, though! Doest thou?

Without delving into the massive task of the history of our translations of the various Bibles. The Textus Receptus (Majority Text) was the most accepted by the 2^nd, 3^rd, 15^th, 16^th, and 17th-century churches, save the RCC.

The history of how we got our Bible(s) (the majority and minority copies of texts, Geneva, Bishop’s, 1611, 1769, et al.) is fascinating. I’ll insert a standalone opinion at this point. Since the 19^th century, I think the best-selling Book of all time was turned into a cash cow with 300+ English translations and versions.

For those interested in some of those details, I recommend:

Regarding the "cash cow" aspect of Bibles, I have wondered from time to time, if translators did not use the transliteration of baptisma  as baptism instead of translating it to immersion, just so they would not alienate those who sprinkle, from using their Bibles.