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

[ayin jade]

15 hours ago, Jedi4Yahweh said:

This is one I like to use that you might like, has a KJV side comparison:

http://qbible.com/brenton-septuagint/

It does not include psalm 151.

[Jedi4Yahweh]

43 minutes ago, David1701 said:

Quite interesting - but it doesn't change the fact that Psalm 151 is clearly substandard.

By what standard?  I see nothing contradicting about Psalm 151. 

[Jedi4Yahweh]

1 minute ago, ayin jade said:

It does not include psalm 151.

It does. Its under the PS2 tab.

[tim_from_pa]

On 10/26/2022 at 12:59 PM, 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 read the 1769 version because as a rule, one cannot get the 1611 version with that style English when they look for and order a KJV Bible.  In other words, sellers default to 1769.  Nevertheless, my understanding is that it's basically an update to clarify archaic language but with keeping some of the older version English to keep its style (as even in 1769 people did not speak English totally the way the KJV Bible is written but spoke more as we do today).  

While I prefer the KJV as your Pastor does, I understand it already had a revision from its original so another one (the NKJV) is in the same spirit of the KJV Bible and I'm warming up to it.  The problem is, the NKJV is copyrighted so it's difficult to find a free downloadable version, although I have (it's just not nicely formatted as any pirate would do lol).  The KJV (1769) IS NOT copyrighted except for the United Kingdom where that right is in the Crown.  However, the whole KJV Bible (including the apocrypha) is downloadable for free anywhere else and the formatting is not bad either.

Edited October 28, 2022 by tim_from_pa

[Jayne]

On 10/26/2022 at 12:18 PM, Dave-regenerated said:

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.

[1] 1611 - "...she [Jerusalem]  powred it vpon the ground..."

[2] 1769 - "...she [Jerusalem] poured it NOT upon the ground..."

Two different things.

[other one]

25 minutes ago, Jayne said:

[1] 1611 - "...she [Jerusalem]  powred it vpon the ground..."

[2] 1769 - "...she [Jerusalem] poured it NOT upon the ground..."

Two different things.

or a simple misprint.

[David1701]

3 hours ago, Jedi4Yahweh said:

By what standard?  I see nothing contradicting about Psalm 151. 

I didn't say that it contradicted anything.

[Jayne]

1 hour ago, other one said:

or a simple misprint.

misprint or mistranslation - it's still different

I was just trying to show that difference to David-regenerated who said that the verses said the same thing

 

[farouk]

On 10/27/2022 at 6:27 PM, Dennis1209 said:

Good point! I have bought a couple of cases of those cheap presentation Bibles from www.christianbook.com to give to children and those who do not own a Bible. The type is very small in them also, and I never read through one of them. Nor even looked to see where they were printed. Honestly it never crossed my mind until now. 

Hi,Sir; years ago, print size didn't seem to be an issue; now..it's a different matter.................

[farouk]

What ppl sometimes refer to as the 1611 King James is actually a 1769 revision of it; there were also other revisions in 1629, 1638, and 1762.