The 400th Anniversary of the King James Bible

[AKJVReader]

It was first published on May 6th, 1611.

We are proud to stand with and stand on the King James Authorized 1611 Holy Bible as the revealed word of God, as God wrote it, and as God has preserved it. God promised to always have His word here on earth, forever, and available to all those who seek it's Truth.

A great place to start is:

NOW THE END BEGINS: The King James Authorized 1611 Holy Bible

 

[Vic C.]

Hey AV,

Lets take a look at the word "pride" in the OT of our KJV Bibles, deal? :D

I like you man, but honestly, I've been sort of on your side of the debate for years and I have to say that KJV onlyism is getting tiresome.

 

[AKJVReader]

Dear Vic,

So your into star wars? Yeah the one created by George Lucas (Lucifer). What does that tell me?

I should have stated that i hoped this thread would allow people to say what this anniversary of the King James Bible means to them. And are they going to celebrate this event? Do they applaud the Word of God? I mean where are the anniversaries for the Modern Bible Versions?

It sounds like your getting weary of taking the King James only side but think of this, who are trying to please God or man? You will be rewarded one day for all the work that you do for God, and one of the reasons why your still alive is so that you can do that work, and there are people here that want to do that work with you

Blessings,
AKJVReader

 

[farouk]

It was first published on May 6th, 1611.

We are proud to stand with and stand on the King James Authorized 1611 Holy Bible as the revealed word of God, as God wrote it, and as God has preserved it. God promised to always have His word here on earth, forever, and available to all those who seek it's Truth.

A great place to start is:

NOW THE END BEGINS: The King James Authorized 1611 Holy Bible

AKJVR:

Well, I'm honestly thankful for it, indeed, and I use it.

But as for the phrase: "the King James Authorized 1611 Holy Bible as the revealed word of God", does this mean that in 1611 God first revealed Himself? does this mean that English was the language which overrules the original? because if this is what is meant, I don't believe these implications.

 

[kiwimac]

George Lucas=Satan?

Oy Vey!

 

[Vic C.]

Dear Vic,

So your into star wars? Yeah the one created by George Lucas (Lucifer). What does that tell me?

LOL, that shouldn't tell you anything. I once heard King James was homosexual. Should that tell me something?

I should have stated that i hoped this thread would allow people to say what this anniversary of the King James Bible means to them. And are they going to celebrate this event? Do they applaud the Word of God? I mean where are the anniversaries for the Modern Bible Versions?

It sounds like your getting weary of taking the King James only side but think of this, who are trying to please God or man? You will be rewarded one day for all the work that you do for God, and one of the reasons why your still alive is so that you can do that work, and there are people here that want to do that work with you

Blessings,
AKJVReader

No, I'm not getting weary of defending a KJO position because I was never KJO.

I also don't see the significance of celebrating the anniversary of a Bible. This is where we should draw the line. Nowhere in God's word are we told to celebrate any book, scripture or otherwise. Yes, we should celebrate the Word of God, but do it every day of our lives.

I barely celebrate Christmas and Easter (resurrection Day) in a traditional way, nor do I celebrate Good Friday. (all are traditions of man anyway)

 

[AKJVReader]

I once heard King James was homosexual. Should that tell me something?

: Dont believe that. King James was never homosexual, the Catholic Church and people that hate the KJV say that to try to discredit the KJV or King James. He actually made a comment denouncing homosexuals as sinners i have read.

I also don't see the significance of celebrating the anniversary of a Bible.

The KJV has been around nearly 400 years, shouldn't Christians be thankful for that? If Christians would celebrate the Word of God what would the world think?

Yes, we should celebrate the Word of God, but do it every day of our lives.

I agree with you there

Nowhere in God's word are we told to celebrate any book, scripture or otherwise.

The Word is Jesus - John 1

I barely celebrate Christmas and Easter (resurrection Day) in a traditional way, nor do I celebrate Good Friday. (all are traditions of man anyway)

ok

No, I'm not getting weary of defending a KJO position because I was never KJO.

It depends on how you define KJO, some people are extremists and go as far as denying the Hebrew Scriptures. My position is that the Authorized King James Version is the best. KJVB to avoid any confusion.

"God is not the author of confusion"

 

[AKJVReader]

King James Only - Where did the term originate?

​

The term “King James Only” has a tremendous history to it. Over time, the term has become a derogatory accusation by proponents of the modern versions. It has become synonymous with the understanding that King James Only means a bunch of King James nuts dancing around a King James Bible and worshipping it. Those who are totally void of reality in their lives will honestly believe that it is a worship of the King James Bible. Nothing could be farther from the truth but since most Christians get their understanding of Bible history from the comic pages, it is necessary to give a brief understanding of this term and how it came to be and the extreme wisdom behind it.
<dt>In 1603 when King James VI of Scotland was about to ascend to the English throne as King James I, something called the Millenary Petition was given to him. It was the signatures of over one thousand Puritan ministers who were thoroughly repulsed by the serious spiritual decline in the Church of England.</dt> <dt>
</dt> <dt>The Petition reached its high point with the Hampton Court Conference where the outcome was a suggestion by King James for a new Bible version. Up to the time of 1603, the churches in England were using several versions of the Bible, they were the Geneva Bible of 1560, The Bishops Bible of 1568, The Great Bible of 1539, Matthew’s version of 1537, Tyndale of 1526, and the Coverdale of 1535 (burnt according to the decree of Henry VIII in 1546). What was happening in the churches of England was there were many translations of the Bible and there was some confusion, even though they were from the same manuscript line which led up to the King James Bible 1604-1611.</dt> <dd>
</dd> <dt>1 Thessalonians 1:10:</dt><dd>
</dd> <dt>(Tyndale 1526) and for to loke for his sonne from heven whom he raysed from deeth: I mean Iesus which delivereth vs from wrath to come.</dt> <dd>
</dd> <dt>(Matthews 1537) and for to look for his son from heaven, whom he raised from death: I mean Jesus which delivereth us from wrath to come. </dt> <dd>
</dd> <dt>(Geneva 1560) And to looke for his sonne from heauen, whome he raised from the dead, euen Iesus which deliuereth vs from that wrath to come.</dt> <dd>
</dd> <dt>(Bishops 1568) And to tary for his sonne from heauen, whom he raysed from the dead: euen Iesus which delyuereth vs from the wrath to come.</dt> <dd>
</dd> <dt>1 Thessalonians 1:10 gives us a good look at the four versions which convey the same message but with different English in some places. It must be kept in mind that the English language was still in flux in the sixteenth century and that is why there was much difference in translations into the English. By 1604, the English language had started to become solidified and this is where the wisdom of King James came in concerning the term “King James Only.”</dt> <dd>
</dd> <dt>What King James wanted to do, was to unify all the churches in England with one Bible version so there would not be any confusion. King James was a strong Christian but was weak in body. He wanted unity in the churches between the pulpit and congregation, and between churches. That is the history behind the term “King James Only.” In fact, even up to 100 years ago here in the United States, there was unity of Bible usage as the King James Bible was still in use. The 1881 RV and the 1901 ASV never really made any serious inroads into the churches. The first serious threat to Biblical unity in Christianity was the Revised Version of the Communist Group National Council of Churches completed in 1952, then in 1959 came the New American Standard Version, and then the controversial crowning achievement, the New International Version in 1973.</dt> <dd>
</dd> <dt>Now, not only do you have absolute confusion in bibles when you go from church to church, but now within every congregation in every church is a number of modern versions, all saying something different and you never get past, “What does your version say?” With Christian approval, Modernism mania now marches into every church with a new version every six months, each one being more corrupt and neutralized than the one before it.</dt> <dd>
</dd> <dt>Now do you see the extreme wisdom of “King James Only?” It was for the purpose of making sure Christians can grow in the faith and when the Bible is discussed or preached, all will be on the same page with the same words and therefore no confusion in the mix. How many times I have heard preachers preaching from a modern version and then have to state in their sermon, ”Well the NIV states it this way,” and “The Message states it that way.” King James was more prophetic than he realized when he wanted one translation for unity in the churches.</dt> <dt>
</dt> <dt>Now you know what “King James Only” stands for and the next time you hear it used derogatively, you will know the person is ignorant about it and you can correct him or her. Let us not continue to believe a lie!</dt>
From:
King James Only: Where did the term orginate?

 

[kiwimac]

And still this is heiferdust!

 

[Mike]

And still this is heiferdust!

:yes, and yet, some have been conditioned to believe they're "defending the faith". kiwimac, do you see what this KJVO sect has in common with the Westborough Baptist Church members? They will dig their heals in the ground, in spite of Christendom saying this is a cultish premise. And that's the sad part. Mom and Dad were KJVO, so junior comes to pit other Christians against themselves because of the Bible version they read.

And he will not change, because he gets affirmation when he talks to anyone at his sect.

Brutal... absolutely brutal...

 

[Pard]

My church has a real neat solution to that problem... Everyone knows that pastor preaches from the NLT.

And just saying, like I keep saying (and keep getting ignored about... ), other Bible versions can make the same claims as the KJV only idea you are selling. Heck, do you know the first Bible to reach North America and the only in most use for many years?

...

Geneva Bible.

 

[gunghorjc]

The Geneva Bible, never heard of it. Of course, really, I only know of two types of Bibles. One being the NIV and the other the KJV.

Geneva.. anything to do with the Geneva Convention?

 

[reba]

I enjoy the KJ I have used it all my life.... This silly irrational devotion to a man ,King James, is enough to make me wonder if it is time to change bibles.

The Scripture are GOD'S Word not the words of some English King.

 

[reba]

The Geneva Bible, never heard of it. Of course, really, I only know of two types of Bibles. One being the NIV and the other the KJV.

Geneva.. anything to do with the Geneva Convention?

Nope

It is a very old Bible written in very old English. Quite interesting... I have used it for study on a few topics . We are blessed to have fine translations today!

 

[Pard]

No it's circa 1560, so it predates the KJV by a few decades. It was the first Bible to implement the scripture reference (IE Matthew 16:24) we use today. It was named after the place it was made (Geneva). It was the first Bible to do a lot of things, actually and the KJV took a lot from it. It was made when the Protestants fled from England (due to persecution) and ended up in Geneva Switzerland. It was the Bible the pilgrims took the America.

I enjoy reading it more than the KJV because it has a certain flow to it. Um,

Geneva Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The problem is it's very hard to secure a good copy of it, otherwise I'd own one. I only use the version I have on the PC at the moment because all the versions I have founds were not of a high enough quality to warrant their price.

 

[kiwimac]

:yes, and yet, some have been conditioned to believe they're "defending the faith". kiwimac, do you see what this KJVO sect has in common with the Westborough Baptist Church members? They will dig their heals in the ground, in spite of Christendom saying this is a cultish premise. And that's the sad part. Mom and Dad were KJVO, so junior comes to pit other Christians against themselves because of the Bible version they read.

And he will not change, because he gets affirmation when he talks to anyone at his sect.

Brutal... absolutely brutal...

It is indeed. See, I have no problem with anyone choosing the KJV and using it, it is when it becomes a: a tenet of faith and b: an indicator of salvation that I get annoyed.

The KJV was a grand translation, if a little dated even in its time, it is both out-dated and dangerously close to an idol for some these days.l

 

[kiwimac]

Here is John 1:1-5 in the Geneva Bible:

(Joh 1:1) In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God, and that Word was God.

(Joh 1:2) This same was in the beginning with God.

(Joh 1:3) All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made.

(Joh 1:4) In it was life, and that life was the light of men.

(Joh 1:5) And that light shineth in the darkenesse, and the darkenesse comprehended it not.

And in the Bishop's Bible:

Joh 1:1 In the begynnyng was the worde, & the worde was with God: and that worde was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the begynnyng with God.
Joh 1:3 All thynges were made by it: and without it, was made nothyng that was made.
Joh 1:4 In it was lyfe, and the lyfe was the lyght of men,
Joh 1:5 And the lyght shyneth in darkenesse: and the darknesse comprehended it not.

 

[Pard]

Yup, the Geneva Bible offended some people for political reasons and so they they made the Bishop Bible in order to avoid some of the protestant ideas that the Geneva Bible carried with it.

And when I say they I mean the Church of England.

 

[AKJVReader]

The KJV was a grand translation, if a little dated even in its time, it is both out-dated and dangerously close to an idol for some these days.

The KJV is outdated?? Try telling that to thousands if not millions that still read it. Just because it is 400 years old does not mean it is outdated. But again the issue for KJV Only readers isn't the fact that there Bible has eth's and thou's in it but that the Modern Bible Versions have been corrupted because they partly come from the Alexandrian and Catholic manuscripts. That's why the majority of KJV Only Scholars choose the KJV and tell others to use it, they want the best Word they can get. Because they can have confidence in it and trust it. I'm not saying that i'm a Scholar but there are those that will tirelessly defend the KJV because of its purity.

As for the Bishop and Geneva Bible's i have never read them or examined them. And i dont mind a conversation about them. I have read before that there major problems with them, so that is why the KJV had to come along, the KJV was a very professional translation and took 7 years. The KJV Scholars were grateful for the work done by previous scholars in there work on the Bible.

Here is a chart to show the Bibles before the King James Bible:
http://www.born2serve.org/images/kjvchartbig.gif

 

[kiwimac]

Heiferdust!