Where can i get this KJV 1611 edition

  • Thread starter Thread starter tablecorner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You are very welcome.

Remember. Anglicans are…how you say…non-uniform. Results may vary. Indeed, are almost guaranteed to do so.
 
Last edited:
tablecorner said:
Because i want to show them where they got their protestant bible from. Interesting hostility.
Click to expand...
Note that it was not the first English translation.

1582 Rheims New Testament (Catholic)
1609 Douay Old Testament (Catholic)
 
Heck, it wasn’t even the first printed in English, in England. Which was Coverdale’s, 1535-1537. And others followed.
 
GKMotley said:
Heck, it wasn’t even the first printed in English, in England. Which was Coverdale’s, 1535-1537. And others followed.
Click to expand...
I didn’t know about that version, thank you. It was the first 80 book complete translation into Modern English.
 
Coverdale’s Bible was the first English Bible to have such a title page. It was quite similar to the KJV, though not as smooth and developed.
 
i do have the bishop challoner version. Its the only bible i go to but i must admit…it is a hard one to comprehend.
 
tablecorner said:
i do have the bishop challoner version. Its the only bible i go to but i must admit…it is a hard one to comprehend.
Click to expand...
I have a Challoner version also.

Luke
(Douay-Rheims 1609) 1:21. And the people was expecting Zacharie; and they marueled that he made tariance in the Temple.

(Challoner 1899) 1:21 And the people were waiting for Zachary; and they wondered that he tarried so long in the temple.

(NABRE) 1:21 Meanwhile the people were waiting for Zechariah and were amazed that he stayed so long in the sanctuary.
Click to expand...
 
That’s it! The very thing I was looking for!

Right on the tip of my board name, too.
 
The KJV is an outstanding translation of the original scripture. It’s so good that it can be back translated to the original quite easily. That’s not to say it’s perfect because it’s not, but no translation is perfect, and the KJV has gone through its series of revisions.
 
That doesn’t include the deuterocanonical books; on the link itself it says:

“There are only two differences between this special 400th anniversary edition and the original 1611 KJV—it does not contain the deuterocanonical books and has been reduced from its massive 12’ x 16’ pulpit-sized folio to this manageable keepsake.”

This would go against the goal of the original poster, as it was to show how the deuterocanonical books were in the KJV. Seems kind of dumb to leave them out when you’re supposedly making an exact replica of the original, but I guess it cuts down on the printing costs a little.
 
Last edited:
The Orthodox Study Bible uses the NKJV, and I think the decision was made primarily because the KJV/NKJV share the same textual tradition (the Byzantine text type) as that of Eastern Catholic/Eastern Orthodox liturgical texts. Most modern translations, including the RSV and etc., are of the Alexandrian text type.

But I’m not sure that the average reader (who isn’t fluent in three dead languages and savvy about textual criticism) is going to pick up a translation and say ‘oh yes, this passage most certainly prioritises Codex Seidelianus’ reading over Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus and that’s good!’.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top