Do you know how they are different and are you saying that the KJV 1611, available today is different?This is a HOT topic of “discussion” at home.
’
There are many differences. First let me clarify. The vast majority of KJV bibles are not the 1611 Version. You can still get them though, I actually have a copy.
Pulled from WIKI.
**
Difference in the contents:**
The original printing of the King James Version included the Apocrypha, so named in the text. It contained all the books and sections of books present in the Latin Vulgate’s Old Testament but missing in the Hebrew. Under the Thirty-Nine Articles, the doctrinal confession of the Church of England established in 1563, these books were considered non-canonical. This section also includes apocrypha from the Vulgate’s appendix. (For more information, see the article on the Biblical canon.) These texts are printed separately, between the end of the Old Testament and the beginning of the New Testament. Verses unique to the Septuagint’s version of the Book of Esther and the Book of Daniel (The Prayer of Azariah, Bel and the Dragon, Susanna) were placed here, rather than included in the texts of those books. From approximately 1827, many editions have omitted this section, and the most common contemporary editions rarely include them.
The original printing also included a number of variant readings and alternative translations of some passages; most current printings omit these. (One American edition that does still print these notes is the Cornerstone UltraThin Reference Bible, published by Broadman and Holman.) The original printing also included some marginal references to indicate where one passage of Scripture quoted or directly related to another. Most current printings omit these.
Prefatory material
The original printing contained two prefatory texts; the first was a rather fulsome Epistle Dedicatory to “the most high and mighty Prince” King James. Many British printings reproduce this, while a few cheaper or smaller American printings fail to include it.
The second, and more interesting preface was called The Translators to the Reader, a long and learned essay that defends the undertaking of the new version. It observes that their goal was not to make a bad translation good, but a good translation better, and says that “we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession… containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God”. Few editions anywhere include this text.
The first printing contained a number of other apparatus, including a table for the reading of the Psalms at matins and vespers, and a calendar, an almanac, and a table of holy days and observances. Much of this material has become obsolete with the adoption of the Gregorian Calendar by the UK and its colonies in 1752 and thus modern editions invariably omit it.
**
The current text**
Current printings of the King James Bible are typically based on an edition published at Oxford University in 1769, edited by Benjamin Blayney, and contain substantially the same text, however there are a number of differences between the 1769 and the 1611. The Oxford edition applied the device of supplying italics for absent words much more thoroughly, corrected a number of minor errors in punctuation, and made the spelling more consistent and updated (that is, to the standards of the 18th century). However, in 2005, Cambridge University Press released its New Cambridge Paragraph Bible, edited by David Norton, which modernized the spelling much more thoroughly (that is, to present-day standards) and introduced quotation marks.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1d/Kjv-hebrews.png(image larger than 4096KB)
It was a pretty good indication to me that the KJV only folks had crossed that blurry line into cult. As you will see when you look up Peter Ruckman.
I have a KJV and personally I dont see a difference except the thee’s and thou’s.