Tag: 1611

Book Briefs: “Holy Bible, 1611 King James Version (Anniversary Edition)”

~ Bob Hayton

As we approach Christmas, I wanted to highlight some books which would make good gift items. I realize I’m a bit late with this, & I’m late on my shopping, too! But some of you may be in possession of a gift card soon, and wondering what to spend it on… For other gift ideas, you may want to check a new category I’ve created called “ideal gift books“.

I have always been fascinated by the history of the English Bible. I remember being astonished when I first learned that the original 1611 King James Bible had marginal notes referencing variant readings, the literal Greek and Hebrew, and offering alternative renderings. Then came the day I got my hands on a reprint of an original 1611 King James Bible: I devoured my copy and enjoyed every minute I spent looking at it.

If you are looking for a good gift for the studious, theology geek in your life (or for any pastor or Bible teacher, for that matter), a new mass-market reprint edition of the 1611 King James Bible from Zondervan is sure to please. This edition, published in honor of the 400th anniversary this year of the King James Version, has a soft feel to its hardcover which mimics both the look and feel of the original leather. This Bible is a more handy size at 8″ x 5.4″ than the original 12″ x 16″. It comes with the original typeset – Gothic letters for the main text, and Roman for what modern Bibles have in italics. And all 7,400 plus original marginal notes are also preserved. In addition, this edition includes what some of the other reprints leave out, namely the decorative genealogies and maps that precede the book of Genesis.

The big omission of this book, is the Apocrypha. I guess since the volume is already 2.6″ thick, they didn’t want to make it even more bulky. And most Protestant readers won’t miss it. Unfortunately there are some King James Only advocates who seem to be unaware that the original KJV contained the Apocrypha, and if they don’t look too closely, this edition may bolster their mistaken assumption.

That being said, the original maps, decorations and typeset, and all the strange archaisms — like “ye” for “the”, “f”s for “s”s, and the interchange of “i” and “j” and “u” and “v” — will absolutely delight the lover of old books. It also illustrates that almost no one today truly uses a 1611 King James Bible.

This Bible is inexpensively priced if you can still find it. Walmart was selling this over the summer for around $7.99. You can still pick up a copy of this book from the following online retailers: Amazon.com. You may also be interested in A Visual History of the King James Bible by Donald Brake, if this title has caught your eye.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by Zondervan. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

About Book Briefs: With limited time available to give every book sent my way a full review, I’ll be offering short-form book reviews called Book Briefs. Book Briefs are book notes, or my impression and informed evaluation of a book, but they stop short of being a full book review.

KJB 1611 Commemorative Edition Giveaway

~ Bob Hayton

In honor of the 400th Anniversary of the King James Bible (which was officially yesterday), I’m hosting a giveaway of a free copy of Hendrickson’s KJB 1611 Commemorative Edition Hardback Bible. Check out the details of the contest over at my group KJV themed blog: KJVOnlyDebate.com.

Also, if you haven’t checked out my video review of A Visual History of the King James Bible by Donald Brake, you should. There’s a lot of history in visual form, which captures the beauty and wonder of the history of our English Bible.

Why 1611 Makes All the Difference

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

Over at my team King James Only debate blog, Damien Garofalo has an excellent post up that’s well worth your time. The picture above captures the essence of it. Pre-1611 Bibles vary from the KJV as much as modern versions do. But to most KJV Onlyists, that’s okay. The modern versions are to be rejected but many pre-1611 Bibles are just fine because they are in the lineage of “Good Bibles” that eventually produced the 1611 gem, the King James Version.

Here’s a snippet from the post, but I encourage you to go read the whole thing.

…I’m not sure if this sort of view has been pointed out before, but I refer to the “Trail of Blood View of Preservation” as basically the one that I was taught in Bible college. We can also call this the “It’s There Somewhere View.” Obviously, I get the label from J. M. Carroll’s Book, The Trail of Blood, which basically serves as an end-all textbook (though it’s paper-thin) to the question of Baptist origins for many independent Baptists. The basic premise is that independent Baptists like the groups of the 20th century can be found all throughout history if you just look hard enough (and revise along the way). Heretical groups like the Cathari along with questionable groups like the Donatists and Albigenses are listed as forerunners of modern day independent Baptist churches. Though some of them may not have believed the deity of the Lord Jesus, they were opposed to the state church or even practiced anabaptism, so they were included in the lineage. When a reconsideration is brought up against this view, one is quickly reminded that the “winners write the history books” and we must “take by faith” that these groups were all Baptists.

Likewise, the Trial of Blood view of preservation does the same thing. Since the premise of this view is based on biblical passages of preservation, and the conclusion of this view is that the preserved words are in the King James Version of 1611, then logically there must be a version that is just as much the Word of God as the KJV for Christians throughout the ages. However, it doesn’t have to be mainstream. It doesn’t have to be the most widely read or known. It simple has to exist. So it’s not the Vulgate, though the majority of Christians only knew of it for 1100 years. But less popular Bibles like the Italic, Old Latin, the Peshitta, and the Waldensen Bible make the list. Because some psuedo-scholars point out possibly Byzantine readings in these older versions, the Trail of Blood adherents believe they fulfill the requirements for a pre-1611 KJV. Where was the Word of God before 1611? Why, the Italic version of course! It is mainly this view that I am calling into question in this post.

The fact is that these versions do not fully agree with the King James. And this is the double standard. How can we approve of pre-1611 Bibles even though they’re different than the KJV, but whole-heartedly reject modern versions for their differences? In all likelihood, many modern versions are closer to the KJV than any of the Bibles listed on the “good” tree. The Peshitta, for example, omitted entire books from its NT cannon. This means the NIV, ESV, NET Bible and others are closer to the KJV than the Peshitta. Yet, the Peshitta enjoys a place on the “good line of Bibles” in many a King James Only work….