Question 47: Is the modern KJV different from the 1611 edition?

Michael Pearl answers a question received from a viewer: How do I know if a modern copy of the King James Bible is the same as the 1611 edition, rather than one of the 3 revisions that I've read about on the internet?

Help us caption & translate this video!

[randycrager]

I just commented on this with the last video of yours I watch again just 20 minutes ago. I asked God one day I was deeply troubled, why I hadn't heard from Him lately and He told me the NIV wasn't His Word. I took it to the garbage can and tore out every page and started back using my KJV pc software again. Later God told me He wanted me to know why He told me this and started also studying how and why the King James came about. I've never used anything but a KJV Bible since then. I heard from many Brothers and Sisters in Chris how easy it was to understand using an NIV study Bible and so I bought one, the one I tore to shreds, never again. Thank you Michael!

[dhlong]

"If our don't watch television, you got a lot of time."
Amen.

[patriot]

Anybody remember the Apocrypha which was in the 1611 version of the KJV?... I think that's significant

[AndrewP-fjrn]

To cut to the chase, spelling was standardized and typos were removed and the Gothic font replaced with the Roman font. And the apocrypha wad deleted as it was never considered an actual part of scripture but there for historical purposes.

[Chandler-qw]

I'm happy to see the 1611 in conversation, there are people, 99.9% of all people through time, that have never had the blessing of hearing about or even seeing 1611, Roman or Gothic print,
I'm just a simple person, not rich by any means except one, I'm a bible reader, I use to read the man made bibles from cover to cover, and I noticed one thing, they were all different, one day I happened to run across a Gothic print, actually it was a couple of pages, next I found out that the 1611 came in both Gothic & Roman print, exactly the same, just the style of lettering was different, then a verse came to mind, Genesis 41:32, also the story in Genesis chapter 41,
Anyway I'm so thankful the Good Lord let me be a Bible reader, but I read the 1611 over and over, more than, well I've read through the 1611 KJV more than anyone I've ever heard of, and I can promise each and every one of you, if you were to read through this Bible several times you wouldn't need any man made bibles, God would tell you everything!

[leobaker]

Amen I always read out of the King James Bible.

[Timothy]

So you're saying that someone who is just becoming a christian and starting to follow Jesus... Gets a NIV let's say... And reads that... It's all for nothing? He won't grow spiritually with it? I just cannot agree with that... I don't think the LORD is up there going up he's not reading the KJV... Woe to that guy... He's not saved he's not mine.. I do not know him... Come on Brother.

[thethmusketeer]

I commend your painstaking Scholarship, Brother. 👏😊 More importantly - so does The Lord. 🤝

[itzcaseykc]

I enjoy my Cambridge KJV edition much more than my copy of the NKJV edition which I rarely refer to. I, too, agree that the modern versions are corruptions to the word of God, and do not like how the authors of said "versions" change or completely remove words, sentences, verses, and even a chapter to suit their church teachings.

[pioneerpete]

I’m so thankful I have a Bible i don’t need to correct .

[mfrank]

If you believe in God and Jesus you would know that God kept this bible incorruptible.

[makarov]

What's wrong with the 1560 Geneva Bible that preceded the 1611 KJV by 51 years? And the 1537 Tyndale NT? Were they not the word of God? Meaning that the word of God did not exist before the KJV was published?

[zacharybeauford]

Palms 69:32. The 1611 edition reads "the humble shall see this, and be glad: and your heart shall liue that seeke good."

Modern edition of the KJV reads "The humble shall see this, and be glad: and your heart shall live that seek God."

This is just one meaningful difference between the editions.

[brucedressel]

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. Matthew 24 35 KJV

[swmovan]

If some versions claim they were translated from the original Greek and Hebrew text, why do some people not consider them "real" Bibles?

[cmccafferty]

I’ve read the 1611. The only “error” I found was in Exodus. When Pharaoh and his army caught up with the Israelites “they were sore afraid.” This paragraph was printed twice. I gotta laugh at the CSB political correctness. The KJV, speaking of David and Jonathan, said “David loved him”. The CSB reads “David liked him a lot.” lol

[warriorofgod]

May God continue to bless you Brother.

[thestraitgateway]

There near the end he said the current Bible we have today has 12000 words but earlier he said the Cambridge has 5 less (11995). I counted with my computer and got 11995 also. I did it with the pure Cambridge edition and the 1611 and got the same. So what current Bible is he referring to that has 12000?

[tonyleeglenn]

Michael. Love your channel and teaching. I'm curious about your opinion on the Scofield Bible (old version from early 1900's). I've always like the notes and references. Just wondering if you have any pros or cons about it. Many thanks! Tony

[ralphnavidad]

Some said that the version of KJV that KJVOnlyist are using is not 1611 but KJV 1769. What can is your thoughts concerning this claim?