Holy Bible, 1611 King James Version: 400th Anniversary Edition Hardcover – Photocopy, March 12, 2011

In spite of the somewhat small print (or are my eyes just aging a little more than I want to admit?!) I am very well pleased with this Bible.....except for one thing: for a collector's edition of such a rare text and format, etc, I would have expected that Zondervan would have issued it in a sewed format. No matter how well they are glued, these "hard back" glued (paper back spine) books do not wear well under regular use. Sooner or later they start to deteriorate in the spine, and then the book begins to get loose pages, etc. And, yes, I had hoped to use it for a regular every day working Bible, i.e. to use in my study, devotional, writing, and teaching efforts, as God may enable. I won't go into my reasons, but let's just say that I am keenly disappointed that it isn't what I would call a true hardback production. I have an original 1629 edition, and I have to ask myself that if it had been a paperback type Bible, with hard boards glued on it, would it be here today for anyone to actually own?! I have looked for several years for a true facsimile edition in an affordable, as well as a convenient sized, edition; but I had hoped that when I found it, that it would be bound in such a manner that it would be designed to last for many years to come. Perhaps it may. Time will tell. The price is good; even though Walmart (as of April 20, 2011) is selling them at $4.97!Here is a thought for your consideration: I agree that the so called King James version of 1611 is the best translation thus far of the old Hebrew and Greek texts which were used in its production (which I do accept as the originally inspired texts); and so for those who honestly believe that those old texts are no longer THE inspired texts which God promised to preserve on the earth forever; wouldn't this edition of the King James be the one which has replaced them?! I mean, there are several KJV editions which differ from one another (in minor details, mostly spelling); and if one of them has become the promised edition, wouldn't it be the first one which the translators actually produced? But wait: it was discovered that it had a (printer's) mistake in it before the first edition was even off of the press, so to speak; giving us the first (of many such) 'corrections' (as I said, mostly in spelling); and resulting in the "great he" and "she" editions! But if God was seeing to it that it was translated into the replacement inspired text of His Holy Word, wouldn't you think that He would have intervened, and prevented ANY type of 'mistakes' to be in this particular edition AT ALL; printers' or other wise?! And if He allowed for these slight discrepancies in the English text; wouldn't that strengthen the idea that this particular edition (viz, prior to ANY spelling alterations, etc) would be THE inspired text of today?! Its just a thought.Actually, since I accept it as a descent translation of the inspired original texts (viz, Hebrew and Greek) I do not have a problem with any honest and truly scholarly 'corrections' which have been made over the years. Mind you, I would have preferred that certain Hebrew and Greek words were actually translated, rather than just anglicized, as for example, "church" and "baptism;" and thus avoided certain errors which have disrupted 'Christian harmony' for so long. But even at that, it is still a good translation of those old texts; but it ought not to replace them AS the inspired texts! So it is left up to the expounder, or writer, to clearly explain the full meaning of my two examples. And I suppose it is safe to say, that even those who DO believe the 1611 KJV English Bible is THE inspired text, never the less explain what "church" and/or "baptism" mean when they are preaching or teaching on those subjects to their congregations or classes! (HOW could they NOT do so, and expound on the meaning of the Holy Scriptures?!) So if you must explain; why not use the Hebrew and Greek texts to do so??? Even our Lord read the Scriptures; laid them aside; and said (in effect) Now THIS is what the text MEANS at this point!So, yes; buy it; and use it; and hand it down to your children and grand children as an heirloom....for as long as it may (physically or materially) last! And I hope God will bless you as you do so...and them too, of course. I am proud (and I am sure I should say: thankful) to be able to add this anniversary edition of the beloved old King James Bible to my shelf; and I think you will be too! (It isn't hard to learn how to read the 'Gothic' type with a little practice.)Thank you; and may I please remain your servant in the hope of God's grace in Christ (as Paul wrote); Larry L. Burton

I bought this to be a more manageable size Bible to read on a daily basis. I had already purchased the Bible Museum facsimile edition which at 11" × 8 1/2" × 3", is absolutely huge, and weighing in at over 4 pounds, is not exactly practical for daily use.The Zondervan version is considerably smaller, at 8 1/2" × 5" × 2 1/2", and weighs about 1 pound.It is not however a retypeset printing, but rather it's a scaled down version of the Bible Museum version. As such it presents some problems.Since it is just shrunk down, the Gothic Text font is quite a bit harder to read. It would have been better had the printer retooled the Gothic Text font for the smaller edition.I have a page from a quarter folio version that was printed at least 400 years ago, that is actually quite easy to read. Hopefully someone will decide to make a quarter folio version someday.But if you want a smaller easy to carry every day Gothic Text Bible, this is your only option right now. As such irs good points out weigh the bad.Another consequence of it being a scaled down version, is that in the interest of keeping the book a reasonable thickness, the Apocryphal books have been taken out.My only major issue is that when a seller is charging $65.00, for a book, it would be nice if they removed the Books A Million store tag that shows they spent $4.97 for it. It makes me feel a little bit had when a seller does that.So in conclusion, if you want a smaller 1611 version of the Bible this is your only affordable option. An actual quarter folio version printed in 1611, goes for thousands of dollars.

The font really isn’t tricky, it’s just very different being an Old English style that we are not accustomed to. It’s historical, to say the least, but it’s interesting. It is challenging to read, but kind of fun, if you like trying to read such font. An example is the letters U and V are reversed from what we read nowadays. Have fun learning how to read it. It’s almost like a foreign language because of the over 400 year font.

I purchased this Bible for my fiance as a birthday gift. We are both Catholics, and he has a great interest in the 1611 version of the KJV. The language is beautiful, as is the book itself. This reprint is stunning, and I was very happy to present it to him. It was nearly perfect...until I realized that there were books missing.If you're going to all the trouble to scan the pages of an original 1611 KJV and reproduce it accurately, why would you leave out the Apocrypha? Since both he and I are Catholics, part of the draw of purchasing an older version of the KJV, aside from the beautiful language, was to have the Apocrypha (which are Canonical for us) included. As it is, this book is still a great value for the money, but could have been so much better.So, the good: Absolutely stunning, high quality scans, with lushly illustrated family trees of our Bibilical ancestors. The older English is left mercifully intact, for the study and enjoyment of all.The bad: The Apocryphal books are mysteriously not included.I would have purchased another addition if it had been made more clear by the publisher that the Apocrypha weren't included, but I'm still happy with the purchase, and would recommend it to those who don't mind the fact that chunks of the Bible are missing. At the end of the day my fiance was happy with this gift, so it served its purpose.