the King James Version

berkeley · #1 06-26-2007, 08:51 AM

KJV advocates, I have a question for ya. Why don't you use the original King James Version of 1611??

Trouvere · #2 06-26-2007, 09:38 AM

Have you read this version????

#3 06-26-2007, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trouvere

Have you read this version????

Well, many KJV only proponents claim that the KJV is 'Perfect'.

If it's perfect... which version of the KJV is 'perfect'? the Original KJV, or all the revisions that have taken place over the past 400 years?

I may be reading too much or not enough into Berk's post, but I think that may be what he's getting at.

crakjak · #4 06-26-2007, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Berkeley

KJV advocates, I have a question for ya. Why don't you use the original King James Version of 1611??

It is difficult to read. Very old English! Plus it has been improved over 300 times.

jwharv · #5 06-26-2007, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crakjak

It is difficult to read. Very old English! Plus it has been improved over 300 times.

You mean my New King James Version isn't that new????????????

mfblume · #6 06-26-2007, 10:15 AM

The issue of which reference text is the real question. KJV advocates, of which I am one, are actually saying the Textus Receptus, that was responsible for all revivals we know about, is the basis for the King James version, whereas most all modern translations are from the Nestle's text which was proposed by the same people who believe God's Word is lost forever, and we cannot know what is left intact in the bible today or not. The philosophy of the men behind the Textus Receptus is one that God's word IS NOT LOST, and that God preserved His word supernaturally using people since He took the effort to inspire it to begin with. Why abandon it after taking effort to inspire it? Was there no long range plans for the Word in God's eyes to move Him to preserve it?

So, whose philosophy you gonna accept?

#7 06-26-2007, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

The issue of which reference text is the real question. KJV advocates, of which I am one, are actually saying the Textus Receptus, that was responsible for all revivals we know about, is the basis for the King James version, whereas most all modern translations are from the Nestle's text which was proposed by the same people who believe God's Word is lost forever, and we cannot know what is left intact in the bible today or not. The philosophy of the men behind the Textus Receptus is one that God's word IS NOT LOST, and that God preserved His word supernaturally using people since He took the effort to inspire it to begin with. Why abandon it after taking effort to inspire it? Was there no long range plans for the Word in God's eyes to move Him to preserve it?

So, whose philosophy you gonna accept?

If the Bible has been preserved in all of it's changes and re-ordering, renaming, etc. then why couldn't we use the same logic regarding the authority of the church... wouldn't God have supernaturally kept his hand on the church that can document an unbroken line of authority back to the apostles? (and no I'm not becoming Catholic).

Brett Prince · #8 06-26-2007, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

The issue of which reference text is the real question. KJV advocates, of which I am one, are actually saying the Textus Receptus, that was responsible for all revivals we know about, is the basis for the King James version, whereas most all modern translations are from the Nestle's text which was proposed by the same people who believe God's Word is lost forever, and we cannot know what is left intact in the bible today or not. The philosophy of the men behind the Textus Receptus is one that God's word IS NOT LOST, and that God preserved His word supernaturally using people since He took the effort to inspire it to begin with. Why abandon it after taking effort to inspire it? Was there no long range plans for the Word in God's eyes to move Him to preserve it?

So, whose philosophy you gonna accept?

Bro. Blume, this is a very narrow view. There are plenty of people who recieve other versions of the Bible apart from the King James, or who trust other manuscripts than just the Textus Receptus, that do not believe God's Word is lost.

I recommend J.R. Ensey's book, "The Book We Call the Bible," as a serious and scholarly work on the subject.

I do not recommend using another version than the KJV as our primary source of doctrine, but think that KJV only proponents need to balance that position with some very good data found from good sources.

mfblume · #9 06-26-2007, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brett Prince

Bro. Blume, this is a very narrow view. There are plenty of people who recieve other versions of the Bible apart from the King James, or who trust other manuscripts than just the Textus Receptus, that do not believe God's Word is lost.

I recommend J.R. Ensey's book, "The Book We Call the Bible," as a serious and scholarly work on the subject.

I do not recommend using another version than the KJV as our primary source of doctrine, but think that KJV only proponents need to balance that position with some very good data found from good sources.

I have studied this out for a few years, and the issue is the philosophy BEHIND the Nestle's text and the Textus Receptus. Whether SOME of the proponents of the Nestle's text beleive God's words is not lost, that is the basic underlying philosophy behind the entire series of Nestle's texts. That is just fact.

So it boils down to whether or not someone agrees with that philosophy or not.

KwaiQ · #10 06-26-2007, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

The issue of which reference text is the real question. KJV advocates, of which I am one, are actually saying the Textus Receptus, that was responsible for all revivals we know about, is the basis for the King James version, whereas most all modern translations are from the Nestle's text which was proposed by the same people who believe God's Word is lost forever, and we cannot know what is left intact in the bible today or not. The philosophy of the men behind the Textus Receptus is one that God's word IS NOT LOST, and that God preserved His word supernaturally using people since He took the effort to inspire it to begin with. Why abandon it after taking effort to inspire it? Was there no long range plans for the Word in God's eyes to move Him to preserve it?

So, whose philosophy you gonna accept?

My words exactly... It is not necessarily what the english is, but the underlining ms they use is what the cause for alarm is. If the ESV was based of the massoretic text and the textus receptus, I'd use it.