the King James Version

[mfblume]

Can anyone tell us what changes occurred in the first KJV in 1611 as opposed to what we have today in the KJV? I heard it was only spelling and punctuation differences.

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).

[berkeley]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Can anyone tell us what changes occurred in the first KJV in 1611 as opposed to what we have today in the KJV? I heard it was only spelling and punctuation differences.

The 1611 contained the Apocrypha.

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by Berkeley

The 1611 contained the Apocrypha.

Well, it's a good thing God eventually corrected His "mistake" in preserving His word, eh?

Originally Posted by Timmy

Well, it's a good thing God eventually corrected His "mistake" in preserving His word, eh?

Doh! You aren't supposed to think it out that far. lol.

[berkeley]

Originally Posted by Timmy

Well, it's a good thing God eventually corrected His "mistake" in preserving His word, eh?

good grief! I can't ever leave bait around here without someone scaring the fish away....

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by Berkeley

good grief! I can't ever leave bait around here without someone scaring the fish away....

Oops! Sorry!

[DividedThigh]

gods word is in your hands , read and enjoy and be enlightened by it, his spirit will lead and guide you into all truth, dt

[Brett Prince]

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.

[Brett Prince]

Originally Posted by Berkeley

The 1611 contained the Apocrypha.

Yep! Nailed it! Good point.