the King James Version

[berkeley]

Originally Posted by Timmy

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

this is actually very funny

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Berkeley

The 1611 contained the Apocrypha.

What has that got to do with the veracity of the Old and New Testaments contained in the KJV? The issue behind preferring the KJV has nothing to do with the apocrypha in or out of the bible. It has to do with the New Testament manuscript evidence. Let's not talk apples and oranges here.

[berkeley]

Does anyone use the 1611 edition?? Why do you choose to use it, rather than the modern KJV?

[mfblume]

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.

[berkeley]

Originally Posted by mfblume

What has that got to do with the veracity of the Old and New Testaments contained in the KJV?

I am inquiring to know why the Apocrypha was thrown out.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Berkeley

I am inquiring to know why the Apocrypha was thrown out.

It was disposed of primarily because neither Jesus nor the apostles ever quoted from it. It contains nonsense such as driving demons away with the smell of rotting fish, or salt. And how dove's dung healed a man of blindness as the dung fell from the sky onto his eyes. It has books that deal with paying money to get souls out of purgatory.

If in 1611 they were still changing their mind about what is supposed to be in the bible (Apocrypha) then which one is right?

Either one is wrong and the people handicapped by history did not have the full bible (either people after 1611 or people before 1611)... or both are wrong which would mean that the Bible has not been preserved... since the bible is just a word that describes the canon we recognize as the "Bible" (proper noun).

[berkeley]

Originally Posted by mfblume

It was disposed of primarily because neither Jesus nor the apostles ever quoted from it. It contains nonsense such as driving demons away with the smell of rotting fish, or salt. And how dove's dung healed a man of blindness as the dung fell from the sky onto his eyes. It has books that deal with paying money to get souls out of purgatory.

I realize that Jesus and the Apostles didn't quote from it, but how do we know that it wasn't inspired?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Berkeley

I realize that Jesus and the Apostles didn't quote from it, but how do we know that it wasn't inspired?

Read it and find out! As I said, there's absolute nonsense in it. Doctrinal nonsense.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Sheltiedad

If in 1611 they were still changing their mind about what is supposed to be in the bible (Apocrypha) then which one is right?

Either one is wrong and the people handicapped by history did not have the full bible (either people after 1611 or people before 1611)... or both are wrong which would mean that the Bible has not been preserved... since the bible is just a word that describes the canon we recognize as the "Bible" (proper noun).

The entire debate of manuscript evidence is the versions of the NEW TESTAMENT. Come on, guys.