the King James Version
 

Have you read this version????

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

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.

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

:lalala

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?

There are no scriptures left in the original hand. Everything we have is a copy of a copy of who knows how many levels of copies. Virtually every copy has mistakes and even additions. Scholars have done amazing things to restore much of what the originals probably contained, but there is no way of knowing (and there is much disagreement) on how close today's translations are to the originals, and that includes every variety of the KJV.

It is said that none of the mistakes or uncertainties matter in doctrine. That everything we need is preserved. That may be so, but why is there still so much disagreement on what the true doctrines are? Why isn't the Bible crystal clear about everything that matters? Oh but it is, you say. The OPs have it all figured out. Everyone else just doesn't love truth! Funny, that's exactly what the trinnies say, and many denominations/cults out there. (Especially the cults.)

I disagree.

We cannot treat the bible like any ancient book. God inspired it. If God inspired it, then He obviously wanted man to have His word. He did not leave us to religious speculation. And that means He was involved in preserving it.

I do not know you, so this is nothing personal against you, but you are repeating the same thing that scholars today proclaim when they wind up saying we cannot know anything about how to be saved, since we do not know what is truth and what is not, in the bible. Which is genuine and which is not? "Who is to say?", they claim.

So it is either believe God inspired it and preserved it, or forget the whole thing about salvation and Jesus.

STEPHENS or ALZEVIR'S is the good source text for the New Testament..

Nestle's text came along when people started critiquing the bible and wanting to know what was genuine scripture and what was not. They allegedly found previously unknown or unexamined new manuscripts. In other words, they accepted the thought that God's Word could have been lost. If that is the case, then God did not supernaturally preserve His Word, which He must have if He supernaturally inspired it. God can do anything. And I f he inspired it it only is logical that He preserve it.

Nestle's text was devised by Eberhard Nestle in 1898 and was a supposed step CLOSER to what they believe they will NEVER truly be able to arrive at: a genuine word of God. They believe THERE IS NO WORD OF GOD any more, since they say the true words written originally are lost. Once you go down that road, the devil makes you think that if some of it is wrong, then what else is wrong (?), and your whole faith is thrown out the window in time.

I've heard the new revisions still hold all the doctrinal issues that the bible needs to hold, despite admissions that there are certain words removed. But it reminds me of the converting of certain archaic measurement units into modern equivalents. The numbers used in the biblical measurements are actually more important since they are types. When we remove the archaic measurements from the passages, and change furlongs into a totally different number oif miles, for instance, we've lost the specific number associated with the furlong that in itself is a type and message. Similarly, when we remove certain words from certain verses, we've lost something.

Any time we over-analyze something like the 1 John Johanine "comma", our minds can wander and we consider this and that. But faith is lost at a certain point. Faith tells us that God preserved His word if He took time and effort to inspire it to begin with. Knowing the philosophy behind the modern versions and their refusal to use the Textus Receptus, how the people behind them actually do not believe there is a preserved Word of God and that it is instead long lost, and knowing that the people behind the TR felt God was using them to preserve the Word, I am very cautious about the non-TR newer versions.

As I said, I believe the true revelation of Jesus Christ is revealed in the scriptures we have available to us today. I do not believe every word is 100%, nor do I believe that is necessary. God has preserved this revelation of Himself, however it is spiritually discerned. That simply means that we must sincerely seek after the truth, within a personal relationship with God. God deals with each of us where we are, and will lead us all the days of our lives. Unfortunately some of us believe we have perfect understanding and literally stop our pursuit of God, that is unfortunate because He is always leading us farther. Does that change scripture, of course not, it is all there we just come to see more and more from God's perspective.

I still believe the KJV is the anchor point, I always judge other translations and version with the KJV for the very reasons Bro. Blume advocates.