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.
Threaded Mode
