The PuritanBoard - View Single Post - Question to KJV-only people

xint · #20 (**permalink**) 06-15-2008, 04:31 AM

questions and notes,

. I agree the textual vs translation issues must not be conflated as they often are. I wonder, why do we not see a "modern " TR translation?

. as to diffs between 1611 and modern kjv- is it actually only spelling variations? I haven't found an electronic version of the 1611 to compare!

. My experience with KJV-only folks is pretty limited. The majority have not been very familiar with the issues (particularly, with the question of text). I have heard of 1611-only folks online. One person who was talking about KJV only sort of stopped discussing it after he learned that my two bibles in my hand were Maltese and Greek.

. As I remember learning from my Greek teacher, 'received text' was just an abbreviation for the byline that the edition went by. I don't like seeing that taken as a tautology, "The KJV uses the *received text*, what does yours use?".

. If we are looking at philosophies (and I have not read the entirety of the linked article, thanks for linking that) why promote the name of 'king james'?

. the Geneva notes are great. I think the new printers should have included the apocrypha.