I have also used a new Greek font to update and tidy my pages on textual criticism, on the same site.

Someone on another thread (I can't remember who) commented that the real issue is that preachers are not resorting to the original languages and doing their own exegesis for their sermon prep. I think this is much more to the point than whether or not we use the KJV.

There are good versions available, and there are trash. Among the latter are:
The Message
The Living Bible
Today's NIV
New RSV

Not that McCain is anything to write home about (as the saying goes). It's just that he is better than the ghastly and horrific alternative. And the ticket with Palin has improved the image.

The Devil called "the morning star". Haven't you read the preface in Isa.14:4? It's part of a taunt against the king of Babylon (Note)! And the prophet uses the language of irony, taunting him with titles which he claimed, but is not entitled to. I care nothing for later interpretations (N.B.) that refer this passage to the fall of Lucifer, one which originates with Jerome.

"the only verse in Scripture which specifically names the Trinity?" Oh come off it! Do you seriously mean to tell us that without 1 John 5:7 the NT would be ambiguous on this doctrine?? What about Matt.28:19? 2 Cor 13:14? The "God, the Lord, and the Spirit" theme in 2 Cor 3?

Codex A, the principal witness to the Pastoral Epistles and dated C5th, is badly faded in parts, including this passage, but modern photographic techniques have revealed that it does indeed read "God", not "who".

I agree with you: I pay attention to citations, but it is regrettable that it has taken this long to produce new photographs, the last having been done in the late C19th!

From the wild rant and bombast in your latest post it would seem not.

Haven't you heard of the tu quoque fallacy?

The KJV debate is probably the most emotive of all issues on this board. It certainly is what gets the blood boiling, and, I regret to observe, the mud flinging. We need to remember that even with the most critical of texts (which I do not necessarily endorse) no doctrine of the Christian faith is compromised.

For that matter, you can read on my website about 1 Tim.3:16. Codex A (our best and most ancient manuscript for the Pastoral Epistles) has been misread at this point due to poor photography in the late C19th. That's no disrespect to scholars of the time, but it is shoddy scholarship that only until very recently that a new set of photographs have revealed that 1 Tim.3:16 does in fact read "theos", "God manifest in the flesh".

A Democratic Conservative wrote:
...Bad-mouthing & attempting to Smear & Defame Godly Brothers & Sisters in Christ Jesus like Ian Paisley, Texe Marrs & Gail Riplinger--as well as ALL who stand WITHOUT APOLOGY on THE "KING JAMES" BIBLE.

hidemi williges wrote:
I had to quit due to an accident. 60lb bag of cement landed on my knee. So I am disabled for now.

My own experience is otherwise: there are many evangelical Presbyterian churches which preach and expound God's Word from either the the NIV (which I personally dislike), the NASB, or the ESV. Many of them are what I would call spiritually alive. But all the while - properly - they will be appealing to the original Hebrew or Greek.

Currently I worship at a Grace Community Bible church, one of the John Macarthur circle (I left the Presbyterian circle over the usual issues of baptism and church govt.), and although I would like the musical side to be different, the expository preaching is excellent. And it is growing, with many young couples and families attending and growing in the faith!

hidemi williges wrote:
The one single issue that weighs heavy on my mind is the fact that most KJV bashers (especially Pastors) either run or belong to some of the most liberal, modernist and corrupt Churches or Associations around. Most in co-operation with Roman Catholicism.

Now as to the portion quoted:
Your argument seems to be:
Pastor X is a KJV-basher
RCs and liberals are KJV-bashers
Therefore Pastor X is a RC or a liberal.

I see this kind of argument time and again from your circles. But let me make a substitution of terms in the same argument form:
This cat has fur
All dogs have fur
Therefore this cat is a dog.

You see how ridiculous - and unfair - this formal fallacy is? In formal logic it's called variously the illicit common factor, or the undistributed middle term. But one finds it so commonly in our reason-deficient world.

hidemi williges wrote:
MurrayA,
Looks like the only thing that I agree with you, is your stand on global warning.

You are probably miffed that I did not cite KJVO literature. I have seen quite a bit of it, and heard some lectures (Dr. Waite in particular), and I can only say that it has to be some of the most unscholarly and tendentious rubbish I have ever seen masquerading as serious scholarship. It is full of special pleading, non-sequiturs, circular reasoning and many other such fallacies, as well as incendiary vituperations and invective.

Gail Riplinger's "New Age Bible Versions" is a case in point. How such a menagerie of error-filled bile and nonsense ever saw the light of day is beyond me. She is as far to the right as Germaine Greer is to the far left! I would hope that you are not endorsing that!

Mark Fitzpatrick wrote:
The reason it is called the King James Bible is that it was authorised by King James.

F F Bruce makes a similar point in his "The History of the English Bible" (I don't have a copy at hand as it was on loan from a College library, so I can't give the page reference. But the same point was certainly there.)

I have outlined the history of publication of the KJV on my website:
http://www.adamthwaite.com.au/html/history_kjv_ii.html

Tregelles' position on textual criticism, I firmly believe, has much to teach us. Hywel Jones in a study of Tregelles in 1975 (Evangelical Library lecture) makes the following point, speaking of that class who refuse to see any imperfections in the KJV:

"To them the 1611 version must not be altered by a jot or a tittle. Any preacher who alters it is automatically classed with the liberals, to be at least inconsistent if not a traitor. This ought not to be. Let us learn from Tregelles."

With that I thoroughly concur, having had the "liberal" slur hurled at me time and again on this board for precisely the reason Jones indicates. This is unworthy, not to say outrageous. Tregelles was an outstanding scholar, and at the same time a thoroughly reverent Christian with a very high view of Scripture, as Jones outlines.

However, Burgon is really not relevant to the whole debate on textual issues. He wrote well before the mass of NT papyri were found, and these have supported the text attested by the great C4th codices. When KJVO-ers repeatedly ignore this evidence, as I have found consistently and to my sorrow, they rule themselves out of serious consideration.