Featured The reason I don't read the Bible that much.

George, I'd appreciate a response to the questions I posed above.

 

Without textual criticism there would have been no KJV. And if you think that scholarship is not involved with textual criticism you believe an absurdity.

And you need to discern the fact that there are two types of TC. The Lower, which concerns itself with the text and the facts. Higher Criticism is more subjective, going sometimes way beyond the scope of studying the manuscripts. It is not governed by the facts.

 

I prefer the one I'm reading. Compared to the 1611 edition, the font is easier to read, the spelling has been updated, and the typing errors rectified. So in that sense you're right "they aren't all identical". The greatest difference I could find was: Isaiah 49:13 – “God” vs. “the LORD”.
I don't know whether that was via a weary typesetter or not, neither do you. All I know is that I believe the Lord oversaw the whole process and I today trust 100% of the words in my Bible - I guess that would be the 1789 edition (not "revision").

I don't know what the answers to those questions are.

But the issue was not the KJB. The issue is God preserving all his words perfectly - in any Bible.

 

Irrelevant observations. I merely stated that humanistic textual criticism has corrupted the Biblical understanding of inspiration. A fact.
One may state, for example, that knowledge puffeth up. That does not mean we are rejecting all knowledge.

 

When I was much younger I would have the occasional dry spell from reading the Word.
Not wanting to read. Unable to keep my focus etc..

I found that reading a good children’s Bible to be very enjoyable. Very soon I would be searching my Bible for the complete text containing the stories I had read from the children’s Bible.
I would soon be back to my regular Bible reading and study.


Ive had half a dozen or more approach me about their “dry spells” and I’ve always suggested reading a children’s Bible.
It’s worked for each of them. They’re eventually back in the Word of God.

hope it works for ye.

 

I second the suggestion to try audio instead - not everyone is comfortable reading, and many Christians relied on aural transmission of Scripture and biblical teaching for centuries. I'm sure God doesn't want a problem with reading to be a stumbling block to accessing His Word. If you do decide to try other versions, then can I suggest the NIV BIble read by the British actor David Suchet (aka Poirot!). They are on Youtube. I'm sure there are equally good KJV audio versions too.



Another idea - instead of trying to read a lot, work on committing some few important verses to memory. Then you can recall them and meditate on them at any time in the future, without having to read them. Scripture itself speaks of the value of having it written on our hearts.

 

Boy, you really have avoidance issues George. As I said, without textual criticism you would have no KJV. Deal with it.

 

Boy, you're really trying hard to make it appear that way.
All the best.

 

There is no mere appearance; it is reality.

Do you deny that there had to be textual criticism in order to do any Bible translation including the KJV?

Do you deny that there is a significant difference between lower and higher textual criticism?

 

Guido, you know this might just be a cultural thing. I haven’t read anything about you nor do I believe you offered it, but anyway I come from a Roman Catholic background and I know from experience that they never stressed scriptural study and without that, it’s hard to make it a part of your day... see the study is a practice and like all practice it gets hard. Then you tend to drop it as a consistent focus. That happens with me but some brake through are really exciting. Then, who is helping you through all this? For me, some of the conservative primitive Baptists have really helped me... that is when I can slow them down so they can walk me through it.

 

The 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV as edited and revised by Benjamin Blayney can accurately and soundly be referred to as a revision. It would be an incorrect or bad argument to try to claim that the 1769 [not the 1789] is not a revision. Present post-1900 editions of the KJV are not the 1769 Oxford since they could have as many as 400 differences when compared to it.

You indicate that you are uninformed about the 2,000+ differences between the 1611 edition and a post-1900 edition if you assume that "God" vs "the LORD" is the greatest difference.

Since you do not know that "God" at Isaiah 49:13 was kept in the 1611 from the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible even though the Hebrew has the Hebrew name translated Jehovah in a few places, it again indicates a lack of knowledge on your part concerning the making of the 1611 KJV.