Bibleprotector, thanks for interest in my post, and validating the problems with the NKJB, as I said that is one of my main purposes for this post. I have no interest in combating a fellow 1611-1769 KJB defender on the issues you have outlined , lord knows we need unity on our side and should be focusing our guns on and debating the other side on this issue, they are the adversaries in this battle, not you and I..

Thanks for the young man comment, although it came across a bit condescending to me, you have subtly elevated yourself to a older more astute soldier in this battle, and you may well be but you do not know that for sure and it appeared a little self serving, (just an observation ). I left the young man status years ago. I may be wrong but it seems you have assumed that I am a young Baptist believer. Your “most Baptist” comment hinted that you think that I am indeed a Baptist. I am not sure what in my post gave that impression, but I sure would be interested to find out so I do not make that mistake again. Not that I think that it is somehow a bad thing to belong to Baptist Church. But I have read many post reply where people assume something with no evidence to support it.

You appear to agree that the text has not changed from 1611 to 1769 as I do accept for spellings taken on a greater uniformity, instead of each scholar spelling a word their own way as in sonne in Matthew of the 1661 to son in the 1769, no confusing as to the meaning of that word. Have you assumed that I am not aware that some publishers have indeed altered some words and still claim is in keeping with the 1611 text? I as you know that is a problem. Your examples of changes are a might weak in affecting doctrine, accept for the spirit or Spirit, the later being a reference to the Holy Spirit and not mans spirit. The ‘clifts or ‘cliffs’ example has no doctrine changing affect, as neither does the ‘fleeth’ to ‘flieth’. The Spirit example you cite is well taken , however as you said it occurred after the 1769 edition, you said it against the 1990 edition from Cambridge, however, it is also against the 1611and the 1769 KJB, which is in line with my position. Which takes me back to what I said that the 1611-1769 KJB has not changed any doctrine or historical accounts? If you have evidence to the contrary I sure would be grateful to see it so that I can be correct in my defense of the KJB .