Search results

The King James Bible was made for Christians generally, not merely for Anglican pulpits. The size, type-font, and all that is of no bearing to the content. Once again, I repeat that the text (i.e. readings) and the translation were correct, despite the very well known fact that the printer did...

Incorrect, God's Word was perfect when first inspired, i.e. when Moses or Paul wrote it down.

I believe that its readings and translation is perfect. Obviously, its typography was not.

You are dealing with two different things: The KJB was correct (i.e. perfect) in its readings and in its translation in 1611. However, because of printing errors, lack of standardisation of spelling and grammar and other needful editorial regularisation, the presentation has not been fully...

Your accusation is not intellectually honest, because the KJB in 1611 was correct in regards to text and translation, but its grammatical exactness was not fully manifest in precision until long after 1769. No one I know of is arguing that every letter, every printing error, was correct in 1611.

This is a bizarre conspiracy theory trying to conjecture a convoluted story about why the English peoples accepted and used the KJB, even Puritans, without there being any knowledge of some sort of deliberate agenda to change the pre-1611 English Bibles into something sinister!?! The simple...

You presented selective data. The interpretation of data is not necessarily sound evidence. Your selective use of data and your interpretation of it, you mean, makes your case. Your case is not proof, it is just your assertion. You mean those whom you agree with. You don't actually mean...

There is a vast difference between historical (traditional) and modernistic understandings. Today's Jesuits would agree with your modernistic view, because today they are champions of modernism. The Vulgate editions of the 16th century were better than those of today for the same reason.

It seems that you are implying that English is gibberish, and Greek is not. 1Co 14:11 Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.

You are defining taking a faith-filled, anti-rationalist view as "ignorance". You think that a rationalist philosophy in theology is wise. It isn't. This is a grave fallacy. The meaning of words, the very sense, is going to be by more English words than the compactness of the original language...

By a lexicon, you mean, some modernist's limited understanding and opinion of meaning ascribed to the Biblical words. Unless you are going to tell us that some lexicon is infallible.

There is. One is the object and one is the subject. Ye is the subject and you is the object.

This is one of your pals, who wrote that in 2007. This supports my analysis of your approach. You may as well as have quoted yourself saying the same thing. It appears that your "sound evidence" really means your "implacable opinion".

That's right, I provide no evidence of any such thing being "supposed", because it is. And of course, all the evidence that is, you reject by your standard of what you want to hold as "sound". Further it is playing politics to say I did not supply evidence, because it is already obvious that it...

This reveals the true motives behind the attack on specific words in the KJB, i.e. doctrinal. Same with the unknown tongues.

The KJB is an exact translation, therefore what is given in English is the exact translation of that verse, sense for sense.

I don't defend problems in the KJB, because there are none. No words are added to the KJB, as it is sense for sense exactly what the originals communicated, which is to say, that it is God's Word in English, every word, without any wrong meaning. So, of course no meanings are added or taken...

Talk about conspiracy theories. You are now suggesting that a typographical error in the first 1611 Edition, that was corrected very early on, was supposedly part of some plot to foist prelatical ecclesiology or something? Your conspiratorial view doesn't stand up to historical scrutiny: divine...

From your comment, I can see why you would have an objection to the word "unknown" there, but really, it was those Anglican editors who differed with you, and those Reformation scholars who used such terminology. Even the Geneva men had "strange" there.

The words in italics were necessarily used in English, by both translators, and afterwards added by editors. These completed the sense, as Benjamin Blayney said, "Frequent recourse has been had to the Hebrew and Greek Originals; and as on other occasions, so with a special regard to the words...