Search results

That is a loaded statement. You are assuming that the KJB is not an accurate translation, but was coloured by specific theology which may not be correct, and you are attempting to redefine doctrines and use emotive language, where such descriptions are not accurate. The King James Bible is...

In the Bible, nothing should be changed. We should not change the Bible to current sensibilities (which is to reduce the Word of God to the will of man). And the KJB was not made by a special inspiration 1605 to 1611. Changing even little things in God's Word is to bring in some level of...

No verse says "the rapture" or "the Trinity" or "the Bible", but those doctrines exist. The lack of a verbatim reference to the term "King James Bible" is likewise not to be used against it.

Again, not verbatim, but if you take that verse to its conclusion: the KJB would be there for the Millennium.

Yet you conveniently ignore that they, including Calvin, referenced the interpretation existed that "them" = words, and also smudge over the fact that a number made reference to the words in relation to their interpretation that "them" = people. So there was no distortion on my part. That is...

There is only one King James Version which is common, historical and published through the world. The Bible does not state that verbatim, but can be understood when various Scriptures are taken together, including Romans 16:26.

Thank you. There is only one King James Version, so when you say "second KJV", you are mistaken. The version and translation did not change, regardless of the fact that a printer may have made a mistake or that an editor/copyeditor may have corrected such a typographical error. The point is...

Yes, some have blue covers, some have black covers, some are big, some are small. Your question is further flawed since the inspiration of Scripture finished with the Apostle John.

Baptism. There is no mode, but what the proper meaning of the word is. If you refer to dipping, washing, sprinkling, immersing, or anything else, then you are not sticking with the actual Biblical word "baptism". I'm not saying it's wrong to immerse people, but you seem to think that the word...

You are admitting then that there is an English word which exists in English which is used in English Bibles which has an English definition. Your argument about etymology only confirms this.

Your question is flawed. Scripture itself does not have a final form as though it has changed since inspiration. Since the KJB is an accurate text and translation, it is of course the final form of the representation of Scripture, but it hasn't actually changed the Scripture since inspiration...

The providence of God is outworking the spread of English. The Lord is coming at a set time, so there is no "if the Lord tarry" about it: certain things must be fulfilled before His return. And yes, the KJB is to be considered exactly correct into the Millennium. In the Millennium. Jesus'...

When I said "for the whole world" that was future tense, as it is clear that today there are Christians who do not know English.

That's historical revisionism. The Romanists just want to take the glory for themselves.

Actually, the obscurity is in appeal to the Greek, but the English word Baptism is a religious word with a religious meaning. In English there is proper meaning for words (despite what people say or define otherwise) whereas in Greek, now, nobody knows with 100% certainty (apparently). That's...

The KJB is catholic, but not Roman Catholic. It is, after all, the final form of Scripture which is exactly correct for the whole world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3x2SvqhfevE

Rare mentions of "Calvinism" are not to be considered focus. This booklet describes my focus: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6XF8984ar9NUkRTdWR3MUVkX1k/view

Spending time going through hundreds of thousands of problems with modern versions is not the battleground: the battle between the Word and Spirit view and the leaven of Infidelity is. The incorrect foundations of your approach is what needs to be addressed, not merely fact that you use the ESV...

Your agenda is to read in deception where none exists. You've got it backwards. Modern versions are just one of a wide variety of fruits. The actual battle is between the wrong foundation and the authority of Scripture. Your wrong attachment to modern versions, wrong interpretation and so on...