- Feb 26, 2020
- Reaction score
So when KJV was less than 100 years old it was a bad version?You might have missed this, as it addresses the original use of the term "radical" in it's proper context in Christendom:
"KJV radical" is a silly term as almost all Protestants across all denominations used that version for 300 years, therefore using said term implies one believes almost all of Christendom was radical before Westcott and Hort who stated they did not believe Jesus was God in agreement with the JW's (which is why the NASB says Jesus was a "begotten God"), and stated that their "faith" and their Bible was "mere compromise" (quoted word for word), and that they thought evangelicals were "perverted", and did not believe the scriptures were inspired.
Just a few of their self-professed claims of many that accurately makes them self-professed radicals on numerous pillars and fundamentals of the faith who gave us the versions that barely 1 century later we can see the fruits of in the first world: apostasy and riots.
Why someone will defend versions that are barely 1 century old when Christendom has thousands of years behind it is beyond me. Especially considering the result of their ecumenical, 300+ variant-versions fruit everyone can see now.