Testing the "Seven Times Purified Theory"

'Very good. That's one. But I asked for "quotes" plural'

There is a lot more than one John. I am surprised you do not know that. I will let you dig further on that, but I agree with L. Vance in his ‘King James, His Bible, and it’s Translators’ (2016, pp.261-269) that the KJVO movement started with King James in 1611 and has been around for centuries!

I just read this one.....

“I furthermore say, that [the] King James Translation of the Bible is the only Divinely Inspired Translation directly, since the compilation of the ancient manuscripts by Ezra, and the giving of the New Testament by the Apostles” (W.W. Simkins: The English Version of the New Testament, Compared with King James’ Translation, In Use By All Protestants” Betzer & Gregoire, Printers, 1882 p. 42).

 

Not sure of all the various beliefs but it was even in the mainstream among the public. I got a hold of a Newspaper ad (below) from 1891 claiming the new version and its scholarship was an 'assault of the devil.' No kidding. I am currently gathering more info on this.

 

You have avoided the fact that most modern translations have more variant readings from the common handed down Greek New Testament text than the AV does. One of the reasons behind the KJVO complete failure.

 

Would this apply to the manuscripts the KJV translators were looking at when they wrote Re 16:5 and Acts 12:4?

 

Perhaps so if it was just one ad. But I have about 15 of them and I am putting them all together for an article not finished yet. If you're interested email me at writethevisionministry@gmail.com and I will link it to you when it's complete and proofed. I will also have a few dozen or more quotes of which you asked for. The more I dig, it looks like a few others have really done their research on this and beat me to it.

Blessings.....

 

We have pointed out a few of its errors right here in this thread, such as "Easter" in Acts 12:4 & "and shalt be" in Rev. 16:5, a phrase not found in any known ancient Greek manuscripts containing Revelation. People can become better bible scholars by reading it in their common language with many of the goofs& booboos in earlier versions removed.

 

So ?

 

Here is the difficulty with the KJV reading for Revelation 16:5: While the KJV reading is in agreement with, Revelation 1:4, Revelation 1:8, Revelation 4:8 and Revelation 11:17, it does not demonstrate the more common reading of Revelation 16:5 is not the needed statement of it's truth. ". . . Thou art righteous, which art, and wast, thou Holy One, because thou hast judged thus. . . ."

 

The AV with all it's known faults is still better overall.

 

Why not, even though they used Beza's revision of the TR for mosta their NT, including his ADDITION to Scripture?

 

If it's not in the verse being translated, it doesn't matter mow many others it's in. If it's ADDED in a given verse, it's WRONG.

 

No, it's NOT. It's not even in OUR common language. Nobody but Shakespearean actors use that English style any more, & they only do at work.

 

What is the NKJV for?

 

Most all the so called modern translations are worse.

 

Laurence Vance had been associated with Peter Ruckman. Because he claimed that the KJV-only movement started with King James in 1611 does not make it true. KJV-only advocates believe claims for the KJV that are not true.

In their preface to the 1611, the KJV translators actually rejected the one-perfect-translation theory of their day [the Latin Vulgate-only theory], and they clearly suggested that no Bible translation would be perfect. The dedication to King James in the 1611 actually referred to the KJV as being one more exact translation [not the only one], meaning one more like the 1560 Geneva Bible and the 1568 Bishops' Bible. Several of the KJV translators continued to preach from a different translation than the KJV after 1611.