Featured The KJV and The Holy Spirit

I read the referenced page (page 534) in Bullinger’s book and saw for myself that the quote, "Heterosis of Gender", does not appear on the page. Moreover, heterosis is a biological term rather than a grammatical term and the expression, “Heterosis of Gender”, makes no sense. There is nothing more important to me than the truth, but unfortunately, some people passionately hate the truth.

 

As we argue we are being watched over by the Father, the Holy Ghost and that "holy thing".

“And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” (Luke 1:35, AV 1873)
​

Rob

 

You already identified you yourself as being KJV-only since you made exclusive only claims for the KJV.

 

Does this do it?

King James Bible 2016

 

No. Has the same broken PDF link.
"http://textus-receptus.com/files/King James Version 2016 final.pdf,"

 

According to you, this is probably, what?, the 25th or so
different criteria for which you have labeled me KJV-only,
as an extremely disingenuous insult, intended to be
as ultimately insulting and demeaning as you are capable of being.

The KJV-only position that you are dependent upon to label anyone
that doesn't bow down and conform and worship what you worship
is so weak and flimsy and entirely indefensible that even you
can come up with some miraculous 'spike the football' moments.

Unfortunately,

And that is where you live and reside and embrace an irrational position,
as irrational as the KJV-only position.

So, I can see where you would always make sure to draw the attention away from your devotion to incomplete, insufficient departures from the faith, which go about establishing a guild for some other religion besides Christianity, by using any number of various criteria for saying anyone who doesn't follow them is KJV-only, according to you, otherwise, unless you go about seeking every KJV user whom you may devour, how else could you bolster and justify a position on the foundation of Westcott and Hort's devious clandestine and demonstrably deceptive substitution of their writings in place of those preserved for 18 centuries, used in the translation of seven other English versions, which agree with each other to a remarkable extent, when those in the linage of Westcott and Hort do not, but are more notably similar in most regards to The Jahovah's Witness' New World translation and the Douay-Rheims Bible?

So, that's all you do.

Pretty shallow, panic stricken, and in desparation, but that's what you do.

I quoted some articles who's context was the KJV vs the New age versions,
as prefering and choosing the KJV side and that's all it was and you know it.

I knew what they were saying and I know what I believe and so do you,
although you are not about to stop bearing false witness against me, or God, or the KJV and as a matter of fact, you may be one of the most prolific enemies of The Cause of Christ in those regards, on the Internet, today.

Who More So?

 

King James Version 2016
have to get permission to get that there?

You can view the 2016 KJV NT here:
King James Version 2016 Edition - Textus Receptus

 

"Since 1881 there has been controversy and confusion (which by the way, is reflected in the many modern translations all claiming to be the Word of God and all different from each other). Some say it is the United Bible Society’s Greek text and the English translation of it that is God’s Word. Others say, no, it is the Nestle Greek text and the English translation of it that is God’s Word. Now it comes down to the tyranny of the experts. What do the scholars say? Each scholar says something different than the other. This leaves the King James Version standing like a lighthouse on the storm swept shore, for it is the only English translation of the New Testament based entirely upon the text that has been passed on to us by faithful churches."

I looked up the context to see what they were making a comparison to.

So, that isn't a statement of KJV-onlism, because you and I and everyone knows that it is understood other versions do exist, which would just make that statement a lie, if that is what you think they were doing. Just telling a stupid lie. Don't be ridiculous. As a rule. Stop being so ridiculous.
...

"Since 1881, many Christians have followed Westcott and Hort into error. Even many of the major Bible societies have fallen into this error. As for Baptist Bible Translators Institute, we stand with those faithful churches that have preserved God’s Word through the centuries. We stand on the Word of God in the King James Version, because it is the only translation in the English language that is free from the presuppositions of modern Gnosticism. There is no reason for us to move into the Gnostic’s camp where it is a matter of one opinion versus another opinion. We must not follow anyone’s opinion. If we do, we will be shifting constantly and every man doing that which is right in his own eyes-the deplorable state of modern man."

Their belief on the Bible;

"We believe the Holy Bible was written by men supernaturally inspired by God and what they wrote is truth without any mixture of error and is therefore the only complete and final revelation of the will of God to mankind. We believe the King James Version to be this Holy Bible, the inspired, preserved Word of God in the English language. We do not mean that the English language translators were inspired as they translated. However, because what they translated is an accurate and faithful translation of the inspired Hebrew and Greek texts, the King James Version is therefore the inspired, preserved Word of God in the English language."

Based on this below they know how it works and that the KJV is not the only text ever:

"Naturally, when the first Greek New Testament was printed in 1516, the readings, which varied with the majority of the other texts, were disallowed and the readings of the majority were accepted. This is how the churches had preserved the Word of God for 1,516 years. By this simple, but completely accurate method, the Word of God was watched over by the Holy Spirit who worked through the churches who were faithful custodians of the Scriptures they cherished.

However, "the King James Version, because it is the only translation in the English language that is free from the presuppositions of modern Gnosticism" isn't a statement of KJV-onlism, because you and I and everyone knows that it is understood other versions do exist, which would just make that statement a lie, if that is what you think they were doing. Just telling s stupid lie. Don't be ridiculous. As a rule. Stop being so ridiculous.

1534 Tyndale Bible
1535 Coverdale Bible
1537 Matthew's Bible
1539 The Great Bible
1560/99 Geneva Bible
1568 Bishops Bible
1611 King James Bible
1769 King James Bible
1833 Webster's Bible
1862 Young's Literal
1876 Julia E. Smith
1993 J.P. Green's Literal
2000 Revised YLT NT
2016 King James Bible.

They didn't clarify other English versions, which would be understood to exist,
but I had already clarified my position on that same post and you know that.

Any mention of "only", "exclusive", "advocate", or "defender", etc., that has to do with me and my life has to do with what I exclude, which are those versions which hold to the Preeminence of Anti-Christian systematic eradication of The Deity of Jesus Christ, etc., and you know that.

No testimony of salvation?

But they are dead.

So, where are they now? Am I supposed to testify to something that they didn't?
...

Yep. That would include the Bibles above.

That isn't a statement of KJV-onlism, because you and I and everyone knows that it is understood other versions do exist.

I am the principal source for saying what I believe, not your warped perceptions of everything and everybody being what you say, so you can make an easy cheap kill.

You're too cheap to talk about is what it really comes down to. You're just cheap.

Preferring and choosing and this "only" and "exclusive" business you are more than excitable and obsessed with are two different things entirely, if you weren't so cheap.

You know it. I know it. God knows it
And in your case, the problem is the Devil knows it and won't let you go.

 

You demonstrate that you are the one bearing false witness. Your use of carnal smear tactics is evident.

You also bear false witness against the translators of the NKJV which do not advocate any so-called "modern Gnosticism." The NKJV is not a new age Bible version.

As you have been told several times, I have not advocated nor recommended the Westcott/Hort text nor the Critical Text so your seeming use of the guilty-by-association fallacy is wrong.

My true statement that acknowledged your identifying your own view as KJV-only by making exclusive only claims for the KJV is not bearing false witness against you, against God, or against the KJV.

You may unsoundly try to suggest again that the accurate and defined term KJV-only refers only to Peter Ruckman and his followers when it does not. You seem to try to misrepresent what constitutes a KJV-only view. Perhaps some KJV-only teaching involves presuppositions of modern Gnosticism since it implies some kind of secret, special knowledge available only to one exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611.

I am not an enemy of the cause of Christ as you falsely and improperly allege. Do you present your warped and incorrect perceptions and misconceptions against any believer who disagrees with your opinions and interpretations?

My stand is for the truth of what the Scriptures state and teach. I accept the doctrine of truth that is taught in the KJV, and that doctrine of truth would oppose your making bogus, non-true accusations against Bible believers who soundly disagree with non-scriptural and non-true claims concerning the KJV. You have not refuted my true statements concerning the KJV. You complain about my stating the truth and providing actual documented facts concerning the varying Textus Receptus editions and the KJV. Presenting the truth is not irrational.

You seem to try to equate your human opinions as being directly from God so that if anyone disagrees with you, you try to suggest they are supposedly disagreeing with God.

 

Was the rendering "penance" found in the 1535 Coverdale's Bible at Matthew 3:8, 12:41, Luke 10:13, 11:32, 15:7, 10, 16:30, Acts 3:19 and 26:20 more purified or more accurate than Tyndale’s New Testament?

Do you approve of the 1535 Coverdale's Bible reading at Luke 2:33 ["And his father and mother"]?

In Psalm 14, the1535 Coverdale's Bible has three additional verses which are not in the KJV.

From the Latin Vulgate, the 1535 Coverdale's Bible has the rendering "lamies" at Lamentations 4:3. From the influence of the Vulgate, Coverdale’s has “Alexandria” instead of “No” (Jer. 46:25). Instead of "mown grass" at Psalm 72:6, Coverdale's has "fleece of wool." At Psalm 28:8, Coverdale's has "strength of his people" in agreement with the LXX, Syriac, and Latin Vulgate while the KJV has only "strength." At Psalm 13:6, Coverdale's has a sentence that is not in the KJV: "Yea, I will praise the name of the LORD the most highest." Coverdale's Bible has "upon me" after "call" at Psalm 20:9 that is not in the KJV. Coverdale's Bible adds "before him" after "rejoice" at Psalm 2:11. Does Coverdale’s Bible have any “foreign matter?” Instead of "balm" at Jeremiah 8:22, Coverdale's has "treacle." In agreement with LXX, Syriac, and Vulgate, Coverdale's reads "the God of Gods appeareth unto thee in Zion" in the second half of verse seven of Psalm 84. "A cock ready to fight" is Coverdale's rendering at the beginning of Proverbs 30:31.

The 1535 Coverdale's Bible rendered Daniel 3:25 as follows: "the fourth is like an angel to look upon."

At Matthew 1:23, Coverdale's Bible reads "maid" rather than "virgin."

The first edition of Coverdale's Bible had the book of Baruch located between Lamentations and Ezekiel (Bruce, The English Bible, p. 60).

 

The 1862 Young's Literal Translation of the Bible at Romans 8:16 stated: "The Spirit himself doth testify with our spirit, that we are children of God" which agrees with the NKJV "The Spirit Himself."

The 1862 Young's Literal Translation agrees with the NKJV at 2 Peter 1:1 as it has "the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ."

The 1862 Young's Literal Translation agrees with the NKJV at Titus 2:13 as it has "the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ."

 

Are you claiming that you consider the 1862 Young's Literal Translation to be the word of God translated into English in the same sense (univocally) as you would claim the KJV to be the word of God? The 1862 Young's Literal Translation is different from the KJV.

At 1 Corinthians 1:18, the 1862 Young's Literal Translation has "and to us--those being saved" similar to the NKJV "to us who are being saved."

At 1 Corinthians 15:2, the 1862 Young's Literal Translation begins the verse as "through which also ye are being saved" while the NKJV has "by which also you are saved."

At Ephesians 2:8, the 1862 Young's Literal Translation has "for by the grace ye are having been saved, though faith" while the NKJV has "For by grace you have been saved through faith."

At 1 Corinthians 13:4, the 1862 Young's Literal Translation stated: "The love is long-suffering, it is kind, the love doth not envy, the love doth not vaunt itself, is not puffed up."

 

TWO QUESTIONS FOR YOU:

1.) By saying, "the NKJV which do not advocate any so-called "modern Gnosticism" are you implying that there are any number of versions at large which, "advocate"..."so-called "modern Gnosticism"?

2.) By saying, "The NKJV is not a new age Bible version", are you implying that there are any number of versions at large which are each, "a new age Bible version"?

Of the fourteen scriptures referenced where the NKJV verses have identical changes that are contained in Critical Text, the typical Logos1560-type explanation is?: "If this decision happens to match the CT (and it does), this is no proof that the NKJV used the CT."

You can use that. You're welcome.

No one's scared of the fact that people can open their mouths and say words, or that a piece of paper will sit there and let you write things down on it.

So, what are said to be the NKJV excuses?

"I AM STILL RIGHT"

"But I have now gone through" (the) "list, and it is my belief that I do not have to retract anything..."

"One might disagree with their choice, but this passage does not show that the NKJV translators were following the CT rather than Scrivener’s TR."

"...the English text omitted εκ σου—but not that it followed the CT. I now believe that the NKJV translators either 1) omitted to translate the phrase because it is redundant and unnatural (though certainly not impossible) in English or 2) followed Stephanus’ 1550 TR instead of Scrivener for reasons they do not give."

"The NKJV once again went with natural English, not with the CT."

"If this decision happens to match the CT (and it does), this is no proof that the NKJV used the CT."

THEN?

"I must acknowledge that it is at least equally possible that, for a reason they do not share, the NKJV translators decided to follow the CT here."

WELL.....

"When this new translation of the Bible was published in the USA in 1982, the publishers, Thomas Nelson, stated that their aim was ‘to produce an updated English Version that follows the sentence structure of the 1611 Authorized Version (AV) as closely as possible…to transfer the Elizabethan word forms into twentieth century English’.1

"The ‘Preface’ to the New King James Version (hereinafter NKJV) stated that the Old Testament would be a translation of the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the New Testament would be a translation of the Greek Received Text, the same Texts used by the AV translators in 1611.2"

1. Arthur L. Farstad, The New King James Version: in the Great Tradition (Nashville, TN, USA: Thomas Nelson, 1989), p. 34.

2. Holy Bible: New King James Version (Nashville, TN, USA: Thomas Nelson, 1982), pp. vi–vii.

https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.tbsbibles...0F/The-New-King-James-Version-A-Critique_.pdf

So, I, "bear false witness against the translators of the NKJV"?

"In most places where the NKJV disagrees with the King James Bible,
it agrees with the translations of modern Alexandrian p*********s,

whether Prostestant like the NIV, NAS, RSV, ASV, etc.,

or Roman Catholic like the New American Bible.

"The New King James Version is not a true King James Bible. It mixes some true King James accuracy with a lot of Alexandrian and "new version" errors.

"We know this because the NKJV tells us which ancient texts they used when they made up their Bible.

"Don't be fooled by the clever names and symbols.

"Here is what they say they really used:

• "The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, or BHS. This is not the preserved Hebrew Old Testament. This one is approved by the Vatican (Roman Catholic religion) and printed jointly by the Vatican and Protestant Bible societies. In 1937 the (NKJV) "scholars" rejected the preserved Ben Chayyim for an "older" (but not more accurate) text: the Leningrad Ms B 19a (also called the "Ben Asher text"). The BHS states:
  
  "...it is a welcome sign of the times that it was published jointly in 1971 by the Wurttemburg Bible Society, Stuttgart, and the Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome...." --Prolegomena, p. XII
  
  
• "The Septuagint, or LXX. As you have seen1, the so-called "Septuagint" is a fable. It was really written after Jesus was born, not before. There are many Septuagints, since each Alexandrian Old Testament is different from every other. Know what they are? Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus - the same exact codices (big books) where the modern p*******d New Testaments come from!
  
  
• "The Latin Vulgate. This is not the preserved Vaudois Christian, Old Latin Vulgate. The NKJV "scholars" consulted the p*******d, Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate.
  
  
• "The Dead Sea Scrolls, or DSS. It is clear through Scripture that God preserved His words through the tribe of Levi (Deuteronomy 17:18, 31:9-13, 25-26, Nehemiah 8 and Malachi 2:7). The Qumran community that produced the DSS are never said to be Levites. But though God says "the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth" (Malachi 2:7), the NKJV committee instead consulted the DSS as well.
  
  
• "The Majority Text, or MT. With a name like Majority Text it should be a compilation of the majority of Greek New Testament manuscripts. But it is not. The "Majority Text" is actually a hand-picked set of manuscripts grouped together by "pro-Alexandrian" liberal Hermann von Soden2.

Less than 8% of the over 5,000 Greek manuscripts were compared to each other by von Soden's team of collators!

"But the NKJV people give the MT great prominence, writing this inaccurate information in the footnotes."


"1. "What is the Septuagint?"

"2 Von Soden never claimed the texts collated by his team were a "majority" of texts. The book Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text by Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad (1982) used mostly von Soden's work and suddenly called it by a new term: "Majority Text." (Note: NKJV publisher Thomas Nelson also published their book.)"

from: Chick.com: Does The New King James Use the Same Texts As The KJV?

 

"...the translational problems of the NKJV,...: "We shall show the critical text for what it is: a recovery of the Alexandrian text of the 4th century AD, which is an Egyptian revision and c********n of the Apostolic text.

"Therefore, we will affirm that it is wrong for the New King James Version to include text-critical notes in its margin from this very c*****t text. We shall demonstrate the very c*****t state of the Egyptian text, by utilizing the meticulous textual examinations of it by Herman Hoskier, especially from his work Codex B and its Allies,7 as well as from other sources.

"We shall demonstrate that the Egyptian or Alexandrian text was c*******d by the following things, among others:

(1) it was c*******d by the superimposition of Coptic (i.e., Egyptian) spellings, grammatical structures, and word order upon the text;

(2) it was c*******d in many places by the re-editing of the Apostolic Greek text to make it match the Coptic (Egyptian) text;

(3) it was c*******d by the critical work of the early Church Father Origen and his followers, who often critically amended the text according to their mystical/allegorical interpretations of passages of Scripture; and finally,

(4) it was c*******d by heretics in Egypt who emasculated the text in key places.

".... we shall demonstrate how the Church at large, after the persecutions of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, and particularly after the Council of Nicea in the 4th century, began to revise their manuscript copies universally to the standard of the faithful apographs (copies descended directly from the originals) that were yet maintained in the apostolic churches of Asia Minor (which was the Byzantine Empire) and of Rome, and hence, set forth the rise of the Byzantine text to the ascendancy, and the universal rejection of the Egyptian text for the next 1,400 years.

"... we shall show how the Textus Receptus was the result of faithful men who labored to see that the best text from the copies of the traditional text found its way into the printed editions, that many eyes were on the text to correct it, and that the Reformation fathers were right in eight passages in the Textus Receptus to follow a 13 Issue Number: 581 – October to December 2007 Greek minority reading8 when that reading was backed with nearly universal Latin support; and that thereby, through consulting an overwhelming Latin witness, the true readings were restored universally on the printed page.

"We shall then, as enabled, address the translational flaws of the NKJV in both the Old and New Testaments. We shall demonstrate that these flaws are not minor in nature, but that, to the contrary, together with the marginal notes, they impact Key Doctrines of the Word of God:

(Gnostic)
"Doctrines such as:

"The Hypostatic Union of the Two Natures in Christ,

"The Incarnation,

"The Eternal Generation of the Person of the Son,

"The Divinity of Christ,

"and The Eternal Punishment of the wicked in Hell."

footnotes: 7. James Price, e-mail to David Cloud, April 30, 1996 in The Bible Version Question/Answer Database (Port Huron, MI, USA: Way of Life Literature, 2005), pp. 369–70.

https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.tbsbibles...D229A90560F/An-Examination-of-NKJV-Part-1.pdf

 

Your broad-sweeping, generalized assertion or accusation is not true. Perhaps you have believed and repeated the factually incorrect accusations of KJV-only authors.

In my comparisons of the 1560 Geneva Bible, the 1611 KJV, and the 1982 NKJV, I found many pages of places where the NKJV varies or differs with the KJV that it agrees with the 1560 Geneva Bible or another pre-1611 English Bible.

As examples to support his broad-sweeping allegations against the NKJV, KJV-only author William Grady had cited from the Song of Solomon what he claimed were "pronounced examples of NKJV affinity with the RSV and NASV" (Final Authority, pp. 305-310). Grady's assumption or accusation that the NKJV supposedly copied the RSV or has a direct relationship or affinity to the RSV instead of translating accurately the original languages will be demonstrated to be incorrect by sound evidence.

The 1560 Geneva Bible agreed with the NKJV translation of the Hebrew word shalom as "peace" at Song of Solomon 8:10. Clearly KJV-only advocates fail to apply the same measures to the Geneva Bible that they attempt to apply to the NKJV. The KJV translators themselves usually translated this Hebrew word as "peace" and placed in the margin of the 1611 at this verse the following note: "Heb. peace." Would Grady in effect condemn the KJV translators for saying that this Hebrew word means "peace" in their marginal note? Estus Pirkle noted that the 1534 German Bible, 1526 French Bible, and 1569 Spanish Bible have "peace" at Song of Solomon 8:10 (The 1611 KJB, p. 533).


It is interesting that Grady did not condemn the NKJV for having "turtledove" at Song of Solomon 2:12 in agreement with the Hebrew and even the RSV instead of the KJV's "turtle." Perhaps, Grady knew that this was the same Hebrew word translated "turtledove" other places in the KJV. Coverdale's Bible, Matthew's Bible, and Great Bible have "turtledove" in this verse. At Song of Solomon 5:12, the Geneva Bible has the same translation as the NKJV: "his eyes are like doves." The KJV added in italics an extra "the eyes." D. A. Waite had asserted: "By implicit addition to that text, they say that these words can be implied by the context and you can go ahead and add them in your translation-which to me is not a translation but a perversion of Scripture" (Defending the KJB, p. 121). He also alleged: “If you ADD to the Word of God what you think is implicit in the words, that is disobedience” (p. 124). While Waite was actually stating his claims about a different verse in a modern translation instead of about this verse in the KJV, his statements would seem to apply here and to some other verses in the KJV if his statements are to be regarded as based on consistent, valid, sound, and just measures.

The 1560 Geneva Bible and 1853 Leeser's Old Testament also agreed with the NKJV reading at Song of Solomon 6:12: "chariots of my noble people" while the 1535 Coverdale's Bible and 1537 Matthew's Bible have "the chariots of the prince of my people." The Companion Bible noted that the KJV followed the Septuagint, Arabic, Ethiopic, and Latin Vulgate by treating this phrase as a proper name "Ammi-nadib" while the Hebrew is "the chariots of my people, the noble," or "of my noble people" (p. 927). The Dutch Annotations has this note: “Some render it, upon the chariots of Amminadib, making of two words one.” The Rice Reference Bible has this note for this verse: "Or, set me on the chariots of my willing people" (p. 719). The Geneva Bible has "sons of my mother" at 1:6. Would Grady suggest that the 1560 Geneva Bible copied the 1952 RSV at this verse?

Another NKJV rendering that William Grady uses as an example is "cakes of raisins" at 2:5 instead of the KJV's "flagons." Waite's Defined KJB gave the following note for "flagons:" "Heb raisin-cakes" (p. 913). Green's Concise Lexicon defined the Hebrew word used in this verse as "raisin-cake" (p. 26). The 1842 revision of the KJV and the 1885 translation by John Nelson Darby have "raisin-cakes" at 2:5. The 1535 Coverdale's and 1537 Matthew's have "grapes" at 2:5. The Companion Bible has this note for 2:5: "flagons=grape-cakes" (p. 923). Baker Encyclopedia of Bible Plants noted that "compressed cakes of raisins are very sustaining (Song of Solomon 2:5)" (p. 100). At his entry "flagon," Laurence Vance acknowledged: "Since the Bible mentions 'dried grapes,' it is possible that it is grapes that is being referred to" (Archaic Words, p. 144). Jack Moorman identified "flagons" at this verse as "raisin cakes" (Conies, p. 30). At its entry "flagon," David Cloud's Way of Life Encyclopedia has two definitions: "a cake of grapes" and "a container for wine" (p. 150). Concerning Song of Solomon 2:5, Ronald Bridges and Luther Weigle noted that "the word represented by 'flagon' is ashishah, which means a pressed 'cake of raisins'" (KJB Word Book, p. 135).

Another of Grady's examples of where the KJV supposedly has a RSV reading is "sixty" at Song of Solomon 6:8. Did the 1833 Webster's Bible and 1853 Leeser's Old Testament supposedly copy the RSV with their rendering "sixty" instead of "threescore" at Song of Solomon 6:8? Waite's Defined KJB defined "threescore" as "sixty." Was Grady implying that "sixty" in the NKJV is an inaccurate or unclear rendering of God's preserved Word in the Hebrew at this verse?

An additional example cited by Grady was "who veils herself" in the NKJV at 1:7. The 1862 Young's Literal Translation and the 1885 translation by John Nelson Darby has the rendering "as one veiled" (1:7). At this same verse, Leeser's Old Testament has "like a veiled mourner" while the 1917 translation by Jews has "that veileth herself." Evidently, Grady is unaware of the rendering in the margin of the 1611 KJV at this verse: ("'Or, as one that is veiled"). Haak’s 1657 translation from the authorized Dutch Bible [“that covereth herself”] at this verse also shows Grady‘s claim to be incorrect. In the seventh verse of chapter six, Leeser's has "behind thy veil" while Grady suggested that the rendering "behind your veil" came from the RSV.

 

Arthur Farstad, executive editor of the NKJV, asserted: “The text of the New King James Version itself is the traditional one used by Luther and Calvin, as well as by such Catholic scholars as Erasmus, who produced it. Later (1633) it was called the Textus Receptus, or ‘TR’” (NKJV in the Great Tradition, p. 111). In note 9, Arthur Farstad commented that “deeper reflection led us to adhere to the traditional King James text” (p. 116). Farstad quoted the following from the guidelines for the making of the NKJV: “the Traditional texts of the Greek and Hebrew will be used” (p. 34).

Concerning the NKJV, James D. Price, editor for the NKJV's Old Testament, observed: “Constant reference was made to the printed edition of the Hebrew Bible used by the translators of 1611, the second Bomberg edition edited by Jacob ben Chayyim. In those few places where the Bomberg text differed from the Stuttgart edition, the Bomberg reading was followed” (King James Onlyism, p. 307). James D. Price listed “nine differences that affect translation” and demonstrated that the NKJV followed the Bomberg edition in those nine places (pp. 222-223).

The preface to the NKJV clearly pointed out concerning its Hebrew Old Testament text the fact of “frequent comparisons being made with the Bomberg edition of 1524-25” (p. xxiii). While the NKJV translators made use of a different printed edition of the Hebrew Masoretic text, they actually followed the same Hebrew text as was used in the making of the KJV. In the very small number of places (only eight or nine have been identified) where their printed edition of the Hebrew Masoretic text differed from the Bomberg edition of Chayyim, the NKJV translators followed the same Hebrew text that underlies the KJV.

Therefore, KJV defenders jump to a wrong conclusion when they claim a different Hebrew text was used for the NKJV’s Old Testament. Use of a different printed edition does not prove use of a different text when the Bomberg edition was followed in the few places where their printed edition differed.

 

Any mention of "only", "exclusive", "advocate", or "defender", etc., that has to do with me and my life has to do with what I exclude, which are those versions which hold to the Preeminence of Anti-Christian systematic eradication of The Deity of Jesus Christ, etc., and you know that.

A.) "Preferring" and "choosing" as a concept
and B.) the "only" and "exclusive claims" business that you are more than excitable and obsessed with, are two different concepts entirely if you weren't so cheap.

You know it. I know it. God knows it.

I am the principal source for saying what I believe, not your warped perceptions of everything and everybody being what you say, so you can make an easy cheap kill shot, to claim a decisive victory over the Strawman that you have fabricated and you are not fooling anyone but yourself.
...

Name one.

Name anything by anyone anywhere that is more "non-scriptural and non-true" then the kind of ridiculous pronouncement you are trying to foster onto people, like this monstrously jaded post you laid out as if anybody is supposed to buy it for anything other than the last month's trash;

Yet, then you take it upon yourself to regulate exactly what words someone else can speak or quote, for you to not draw your conclusions, and announce them to the world, right or wrong?

You already know and are fully aware that what you want to call my "own exclusive only claim for the KJV", aren't statements of KJV-onlism, because you and I and everyone know that it is understood by both sides of the issue that other versions of minimal establishment do presently exist, as well as those in the linage of The King James Version, without which it would not exist.

You're only possible deduction can be that the statements you are referring to are saying,

"it is understood by both sides of the issue that other versions of minimal establishment do presently exist, and that in fact, The King James Version wouldn't be here if it wasn't for other English translations "based entirely upon the text that has been passed on to us by faithful churches", however,
we nevertheless assert that:

1.) "the King James Version standing like a lighthouse on the storm swept shore, for it is the only English translation of the New Testament based entirely upon the text that has been passed on to us by faithful churches",

because, we are SIMPLY DUMB and lying, or we are referring to some other aspect of the overall circumstances by the words we are using in our statement that is born out within the specific context of the discussion, as a commonly understood given in normal parley.

&

"it is understood by both sides of the issue that other versions of minimal establishment do presently exist, and that in fact, The King James Version wouldn't be here if it wasn't for other English translations, however,

2.) "the King James Version, because it is the only translation in the English language that is free from the presuppositions of modern Gnosticism",

becaue, we are SIMPLY DUMB and lying, or we are referring to some other aspect of the overall circumstances by the words we are using in our statement that is born out within the specific context of the discussion, as a commonly understood given in normal parley.

So, now thanks to the fault-finding nazis, I cannot say or quote anything KJV,
without an asterisk*

*therefore, we are SIMPLY DUMB and lying, or we are referring to some other aspect of the overall circumstances by the words we are using in our statement that is born out within the specific context of the discussion, as a commonly understood given in normal parley.

And as much as I'm sure that they hate having been perceived as overstating their case, there are those who are inexcusably bombastic with no equal.

You do me, four times every day for a year now.

I am obligated by you to "prove" "sound justification for all the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions" made by a specific group?

Or, else what? The Bible they produced can't save a Billion souls?

And you are calling the group of KJV translators, "biased", "doctrinally-unsound", Church of England critics"?

It looks like you do.

And that is "not bearing false witness against...God, or against the KJV"?

"the tyranny of one exclusive group of Church of England experts in 1611"?

And it looks like you stretch yourself with your slander tactics;
"KJV-only teaching involves presuppositions of modern Gnosticism since it implies some kind of secret, special knowledge".

Name-calling someone KJV-only isn't enough for you, now.

 

I stated the truth concerning the Church of England makers of the KJV. My true statements did not bear false witness against them. Textual criticism was involved in the making of the KJV as they picked and chose from multiple textual-varying sources so the makers of the KJV acted as textual critics in some cases and as critics of the pre-1611 English Bibles.

Do you suggest that you agree with all the Church of England doctrinal views of the makers of the KJV. You must consider them also to be "doctrinally unsound" unless you accept all the Church of England doctrinal views that they accepted including baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, apostolic succession, hierarchical episcopal church government, state church, etc. The great majority of the makers of the KJV also accepted Calvinism as taught in their 39 articles.

I accept the makers of the KJV as what they actually are: Bible scholars/interpreters/translators like the early English Bible translators who could make mistakes in their textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions.

It is clear that I was pointing out that modern KJV-only teaching in effect makes them into a "tyranny of one exclusive group of Church of England experts". That is not how I view them, but it is what incorrect, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning would in effect make them to be. I properly applied your own accusation concerning a "tyranny of experts" consistently and justly by applying your term also to the KJV translators. Do you suggest that you bore false witness in using your term concerning other English Bible translators?

The accurate, defined term KJV-only is not name-calling nor a smear. It is the same as referring to someone as a Baptist or as a Christian when that it what they are. It is identifying someone according to their own stated beliefs.

 

Since I state the truth as accurately as possible, I am clearly not lying, and I am not dumb. Your two choices in your false dilemma were both wrong. Your smear tactics are wrong.

Your broad-sweeping statement was simply not true.

 

That's one big crazy lie and a half. What happened to you telling the truth every second of your existence? This is a monstrous lie intended to smear.

As a "tactic".

...
Now, you start quoting your KJV-Only Ruckmanites that you always do, so you can associate me with their false religious beliefs, like you just did, by applying their definition of Bible preservation to my use of the words Bible preservation.

And you always call me KJV-Only in the same breath as you call Ruckmanites KJV-Only AND THEN TRY TO SAY THAT COULDN'T BE WHAT YOU'RE DOING,
IN YOUR ATTEMPTS TO DIRECTLY ASSOCIATE ME WITH THEIR HERESY.

YOU ALWAYS MISREPRESENT MY BELIEFS AS KJV-ONLY, IN A JADED WAY.

These are my beliefs.

I am not KJV-Only in any respect whatsoever.

I am dead set in contemptible disgust AGAINST the efforts of the FLESH,
FROM START TO FINISH, BEGINNING WITH A TRANSLATION PHILOSOPHY OF TOTAL DEPENDENCE ON THE FLESHLY LIE OF CRITICAL THEORY
AND INTENTIONALLY TREATING SACRED SUBJECT MATTER IN THE FLESH
"LIKE IT IS ANY OTHER BOOK", FULLY DESTITUTE OF ANY INVOCATION OF GOD,

RESULTING IN SPURIOUS VERSIONS, THAT ARE NOT WHAT THEY CLAIM TO BE,
FASHIONED AND FABRICATED FROM SPURIOUS SOURCE MATERIALS,
THAT ARE NOT WHAT THEY CLAIM TO BE, THEN ADVERTISING THEM
AS BEING SOMETHING THEY ARE NOT, FROM "THE REVISED VERSION"
NOT BEING A "REVISED VERSION", TO "THE NEW KING JAMES VERSION"
NOT BEING A "NEW KING JAMES VERSION" AND THE OTHER SALES PUSHES
OF PRODUCTS IN THE FLESH UNDER THE GUISE AND NAME OF GOD.

KJV-Only is Not my stated belief, or practice.

I'm glad that I didn't catch those sources I quoted saying
"the only English translation", etc., by which, like everyone else for the last
400 years have seen the KJV as the only Momentous English translation,
and in consideration of the KJV and the other Critical Text modern versions
being the only Bibles under discussion, they distinguished it from them, by saying "the only English translation", not it from all other known English translations.

I'm glad I posted their statements like that without noticing what it looked like,
because I got to see your feeding frenzy of thinking you actually had something,
after a year a three-quarters of making the accusation of KJV-Only against me,
just based on that being what you do for a living and for no other reason.

KJV-Only is what you label a strawman, to be a soft touch for your fake games.

It's too cheap to talk about.