Recent content by Logos1560

Matthew Verschuur wrote: “Since the formation of the King James Bible, it became the final form of the Received Text. It is the equivalent of the Originals. Since the Word has come together in English, this shows that the King James Bible cannot be corrected or superseded” (Guide to the PCE, p. 80).

Is the Hebrew noun meaning "hand" sometimes a missing friend in some verses in the KJV? 1 Kings 16:12 [1611 margin—“Heb. by the hand of”] by the hand of Jehu the Prophet [1560 Geneva Bible; 1602 Bishops’ Bible] by Jehu the prophet [1611 KJV] by the hand of Jehu the prophet [Literal...

Michael Hollner declared: “Every Word of God means every single word, no exceptions” (King James Only Debate, p. 173). Michael Hollner asserted: “Theft is theft, even a single word! Stealing from God’s Word is a deadly game” (p. 83). Michael Hollner asked: “Does your Bible version have EVERY...

At the National Conference for the King James Bible Research Council held at Calvary Baptist Church in King, NC, March 19 and 20th, Emmanuel (Mandy) Rodriguez in his Friday afternoon session entitled "Taking the KJV to the Next Level" referred to Mark Ward's term "false friends", and he then...

KJV defender Bryan Ross wrote: “Matthew Verschuur explicitly connects faith Pentecostalism to the PCE position by framing the reception of the PCE as an act of faith aligned with Pentecostal principles of divine guidance and spiritual authority” (Assessing the PCE Position, p. 28). Bryan Ross...

You do not prove your opinion to be true. What Bishop Thomas Bilson claimed to be the underlying text for the KJV's rendering at 1 Corinthains 12:28 was changed in 1629. One clear example of a 1611 edition reading/rendering that has not been demonstrated to be the fault of the printer would be...

Your answer is not true. Your unproven claim of no revision of the 1611 edition of the KJV is demonstrably and factually incorrect as any careful examination of all the pertinent facts would reveal. The 1828 Webster's Dictionary defined revision as "the act of reviewing; review...

The 1534 Luther’s German Bible, which is on the KJV-only view's pure stream good Bibles, has “morgen stern” [morning star] at Isaiah 14:12. In his lectures on Isaiah concerning this verse, Martin Luther indicated that the Hebrew word “denotes the morning star, called Lucifer and the son of Dawn”...

A booklet by KJV-only author David Daniels has “over 500 archaic words defined” (KJB Companion). Concerning the KJV, David Daniels asserted: “I would only consider about 600 words archaic” (New King James, p. 123). In one of his books, KJV-only author D. A. Waite (1927-2024) acknowledged that...

The 1539 Great Bible may not be overall purer in all its readings and renderings than the 1537 Matthew’s Bible, contradicting any purification process argument advocated by some KJV-only advocates. Sometimes the next Bible in the KJV-only view’s good line or pure stream of Bibles made some...

Nevertheless, the Church of England makers of the KJV borrowed many renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament, introducing them into the KJV. First-hand testimony and evidence from one of the KJV translators would acknowledge or affirm the use of the 1582 Rheims NT in the...

Clear evidence would conflict with the assumption or unproven claim that all the errors in the 1611 edition were the fault of the 1611 printer. It has not been demonstrated that the KJV translators had noticed the error of the name of the wrong king at 2 Kings 24:19 in the 1602 edition of the...

David Norton asserted: “It should never be forgotten that there were genuine problems in the first edition text that the Cambridge editors contributed greatly to remedying” (Textual History, p. 92). Nevertheless, the 1638 standard Cambridge KJV edition and the 1629 edition did not fix all the...

You can choose to believe your own non-scriptural and non-true KJV-only opinions, but that does not make them true. You can deceive you yourself by believing claims that are not true.

Your test is invalid since it involves use of fallacies. Your bogus test does not prove what you allege. According to your own test, you yourself would be a bible agnostic concerning before 1611. The Scriptures do not teach that the word of God today is bound to the textual criticism...