Recent content by Logos1560

You seem to reject other post-1611 English Bible translations made from the same preserved original-languages texts as the KJV, which suggests that you are KJV-only. Since the KJV is an English Bible translation made in 1611, the term KJV-only would be used soundly and correctly to describe a...

You raise valid points that suggest that English had not reached full maturity in 1611. English at the time of the making of the KJV was in the period of Early Modern English and the period of the Great Vowel Shift so English had not reached its full maturity in 1611. David Crystal, who has...

You are putting words in my mouth when you falsely allege that I suggest that God failed in the preservation of His words. You have not refuted my statement, but instead you use a bogus tactic of trying to invent a conclusion that does not follow from my acceptance of scriptural truths stated...

My position is based on what the Scriptures teach. I properly appeal to human authorities about matters of history and facts after the completion of the Scriptures. You are a human authority who has failed to establish your position from Scripture alone.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/meet-the-democrats-who-fly-under-the-radar-but-are-just-as-radical-as-party-headliners/ar-AA2bNqkg?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=6aa00a3d2f814ee9a698df35589d21b5&ei=41...

Otto H. Bostrom wrote: “It is a well known fact that the Massoretes had a critical apparatus of their Holy Scriptures” (Alternative Readings, p. 21). Otto Bostrom asserted: “It has been shown that the Qere and the Ketib of one MS. have been reversed in another, so that what is Qere in one is...

It is your modern position that is built on the words of men, not the doctrine of Scripture. I permitted the Scriptures themselves to define what would constitute textual criticism. I am presenting the biblical view of it. While the term textual criticism may not be found in Scripture...

Your opinion is wrong. My view is based on what the Scriptures state and teach, which I apply to the verifiable facts throughout history. I quote men to provide evidence concerning the facts of history and the facts concerning the making of post-NT Bible translations. Your extra-biblical two...

Does modern KJV-only teaching in effect imply or suggest that the inspired original-language words of Scripture given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles were largely lost and must be restored or reconstructed by textual criticism decisions and conjectural emendation decisions of...

Bill Fortenberry, who is a KJV defender with views similar to yours, would claim to be an authority on English. Bill Fortenberry claims to have read 10,000 books in English. Are you claiming to be a self-appointed authority on the English language with more knowledge than these three people...

You improperly continue to try to put words in my mouth that I do not say. My statements that you try unsoundly to misrepresent and twist would be stating the same thing as the truths stated in these verses (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19). According to these scriptural...

Your invented entailment is not the logical conclusion to what I accurately stated in agreement with Scriptural truths. You have not refuted my actual statements. You continue your bogus misrepresentations. I nowhere said that God failed in preservation as you try to suggest. On the other...

The 1833 Webster’s Bible, the 1842 revision of the KJV by Baptists, the 1962 Teen-age Version of the Holy Bible by Jay Green, the 1982 NKJV, the 1986 Literal Translation in The Interlinear Bible, the 1990 Modern King James Version, the 1994 21st Century King James Version, the 1998 Third...

Your imagined conclusion is something that you invented since that is not what I stated. I nowhere suggested that God failed in preservation so you are trying to impose your false conclusion on to my accurate statement. My statement deals with human responsibility, but it does not suggest that...

The 1611 KJV does not preserve all God's words down to the number of the noun at Deuteronomy 33:17. At Deuteronomy 33:17, the 1611 KJV changed this noun that was singular in number in the Hebrew Masoretic text and in all the earlier pre-1611 English Bibles to a plural. Do you contradict you...