Recent content by Servant of Jehovah

No, I don't believe God "changed" His Word, at least not after the fact. Like some of the OT quotations in the NT aren't one-for-one like the Hebrew, so He "changed" or "repurposed" OT passages to fit a particular thing in the NT. That, however, is not the same as what you seem to think I've...

Oh, I agree that the original language texts have been preserved, but I also believe that other languages have preserved them as well. It's not really a lack of preservation if a word or two were added, then, later removed to conform it back to its original state. Now, if I were trying to say a...

The fact is, there is evidence to support the KJV/TR reading, even if you don't want to admit it. You don't seem intent on actually discussing, so if you don't want to have a discussion worth having, then I will see myself out. God never said His preserved Word would only be in Greek Codexes...

Whilst I cannot confirm or deny your statement (I don't know Greek), I do know there is evidence outside of Codxes alone. Nick Sayer's lists Tertullian, Beatus of Liébana, and the Book of Armagh. In all honesty, I find this to be underwhelming, but I think we should also consider the critical...

First, prove it was an error.

1) "God" is not original to the text. There's evidence in support of the ommission of it. I'm not going to try and pass off someone else's work on this topic as my own, so here's a link: Revelation 1:8 - Textus Receptus 2) The phrase "which is, and which was, and which is to come" is one of the...

I don't see how you could come to such a conclusion. You asked if the KJV taught Baptism by immersion exclusively. I believe it does, but on basis that it transliterates (instead of translating) the Greek, which means to immerse.

I'm going to assume the reason is because previous translations (like Tyndale, Geneva, Bishops') use it as well as the term being used by English Christians.

I disagree with the framing of the question. I believe immersion is the only valid form of Baptism, but the KJV simply uses a transliteration. I'm glad it did, because as Anglicans, the KJV translators likely wouldn't have translated it as immersion. Now, because it's a transliteration, the...

In 1699, Edinburgh had a KJV without the Apocrypha: Then, in 1700, London had a printing without the Apocrypha:

Or they were bound originally without them. It seems like a huge leap to say all KJV's without the Apocrypha ALL don't have it simply because some may have removed it at rebinding.

That's assuming we agree those are the "standard editions." I simply believe that God worked it out that the KJV is technically the majority text now. So while information is more avaliable for those printings, the fact remains that KJV's without the Apocrypha (whether you think proper or not)...

Based on his statement, it seems most likely he had a Bible without the Apocrypha included. If you look at the translation effort for the KJV, King James didn't have any say. The translators often didn't even follow the rules the King set. How do you know what I would or wouldn't do? Please, do...

Don't presume to know how I feel. I'm not embarrassed in the slightest. In fact, I'm glad they translated the Apocrypha, I OWN a copy of it. It's a great resource to study, and it's good for one can realize why they aren't Scripture. Additionally, I find it highly improbable that the tens of...