Our Scriptural Confidence is that We have a Pure, More Sure Word of Prophecy.

Anthony Pritchard said:

The question is whether unfamiliar words should be explained or whether they should be removed.

Click to expand...

The Church of England makers of the KJV removed many words found in the pre-1611 English Bibles.

Along with reducing the number of uses of several archaic words, the KJV completely removed some archaic, antiquated, rare, unusual, or difficult words or spellings found in one or more of the pre-1611 English Bibles. These words would be English Bible words or Biblical English found in the pre-1611 word of God translated into English. Should all the following words have been kept in the 1611 KJV and explained instead of being removed?

Some examples include the following: “abrech” (Gen. 41:43), “abrogate” (Heb. 8:13), “achat” (Exod. 39:12), “advoutry” (Mark 7:21), “affianced” (Luke 1:27), “afterbirth” (Deut. 28:57), “albs” (Lev. 8:13), “almery“ (Deut. 28:17), “almuggim” (1 Kings 10:11), “arb” (Lev. 11:22), “arede” (Mark 14:65), “assoyl” (Matt. 21:24), “banketed” (Job 1:4), “beer” (Isa. 24:9), “beweep“ (Deut. 21:13), “boldened” (1 Sam. 13:12), “brain pan” (Jud. 9:53), “breastlap” (Exod. 25:7), “bruterer” (Exod. 25:7), “buballs” (1 Kings 4:23), “buggers” (1 Tim. 1:10), “burgesship” (Acts 22:28), “byss” (Gen. 41:42), “calamite” (Exod. 30:23), “carrion” (Lev. 5:2), “cavillation” (Luke 19:8), “cavillations” (Lev. 19:13), “cherubs” (1 Kings 6:25), “chevisance” (Deut. 21:14), “childishness” (1 Cor. 13:11), “childship” (Rom. 9:4), “colled” (isa. 15:2), “commonalty” (Lev. 4:13, “conjurers” (Dan. 4:7), “consistory” (Ps. 107:32), “cowcasins” (Ezek. 4:15), “cratch” (Luke 2:7), “cressets” (Jer. 25:10), “culver” (Mark 1:10), “deadoffering” (Lev. 3:5), “debite” (Luke 20:20), “deedslayers” (2 Kings 14:6), “delectation” (2 Cor. 12:10), “despicions” (Acts 28:29), “discomforted” (Ezk. 13:22), “diseasest” (Mark 5:35), “dissembling” (Prov. 12:19), “door cheeks” (Exod. 12:23), “dukedoms” (Gen. 36:30), “effusion” (Heb. 11:28), “egalness” (2 Cor. 8:14), “emmet” (Prov. 6:6), “endote” (Exod. 22:16), and “equalness” (2 Cor. 8:14). Additional examples include “erewhile” (John 9:27), “fardels” (Acts 21:15), “field devils” (2 Chron. 11:15), “fiends” (Mark 1:34), “flickered” (Ezek. 10:19), “flacket” (1 Sam. 16:20), “flaggy” (1 Sam. 15:9), “flawnes” (1 Chron. 23:29), “felicity” (Gal. 4:15), “foreby” (Lam. 1:12), “fortuned” (Gen. 39:7), “frayles” (1 Sam. 25:18), “frumenty” (Lev. 23:14), “gaoler” (Acts 16:23), “gabis” (Job. 28:18), “gardes” (Deut. 22:12), “gelding” (Acts 8:34), “ghostly” (Rom. 8:5), “gnew” (Rev. 16:10), “gorgeousness” (Isa. 3:18), “grece” (Acts 21:35), “grennes” (Ps. 140:5), “hagab” (Lev. 11:22), “harborous” (1 Tim. 3:2), “harbourless” (Matt. 25:35), “hargol” (Lev. 11:22), “hawthorn” (2 Chron. 25:18), “healthful” (Tit. 2:11), “heavengazers” (Isa. 47:13), “hilchapels” (Amos 7:9), “hoared” (Josh. 9:4), “hucklebone” (Gen. 32:25), “huswiferie” (Prov. 31:18), “improve” (2 Tim. 4:2), “ixion” (Deut. 14:13), “jakes” (2 Kings 10:27), “Jewship” (Gal. 1:13), “knappeth” (Ps. 46:9), “lamia” (Isa. 34:14), “lamies” (Lam. 4:3), “latten” (Gen. 31:42), “ligurious” (Exod. 28:19), “lither” (Rom. 12:11), “loured” (Gen. 4:5), “maidenhead” (Jud. 11:38), “male stewes” (1 Kings 15:12), “manchet” (1 Kings 4:22), “mandragoras” (Gen. 30:14), “manward” (Titus 3:4), “marshal” (Gen. 39:1), “maund” (Exod. 29:3), “meinie” (Gen. 22:3), “meked” (James 3:7), “misdoers” (Isa. 53:12), “muzzling” (Deut. 32:2), “moon prophets” (Isa. 47:13), “mossell” (1 Cor. 9:9), “naught packs” (Ps. 86:14), “nebb” (Gen. 8:11), “neers” (Isa. 34:6), “neverthelater” (Lev. 7:24), “nigard” (Isa. 32:6), “ohim” (Isa. 13:21), “overbody” (1 Sam. 23:9), “overscaped” (Lev. 19:10), “overskipped” (Deut. 26:13), “overthwart” (Deut. 32:5), “overwinner” (1 Sam. 15:29), “panier” (Job 41:7), “parbreak” (Num. 11:20), “partlets” (Acts 19:12), “pensiveness” (Ps. 77:3), “perceavaunce” (Eph. 1:8), “perquellies” (2 Sam. 5:8), “pight” (Heb. 8:2), “pismire” (Prov. 6:6), “plage” (Deut. 17:8), “pleck” (Lev. 13:4), “porphyry” (Est. 1:6), “possessioner” (Micah 1:15), “pyght” (Heb. 8:2), “quadrin” (Mark 12:42), “queer” (1 Kings 6:5, 16, 19), “querne” (Isa. 47:2), “quier” (1 Kings 6:5), “raynes” (Rev. 19:8), “rebecks” (1 Sam. 18:6), “recreate” (Ps. 94:19), “redebush” (Isa. 9:16), “redshanke” (Deut. 14:16), “rickes” (Jud. 15:5), “roofed” (1 Kings 6:9), “roomth” (2 Sam. 22:20), “rowneth” (Isa. 5:9), “rugagates” (Jud. 12:4), “rythe” (Jer. 49:31), “sallets” (Jer. 46:4), “scrale” (Exod. 8:3), “salaam” (Lev. 11:22), “sethim” (Deut. 10:3), “shalms” or “shawms” (Ps. 98:6), “shope” (Gen. 2:7), “simnel” (Exod. 29:23), “slade” (1 Sam. 25:20), “slops” (Isa. 3:20), “Sodomward” (Gen. 13:22), “soleam” (Lev. 11:22), “spangles“ (Num. 31:50), “springalds” (Dan. 1:4, 10), “stickered” (Rom. 4:20), “stambered” (Mark 7:32), “stellio” (Lev. 11:30), “succourless” (Prov. 31:8), “taxus” (Exod. 25:4), “terebinth” (Isa. 6:13), “thievish” (Ps. 10:8), “toot-hill” (Gen. 31:48), “treacle” (Jer. 8:22), “unborn” (Ps. 78:6), “unghostly” (1 Tim. 4:7), “unhele” (Lev. 18:16), “unlust” (Isa. 43:22), “unquiet” (Deut. 28:65), “unshodhouse” (Deut. 25:10), “unthrifts” (1 Sam. 30:22), “uplandish” (Jud. 5:11), “wastels” (Lev. 24:5), “wenest” (Acts 8:20), “whale fish” (Job 7:12), “Whitsuntide” (1 Cor. 16:8), “whore keeper” (Deut. 23:17), “withoutforth” (1 Chron. 26:29), “witsafe” (Ps. 119:29), “wrutt” (Ps. 80:13), yonderward” (1 Sam. 20:37), and “zijm” (Isa. 13:21).

Perhaps many of the few places where the KJV may have simpler language or vocabulary than the Bishops’ Bible may be places where it followed Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, or the Geneva Bible. The Church of England makers of the KJV kept some or many renderings from the Bishops’ Bible where another pre-1611 English Bible already had simpler, clearer, more up-to-date, or possibly more accurate renderings. The first rule given for the making of the KJV may be in effect responsible for some of the words used with a now archaic, obscure, or uncommon meaning, some of the less clear or more difficult words, a couple possibly anachronistic words, and many of the archaic words found in the KJV.

All the places where the makers of the KJV borrowed Latin-based renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament are not simpler words. A few example renderings that the makers of the KJV may have borrowed from the 1582 Rheims include “austere” (Luke 19:21), “malefactors” (Luke 23:19), “malefactor” (John 18:30), “vesture” (John 19:24), “clemency” (Acts 24:4), “principal” (Acts 25:23), “malignity” (Rom. 1:29), “emulation” (Rom. 11:14), “illuminated” (Heb. 10:32), “seduce” (1 John 2:26), and “incense” (Rev. 8:3). KJV defender Jonathan Wheatley referred to “the unique words that originated in the KJB text from the Rheims 1582 New Testament” (Unique Words of the KJB, p. 329). Jonathan Wheatley commented: “Whilst even the idea that the KJB should feature any trace of such a corrupt Catholic, Latin-based text may be incomprehensible to some Bible believers, it does need recognition here” (Ibid.).

In contrast to this KJV-only claim that asserts that archaic words should be kept, the KJV translators evidently believed that it is was all right to update, revise, change, or attempt to improve the earlier English Bibles and make the word of God in English easier to read and understand in many places. Would all the significant amount of updating in the KJV be considered “dumbing down” the language of the pre-1611 English Bibles? Did the KJV move or remove ancient landmarks by updating and revising many words in the pre-1611 word of God in English? In their preface to the 1611, the KJV translators had argued that it was good to attempt to revise and improve earlier translations of God's Word. Therefore, the KJV itself helps establish a clear precedent that the updating of archaic words is a valid, good, and edifying practice.

In addition, the KJV itself establishes a precedent against the inconsistent claim that archaic words should be left in the text instead of being updated.

You never miss a chance to copy and paste your redundant material, do you? *sigh* You've been posting on this same topic for YEARS! Do you have a life other than the KJV topic? It just seems abnormal to me. I seriously wonder about you sometimes.

Baptist4life said:

You never miss a chance to copy and paste your redundant material, do you?

Click to expand...

My information related directly to the statement from the poster whom I quoted.

Would you claim that the subject of the Scriptures is unimportant? Would you claim that reading the Bible year after year is redundant and unnecessary?

I claim that this unhealthy obsession you have with the topic is kind of scary and worrisome. I've been following this forum for many, many years and you have been on here all that time, and probably even before I came, and you've posted the same material time after time after time. It's just a little weird to me that it seems to occupy 99% of your time. I sometimes worry about your mental state to be honest. I find you a little odd, to put it mildly. Here's a suggestion.....why don't you get off here and spend more time READING your Bible instead of spending your whole day posting on forums about it?

Baptist4life said:

I claim that this unhealthy obsession you have with the topic is kind of scary and worrisome.

Click to expand...

Do you seem to have an unhealthy obsession with complaining about the posting of others at least mine? Is that odd on your part?

Your opinion is incorrect since my posting does not occupy 99% of my time, not even 50% of my time, nor even 25% of my time. It is not the same exact material since I have revised it and added to it many times. Concern with the doctrine of Scripture is not unhealthy.

You keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel good.

Anthony Pritchard said:

I have personally seen people become confused when confronted with multiple competing renderings and told that one verse, one phrase, or one reading should be preferred over another. I have seen confidence weakened because the text appeared unstable to them.

Click to expand...

In his prologue to the Christian reader in his 1535 English translation, Miles Coverdale wrote: "Whereas some men think now the many translations make division in the faith and in the people of God, it is not so." In their comments to the brethren of England, Scotland, Ireland, etc.

in the 1560 edition, the Geneva Bible translators acknowledged that “some translations read after one sort, and some after another, whereas all may serve to good purpose and edification.“

Jack Lewis quoted Matthew Parker and Edmund Grindal as writing: “For though one other special bible for the churches be meant by us to be set forth as convenient time and leisure hereafter will permit yet shall it nothing hinder but rather do much good to have diversity of translations and readings” (Day after Domesday, p. 10).

In their preface to the 1611 KJV, its translators themselves argued that "variety of translations is profitable for finding the sense of the Scriptures."

@Anthony Pritchard,
Yours has not been my experience. My experience is that insisting on outdated language which many people do not understand is what causes confusion, and time taken to explain the language would be better spent expounding the passage. Justification, sanctification etc. are not outdated words; they are necessary words for explaining Christian doctrine. There is a difference.

However, I do concede that there are some KJV-only churches that appear to be successful in the UK; just not very many of them and not near where I live. That's fine so long as they don't cause division

Logos1560 said:

In his prologue to the Christian reader in his 1535 English translation, Miles Coverdale wrote: "Whereas some men think now the many translations make division in the faith and in the people of God, it is not so." In their comments to the brethren of England, Scotland, Ireland, etc.

in the 1560 edition, the Geneva Bible translators acknowledged that “some translations read after one sort, and some after another, whereas all may serve to good purpose and edification.“

Jack Lewis quoted Matthew Parker and Edmund Grindal as writing: “For though one other special bible for the churches be meant by us to be set forth as convenient time and leisure hereafter will permit yet shall it nothing hinder but rather do much good to have diversity of translations and readings” (Day after Domesday, p. 10).

In their preface to the 1611 KJV, its translators themselves argued that "variety of translations is profitable for finding the sense of the Scriptures."

Click to expand...

Quote stacking. A chain of quotations of man? Noise.

Anthony Pritchard said:

Quote stacking. A chain of quotations of man? Noise.

Click to expand...

Do you describe your own posts?

You unsoundly try to dismiss the Bible translation views of the early English Bible translators and of the KJV translators just as KJV-only advocates do. Your seeming attempt to attack and dismiss these good English Bible translators is wrong.

In his prologue to the Christian reader in his 1535 English translation, Miles Coverdale wrote: "Whereas some men think now the many translations make division in the faith and in the people of God, it is not so."

In their comments to the brethren of England, Scotland, Ireland, etc. in the 1560 edition, the Geneva Bible translators acknowledged that “some translations read after one sort, and some after another, whereas all may serve to good purpose and edification.“

Jack Lewis quoted Matthew Parker and Edmund Grindal as writing: “For though one other special bible for the churches be meant by us to be set forth as convenient time and leisure hereafter will permit yet shall it nothing hinder but rather do much good to have diversity of translations and readings” (Day after Domesday, p. 10).

In their preface to the 1611 KJV, its translators themselves argued that "variety of translations is profitable for finding the sense of the Scriptures."

Logos1560 said:

In this Bible, God’s very words are translated word-for-word with the literal meanings given of each of the Hebrew and Greek words used in writing the Bible” (p. xvi).

Click to expand...

Acts 2:38 "And Peter said to them, Repent and be baptized, each of you
on the name of Jesus Christ to remission of sins.
And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

What on Earth are "on the name of Jesus Christ" and "to remission of sins" supposed to mean?

(You have to know where to look. I like this version O.K., but they sure missed a Golden Opportunity to ace this Translation.
............

Daniel 3:25 "He answered and said, Behold! I see four men loose, walking in the middle of the fire,
and there is no harm among them. And the form of the fourth is like a son of the gods."

So, you have, for example, "a son" walking out from a group of "gods", but don't know which, if any, of "the gods" he is "a son" of?

But, he sure must look like "a son of a god". Weird if you ask me.
............

ew 16:18 "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My assembly,
and the gates of Hades will not prevail against her."

I like that one.
............

John 3:16; "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son,
that everyone believing into Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

17; "For God did not send His Son into the world that He might judge the world,
but that the world might be saved through Him.

18; "The one believing into Him is not condemned; but the one not believing has already been condemned,
for he has not believed into the name of the only begotten Son of God.

19; "And this is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world,
and men loved the darkness more than the Light, for their works were evil.

I see "into the world" in verses 17 and 19 and have an understanding of what "into" means there.

But, what about "believing into Him" and "not believed into the name" in verses 16 and 18 supposed to mean?

What is that all about? Why screw up a preposition just because it has a possible alternative?

There are a lot of grammatical alternatives, but these a not contextually appropriate.

If we add "obeying" "into" as the opposite of "disobeying" "into" in this verse, we see the

Context in 3:36; "The one believing"/"obeying" "into"(?) the Son has everlasting life;
but the one disobeying" "into(?)" "the Son will not see life", (just like in 3:18, "not believed into the name")
but the wrath of God remains on him."

Awkward. And so unnecessary a change from "believes in the Son". I don't get that one.

...........

This guy just messes with the most solid translation possible, just because he could?

Where was God when he translated this to say;
John 3:4; "Nicodemus said to Him, How is a man able to be generated, being old?

He's asking about being born, as we see from the end of verse 4, here:

He is not able to enter into his mother's womb a second time and be born?

When has anyone been spoken of as having been generated at their birth?

Then, next when Jesus continues talking about a baby being "born", as He'd just said about coming out of the mother's womb, with the breaking of water that is involved in that natural birth. In verse 6 He reiterates about this natural childbirth when He says "having been generated out of the flesh is flesh" which is again referring to the natural birth when a child is born in the flesh, from the flesh that was its mother.

3:5; "Jesus answered, Truly, truly, I say to you,
If one is not generated out of water and Spirit, he is not able to enter into the kingdom of God.

3:6; "That having been generated out of the flesh is flesh, and that having been generated out of the Spirit is spirit.

And why do we have a small 's' beginning the second Spirit mentioned there? Like begets like.

3:7; "Do not wonder because I said to you, You must be generated from above."

After you were "generated" from your mother's womb, right? Why? Why? Why say that that way?

So, we change one of the most important and well-known verses in all of the Scriptures,
from, the perfectly natural "You must be born again", to the strictly mechanical "You must be generated from above."
...

Logos1560 said:

“This entire KJ3 Literal Translation Bible is translated using the words of today and translated from the same Hebrew and Greek manuscripts and texts used by the translators of the Authorized/King James Version.

Click to expand...

Sounds good until you look and see where he lied.

13; "For also we all were baptized by One Spirit into one body,
whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free,
even all were Given to Drink into One Spirit," LITV.

"we all were baptized by One Spirit" is the invention of a thing that has never been written in Scripture before, although something of this nature has tried to be read into the Bible where it doesn't exist, except in the mind of Protectants and other proponents of an "Invisible Universal Church", which they invented to compete with the "Universal Visible Church" of the Roman Catholics.

The Holy Spirit has never "baptized" anything.

Jesus did "baptize" the assembly of His followers He had Founded with the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost.

An agent is someone who does an action, and a recipient is someone who receives something or has an action done to them

Jesus was the AGENT Who did the Act of baptizing His church with the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit was the RECIPIENT Who had Jesus Use Him in the Inauguration and Empowering of Jesus' church He Built.

The Holy Spirit is never said to 'baptize' anything of His Own Accord.

But, other than in the minds of people misinterpreting I Corinthians 12:13, it never has said that the Holy Spirit baptized anyone,
until now.

Update: I just saw the New International Version where it very incorrectly says in that verse;
"For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body."

No we were not. No one ever has been and this is a lie. And, now I suppose there are other errors like this in other versions.

This is actually a Heretical Doctrine and schism for anyone who sows discord among the brethren by repeating it and would be grounds for Church Discipline for Doctrinal Heresy to continue insisting, as this version does in I Corinthians 12:13; "For also we all were baptized by one Spirit into one body" LITV.

Verse 12:3 gives us the contextual meaning that is expressed in I Corinthians 12:13; "Because of this I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, Jesus is a curse. And no one is able to say Jesus is Lord, except by the Holy Spirit."*

"For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit." KJB.

To add a couple of words for clarification, the actual meaning of this verse is "For by" the Guidance of "one Spirit", we at Corinth have been water baptized into membership of the church of Corinth, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; just like we "have been all Made to Drink into One Spirit", again, whether we be Jews or Gentiles.

The Bible doesn't say, "whether we be Jews or Gentiles" we were saved by 'the baptism' of the Holy Spirit and then in addition say "whether we be Jews or Gentiles" we were also(?) saved when we were "all Made to Drink into One Spirit".

The Bible does say that "whether we be Jews or Gentiles" we were both Led to be baptized into membership of the same body of believers and just before that "whether we be Jews or Gentiles" we were "all Made to Drink into One Spirit" when we were saved by the same Spirit of God.

The teaching is that they are to have UNITY in the same body of believers they were baptized into "whether we be Jews or Gentiles" and to further emphasize their UNITY it is said that "whether we be Jews or Gentiles" they were both saved by the same Holy Spirit.

Just after this verse in context from 12:18 we see that "now hath God Set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath Pleased Him." And that is how "God Set the members every one of them in the body" when once an individual is saved, they are Guided by the Supernatural Unction of the Holy Spirit to be baptized into a particular body of believers that have already been established.


*The Bible speaks of "by the Holy Spirit" Leading and Influencing and by His Guidence in I Corinthians 12:3, for context: "Because of this I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, Jesus is a curse.
And no one is able to say Jesus is Lord, except by the Holy Spirit."

"It is thought, by the Universalists, that this word, if properly Translated, forces us to believe that this verse has the Holy Spirit baptizing us into Christ literally, and thus the 'baptism' 'could not be water baptism', and 'the body' referred to 'could not be a local church'.

"This is interpretation either by presupposition, or by panic, or some of both. The word 'by' doesn't carry any such meaning. It simply means we are Led by the Holy Spirit to unite with that body (a local church), exactly as we are Led by the Spirit to confess "Jesus is Lord" there in I Corinthians 12:3."

"This is how SIMEON, in Luke 2:27, came into the Temple at the time of Christ's Dedication.

"And he came by the Spirit into the Temple: and when the parents brought in the Child Jesus,
to do for Him after the custom of the Law."

Simeon came into the Temple by the Influence of, or by the Leadership of, the Holy Spirit."
From Baptized by One Spirit into One Body", by Forrest L. Keener.

Luke 2:27 is the clincher as to how God would have us understand the meaning of "by the Spirit", or since the emphasis in I Corinthians 12:13 is fostering unity between the Jews and the Gentiles, the Bible says "for by One Spirit", i.e., the Self-Same Spirit Led both Jews and Gentiles to be water baptized.

The author of the LITV has, in effect, invented a new way of Salvation not taught anywhere in the Bible, for that very reason.

It is another Gospel.

Alan Dale Gross said:

Sounds good until you look and see where he lied.

Click to expand...

Perhaps he over-generalized or uses the fallacy of composition just like many KJV-only advocates do.

Are you unaware of the fact that the KJV sometimes used prepositions in different ways or in different senses than they may be typically used in present-day standard English?

Concerning prepositions, J. B. Lightfoot (1828-1889) wrote: “The misunderstandings which arise in the mind of an English readers are due in most passages rather to the archaisms than to the error of the translators. Where, in common language, we now say ‘by’ and ‘through’ (i.e., ‘by means of’) respectively, our translators, following the diction of their age, generally use ‘of’ and ‘by’ respectively—‘of’ denoting the agent, and ‘by’ the instrument or means” (Fresh Revision, p. 107). J. B. Lightfoot asserted: “From these archaisms great ambiguity arises. When we hear ‘it was said of him,’ we understand at once ‘about or concerning him,’ but this is not the meaning which this preposition bears in our New Testament. And again, when we read ‘it was sent by me,’ we understand ‘I sent it,’ but neither again is this the meaning intended. In the modern language ‘by’ represents the sender, whereas in the old it denotes the bearer of the letter or parcel” (p. 108). J. B. Lightfoot claimed: “In all such passages the ambiguous ‘by’ is a serious obstacle to the understanding of the English reader” (p. 110).

Concerning English in the KJV, David Crystal wrote: “Several prepositions have different uses from today. Of, in particular, is widespread: the zeal of (‘for’) thine house, tempted of (‘by’) Satan, went forth of (‘from’) the Arke. Other examples include in (‘at’) a good old age, taken to (as a) wife, and like as (‘like’, ‘as’) the sand of the sea” (Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English, p. 65). Concerning the KJV, John Eadie asserted: “The prepositions are not in all cases justly distinguished” (English Bible, Vol. II, p. 365). John Eadie noted: “‘By’ itself is equivocal, for it is sometimes connected with the original cause, and sometimes with the instrumental cause. It might be often rendered ‘through’ [1 Cor. 8:6] ‘Jesus Christ, through whom are all things’” (English Bible, Vol. II, p. 366). At its entry by, the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary gives as its third definition the following: “Through, or with, denoting the agent, means, instrument or cause.”

Logos1560 said:

The truth is that the KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense as the pre-1611 English Bibles are the word of God translated into English and in the same sense as post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV are the word of God translated into English.

Click to expand...

That is more of a Demonic lie and Heresy than ANYTHING PETER RUCKMAN EVER CAME UP WITH.

Logos1560 said:

Acknowledging or asserting the truth that the word of God is not bound or limited to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England men in 1611 is not saying that the truth cannot be found in the KJV.

Click to expand...

I've never seen you hesitate, or lose even one opportunity, to bash the King James Version and her Translators "with your inconsistent accusation of alleging that the best of" the King James Version and her Translators "is bad or in effect alleging the worse in" King James Version and her Translators.

Oh, here you are. The poor, innocent, victim;

Logos1560 said:

Do you practice what you preach since you seem to try to put words in my mouth with your inconsistent accusation of alleging that the best of me is bad or in effect alleging the worse in me? You do not demonstrate that I am putting words in the mouths of others. You do not demonstrate anything wrong with what I posted.

Click to expand...

How about just going with essentially everything you post is wrong and needs no demonstration, other than the dozens upon dozens of times you've been rebuked here, just for being dumb.

Logos1560 said:

My effort is to present the views of others as accurately as possible.

Click to expand...

And ours is to represent you as the liar that you are, for hatefully even saying such an absurd joke.

Logos1560 said:

My effort is to present the truth.

Click to expand...

You bore me and God to tears.

Logos1560 said:

Soundly identifying stated human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning/teaching as being KJV-only is not putting words in someone's mouth.

Click to expand...

But, you have never soundly identified any "stated human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning/teaching" other than what you assume or mislabel from your collection of fraudulent definitions you squirrel around with, to pretend you've accomplished something, when you've done nothing but smear God's people with false accusations that God never Led you to be doing.

Logos1560 said:

It is stating the truth about what was stated or posted.

Click to expand...

Mixed with the utmost lack of judgment, or Spiritual Discernment, or common everyday walking around sense, for the sake of honesty.

Logos1560 said:

I do not say that those who deny being KJV-only admit that they are KJV-only.

Click to expand...

You just insist they do because you demand to have that control over wickedly suggesting they must be guilty, because you've charged them with being so, when they never were, and still aren't.

Logos1560 said:

I properly point out the truth that they are using KJV-only arguments, displaying KJV-only reasoning, making KJV-only claims for the KJV, and being inconsistent with their denial of being KJV-only.

Click to expand...

What you do is as improper as it gets.

You, Logos1560, believe there is One God? Yes?

Then, by your same genuinely stupid logic and reasoning, weights, standards and measures, univocally, you, Logos1560, are a Devil. Period. No, if, ands, or buts about it.

"Thou believest that there is One God; thou doest well: the Devils also believe, and tremble" James 2:19

God just said so, Himself, in the Bible.

And seriously what you do is evil.

Why don't you give me your name and address so I can serve you something you need to read.

Mike B said:

It seems you are looking to debate someone who is KJV-only, and has adopted the position that the
KJV 1611 itself was as equally inspired as the original text. I don't believe anyone here has claimed that.

Click to expand...

All this guy needs is some matching word, or the assumption of a similar thought, with no actual evidence and where he doesn't even really believe any real evidence exists, or cares. He doesn't care. He just slanders.

Logos1560 said:

I do not assume that he holds a KJV-only position. My conclusion is soundly based on what he himself has posted. I have soundly compared what he himself states and claims to similar the claims of KJV-only authors. His own stated opposition to modern translations indicates KJV-only reasoning.

Click to expand...

You are crazy, too, btw. "His own stated opposition to modern translations indicates KJV-only reasoning", as if someone for any number of reason doesn't care for the modern translations automatically suggests their entire belief system is identical, univocally, to known fools.

You're not fooling anybody and you are a fraud.

You lie. You absolutely exclusively "assume he holds a KJV-only position" and are entirely dishonest about it.

Logos1560 said:

You present the same interpretation of preservation that KJV-only authors present--one that attempts to dictate to God how God has to preserve His words including how He has to preserve them in English.

Click to expand...

Someone needs to satisfy you that they in no way could ever be said to present an "interpretation of preservation" idea "that attempts to dictate to God how God has to preserve His words including how He has to preserve them in English", based on your newly invented strategic criteria you define as something "that attempts to dictate to God how God has to preserve His words including how He has to preserve them in English", when it is all from A to Z JUST IN YOUR SILLY HEAD?

If you are not told something or actually see it in a rationally demonstrable way, get it out of your small mind and out of you big irresponsible, abusive, predator mouth.

Logos1560 said:

You do not distinguish your interpretation from the KJV-only interpretation.

Click to expand...

No one is obligated to try to untwist your warped KJV-only obsession. But we still try, sometimes.

You're not worth it. You're a waste of time. We can never Rationalize Irrational Behavior.

Logos1560 said:

You do not engage in serious discussion concerning your stated view of preservation and the stated view of KJV-only authors, proving that they differ if they supposedly do.

Click to expand...

You make this requirement, as if anybody thinks you deserve the time of day, to start with.

Your Godless determinations and demands are retarded. You have no right to ask anyone to unravel your nightmares you fabricate out of thin air, for no purpose, EXCEPT YOU HAVE TO DISTROY ANY KING JAMES BIBLE DEFENDER YOU CAN BECAUSE THERE IS ACTUALLY ABSOLUTELY NOTHING POSITIVE YOU CAN SAY TO COMMEND YOUR MODERN VERSIONS, IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM.

Take your childish games back home and leave them there.

Are paid to invent these lies against God's men, who love Him and His Word, or not, or compensated in some way to post here at at other Christian sites, as something of a prostitute?

Anthony Pritchard said:

I have always maintained that it is not the KJV, but the underlying text, many bibles were translated from the preserved text, earlier English and other languages as well.. Any bible that is translated from the preserved text has the right start, I reject those translated from the reconstructed text. Second, I have always maintained that modern English is degraded, that it is imprecise. It is not KJV only, it is preserved text only. You continue to misrepresent my words and my position.

Click to expand...

Misrepresenting our words and our positions is exactly all he does. Thank you for summarizing that.

Logos1560 said:

Peter Ruckman and many KJV-only authors also accept the many bibles translated from the preserved text, earlier pre-1611 English Bibles, the 1611 KJV, and translations in other languages. Your view of preservation leads to the same conclusions that the view of preservation of KJV-only authors leads.

Click to expand...

No, it does not begin to or lead to your dyed in the wool fascination and infatuation with your helpless KJV-only victims, who you are able to bully as defenseless on their positions, so you paint everyone else, no matter what, with your brush of Hate Crimes Against God and His men, for no more reason other than that by doing so, you hope to get the satisfaction and thrill of being able to bully them, too.

Big man.

Logos1560 said:

You fail to demonstrate that I am misrepresenting your position. Your position is basically the same position as that of several KJV-only authors that I have read. You do not seem to understand what constitutes a KJV-only view.

Click to expand...

'Specifically' some similarity that doesn't make a difference does not 'Generally' place the two in the same camp, by any measure. You don't know anything.

I find that you contribute nothing but trouble, for the sake of making trouble where there is none.

Alan Dale Gross said:

That is more of a Demonic lie and Heresy than ANYTHING PETER RUCKMAN EVER CAME UP WITH.

Click to expand...

You fail to prove your incorrect assertion to be true from the Scriptures. My statement is not a demonic lie and heresy as you falsely allege.

Alan Dale Gross said:

And ours is to represent you as the liar that you are, for hatefully even saying such an absurd joke.

Click to expand...

You do not prove my accurate statements that I believe to be actual lies as you incorrectly assert.

You bear false witness in clear disobedience to a command of God.

Alan Dale Gross said:

You lie. You absolutely exclusively "assume he holds a KJV-only position" and are entirely dishonest about it.

Click to expand...

You do not state the truth. I stated the truth concerning what I believe, and there is nothing "entirely dishonest" in that. I made no such assumption. I read what he posted to see what he himself says that he believes.

This book entitled Thou Shalt Keep Them edited by Kent Brandenburg in its definitions defined King James Only as follows: “a broad title for any individuals and institutions who read, study, preach, and use only the King James Version as an English translation” (p. 11).

Gary Webb maintained that the Bible doctrine of verbal preservation of Scripture “leads men to adopt the ‘King James Only’ position” (Brandenburg, Thou Shalt Keep Them, p. 20).

Alan Dale Gross, according to your own source, does the Bible doctrine of verbal preservation of Scripture lead you to adopt the KJV-only position?

According to this definition of King James only in one of your favored and quoted sources edited by Kent Brandbenburg, Alan Dale Gross, are you KJV-only?

Alan Dale Gross said:

You're not fooling anybody and you are a fraud.

Take your childish games back home and leave them there.

Click to expand...

Are your seeming carnal smear tactics, negative name-calling, and personal attacks a sound argument?

Your improper tactics do not answer nor refute my accurate statements. You are wrong to attack my honesty.

Alan Dale Gross said:

That is more of a Demonic lie and Heresy than ANYTHING PETER RUCKMAN EVER CAME UP WITH.

I've never seen you hesitate, or lose even one opportunity, to bash the King James Version and her Translators "with your inconsistent accusation of alleging that the best of" the King James Version and her Translators "is bad or in effect alleging the worse in" King James Version and her Translators.

Oh, here you are. The poor, innocent, victim;

How about just going with essentially everything you post is wrong and needs no demonstration, other than the dozens upon dozens of times you've been rebuked here, just for being dumb.

And ours is to represent you as the liar that you are, for hatefully even saying such an absurd joke.

You bore me and God to tears.

But, you have never soundly identified any "stated human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning/teaching" other than what you assume or mislabel from your collection of fraudulent definitions you squirrel around with, to pretend you've accomplished something, when you've done nothing but smear God's people with false accusations that God never Led you to be doing.

Mixed with the utmost lack of judgment, or Spiritual Discernment, or common everyday walking around sense, for the sake of honesty.

You just insist they do because you demand to have that control over wickedly suggesting they must be guilty, because you've charged them with being so, when they never were, and still aren't.

What you do is as improper as it gets.

You, Logos1560, believe there is One God? Yes?

Then, by your same genuinely stupid logic and reasoning, weights, standards and measures, univocally, you, Logos1560, are a Devil. Period. No, if, ands, or buts about it.

"Thou believest that there is One God; thou doest well: the Devils also believe, and tremble" James 2:19

God just said so, Himself, in the Bible.

And seriously what you do is evil.

Why don't you give me your name and address so I can serve you something you need to read.

All this guy needs is some matching word, or the assumption of a similar thought, with no actual evidence and where he doesn't even really believe any real evidence exists, or cares. He doesn't care. He just slanders.

You are crazy, too, btw. "His own stated opposition to modern translations indicates KJV-only reasoning", as if someone for any number of reason doesn't care for the modern translations automatically suggests their entire belief system is identical, univocally, to known fools.

You're not fooling anybody and you are a fraud.

You lie. You absolutely exclusively "assume he holds a KJV-only position" and are entirely dishonest about it.

Someone needs to satisfy you that they in no way could ever be said to present an "interpretation of preservation" idea "that attempts to dictate to God how God has to preserve His words including how He has to preserve them in English", based on your newly invented strategic criteria you define as something "that attempts to dictate to God how God has to preserve His words including how He has to preserve them in English", when it is all from A to Z JUST IN YOUR SILLY HEAD?

If you are not told something or actually see it in a rationally demonstrable way, get it out of your small mind and out of you big irresponsible, abusive, predator mouth.

No one is obligated to try to untwist your warped KJV-only obsession. But we still try, sometimes.

You're not worth it. You're a waste of time. We can never Rationalize Irrational Behavior.

You make this requirement, as if anybody thinks you deserve the time of day, to start with.

Your Godless determinations and demands are retarded. You have no right to ask anyone to unravel your nightmares you fabricate out of thin air, for no purpose, EXCEPT YOU HAVE TO DISTROY ANY KING JAMES BIBLE DEFENDER YOU CAN BECAUSE THERE IS ACTUALLY ABSOLUTELY NOTHING POSITIVE YOU CAN SAY TO COMMEND YOUR MODERN VERSIONS, IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM.

Take your childish games back home and leave them there.

Are paid to invent these lies against God's men, who love Him and His Word, or not, or compensated in some way to post here at at other Christian sites, as something of a prostitute?

Misrepresenting our words and our positions is exactly all he does. Thank you for summarizing that.

No, it does not begin to or lead to your dyed in the wool fascination and infatuation with your helpless KJV-only victims, who you are able to bully as defenseless on their positions, so you paint everyone else, no matter what, with your brush of Hate Crimes Against God and His men, for no more reason other than that by doing so, you hope to get the satisfaction and thrill of being able to bully them, too.

Big man.

'Specifically' some similarity that doesn't make a difference does not 'Generally' place the two in the same camp, by any measure. You don't know anything.

I find that you contribute nothing but trouble, for the sake of making trouble where there is none.

Click to expand...

I've tried to tell everyone. He's a very strange individual who has a very abnormal, and unhealthy, fixation with this topic. He denies it, but the proof is in the pudding as they say, or should I say the proof is in his posts. I've never seen anyone who posts on forums as weird as he is.

Baptist4life said:

should I say the proof is in his posts.

Click to expand...

The proof is in my posts that there is nothing strange, abnormal, unhealthy, or weird in my sound efforts to present the truth concerning the important doctrine of the Scriptures in relation to Bible translations.