Search results

Mark Cambron wrote that “the word ‘church’ cannot be found in the New Testament. The word ‘church’ is a rendition, and not a translation. This same word ‘church’ is a rendition of the word ecclesia, which means a called-out company, or assembly” (Bible Doctrines, p. 213). KJV-only author James...

The English word church comes from the Old English cirice or circe, which may come from the Latin curia or the Greek adjective kuriakos. This Greek adjective which comes from the Greek noun kurios (lord, ruler, or master) and which means "of or belonging to the lord" or "imperial" is only used...

David Daniell commented: "Congregatio had been used by Erasmus in his parallel Latin translation for the Greek ekklesia wherever it occurred. William Tyndale avoids 'church' because it is not what the New Testament says" (William Tyndale, p. 148). David Daniell also noted: “Tyndale translated...

John Reynolds or Rainolds, one of the four Puritans invited to the Hampton Court conference, is said to have suggested the idea of a new translation to King James. John Eadie noted that Reynolds “was not chosen in any way by his own [Puritan] party” (English Bible, II, p. 172). The three...

Will Kinney is not a reliable source. His unproven accusations against the NKJV involve the use of divers measures [an abomination to the LORD] as he does not apply the same exact measures/standards to the process of the making of the KJV as he inconsistently and thus unjustly tries to apply to...

You see imperfectly, incorrectly, and inconsistently. The truth is consistent. The 1611 KJV is "God's Holy Bible" in the same sense (univocally) as the 1537 Matthew's Bible is "God's Holy Bible", as the 1560 Geneva Bible is "God's Holy Bible," and also as the 1982 NKJV is "God's Holy Bible."

Do you ignore the fact that the 1611 edition of the KJV capitalized many nouns that are not proper nouns and that were not capitalized in later editions? Thus, the fact that Lucifer was capitalized in the 1611 edition does not prove that it was for certain considered a proper noun. Are you...

Your human opinion does not establish the KJV as being right. You are wrong to suggest that God's preserved original-language words of Scripture can supposedly be corrected by the imperfect textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group...

From the comparisons in my book Today's KJV and 1611 Compared, it can be found that there would be over 190 whole words not found in the 1611 edition that would be added to it in a typical post-1900 KJV edition. The words are also listed on pages 174-175 in KJV defender Laurence Vance's 2025...

The 1611 KJV changed the Hebrew word God gave by inspiration to the prophet Isaiah. Are you supporting changing what God's word says in the Hebrew? The word of God is not bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of...

Words can have multiple meanings in different contexts, but a word has one true specific meaning in a specific context. One specific word does not have multiple meanings at the same time in a specific context.

Do you show that you believe the preserved original-language words of Scripture? Do you show that you believe soundly the words of the KJV when the KJV itself does not actually state and teach your human KJV-only opinions that you try to read into it? Your present KJV edition does not have all...

John Meade and Peter Gurry asserted: “The most striking feature of the period before the King James Version is the sheer number of translations” (Scribes, p. 201). John Meade and Peter Gurry observed: “Today’s abundance of translations is more a return to life before 1611 than an innovation” (p...

Do you try to misrepresent and distort some of the facts? What was accurately pointed out is that the Latin-based rendering "Lucifer" is synonymous with the renderings "day star" or "morning star". The synonymous renderings day star or morning star may come more from influence of the Latin...

The Latin rendering lucifer may be found in Jerome's Latin Vulgate 4 times (Job 11:17, Job 38:32, Isaiah 14:12, 2 Peter 1:19). The 1395 edition of the Wycliffe Bible had “Lucifer” more than once since it was also used at Job 38:32: “Whether thou bringest forth Lucifer, that is, day star, in his...

The historical facts concerning synonyms are not "man's carnal thinking" and are not myths. Does KJV-only reasoning seem to display use of carnal smear tactics in its misleading and unjust accusations against the word of God translated into present standard English? Do you attempt to act as a...

Almost all readers of the KJV since 1638 are not reading an edition of the KJV identical to the 1612 edition. Your human opinion that the over 2,000 revisions, changes, and corrections to the 1611 edition are "not legitimate in the eyes of God" is incorrect and non-scriptural. You are reading...

That may be your private misinterpretation and misunderstanding of Scripture as you read into verses something that they do not actually teach. The 1612 edition of the KJV did not correct all the errors that had been introduced in the original 1611 edition. Two of the KJV translators...

The final correction to the 1611 edition of the KJV was not made in 1612. Today's post-1900 KJV editions are not the 1612 edition. Many revisions, changes, and corrections were made to the 1611 edition of the KJV after 1612. Over 2,000 changes, revisions, and corrections have been made to the...

The 1968 Cassell's New Latin Dictionary indicated that the Latin word "lucifer" comes from two root words meaning "light-bearing, light-bringing" and that it would be translated into English as "Lucifer, the morning star, the planet Venus." According to the English-Latin section of this...