Search results

Some of the English renderings of the 1611 KJV favor Anglican episcopal church government views more than the pre-1611 English Bibles do. In the early 1600's, some believers complained of episcopal bias in the 1611 KJV. Henry Dexter maintained that “its [KJV’s] translators acted under...

My statements are accurate and true, and they are in agreement with the actual historical facts. Your opinion is incorrect, and it is contrary to the actual historical facts.

I did not refer to the original autographs. I clearly referred to the existing preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

The Lord Jesus Christ [God the Son] is my final authority since He has all power or authority (Matthew 28:18). The preserved Scriptures in the original languages are the proper standard and greater authority for the making and trying of all Bible translations.

The KJV is an official Church of England or Anglican Bible translation. The 1611 KJV was the third authorized version of the state Church of England. It was made under the supervision of a Church of England archbishop--Richard Bancroft and with the rules approved by the head of the state...

Really? Did your final authority exist before 1611? How can the 1611 edition of the KJV be a final authority when it has been changed, revised, and corrected in over 2,000 places?

The KJV translators may have left uncorrected the error of the name of the wrong group of people “Amorites” (1 Kings 11:5) that is in the 1602 edition of the Bishops’ Bible, which could make them responsible for this error of fact being found in the 1611. At 2 Kings 24:19, the 1611 edition has...

That is your human opinion. You seem to be saying that the KJV was not perfect for its first 300 years. There are inconsistencies and imperfections in the claimed PCE. The PCE does not have perfect present English spelling of all its English words. In some places, a KJV edition other than...

In the 1611 edition of the KJV on the same page with the table that gives the order how the Psalms are to be read, there is also this heading: “The order how the rest of holy Scripture (beside the Psalter) is appointed to be read.“ On the next pages of the 1611 that lists the lessons from the...

This high regard is also clearly evident in the views of Church of England Archbishop John Whitgift (1530-1604). Thomas Smith cited Archbishop Whitgift as stating at a public conference at Lambeth with Walter Travers and Thomas Sparks in December of 1583 the following: "The books called...

Thomas Smith noted that one chief objection to the common prayer book at a 1583 conference was "the appointment of certain apocryphal writings in the public worship of God, in which were several errors and false doctrines while many parts of the canonical writings, and the doctrine of the...

Ezekiel 45:21 first mentions the one day of Passover on the 14th day, then it refers to a feast of seven days [the feast of unleavened bread] as being a part of the whole Passover period. Referring to the Passover as being a feast of seven days would have to be referring to the feast of...

This pastor does not prove his claims and opinions to be true. Luke in Luke 22:1 could in effect be referring to the one day of passover and the feast of unleavened bread together as the Passover.

Glenn Conjurske pointed out: “One evident blemish of the Bishops’ Bible lies in its frequent flat and unnecessary additions in brackets [or italics]” (Olde Paths, March, 1996, p. 57). Blackford Condit maintained that “the text of the Bishops’ Bible is weakened still more by the introduction of...

In this particular context, the term Easter can only have one specific meaning. If the term Easter is being used to refer to a pagan festival, it is an incorrect or wrong rendering. Your interpretation makes it a wrong rendering. Only if the term Easter is understood as it was used in the...

All you offer is your human opinion. You ignore and dismiss Ezekiel 45:21, Luke 22:1, and the context at Acts 12:4. Easter is right at Acts 12:4 only if it is understood to mean the Jewish Passover as the pre-1611 English Bibles used the term.

The word of God is not bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611. The fact that the makers of the KJV were right in some or many of their textual criticism/Bible revision/translation...

Ezekiel 45:21, Luke 22:1, and the context at Acts 12:4 prove your opinion to be wrong. The immediate context of Acts 12:4 demonstrated that king Herod was aware that his earlier action of vexing certain of the church “pleased the Jews” (Acts 12:3). The context also revealed that Herod...

The final authority for Scripture was given long before 1611, and it existed before 1611. The KJV is not the final authority in and of itself. The KJV derives its acquired or secondary authority from the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. The preserved Scriptures in the original...

At 1 Chronicles 9:41, the KJV translators amended the Masoretic Text by adding "and Ahaz" in italics perhaps because these words are found in the Latin Vulgate, Syriac Version, and 1 Chronicles 8:35. Robert Girdlestone maintained that the A. V. “does not hesitate to use these” [“conjectural...