Search results

Perhaps you are mixing up the official printers of the KJV such as the king's printer in London, Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, the king's printer in Edinburgh who printed under the crown copyright and unauthorized printers of the KJV. You do not prove that any editions of...

You do not prove that any editions of the KJV in the 1600's and in the 1700's were originally printed without the Apocrypha. The fact that some may have been found later bound or more likely rebound without it is not proof that they were printed without it. The person obtaining the old 1600's...

It is not just most Greek NT manuscripts that do not have the reading "book of life" at Revelation 22:19. It is all known preserved Greek NT manuscript copies that do not have it. Ron Minton maintained that the KJV followed the Latin Vulgate at Revelation 22:19 “where all known Greek...

You may assume, but you do not prove that there are many pre-1779 KJV's printed without the Apocrypha. The actual standard editions of the KJV such as the 1611 edition, the 1629 Cambridge edition, the 1638 Cambridge edition, the 1743 Cambridge edition, the 1762 Cambridge edition, and the 1769...

It was not irrelevant data to prove that Phil Stringer makes factually incorrect claims about editions of the KJV. You were misled by an unreliable source.

The point of the information concerning the 1769 Cambridge was to prove that Phil Stringer is uninformed and misinformed concerning editions of the KJV. You keep ignoring the fact that Phil Stringer makes factually incorrect claims concerning editions of the KJV, showing that you should not...

David Norton's book A Textual History of the King James Bible would prove Stringer's unsupported and unproven claim wrong. The fact that the 1629 Cambridge edition introduced some changes and corrections to the text of the Apocrypha as found in the 1611 edition is proof that it was in the...

The revised 1629 Cambridge of the KJV corrected some of the errors kept from the 1602 edition of the Bishops’ Bible that had been left uncorrected in the 1611 edition. David Norton maintained that a clear error in the 1602 Bishops’ Bible at 1 Kings 8:61 [“the Lord your God”] was kept in the 1611...

Phil Stringer provided no sound proof for his claim that the 1629 revision dropped the Apocrypha. Phil Stringer is somewhat uninformed and misinformed concerning KJV editions. You have been misinformed by Phil Stringer. D. A. Waite assumed and claimed: “The Cambridge University Press, for...

What is your documented evidence that the Apocrypha was removed from all copies of the 1629 Cambridge KJV edition? KJV editions in the 1600's were printed unbound by the printer, and they had to be taken to a book binder to be bound. Someone could buy an edition of the KJV and remove the...

You understand and assert incorrectly as you seem to suggest that the English words of the KJV are superior to the actual original-language words of Scripture given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles. You do not demonstrate that the Scriptures teach your non-scriptural KJV-only...

Modern KJV-only teaching is not an essential doctrine, and it is not even a Bible doctrine of God. KJV-only teaching is a preference and tradition of men not taught in Scripture.

Concerning one of these passages (Psalm 2:4), F. H. A. Scrivener noted: “Jehovah is read in at least 85 Hebrew manuscripts and five early [printed Hebrew] editions, so that the translators (who seldom err in this matter) probably intended to use capitals” (Authorized Edition, p. 223, footnote...

One possible explanation for these LORD/Lord variations may be suggested in Appendix 32 in The Companion Bible. This appendix claimed: “Out of extreme (but mistaken) reverence for the ineffable Name ‘Jehovah,’ the ancient custodians of the Sacred Text substituted in many places ‘Adonai’” (p...

What you do use as your greater authority for claiming that certain editions of the KJV have errors? When you seem to dismiss the greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages, what sound basis do you have for claiming that the names of God are not properly translated...

You fail to demonstrate that you are more informed and that your biased approach is superior. You are in effect trying to claim that KJV-only opinions and traditions of men are a doctrine of God when they are not. According to the Scriptures, it can be concluded that sound true faith would...

Are you complaining about the presenting of the truth? The truth is that all the makers of the KJV were members of the Church of England. The KJV was the third official authorized Church of England version or translation. Archbishop Richard Bancroft [archbishop in the Church of England] was...

I have nowhere claimed to be perfect. I have admitted to being imperfect and wrong about some things. Your posts give the impression that you assume that you are superior to other believers in your understanding and interpreting of Scripture. I do not recall that you admit being wrong when...

I did not claim that it was an error of God. The truth remains that many editions of the KJV have had errors introduced by imperfect men. Acknowledging and advocating the truth is not straining at a gnat. Would you suggest that the actual errors in the original 1611 edition of the KJV should...

You show that you jump to a wrong conclusion and that your opinion is wrong. That is not at all my attitude toward the eternal word of God. The 1611 KJV is not eternal, and all of it has not been kept 100% eternally the same in typical post-1900 KJV editions. Words in English do not keep the...