Search results

Jack Hyles changed his views concerning the KJV. In his book Let's Study the Revelation, Jack Hyles clearly was not KJV-only as Hyles advocated some readings in the book of Revelation that are found in the Critical Text. At some point after John R. Rice passed away, Jack Hyles would change...

Are you objecting to the KJV's archaic rendering "divers measures"? Is the NKJV's rendering "diverse measures" better?

You do not prove the accusation in your question to be true. The KJV is a modern version so are you suggesting that it rejects the Hebrew in many places? Dr. James D. Price identified and listed what he asserted are “82 justifiable emendations to the Masoretic text” in the Second Rabbinic...

No one is pretending that you are KJV-only since your own posts show that you are. Your bogus, false accusation that I am supposedly taking swipes at the KJV [God's Holy Bible] displays KJV-only reasoning. It is clear from your posts that you believe that the KJV is the only English Bible...

You misrepresent and distort the view of believers who disagree with human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning. We do not at all present "a weak and pathetic god" as you falsely allege. I believe God was just as faithful to keep all His promises concerning His words before 1611 as afterwards...

The accusations against the NKJV are misleading and unjust when different measures/standards are applied to the making of the NKJV than are applied to the making of the KJV. The KJV did change and remove stuff that is found in the Bishops' Bible of which it is a revision so are you suggesting...

You in effect confirm the truth of my statement since the claimed PCE depends upon blind acceptance of the decisions of the makers of the KJV. The claimed PCE does not actually have the best and most accurate rendering in some places when compared to other KJV editions and when compared to the...

Did you skip over King James I, head of the Church of England, who approved having two men burned at the stake for their beliefs? Several of the Church of England makers of the KJV were members of the High Commission Court who persecuted believers. KJV translators George Abbot and Lancelot...

You display confidence in an exclusive group of doctrinally-unsound Church of England men in 1611 instead of in the Hebrew Masoretic texts and the Greek Textus Receptus texts.

You have been given answers concerning misleading and unjust accusations against the NKJV that involve use of divers measures or double standards.

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...