Search results

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...

If KJV-only advocates are concerned about any possible confusion caused by either the rendering "Lucifer" or its synonym "morning star," they could consider another possible rendering. Several Bible scholars think that a better literal, accurate translation of the Hebrew Helel is "shining one"...

The 1828 Webster's Dictionary defined daystar as following: "The morning star, Lucifer, Venus; the star which precedes the morning light." In her 1997-1998 catalogue, Riplinger claimed that the 1828 Webster's Dictionary "defines words as they were used during the writing of the KJV 1611." The...

Jack Hyles' new view is evident in his 1993 book entitled Enemies of Soul Winning with its fifth chapter being entitled "False Bibles--an Enemy of Soul Winning." Perhaps that 1995 resolution was in response to Hyles' teaching in this 1993 book. In this 1993 book, Jack Hyles (1926-2001) wrote...

The rendering "day star" and "morning star" are synonyms for Lucifer, and they likely are the result of the influence of the Latin-based rendering "Lucifer". If morning star is a mistranslation as you allege, that likewise means that "Lucifer" would be a mistranslation. The 1828 Webster's...

That is not what I stated. My statement states the truth. You improperly try to put words in my mouth that I did not say. The Scriptures acknowledge that professed believers or those who have faith can be deceived or can even deceive themselves (1 John 1:8, James 1:22, James 1:26, 1 Cor...

My quotation listed the source. It is in a book entitled: Lancelot Andrewes: Selected Writings edited by P. E. Hewison. In a sermon, KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes referred to "St Peter's Lucifer in cordibus [daystar in your hearts]" (Hewison, Selected Writings, p. 112). An edition of the...

Someone who believes non-true and non-scriptural claims for the KJV deceives themselves or has been deceived by others.

The KJV translators consulted "the perverted Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate," and they even borrowed many renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament translated from an edition of Jerome's Latin Vulgate. The KJV translators also consulted a printed edition of the Greek...

Perhaps you read the KJV subjectively or incorrectly after having been taught false KJV-only doctrine and after having read unreliable, biased KJV-only sources. You seem to make assumptions concerning the KJV that involve use of fallacies such as begging the question. You presume or assume...

When translations into foreign languages are made from the KJV, they would usually be less accurate than if they were made from the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. The fact that it has sometimes been done does not suggest that it is best. The 1637 Dutch Statenvertaling Bible...