Search results

KJV defender Laurence Vance asserted: “When it comes to the use of archaic words, modern Bible versions are the greatest culprits” (King James, His Bible, p. 332). Laurence Vance even claimed that the KJV “is no more archaic than daily newspapers and current magazines, and, surprisingly, even...

Do some KJV-only advocates in effect permit their subjective feelings and experience [mysticism] to mislead them and overrule scriptural truth in their view of faith? KJV-only author Wally Beebe described and condemned a mystical view of faith and inspiration. Wally Beebe noted that the...

Does your argument suggest that the original 1611 KJV edition English would be the mature form of English so that post-1900 KJV edition English with much standardization of spelling and influences from Modern English would be a less mature form? Have the over 2,100 changes, revisions, and...

Perhaps they merely illustrate how much Middle English or Early Modern English retained or followed Latin grammar since imprecise Early Modern English had not yet been standardized with any standard English grammars. English had not reached its maturity since it had not yet developed its own...

You can believe what you wish, but your sincere belief does not make your assertion true and scriptural. Do you close your eyes to the verifiable fact that what you claim God Himself has preserved for you in your very hands differs in many places from what English-speaking believers had in...

Your conclusion is incorrect. You are contradicting the assertions of leading KJV defenders and KJV-only authors who claim that the KJV is easier to read and understand than modern English versions are. KJV-only author Bob Steward asserted: “The New King James Version is not easier to...

That may be your opinion, but you fail to prove your assertion to be true, verifiable fact. You present no standard reference work on the English language or recognized authority on the English language who supports your view. The lack of standardization of grammar and spelling in Early...

The updated and revised edition of David Rose's 2026 book is entitled Ending the King James Debate. David Rose appeals to "the doctrine of divine preservation" [title of chapter 2 in this book]. In chapter 3, David Rose appeals to "the principle of continuous usage" (p. 31). David Rose...

Do you improperly try to put words in my mouth that I have not said? The truth is that the KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense as the pre-1611 English Bibles are the word of God translated into English and in the same sense as post-1611 English Bibles such as the...

How does the new Beza reading at Revelation 16:5 fit with a claim of continuity of transmission? Jan Krans noted that “in most cases the information provided by Beza agrees exactly with Stephanus’ critical apparatus” (Beyond What Is Written, p. 211), and in his footnote [3] Krans asserted that...

As a believer, I have read and studied the KJV over 60 years. I love the KJV. I accept the KJV as what it actually is. I have not attempted to get anyone not to read the KJV, or I have not attempted to get anyone to buy a modern version. My effort is to advocate and defend the truth. I also...

Incorrect. Asking a question is not misrepresenting what you said. You ended up misrepresenting me with your bogus accusation.

Perhaps this Greek grammar rule was known much earlier since Theodore Beza seems to have known it. Several of the pre-1611 English Bibles seem to have followed this grammar rule at 2 Peter 1:1. At Titus 2:13, the NKJV, the MKJV, and several other English translations read "our great God and...

You fail to demonstrate that you are being misrepresented in the same way that you have misrepresented my view of preservation. You asserted what you incorrectly claimed were the logical conclusions of my statements, but you oppose me presenting what I consider to be the logical conclusions to...

Your opinion is incorrect. I am not copying and pasting from the works of others. I present my own research.

One reason why the KJV differs from the 1560 Geneva Bible would be the many renderings that its Church of England makers borrowed from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament translated from an edition of Jerome's Latin Vulgate. In a few cases, it was indicated that the KJV translators...

Clearly, I do not post anything near half a book every time I respond. My ten books are from around 100 pages to almost 700 pages while my responses are not even 1/2 of one page or even 1/4 of one page. Some of my responses are very brief. Many of my responses are newly typed. Sometimes I...

The number of textual differences in the varying TR editions are too many to list in one post. Many of them may be minor, but at least some of them [see Luke 10:22 and Luke 17:36] are not. Luke 1:28 thou that art freely beloved [1560 Geneva Bible] [Beza] (see Backus, pp. 79, 91) thou that...

I did engage your unproven linguistic argument, and I countered it. Your seeming "bad faith" dismissal of that engagement is wrong. The Scriptures do not state or teach any opinion that suggests that the word of God cannot be translated accurately into Modern English. Early Modern English was...

The marginal notes in the 1611 edition of the KJV pointed out some of these possible textual differences in the Textus Receptus editions. One resource that pointed out several of these differences, giving a claimed source or reason for them, was the book The Reformed Roots of the English New...