Search results

KJV-only advocates accept and put the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision in the same stream of Bibles so you are not at all distinguishing your view from a KJV-only view. As clearly explained before, the term KJV-only refers to a view about English Bible translations, not...

His own language in his posts do reveal that he uses KJV-only reasoning. Holding that only the KJV is "the inspired and preserved word of God in English" would constitute what is accurately defined as a KJV-only view. The truth concerning what constitutes a KJV-only view establishes that his...

Concerning the KJV, KJV-only author James Knox wrote: “You will be surprised by how many words do not mean what you thought they meant and how much truth is to be found by taking the time to look up the real meaning of the English words” (By Definition, p. 10). D. A. Carson noted: “Far...

Among those words called "ecclesiastical words" which King James forbade to be translated into English, changed, or updated, the words "baptism" and "baptize" could perhaps be included. In fact, the preface to the 1611 KJV clearly indicated that “baptism” was considered to be one of the “old...

In their preface to the 1611, the KJV translators themselves referred to Richard Bancroft as the "chief overseer and task-master under his Majesty, to whom were not only we, but also our whole Church, much bound." Being "much bound" to Archbishop Richard Bancroft would suggest that the KJV...

Claiming that it is "its mature culmination" is in effect suggesting that the KJV would have the most accurate renderings of the preserved text. Thus, my comments were directly on topic to your assertion. If the KJV does not have the most accurate renderings of each and every original-language...

It has not been proven that the KJV has a better and more accurate rendering of every original-language word of Scripture in the preserved stream than any one of the pre-1611 English Bibles. In at least some places, another pre-1611 English Bible may have a clearer, better, or more accurate...

English Bible translations such as the 1833 Webster’s Bible, the 1842 revision of the KJV by Baptists, the 1962 Teen-age Version of the Holy Bible by Jay Green, the 1982 NKJV, the 1986 Literal Translation in The Interlinear Bible, the 1990 Modern King James Version, the 1994 21st Century King...

Did you not read my post? The evidence was cited in my post. The pressure to follow the renderings and interpretations of their head (king) and their state church would be seen in the fact that Archbishop Richard Bancroft was the overseer over the translating process and in the rules for the...

Any open examination of all the evidence reveals that the KJV translators were under pressure to follow the renderings and interpretations of their head (king) and their state church. The rules reveal the possibility that Church of England bias could have affected the translating. In their...

Mark Ward observed that reading-level “tools measure a word’s complexity by syllable count, but that’s not a reliable way of judging whether a word can be understood” (Authorized, p. 54). Mark Ward also noted: “Reading-level analyses run by computers do not yield reliable or useful results when...

All the makers of the King James Version were members of the state Church of England so in that sense they were a narrow group that did not include any Separatists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Baptists, etc. While a very few of the makers of the KJV had formerly been associated with the...

Some KJV-only authors try to measure difficulty of reading and understanding by average syllables per word. Michael Hollner claimed: “People have been conned into believing the lie that the new versions are much easier to understand” (King James Only Debate, p. 291). Michael Hollner wrote: “The...

Was the punctuation of English at its peak in Early Modern English in 1611, and was 20 percent of the punctuation in the 1611 degraded in Modern English? The punctuation in the 1611 edition has been revised in later editions. David Norton suggested that “one fifth of the original punctuation”...

Has the 1611 KJV remained the same and stable for over 400 years? Some authors have claimed that the text of current KJV editions is exactly the same or is substantially the same as the text of the original 1611 edition. Do they prove their claims to be true? For example, Ed DeVries wrote: “Buy...

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. In 1611 English had not reached its maturity since it had not yet developed its...

James Moses Grainger wrote: “The use of the subjunctive in the King James Version is characterized by great looseness and irregularity due to the unfixed state of English syntax during the period from which the English Bible drew its idiom, 1535-1611” (Studies in the Syntax of the KJV, p. 50)...

Yes, the very title of his thread affirms that he was arguing for the superiority of 1611 English. He did not establish his claim to be true as he merely assumes it or tries to declare it to be established as "truth". How is his own seeming argument indicated in his own title supposedly being...

Did you know that two of the Church of England makers of the KJV were actually involved in having two men burned at the stake for their religious beliefs? KJV translators George Abbot and Lancelot Andrewes were two of the Church of England divines who urged the burning at the stake of...

You are not engaging in serious discussion as you seem to throw out false accusations to try to smear those who disagree with your opinions. Modern, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning/teaching is proven to be a doctrine of men, not a doctrine of God taught in Scripture. Are you asserting that...