Search results

You seem to be the one who refuses to accept the truth. You did not establish your claims that have been properly challenged to be the truth.

You did not establish your claims to be verifiable truth. Do you merely try to assume or declare your unproven claims to be truth? You refuse to accept the truth that you have not proven Early Modern English to have been degraded in Modern English. You did not prove that Early Modern English...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/el-sayed-aligned-islamic-council-with-alleged-terrorism-financing-ties-issued-fatwa-to-financially-support-muslim-candidates/ar-AA2cBcBu?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=26dedbdb38134f80b177f8062bdd6608&ei=16...

The term preservation is typically used by KJV defenders to mean "word preservation" and not "thought preservation." Do you claim that the Scripture teaches same word preservation or thought preservation? I state the truth when I acknowledge that the KJV does not preserve the same exact...

Anthony, you praise this poster for stating a KJV-only view. This is the same thing that even the supposedly extreme camp of KJV-only advocates such as Peter Ruckman and his followers could or would state. You are suggesting that you are holding "the inspired and preserved words of God in your...

What kind of preservation do the Scriptures teach? What is the clear, important distinction between preservation concerning the words of the original-language Scriptures and the typical KJV-only use of the term preservation for the KJV? Considering those actual places where the KJV does not...

You do not actually clarify your position by using a seeming incorrect or misleading definition for the term KJV-only. You have not clarified your position to the point that it demonstrates that it does not match what would constitute a form of KJV-only view.

It is not a misrepresentation since you suggested that another poster was not engaging in "honest debate" which would question his honesty. In your response, you again alleged "not honest debate," which shows again that you were not misrepresented. You were not misquoted. You may have an...

You seem to attack the honesty of other posters. You seem to use your "expertise" concerning the English language as a shield to prevent anyone from examining your unproven claims about Early Modern English and Modern English. You do not seem to practice what you preach since you have not...

You fail to demonstrate that I have attributed claims to you that you have not made. My effort is to represent your own statements accurately even when you falsely accuse me. You attribute claims to me that I have not made as you keep ignoring and dodging my clear explanation of the term...

Anthony Pritchard has been shown proper respect. Anthony Pritchard said much more than "In my opinion, I believe the King James is the best translation to use." He did more than just state his preference. He asserted that the KJV "provides that standard" [referring to a pure standard"], and...

The Lord Jesus Christ in the Scriptures does not state your opinion of Modern English and your non-scriptural exclusive only claims for the KJV. The Lord Jesus Christ does not state nor teach that the word of God is bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and...

Robin Griffith-Jones wrote: “The prayer book of 1604 and the Bible of 1611 were both liturgical texts, to be used in conjunction with each other. Their uniform style was archaic, on the trajectory that led to the prayer book of 1662: a style that by the mid-seventeenth century was recognizably...

If you do not hold any other post-1611 English Bible translation to be the inspired and preserved word of God in English, you would be in effect making an exclusive only claim for the KJV. Holding that only the KJV is "the inspired and preserved word of God in English" would constitute what...

You can sincerely believe your opinion or assertion, but you have failed to prove it to be true. You have not proven Early Modern English to be more precise and superior in all aspects to Modern English. English had not reached a stable and mature form in 1611. It would be the mid-1700's...

Gail Riplinger proposed: “The King James Bible contains God’s Built-in Dictionary, defining each word, in its context, using the very words of the Webster’s and Oxford English Dictionaries” (Language, p. xvi). Gail Riplinger asserted: “God included his own built-in dictionary in his word, so...

I have had a similar thought. I have wondered why someone (who claims that Modern English has decayed and has become less capable and who claims that 1500's KJV English is a more mature form of English with a fuller vocabulary, richer syntax, and clearer distinctions) would still use that...

Baptist4life, do you read Anthony Pritchard's "copy and paste" articles or paragraphs?

Do you think that the aspects of Modern English found in post-1900 KJV editions have flattened or degraded the original 1611 edition English? Do you prefer original 1611 edition English or post-1900 KJV edition English? Here are a few example of 1611 edition English compared to post-1900 KJV...

What is your definition of "tampering with God's word" that you are willing to apply consistently and justly? Was any of the updating, revising, and changing in the KJV of the pre-1611 word of God translated into English "tampering with God's Word"? When the Church of England makers of the KJV...