Search results

Here are some examples of KJV-only authors asserting non-true claims including this enduring myth concerning KJV editions. Timothy Morton contended that "the 1762 and 1769 [editions] were to update the spelling" and that "by 1769 whatever slight textual errors that still remained were removed...

KJV-only advocate Matthew Verschuur asserted: “One of the most enduring myths regarding the King James Bible is that the common and standard edition in use in the 20th and 21st centuries is the 1769 Edition” (Vintage Bibles, p. 47). KJV defender Laurence Vance wrote: “There are 750 differences...

If the preservation of the Scriptures depended upon a continual miracle of God or on repeated miracles as some TR-only or KJV-only reasoning suggests, why was there any need for these scriptural instructions/warnings (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19)? These verses (Deut. 4:2...

Since the law or word of the LORD is perfect (Ps. 19:7, James 1:25) and since by definition perfection would exclude the presence of even one imperfection, would imperfect or inaccurate renderings made by men or any errors introduced by men be identical to the absolutely perfect words of God...

Blind faith in Matthew Verschuur's human ex cathedra claims or someone else's claims concerning this edition of the KJV is not biblical faith in what God actually stated in Scripture. Teaching cannot be truly taught as an actual Bible doctrine of God when it is based on blind faith in human...

This revised KJV edition is the one supposedly protected or guarded by the elders [Craig Savige, Samantha Savige, Matthew Verschuur] of the Pentecostal Victory Faith Centre in Australia. Matthew Verschuur claimed: “As for variations in the Pure Cambridge Edition, these have also been settled and...

Does God say clearly that Revelation 22:19 is stated concerning post-NT Bible translations? If you apply Revelation 22:19 to post-NT English Bible translations, the KJV would be in violation of this verse according to a consistent application of your interpretation.

Is this an example of typical KJV-only smear tactics and strawman misrepresentations? You do not prove that believers are throwing 20% of the word of God in the garbage can for no real reason. You do not apply the same standards/measures consistently and justly. According to a consistent...

The Scriptures indicate that God promised to preserve the same exact specific words that He gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles, not different words in a post-NT Latin translation. The meaning of the term preserve would suggest that it would be the same words given by inspiration...

There was likely more than one printer in Edinburg. So was that 1699 Edinburgh edition printed by the king's or queen's printer. There were several printers in London. Was that 1700 London KJV edition printed by the king's printer in London?

Perhaps you are mixing up the official printers of the KJV such as the king's printer in London, Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, the king's printer in Edinburgh who printed under the crown copyright and unauthorized printers of the KJV. You do not prove that any editions of...

You do not prove that any editions of the KJV in the 1600's and in the 1700's were originally printed without the Apocrypha. The fact that some may have been found later bound or more likely rebound without it is not proof that they were printed without it. The person obtaining the old 1600's...

It is not just most Greek NT manuscripts that do not have the reading "book of life" at Revelation 22:19. It is all known preserved Greek NT manuscript copies that do not have it. Ron Minton maintained that the KJV followed the Latin Vulgate at Revelation 22:19 “where all known Greek...

You may assume, but you do not prove that there are many pre-1779 KJV's printed without the Apocrypha. The actual standard editions of the KJV such as the 1611 edition, the 1629 Cambridge edition, the 1638 Cambridge edition, the 1743 Cambridge edition, the 1762 Cambridge edition, and the 1769...

It was not irrelevant data to prove that Phil Stringer makes factually incorrect claims about editions of the KJV. You were misled by an unreliable source.

The point of the information concerning the 1769 Cambridge was to prove that Phil Stringer is uninformed and misinformed concerning editions of the KJV. You keep ignoring the fact that Phil Stringer makes factually incorrect claims concerning editions of the KJV, showing that you should not...

David Norton's book A Textual History of the King James Bible would prove Stringer's unsupported and unproven claim wrong. The fact that the 1629 Cambridge edition introduced some changes and corrections to the text of the Apocrypha as found in the 1611 edition is proof that it was in the...

The revised 1629 Cambridge of the KJV corrected some of the errors kept from the 1602 edition of the Bishops’ Bible that had been left uncorrected in the 1611 edition. David Norton maintained that a clear error in the 1602 Bishops’ Bible at 1 Kings 8:61 [“the Lord your God”] was kept in the 1611...

Phil Stringer provided no sound proof for his claim that the 1629 revision dropped the Apocrypha. Phil Stringer is somewhat uninformed and misinformed concerning KJV editions. You have been misinformed by Phil Stringer. D. A. Waite assumed and claimed: “The Cambridge University Press, for...

What is your documented evidence that the Apocrypha was removed from all copies of the 1629 Cambridge KJV edition? KJV editions in the 1600's were printed unbound by the printer, and they had to be taken to a book binder to be bound. Someone could buy an edition of the KJV and remove the...