Featured KJV-only author critiques other KJV-only authors

Do you improperly try to attack my honesty and Bible beliefs?

You do not actually refute my statements that you try to distort and misrepresent as you attack your own created straw man distortions. You fail to prove that I am supposedly pretending when I state my beliefs and when I present scriptural truths.

You choose to believe something that your unidentified KJV edition does not state and something that you do not prove to be true. Your believing something does not make it true and does not make it scriptural. You have not proven your KJV-only assertions from the Scriptures, including even from your one preferred English translation. The KJV warns believers that they can deceive themselves, and they can deceive themselves by believing claims and assertions that are not true.

The KJV does not state nor teach that the word of God is bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible-revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611. The KJV does not state nor teach that God shows partiality to one exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611.

Why do you avoid admitting the truth that your human KJV-only opinions are not Bible beliefs?

The KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense as the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the 1560 Geneva Bible are the word of God translated into English. It is a fact that the 1611 KJV does not provide an English rendering for every preserved original-language word of Scripture. Your unidentified post-1900 KJV edition likely has over 150 words added that were not in the 1611 edition and likely omits some words that were found in the 1611 edition. Your present KJV edition does not even preserve every word exactly the same as the 1611 edition, and it especially does not preserve every specific, exact word given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles.

 

You fail to prove your opinions to be true. Perhaps you merely assume your opinions by use of fallacies such as begging the question. You make empty, unsupported claims that you do not prove to be true.

You have not proven that all the actual errors in the 1611 edition of the KJV were the fault of the printers. Some of them were kept uncorrected from the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible so that the KJV translators could have been responsible for not correcting them or at least for not making sure that they were corrected. Some of the errors from the 1602 Bishops' Bible remained uncorrected in KJV editions for several years, which could suggest that the KJV translators had not noticed them.
If the KJV translators had actually corrected them and the printer had failed to follow the correction, the KJV translators should have noticed it in the 1611 edition and could have had the printer correct them in the very next edition.

You never name and identify what those supposed "underlying Hebrew and Greek texts" were. Sometimes the KJV follows other sources such as the Latin Vulgate. Sometimes later editions of the KJV in effect changed the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts of the 1611 edition when changes were made to the 1611. The 1769 Oxford edition introduced a textual change to the 1611 edition. Since a different Hebrew word would underlie "LORD" [Jehovah] than would underlie "Lord" [Adonai], all the changes between these two in KJV editions could be considered changing the underlying Hebrew text of those editions.

 

Neither did the KJV translators according to your own assertions in your own posts. Do you in effect suggest that the KJV translators translated from a "Phantom" Bible that you do not name and identify?

If the Church of England makers of the KJV could have "the complete and inerrant words of God" in multiple varying editions of the Hebrew and Greek texts, believers today can have them the same way. Thus, your accusation that they do not have them would have to be false unless you also claim that the KJV translators did not actually have them when they used multiple, textually-varying editions of the Hebrew and Greek texts.

Do you bear false witness with your unproven allegation that believers cannot have "the complete and inerrant words of God" in multiple, varying editions of the Hebrew and Greek texts? Are your accusations unrighteous judgments based on use of unjust divers measures [double standards] since you do not apply the same exact standards/measures to the KJV translators?

 

Will Kinney wrote that “an educated guess would be that God preserved His perfect words in the Old Latin Bibles” (Flaming Torch, April-June, 2003, p. 18).

Do you have a copy of that "Phantom" Old Latin Bible with God's perfect words and whose Old Testament was translated from an edition of the Greek Septuagint?

Do the Scriptures somewhere teach that God would preserve His perfect words in Latin?

 

How could there be correction of errors in the KJB when you say that you believe that there are no errors in the KJB?

Do you in effect contradict yourself? Do you suggest that you believe something that you know is not true since you know that there were errors in the KJV? An error is still an error regardless of whether it was made by copiers, printers, editors, or translators. It would be erroneous reasoning to try to suggest that an error made by a printer is not an error. Furthermore, you have not proven that all the actual errors in the 1611 edition of the KJV were the fault of the printer. In which edition in what year do you claim that all the errors were first removed?