Let's look at the evidence

Ok I dont Know how to build a Plane But I Know The "Stone" that BUILDERS rejected! And on whom it falls on it will grind them to powder! I would rathe Build on a solid foundation rather than sand! AND i'm sure you would too! The evidence is that All MV's say they are built on the KJV but none of them are the same as the KJV! I will not bow out as Tcassidy suggested; just to prove that my heart is in this I will do my best to debate with the best of you! A little rusty but with the Annointing all things are possible to him that beleiveth!Amen

 

William, 2 questions:

1. What is the highest level of education you completed? Dont be insulted, just answer the question.

2. Are you familiar with the term "circular argument"? Can you define it, and give your thoughts on whether or not Christians should use them if they are defending truth?

 

The actual evidence is that the earlier Protestant English Bibles [Coverdale's to KJV] were built on Tyndale's, but none of them is every word the same as Tyndale's. Was the KJV built on a solid foundation when the KJV was built on the earlier English Bibles [Tyndale's to Bishops']? Have you ever read any of the earlier English Bibles and compared them to the KJV?

English-speaking believers before 1611 already had a good English translation [the 1560 Geneva Bible] that they read and believed. According to a consistent application of your KJV-only reasoning, why was another and differing English translation needed in 1611?

One reason that the 1611 KJV differs from the 1560 Geneva Bible is that the KJV translators took and used a few words from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament.

 

There havce been five plus pages loking for solid evidences and there is another similar thread running. Therefore this one is closed.