The KJV - Debate with BigChrisfilm and Logos1560

[BigChrisfilm]

Ok, so let's have us one of them there debates.

I will save the forum from your massive amount of post against the KJV, by posting them all in here. So, Go ahead, make my day.

Me and Ax from Demolition are ready for you!!!!

http://myspace-709.vo.llnwd.net/01476/90/71/1476061709_l.jpg

[DLMoody]

Okay, I have to admit. That's pretty funny...

[RichardT]

rofl awesome

I will halp too!1

http://myspace-454.vo.llnwd.net/01414/45/42/1414422454_m.jpg

(I was 14 when this picture was taken)

[BigChrisfilm]

rofl awesome

I will halp too!1

http://myspace-454.vo.llnwd.net/01414/45/42/1414422454_m.jpg

(I was 14 when this picture was taken)
awsome, lol.

[Logos1560]

I will save the forum from your massive amount of post against the KJV, by posting them all in here.

Me and Ax are ready for you!!!!


You start the thread with another one of your false accusations. Posting accurate information about the KJV and other translations is not being against the KJV.

Until you have studied some about the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision, you are not ready for any debate. Until you have read the KJV enough to know that the KJV does not teach a KJV-only view, how can you be ready for a debate?

Until you are ready to present valid documented evidence and are willing to discuss the actual evidence, you are not ready for any debate.

You have already been asked for evidence for your man-made KJV-only view, but you have not provided it. The KJV-only view has the burden of proof to prove its positive claim that English-speaking believers should read and use only the KJV.

[BigChrisfilm]

You start the thread with another one of your false accusations. Posting accurate information about the KJV and other translations is not being against the KJV.

Until you have studied some about the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision, you are not ready for any debate. Until you have read the KJV enough to know that the KJV does not teach a KJV-only view, how can you be ready for a debate?

Until you are ready to present valid documented evidence and are willing to discuss the actual evidence, you are not ready for any debate.

You have already been asked for evidence for your man-made KJV-only view, but you have not provided it. The KJV-only view has the burden of proof to prove its positive claim that English-speaking believers should read and use only the KJV.
I found these questions, and would like to see if you can answer any of them, or if your answer will be another question, since we all know you think that is a valid response, lol.

Question [A]: Regarding John 14:23/Luke 4:4 etc, how can we keep Jesus' words and the words of the Father if we don't first have and recognize where they are? If they are in the morass of manuscripts we firstly don't have them, especially if all translations have errors, and we certainly aren't equipped to recognize them if this is the case.
Question [B]: On John 4:24/John 17:17, how can we worship God in truth with His word which is truth, if our versions don't contain all the truth, being mixed with errors? God never promised to inspire and preserve merely doctrines, a "message" or belief systems, He said W O R D S! Furthermore, God didn't inspire nor promise to preserve man made methods of interpretation. Why bother to inspire His word in the first place if he didn't preserve it intact, isn't Inspiration without Preservation useless?
Question [C]: If God's word will judge us in the latter day (John 12:48) will it be a fallible translation or an inerrant word which will judge us? It wouldn't be fair to judge us by a book we never had access to would it?
Question [D]: If God's word produces the new birth (James 1:21 cf. I Peter 1:23) how can a defective translation alone save us? Also, if our faith is derived from hearing the word of God, can a defective word only produce defective faith? One may be saved in spite of a modern translation's faults, but one can be saved from a tract, but a tract is not the Bible although it may contain some of the "Bible".
Question [E]: Furthermore, if Jesus' name is so precious to God, and it is (Phil. 2:9/Eph. 1:21), and if God's own name is even exalted above all blessing and praise and it is (Nehemiah 9:5); and if God has magnified His word above His own name (Psalms 138:2) and He did; then how can it be such a trivial issue to defend God's inerrant word as a present possession?
Question [F]: Can two inspired accounts differ (Jer. 36:32)? If so, how can you attempt to prove errors in the KJV by appealing to differences in editions or printing errors?
Question [G]: What was "original" the words spoken by Paul or as written by Tertius (Romans 16:22)?
Question [H]: Are not copies in Scripture - Scripture, and if Scripture are they not Gods's word; and if God's word are they not inerrant, inspired and infallible? II Tim. 3:1-15; Proverbs 25:1; Proverbs 31:1; John 17:17 (Christ quotations from the O.T., in the N.T., were most likely from copies by the way). When I read of "Scripture" it is always used of copies or translations (Mark 12:10; Acts 8:32; Acts 17:11; etc).

[DLMoody]

uh...BigChrisGuy...Socrates' most often used response was a question and he proved a lot of points...Socrates was Plato's teacher and friend and it has been said that all of Western Philosophy is foot notes to Plato. Yeah, the guy who most influenced Plato was pretty smart and he asked a lot of questions to prove his point...A LOT. "lol"

[Logos1560]

I found these questions,

While these questions you found and copied do not show your KJV-only view to be correct, I will get back to some of these questions if you can be patient. While you wait, you could discuss the valid evidence that showed some of your accusations against the NKJV to be inaccurate in the "is the KJV 1000 times better than the NKJV" thread.

[Logos1560]

I found these questions, and would like to see if you can answer any of them, or if your answer will be another question, since we all know you think that is a valid response, lol.


The Lord Jesus Christ gave us the example of answering a question with another question. Questions are neither true or false so that questions do not establish truth. Because you found these questions at some KJV-only source, it does not mean that they are valid questions. Responding with another question sometimes indicates how the first question is invalid. Some questions are based on the fallacy of begging the question because that question assumes as true premises that have not been proven. In separate posts, I will respond to some of the questions and points raised by whoever made them. I will separate the questions instead of trying to make one long answer to so many varying questions.

By the way, you did not deal with or discuss the fact that you started this thread with an incorrect accusation. Posting accurate information about the KJV and other translations is not being against the KJV as you falsely claimed. I am not against the reading and use of the KJV.

[Logos1560]

Question [A]: Regarding John 14:23/Luke 4:4 etc, how can we keep Jesus' words and the words of the Father if we don't first have and recognize where they are? If they are in the morass of manuscripts we firstly don't have them, especially if all translations have errors, and we certainly aren't equipped to recognize them if this is the case.


The KJV-only view faces the same challenge and problem that is claimed for other views of Bible translation. The KJV was based on manuscripts that had some copying errors, printed original language texts that likely had some printing errors and that may have followed some copying errors, on translations in other languages that had some translating errors, and on pre-1611 English Bibles that had some errors according to a consistent application of KJV-only reasoning. For just one example of many that could be given, the printed Hebrew text on which the KJV was based was missing two O. T. verses. Arthur Farstad claimed that "Joshua 21:36-37 is lacking in the Masoretic text," but it was added to the KJV from the Septuagint, Vulgate, and Syriac versions (The NKJV: In the Great Tradition, p. 96). Joshua 21:36-37 are not in the standard Second Rabbinic Bible edited by Chayim, the printed Hebrew text on which KJV-only authors such as D. A. Waite claim the KJV was based. Ginsburg noted that Jacob ben Chayim "decided to omit them [Joshua 21:36-37) in accordance with a certain school of Massorites" (Introduction, p. 965). Kyle McCarter observed that Joshua 21:36-37 “are entirely missing in the Leningrad Codex and other major manuscripts of MT” and that the “cause of their omission in MT was homoioteleuton: Verses 35 and 37 ended with the same sequence” (Textual Criticism, p. 41). Is the person who made this question in effect claiming that if the KJV translators had to pick and choose readings out of a morass [swamp] of manuscripts that they didn't have the words of God? The KJV translators did not follow any one original language manuscript or even any one original language printed text 100%. Is the person who made this question claiming that only Erasmus (a Roman Catholic) and only Church of England scholars in 1611 were equipped to recognize what was a copying error and what was not? Where do the Scriptures teach that only Church of England scholars/textual critics in 1611 could recognize what every word of God is?

It seems that the author of these questions is asking questions like Pilate's "what is truth" in order to avoid the fact that the Bible does not teach his man-made KJV-only theory. A consistent and scriptural view of Bible translation would be true both before and after 1611. The KJV-only view has the same problems or has to deal with the same questions before 1611; therefore, the same questions apply to the very foundation on which the KJV depends.

[Logos1560]

Question [c]: If God's word will judge us in the latter day (John 12:48) will it be a fallible translation or an inerrant word which will judge us? It wouldn't be fair to judge us by a book we never had access to would it?


Psalm 119:89 For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

Is the author of this question claiming that he is the judge and determiner of what is fair and not fair? Is the author of this question claiming that it wouldn't be fair for God to judge those Moslems by a book that they may never have had access to? Is it being claimed that it wouldn't be fair for God to judge those who speak languages in which the Bible has never been translated or who died before a translation was made into their language? Is it being claimed that God was not fair to English-speaking believers before 1611?

The reasoning behind this KJV-only question is wrong, and it seems to attack the righteousness, holiness, and wisdom of God.

God was just as faithful to keep His promises before 1611 as after 1611. God was just as faithful to keep His promises to believers who spoke languages other than English as He was to those who spoke it.

[Logos1560]

[b]Question : On John 4:24/John 17:17, how can we worship God in truth with His word which is truth, if our versions don't contain all the truth, being mixed with errors? God never promised to inspire and preserve merely doctrines, a "message" or belief systems, He said W O R D S! Furthermore, God didn't inspire nor promise to preserve man made methods of interpretation. Why bother to inspire His word in the first place if he didn't preserve it intact, isn't Inspiration without Preservation useless?


I agree with one point that God didn't inspire man-made methods of interpretation, which includes the man-made KJV-only method of interpretation.

Does the author of this question think that believers have to be omnscient [all-knowing] and infallible to worship God in truth? Is it being claimed that believers are perfect and infallible in their understanding and interpretation of the Scriptures? If the believer is not infallible, he can have some misunderstanding and errors in his understanding of the Scriptures. If the believer has any misunderstanding and errors in his understanding of the Scriptures, is he unable to worship God? Is the author of this question claiming that since the understanding/interpreting of the Scriptures by believers is not perfect and infallible it means that the preservation of the Scriptures is useless? Some of the points in this question contradict other points in it so that they can not all be valid.

In his 1888 book, Baptist Basil Manly stated:

"It is not true that plenary inspiration would be useless, unless the copies were secured by a perpetual miracle against the effects of time and of careless and corrupt transmission. A truly divine original, even if copied with no more more than ordinary human care and fidelity, is vastly superior to an original however accurately preserved, that never had divine authority. And obviously the fact that it was recognized and accepted as from God would serve greatly to insure its being preserved with more than ordinary care. Neither can it be justly said that God would supernaturally inspire the writings, unless he also miraculously preserved them from erroneous transcription. He might do the one, which He alone could do, and leave the other, as in many other matters, to the faithfulness of his servants intrusted with that responsibility (Bible Doctrine of Inspiration, pp. 226-227).

[Logos1560]

Question [D]: If God's word produces the new birth (James 1:21 cf. I Peter 1:23) how can a defective translation alone save us? Also, if our faith is derived from hearing the word of God, can a defective word only produce defective faith? One may be saved in spite of a modern translation's faults, but one can be saved from a tract, but a tract is not the Bible although it may contain some of the "Bible".


The author of this question again contradicts his own question when he admits that a person can be saved even though a modern translation was used. If a modern translation was actually "corrupt" seed as implied by this question, would it be possible for a person to be saved when it was used? The author of the question cannot have it both ways. Either his question is invalid or his statement is incorrect. If a believer makes a mistake in quoting a verse from the KJV or even in reading it, does it become a defective word? According to the KJV-only reasoning in this question, did the KJV translators have defective faith until 1611 since they would likely have been saved before they ever produced the KJV?

Scripturally, how is it possible to add such a prerequisite that requires the use of the KJV to salvation in 1611 when God's revelation in His Word was completed before 100 A.D.? The gospel was given by revelation of Jesus Christ (Gal. 1:12), and nothing could scripturally be added to it in 1611 or after 1950. All things necessary to salvation were declared by the apostles (1 Cor. 15:1-2, Acts 20:27, Heb. 2:3). William Tyndale observed: “The pith and substance in general of everything necessary to our souls’ health [salvation], both of what we ought to believe, and what we ought to do, was written” (Answer, p. 26). The apostles omitted nothing that is necessary to salvation. If there was something else essential to salvation not declared by the apostles, it makes the apostles into deceivers. This new claim of some KJV-only advocates that use of the KJV is a necessary prerequisite to salvation seems to be getting close to adding a work of men (either a work of the KJV translators or a work of soul winners having to use this certain translation) to salvation by grace through faith. This claim seems to put the translation work of the KJV translators before Christ and make it necessary to reach Christ through only the KJV. The KJV-only claim of no salvation without the KJV is as unscriptural as the claim of no salvation without circumcision in Acts 15:1.

[Logos1560]

Question [G]: What was "original" the words spoken by Paul or as written by Tertius (Romans 16:22)?


The original manuscript of the epistle of Paul to the Romans was that written by Tertius (Rom. 16:22). Of course, the words were first given to Paul. Until the words were written, there was no original manuscript of that epistle. The words given to Paul by inspiration of God would be the same as the words recorded by Tertius. If Tertius could make a mistake in his writing, that mistake would not have been inspired. Since Paul would have been there, he could have had Tertius correct any mistake he made in writing down the words or the Holy Spirit could have directly insured the recording by a miracle. All the details are not given or revealed. The New Testament was not completed at this time, and the miracle of the giving of direct revelation or inspiration was still going on at this time.

According to the overall teachings of the Scriptures, no more revelation or inspiration has been given since the completion of the New Testament.

[Logos1560]

Question [F]: Can two inspired accounts differ (Jer. 36:32)? If so, how can you attempt to prove errors in the KJV by appealing to differences in editions or printing errors?


The verse does not say that the two accounts differ in meaning. All the same words were given and written again (Jer. 36:32), and then it is indicated that God gave more revelation and thus more words were added.
It is not indicated that the added words conflict with the earlier words given again. Such a situation that involves the giving of revelation or the direct miracle of inspiration is not the same thing as the situation in 1611. The author of this question is attempting to make an invalid comparison. The giving of revelation was not yet completed at the time of Jeremiah.

An error is still an error whether it is made by a copier, printer, editor, or translator. Printing errors are the same type of problem as copying errors. If KJV-only advocates can appeal to differences in manuscripts as support or an excuse for their KJV-only view, it is just as valid to point out differences in editions of the KJV. An error made by a copier, printer, editor, or translator was not inspired of God and is not inerrant. An error made by a printer can change one word into another word, can omit a word, can add a word, and can sometimes change the meaning.

This is all for now. Perhaps I will try to get to the other questions later. If others want to comment on the questions, please also offer your responses.

[Logos1560]

[b]Question God didn't inspire nor promise to preserve man made methods of interpretation. Why bother to inspire His word in the first place if he didn't preserve it intact, isn't Inspiration without Preservation useless?


Michael Harding observed: “An error in a copy or translation reflects on a scribe, copyist, translator, or printer. An error in the original text, however, reflects on the author” (Williams, God’s Word in Our Hands, p. 342). W. Gary Crampton wrote: “Mistakes in the original manuscripts would attribute error to God, but defects in the copies attribute error only to the copyists” (Trinity Review, July, 2004, p. 1). Poythress and Gruden maintained: “Any mistakes in the originals would be God’s mistakes! But any mistakes in the subsequent copies are man’s mistakes in copying, not God’s mistakes in what he originally said to his people” (Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy, p. 51).Wilbur Pickering pointed out that “the errors and alterations introduced by fallible men down through the centuries of copying lack authority” (Identity, p. 162). KJV-only author David Cloud commented: “The promise of preservation is not a claim that every copier of Scripture would become infallible or that God would not allow any corruption to enter the manuscript record” (Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 226). KJV-only author Thomas Holland commented: “Biblical preservation does not demand the rejection of textual criticism” (Crowned with Glory, p. 6).

Pickering suggested that “God permitted textual variants to test our faith and determination, to test our attitude, to test our willingness to humbly and patiently look for answers (Prov. 25:2 and Rev. 5:10)” (Identity, p. 160). He asked: “Since our understanding is condemned to be imperfect in any case, is it really necessary to have a perfect Text?” (p. 160). Again he asked: “why has God allowed errors to get into the Text, or why does He permit faulty interpretation?“ (p. 161). Pickering asserted that “in the first place the whole point of having a human race apparently involves giving us the ability and freedom to sin and taking the consequences“ and “in the second place normal and daily use does not require a superlative degree of precision--in any event we have more of God’s Truth than we can possibly appropriate” (p. 161). He illustrated his statements with several analogies or illustrations including some that concern measuring devices.

[DLMoody]

I think you've proven your point. It is obvious that BigChrisFilm can not adequately defend his. No offense to you BigChrisFilm. I respect you as a person but I think this debate is going to be thicker than, "my pastors told me the KJV is the best and so did my dad. Oh and by the way, newer translations took out words and passages from the KJV." Yeah yeah, we get that. Here is the answer so there is no more arguing:
Long story short. Since the compiling of the KJV in 1611 we have recovered more manuscripts, specifically ones that are older. These manuscripts are more reliable and accurate since they are closer to the original document. Therefore, some of the passages found i the KJV are unnecessary since they are not found in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts. Got it? good. The KJV-only debate shouldn't even be a debate. It's ridiculous and I'm sure you would agree Logos? Alright KJV-onlys, start throwing out your red herrons.

[PrincetonGuy]

God never promised to inspire and preserve merely doctrines, a "message" or belief systems, He said W O R D S! Furthermore, God didn't inspire nor promise to preserve man made methods of interpretation. Why bother to inspire His word in the first place if he didn't preserve it intact, isn't Inspiration without Preservation useless?

There is more than a little bit of difference between what God promised to do and what some men and women mistakenly claim that God promised to do. Nowhere in the Bible do we find that God promised to inspire or preserve His words or anyone else's words. Perhaps you have read Psalms 12 and misunderstood vv. 5-7:

5. (12:6 in Heb.) Mishod `aniyiym mee'anqat 'ebyowniym`ataah 'aaquwm yo'mar Yahweh 'aashiyt byeesha` yaapiyach low.
6. (12:7 in Heb.) 'Imarowt Yahweh 'amaarowt Thorowt keceptsaaruwp ba`aliyl laa'aarets mzuqaaq shib`aataayim.
7. (12:8 in Heb.) 'Ataah- Yahweh tishmreem titsrenuw min-hadowr zuw l`owlaam.

Perhaps your understanding of Hebrew is a tad bit rusty. Here is a good translation of it:

5. "Because of the devastation of the afflicted, because of the groaning of the needy, Now I will arise," says the LORD; "I will set him in the safety for which he longs."
6. The words of the LORD are pure words; As silver tried in a furnace on the earth, refined seven times.
7. You, O LORD, will keep them; You will preserve him from this generation forever. (NASB, 1995)

The antecedent of the pronoun “them” in verse 7 is not “The words of the Lord,” the antecedent is “the needy.” The same is true, of course, of the antecedent of the pronoun “him” in verse seven. Therefore, the promise here is the preservation of the needy, that is, that God will preserve them and not allow them to perish. Verse 6 (in our English versions) is an interjectory affirmation that the promise will be kept because “the words of the LORD are pure words; As silver tried in a furnace on the earth, refined seven times.”

As for the inspiration of the Bible, there are no promises but only a statement of fact that is very much subject to interpretation, “All Scripture is inspired by God,” and an excellent illustration of what is meant by “inspired,”

Luke 1:1. Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us,
2. just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word,
3. it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus;
4. so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. (NASB, 1995)

If what the Bible says in these verses that I quoted in this post is true, KJOism is not true! I believe that what the Bible says is true.

Logos1560 is telling you the truth, and you would be wise to believe him.

[AV1611VET]

Long story short. Since the compiling of the KJV in 1611 we have recovered more manuscripts, specifically ones that are older.

We can recover all the manuscripts we want, but if they disagree with the King James Bible --- they're wrong.

Luke says everyone and their brother were writing about the life of Christ; and he sorted it all out into one coherent and chronological Gospel.

Luke 1:1-4

[BereanTodd]

We can recover all the manuscripts we want, but if they disagree with the King James Bible --- they're wrong.

You talk as though the KJV is the first Bible, that the apostles wrote in English. You do realize that the Bible was not written in English, correct? There are viable (though not nescasarily correct) arguments to be made for majority-script translation methods, but to place the KJV as some standard for all other Bibles is both silly and unscriptural.

Luke says everyone and their brother were writing about the life of Christ; and he sorted it all out into one coherent and chronological Gospel.

Luke 1:1-4

We're not talking about those other gospels, and Luke's original manuscript was not in English in case you missed it.

[Logos1560]

We can recover all the manuscripts we want, but if they disagree with the King James Bible --- they're wrong.


Are you suggesting that the words of the prophets and apostles in the original languages that were given by inspiration of God and were preserved by God should be considered inferior and even wrong when compared to the interpreting/translating/understanding of Church of England scholars in 1611?

[AV1611VET]

Hello, Todd --- :wave: --- nice to meet you!

You talk as though the KJV is the first Bible, that the apostles wrote in English.

This is the way I explain it:

If you took every writing ever made and threw them all into one big pile --- there's one line of Scriptures that would stand out head-and-shoulders above the rest. That line is the AV line, consisting of eight translations:

AV100 Koine Greek Version
AV330 Gothic Version
AV700 Anglo-Saxon Version
AV1389 Wycliffe Version
AV1530 Tyndale Version
AV1568 Bishops' Bible
AV1587 Geneva Bible
AV1611 King James BibleThese eight are/were God's choices for His people.

[AV1611VET]

Are you suggesting that the words of the prophets and apostles in the original languages that were given by inspiration of God and were preserved by God should be considered inferior and even wrong when compared to the interpreting/translating/understanding of Church of England scholars in 1611?

They are the same words --- different language --- no contradictions.

[Logos1560]

there's one line of Scriptures that would stand out head-and-shoulders above the rest. That line is the AV line, consisting of eight translations:

AV100 Koine Greek Version
AV330 Gothic Version
AV700 Anglo-Saxon Version
AV1389 Wycliffe Version
AV1530 Tyndale Version
AV1568 Bishops' Bible
AV1587 Geneva Bible
AV1611 King James BibleThese eight are/were God's choices for His people.

Before the Gothic, you are leaving out the old Peshitta Syriac Bible and the old Latin Bibles that are on several KJV-only authors' line of good Bibles. Did you know that the Old Testament of the Gothic Bible was translated from the Greek Septuagint? Wycliffe's Bible was translated from the Latin Vulgate of Jerome. Did you know that there are more and greater differences between Wycliffe's Bible and the KJV than between the KJV and some later English translations that are based on the same original language texts as the KJV such as the 1842 revision of the KJV by Bible-believing Baptists, the NKJV, the Modern KJV, the KJ21, etc.? Why did you leave the 1535 Coverdale's Bible and the 1539 Great Bible [two of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision] off your line? The Geneva Bible was printed in 1560 before the 1568 Bishops' Bible. The KJV was actually based on the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible. There are many differences in number of words and also differences in meanings of words between the KJV and the Bishops' Bible.

[AV1611VET]

Before the Gothic, you are leaving out the old Peshitta Syriac Bible and the old Latin Bibles that are on several KJV-only authors' line of good Bibles.

I'm leaving them out on purpose. Only those eight translations carry the weight of God's Word, in my opinion.

Those others are okay, but I don't believe they were superintended by God when they were written.

In other words, they aren't supernatural translations.

Did you know that the Old Testament of the Gothic Bible was translated from the Greek Septuagint?

I won't comment on the Septuagint or the Vulgate, as I'm sure I'll incur the wrath of those who think they're legit. Suffice it to say, there are only 8 translations I think are valid --- all others can --- well --- let's just say --- take their places with the rest.

Wycliffe's Bible was translated from the Latin Vulgate of Jerome.

The source document of these 8 translations were the translations before them - (except for the 1st one, of course). The King James made use of the Textus Receptus, for instance, but in no way was was translated from it. The Textus Receptus only served as a reference tool - not the source. Of course, God handled the whole operation.

[Logos1560]

I'm leaving them out on purpose. Only those eight translations carry the weight of God's Word, in my opinion.

Those others are okay, but I don't believe they were superintended by God when they were written.

In other words, they aren't supernatural translations.

Suffice it to say, there are only 8 translations I think are valid ---

The King James made use of the Textus Receptus, for instance, but in no way was was translated from it. The Textus Receptus only served as a reference tool - not the source. Of course, God handled the whole operation.

According to what you posted, you seem to be saying that the KJV was not translated from the Hebrew for the O. T. and the Greek Textus Receptus for the N. T. Are you saying that the KJV was based on the earlier English Bibles (Tyndale's to Bishops')? Are you suggesting that some of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision such as the 1535 Coverdale's, 1537 Matthew's, and 1539 Great Bibles were not valid and superintended of God?

Why is Luther's German Bible left off your line? Luther's German Bible had an influence on Tyndale's.

[AV1611VET]

According to what you posted, you seem to be saying that the KJV was not translated from the Hebrew for the O. T. and the Greek Textus Receptus for the N. T.

Correct --- look at it this way --- I sometimes use a dictionary when I post. Does that mean I'm posting from the dictionary? No. It means I'm only using the dictionary as a reference tool.

Even if I copy-and-paste from another site (like Wikipedia), all I'm doing is using a word or phrase or paragraph --- not the whole article.

Are you saying that the KJV was based on the earlier English Bibles (Tyndale's to Bishops')?

Yes ---

Koine to Gothic
Gothic to Anglo-Saxon
Anglo-Saxon to Wycliffe
Wycliffe to Tyndale
Tyndale to Bishops'
Bishops' to Geneva
Geneva to King JamesAre you suggesting that some of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision such as the 1535 Coverdale's, 1537 Matthew's, and 1539 Great Bibles were not valid and superintended of God?

Yes

Why is Luther's German Bible left off your line? Luther's German Bible had an influence on Tyndale's.

If it did, it only had a small influence.

Does the Holy Spirit come in anywhere here?

[VCViking]

And the winner is... Logos1560!

[PETE_]

Does the Holy Spirit come in anywhere here?


Is the Holy Spirit less powerful today?
Do we have less knowledge today?
Are all translators less Godly today?
Do we know more about the original languages today?
Are today's translators more free from authoritative pressures?
Are other teachings of the translators as correct?

Just a few thoughts

[Logos1560]

Quote:
Are you saying that the KJV was based on the earlier English Bibles (Tyndale's to Bishops')?
Yes ---

Koine to Gothic
Gothic to Anglo-Saxon
Anglo-Saxon to Wycliffe
Wycliffe to Tyndale
Tyndale to Bishops'
Bishops' to Geneva
Geneva to King JamesQuote:
Are you suggesting that some of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision such as the 1535 Coverdale's, 1537 Matthew's, and 1539 Great Bibles were not valid and superintended of God?
Yes

Does the Holy Spirit come in anywhere here?

Based on what criteria or what principles or what evidence do you claim that the eight versions you list are the only valid ones and the only ones superintended by God? Are you saying that all eight of these versions are equal in authority since you say that they are all eight valid and superintended by God?

AV100 Koine Greek Version
AV330 Gothic Version
AV700 Anglo-Saxon Version
AV1389 Wycliffe Version
AV1530 Tyndale Version
AV1568 Bishops' Bible
AV1587 Geneva Bible
AV1611 King James Bible

You asked: "Does the Holy Spirit come in anywhere here?"

Yes, I believe that the Holy Spirit was involved in guiding believers who translated the preserved Scriptures into other languages.

Gothic to Anglo-Saxon
Anglo-Saxon to Wycliffe
Wycliffe to Tyndale
Tyndale to Bishops'
Bishops' to Geneva
Geneva to King James"

Are you saying that the Gothic Version was translated into Anglo-Saxon? Are you saying that William Tyndale's translation was based on Wycliffe's instead of on the Greek for his N. T. and the Hebrew for his partial O. T.?

The 1568 Bishops' Bible was not based directly on Tyndale's. KJV-only author Laurence Vance observed that one of the rules given the translators of the Bishops' Bible was the following: "First, to follow the common English translation used in the Churches [the Great Bible] and not to recede from it but where it varieth manifestly from the Hebrew or Greek original" (BRIEF HISTORY, p. 20). Thus, the Bishops' Bible was actually based on the Great Bible although it did follow the 1560 Geneva Bible at times. The Geneva Bible was not based on the 1568 Bishops' Bible as your last post seems to imply. Also the 1611 KJV was not based directly on the Geneva Bible. The first rule given the KJV translators stated: "The ordinary Bible read in the church, commonly called the Bishop's Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit."
The KJV may follow the Geneva Bible almost as much as it follows the Bishops' Bible, but the KJV does not follow the Geneva and Bishops' together 100%. Are you aware of the evidence that shows that in some renderings the KJV follows the rendering of the 1582 Rheims N. T. and thus differs from both the Geneva and Bishops' in those places?

[AV1611VET]

Is the Holy Spirit less powerful today?
Do we have less knowledge today?
Are all translators less Godly today?
Do we know more about the original languages today?
Are today's translators more free from authoritative pressures?
Are other teachings of the translators as correct?
Just a few thoughts


No
No --- more.
Yes
Yes
Yes
NoThere are two types of translators: those to whom God conscripted when it was time for another version, and those who think it's time for another version.

[AV1611VET]

Based on what criteria or what principles or what evidence do you claim that the eight versions you list are the only valid ones and the only ones superintended by God?

Based on total agreement of doctrine and word usage. They are almost word-for-word copies of each other - right down to the Johannine Comma.

[JimfromOhio]

Since I have been growing up in fundamentalism and legalism churches (mostly Baptist churches), I have learned over the years that we need to emphasize that there are doctrines that are not that important (peripheral matters). I can and do have certain beliefs, but I will not emphasize them to OTHERS so much that can create barriers between brethren. "King James Only" Christians are obsessed with this issue zealously and spending more time talking about KJV more than they do talking about the Lord Jesus Christ. I have had to endure the KJVOnly propaganda and found those do not have the "fruit of the spirit" because they put their priority in translation over love that are hateful, vicious, irrational, imprecise, hypocritical and in many cases, deceitful.

When I look at denominations, I look at their primary focus and when those are "ahead" of the Great Commission, they are more concerned with their own beliefs rather than after God's own heart.

[Logos1560]

Based on what criteria or what principles or what evidence do you claim that the eight versions you list are the only valid ones and the only ones superintended by God? Are you saying that all eight of these versions are equal in authority since you say that they are all eight valid and superintended by God?

AV100 Koine Greek Version
AV330 Gothic Version
AV700 Anglo-Saxon Version
AV1389 Wycliffe Version
AV1530 Tyndale Version
AV1568 Bishops' Bible
AV1587 Geneva Bible
AV1611 King James Bible


Based on total agreement of doctrine and word usage. They are almost word-for-word copies of each other - right down to the Johannine Comma.

Your statements claim that all eight versions are in "total agreement of doctrine and word usage" and that all eight "are almost word-for-word copies of each other." Your statements are inaccurate. I have copies of the Gospels in the Anglo-Saxon Version, a copy of the text of Wycliffe's Bible, copies of Tyndale's, copies of the Geneva Bible, and copies of the Bishops' Bible. There are greater and many more differences than your statements say. Have you ever actually examined any of the eight versions on your list besides the KJV?

At Luke 2:33, the Anglo-Saxon has "his father" and the 1568 Bishops' Bible also has "his father" while the KJV has "Joseph" from the Geneva Bible.

Here is evidence from just one of the eight [the Bishops' Bible] on your list of valid versions superintended by God. Glenn Conjurske pointed out: “One evident blemish of the Bishops’ Bible lies in its frequent flat and unnecessary additions in brackets [or italics]” (Olde Paths, March, 1996, p. 57). Concerning the Bishops‘ Bible, Scrivener asserted that “it is one of the most considerable faults of this not very successful version, that its authors assumed a liberty of running into paraphrase” (Authorized Edition, p. 62). Blackford Condit maintained that “the text of the Bishops’ Bible is weakened still more by the introduction of explanatory words and phrases; a seeming attempt to expound as well as translate the original text” (History, p. 286). The following examples should support and confirm the above statements. Some of the additions may have first been added in the Great Bible or another earlier English Bible. The Bishops’ Bible added the words “in companies” at Genesis 14:15. It added: “shall he bear out“ (Lev. 4:11), “of the altar“ (Num. 18:9), “Ye shall number the people“ (Num. 26:4), “That is to wit“ (Num. 31:43), and “as upon an horse“ (Deut. 32:26) Some other example additions include the following: “otherwise called“ (Jud. 8:35), “so shall my house be, but not“ (2 Sam. 23:4), “as namely” (1 Kings 6:29), “that is to wit” (1 Kings 9:10), “offence which Solomon hath committed“ (1 Kings 11:39), “with your cry” (1 Kings 18:27), “that came in his way” (1 Kings 20:20), “in the ceremonies“ (2 Kings 17:8), “I beseech thee” (2 Kings 19:16), “O thou king of Assyria“ (2 Kings 19:21), “even so deal with me“ (2 Chron. 2:3), and “shall this building be“ (2 Chron. 2:6). At the end of Job 9:24, it added: “that can shew the contrary.“ It added “to God” at Job 35:14. In the middle of Psalm 139:20, this addition is found: “thou art O God.“ At the end of Isaiah 1:7, it added: “in the time of war.“ After the word “replenish” at Isaiah 2:6, it added “with evils,“ and it added “the wicked ones of” before “the earth” at the end of Isaiah 2:19 and 2:21. In the middle of Isaiah 3:14, this addition is found: “and shall say to them.“ These words are found in a different size type at the end of Isaiah 3:18: “after the fashion of the moon.“ In the middle of Isaiah 8:19, these additional words are found: “then make them this answer.“ At the beginning of Jeremiah 4:22, it added: “Nevertheless, this shall come upon them.“ At Jeremiah 28:9, it has this addition: “if God hath sent them in very deed.“ It added “when ye had gotten the victory” at the end of Jeremiah 50:11. At the end of Jeremiah 50:28, it added “yea, a voice of them that cry against Babylon.“ At Ezekiel 28:14, it added this phrase: “in this dignity.“ The words “their sacrifices” were added at the end of Ezekiel 40:41. At Ezekiel 45:2, the Bishops’ Bible has the following two additions in a different size type: “in length” and “in breadth.” This chapter has another addition [“a portion shall be” (45:7)]. At the beginning of Daniel 7:20, six words were added [“I desired …to know the truth”]. After “Loruhamah” in Hosea 1:6, it added: “that is, not obtaining mercy.“ Likewise, it added after “Loammi” in Hosea 1:9: “that is, not my people.“ More Old Testament examples could be given.

More such examples of additions are also found in its New Testament. Would you consider the Bishops' Bible's addition at John 18:13 ["And Annas sent Christ bound unto Caiaphas the high priest"] to be a valid, faithful or perfect translation? At John 18:22, the Bishops' Bible has the rendering "smote Jesus with a rod." The Bishops’ Bible inserted “the fishers” at Matthew 13:48. At Matthew 26:30, the Bishops’ began as follows: "when they had praised God." After “preparing” at John 19:31, it inserted “of the Sabboth.“ It added "of the synagogue" in italics or a different size type at Matthew 9:18, "of God" at Matthew 26:64, "of the gospel" at Mark 2:2, “from the region which is“ at Mark 3:8, “And said“ at Mark 10:7, “of God“ at Mark 14:62, “of the city“ at Mark 15:43, “of their sins” at Luke 10:13, “by any means“ at Luke 10:19, “at the doors“ at Luke 14:35, “and no man gave unto him“ at Luke 16:21, “the means“ at John 5:16, “the means“ at John 6:57, “as though he heard them not” at John 8:6, “on high“ at John 8:28, “unto you“ at John 16:15, “any question“ at John 16:30, “unto them“ at Acts 2:41, “unto him“ at Acts 8:37, “one Scripture with another“ at Acts 9:22, “that is“ at Acts 15:22, “that is to say“ at Acts 15:29, “of the Lord“ at Acts 19:9, “that is to say“ at Acts 28:25, “the inheritance given“ at Romans 4:16, “election“ at Romans 9:16, “I mean“ at Romans 9:24, “nations“ at Romans 11:32, “not only before God, but also“ at Romans 12:17, "I did not mean" at 1 Corinthians 5:10, and “the shedding of“ at Hebrews 12:4. At the end of 1 Corinthians 9:25, it added “to obtain” before “an incorruptible” and “crown” after it. At the end of Revelation 9:11, it added “that is to say, a destroyer.“

Is the Bishops' Bible rendering at Ecclesiastes 11:1 ["Lay thy bread upon wet faces"] more accurate or more faithful than that of the Geneva Bible ["Cast thy bread upon the waters"]? At Ecclesiastes 12:1, the Bishops’ Bible began the verse: “Remember thy maker the sooner in thy youth.” It rendered Psalm 19:2 as follows: “A day occasioneth talk thereof unto a day: and a night teaches knowledge unto a night.” It began the second verse of Psalm 23 as follows: “He will cause me to repose myself in pasture full of grass.“ Its rendering of Job 41:7 was: “Canst thou fill the basket with his skin or the fish panier with his head?” Its translation of Job 7:12 was: “Am I a sea, or a whale fish, that thou keepest me so in prison? At Acts 1:3, the Bishops’ Bible has “many tokens” where the Geneva Bible has “many infallible tokens.“ The Bishops’ Bible has “Whitsuntide” (1 Cor. 16:8) where the Geneva has “Pentecost.“ At John 11:4, “infirmity” is the Bishops’ rendering where the Geneva has “sickness.“ Is the Bishops’ Bible rendering at the beginning of 1 Corinthians 6:11 [“And some such like you were”] superior to the Geneva Bible rendering [“And such were some of you”]? Is the Bishops’ Bible rendering near the end of 1 Corinthians 8:1 [“knowledge maketh a man swell”] better than the Geneva Bible rendering [“knowledge puffeth up“]? At the end of Luke 23:40, the Bishops’ Bible has “damnation” where the Geneva Bible has “condemnation.“ Is the Bishops’ Bible rendering “Jews’ Easter” at John 11:55 an improvement over the Geneva Bible rendering “Jews’ Passover?“ Is the Bishops’ Bible reading “his father” at Luke 2:33 better than the Geneva Bible reading “Joseph?“ Are all the renderings of this English foundation for the KJV faithful, perfect, pure, and true as some KJV-only authors claimed? Can KJV-only advocates explain the Holy Spirit’s role in all these renderings found in the English foundation of the KJV? It should be clear that the Holy Spirit’s guiding of the translators of the Bishops’ Bible did not result in perfect translating or result in an improvement over the Geneva Bible at every verse.

Three words at 1 Timothy 3:10 [“let them minister”] in the Bishops’ Bible was expanded to eight words [“let them use the office of a deacon”] in the KJV. At 1 Timothy 6:6, the Bishops’ Bible has a clause of nine words [“if a man be content with that he hath”] while the KJV has a phrase of two words [“with contentment”]. The KJV has an adjective [“engrafted”] (James 1:21) where the Bishops’ Bible has a clause [“that is grafted in you”]. The Bishops’ Bible rendering at 1 Timothy 4:1 [“rites of error”] was revised to “seducing spirits” in the KJV. At 2 Timothy 2:21, the rendering of the Bishops’ [“meet for the uses of the Lord”] was changed to “meet for the master’s use.” A four-word phrase [“at an uncertain thing”] at 1 Corinthians 9:26 in the Bishops’ was amended to an adverb [“uncertainly”]. At Acts 2:26, a phrase [“for a surety”] in the Bishops’ was revised to an adverb [“assuredly”]. At the end of Revelation 14:10, the KJV has two phrases [“in the presence of the Lamb”] where the Bishops’ has one phrase [“before the Lamb”]. One word in the Bishops’ [“humble”] at 2 Corinthians 7:6 was expanded to five words in the KJV [“those that are cast down”]. At the end of Hebrews 9:12, the KJV followed the Geneva Bible in adding two words [“for us”] that were not in the Bishops’ Bible. Do KJV-only authors inform their readers that there are such differences in number of words between the Bishops’ Bible and the KJV?

Regardless of whether unintentional or intentional, your claims about the eight versions on your list such as the Bishops’ Bible are inaccurate.

[AV1611VET]

Since I have been growing up in fundamentalism and legalism churches (mostly Baptist churches), I have learned over the years that we need to emphasize that there are doctrines that are not that important (peripheral matters). I can and do have certain beliefs, but I will not emphasize them to OTHERS so much that can create barriers between brethren. "King James Only" Christians are obsessed with this issue zealously and spending more time talking about KJV more than they do talking about the Lord Jesus Christ. I have had to endure the KJVOnly propaganda and found those do not have the "fruit of the spirit" because they put their priority in translation over love that are hateful, vicious, irrational, imprecise, hypocritical and in many cases, deceitful.

We I look at denominations, I look at their primary focus and when those are "ahead" of the Great Commission, they are more concerned with their own beliefs rather than after God's own heart.

OUCH!

[Hagios17]

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/riplinge.htm

[JimfromOhio]

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/riplinge.htm

I remember preachers who said to play the "record" backward (in the 60's 70's 80's), you will hear satan. ;)

[VCViking]

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/riplinge.htm


From wikipedia:

"Little is known about Riplinger. According to James Richard May, her educational background is in home economics.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gail_A._Riplinger#_note-1) It is unclear what qualifications she has in the issue of Bible Versions and textual research.
The King James Only movement distances itself from Riplinger, including leading figures on both sides such as David Cloud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Cloud)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gail_A._Riplinger#_note-2) and James White[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gail_A._Riplinger#_note-3). Riplinger seems to engage in ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) confrontations with these people."



http://www.kjvonly.org/james/may_reviews_pr.htm

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/newage.htm

[Logos1560]

[Quote from your post in another thread]

Eventually the 1611 King James Version appears as a replacement to either the AV1587 Geneva Bible, or the AV1568 Bishops' Bible.

King James translators did use parts of TR, but only as a reference tool --- not as a source document. The source document itself would have been either the AV1587 Geneva, or the AV1568 Bishops' Bible - (God's choice for the Pilgrims to America).

What about those places where the 1611 KJV does not follow either the Geneva Bible or the Bishops' Bible? What was the source document(s) in those places?

[AV1611VET]

What about those places where the 1611 KJV does not follow either the Geneva Bible or the Bishops' Bible? What was the source document(s) in those places?

Would you give me an example please --- or was that in that long post you made? (I printed that, but haven't gotten around to looking at it yet.)

[Logos1560]

Would you give me an example please

The KJV does follow the Geneva Bible in many places where it differs from the Bishops' Bible, and it may have followed it in some of the places I listed where the KJV differs from the Bishops'.

There would be a good number of renderings in the 1611 edition of the KJV where the KJV differs from both the Geneva and Bishops' Bibles. In some of those places, the KJV seems to follow the 1582 Rheims New Testament. Here are one dozen examples:

Mark 13:22 deceive (Geneva, Bishops') seduce (1582 Rheims, KJV)
Luke 19:21 strait (Geneva, Bishops') austere (1582 Rheims, KJV)
Luke 23:32 evil doers (Geneva, Bishops') malefactors (1582 Rheims, 1611 KJV)
John 19:24 coat (Geneva, Bishops') vesture (1582 Rheims, KJV)
Acts 10:1 captain (Geneva, Bishops') centurion (1582 Rheims, KJV)
Acts 17:19 Mars street (Geneva) street of Mars (Bishops') Areopagus (1582 Rheims, KJV)
Acts 24:4 courtesy (Geneva, Bishops') clemency (1582 Rheims, KJV)
Acts 25:23 chief men (Geneva, Bishops') principal men (1582 Rheims, KJV)
1 Cor. 4:9 gazing stock (Geneva, Bishops') spectacle (1582 Rheims, KJV)
1 Cor. 9:7 his own cost (Geneva, Bishops') his own charges (1582 Rheims, KJV)
1 Cor. 15:33 evil speaking (Geneva) evil words (Bishops') evil communications (1582 Rheims, KJV)
2 Cor. 1:12 pureness (Geneva, Bishops') sincerity (1582 Rheims, KJV)

[AV1611VET]

There would be a good number of renderings in the 1611 edition of the KJV where the KJV differs from both the Geneva and Bishops' Bibles. In some of those places, the KJV seems to follow the 1582 Rheims New Testament. Here are one dozen examples:

That's good, scholarly work, Logos, but surely you don't expect the next version to be a carbon copy of the version before it, do you?

If that's the case, then it's not a translation, it's a transliteration.

Those examples you gave are words that are synonyms for each other, and in no way changes the meaning of the sentence.

Let's take your first example:

For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.
For false Christes shall rise, and false prophets, and shall shewe signes and wonders, to deceiue if it were possible the very elect.I don't see a problem with that at all. It's just the word that God wanted used for that particular passage.

Remember: the different versions are targeting different "audiences".

Note also the parallel passage in the King James:

For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.
And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.The Geneva Bible didn't carry the idea of seduction as the King James does; and the King James links this passage to the idea of "seducing spirits" mentioned by Paul in the end-times.

1 Timothy 4:1Incidentally, this link is not found in the Geneva Bible:

For false Christes shall rise, and false prophets, and shall shewe signes and wonders, to deceiue if it were possible the very elect.
Nowe the Spirit speaketh euidently, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, and shall giue heede vnto spirits of errour, and doctrines of deuils,Thus I submit that the King James Version is God's choice for the technical language of today, as it makes use of elaborate cross-references for clarity and proper interpretation.

[Logos1560]

King James translators did use parts of TR, but only as a reference tool --- not as a source document. The source document itself would have been either the AV1587 Geneva, or the AV1568 Bishops' Bible

surely you don't expect the next version to be a carbon copy of the version before it, do you?

If that's the case, then it's not a translation, it's a transliteration.

Those examples you gave are words that are synonyms for each other, and in no way changes the meaning of the sentence.

You had claimed that the source documents of the KJV were either the Geneva and Bishops'; and not the Textus Receptus. If none of the source documents of the KJV were not the Textus Receptus or any original language texts, then the KJV is not actually a translation. If the word does not come another language, it cannot be a transliteration. Is the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims N. T. a source document of the KJV in the examples listed before?

Do you claim that all of the following examples of where the KJV does not follow the Geneva and Bishops' are synonyms? While you may consider some of them synonyms, can you show that the KJV renderings are actually improvements over that of the Geneva and Bishops in every example?

Gen. 23:6 prince of God (Geneva, Bishops') mighty prince (KJV)
Gen. 28:11 And he came (Geneva, Bishops') And he lighted (KJV)
Exod. 9:31 flax and the barley were (Geneva, Bishops') flax and the barley was (KJV)
Lev. 11:30 rat (Geneva) hedgehog (Bishops') ferret (KJV)
Deut. 14:15 ostrich (Geneva, Bishops') owls (KJV)
Jud. 3:18 presented the present (Geneva, Bishops') made an end to offer the present (KJV)
Jud. 9:3 hearts were moved (Geneva, Bishops') hearts inclined (KJV)
Jud. 18:21 substance (Geneva, Bishops') carriage (KJV)
Jud. 19:19 we lack nothing (Geneva, Bishops') there is no want of any thing (KJV)
Jud. 20:10 villainy (Geneva) abomination (Bishops') folly (KJV)
1 Sam. 27:10 a roving (Geneva, Bishops') a road (KJV)
2 Sam. 20:20 God forbid (Geneva, Bishops') Far be it (KJV)
2 Sam. 22:6 overtook (Geneva, Bishops') prevented (KJV)
1 Kings 8:47 overtook (Geneva, Bishops') bethink (KJV)
2 Kings 12:11 payed it out (Geneva) brought it out (Bishops') laid it out (KJV)
1 Chron. 27:34 captain (Geneva, Bishops') general (KJV)
Job 27:13 tryants (Geneva, Bishops') oppressors (KJV)
Job 30:29 ostriches (Geneva, Bishops') owls (KJV)
Ps. 82:4 save them (Geneva, Bishops') rid them (KJV)
Prov. 11:25 shall have plenty (Geneva, Bishops') shall be made fat (KJV)
Isa. 34:11 pelican(s) (Geneva, Bishops) cormorant (KJV)
Lam. 4:3 dragons (Geneva, Bishops') sea monsters (KJV)
Amos 6:12 wormwood (Geneva, Bishops') hemlock (KJV)
Micah 1:8 ostriches (Geneva, Bishops') owls (KJV)
Zeph. 2:14 pelican(s) (Geneva, Bishops') cormorant (KJV)

Matthew 23:34 strain out (Geneva, Bishops') strain at (KJV)
John 14:2 dwelling places (Geneva, Bishops') mansions (KJV)
Acts 7:20 acceptable unto God (Geneva, Bishops') exceeding fair (KJV)
Titus 1:8 one that loveth goodness (Geneva) a lover of goodness (Bishops') a lover of good men (KJV)
Titus 2:10 faithfulness (Geneva, Bishops') fidelity (KJV)
Heb. 10:23 hope (Geneva, Bishops') faith (KJV)
Rev. 7:14 Lord (Geneva, Bishops') Sir (KJV)
Rev. 16:5 holy (Geneva) holy one (Bishops') shalt be (KJV)

[Logos1560]

2 Cor. 1:12 pureness (Geneva, Bishops') sincerity (1582 Rheims, KJV)


Those examples you gave are words that are synonyms for each other, and in no way changes the meaning of the sentence.



Is your response saying that "pureness" and "sincerity" are synonyms?

[Logos1560]

that long post you made? (I printed that, but haven't gotten around to looking at it yet.)

AV1611vet, have you read that post yet with the actual examples from the Bishops' Bible? The actual evidence conflicts with some of the claims you posted.