Search results

That verse applies to every translation, not just the KJV. Large unsubstantiated assumption there. If modern readers can't understand it, it's worth "missing". There is nothing inherently superior (from a spiritual standpoint) about the language of the KJV. What you think is readable does not...

I don’t think you’re being rude, but your own personal comfort with the KJV is completely irrelevant as to how others experience it. While your reasons for preferring the KJV is essentially your business, I have to wonder what the reasons are. I strongly suspect that you have been duped by bad...

From that, I take it you don’t believe we live in a fallen, broken world?

Misrepresenting the issue is not dealing honestly with it.

His education and experience are in fact vastly superior to that of many of his critics. If you haven’t read his book, you have no business criticizing his arguments. Instead, you’re finding reasons to dismiss him out of hand and not bother reading.

The 1611 is the “original KJV”, but the KJV is NOT the original English Bible version. It was “current English” 400 years ago, but the English language has changed so much that the KJV is somewhat incomprehensible today. That is why one does well to use a modern translation such as the NIV.

Is your time so precious that you can’t facilitate clear communication? Seriously, man, if you don’t have time to type out the full words in your posts, you don’t have time to be posting on this forum. Please, stop using obtuse acronyms.

So kind of you to explain your acronyms. Do you get some weird satisfaction from being obtuse? Just stop being so lazy and type the full words.

You have obviously drunk the KJV-only Kool-Aid. Your claim is COMPLETELY ridiculous. Do your homework and stop promoting cultic lies.

There is certainly much corruption and error in the practice of medicine, as Dr. Dhand is exposing, but that by itself has nothing to do with the thread topic. To the thread title, no, literal medicine is not demonic. God created solutions for our physical problems, and using them is well...

I agree. It looks like the speaker you quoted doesn’t understand the distinction between “continually” and “continuously”. The former is like a dripping tap; the latter is like a major river.

That you compare the two tells me you haven’t read White’s work. Ruckman is a raving nut, while White is a calm and competent scholar.

Quoting yourself in your posts without a discussion-related reason is akin to trolling. This is a discussion forum, not a preaching forum.

Quoting yourself repeatedly is rather strange. I suggest you stop unless your quote is brief (one or two sentences), and your new post clarifies or responds directly.

Bahahaha! The sheer ignorance of your comment amazes me. Since you admit that you don’t understand the criticism, I suggest you do some homework on the subject. You might start by reading Dr. James White’s book “The King James Only Controversy”. By the way, there is very little “original” about...

Again you fail to understand because you ignore context.

Definitely avoid the "badly stylized" texts, because we wouldn't want anyone to be confused or led astray when they read Scripture. ... as in the KJV: "Why gaddest thou about so much to change thy way?" "Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels." And the...

With respect to you, your idea is both factually flawed and practically stupid. Nobody speaks Elizabethan English today; why hide God's word behind incomprehensible language? The average college student in North America (or any English-speaking country) would have difficulty understanding it. As...

Why would you want to start a "church" consisting of people who already attend other fellowships? Would you not rather start a church with new believers?

Antiochene and Alexandrian, not TR and Critical Text.