It is one thing to state the principle of the law, for example, if you were to quote Luke 10:25-28 from your own mind in paraphrase form, but to deliberately make a decision NOT to follow the jots and tittles of the King James Bible when you have access to it, and present it as if it is an actual quote is what suggests to me insincerity. By insincerity, I mean insincerity in regards to really believing that the King James Bible is "the law". If you viewed it as law, you would not so easily hasten to so-called "correct" it.
Quote:
|
do not impugn my motives here
|
It is deceptive to put forth "Scripture", yet not follow the King James Bible especially without not one indication that you were doing something others would obviously consider suspect.
I am vindicated because you openly admit to utilising a "correction" (i.e. corruption) to the King James Bible.
Quote:
|
the removal of the Olde English
|
The use of the word "Olde" is pure propaganda. Old English, i.e. Anglo-Saxon, went out before the time of Chaucer, so to claim that the KJB is such is merely a slur.
Quote:
|
replete with the Elizabethan
|
To say that that the King James Bible is or contains Elizabethan language is inaccurate on two counts, first because the King James Bible appeared after Queen Elizabeth the First died, and secondly, because the King James Bible is Biblical English, not ordinary English.
Quote:
|
the meaning, nor the application
|
The meaning and application can and are altered in the present day where people go from the pure Word to corruptions, even if the corruption is eliminating the word "thy".
David W. Daniels wrote, "Why do we need thee and thou? ... If the speaker is talking to one person, he uses 'thee' or 'thou'. If he is talking to many people, he says 'you' or 'your'." By removing the word "thy", there is a removal of conceptual information. It takes away from the Word of God.