View Single Post
Old 06-05-2009, 11:25 PM
bibleprotector's Avatar
bibleprotector bibleprotector is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 587

Originally Posted by premio53 View Post
Does that mean he is perverting the word of God? Of course not! The issue that is raised is that modern English has lost the distinction between singular and plural in the second person. While this is true, it's not a mark against a Bible translation. The rules of language change over time, and you can't stop it, nor can you fault the translators for following the rules of English as they currently stand!

For the record I use only a King James and would be considered King James Only.
By altering so much as a jot or tittle in English as now received, it will be against the accuracy of the KJB.

Anything which detracts from the detailed exactness of the Scripture in English is not good. Thus, whatever does this must be rejected in favour of keeping to the old paths.

The modernist and the evolutionist and so on argue that English is changing, therefore, they think that the Word of God must be altered on the basis of man's opinions and theories.

The reality is that the English of today is conducive to the King James Bible, and that the King James Bible is comprehensible to the spiritually minded person today. Of course, we have to study, but that is because it is God's way, not man's lazy watered down way.

If you are not using a King James Bible out of the right tradition, and from the historical lineage, you are not using a real KJB. Thus, a modernised "King James" version with many unauthorised word changes is dangerous.

Have a read of this monograph to see the accuracy of our KJB words, the very words which the unauthorised revised "King James" versions destroy.