Quote:
|
You are twisting and wresting this verse to mean that we much change the Bible itself. This verse and the verses that follow show just the opposite -- it shows that book being read distinctly (so much for your multiple authorities) and that it was taught. It was preached! It was not changed or updated. Helping someone understand the reading is not changing the reading. The KJV is a sense-for-sense translation of God's word from the original languages -- it does not need to be changed any more than it needed to be "changed" in Nehemiah's day.
|
I find your comments interesting. What you are not able to discern is that even in this very passage, Nehemiah uses Aramaic terms. Since I cannot debate Hebrew/Aramaic with someone who lacks those language skills, I will simply have to go my own way.
About me not being a dispensationalist is preposterous. I am a traditional dispensationalist that believes in a hermeneutic that rejects the above sensus plenior approach. Charles Ryrie personally helped me with this study for teenagers. See my
Dispensationalism Sunday School Lesson.
About that article Brandon linked me to regarding the omissions from the MVs, I find it a curious thing that KJVOnly advocates are able to leave things out, add things in their various KJVs. While I allow for textual criticism among all of the versions, you apply your own textual criticism to your version. If you think the warning in Rev 22 applies to me, you should rethink this. Discard your various KJV versions and get the original KJV 1611 facsimile. The Cambridge edition has thousands of "jot" and "tittle" changes.