Quote:
|
some KJV-only supporters I have met in the past argued
|
Maybe you have heard of this, I have not.
But on the other side, I have found that a number of charges are made against KJB-onlyism which are "strawman arguments", such as the accusation that KJB-onlyism promotes the inspiration of the translators from 1604 to 1611. Most KJBOs do not believe that. Yet this is used as a smear against all KJBOism.
Quote:
|
"believe" in the KJV means one-time belief
|
Anyone who says that is mistaken.
Quote:
|
Since this is not true, simplifying the grammar by dropping these endings does not result in any loss of meaning.
|
No, that is a false syllogism or faulty logic.
(Some KJBOs have the wrong definition for -eth endings. Since they are wrong, there is no problem in changing -eth endings.) In reality, it still constitutes a change of meaning if you change "believeth" to "believes".
(Some KJBOs have the wrong definition for -eth endings. However there is a correct usage for them, so there would be a problem with altering -eth endings today.)
What we find is that "believeth" is matched with second person he/she/whosoever. Fiddling around with the KJB grammar today always constitutes an error/loss of information.
Quote:
|
"God loves" does not have any less meaning than "God loveth".
|
In the KJB, "loves" is the plural of love. While "loveth" is a verb form, I think, second person (object) loveth subject. Changing it means bad grammar. And God's Word should have correct and proper usage.