Wednesday, February 7, 2018

A Critical Analysis Of The King James Only Movement

        Folks who involve themselves in the King James Only Movement believe that the King James Version of the Bible is superior to every other translation we posses. In other words, these loosely associated, autonomous sects maintain that it is the only reliable translation because it is believed that the King James translators were inspired by God. Others prefer it because it is based on the Textus Receptus. A number of King James only advocates maintain that the translators of the 1611 English Bible were moved by the impulse of the Holy Spirit. Many people who subscribe to this translational stance believe that the King James Version is inspired in the same sense as the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Furthermore, this ideological framework has resulted in many bitter, unnecessary contentions throughout the body of Christ, which is the church. It has been the cause of much unwarranted concerns behind the scholastic verdicts upon which modern Bible translation renderings are established. This essay aims to highlight the major issues existing with embracing a King James only mindset.

        The first and foremost objection that should be raised against the belief that the King James translators were inspired by God is that it has no scriptural support. Our Lord Jesus Christ, the apostles, prophets, and their closest associates never cited the King James Version as their means of discerning truth from error. Never does Scripture teach that God would someday perfectly preserve His Word in a non-Hebrew or Greek language in the form of a seventeenth-century English translation by authorization of King James. In fact, the English language did not even exist during the time that both the Old and New Testaments were written. There is not a particle of historical evidence favoring the notion that the King James translators were inspired by God. It thus follows that the King James only position is merely an extra-biblical doctrine. It is not of divine origin. It is strictly a man-made tradition, and should not be treated as a valid standard by which doctrine is evaluated. It should not be railed against fellow brethren, lest God's commandments be nullified.

        The logic commonly employed by members of the King James only community is faulty, as well as it is irrational. Even if we could conclusively demonstrate that one different Bible translation is doctrinally corrupt, that would still not build a case for King James onlyism because that does not prove the King James translation to be of divine origin. Accomplishing such a research project on one translation dos not prove all to be poorer than the King James. What is even more, is the vicious circularity that exists in the argumentation developed by people who promote the view that the King James Version is the inspired, inerrant Word of God. It is merely assumed that the King James Version is inspired by God. It is merely assumed that the King James Version is the standard by which other translations be judged. Why should we use it in that manner? Why not do the same to the King James Version with older English translations such as the Coverdale Bible, Tyndale's Bible, Bishop's Bible, Geneva Bible, and the Great Bible? The point is that all translations should be evaluated in accordance to the best available manuscript data. King James onlyism is impossible to verify, since we do not have access to the original manuscripts. There exists no perfect set of manuscripts to develop a perfect translation of the Bible. Why is there not a King James Spanish, German, or Chinese Bible? Where was the Word of God prior to the publication of the King James Version? What mechanism exists to indicate that God would stop inspiring Bibles after the publication of the 1611 King James Version?

        What needs to be understood is that errors in the process of translation will inevitably occur because we are imperfect beings by design. This includes both the scribes who translated Scripture and our up to date technology. No two sets of ancient manuscript are identical in every jot (the three primary manuscript families are the Byzantine, Alexandrian, and Western), which accounts for the differences in Bible translations. There are literally thousands of manuscripts and papyri fragments lending incredible support to the overall veracity of the New Testament canon. Although copies contain minor spelling errors, grammatical errors, and textual variations, none of those are problematic for the Christian church. None of these errors bear any significance to the historical data recorded in Scripture. Not a single error endangers any article of the Christian faith. Scholars can correct most of the textual variants simply by comparing them to other renderings. The New Testament alone is almost one hundred percent textually pure. It has much wider and earlier source attestation than any other document of antiquity. Unlike the translators of the King James Version, modern translators of the New Testament have knowledge of Koine Greek. It cannot be denied that we now have access to much older and better manuscripts. This is the underlying basis for us being able to trust the Bible translations available to us today. There are literal, dynamic, and dynamic equivalence translation, all of which can prove beneficial to those who study Scripture with an open heart.

        Quite to the contrary, the King James Only Movement severely endangers the overall integrity of New Testament scholarship. It is outrightly slanderous against conservative Christian scholars who love God with all their hearts and minds. This movement which was originally dedicated to the noble cause of maintaining the purity of the gospel has actually proved injurious to the Cause of Christ. It has resulted in much bitter contentions throughout Christendom. It has resulted in fellow Christians having unnecessary concerns regarding the reliability of Scripture. The King James Only Movement has made Christians become skeptical, as well as puffed-up against each other. It has enabled the growth of arrogance among King James only advocates against those who refuse to read exclusively from the King James Version or from translations based on the Textus Receptus. The King James Only Movement has given Christians the false sense of security that they are greater than others in the eyes of God. It has assisted greatly in the spread of the "we are the only ones who have the truth, whereas all outsiders do not" mindset. This also reveals to us that the King James Only Movement is in a sense rooted in Gnosticism; people who reject this position have simply not been "enlightened" as to the "secret truths" regarding tainted manuscripts and conspiracy theories. This particular fundamentalist effort has been a failure altogether, and so should be abandoned.

        One would have to be severely misguided in order to believe that the King James Version is error free. The 1611 King James Version originally contained the Roman Catholic deuterocanonicals, along with marginal notes making reference to them. Ironically, King James Version only advocates absolutely refuse to accept these books as inspired. What is even more, is that the King James Version has been modified ten times since its original publication. Which one is correct? Take into consideration a handful of illustrations of the King James Version containing translational errors and textual ambiguities. It wrongfully calls the Holy Spirit "it" (Romans 8:28). It makes God sound as though God needs to "repent" (Exodus 32:14). John the Baptist's name is not "John Baptist" (Matthew 14:8). What about "unicorns" (Psalm 22:21)? Would that not cause an unwary reader to start doubting the validity of the Judeo-Christian worldview? Would not the reference to "gay clothing" (James 2:3) confuse the average modern reader? Can God be "limited" (Psalm 78:40-41)? The King James only view is just as unfounded as the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate only view, as both use the same tactics in order to obtain their conclusions.

        The greatest proof against the King James Version only hypothesis is the fact that the King James translators themselves did not believe their work to be inspired. For proof of this, all that one is required to do is read the translator notes to the reader as found in the preface to the 1611 King James Version. In other words, the mindset reflected by the professing Christian King James only sects today regarding the work of the King James translators is diametrically opposed to the views that they themselves held regarding their endeavors to transmit the Word of God. He had transmitted His Words in the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek languages, which proves that He would want His words to be spoken in the vernacular tongue. The King James translators agreed, "But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar." Again, ponder these words of the translators: "But the difference that appeareth between our Translations, and our often correcting of them, is the thing that we are specially charged with; let us see therefore whether they themselves be without fault this way, (if it be to be counted a fault, to correct) and whether they be fit men to throw stones at us: O tandem maior parcas insane minori: they that are less sound themselves, out not to object infirmities to oth"Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God."

        In conclusion, the King James Version should be viewed as an excellent translation, but nothing more. It was truly a great contribution to modern biblical scholarship, but is not inspired. Only the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts were breathed out by God. There is no reason to remain in the King James Only Movement, especially considering the overwhelming evidence that can be pitted against such an untenable worldview. The people who are dogmatic on this issue should feel quite ashamed of themselves. It is pure heresy, for all faithful Bible translations can rightly be considered the Word of God. The issue of Bible translation preference is something that Christians can and do disagree on. The best translation for a person is the one that he or she chooses to read. Those who cast judgement on fellow Christians for not reading the King James Version should be more focused on serving the God of the Word, rather than debating over the Word of God. May God bless the Christians who humbly bow their heads in respect of each other's beliefs after expressing areas of disagreement.

19 comments:

  1. EXCELLENT! Very good discussing demonstrating the nonsensical position of the KJVO. It's important to understand that the KJV also has many erroneous translations, which help cultists with their Scripture-twisting. You won't many cults or false belief systems/teaching using modern Bible translations!

    Incidentally, the KJV did not inaccurately translate for "Easter." There is very good likelihood that it is an anglicized version of a German word meaning "resurrection."
    https://answersingenesis.org/holidays/easter/is-the-name-easter-of-pagan-origin/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fool. If the King James Version was good enough for the apostle Paul, it is good enough for me. My King James Version corrects your Greek text.

      Delete
    2. Jesus said IT IS WRITTEN. Modern translations say IT IS REWRITTEN AND REWRITTEN OVER AND OVER AGAIN!

      Delete
    3. On the new american standard version:

      Genesis 1:1 the heavens 6:4 changes giants to Nephilim 7:1 Enter the Ark
      Leviticus 11 changes many animals and leaves out (beetle,weasel,tortoise,swan)
      2 Samuel 14:14 Yet God does not take away life (Deut 32:39, 1 Sam 2:6, 2 Sam 6:7)
      Ezra 8:5 adds Zattu 9:2 holy race
      Psalm 8:5 little lower than God 12:6-7 you will preserve him
      78:36 changes flatter to deceive (We know God can't be deceived)
      Proverbs 21:16 changes remain to rest 27:20 sheol and abaddon 29:11 always loses his temper
      Ecclesiasties 12:13 this applies to every person
      Song of Solomon 1:4 rightly do they love you
      Jeremiah 7:4 removes are these
      8:8 lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie
      Hosea 11:12 Judah is also unruly against God
      Amos 4:4 tithes every three days 8:7 The Lord has sworn by the Pride of Jacob
      Matthew 12:35 removes of the heart
      Mark 9:29 removes and fasting
      Luke 2:22 changes her to their
      11:4 removed but deliver us from evil
      John 3:13 omits which is in heaven
      7:8-10 omits yet (Makes Jesus a Liar)
      14:4 If you ask me anything in my name
      Acts 14:15 a living God
      Romans 11:6 removes But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
      1 Cor 7:5 omits fasting 8:4 we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world (Really!!!!)
      2 Cor 4:14 changed by Jesus to with Jesus (Subtly denies that Jesus has been raised from the dead).
      Ephesians 3:9 missing by Jesus Christ: 4:26 changes wrath to anger
      Philippians 1:26 proud confidence in me may abound
      2:6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
      1 Timothy 1:4 futhering the administration 5:14 changes women to widows ( see vs. 11-13)
      6:6 godliness actually is a means of great gain
      (Won't the prosperity preachers be glad to hear that)
      James 5:16 confess your sins
      2 Peter 2:5 removes the eighth person 3:12 removes unto
      1 John 5:19 lies in the power of the evil one
      Revelation 11:17 removes and art to come 15:3 king of the nations 16:5 removes and shalt be

      Delete
    4. Here we go again Glen,

      on the new revised standard version

      Matthew 19:9 removes the last 11 words
      20:16 omits for many be called, but few chosen. 24:36 Adds nor the Son
      27:35 omits the last 25 words


      Mark 6:11 removes the last 23 words 13:6 I am he
      Luke 2:43 Joseph and his mother changed to parents
      John 5:3 removes the last 7 words and takes verse 4 completely out
      14:2 dwelling places
      Acts 1:3 infallible changed to convincing
      Romans 1:29 removes fornication
      1 Corinthians 9:27 changes to I punish my body
      10:28 removes last 10 words
      Philippians 3:8 changes dung to rubbish
      Hebrews 7:21 removes after the order of Melchisedec

      Delete
    5. Alexandrian and Vaticanus only have 10-15% manuscript support.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous,

      Um, new English Bible versions are no more "rewritten" than is the KJV. They are translated directly from the original language manuscripts.

      Delete
    7. I'll get back to you ASAP -- I'm sort of busy. But I find it amusing some of the silly things you think are problematic. Have you even looked at my series (which I've taken a hiatus from) examining the fallacious book, "New Age Bible Versions"?
      https://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/search/label/New%20Age%20Bible%20Versions

      I tear apart all the KJVO arguments.

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr anonymous,
      I'm not even going to address your list of changes with the Contemporary English Version -- I'm not even going to read the list. The CEV is essentially a paraphrase and not a real Bible. It even opens in Genesis by translating Genesis as having God creating "men and women" on day 6 -- MULTIPLE couples!

      So, any real, discerning Christian will agree that the CEV is a corrupt "Bible."

      Delete
  3. Anonymous,
    How about you not be such a coward and use a name?
    Alexandrian and Vaticanus only have 10-15% manuscript support.

    This is nothing but an assertion by KJVO people with no factual basis.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Part 1
    Firstly, you should study some commentaries and educate yourself so as to not make such foolish complaints. The KJV translators many times mistranslated the Hebrew due the lack of Hebrew manuscripts of not just the O.T. but also other items, so some of their translating was guesswork; since that time many more manuscripts have been found and the Hebrew more easily understood. So let’s look at you complaints. I also doubt that you’ve done any studying or compiling this list by yourself, rather it’s something you found on the ‘net put out by KJVO cult members.

    Genesis 1:1 the heavens 6:4 changes giants to Nephilim 7:1 Enter the Ark
    Gen. 1:1 is more accurately translated plural. Even the Apostle Paul mentions three heavens.
    Gen. 6:4. The Hebrew word is “nephilim” which means “fallen ones.” The word applied to what they believed were giant demi-gods. Which is why they considered them as demons in this passage. KJVO is not as accurate.
    Gen. 7:1. They say the exact same thing, just in different grammatical structure.

    Leviticus 11 changes many animals and leaves out (beetle,weasel,tortoise,swan)
    No animals are changed or left out, just more accurately described and cataloged.

    2 Samuel 14:14 Yet God does not take away life (Deut 32:39, 1 Sam 2:6, 2 Sam 6:7)
    Try reading the context and then try your complaint again. This is a common problem with the KJVO cult — they don’t read the context to see that regardless of the grammatical structure the translations agree with what the KJV is saying. Oh, and really try to understand what the 1611 English is meaning compared to the meaning of the same words in today’s English, so that you won’t seem so foolish.

    Ezra 8:5 adds Zattu 9:2 holy race
    Ezra 8:5 KJVO Subtracts, left it off. 9:2 “holy seed” is the same as “holy race.”

    Psalm 8:5 little lower than God 12:6-7 you will preserve him 78:36 changes flatter to deceive (We know God can't be deceived)
    Psalm 8:5: the Hebrew text from which the KJV is translated says, literally, “For you have made him lack a little from God.” The word translated by KJV is “lohim” (transliteration from Hebrew) a word which means “God.” The KJV translators erred by using the word “angels.”
    Psalm 12:6-7. If you read the context, 6-7 are referring to 1-5, which are persons. Whether you refer to those persons in the plural (them) or singular (him), the context is the same; especially since vs 5 refers to “him.”
    Psalm 78:36: To flatter someone is to speak deceptively, seeking some favor. It’s also called “sucking up.” They “deceived” God in that this was their intent, not that they succeeded.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Proverbs 21:16 changes remain to rest 27:20 sheol and abaddon 29:11 always loses his temper
    Prov. 21:16 so in context don’t “remain” and “rest” mean the same thing?
    Prov.27:20. The word KJV translates as “Hell” is “sheol,” which is the grave - abode of the dead. Abandon is destruction.
    Prov. 29:11. A more literal translation is, “A fool brings out all of his spirit,” which is a colloquial way of saying, “A fool loses his temper.” The mean the same thing.

    Ecclesiasties 12:13 this applies to every person
    The context is the same; the command to fear God and keep his commandments is the whole duty of man (i.e. mankind) or it applies to everyone. Notice in the KJV that they added the word “duty”. Jay Green is a solid Hebrew and Greek scholar and he has translated the whole Bible using the same underlying texts as the KJV, and is a staunch supporter of the KJV. In this passage here is HIS translation: “…for this applies to every man.” Case closed.

    Song of Solomon 1:4 rightly do they love you
    Similar. KJV “the upright love you”- the context happens to be the upright, and the context is about loving the king—her lover.

    Jeremiah 7:4 removes are these 8:8 lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie
    7:4 I’m not sure what “are these” means, and the “are” is added by the KJV. Jay Green doesn’t have those words either. Seem KJV is confusing.
    8:8 The phrase from the KJV and the NAS say the same thing. Look up the meaning of “vain.”

    Hosea 11:12 Judah is also unruly against God
    These two do indeed say something different. Is there any doctrinal problem? No.

    Amos 4:4 tithes every three days 8:7 The Lord has sworn by the Pride of Jacob
    Jay Green has “days,” not KJV’s “years.” Looks like KJV made the error, since the Hebrew word is “yom.” KJV “excellency” and NAS “pride” mean the same thing in context. Green has “pride.” “Excellency” is 1611 English for “pride.”

    I have a dinner engagement, so the N.T. will have to wait. Only a cultist would find all these issues to be problematic. Glad to see how you spend time being upset by all this minutia which is just modern English vs 1611 English or different grammatical structure.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The AMP is nothing but the old American Standard Version with in-text commentary. The NET is a very good reference source, especially if you have the complete reference edition rather than the one with standard references. I mean, with almost 61,000 translator notes, what more could you ask!

      And, yes, a huge part of the KJVO argument is ad hominem. Why address the actual point when you can attack the person much easier?

      Delete
    2. The logic fallacies of the KJVO position are difficult to keep up with due the myriads of them!

      Delete
  6. Now to address the complaints by Anonymous KJVO cultist, in reference to the N.T. NAS version.

    Matthew 12:35 removes of the heart
    Since the context is from the person’s ideology/beliefs (i.e., the heart), there is no problem with dropping “the heart” — assuming it wasn’t added by the KJVO translators. Notice how that “the heart” isn’t in the KJVO part when it discusses “evil treasure.”

    Mark 9:29 removes and fasting
    NAS has a footnote stating that many manuscripts do not have this. Apparently it is a later addition. It affects nothing.

    Luke 2:22 changes her to their 11:4 removed but deliver us from evil
    2:22, the “their” refers to both Mary’s purification and Jesus’ dedication. So what’s the problem?
    11:4 The KJVO’s addition appears to be from a scribal addition to make Luke copy Matthew in the Received Text.

    John 3:13 omits which is in heaven
    This is obviously an error in the T.R., since Jesus could not be in heaven during this time!

    [John] 7:8-10 omits yet (Makes Jesus a Liar)
    From the book, “When Critics Ask”: “Jesus did not go up to Jerusalem in the way in which His brothers suggested. They suggested He go and be ‘known openly’ (7:4). But the Scripture explicitly declares that ‘He also went up to the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.’(7:10).”

    [John] 14:4 If you ask me anything in my name
    Anonymous meant 14:14. But context demonstrates that Jesus is talking about asking HIM. Nothing wrong with clarifying.

    Acts 14:15 a living God
    Pretty ridiculous pickiness here. In context it means the very same thing; God is the ONLY “living God.”

    Romans 11:6 removes But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
    It is true that the last sentence is missing.  But it is redundant to the first sentence, and the last phrase really doesn’t make sense.

    1 Cor 7:5 omits fasting 8:4 we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world (Really!!!!)
    “Fasting” is not in the oldest manuscripts. Scribes added it in later manuscripts.
    As for 8:4, the KJV and NAS say the same thing in different words. No, there is really no such thing as an idol — they don’t exist in reality but only in the imagination of the mind, which is why anything can be an idol.

    2 Cor 4:14 changed by Jesus to with Jesus (Subtly denies that Jesus has been raised from the dead).
    Ah, part of the Riplinger conspiracy theory! It merely means that we will be raised to be with Jesus and does NOT deny Jesus has been already raised from the dead; the very first phrase so states that Jesus was raised!

    Ephesians 3:9 missing by Jesus Christ: 4:26 changes wrath to anger
    3:9 This claim by the KJVO cult is that the NAS (and other newer versions) are denying that Christ was the creator. If that was the case, then why does the NAS (and the others) have Col. 1:16ff? More likely, scribes wanted to make Ephesians read more like Colossians.
    4:26 In context both these words mean the same thing.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Philippians 1:26 proud confidence in me may abound
    2:6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

    1:26. KJVO Riplinger followers have are real problem with the word “proud” (or “pride,” “prideful,” etc). Contextually (there’s that word again) the NAS is saying the same thing as the 1611 English of the KJV.
    2:6 Again, 1611 English has different meanings than current English. “Grasped” is a better translation in current English.

    1 Timothy 1:4 futhering the administration 5:14 changes women to widows ( see vs. 11-13)
    6:6 godliness actually is a means of great gain (Won't the prosperity preachers be glad to hear that)

    1:4 The passages in KJVO and NAS say the same thing, but KJV is OLD English and the KJV grammatical structure (with their ADDED “so do”) leads to confusion.
    5:14 Since the context is about the widows and the “widows list,” the particular women discussed are the widows.
    6:6 This shows the inanity of the KJVO position. The KJVO and NAS say the same thing, i.e., that godliness with contentment is a means of great gain. That “gain” has nothing to do with material gain and only by eisegesis could a KJVO cultist come up with that idea.

    James 5:16 confess your sins
    KJV says to “confess your faults.” Isn’t this saying the same thing in context?!?! NAS is actually more specific in that it designates the type of faults.

    2 Peter 2:5 removes the eighth person 3:12 removes unto
    2:5. No it doesn’t. KJV leaves out the “seven others.” NAS says Noah and seven others while KJV just says Noah as the eighth person—eighth of what?
    3:12Context is the same.

    1 John 5:19 lies in the power of the evil one
    “lieth in wickedness” or “lies in the power of the evil one” — um, so?!?!? If one is lying in wickedness, are they not in the power of the evil one?!!?

    Revelation 11:17 removes and art to come 15:3 king of the nations 16:5 removes and shalt be
    11:17”art to come” doesn’t make sense in the context, and isn’t in earliest manuscripts. The context is in the future and Jesus is already there and will always be there.
    15:3WOW!! An actual, REAL difference! Other translations say “King of the ages.” It doesn’t diminish who God is: IF God is the King of the nations (which he is) or King of the ages (which he is), “nations” and “ages” INCLUDE “saints.” God is king of all.
    16:5Same problem as with 11:17

    Again, the main problems with KJVO cultists are that (1) they are worshiping one manuscript (T.R.) which is a more recent manuscript than many others found, (2) don’t understand context (or totally ignore it), and (3) don’t understand how 1611 English is very different than modern English.

    ReplyDelete
  8. As soon as I get a chance, I will also respond to the claims agains the NRSV

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here is my response to Mr. Cowardly Anonymous' complaints against the NRSV.

      Matthew 19:9 removes the last 11 words
      As do other translations, but this does not affect any doctrine. Textual criticism has demonstrated that those words were not in the original, as the Mark parallel passage shows. So who says the T.R. didn’t add them?

      [Mat.] 20:16 omits for many be called, but few chosen. 24:36 Adds nor the Son
      27:35 omits the last 25 words

      20:16And this affects which doctrine? Or did the T.R. add them?
      24:36 Interesting that the parallel KJV Mark 13:32 has “nor the son.” So why don’t you complain about KJV leaving that out at 24:36?
      27:35 only a few late manuscripts have that prophecy, but it isn’t found in the earliest ones. Again, does it affect any doctrine? And who says the T.R. didn’t add them?

      Mark 6:11 removes the last 23 words 13:6 I am he
      6:11Another example of earlier manuscripts than the T.R. not having this. Who says the T.R. didn’t add them?
      13:6Notice that in the KJV the word “Christ” (rather than “he”) is added to the text and not in the original (denoted by the word being italicized).

      Luke 2:43 Joseph and his mother changed to parents
      Um, they WERE his parents. Joseph was his foster parent or adoptive parent, however you want to look at it, but he was his earthly father. That is Christian doctrine.

      John 5:3 removes the last 7 words and takes verse 4 completely out
      14:2 dwelling places

      5:3 these words are not found in most manuscripts, and are only found in less important ones. Again, the charge by KJVO is that non-KJV are corrupt translations — how is this corrupt? What doctrine does it affect? And who says that the T.R. didn’t add them?
      14:2 aren’t “mansions” dwelling places?

      Acts 1:3 infallible changed to convincing
      I agree that “convincing proofs” isn’t as strong as “infallible proofs,” but what does it affect?

      Romans 1:29 removes fornication
      Who says that the T.R. didn’t add it? Does not “every kind of wickedness” include fornication?

      1 Corinthians 9:27 changes to I punish my body; 10:28 removes last 10 words
      9:27 “The Defined King James Bible,” put out by KJVO’s to help modern English speakers understand 1611 English, says that the Greek translated “I keep under” (my body) means “beat black & blue; discipline by hardships”. I’d say the is a good definition of “punish.”
      10:28 Again, not in older manuscripts, so did the T.R. add it?

      Philippians 3:8 changes dung to rubbish
      In the T.R. the word here (skybalon) means rubbish, refuse, dung: “any number of rotten, decaying things, all that is worth getting rid of.”

      Hebrews 7:21 removes after the order of Melchisedec
      So? It’s redundant anyway, since this was just stated in vs.17

      It’s interesting that the KJVO cult position is based on minutia and nothing affecting doctrine. They go verse-by-verse looking for the most minor changes without any understanding of textual criticism, all the while worshipping a later manuscript which was hastily put together based on few available original documents. They refuse to have their ignorance corrected because their minds are made up from being brainwashed by their KJVO cult leaders.

      Delete