AV-20 Why Should the King James Bible be the "Perfect Bible?"
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 09. 2024
- God said He would preserve His words for us. But why should we think it's in the KJB? Why not the ESV or NIV, or another modern version? Why not one of the English versions that were translated before the KJB? Did somebody put all the Bible on a shelf, throw at dart at them and it hit the KJB and shout "This is the one!"?
When I finally surrendered to that Perfect 📖 *THE AUTHORIZED KING JAMES BIBLE CONFORMABLE TO THE EDITION OF 1611 A.D.* on Sat. 16 July 1995, it was the second greatest day of my life! The first, of course, was the day that The Lord Jesus Christ saved my soul from Hell on Sat. 13 November 1982.
"Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift."
2 Corinthians 9:15
Thank you bro. Gipp for rightly dividing the Word of truth!
He’s not rightly dividing scripture… he just believes in a perfect Bible and probably get quite a bit right, but he doesn’t rightly divide
He claims John penned the last word of scripture… Col 1:25 KJV says Paul fulfilled the word of God… so according to the scriptures, Paul penned the last letter…
Thank you.
God Bless.
thank you! appreciate your messages so much!
Psalm 119 About the Bible! 176 Verses 16×11=176
31,102 verses in the KJV
The square root of 31,102=176 (16x11)
Interesting... The first verse in the KJV (Gen 1:1) and the last verse in the KJV (Rev 22:21) have exactly the same number of letters (44), consonants(27) and vowels(17)!
31,102 verses in the KJV...
Half of 31,102 = 15,551...
Just so happens to be exact center of Bible...
The 1,611th verse of Psalms by the way!
God's handprint on the 1611 KJV!
Should check out Truth is Christ.
Pastor what do you think about Zakir nake??
Excellent.
Amen!
There are a total of 31,102 verses in the Bible, and 31,102 = (7774+7775+7776+7777). There are no other ways of adding up consecutive numbers to get a sum of 31,102.
When you take the very first word in the Bible, meaning the first word of the first verse of the first book which is "in", meaning "in" is in verse 1. You will see "in" again in verse 6 and again in verse 11. All 3 of the verse numbers when standing next to each other in order you'll get 1611. Is that the year of our KJB being publish?
When you start counting the mention of both "Lord" and "LORD" from the first mention to 1611th mention, you will end up at Deuteronomy 16:11. I found two mentions of "LORD" there in Deuteronomy 16:11: the first mention is the 7th word of the verse and the last mention is the 49th which is 7*7.
When you start counting the words in the very first verse in the Bible which is Genesis 1:1, you will get 10 words; do the same to the very last verse of the Bible which is Revelation 22:21, you'll get 12 words. Turning back to the first verse and now count the letters, you'll get 44; and do the same for the last verse and you'll also get 44. You'll get 17 vowels in the first verse and also 17 in the last. So of course there are 27 consonances in the first verse and also 27 in the last. Why everything matches except the words: the first verse has 10 and the last has 12? Well, I don't know but I have seen a verse somewhere in the middle that ties the first verse and the last verse together.
In 1 John 5:7 there are 22 words which is 10 in the first verse + 12 in the last, 88 letters which is 44+44, 34 vowels which is 17+17, and obviously 54 consonances which is 27+27.
In Psalm 44:4 I see a mention of "King" and the name "Jacob" there, and Jacob is the same name with James: so King James! That verse also has 44 letters, 17 vowels, and 27 consonances as the first verse and the last verse. Furthermore, there are 1611 mentions of "king" before Psalm 44:4, and "King" in this same verse is the 1769*7th of the book of Psalm.
Psalm 119 is the longest chapter in the Bible and the chapter is about the words of God. It has 176 verses, which is 16*11.
Only Jesus speaks His unique signature phrase exactly 77 times in the Bible "Verily I say unto you/thee..."
The last word of Genesis "Egypt" ") is mentioned 77 times in Genesis, just as the last word of Revelation "Amen" ") is mentioned 77 times in the Bible when capitalized.
When you get to Genesis 1 which is the first chapter of the Bible, you'll find the words God directly speaking being 343 words, 7*7*7
Turning to the New Testament, you'll end up with the word "Jesus" being the 7th word when you start counting from the first word of the testament. You'll also end up with "Jesus" being the 7th word if you count backward from the very end of the testament.
If you mix the first word of Genesis 1 with the last word of Genesis 1 and start counting through the entire Bible, you'll get the total of 7*7*7*7*6. God does not do all the way 7 because Genesis 1 ends with the 6th day of his creation. The 7th day is recorded in Chapter 2.
If you count the number of words starting from "God" in day 1, you'll reach "God" in day 7 at the 777th word.
The first 7 verses of Genesis 1 contains 555 letters, and "Christ" is mentioned 555 times in the entire Bible. If you continue from there and count the letters until you get to the end of Chapter 2, you'll get 5555 letters. Interestingly enough, if I count the number of verses starting after the 7th verse of Genesis 1, I'll get 7*7th verse when I reach the end of Genesis 2. So the total of the number of verses of Genesis 1-2 is 7+7*7.
The word "holy" is mentioned 1611 times throughout the entire Bible.
I wouldn't take much stock in the number of verses and chapters. They are man made not God inspired like the words are.
13:40. Intellectual error by Dr. Gipp. The Greek and Hebrew are the languages that the Scriptures were penned in. Therefore, they must be, by definition, a “first witness”. We do NOT have any English translation without the original language manuscripts!
There are no originals. The KJV is THE PURE AND PRESERVED word of God. Supercedes any and all originals even if there were any around... and there are NOT.
Amen on the Chevy and the rest
Where was this preached?
4:52. Straw man
😂 Some one has come with a hardened heart and a closed mind and not a clue what they are talking about David.
Yes you friend.
Now thats not a straw man or ad hominen, which are often used tools in presenting a case, or illustrating a point but your generation think just because you recognise the tool that it voids the illustration or the point being made. What do you know? you're about 21 years old and the only woman you ever kissed is your mummy. That's how it is David.
The King James Holy Bible is the Authorised version.
The others are not the words of God but deliberate corruptions penned by the enemy, they are not the same and things that are different are not the same.
Are you saved David?
1) The quality of any translation of the Bible, including the KJV, is judged by the original Greek and Hebrew. This is exactly what the Puritans thought. See below for two examples.
(a) John Reynolds’ request at the Hampton Court conference:
“After that, [John Reynolds] moved his Majesty, that there might be a new translation of the Bible, because those that were allowed in the reigns of King Henry VIII and Edward VI were corrupt and not answerable to the truth of the Original.
“For example, first, Galatians 4:25 [from the Great Bible and retained in the Bishop’s Bible]. The Greek word … is not well translated as now it is; ‘Bordereth’, neither expressing the force of the word, nor the apostle's sense, nor the situation of the place.
“Secondly, Psalm 105:28 [from the Great Bible], ‘They were not obedient’; the original being, ‘They were not disobedient’.
“Thirdly, Psalm 106:30 [also from the Great Bible], ‘Then stood up Phinehas and prayed’, the Hebrew hath, ‘executed judgment’” (see p. 46 in “The Sum and Substance of the Conference” by William Barlow).
(b) From the preface of the 1645 edition of the Westminster Annotations:
“… [in] the year 1612 … the last Translation procured by King James was first imprinted, which for the Text thereof, may give better satisfaction to such as have ability, to compare the Original of both Testaments and their Translations together …”
2) Gipp’s assertion of a perfect translation was disputed by the King James translators themselves.
“Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be so sound in this point … it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence, and if we will resolve, to resolve upon modesty with Saint Augustine, (though not in this same case altogether, yet upon the same ground) …, ‘it is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, than to strive about those things that are uncertain.’
“There be many words in the Scriptures which be never found there but once, (having neither brother nor neighbour, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen [helped] by conference of places.
“Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts, and precious stones, etc., concerning which the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgement, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as Saint Jerome somewhere saith of the Septuagint.
“Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily?
“For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as Saint Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded. We know that Sixtus Quintus expressly forbiddeth, that any variety of readings of their vulgar [common] edition, should be put in the margin, (which though it be not altogether the same thing to that we have in hand, yet it looketh that way) but we think he hath not all of his own side his favorers, for this conceit. They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other” (from the KJV’s “The Translators to the Readers”).
3) All translators are faced with the task of translating the texts in front of them into English. The translators of the Geneva Bible made their own choices, the translators of the King James did the same, and modern translators continue to do this. Neither scholarship nor the English language are static.
4) There can be criticisms of any translations. For example,
(a) Daniel Featley, in ‘The Dipper’s Dipt’ (1647), criticized the 1560 Geneva’s reading in Luke 22:25.
(b) John Bois, in ‘An Exposition of the Dominical Epistles’ (1610), criticized the 1599 Geneva’s marginal note in Matthew 24:34.
(c) Gipp himself has criticized both the translation and textual choices of the Geneva Bible in several passages.
5) The KJV is no exception because its translators weren’t infallible as they themselves noted in their preface. Here are some issues in the KJV.
(a) In Matthew 23:24, the KJV reads “strain at a gnat.”
The correct reading from the Greek is “strain out a gnat” as it is in the following:
William Tyndale’s New Testament, the Coverdale Bible, the Matthew’s Bible, Taverners’s Bible, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Bishops’ Bible, the CSB, ESV, NASB, NET, NIV, and NKJV.
Interestingly, a version that reads similarly to the King James is the Douay-Rheims Bible, a Roman Catholic translation from Latin:
“Blind guides, that strain a gnat, and swallow a camel.”
(b) In Hebrews 4:11, the KJV reads “unbelief.”
A better reading is “disobedience” as it is in the following:
the Geneva Bible, the Bishops’ Bible, the CSB, ESV, NASB, NET, NIV, and NKJV.
(c) “Hebrews 10:23 contains a curious mistake that is still perpetuated in modern printings of the KJV, where the Greek word 'elpis,' which means ‘hope’, is wrongly rendered ‘faith’” (see the footnote on p. 77 in “The Bible in Translation: Ancient and English Versions” by Bruce Metzger).
Some of the translations that have the correct reading “hope” are the following:
William Tyndale’s New Testament, the Coverdale Bible, the Matthew’s Bible, Taverner’s Bible, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Bishops’ Bible, the Douay-Rheims Bible, the CSB, ESV, NASB, NET, NIV, and NKJV.
(d) In Revelation 16:5, the KJV follows a conjecture in Theodore Beza’s 1598 Greek New Testament and thus reads “which art, and wast, and shalt be.” The evidence for this reading is scant, at best.
The better supported reading here is contained in the Geneva’s “which art, and which wast: and Holy.” See John Gill’s relevant commentary:
“… The Alexandrian copy, and most others, and the Vulgate Latin and Syriac versions, read "holy", instead of "shalt be" …”
6) A person shouldn’t require a “perfect” translation as a prerequisite for faith, because such a thing is unobtainable. Translators don’t know how to perfectly translate each and every word of Greek or Hebrew into English. A person’s faith shouldn’t be in a translation, but instead, in the God that it reveals.
Interesting that you failed to answer the main accusation that Dr Gipp pointed out in the message. Where is the preserved Word of God if it isn't in the KJB? You mention "The original Greek and Hebrew" at the beginning of your comment as well. I have never seen these "original manuscripts" perhaps you could enlighten us as to where they exist in a single and whole Bible that has been preserved? You believe in a God that had the ability to inspire His Words through man is such a miraculous manner that the personality of the human instrument is discernable, yet the Words are truly the exact Words of God as if they had been written down by God Himself. Yet you also believe that this same God has somehow lost the ability to have this perfect word translated into English (the language of the world) without becoming watered down and fallible. That is not the God of the Bible.
@@dball6480 Three responses to your observations.
1) "The original Greek and Hebrew" meant those two languages, not "the original manuscripts." See the two historic examples in point #1 of my initial post. If you yourself would like to see an edition with the original Greek language, the Internet Archive has a digital copy of Theodore Beza's 1565 New Testament available for viewing.
2) I answered the question in the video's title.
3) “Finally, it must be acknowledged that no translation of the Scriptures is perfect, as anyone who has tried to make one will readily agree. In fact, such features as plays on words (e.g., Jer. 1:11-12; Matt. 16:18; …) or the alphabetic acrostics (e.g., Ps. 37; Lam. 1, 2, 4) defy the ingenuity of the translator. Ordinarily, along with a translation, no more than a description and/or transliteration of the textual features can be given in a footnote.
“Despite all the difficulties mentioned above, readers of several translations described in this volume ought to consider what the translators of the King James Bible declared in their statement to the reader:
‘We affirm, and avow, that the very meanest [in modern English = ‘worst’] translation of the Bible in English … containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God: as the King’s Speech which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King’s speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, every where’” (see pp. 189-190 in “The Bible in Translation: Ancient and English Versions” by Bruce Metzger).
"Where are God's preserved words?" I stand by what is in the KJV's "The Translators to the Readers." Therefore, the preserved words of God are contained in (to name a few English translations):
the Wycliffe Bible, William Tyndale's New Testament, the Coverdale Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Bishops' Bible, the KJV, the CSB, ESV, NASB, and NKJV.
Now, I have four questions for you.
(1) If I have an English translation based on the Latin Vulgate, do I have God's preserved words?
(2) If I have an English translation based on the Greek Septuagint and a 1550 edition of the Greek New Testament, do I have God's preserved words?
(3) Were the King James translators infallible?
(4) If a translation is said to be perfect (as Gipp believes that the KJV is), on what is that statement based, and to what do you compare it in order to convince others that it truly is perfect?
@@andrewpowell8506 You failed to answer my questions actually.
You claim that you have answered the question "where are the preserved words of God." Yet you give me 10 different "words of God" which all disagree with each other in several places. You lie in order to not admit that the preserved words of God in your mind are actually in the Greek and Hebrew which once again all disagree with one another. You believe in a fallible word of God that is not preserved and therefore believe God lied in Psalm 12:6-7.
You have failed to answer why God would inspire His word and then to preserve it perfectly (each and every word) in a modern language.
To answer your questions.
1&2 have the same answer. If you have a KJB you have the inspired and preserved word of God. Anything that changes even one word from that Bible is fallible.
3. No. Just as Paul was a fallible man who was inspired by God to write major portions of an infallible book, the KJB translators were fallible men who were used by God to preserve an infallible book.
4. Psalm 12:6-7 God claims he will preserve his "words". Not his thoughts, ideas, or paraphrases. After much study I have landed on the KJB as that book containing God's preserved word of God. There are endless proves for this. For instance, Dr. Gipp's other videos will shed much light on these issues. A few include, it was the first and only translation written by more than one man and more than one organization which inherently reduced bias. The translators knew the languages better than any scholar today. The English language was hitting its peak around the same time as the translation was issued. It has been the Bible used in every major revival since its publication. And Satan has an all-out battle in place to make sure people hate it.
I'll ask you just one question for which I expect no answer in return. Why are you so concerned with destroying people's belief in a perfect Bible that they can understand by reading it and believing it at face value without running to the Greek and Hebrew to make sure they are right? You didn't stumble on this video by mistake. You looked it up because you wanted to start a fight with other believers. Luke 9:49-50 Perhaps find a better way to spend your time. Fighting the enemy would be a good place to start.
@@dball6480 “Why are you so concerned with destroying people's belief in a perfect Bible that they can understand by reading it and believing it at face value without running to the Greek and Hebrew to make sure they are right?"
You should put your faith in the God that the Bible reveals and in His Son.
Neither you nor Gipp appear to have any idea of how translating actually works. By definition, a translation cannot be perfect, because no language perfectly translates over into another. I know very little and even I can tell that the process is not a straightforward one. I have seen several videos from Gipp and other KJV-onlyists to know how their logic works. Due to their teachings and stated beliefs, my friend started questioning the Bible’s accuracy until I wrote him a lengthy letter demonstrating to him that God did indeed preserve His word. Your dogmatism is damaging.
What exactly causes more harm to the faith? Saying that anything other than the KJV is corrupt and perverted, or my saying that we have a historically reliable transmission of texts from which translators can give us several reliable, trustworthy English translations?
Stating that the original languages cannot be trusted due to variations in them is the same kind of argumentation that I have seen some atheists and Muslims use to discredit the Bible.
1) If I am comprehending your statement correctly, you say that I can't trust anything other than the KJV. According to you, neither the older English texts that the KJV translators revised nor their textual bases can be trusted. This kind of thinking would erode confidence in the textual foundation of any translation, including the KJV. Then the question becomes why in the world would I be able to trust the KJV when its translators utilized unfaithful sources?
2) You said something about Psalm 12:6-7 stating that God preserves His words forever. I fail to see how this applies only to the King James translation.
The text actually states that God's words are pure (i.e., not needing refinement) and He will "preserve them from this generation forever,” meaning that they will always be preserved. I absolutely believe this. We see His preservation in the many manuscripts, copies, and texts throughout history. Thus, His word clearly has been preserved. By your own admission, you do not believe this because you require the biblical text to be word-for-word perfect. In order to make this happen, all translators would need perfect information and knowledge (or be re-inspired). Such a thing is simply unobtainable as the KJV translators themselves noted in their preface.
3) Can a translation be perfect, and how can you prove it?
The Puritans pointed to the KJV's ability to give better satisfaction to the original Greek and Hebrew languages as the reason that they adopted it (see point #1 in my original post). You cannot. Your thinking would not have convinced any of them to switch from the Geneva Bible.
Applying your standard of perfection to each and every word, I fail to see how you can choose the KJV. I have read from five different editions, and they did not match in each and every word. The 1611 edition was different than the standard Oxford edition (see Ruth 3:15), which was different than the standard Cambridge edition (see Joshua 19:2), which was different than the Cambridge Paragraph Bible (see Hebrews 10:23), which was different than the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible (see Hosea 6:5).
In Ruth 3:15, the 1611 reads "he went into the city," but the standard Oxford reads "she went into the city."
In Joshua 19:2, the standard Oxford reads "and Sheba," but the standard Cambridge reads "or Sheba."
In Hebrews 10:23, the standard Cambridge reads "profession of our faith," but the Cambridge Paragraph Bible reads "profession of our hope."
In Hosea 6:5, the Cambridge Paragraph edition reads "therefore have I hewed," but the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible reads "therefore have I shown."
According to your own stated standard, only one (or none) of these editions of the KJV can contain God's perfectly preserved words. Which one is it and why?
4) Your beliefs run contrary to what the translators of the KJV themselves wrote in their preface. They warned against dogmatizing upon the text peremptorily, but I see KJV-onlyists do exactly that. What makes you think you know more about their own work than they?
I recommend that you study the KJV’s preface “The Translators to the Readers,” which provides invaluable insights into their labor.
"... it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence, and if we will resolve, to resolve upon modesty with Saint Augustine, (though not in this same case altogether, yet upon the same ground) …, ‘it is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, than to strive about those things that are uncertain' ...
“For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as Saint Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded. We know that Sixtus Quintus expressly forbiddeth, that any variety of readings of their vulgar [common] edition, should be put in the margin, (which though it be not altogether the same thing to that we have in hand, yet it looketh that way) but we think he hath not all of his own side his favorers, for this conceit. They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other …
“We affirm, and avow, that the very meanest [worst] translation of the Bible in English … containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God: as the King’s Speech which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King’s speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere …
“A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, … also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it” (from “The Translators to the Readers”).
I also recommend that you and anyone reading this watch the KJV-only debate on the John Ankerberg Show.
In the end, it doesn't even matter if people have a perfect translation when they read passages out of context, apply poor interpretation, and have bad theology.
I won’t engage with you again. I am confident that others will listen to Gipp, read our comments, and come to their own conclusion.
“Fear ye not, stand still, and behold the salvation of the Lord which he will show to you this day” (Exodus 14:13).
"I am the Lord, I do not change" (Malachi 3:6).
@@andrewpowell8506 You have dodged the primary question from start to finish. You keep saying that a translation can't be perfect, and you know this because of logic. That is TRUE! You also cannot have a book written by many different writers over 4000 years filled with prophesy and without a single mistake. This cannot happen according to logic. Yet GOD DID IT! God has always been the God of miracles and yet you assume that he has now stopped working miracles and is ok with his Word being subjected to changing.
14:08. The other guests on the Ankerberg show were not Anti king James. They were anti (cultic) King James Only
They were anti perfect Bible. They don't believe there is (or ever was or will be) such a thing as a perfect Bible. King James or otherwise.
That's your bias showing and your ignorance and your lack of faith in God Almighty that made heaven and earth by speaking it into existence.
Are you saved David?
David; King James only as you set it up in your straw man argument as a cult, couldn't be further from the truth.
The Lord Jesus Christ is our head and we understand that his words are the authority.
Disbelief that God has preserved his words for us in English in the KJB makes the preacher or the bishop the authority. You know we had a Reformation over that very matter and many millions were put to death by Rome for questioning their authority.
You must be niave or just wet behind the ears if you don't think the enemy would try and counter God's words with a narrative of their own. Just like genesis 3...yea hath God said?
God said he would preserve his words in one Book and I believe him. God said he would save my soul and give me an incorruptible body. God said I would be born again. God said he would change me from the inside out.
And I only find that in the King James Holy Bible.
It only took satan and his agents to change one word to take away from those promises.
That one word that is found only in the KJB is 'throughly'
It's only found in the Authorised King James Holy Bible.
You should study some more and find out what they changed it with and what's the difference. Because things that are different are NOT the same.
Are you saved David?
If you are not for us you are against us. That's reality.
That is an interesting statement, but you provide no proof to prove your point. As far as King James Bible Believers we are not "cultic" every cult in existence destroys a person's belief in the Bible as their final authority. Mormons give you a Book of Mormon instead. Catholics say it is only as good as the church tradition or the popes' words. King James Bible believers simply stand with the Bible, and you don't like that. If we are a cult then we don't act like one. Bible correctors do however line up with cultic practices. Whether intending to do so or not they destroy people belief in the word of God. They can't just read a Bible and believe it without wondering if someone translated it correctly or not. This belief removes someone's final authority in the written word of God. Instead, they must learn Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Chaldean, have perfect discernment as to which of the many manuscripts are correct (many disagree with one another) or instead believe a "scholar" who claims to know the languages better than the KJB translators who spoke the language fluently. One of these two groups line up with cultic practices, but it isn't the King James Bible believer. Quick question for you. Why are you so interested in destroying someone's belief in a perfect Bible? That seems like a practice that would be led by an unholy spirit.
15:15. ad hominem