KJV Only?

[SaintJoeNow]

Question:
Through out the past with all types of meetings revivals and similar circumstances,how many conversions were done by preaching the critical text?

Same question for King James.

Across denominations and noted post reformation ministers what Bible was used the most for English speaking people?

If a text had given much fruit in the past,what is wrong with it now?

Has the increase of new translations increased the percentage of people who are active in the Church?

Since the promotion of new texts,has there been a drop in Church attendance per the percentage of population?

How many new age religions have increased since the increase of Bibles stemming from the critical text?

I am not being trite by asking such questions,it would be interesting to see the social impact of the increase of use by New translation.

It's obvious how the church (not the Catholic church, neither Roman or Greek) has been weakened in influes and society has become increasinly ungodly and immoral as modern versions were pawned of as the Word of God. The Great Awakening in the early 1900's reversed the trend briefly, and I believe only another Great Awakening, a real Holy Ghost King James Bbile revival, will be enough to overturn the ungodly trends which are going to bring God's judgement. Enough babies have been killed by abortion in America to equal the current population of 25 states, and now Sodomy is being legalized and the Bible being outlawed as hate speech if you agree with what God says against sin (the NIV, with one of it's editors being a known lesbian with equal authority and influence as all of the other NIV editors, made sure to insert key changes to soften the Bible's clear strong position against homosexuality, and look how many Chritians love the NIV today).

Christians have compromised and let ungodly forces take over, and modern translations which are fraudulent versions of the Word of God have played a huge role in that compromise, if they were not the strongest tool of the enemy for weakening the church. Modern versions certainly played a huge role in dividing the churches and allowing ungodly forces to dominate the leader of the free world which God raised up to spread the gospel around the world through thousands of missionaries being supported by godly people in the nation he raised to spread His Word around the world in these last days.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

This is a old dead horse,and religion still keeps beating it.

I am King James only,yet despite providing numerous side by side comparisons hardly any one cares.

The comparisons show deletions they show changes that diminish the Devine nature of Christ.

My point is it doesn't matter,God will reveal his truth to those who will receive it,even with corrupt text.

Evangelist often use the Bibles of cult like groups to guide their salvation.

Avid and some others he knows personally became King James Bible only because they looked at the comparisons of changes and deletions in modern versions with the King James Bible. Anybody who is truly born of the Spirit of God should be concerned when confronted with the alterations of modern versions which cannot possibly be the Word of God because of the changes and deletions.

Yes God will reveal His truth to all who will receive it even in spite of corrupt text, but it is the corruptions of the text which are used as tools by Satan to imply God's Word is not perfectly clear and this tool is used to keep a lot of people in the dark, condemned, dying and on their way to Hell.

I have talked to many lost people, atheists and pagan spiritualists alike, who are well versed in the arguments against believing God has truly spoken and we know what He said and by His Word they can be saved. They are lost and dying and on their way to Hell and one of the tools by which they are held in the dark is modern versions which strengthen Satan's efforts to cast doubt on God's Word by which all can be born again.

It's good to publish the comparisons between KJV and modern versions to show how evil they are. It needs to be done more. The isssue was ignored for far too long. The translaters of the King James Bible were well aware of the importance of the issue and you can see it in their introductory letters. Had the arguments of those translators in their introductory letters been supported in favor of the King James Bbile from the time the translation was completed, modern versions never would have had a chance of winning any popular acceptance. Those versions need to be exposed as fraudulent in their claim to be God's Word.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

I would not take your question as trite. Not so sure of how documentable this trend is, but its effect is palpable nonetheless. It seems all very subjective to the causal observer, but these anecdotes are very real to us.

Became concerned about the truth of the scriptures, and found a small Church that used the KJV. None of what I had heard preached before was based solely on that version, and nothing had that impact. In the decades since, it is increasingly more difficult to find any Church that is at all like that. It seems everyone is so concerned that they may offend the sinner that they are not able to do him much good at all.






Amen brother! Churches today for the most part have gone the way of modern translation, compromising truth to ease differences between real saving faith and worldly desire. The two are diametrically opposed to each other, and most Christians have bought into a "can't we all get along" kind of Christianity in which they unite against the King James Bible and in favor of compromise with the world so they don't make anybody dislike them by taking a stand against sin.

Jesus promised that if we follow Him, the world would hate us the same as they hated Him. If we don't have enemies who hate us and would cheer our execution as we stand in faith on the Truth as martyrs the same as Tyndale (the hero of the Reformation) and Rogers did as they gave their lives to bring us the Word of God in English, Then we are not living godly lives. If any will live godly in Christ Jesus, they will suffer persecution (2Tim. 3:16)

People have been attacking me, harrassing me in this thred, because I point out the pride that rejects God's Word in English. Godly men who are truly serving the Lord but do not agree with the Word of God being preserved in English in the King James Bible do not lift themselves up in pride to fight on the issue because they are too busy fighting agaisnt sin and in favor of persuading men to be saved from Hell. People who want to fight about this issue are flexing their pride to do it.

A godly man who disagrees on this issue, when told the matter is pride vs. faith, will simply say "hmm", and walk away to continue doing what God called them to be, and that is to be like Jesus forever when we finally see Him face to face.

The godly men who were my professors and beloved and much missed personal mentor were not King James only men, but they were wonderful men of God nonetheless with proven fruits of many converts and changed lives...a long track record of being used by God and proved by God in the testimonies of saved souls and changed lives with many stories of real miracles spread throughout. When I brought up the King James Bible only issue with them, they would shrug it off and out of respect for them because God's hand was clearly on their lives and ministries, I did not push the issue with them. Some of them would dismiss the issue with a smile by saying "if the King James Bible was good enough for Paul, it's good enough for me". They all used nothing but the King james Bible in their ministries because as godly men, they knew it far surpasses all modern versions in strengh of doctrine, beauty of language, and track record of being used by God to change continents in great movements such as the American Revolution (which led to the USA being the leaders of the free world and English being the closest thing to a universal language since the Tower of Babyl, which is why God wanted and delivered His Word in English through King James of England) and the Walsh Revival and Great Awakening.



To all readers : VOTE YES FOR KING JAMES BIBLE ONLY

oops 2 Tim. 3:12, not 16

 

[Jack Koons]

Thank you for the run-down. I read each point.

Now to get straight to it--Do you acknowledge some differences between the text underlying the KJV and the overall category of what is known as the Byzantine text type?

Before going on with the next section could you please indicate in the affirmative or negative on the above?

Tall,
I’m not seeing where you’re coming from. Here is why. The Greek text that underlies the KJV were collations of several Greek texts, of the Byzantine text type (which make up what we call the MT).

Textual Criticism

The following excerpt was taken from the above site:

“Hypothetical Text Types

Introduction

New Testament manuscripts can be classified according to certain major types or families. A family is the name given to a group of texts with a common ancestor. These texts are discovered through the deviations common to a group of manuscripts. For example, the errors made in copying the text in Alexandria were perpetuated in later reproductions. Classification according to families is the basic point of departure in the actual work of textual reconstruction. One reading of a text that represents a good family may provide more support for the original text than a dozen readings from a poor family. Caution is required at this point lest a generalization become misleading. Families are not represented by entire manuscripts but often only segments of them. The modern practice of copying an entire manuscript of the New Testament at once was seldom followed in antiquity. Thus, several families of texts may be represented in a single manuscript. Four types of families of texts have been sufficiently defined to merit discussion.”

Please notice, the differences that place the different “MSS” (or “texts”) into different “families” or “text types”, are what the textual critic ‘determines’ as “errors” in a given MSS or text. Hence, it is what the ‘variant’ consist of, that determines what “type” of “text” the textual critic (Kurt and Barbara Aland) placed them in. If you read the entire article provided, you will notice that all of these rules of textual criticism came into being AFTER the production of the KJV. With that being said, the evidence is quite clear that the KJV was established by Byzantine “type” MSS, and Bibles.
It is for this reason that your question is rather confusing. The underlying Greek text of the KJV was (and is) of the Byzantine text “type”. In other words, the readings found in the texts used to produce the KJV, differ from the readings found in the Greek texts used to produce Modern versions of the Bible. They (the Modern versions) are based upon the Alexandrian text “type”, because the readings found in those texts, differ those found in the Byzantine text “type”. That is the entire purpose of this discussion, and the reason for the great KJV vs. Modern Bible debate: which “type” of readings were, and are correct?

Jack

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Tall is trying to valiate the Greek Orthodox Bible as the Word of God. He's on the side of the people who burned Tyndale at the stake. That's why he's trying to twist text history and minimize the King James Commissioned translators.

 

[Jack Koons]

Tall is trying to valiate the Greek Orthodox Bible as the Word of God. He's on the side of the people who burned Tyndale at the stake. That's why he's trying to twist text history and minimize the King James Commissioned translators.

Fortunately for me, both history and the facts are in support of the King James. I have learned over the years to be patient and clear with the facts.

Jack

 

[tall73]

Tall is trying to valiate the Greek Orthodox Bible as the Word of God. He's on the side of the people who burned Tyndale at the stake. That's why he's trying to twist text history and minimize the King James Commissioned translators.

a. I am trying to vindicate the Byzantine Majority text.
b. I assure you the Greek Orthodox Church did not burn Tyndale at the stake. Nor does arguing for the Byzantine Majority text indicate that I side with those who actually did kill Tyndale.
c. It may have escaped your notice but Jack Koons is also arguing for the Majority Byzantine text after a fashion as the manuscripts used for the KJV were of that sort. There is a bit more nuanced discussion to be had on the details.

Perhaps you ought to let Jack Koons handle the details here, as you have already indicated that is not your focus. I agree that he is patient and clear with his facts. We will see where it goes.

 

[tall73]

My Tall friend of Greek Orthodoxy defenders, are you aware that right now, today, you can be sure with no shadow of a doubt that your sins are forgiven and you are going to heaven the moment your time expires in your current dying body?

You do understand that if you are not saved from death now, secure in eternal life, you are lost to death, insecure in danger of the fire of Hell, right? Since you claim to know something about God's Word, you do understand that He wants you to know you are saved, right?

1Jn 5:11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
1Jn 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
1Jn 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
1Jn 5:14 And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us:
1Jn 5:15 And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him.

Jn 4:16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
1Jn 4:17 Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.
1Jn 4:18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
1Jn 4:19 We love him, because he first loved us.

 

[tall73]

Tall,
I’m not seeing where you’re coming from. Here is why. The Greek text that underlies the KJV were collations of several Greek texts, of the Byzantine text type (which make up what we call the MT).

Agreed.

However, the majority text is not monolithic. And while there is generally stronger agreement between the various manuscripts in the Byzantine than there would be manuscripts in the Western (for those who hold to it) or the Caesarean (for those who hold to it) or the Alexandrian, there are still readings within the majority text that are themselves minority readings.

the KJV has several passages which retain minority readings. While the manuscripts are late and generally from the majority text type, some of the readings are not majority readings at all and do not therefore represent the Greek Scriptures that folks had been using the most.

There are a number of examples that we could cite. For ease of argument at this point let's simply use I John 5:7. I have read your thread regarding it, and other literature regarding it. I have a copy of Metzgers textual commentary as well which I have read on the point. Since we have a pretty good idea of what textual witnesses include it, this is the most convenient to refer to.

So here is the simple point. The comma is NOT a majority reading. Please note, I am not here arguing whether it belongs in the Scriptures or not. For the purpose of this conversation that is a separate point, and there are arguments for both sides. Whatever position you come to on the point, the verse is not a majority reading.


For now I will simply quote your own post from the earlier conversation:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7766479-4/#post64096505

GREEK MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE: There are at least 10 confirmed Greek MSS that contain the Comma.

1) 61 (late 15th century) (Aland's Text, 3rd edition, p. 824)

2) 629 (14th century) (Aland's, 3rd ed., p. 824)L3) 918 (Aland's; 3rd ed., p. 824)

4) 221 (Listed by Dr. D.A. Waite; Aland's, 3rd ed., p. 824)

5) 2318 (Listed by Dr. D.A. Waite; Aland's, 3rd ed., p. 824)

6) 634 (Listed as confirmed by Dr. D.A. Waite)

7) 636, margin (Aland's, 3rd ed., p. 824)

8) 88, margin, Codex Ravianus, 12th century (Aland's, 3rd ed., p. 824)

9) 429, margin (Aland's, 3rd ed., p. 824)

10) Omega 110 (Listed as confirmed by Dr. D.A. Waite)

11) 635, margin (Holland)

12) Codex Wizanburgensis (8th century) (Cloud)

13) Dr. Waite lists 10 other Greek MSS that are unconfirmed as yet.

Let us for the moment include the 10 other unconfirmed MSS that could contain the verse. So far we are looking at around 21 or so manuscripts it would appear that include the verse. Some of these only include it in the margin.

Earlier in the discussion you said the following in response to the assertions of Doug Kutilek

1) "Greek manuscripts-about 300 existing Greek manuscripts contain the book of I John. Of these manuscripts, only 4 (manuscript numbers 61, 629, 918, 2318) contain the disputed words of v.7. All four are very late manuscripts (16th, 14th or 15th, 16th, and 18th centuries A.D. respectively); none gives the Greek text exactly as it appears in printed Greek NTs, and all 4 manuscripts give clear evidence that these words were translated into Greek from Latin.
Four additional manuscripts (88, 12th century; 221, 10th; 429, 16th; 636, 15th) have the disputed words copied in the margin by much later writers."

I have already stated that while the above statement is true, it also insinuates that the Greek manuscripts of 1 John 5 that do not contain the comma are from a much earlier date; of course, this however is not true. Again, this at best is misleading; at worst it is deliberately deceitful.

The reason for quoting these two excerpts from the previous conversation is to note that you agree with the statement that there are around 300 MSS known to preserve I John.

It also establishes that at best, as we know it now anyway, only 21 of those 300 preserve the reading of the comma, and some of those only in the margin.

That would by default then be a minority reading.

So now to the point I was making. The majority text as a whole was the text used predominantly by the church over the centuries. As such, I would consider it God's word to those churches, still preserved in the Greek language.

Yet the majority of these disagree with the underlying text for the KJV, and the English translation of the KJV, in that they do not have the comma.

So again the question, how can both be God's word? Or do you assert that the KJV is God's word, but that the majority of the Majority text are not? If so, then preservation seems quite different than what we might think.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

1Jn 5:11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
1Jn 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
1Jn 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
1Jn 5:14 And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us:
1Jn 5:15 And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him.

Jn 4:16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
1Jn 4:17 Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.
1Jn 4:18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
1Jn 4:19 We love him, because he first loved us.

You didn't answer my question. The Devil can quote verses like that. The Devil is not saved, are you? If yes, when did you get saved?
Jesus said you must be born again or you cannot see the kingdom of heaven. When did you become born again and how did it happen. Please tell me so I will know if you are actually a brother or a devil who can quote scripture with the goal of casting doubt on God's Word which is what you have been doing throughout this entire thread.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

This whole argument is nothing but faith vs pride. Either God kept His Word and we have it in English or we do not. The approach of saying we do not is the means whereby "scholors" elevate themselves by their intellect to be our esteemed leaders, claiming their disciplined studies have made them better tools of the Holy Ghost for discerning God's Word than lesser educated people.
Peter was a fisherman, Paul was highly educated probably more than all or a very few men of his day. Neither one of them was any use for God untill they were broken to pieces at the foot of the cross. People who make a point of contention by saying we do not have God's Word in English because of human error are announcing their intellectual pride and implying that God could have cared less about how the Bible was translated into English. There is a reason that the King James Bible changed continents while other versions fell by the wayside, and there are hundreds of reasons why modern versions cannot be the Word of God.

A few of those reasons are:

Fundamental changes in key words and passages which contradict fundamentals of the fatih.

Ungodly editors; all versions after the King James Bible were compiled by UNGODLY wicked people who claimed to be highly spiritual with "education" to prove it. This is easily documented by anybody who wants to research the history of the editors of any version after the King James Bible. If you are too lazy to do this for yourself, don't ask me to do it for you. I paid in college to study it before the internet was invented by Al Gore ..(snicker). You can research this subject easiliy on the web, just watch out for the spider.

3. The price paid for translation. The price paid for the translation of the King James Bible was the blood of martyrs who dedicated their lives to bringing the Bible into English against the power of the gates of Hell in Rome which tried to stop them. King James agreed to commission the translation of the Bible into English after Tyndale had prayed while being burn alive for crying out loud, "Lord open the King's eyes". That brief and powerful prayer of a godly man who gave his life to bring us the Bible in English was answered when the King of England snubbed his nose (figuratively) at the religious leaders who tried to prevent him from doing it.

The story of the translation of the Bible into English through the blood of martyrs and the miracles that kept the work going along the way untill the King of England finally had his heart turned by God to support the work is of Biblical proportion in itself, obviously a movement of God which brought us the King James Bible.

Vote yes for King James Bible only, and thank God for Tyndale and Rogers.
All other versions were invented as paid enterprises secured and funded through copyright which law demands a large number of significant changes to obtain copyright for profit. That's why all modern versions are PER-versions, fraudlent publications which claim to contain the Word of God. What the actually contain is doctrines of demons from Hell attacking the church by casting doubt and confusion of God's Word.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Fortunately for me, both history and the facts are in support of the King James. I have learned over the years to be patient and clear with the facts.

Jack

Yes sir, you have my respect for your patience and diligence in your approach. I truly hope you can get your points through. I have read this kind of debate going back and forth seemingly for years. I think it may be helpful for people who are honestly inquiring and it's the silent readers who are more likely to be impacted by your work than the one who is aguing his point from a stance of denial. It's like trying to argue with a hardened atheist. You tell them they are dying, and they say that does not mean anything.

Please be patient with my added comments. They are intended to add strength to your argument by inserting the necessary element of faith to believe that we actually have God's Word without error in English.
I don't mean to come across as contending with you. When I'm commenting on your conversation, it is in hope that the person arguing agaisnt you will read the parts of my comments which are regarding his approach to the argument.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

a. I am trying to vindicate the Byzantine Majority text.
b. I assure you the Greek Orthodox Church did not burn Tyndale at the stake. Nor does arguing for the Byzantine Majority text indicate that I side with those who actually did kill Tyndale.
c. It may have escaped your notice but Jack Koons is also arguing for the Majority Byzantine text after a fashion as the manuscripts used for the KJV were of that sort. There is a bit more nuanced discussion to be had on the details.

Perhaps you ought to let Jack Koons handle the details here, as you have already indicated that is not your focus. I agree that he is patient and clear with his facts. We will see where it goes.

Mr Koons is not agreeing with you at all. Agreeing that the word "is" means "is" is NOT agreeing with you in your argument. I can see where your argument is going, and that is against the Word of God. Your advertisement for the Greek Orthodox Bible, as if you just discovered it yesterday..which maybe you did, maybe you really are that unaware of history and are discovering it as you argue against the King James Bible.

Because you are ignoring the work of Tyndale and the miracles of his work being continued and the King's heart being turned to commission the King James Authorized Bible, I have to believe you would have stood in support of the Catholic supported murderers who strangled and burned Tydale at the stake. The Greek Orthodox Chruch is no different than the Church of Rome. Their Poopes both excommunicated eath other a long time ago so they are even...and they both hate Christians like Tyndale who believe in salvation through faith in the atoning blood of Christ alone with no need for approval by any Greek or Roman authorities. Who and what are you fighting for here? Why are you fighting so hard agaisnt the King of England's commissioned translation of the Word of God into English?
Are you the Orthodox Pope?

As for your "nuances", the devil is in the details.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

It's true I don't have a lot of patience for nuanced arguments. The Truth is simple, not nuanced. God's hand brought is the King James Bible, that is obvious. it's His Word for the English speaking world, translated from the compiled manuscripts with all former translations dilegently compared. The same Holy Ghost who "scholars" claim makes them better than those editors for determining what God said guided those men under the authority of the King of England to make THE translation of the English Bible which will never be surpassed because "the scriptures cannot be broken" ( from the mouth of Jesus Christ in John 10:35). "Nuances" of manuscripts or other translations could not keep God from giving His Word in English any more than all the terrorisms of Catholicism could keep the world in the dark ages by claiming a monopoly on interpreting God's Word through the Pope. The Greak Orthodox pope plays the same game, claiming to be the authority of God who kicked the Roman pope off the throne.

that's good preaching, thank you

 

[Metal Minister]

Besides me, how many people here are KJV Only?

Are you KJV only because you think it's the inerrant, perfect word of God, or just that you prefer it over other translations?

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Are you KJV only because you think it's the inerrant, perfect word of God, or just that you prefer it over other translations?

Why do you think it matters? Why do you care?

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Are you KJV only because you think it's the inerrant, perfect word of God, or just that you prefer it over other translations?

Sir, I haven't seen a post from Daniel since I first came on this site a week or two back....are you doing ok, are you believing God is in control of you and everthing and it's all for good to those who love Him?

 

[SaintJoeNow]

1Jn 5:11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
1Jn 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
1Jn 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
1Jn 5:14 And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us:
1Jn 5:15 And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him.

Jn 4:16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
1Jn 4:17 Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.
1Jn 4:18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
1Jn 4:19 We love him, because he first loved us.

I have learned that the cross symbol next to the screenname means you are a Christian. That's good. I have seen atheists and many from many differing religions make the same kind of arguments against the King James Bible, so I thought maybe you were not a Christian but now I know what that symbol by your screenname means. Have a good day, and keep on going with Mr Koons since he enjoys the nuanced type of arguement.

 

[tall73]

]I have learned that the cross symbol next to the screenname means you are a Christian. That's good. I have seen atheists and many from many differing religions make the same kind of arguments against the King James Bible, so I thought maybe you were not a Christian but now I know what that symbol by your screenname means. Have a good day, and keep on going with Mr Koons since he enjoys the nuanced type of arguement.

Thank you, I am sure it will be an interesting conversation.

 

[tall73]

Mr Koons is not agreeing with you at all. Agreeing that the word "is" means "is" is NOT agreeing with you in your argument. I can see where your argument is going, and that is against the Word of God. Your advertisement for the Greek Orthodox Bible, as if you just discovered it yesterday..which maybe you did, maybe you really are that unaware of history and are discovering it as you argue against the King James Bible.

The particular Bible I linked to was new to me because it is an in-progress translation into English that I just learned of by searching on translations of the Majority Text.

The Majority Text is in fact the Greek Orthodox Bible because they have used it in worship for some time. and that is not new to me.

Because you are ignoring the work of Tyndale and the miracles of his work being continued and the King's heart being turned to commission the King James Authorized Bible, I have to believe you would have stood in support of the Catholic supported murderers who strangled and burned Tydale at the stake. The Greek Orthodox Chruch is no different than the Church of Rome. Their Poopes both excommunicated eath other a long time ago so they are even...and they both hate Christians like Tyndale who believe in salvation through faith in the atoning blood of Christ alone with no need for approval by any Greek or Roman authorities.

The EO do not have a pope, and had nothing to do with killing Tyndale. They have various bishops who are over the different branches of the church.

I am a Baptist, however, not Eastern Orthodox. The TEXT that the EO church has used is important to this discussion because they speak Greek and used the Greek in their worship, lectionaries, etc. As such they are an important witness to God preserving His word, and to the Byzantine Majority text.

Who and what are you fighting for here? Why are you fighting so hard agaisnt the King of England's commissioned translation of the Word of God into English?
Are you the Orthodox Pope?

As for your "nuances", the devil is in the details.

I already made it clear some time ago I currently favor the Byzantine text type. However I am trying to understand how that relates to the KJV arguments. Right now I am trying to have a discussion though on the minority readings included in the KJV.