You can't know the Creator without His written Word.

Connie, we don't NEED an update of the KJV - we have the tools to study the KJV that we already have. It just means some work - that's why we need to be diligent in studying it out.

I'm not disputing that now, but how then did Abraham know the Creator if he didn't have the written Word? He did it by faith.

Faith means believing what God said. Today He speaks to us through His Word. If anyone thinks He is appearing to them and speaking audibly to them, they are deceived.

First, there is no difference between now and then with respect to this matter: If it is wrong to update the spellings of words in the KJV now, then it always has been, which means we must all go back to reading the 1611 with euen and voyces. There is no rational, logical, nor theological reason to claim that it was ok to update voyces to voices back in the 1700s but now it is a corruption to update sith to since.

Secondly, sith and since are not two different words. Their meanings are the same, and they are in fact spelling variants. And even if sith had some meaning other than since, in the one passage of the KJV that uses sith (Ezek 35:6) it is clearly used in the sense of since.

I understand being upset with people changing all the thee's and ye's to just be you, and making other unnecessary changes. If you thought I was in favor of such, you were mistaken. But is sith to since the same as thee to you? No. Because sith and since mean the same thing. It would be like changing to doughnut to donut.

You ultra wacko way out there KJVOs always make that stupid claim but refuse to back it up. If they are different words, then explain the difference in meaning genius. You can't because it doesn't exist. Any dictionary you look at is going to say something like "Middle English; see diverse" and "adv. Archaic Thoroughly."

They are the exact same word and the meanings are exactly the same. The only difference is that in Elizabethan English the silent e at the end was not needed to preserve the pure s sound from degrading into a z. They pronounced divers as diverse. But we today need the silent e at the end to preserve that pure s sound, because without it we pronounce divers as diverz. Its just a spelling difference. They are the same word. And if you knew anything about Elizabethan pronunciation you would know what I am talking about with the silent e.

And on the other, gradually over time a o was added after the h in "throughly" changing the spelling. Regular KJVOs (like me) are sick of you wacko lunatics making words like this out to be separate words and trying to claim that they have different meanings that only you can tell us because you are the gnostics who received this secret tradition from the 32 aeons. Well, initiate us then, genius--what's the difference between “throughly” and “thoroughly”? Silence, then crickets.


Because every lunatic claims to have the pure Cambridge edition and each and every one of them spells some word different from the other. Some have too many sith's and some too many since's. Some hocked and some houghed.

I didn't say the original autographs only were inspired. I am a KJVO, but not a lunatic one like you. You are the one who says only the original KJV autographs were inspired and only the non-existent pure Cambridge text.

Wow. All these years I have been believing and cherishing my Bible, when I should have been coping with it!

Now I am sure you're going to say that you didn't actually mean we "cope" with our Bible...

It is true that the ultimate purpose of studying is to do the word, but you are ignoring the very verse you are writing about. Why go all the way back to Ecclesiastes when you can look at this verse itself 2 Tim 2:15 "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." Study to do what? Show thyself approved. Approved in what way? Being a workman that has no need of being ashamed? Why not? Because he rightly divides the word of God. So, in this verse, rightly dividing the word is the purpose of the studying, which (BTW) makes your argument that study is a wrong translation very funny. First, study still has both senses today (1) be diligent and (2) read, compare, whatever, so it is silly to say that study is wrong. Secondly, because it still contains both senses it is preferable to "be diligent" because "be diligent" is just the translational suggestion of those who try and claim that study in the sense of reading is unnecessary. Third, Paul gave a similar instruction to timothy in the first letter, 1 Tim 4:13 "Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine." These are basically parallel passages, Paul's exhortation to Timothy to study to show himself approved as one who rightly divides the word and his exhortation to have him "give attendance" to reading, etc. these are the same thing.

Why do people, when presented with Matthew's position, tend to make up entirely false positions and attribute them to him?

You have clearly not researched Matthew's position well -- as I understand his position, he believes that even if we had access to the original penned KJV transcripts that they would not be useful in determining the purest presentation of the KJV.

I can fully understand disagreeing with Matthew that there exists a completely perfect presentation of the KJV, but to call him a lunatic for believing literally that no jot or tittle will pass speaks volumes of his accusers. That kind of faith is not lunacy.

Come off it. In the beginning I'm sure you did "cope" with it, especially if you were young. This is analogous to Heb 4:13 ("with whom we have to do").

These are stepping stones to being diligent. Then you do the word. Get it? You don't just study and study, and then more study. It's not enough to merely divide up the word. Read, if you have it, the note in the aforementioned verse in The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge.
I didn't say it was wrong. I said is not an accurate translation. "Study" is right as an inclusive part of diligence. That's why diligence is a superlative for "Study".

What is lunacy is saying that spelling variations in English amount to jots and tittles passing when the exact same meaning is preserved and depends on the exact same jots and tittles in Hebrew and Greek (which is where jots and tittles are). And furthermore what is lunacy is allowing for an updating of euen to even and voyces to vioces, and euen of diuers to divers but not by any means of divers to diverse or sith to since! And I never said there is no perfect presentation of the KJV. What I am saying is that spelling variations that do not effect the meaning are not imperfections. If someone were to change "thee" to "you" in Luke 22:32, that would be an imperfection. But what if someone changed "throughly" to "thoroughly" in Mat 3:12 that is not a problem nor imperfection at all. In fact, one KJV I use all the time on my PC says "thoroughly" there, but another that I use on my Pocket PC says "throughly" and one little paperback KJV (full Bible) that I carry to church a lot says "thoroughly" and yet another one, a New Testament only KJV with the Spanish Reina-Valera in parallel says "throughly." That doesn't bother me at all, because I know that "throughly" and "thoroughly" mean the same thing. What does bother me, and greatly so, is people claiming that they mean different things, just so they can overthrow the faith of those who didn't buy their KJV from them (or who didn't print out their KJV from their website and bind it together themselves).