As Brandon points out, whatever Sophro is accusing me of is quite outside what I believe and have written.
I believe that the King James Bible itself was not made by inspiration, but that it is the inspired Word.
I believe that we have access to a purified form of the King James Bible, where all the typographical errors, spelling variations and so on have been made right.
I believe that none of the jots and tittles of Scripture have failed in English, and that “jot” and “tittle” are English words (just look up the Oxford English Dictionary) applying to the English Bible.
Quote:
|
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!
|
This is a gross misrepresentation. Of course the presentation has been altered historically, so that it is pure now. Just not every time it says "divers" should it be made "diverse", etc., etc., because they always were two different words. The 1611 Edition was actually meaning what we can see today. There are reasons for why the 1611
seemed to have got it wrong, such as that the printers made a mistake, or that both spellings were acceptable for the word/s where separate spellings are used and known today. (Used and known by at least a few today.)
There are many examples of so-called synonyms which have two differing though similar meanings, such as alway and always, example and ensample, beside and besides, vail and veil, among and amongst, etc., etc. Every word as it now appears in the KJB is exactly right in its exact place with its exact meaning.
If it doesn't really matter about these different words with different jots and tittles, then it is only one more step to accept both "he" and "she" as being correct at the same place (at Ruth 3:15), and not much further (not farther) to believe that black is white and white is black. The madness is not with those who believe that God has presented His word exactly to the Church today.