Hi Vendetta Ride,

Sorry for getting your name wrong earlier. I hope you realize no offense was intended, it was a simple mistake.

Then where does it come from? Why seven stages (again, Waite lists the KJV as the 17th complete English Bible)? If it's not a fulfillment of prophecy, then is it not based simply on fallible understanding and assumptions about history?

What, if I may ask, are some of the others?

If I were to purify some silver 7 times in a furnace of earth, what would be the practical difference between the 6th purification and the 7th? Is not the 6th purification "pure silver"? What if I did an 8th - does it somehow become less pure than the 7th?

I don't think it is mischievous at all to talk about the Geneva and other old translations. I often use my Geneva and Tyndale for reading, study, and even bring them to church on occasion instead of something more recent. They're great for group passage comparison, and great for increasing fellowship/conversation. Anyone can buy these and other translations on any half-decent online bookstore, for just as cheap as any other more recent version.

As a simile, the whole verse is clear enough. It is not worded like other prophecies, it is not explained in other scripture, it is not seen as a prophecy by anyone (that I can find) until a 7th Day Adventist preacher in the 1930s.

But how can you identify which are real, and which aren't? Without a real authority identifying them, it's all just near-worthless speculation at best, and just more causes for schisms and divisions and fights at worst.

If you mean "perfect" in the KJV-only sense, why is this sad? Haven't you guys been saying this is how it was for the first 80% of church history? Was it sad then? Why did God make it all so sad?

I believe I hold God's word in my hands when I hold the KJV. And when I hold any of several other versions. I do not believe mistakes in the ink-on-paper mean there must be mistakes in the intended meaning. As the KJV translators said, all existing translations are "the word of God" despite imperfections in them and despite variances in quality between them (and before someone reminds me that they would not say that about the "modern" versions, I would remind them that they even called the LXX "the word of God"
and the LXX is much more dissimilar from the KJV than "modern" versions are).

Consider: two people can both read the KJV exclusively, and yet (as demonstrated even on this forum) disagree on doctrine, yet two people can read differing versions and end up agreeing on doctrine. If one KJV-only supporter concludes that Trinitarianism is true, and another KJV-only supporter concludes Trinitarianism is false, do they both really have "the word of God"? If a KJV-only supporter concludes that Trinitarianism is not true, but a "modern" version reader concludes it is true, is it not the modern version reader that has God's word hidden in his heart? Is not the correct understanding more important than the correct text?

God bless,
Brian