Before The KJV

It has Roman letters, but there are the standard old variations. For example, Jesus is Iesus, "even" is "euen", voice is "voyce", he is often "hee", etc.

 

I'm watching to see when Bryan will deal with the specific Quotes of W & H that I already posted.


Surfer

 

Yet it still does not address the fact that there is nothing to suggest that this Scriptural Passage is misinterpreted.

That was the first English translation. This cannot be denied, and cannot be ignored.

What? English is not "the universal language." There are over a BILLION people in China, most of whom do not speak English. Central and South America speak Spanish and Portugese, not to mention the thousands of native dialects. English is not even the dominant language in Europe. Northern Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia are dominated by Islam, and I would imagine that they can read/understand Arabic in addition to their native tongue. To say that English is the "universal language" is ethnocentric.

I would agree, and take it a step further: it is TOTAL conjecture.

Then perhaps you could answer the question I have asked dozens of times: what is the Scriptural justification for KJV-Onlyism? Nobody has answered it thus far. All I have received are responses that say "Prove that it isn't." (laughable) and links to the Chick Publications website. I am willing to consider anything you can offer to justify the total rejection of all other English translations of God's Holy Word, from Wiclif all the way up to _The Message._

Like I said: welcome to the party.

 

Oops, got a little overzealous with my left mouse button..............