The KJV is my basic biblical text. All my theology and biblical knowledge was achieved through this copy of the Bible. Why should I change now?
This does not mean I don't compare other versions of scripture, or ignore the Greek and Hebrew texts. We would be foolish if we did not take advantage of every available tool to make God's word clear to us.
Good "try" but none of these actually prove the Trinity without already having the knowledge of who each one that makes up the Godhead is.:smilewinkgrin:
I should begin only to suppose you to be somewhat an authority on proper and improper grammar if I were to be afforded the chance to view your credentials for your claim to be substanciate and upholding the truth, yet I see none, to that effect.
Like i have asked, define "agape'" without the term "love" and be comprehensive without your dogmatism of limiting the definition, please.
Tell you what, define "charity" in the Divine sense!:smilewinkgrin:
No. You have simply made that up to fit your dogmatism.
The KJV is written in a prose and poetic form unmatched by any other version and is the epitomy of
"high" English.
Literary excellence is not aimed for in today's realm of "thinkers". This is due to their laziness and is best described as they're also being
sluggards when it comes to literature.
A picture is worth a thousand words, but a word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver.
:smilewinkgrin:
Not sure how that excuses your hypocisy of making claims about ENglish superiority, and then using poor English.
Like I said, there is no exact word in English that can be translated from "agape".
I figured you'd try "charity", based on the KJV translating "agape" in 1Cor13 as "charity". Yet it translates "Agape" in John 21 as "love". It also translates "phileo" as "love". It also translates "agape" in John 3:16 as "love".
The reasons the KJV uses "love" and "charity" is because Elizabethan English used "love" as a verb and "charity" as a noun. Today, "charity" strictly means "as an act of generosity".
Yes, it's true that you often make things up to fit your dogmatism.
You're wrong on two counts.
It was not written in poetic form.
It was also not written in prose.
Prose is the ordinary form of written language.
The KJV was written in a form of English that was not the ordinary form of English of the day.
In fact, it was heavily criticized when it was published, for NOT adhering to prose.
Oh, and in yet another example of your hypocrisy, you correct my misspelling of the word "hypocrisy", and then you go on to misspell "epitome".
Like i've said, you hold to only a limited vocabulary and should consider doing a little more research before you attack the KJV as you repeatedly do:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prose
Yet more hypocrisy on your part. You advocate the use of prose for 17th century translators, but you condemn the use of prose for 21st century translators.
And again, you regularly attack non KJV's while accusing others of attackign the KJV.
[Snipped at poster's request]
That's 46 words in an awkwardly-worded run-on sentence. With all your vaunted talk of valuing high literature, you fare rather poorly in basic English skills.