They can't be trusted. That was the period when Neitzsche's philosophy began to be implemented, social science was being developed and the elite started to take over every institution to shape public opinion. By the time of DL Moody and Cyrus Scofield protestantism was conteolled by the freemasons. Scofield's reference bible even had a freemasonic sy7mbol of the point within a circle on the cover.
KING JAMES VERSION OR BUST, BABY!
Jaxon King
Jayden Nelson
Those are all unsubstantiable ad hominems that do little to address or contribute to the debate. My appreciation for them comes from having observed actual efficacy in their rendering of readings, being more of an update to early modern era traditions than a translation from scratch. Can't blame intellectuals from Anglo domains for having inherited a vast quantity of scholarly resources during the time when near eastern archaeology was also taking off.
Ethan Bailey
Tbh I think the greatest factor contributing to the of scripture alone would be the difficulty in reconciling biblical teachings with the habits and practices of the establishment church during the Reformation.
Some people would harangue reformers incessantly but you would also have to try imagine how they felt considering the huge qualms Catholics have with their leadership and clergy today.
Gabriel Cox
*contributing to the conception of scripture alone
Samuel James
...
Matthew Ortiz
Indeed
Michael Bailey
Prots, man.
Jaxson Barnes
I have more respect for Anderson than most "Christians" nowadays.
Isaac Ramirez
Yes, and there is also another huge reason for this. You see, the English language went through a lot of changes during the middle ages, mainly because they were a relatively smaller population that was more subject to cultural influences and invasions that could bring great changes to the language itself, and also because the printing press hadn't been brought into widespread use. In fact, spelling in the English language wasn't standardized for a long time beyond that, which itself had an effect of allowing for the vocabulary to expand more easily.
After 1611, there was more of a trend toward standardizing things as the corpus of English literature grew. By 1755, Samuel Johnson had completed his Dictionary of the English Language. And something is very interesting about that book. It takes vast amounts of word definitions from the Authorized Version. Noah Webster's (American English) Dictionary in 1833 did the same. So what it basically amounts to is that the English Language itself took its definitions from the KJV. So then it would be backwards to suppose that the KJV somehow mistranslated something, when the English language as we know it has been formed around it.
You can't say that of any of the modern versions, they did not exert an influence on proper English as defined by its historical foundational dictionaries as the Authorized Version did. Some food for thought.
Eli Perry
I need to pony up for one of those original Webster dictionaries. It seems that every self-respecting KJV lover has one.