The Word of God is inspired and inerrant in the original autographs only. The Word of God has been providentially preserved through the rapid copying and spreading those copies in the original languages throughout the world. Many of those copies have been preserved in monasteries and libraries in Europe, Asia, and Africa. Many of those copies have been preserved in the sand where they have lasted over a thousand years in some cases. I believe that God used the rapid spread of Islam after the death of Muhammad to preserve original language manuscripts and papyri by having them buried in the sand for fear of destruction and persecution. We have also seen the providential preservation of the original language manuscripts in Communist countries like Albania where 43 ancient manuscripts have been discovered by CSNTM.

While we may not have the original autographs, that is to say we do not have the original parchment or papyri the autographs were written on, we do have the original words in the original languages.

Anyone who says we do not have the originals and believes in a perfect translation of the Word of God has absolutely zero basis for that belief other than blind faith. While the just are to live by faith, our faith is not in faith. It is substantive. Yet, this is the exact argument that Mr. Kinney advocates on his website at Mr. Kinney writes:

Good points from brother John Word and Why the KJB is superior to the Greek and Hebrew.

John says: “I believe by faith that God preserved His words perfectly and purely in English in the KJB. 

The originals are long gone. No Greek text or Hebrew text today contain all the readings of the KJB. Where they differ, the KJB is correct.

I believe that if God had given the originals in English they would match the KJB perfectly. They are equal here. 

The originals are gone the KJB is here. Advantage KJB.

The KJB is in the defacto world language of today (English as medicine, diplomacy, financial services, industry, air traffic control, etc use English). The originals were in biblical Hebrew (not the same as modern Hebrew) Aramaic and Koine Greek (not modern Greek). So the KJB only requires one to learn one language. Advantage KJB. 

The KJB has book, chapter and verse subdivisions. The originals had book divisions only. Advantage KJB.

These are just a few ways the KJB is better than the originals.”

Mr. Kinney makes this argument and then later writes this of MEV:

When the new Westcott-Hort, UBS-Catholic bible versions came on the scene, they omitted many entire verses from the New Testament like Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 23:14, Mark 7:16; 9:44; 9:46, 11:26; 15:28; Luke 17:36; 23:17, John 5:4; Acts 8:37; 24:7; 28:29 and Romans 16:24.  So what do these modern “Catholic” bibles like the Revised Version 1885, ASV 1901, NASB, NIV, ESV, RSVs do when they come to these verses? They simply skip the number.

Because his absolute standard is the KJV, he disregards the work of the Authorized Version translators and the textual decisions they made in producing the eclectic text that we now call the King James Version.

Thankfully, Mr. Kinney does not try to argue that the TR is inspired because the KJV differs from it hundreds of times and actually chooses the Latin Vulgate over the TR more than 60 times. Mr. Kinney is perfectly fine with the KJV translators siding with the pope’s personal secretary, Jerome, over the Greek text because the KJV is the absolute standard. He is perfectly fine with Beza’s textual emendation in Revelation 16:5 that matches no Greek manuscript anywhere in the world because the KJV is the absolute standard. Mr. Kinney does not care that the KJV differs from the Majority Text nearly 2,000 times because the KJV is the absolute standard.

Addressing the Question of a “Complete” and “Inerrant” Bible

Question: Is there any Bible in any language you can SHOW US – including “the” Hebrew and “the” Greek that you really believe is the complete and inerrant words of God?

Answer: Yes. Now, in order to support that answer, we must define “inerrancy”. Biblical inerrancy is the belief that the Bible “is without error or fault in all its teaching”; or, at least, that “Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact”. Some equate inerrancy with biblical infallibility; others do not.

Examples of “complete” and “inerrant” Bibles (some obviously being only one testament): NA 28th Edition, UBS 5th Edition, the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Hebrew Tanakh), the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament), Erasmus’ Latin/Greek diglot, Stephanus’ and Beza’s Greek NT, and as the Authorized Version translators said in the preface:

Now to the latter we answer. That we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of their’s of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God: As the King’s speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King’s speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, every where.

If you incorrectly define inerrant as infallable, then there is no extant “infallable” Word of God because no two manuscripts read alike. Even after the printing press was invented, printed editions were still prone to errors. Until the photocopier was invented on October 22, 1938, there was no such thing as an infallable copy.

Addressing the “Bible Agnostic Test” asks the question, “Are you a Bible Agnostic?” It then states, “Most Christians today are. How about you?” The truth is we all are — unless we commit the fallacy of special pleading for a particular translation. And this is what KJVO (King James Version Onlyists) do.

Dr. Metzger is correct in saying that we must continue researching. That is what Erasmus, Beza, and Stephanus did in giving us what many refer to as the Textus Receptus (although it should rightly be referred to as Textus Recepti given the many editions). That is what Tyndale and the AV translators did. They researched. They made decisions using textual criticism. They reviewed the various editions of the TR that they had along with the Latin Vulgate and multiple English translations. They pick and chose. The Authorized Version is every bit an eclectic text as MEV (modern English versions).

Mr. Kinney defines an “agnostic” on his website as “one who does not know for sure.” I challenge that Mr. Kinney, himself, is a “Bible agnostic”. Even as one who holds that the KJV is the inerrant and infallable Word of God, he must admit that he does not know which KJV is inerrant or infallable — by his definition. As Mickey Carter titled his book, “Things That Are Different Are Not the Same”. Which KJV is perfect? Which is imperfect? Was it perfect in 1611? Which printing? There were two that year. Was it another printing in the 1600s or one in the 1700s? Is the 1769 Blaney revision infallable? Is it truly without error? Which edition is without error? Is it the Cambridge or Oxford edition? Or, will you claim one of the 1800 editions as did Peter Ruckman? Will you claim the 1900 Cambridge edition (used by most online KVJ sites) is without error? If you pick one, then all others are in error. Some have mutually exclusive statements in them. They cannot both be infallable.

The Bible Babble Buffet Versions

In a section called, “The Bible Babble Buffet Versions”, Kinney compares the KJV to MEV in order to show how they do not say the same thing. The same thing can and has been done with different versions of the KJV. If Mr. Kinney is not a “Bible agnostic”, which KJV is better than all the rest and which ones are corrupt perversions? Will the real KJV please stand up?

Mr. Kinney also holds to a faulty view of preservation. I assert that he doesn’t truly believe in “preservation” at all. Consider his quote:

It is my belief that God has kept his promises to preserve his words, and there was a historical process of a gradual purification from textual and translational corruptions and the final product is the English text of the King James Bible.

That which is perfect needs no purification. If Mr. Kinney believes that the Word of God had to be “gradually purified”, then by definition, it was not originally perfect. If it was pure in the original autographs and then had to undergo “gradual purification” from textual and translational corruptions, then the Word has not been preserved. It was lost and rediscovered or re-engineered or more accurately describing Mr. Kinney’s view, it was re-inspired. If the Word of God was truly preserved, it needs no purification. If it needs purification, it was not preserved. If it was preserved a little here and a little there, then Mr. Kinney and other KJVO have no right to demand an “every word Bible”. If many years passed without an “every word Bible”, then God has already failed in such a promise (although no such Biblical promise exists). In reality, Mr. Kinney is actually arguing for double inspiration or re-inspiration of the text.

The Absolute Standard

Mr. Kinney references in support of his position that the King James Version is the absolute standard. The first tragic flaw in this position is that, if he believes that an English translation is the absolute standard, and not the original languages, then any argument for preservation or the line of textual transmission such as the TR or Byzantine text-type manuscripts is immaterial. By making a 17th Century English translation the absolute standard, Mr. Kinney has no right to argue against the Critical Text of MEV. Why? It simply doesn’t matter. If it did, then the upstream sources would be the absolute standard. I cannot help but infer from his writings that as Sam Gipp said, “all questions of translation stopped in 1611”. The Greek and Hebrew do not matter to Mr. Kinney. But, this does not preclude his referencing upstream sources time and time again. This demonstrates an inconsistent hermeneutic and a self-defeating position. If the upstream sources matter, the KJV is not the absolute standard. If the KJV is the absolute standard, the TRs and the seven Byzantine text-type manuscripts used by Erasmus is as much rubbish as MEV are to him.

Numerics, Numerology, and “Coincidence” of Certain Numerical Patterns.

Mr. Kinney, like many KJVO, use numerology to support their position. Numerology (known prior to the 20th century as arithmancy) is the belief in an occult, divine or mystical relationship between a number and one or more coinciding events. It is also the study of the numerical value, via an alphanumeric system, of the letters in words and names. Numerology is associated with mysticism, witchcraft, and the occult — and rightfully so. For this reason, some KJVO have renamed their Bible numerology to “numerics”, chosing rather to indicate adherance to a system of numbers rather than the mystical relationship of numbers and meanings in the Bible. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…

The same numerology used to argue for the divine approval of the KJV can be done with any large document. The law of truly large numbers, attributed to Persi Diaconis and Frederick Mosteller, states that with a large enough number of independent samples, any highly implausible (i.e. unlikely in any single sample, but with constant probability strictly greater than 0 in any sample) result is likely to be observed.

If we apply Bible Numerology to any large source, we can support almost anything. When the law of truly large numbers is applied to Moby Dick, we find that it predicts the assassination of Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Abraham Lincoln, Yitzhak Rabin, Princess Dianna, and John F. Kennedy. (source: The Hidden Codes of Herman Melville’s Moby Dick | More Than Cake).

What Mr. Kinney calls “numerology”, is nothing more than the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy is a logical fallacy based on the metaphor of a gunman shooting the side of a barn, then drawing targets around the bullethole clusters to make it look like he hit the target. It illustrates how people look for similarities, ignoring differences, and do not account for randomness.

“I’ll Take KJVO Potpouri for $1000, Alex”

Time Zones

Mr. Kinney steps out farther on the limb of KJVO than most others. Mr. Kinney says the measurement of time itself is a “silent witness” of the authority of the KJV:

England, the country God used to give us the King James Holy Bible, just “happens to be” the one nation from which we measure true Time (Greenwich time, zero hour) and from which we measure true Position on this earth, zero longitude.  Just a “coincidence”, huh?

Time zones were not invented until 1883. Does that mean that there was less of a divine witness of the KJV being the absolute standard prior to 1883? Did it become more inspired or further purified on November 18, 1883? I am also curious to know if there is a spiritual significance to the fact that the USA is the country that determined Greenwich as the basis for its own national time zone system. Since America determined the Prime Meridian would be the standard, is that a witness that God has his hand on America? Or, is the miracle that 19th Century sea-charts already used Greenwich as the Prime Meridian? Since the Prime Meridian runs through France and Spain, could someone claim French or Spanish versions are actually what God is stamping his approval on? How silent is this silent witness?

Verse Numbers

He also says that the differences in verse numbering is evidence of the divine stamp of approval upon the KJV. He lists a number of chapters that have verse differences between the KJV and the Geneva Bible. Mr. Kinney writes:

…when the King James Bible came out it basically followed the Chapter and Verse number divisions of the previous Geneva Bible but it changed it in a few places and the King James Bible became the Standard.

Here was have another chronological problem. Verse numbers were first implemented by Stephanus (Robert Estienne) in the Greek printed editions. If the KJV is the absolute standard, then verse numbering argument cannot be used to support the KJV because the upstream sources do not count. The fact that it “changed” does not mean that it was inspired of God.

Best Seller

Boasting of the sheer volume of sales of the KJV, Mr. Kinney writes:

Oh, and by the way, the King James Bible is the all time Number One Best Selling Book EVER, and that BY FAR!   No other book in print even comes close. It is the only Bible God has providentially used in these ways.

By this measurement, does Mr. Kinney believe that the KJV will no longer be the absolute standard when it is passed by the NIV? Here are a list of top selling Bibles as of March, 2022:

Rankings as of March 2022 (numbers in parentheses are June 2021 rankings). 

  1. New International Version (NIV) (1)
  2. New Living Translation (4)
  3. English Standard Version (ESV) (3)
  4. King James Version (KJV) (2)
  5. Christian Standard Bible (CSB) (5)
  6. New King James Version (NKJV) (6)
  7. Reina Valera (RV) (7)
  8. New International Reader’s Version (NIrV) (8)
  9. The Message (Message) (9)
  10. New American Standard (NASB) (not ranked)

(source: Major Shift in the Top Ten Best-Selling Bible Translations the Past Year | Church Answers)

Does popularity signify God’s approval? Does that mean that the NIV is actually the new standard because of its many years at the top spot of best selling Bible translations? This is another worthless argument based clearly upon a cherry-picked statistic.


Mr. Kinney’s arguments are non-scholarly, unbiblical, pseudo-scientific (numerology), conjectural (volume of sales), laughable (time zones) , special pleading (verse numbering, additions/deletions compared to MEVs), and utterly baseless when criticizing MEVs. Mr. Kinney nullifies any ability to utilize somewhat scholarly positions such as Byzantine priority, Byzantine Majority Text, TR preferred, or even TR only. In doing so, none of these arguments made by him matter. Not a single one. Why? He has no reason for his absolute standard other than it is the absolute standard. It is difficult to even call it circular reasoning. He isn’t using a thing to prove a thing. He is simply declaring it so and cutting the cord from any upstream source. The KJV may have well appeared out of thin air. It would make no difference to Mr. Kinney’s argument.

This puts Mr. Kinney in strange company. His absolute standard is unquestionable, just like the Quran to Muslims and the Book of Mormon to Latter Day Saints. The Quran cannot be questioned. It must be accepted as perfect. How did Muslims get it? It doesn’t matter. It just is. He can no more argue his KJV from a scholarly perspective than a Latter Day Saint can who’s scriptures were miraculously translated from golden tablets when Joseph Smith stuck his head under a sheet. No one else ever saw them. But we just have to take a dead man’s word for it. Mr. Kinney has nothing better to contribute to his defense of the scripture than this same argument. It reminds me of a line from “Joe Dirt” when his dad quips, “How exactly does a posi trac rear end in a plymouth work? It just does.”



7 Responses

  1. Six questions and one comment.

    1. “While we may not have the original autographs, that is to say we do not have the original parchment or papyri the autographs were written on, we do have the original words in the original languages.” — How do you determine which variation is original? Remembering, you cannot make the determination based on Church doctrine because ALL creeds, confessionals, etc., are based on reading from the King James or Geneva Bible.

    2. “The Word of God has been providentially preserved through the rapid copying and spreading those copies in the original languages throughout the world.” – I am really unclear what your definition of “providential preservation” is.

    3. “Biblical inerrancy is the belief that the Bible “is without error or fault in all its teaching” ” — You need to define “teaching.”

    4. “(for we have seen none of their’s of the whole Bible as yet)” – Using a quote from the preface specifically related to the Douay-Rheims and extrapolating it to all bible versions is not honest. I know it plays great to the majority of people, but 99% don’t understand what they were even referring too.

    5. You are obviously very well read. Given that every modern bible has filed FormVA with the US Copyright office, have you read any of these applications?

    6. In no way questioning your intelligence; when two versions translate a verse in a conflicting manner how do you as a pastor determine which is correct given the translators have more expertise in the field?

    7. We all agree there were fifteen rules for translation in the King James Bible set down by the governing body. We also acknowledge there are two rules for modern translations: 1. Do not violate the copyright protection of any other extant Bible under copyright by more than 500 verses or 25% of any book. 2. Identify “new authorship” which in and of itself is copyrightable. — Is it possible for any foreign work to be translated into English multiple times following these rules and the translation not be degraded by the process? Would it be an honest statement for someone to say all changes made are based on scholarship and not on copyright compliance?

    • 1. All creeds are not based on readings from the King James or Geneva Bible. Neither are all confessions; not even close. Yes, the WCF and 2LBF are based on the Traditional Text. But, reading the very first chapter refutes any basis for adherence to a single English translation. The Apostle’s Creed, Athanasian Creed, and the Nicene Creed are certainly not based on any English translation. Reformed Credal Baptists such as myself affirm those three creeds. Your first point is invalid. How do I determine which variant is original? Reasoned eclecticism just like the AV translators and every revisor of the subsequent King James versions. In the Greek Critical Texts, we have a critical apparatus that we can use to verify and make decisions as necessary to affirm or reject particular readings.

      2. Providential preservation is that act whereby God had exercised His sovereign will and intervened in the course of history to ensure that His word was neither destroyed or lost, but rather copied and spread across the world by faithful men.

      3. Teaching; i.e. Doctrine. The Bible is inerrant in that it does not teach anything false or command as God’s will anything displeasing to God.

      4. If you do not rip apart the quote, it makes perfect sense. Here is the full statement: “Now to the latter we answer. That we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of their’s of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God: As the King’s speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King’s speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expresly for sense, every where.”

      5. That is a strawman and a red herring. The Crown owns the copyright to the Authorized Version.

      6. We stand on the shoulders of those who came before us. We have their works. We have the critical apparatus of the Nestle-Aland and the UBS. We have access to the manuscripts in projects like INTF, CSNTM, and more. We can check behind these translators and verify or challenge any reading based on tangible evidence.

      7. This is another strawman and red herring. Those are not the “two rules of modern translations”. In the front of modern versions or at the websites of the organizations that produced them, one may find the translation rules governing each translation.

      In conclusion, you have committed a string of errors of fact and logic. You have also been intellectually dishonest — especially in numbers four and seven.



  2. “5. That is a strawman and a red herring. The Crown owns the copyright to the Authorized Version.” (and toss in #7)

    Have you read FormVA?
    Have you ever seen what a Bible publisher has submitted on this form? Frankly, if you have not read this form submitted for a bible, you should have no trust in modifications made. Not just for the Bible, but for any derivative work.

    Have you read the copyright law?
    “17 U.S.C 103 The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material.”

    Do you understand the KJB translators were not under the restriction of use of the Bishops or Geneva, and were actually told to copy and paste?
    “Rule 1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops’ Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit.”

    You are correctly stating the KJB and modern versions were given the same protection, but you are missing the qualification for a copyright (new copyrightable material) and the restrictions (no more than 500 verses or 25% of any book of the Bible.)

    So, if we all agree a Chapter of the Bible is perfectly translated in say the NASB95, we still much make changes in order not to violate the NASB95 copyright, and have changes of meaning to show “new authorship.”

    New Authorship:
    “However, there have been numerous court cases interpreting the law, which complicate things and render this definition incomplete. There must be major or substantial new material for a work to be considered copyrightable as a derivative work. The new material must be sufficiently original and creative to be copyrightable by itself.”
    Can you tell me what each Bible publisher is claiming as “new authorship” in every book of the Bible? If not, really we have issues.

    Are the changes in MEANING in Micah 5:2 between the NKJV, NLT, NIV, ESV, CSB, NASB95 because of translation choices, or qualification for new authorship? There are significant changes of meaning between all these versions in this verse. And it is not just Micah 5:2, it is multiple verses in every chapter of the bibles.

    The rules for copyright for the US Government are what modern versions are bound by. This is not “intellectually dishonest” this is what the Bible publishing houses TOLD the Copyright Office they did. Are you claiming Bible publisher lied to the Copyright office on their respective FormVa?

    And yes, I have read the “rules governing each translation” which I am sure has some validity, but they rendered unto Caesar what is Caesar and followed copyright law. This is not intellectual dishonesty, it is objectively true. This is as true as stating King James said “Church” must be used, not “Congregation.”

  3. To expand on “new authorship” and changes in meaning, I would like to address:

    II. Hermeneutics
    There may be multiple applications of a given passage of Scripture, but there can only be one correct interpretation. Interpretations of various texts may be proposed, but if they contradict one another they cannot, obviously and logically, be true. The literal grammatical-historical hermeneutical approach to biblical interpretation intends to determine the intent of the author writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit rather than subjecting the passage to how it is perceived by the reader (See 2 Peter 1:20-21).

    Okay, there can only be one correct interpretation. So, how does that work when versions have multiple meanings? (maybe driven by copyright compliance?)

    Genesis 3:16 (just as one of multiple examples)
    NIV – Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.
    NKJV – Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you.”
    NASB – Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.”
    LSB – Your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.”
    ESV – Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.
    CSB – Your desire will be for your husband, yet he will rule over you.
    LEB – And to your husband shall be your desire. And he shall rule over you.”
    NLT – And you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you
    ISV – since your trust is turning toward your husband, and he will dominate you.
    TLB – you shall welcome your husband’s affections, and he shall be your master.

  4. “Will Kinney uses astrology and mysticism to defend the KJV. We would call that witchcraft if it were about anything else than the KJV. Be careful who you quote.”

    If the Bible said NOTHING about numbers then you’d have a point.
    I’m well aware of the Moby Dick experiment. You are correct that any large enough texts would have numerical coincidences. Sure.
    But the thing is, Moby Dick does NOT talk about special occurrences of numbers and special significances with numbers. The Bible explicitly does, even naming a whole book Numbers with just records of numbers.
    Revelation 13:18
    “Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.”
    It is a well-known fact that in the “original cultures” of both Hebrew and Greek that each letter of their alphabet represents ALSO a number, NOT just phonetic symbols.
    If God didn’t want anything to do with numbers, then WHY would He deliberately inspire the original language manuscripts with the knowledge that those languages were used numerically? Then why all this talk about numbers in the Bible?
    So people saying we need to go to the “original languages” are being hypocritical here, since you cannot separate the numerical significance the original cultures placed on the original languages. The original writers would clearly see what numerical patterns as they wrote the text since they automatically saw letters as numbers.
    And let’s not forget it was the astrologer magi who found Christ the Word before all the Torah believing Pharisees did. That must mean something in astrology points to Christ.
    Plus, marking anything and everything as divination makes a pitfall, atheists point out that prayer is akin to magic spells incantations, the Urim and Thumim is also just another form of divination, and prophecy said by prophets is also just divination. The only difference is that one thing is associated with God, and the other rejected things by false gods and devils. But otherwise no real practical difference in its outward manifestation.
    Since Bible numerics is associated with God, it actually falls in the first camp, not second.

    • Revelation 13:18 can, in no way, be used to support the parsing of chapters and verses in support of any secret or hidden meaning. Revelation 13:18 is a most unique case where John tells us what he is doing in the use of 666 or 616 (depending on the variant). There is no other such case in scripture. I will cede that you can use the values of numbers to determine an individual in every place the scripture says you can. Any other attempt to find hidden meanings in the text based on numerology is abusing the text. Next, John wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. One cannot and must not apply that same level of authority to modern verse divisions. Thirdly, John’s writings were not in English. Applying numerology to a particular English translation is special pleading and elevates that translation to equality with or even superiority to the original text.
      Your assertion that since Bible “numerics” is associated with God makes it acceptable is dangerous. There are many places in scripture where “strange fire”, false worship, and things such as this are used in worship only to be rejected by God.
      Kinney uses a comet’s appearance as evidence to support the authority of the KJV. This is unbiblical and not comparable to what the magi did in the First Century. They recognized the “star” as a sign because they understood Daniel’s prophecy. There I no such prophecy in scripture that would support any celestial sign supporting the KJV.
      I simply ask you, Sir, by what standard do you apply numerology to the scripture? Have you ever read Dan Brown’s books? He uses numerology in his books and they are about “God”. Are you good with the findings of “The Bible Code”? How do you affirm secret Biblical numerology and reject Dan Brown and others with any consistency?
      If Kinney can use a comet as evidence for God’s approval of the KJV, may I use last Saturday’s eclipse to affirm the divine inspiration of my sermon outline that I used on Sunday?
      In summary, you need to answer one question, “by what standard?”

  5. Your correction of my use of FormVA as apposed to the correct FormTX is greatly appreciated.

    What I find humorous is the number of time I have stated FormVA and no one has taken the time to actually look it up. The idea people will spend years studying the preface to the KJV but never once actually look at the form used to copyright a bible is truly pathetic.

    But now that you have supposedly read FormTX, specifically the instructions for Space 6, how does this application impact translation? And how does the need to re-word passages as to not violate copyright protection impact translation decisions?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *