Replies

The bible wasn't written in 1622 dearie. you need to learn what a 'o is in Greek before you launch on a tear about how the KJV is the only version to use. A definite article in Greek is not always used even when implied, and the translators of the KJV themselves never claimed to have a perfect translation. The KJV is a very good translation, by the way, especially if you lived in the 17th century! Then again, the Vulgate was really super for those of us who spoke Latin. I don't suppose you try and read Beowulf to the little ones for bedtime story, do you? Languages evolve, and so do translations.
Your objection may center on the TR, rather than simply the KJV, in which case the discussion might be more interesting, but still essentially the same

. Don't build a "support for the faith" that is constructed solely from your own misperceptions about the holy nature of the KJV (or textus receptus, if you are one of those rants). Better people than you or I have done so, and had their own faith implode when their own unbiblical "support" was shown to be in error. The so associated the faith with their own odd doctrinal position that when it collapsed, they thought the faith had collapsed. That is just silly. The KJV was a very good, solid translation, but don't try to make it what it wasn't, nor what its translators never claimed for it.

Sweet heart, I did not say that the KJV is a perfect translation. The meaning between an antichrist and the antichrist is far apart and important. Elsie's translation,which ever one it is, I believe uses the antichrist inappropriately. Do you really think that those of us who believe the TR is the inspired manuscript think the Bible was written in 1622. Try not to be so condescending next time, OK?