The KJV is a Roman Catholic Bible with respect to the Word Church.

[bibleprotector]

I presented you with sound evidence

You presented selective data. The interpretation of data is not necessarily sound evidence.

that proves

Your selective use of data and your interpretation of it, you mean, makes your case. Your case is not proof, it is just your assertion.

that believers from the 1600's until today saw and pointed out Episcopal bias in the KJV

You mean those whom you agree with. You don't actually mean Christian believers generally. And are those folks any more or less believers, who have all kinds of doctrinal differences? That is the point here:

1. some Christian believers are anti-episcopal in their ecclesiology
2. a very tiny minority of those Christian believers have a view that the KJB was deliberately tampered with on these grounds

But, of course, I think you were using the word believers to mean those few who actually believe that conspiracy theory.

which refuted your bogus accusations and KJV-only attempts to rewrite history.

Can't you see that you are trying to rewrite history with your claim, and your handful of "believers"?

 

[FSSL]

You don't know Greek. So why do you continue to tell us this gibberish?

It seems that you are implying that English is gibberish, and Greek is not.

1Co 14:11 Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.

I am unequivocally saying your words are gibberish. You twist and distort the obvious meanings of our posts. You make claims outside of your abilities and those claims are wrong.

 

[logos1560]

I presented you with sound evidence that proves that believers from the 1600's until today saw and pointed out Episcopal bias in the KJV, which refuted your bogus accusations and KJV-only attempts to rewrite history. 

I presented you with sound evidence

You presented selective data. The interpretation of data is not necessarily sound evidence. 

What is wrong with being selective?  The fact that the evidence was selective does not show that it was not sound.  You present selective information as all posters at this forum have to do so you cannot say that you also are not selective.  It would be impossible to present all evidence, even very much evidence in one post that can only include a limited number of words.  Even the apostle John under the inspiration of God was selective in his recording of what things Jesus did (John 21:25).

that proves

Your selective use of data and your interpretation of it, you mean, makes your case. Your case is not proof, it is just your assertion. 

The actual documented historical information that I presented did prove that my statement was accurate. 

that believers from the 1600's until today saw and pointed out Episcopal bias in the KJV

You mean those whom you agree with. You don't actually mean Christian believers generally.

Incorrect.  I don't mean just believers today with whom I agree.  Most English-speaking believers in the early 1600's that had read the Geneva Bible and still had a copy of it and that also read the 1611 KJV along with those who knew the original languages of the Scriptures could likely have seen the changes introduced into the KJV that would affect interpretations concerning church government.

Because of censorship and lack of religious liberty and with biased, one-sided pro-Church of England sources and perhaps other reasons, many later English-speaking believers who were uninformed about an accurate history of that period and who were uninformed about the contents of the pre-1611 English Bibles may not have seen the bias.  Many readers of the KJV through its history have been uninformed about actual errors found in their particular edition of the KJV that have may have read.

The presenting of accurate documented historical information from the 1600's does not involve any "conspiracy theory" as you improperly and falsely claim.

which refuted your bogus accusations and KJV-only attempts to rewrite history.

Can't you see that you are trying to rewrite history with your claim, and your handful of "believers"?

My presenting of accurate historical information does not rewrite history.  It is KJV-only speculations and misinformation that attempts to rewrite history.

You provide no sound evidence that proves that it is supposedly a "typographical" error in the 1611 edition.

That's right, I provide no evidence of any such thing being "supposed", because it is. And of course, all the evidence that is, you reject by your standard of what you want to hold as "sound".

Further it is playing politics to say I did not supply evidence, because it is already obvious that it is a typographical error on various grounds:

1. The fact that the 1611 edition contained typographical errors.
2. The fact that this was altered early in the printing history of the KJB.
3. The fact that preceding English Bibles separated "helpers, governors" (i.e. helps, governments).

My assertion that you presented no sound evidence for your mere speculation that it was a printing error still holds up.  The fact that the 1611 edition of the KJV contained some printing errors is not evidence that the 1611's rendering at 1 Corinthians 12:28 is a printing error.  The fact that this rendering was changed in the 1629 Cambridge edition does not prove that it was a printing error since a good number of other changes were introduced in the 1629 besides just correction of printing errors.  The fact that the preceding English Bibles correctly separated the two renderings does not prove that the makers of the KJV could not incorrectly combine them in order to take away a verse used to support Presbyterian church government views.
Your mere speculation that it is a printing error does not actually follow from the facts to which you appealed.  Your comments confirm my point that you did not present sound evidence for your assertion.

You ignore the important fact that at this verse the 1611 edition does exactly what one of its co-editors Thomas Bilson advocated.

 

[bibleprotector]

Because of censorship and lack of religious liberty and with biased, one-sided pro-Church of England sources and perhaps other reasons, many later English-speaking believers who were uninformed about an accurate history of that period and who were uninformed about the contents of the pre-1611 English Bibles may not have seen the bias.  Many readers of the KJV through its history have been uninformed about actual errors found in their particular edition of the KJV that have may have read.

This is a bizarre conspiracy theory trying to conjecture a convoluted story about why the English peoples accepted and used the KJB, even Puritans, without there being any knowledge of some sort of deliberate agenda to change the pre-1611 English Bibles into something sinister!?!

The simple answer is that the Christians actually accepted that the KJB was to be used, and that 1 Corinthians 12:28 is correct, and that the typographical error which was at that verse was corrected early on, and that there is nothing unusual about there having been typographical errors, or that they were corrected. In short, there is no real grounds for such speculative nonsense about some nefarious agenda to foist something into the Scripture.

Your claims cannot be taken seriously.

 

[FSSL]

The makers of the KJV consulted lexicons, including one made by a Roman Catholic Jesuit Santes Pagninus.

There is a vast difference between historical (traditional) and modernistic understandings. Today's Jesuits would agree with your modernistic view, because today they are champions of modernism. The Vulgate editions of the 16th century were better than those of today for the same reason.

.... and yet none of those lexicons says glossa means "unknown tongue."

 

[Thomas Cassidy]

.... and yet none of those lexicons says glossa means "unknown tongue."

But does not simple logic demand the tongue or language being spoken is a language unknown or strange to the speaker? It certainly would not be a miracle if a person spoke in a language he already knew and understood, would it?

Even the Geneva Bible uses the word "strange" to modify the word "tongue" indicating it was a language strange, unknown, unlearned by the speaker and thus a miracle.

If we put this chapter in the correct context (novel idea) we note two very important things:

Acts 2:4  And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with ***other tongues***, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Now look at verse 21 of the chapter in question:

1 Corinthians 14:21  In the law it is written, With men of ***other tongues*** and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.

The above is a quote from Isaiah 28:11: For with stammering lips and ***another tongue*** will he speak to this people.

There can be no doubt about the word in verse 21 being ετερογλωσσοις the meaning of which is very clear. It appears, in context, the two terms are being used interchangeably and thus both refer to an unknown (to the speaker), strange (to the speaker), and unlearned (by the speaker) language.

It seems obvious from the context that the intent is that the language was unknown, unlearned by the speaker, but was a manifestation of the spiritual gift of speaking in a language unknown to the speaker and thus placing the word "strange" or "unknown" in the translation of the verse is perfectly in keeping with the context.

In fact this is a pretty good example of dynamic equivalence in the KJV and Geneva bibles.

 

[FSSL]

We are being told that the Greek word means "unknown" and that the word is indisputable.

It is an interpretation. I have no problem with interpretations residing in our translations. The fact is the KJVO wants us to believe it is the only, perfect translation of the Greek.

They lie and do not admit the interpretation.

 

[FSSL]

As far as it being a quote, we should avoid changing the meaning of the usage in the NT to match the OT.

The OT has an entirely different meaning and application than the NT.