Serving the body of Christ?
Yes I teach the body of Christ!
I preach! I comfort! I evangelise!

'though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me.'

I confront error on internet sites, like sermon audio, perhaps you would rather error went unchallenged.

No I am not saying Strong was wrong (although he was a fallible man, as were the KJ translators) But as I have tried to explain, Strong gives you the lexical form of the word, that is the root word (usually if not always the singular form) in Hebrew this usually consists of a tri consonantal root.

Perhaps you would know this if you were not content to blindly follow the KJVO cult, maybe you should learn some GK and Hebrew instead of reading little pamphlets and lies from Gail and then pretending you actually know what you are talking about.

John I do not use an on line lexicon I use bible works software. Mainly I use my Hebrew/Greek bible graciously supplied by TBS.

He does exactly what He wants, regardless of bible versions, to suggest otherwise is to verge of Blasphemy!

There are tens of millions of converts in China alone, who were converted in ministries where the bible used was translated from GK texts other than the so called TR!

If only the church in China knew they were serving Satan’s plan!

There are tens of millions of converts in China, who were converted in ministries where the bible used was translated from GK texts other than the so called TR!

If only the church in China knew they were serving Satan’s plan!

2. A change is a change!

3. Why would a perfect translation need 100,000 changes?

4. The original 1611 edition contained
4,223 marginal notes giving a more literal translation and another 2,738 alternative readings that in the opinion of the translators were "not very less probable than those in the text." These marginal readings indicate that the translators did not consider their work to be impossible to be improved upon. Indeed, they considered the marginal readings to be potentially valid renderings of the original text by writing in the preface of the KJV,
"They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of reading, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other." (KJV translators)

Too hard! don't flatter yourself brother!

Your other questions do not need answered as the foundation for them has been taken from them.

The original 1611 edition contained
4,223 marginal notes giving a more literal translation and another 2,738 alternative readings that in the opinion of the translators were "not very less probable than those in the text." These marginal readings indicate that the translators did not consider their work to be impossible to be improved upon. Indeed, they considered the marginal readings to be potentially valid renderings of the original text by writing in the preface of the KJV,
"They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of reading, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other." (KJV translators)

*2
"Luk 2:41 Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover." KJV

Is the AV here denying the deity of Christ?

You err not knowing the scriptures John

As I said these points especially *2 destroy every other argument you may have!

And by the way no I am not a member of the FPC!

" I especially appreciate the translators of the AV 1611"

So do I they were great men, These scholars, who admitted that their work was provisional and not final (as can be seen by their preface and by their more than 8000 marginal notes indicating alternate renderings), would wholeheartedly welcome the great finds in MSS that have occurred in the past one hundred and fifty years.

But one blinded by tradition would not understand this reasoning!

Well there we go! It would be a waste of time for John to learn Hebrew and Greek! It would be a waste of time for him to search the scriptures!
He would far rather put his faith in fallible, sinful, men!
If the translators of the AV, if Tyndale or Erasmus had that mindset, you wouldn’t have your beloved AV, but thankfully they were not bound to unbiblical tradition like you, they sought to be workmen rightly dividing the word of truth.

If you will not learn Hebrew or GK how on earth can you be sure the AV is an superbly accurate translation of the TR? You can’t even check it, you must be relying on your Cult leader to do that checking for you!

With regards to not being led astray by using the AV it didn’t help the guys below

Mormons use the AV!
Wesborough Baptist, AV
Jim Jones, AV
David Koresh, AV
Oneness Pentecostalism usually AV only
William Branham cult AV only

"The Reformers believed they possessed and translated the very Words of God. They did not produce multiple & diverse translations." is that so ? Wycliffe, Tyndale, Geneva, AV!
Again the AV only advocates ignorance of history is astounding!

Check out WCF Chp 1 verse 8 to see what the reformers thought about the original texts and of translations!

Again I will say anyone who advocates burning bibles, needs to check themselves I would seriously doubt that people who burn the word of God, have the Spirit in them.

“"In other words the Scriptures, in every way, are subject to man. Our modern day critics have adopted that same Roman Catholic tradition." This is the worst argument I have ever heard, was the KJV not the product of men? Of course it was, fallible sinful men!

Like arguing with JW and Mormons this is futile, cult members cannot use their God given reason.