Kenyon Bowers

In the Book of the Prophet Hosea, the LORD prophesied that Israel would call Him "Ishi". But, what does this mean? "And it shall be at that day, saith the LORD, that thou shalt call me Ishi; and shalt call me no more Baali." (Hosea 2:16) The first step is to define what the word means. The word  אִישִׁי  ( 'ishi ) literally means "my Man," and is understood as "my Husband." The first impression is that it refers to God saying Israel will call Him "my Husband", which  is  part of it. To understand the passage, we will need to look at the context (Hosea 1–2). At the beginning of the Book, we learn that Hosea and his wife have a child, Jezreel. "[3] So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim; which conceived, and bare him a son. [4] And the LORD said unto him, Call his name Jezreel; for yet a little while, and I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and will cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Is...

A popular argument used by King James onlyists, especially by Ruckmanites and dual inspirationists, is that the King James Version of the Bible is in the seventh purification of Scripture. The argument goes like this: The King James Bible is the seventh English translation, and fits the "purified seven times" of Psalm 12:6-7. Some radical proponents of this position go as far as to say that English is the seventh main language of Bible translation. Additionally, some claim that, of the KJV editions, the 1900 Pure Cambridge Edition (PCE) is the seventh purification of the KJV. When you take the most radical of views regarding this doctrine, you get the seventh language being English, the seventh translation being the KJV, and the seventh KJV being the PCE. However, this argument is a gross twisting of the Scriptures. I write this as an admonition to brethren who use, and have used, this bad argument for our English Bible. There are a couple of points I want to make in this art...

It is often asserted against the King James believer that the KJV originally included the Apocrypha. And while this is true, it ignores several key points about what we actually believe, the history of the KJV, other Protestant translations, and what the translators themselves thought of the Apocrypha. Ironically, the inverse of this argument is used by Catholics who claim the King James Bible "removed" seven books of the Bible. The Bible Text is Perfect Firstly, King James believers believe the Bible text of the KJV is faithful and accurate. The 1611 had its preface, table of contents, several charts, etc., yet we do not  necessarily   hold those to be accurate —it is no different in the case of the Deuterocanon. Even modern printings of various Bible translations are bound with dictionaries, maps, or even concordances in the back. Just because extra-biblical content is printed and contained within the same binding as the scriptural text does not mean that we are to believe...