Comments by "Scented-leaf Pelargonium" (@scented-leafpelargonium3366) on "King James Only-ism: Is the KJV King?" video.

  1. The book of James is so named to flatter King James by having his name in the Bible. This Jewish author and brother of Yeshua, later re-named "Jesus" by the Gentiles, was called Ya-akov or Jacob in its angicised form, not "James." Mind, you the 'name' of "Jesus" did not exist in 1611 when the KJV was published as the letter "J" did not yet exist in the English alphabet, so it would have been rendered "Iesus" via the Latin via the Greek "Iesous" but all ignore the actual Hebrew Name YESHUA, meaning "salvation," that He was given by the Angel of the LORD in the Bible. Thus the transmogrified 'name' of "Jesus" which has no intrinsic meaning of its own in English is only 400 years old, and was never heard of for the first 1,600 years of the Church, never mind by Yeshua Himself during His lifetime. Yet Christians blindly sing songs like "How sweet the name of "Jesus" sounds in a believer's ear" etc. But how does it sound in Yeshua's ear? 🙃 The KJV also erroneusly adds the pagan word "Easter" into the book of Acts in place of the original Bibical word "Passover" the word that God gave and Yeshua used for this feast. There have been many adjustments to the KJV over the centuries, such as adding the newly-invented 'name' of "Jesus" with a "J" over the previous 1611 "Iesus" so it is hardly inerrant as it is translated as all foreign language versions are by non-perfect human beings, whereas the original text such as the Hebrew 'Tanach' or "Old" Testament has much less chance of error. However even differing interpretations of the original text can result in variance in doctrine.
    2