Your bogus, false accusations may be the attempt at Jesuit-style twisting.
Your incorrect term "counterfeit" for a genuine, real English Bible translation--the KJV may be another attempt at Jesuit-style twisting.
It is KJV-only advocates who will use terms in an unclear, equivocal sense perhaps in order to try to rationalize or justify their non-scriptural KJV-only teaching.
My using words in a clear, univocal sense is not at all "Jesuit-style twisting" as you falsely allege. My statement is true. The KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense (univocally) as the pre-1611 English Bibles are the word of God translated into English.
KJV-only reasoning which attempts to suggest that the KJV is the word of God translated into English in a different sense (equivocally) than the pre-1611 English Bibles are the word of God translated into English and in a different sense (equivocally) than the NKJV is the word of God translated into English is not true, and it would be the making of an unrighteous judgment.
Are you guilty of Jesuit-style twisting of the words in 1 John 5:7 so that you can deny the doctrine of the Trinity that the verse teaches? Is your denial that you accept the teaching of modalism possibly Jesuit-style twisting?
KJV-only author Ken Matto asserted: "Modalism is also known as oneness" (The Modern Version Incursion, p. 156). Do other KJV-only advocates agree with Ken Matto's assertion that "oneness" teaching is Modalism?
Ken Matto wrote: "Modalism teaches that there are not three distinct personalities in the Godhead but only one, who manifests Himself differently at different times" (Modern Version Incursion, p. 156). Ken Matto wrote: "Modalism is the false teaching that there is only one God in three manifestations" (Ibid.).
