Well, in my KJV-Only posts, I have avoided looking at specific verses to add to the number of Reasons. Instead I have tried to give broad sweeps of why I am KJV only. I plan on doing one more reason after this one, and then my plan is to do something to get myself excommunicated...
Until then, I submit Reason # 9 that I am KJV-Only. Here's what I mean by that. The 5th reason I had given for being KJV Only is because of its faithfulness and that it will be around for another 100 years. Today's reason is similar, but a little more added to it:
Until then, I submit Reason # 9 that I am KJV-Only. Here's what I mean by that. The 5th reason I had given for being KJV Only is because of its faithfulness and that it will be around for another 100 years. Today's reason is similar, but a little more added to it:
Reason # 9: Because the King James Bible has been tried by some of the most educated and scholarly minds on the planet, yet it still has not been proven to be guilty of any error beyond reasonable doubt.
It has been around for 400 years as the premiere English translation. That of itself is remarkable. But then when you consider all of the people that have written against it - you would think by now that it would not even be in print any more. I have read books and articles on the other translation, but the arguments have not been conclusive enough for me to reject the KJV-Only position. James White's the King James Only Controversy really helped me out in solidifying my stance. I will be honest about it. There are some things in his book that when I read them, I was too ignorant of the subject of which he was speaking for me to give an answer, but when I weigh those in light of all the other arguments, I am not moved.
It is not conclusive in and of itself, but it is reasonable to give credibility to any position that can give a scholarly answer to all of the scholarly accusations thrown against it.
It is not conclusive in and of itself, but it is reasonable to give credibility to any position that can give a scholarly answer to all of the scholarly accusations thrown against it.
1 comment:
No errors? Not meaning to be a jerk, but I John 5.7 clearly has an addition to it, found only in the textus receptus. John 7.53-8.11 and Mark 16.9-20 are pretty skeptical passages to be considered. I would go deeper on reasons if you'd like, but I am sure you have heard the reasons. If not, I'll re-post. Nice graphics here dude - keep rockin'!
Post a Comment