King James-Only Hysterics Refuted

illinoisguy

Well-known member
Elect
Joined
Jan 1, 2019
Messages
1,131
Reaction score
531
Points
113

Some of the points in this article: the 1611 KJV translators accepted even imperfect translations such as the Septuagint as the Word of God.

They included variant readings in the margins, and recognized the findings of textual criticism.

They accepted as valid the scholarship of persons who held to theological errors, such as Origen and Jerome. (The article could have mentioned that KJVOs accept the scholarship of Erasmus, a Roman Catholic, and Benjamin Wilkinson, a Seventh Day Adventist, as valid).

They included the Apocrypha in the 1611 edition of the KJV, and cited an apocryphal book in the margin of Hebrews 11:35. (I checked this out in my own copy of the 1611 KJV, and it's true).
 
Do we have any posters here who are KJVO?
I know we did in the old days but not sure about now.
 
Do we have any posters here who are KJVO?
I know we did in the old days but not sure about now.
Some of the Hyles defenders who come here once a year probably are.
it;s been a really long time but i do remember some posters from the past who were adamantly king james only... .. and not just any king james but it had to the 1611 king james like the one mentioned in the o.p... ....... which the people on the other side adamantly opposed to anything king james claimed nobody in the modern age could read........ so i ordered a copy of one and discovered i could read it just fine..... ... contrary to what some seemd to believe - reading it did not cause me to become a king james onlyist... nor did it make me shun the king james and consider it obsolete or not authentic... i didn;t find contradictions in it and never saw the big deal or the reason for the controversy....
 
Back
Top