KJVO

The book by Rick Norris does that though!

 

Which book, this one?
https://www.amazon.com/Unbound-Scriptures-Review-KJV-only-Publications/dp/0974546208

 

When I said they 'obliterated' the KJVO stance I did not mean that they blasted the KJVO out of existence, but in their separate works destroyed the foundations of the KJVO premise.

BB Warfield obliterated German rationalism in his may writings. Did he cause it to go away? No, but his work in the field totally debunked the premise and pretensions of that movement.

 

I have read most of the books mentioned above.

I was at a conference with Dr. Dell Johnson while reading Norris' book. He asked if he could peruse it for a couple of nights. I agreed on the condition that he write any thoughts in the margin, which he did.

I have all three of David Sorenson's books on the version issue. I recommend them. I also have a book by Metzger on the other side of the issue.

My problem with many of the books mentioned above is that they use shallow arguments to defend the KJV. The KJV can be defended scholarly without resorting to taking verses out of context.

 

That would be the one!

 

The big problems are that many Kjvo make it seem like any who do not agree with their view would be saying the Kjv id a bad version, we do see it as being a good translation, but NOT either without any mistakes/errors in it, nor the only transaltion approved by God for us to use!
And one can support beither a KJVP, but NOT KLJVO!

 

Read "Thou Shalt Keep Them." It isn't new and it is nothing but scriptural exposition for the doctrine of preservation of the original language words.

 

Seems like he is a bit greedy on the price there

 

That dctrine does NOT require the TR/KJVO position though to be true!

 

The doctrine they defend does. It says that every word has been preserved through usage of his churches since the words were inspired. This is scripturally defended. There were periods of hundreds of years that the texts now promoted as accurate were not used, so they are disqualified.

 

I agree that you cannot stereotype proponents of the modern versions anymore that one should stereotype defenders of the KJV. They are as diverse as can be. One is of Ruckman, another of Cloud, another of Fuller, another of Gipp, another of Grady, another of Carter, another of Sightler, another of Streeter, another of Sorenson, another of Hills, etc... Each group having unique differences even among themselves.

I have found that the less one studies the issue for himself, the more likely he is to stereotype and make assumptions regarding the position of those on the other side of the debate (the same can be said of most debates).

I have, by the way, read authors who believe that the KJV is an inferior translation; albeit, they are few.

 

What is intresting is that he supports the Bzt text over the critical one, and yet he does not holkd to KJVO!

 

Why would that be surprising? Holding to the Byzantine Priority has no bearing on favoring the KJVO position. Dr. Maurice Robinson, T.Cassidy and others denounce the KJVO stance.

 

If you are referencing the H. D. Williams/D. A. Waite VPP, those guys say they are open to other than the KJV, but in practice they defend the KJV as inerrant.

 

Sorry, but I don't find Waite to be balanced at all. For example, until she turned on them, the Dean Burgon Society sold all of that (heretical) woman preacher Riplinger's stuff.

And Williams viciously attacked me personally on Waite's website. My crime? I gave a bad Amazon review of his book on translation--because he was not a translator, and ignorant in the subject matter. Those people are unbalanced.

And this we agree on.

 

Hi, Friend Rhet.

Thank you for the kind words. I'll jump in when I can--we're in the middle of our missionary conference right now.

 

You don't use those words in daily conversation, do? In every language of the Bible or portion thereof, the goal is to communicate in the vernacular. Your pernickety little shibboleths need to be dropped.