Featured Are believers who do not accept KJV-only reasoning infidels?

Referring to the KJV, Terence McLean wrote: "If you would change one word (Easter) you are one the slippery slope to total infidelity towards God's words" (History of Your Bible Proving the King James to be the perfectly preserved words of God, p. 12).

Terence McLean asserted: "My position would be that the difference between the person who rejects or corrects even one word in God's Bible and the atheist who rejects every word in God's Bible is only a matter of degree: both are infidels" (p. 11).

Should believers who do not blindly accept KJV-only reasoning/teaching be regarded as infidels?

 

Perhaps more accurately described as misleading or improper questions that may improperly attempt to attack the motives and intentions of believers who advocate the truth.

Is it being claimed that KJV-only authors wrote over 150 books concerning a matter that is not really an issue at all?

Why do you seem to take time in making posts that seem intended to defend KJV-only advocates and their non-scriptural teaching when you suggest that it is really not an issue at all? Are you possibly obsessed with making accusations against me and other non-KJV-only Bible believers?

Are you indicating that you have no problem with Terence McLean's assertions?

It would be great if the KJV-only issue went away. False KJV-only teaching needs exposed and answered until it does go away.

 

Are the printers and editors who made corrections to the 1611 edition of the KJV infidels according to the KJV-only position of Terence McLean?

 

Your so-called case is bogus, and your unproven or merely assumed allegation may rely on an improper attempt at supposed mind-reading.

You do not actually know all the things that I think about. I do not continually think about one idea or thought.

The non-scriptural false teaching of KJV-onlyism does not continually preoccupy my mind. I work at a factory on second shift for eight hours where my mind is occupied with operating three or four CNC machines. At home, my wife, children, and seven grandchildren occupy my mind more than consideration of KJV-onlyism.

It is when I can find time to read KJV-only books or can find time to write responses to them that I think about this subject.
Sharing from my research and study does not demonstrate that my mind is continually preoccupied with KJV-onlyism. It does not take much time to share from my writings.

Since you evidently cannot find anything wrong with what I state accurately concerning the KJV and other Bible translations, you waste the time of readers with mere speculation or false allegation.

 

Since I have read the KJV over 50 years, it is normal that I should be interested in books that make claims about my preferred translation. My bias is for the KJV. In agreement with Scripture, I advocate the presenting of the truth concerning Bible translations. Based on scriptural truth, I seek to avoid showing partiality to one exclusive group of critics/revisers/translators whether in 1611 or in any other time.

 

Because some KJV-only advocates may agree with your allegations or assertions does not prove that they are true. Too often KJV-only advocates agree with personal attacks on the integrity and honesty of Bible believers.

Because you may choose to keep repeating your false allegation does not make it become true.

 

If you don't want to read the same scripturally-based points and same evidence, don't read it. Many topics have been posted about and argued for many years.

You do not directly complain about the over 150 books advocating a KJV-only view and attacking other English Bibles. Typically you complain when a believer attempts to respond or answer unproven KJV-only claims or erroneous KJV-only reasoning.