Balanced approached to the King James Version discussion

How so, about the KJV? Where?

If I look through the whole thing will I find it?

 

I worry about D. Min. Theses when there are spelling and grammatical errors in the finished product (e.g. "controversey" on the title page: "Adams wrote in an 1854,“ p. 17, etc.). Does not reflect well on either the author, supervisor, or first reader who signed off on it. .

 

"Abstract

This study is designed to approach the present translation controversy from a biblical
perspective by demonstrating that, by creating King James Only doctrines not found in the
Scriptures, King James Only advocates deny both the sole authority and the complete
sufficiency of the Scriptures. Their unbiblical assumptions about the King James
translation and its underlying texts transform the debate from a debate over translations
into a critical doctrinal debate over their acceptance of a dual authority created by their
man-made doctrines and their refusal to submit to both the moral and doctrinal authority of
the Scriptures."

 

kinda like one of your posts huh?

 

helped you out some here

 

It's called being a branch in the vine.

How else do you think I bare so much fruit?

You just made 7 posts of the best links that you found on the Internet that I've seen, in response to my thread at: The New Testament teaches The Doctrines of Grace.

Good work. Thank you very much.

That's some great fruit in my book.

They all need to be made into their own threads.

If any of the others of my post cause you trouble,
let me know and I'll be glad to draw you a picture.

 

Have a great one

 

U2. Thanks, I need one today. Had good friends share some great scripture I needed and U2. Thanks again. God bless you.

 

No excuse even for a "first grade" reader.... Look at his bibliography and see the spelling disasters for numerous names that will make one howl.

Granted, the writer was 72 (and an "adjunct professor" at Liberty, by his own statement!) when he presented his thesis, but still no excuse for the supervisor or first reader — both of whom should have required careful proofreading and correction before acceptance.

 

I didn’t make it past the table of contents before I lost interest. For the most part, my only contact with KJVO is here on the BBoard…I have ignored the few people I’ve met face-to-face that espouse the fraudulent doctrine, I didn’t want to argue with a fool.

I’d make a guess that the thesis was an early draft of the final document.
There are no signatures or stamps indicating it was reviewed.
Seems strange though, spell check would have easily caught those errors.

Rob

 

I actually had a guy several years ago that would misspell his own name

it was crazy, they were considered “legal documents” by some, so every day, I would have to write out a corrective action for him

 

I actually converted the pdf to docx format, ran spell check in Word, and made it a lot more readable. Overall, the thesis is *opposed* to the KJV-Only position, and presents some good arguments for the opposite case (looking a lot better without the typos).

 

The need for textual criticism.....

 

Which results in contractions in a text that is supposed to be God's word?

The Trinity Foundation - Logical Criticisms of Textual Criticism

 

On

On this thread, I was referring to the spelling and grammatical mistakes in the above mentioned article.