I must say that I am mightily impressed with the manner in which RBerman is managing the arguments presented by Amos and Micah (I kid you not this tag-team have chosen the names of two of the minor prophets – sure it is eerie and though it doesn’t send shivers up my spine it’s got me thinking about cults.) Seriously, there’s not that much difference between cultists, Bible Thumperists or King Jamesists. Well, enough prattle. Like, I said, ‘RBerman is managing the arguments ….’
Micah & Amos’ arguments and RBerman’s comment: post 91
Just some thoughts I thought worth adding.
It’s very easy to get hooked by the ideas being articulated by Micah & Amos and if you’ve read the core of the early King James Only teachers you’d definitely recognize the references and form of argumentation. I do, I used to be a King James Only guy. As I said in part one ‘Bible Thumperists’ it’s a gradual process and means answering a score of erroneous arguments well. (I suggested Dr. DA Carson’s book and hold firm that it is a good leveller.) I don’t think it will deal with all the modern arguments, considering it was written in 1979, but it will give a good background to the problem.
Click through and read the well constructed article titled: The Bible: King James Version by Dr. Stephen C. Meyers, Th.D. Vice-president, Institute for Biblical & Scientific Studies who’s conclusion sums up a conclusion I came to eventually:
The KJV is a good translation, but it is not perfect. It is outdated. There are better modern translations that make the Bible easier to read and understand. I like the NIV Study Bible the best.
-Dr. Stephen C. Meyers
What I have learned is that there is a huge similarity between the manner in which Jehovah’s Witnesses were/are bound to their New World Translation (which has had considerable revisions) but let’s not go there for King James Onlyism is quickly undone when one considers the text. It brings back a memory of how I’d carry my King James Dictionary around with me and how Pastor D. A. Waite, Th.D., Ph.D eventually published The DEFINED King James Bible
I think what really helped me break free from King James Only thinking was a combination of study and having a careful look at textual criticism.
I’ll be keeping an eye on RBerman’s responses but I won’t be losing too much sleep.
Sleep?
Here’s a balanced response to the debate by Matt Fenn (ex-Jehovah’s Witness) = Textual Criticism 101
Here are three articles referred to above, and a few more:
1. The Bible : King James Version
2. FACTS on the TEXTUS RECEPTUS and the KING JAMES VERSION
3. Excellent! – THE KING JAMES ONLY ISSUE
4. Confessions of a KJV Only Advocate (free audio book)
5. Bible Version & King James Only Controversy Information and book by Rick Norris (not to be confused with Chuck Norris )
6. WESCOTT & HORT RESOURCE CENTRE
7. THE KING JAMES RESOURCE CENTRE
All this has brought back memories of how I got caught up in it for seven years (is that the Biblical period for this?) and how I got out of it. It’s definitely like one of those maze gardens. I’ll write it someday but for now I think what I’ve linked should give you enough information to read and free yourself from it.
Peace,
Blue Django
I posted up my own story on the 1st of September 2006, right here in Theology Web Campus (not this blog, in the actually Biblical Languages forum where this argument is being conducted) – WHY AM I NOT A KING JAMES ONLYIST ANYMORE! by headheart (That’s me folks, and that’s all folks)
‘Must have precious ….’ Smeagol/Golum
Final Update: After some useful posts by kiwimac (posts 102 – 103 – 104 ) with regard to the way in which certain KJOs have attacked the work of Wescott and Hort (refer also : ‘Gail Riplinger’s Misquotes, Errors and Lies’ ), I think RBerman’s post sums it up. ( It’s a very slow process to ween KJOs off their ‘one-bible-to-rule-them-all-and-in-the-darkness-bind-them’, so I second his final words with regard to ‘Amos’ (not the minor prophet) the KJO who has used the name as an alias )
RBerman says: (post 111 on 12.12.2011) < one zero
'Kiwi, it's a lost cause. Amos has no intention of interacting with what you're actually saying. I don't think he's even capable of doing so. Don’t feed the trolls.‘
Artwork from 'Eaten By Ducks'
Update: 18 December 2011
Finally ‘Bill The Cat’ (Department Head) has called ‘Amos’ out in post 198 ‘I’ve already chosen life. You’ve chosen idolarty.’ and if you’ve followed this confused persons comments, I think the following picture summarizes the position that many King James Onlyists find themselves in when they put their fingers in their ears and cover their eyes to the facts.
(Update > Moderator Edits > Flame Posts by ‘Amos’ have been removed and therefore some of the links no longer align with and in some cases prevent access to the thread.)
I suppose the positive note is that reasonable (after a fashion) discussions have slowed down and focused upon 1 John 5:7-8 between ‘Micah’ and RBerman. Refer: Posts 46 & 47 and between John Reece and Omniskeptical (Deist) – Refer: Posts 48, 49, 50 and 51 – 15 December 2011. It’s time to get out my notes. 
In the meantime, the following link will suffice:
The Textual Problem in 1 John 5:7-8
Study By: Daniel B. Wallace
+)(+
Finally, back in 2003 another t-webber > alias : ‘EdJones’ (a King James Onlyist) who posted up ‘The Niv Challenge’ in BL301 was soundly refuted by Socrates, GrayPilgrim and Jaltus. (refer page 2)
EdJones’ avatar (below) adequately describes the modern day KJV 1611′st
