Was Dispensationalism

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Richard Masoner once wrote, replying to my questions:

>3. Many KJV-only advocates do consider the entire text of the KJV to be
>inspired, including the italicized words and even outright additions to
>the text which aren't even in the T.R.
>
>Richard Masoner
>
>
I Reply:

This is exactly my problem with the KJV-Only argument.  I think I read
somewhere about the dangers of adding to the Word.  Before I get
misunderstand, let me say again.  I think the KJV is the BEST translation,
but it is ONLY a translation.  Your answer to question #1,(which I edited in
my reply for brevity) spoke of the textus receptus.  I agree that by
historical evidence it is the translation we should use, and I believe it is
as pure as possible.  However, that is NOT the argument that has
consistently been forwarded to me by the KJV-Only contigent.

I have been told that the KJV is the ONLY translation that is valid. I have
been criticized for pointing out that the translators themselves spoke of
relying on previous translations as well as the original scriptures.

 I have been told that there is no use for the Greek or Hebrew. I have been
assured that all we need to do is to read the KJV.

 I have been told (as you pointed out) that the even the italicized words
are inspired, even though there are several places in the book of John where
the insertion of the word "he" causes Jesus, when questioned about his
identity, to appear to answer "I am he", instead of the TRUE rendering "I
am".  If this mistake was made in newer translations, (and it is) but not
made in the KJV, we would accuse the translators of trying to hide the deity
of Jesus.

Humbly Submitted,

Andy (looking for my NIV) Gossett :->