Skip to main content
SHARPER IRON
“As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another.” (Proverbs 27:17)
  • About
    • About Sharper Iron
    • Doctrinal Statement
    • Contact
    • Search
  • Forum
    • Forum Home
    • Comment Guidelines
    • Search
  • Account
    • Log in
    • Register

KJVO

Theology Thursday - "My Words Shall Not Pass Away" (Mt 24:35)

By TylerR on Thu, 06/08/17

If Jesus promised His Words would never pass away, what are the implications for the doctrine of preservation? Did God’s Words ever pass away? Were they lost for centuries in the sands of Egypt? Could they have been? How can prophesy even be meaningful if the very words of God were lost for a time, or may be lost in the future?

In this excerpt from a book he edited, entitled ​Thou Shalt Keep Them, Kent Brandenburg explains what Jesus’ statement in Matthew 24:35 means for the doctrine of preservation.

Theology Thursday - The Superiority of the Fideistic Approach to the Preservation of Scripture

By TylerR on Thu, 06/01/17

How has God preserved His Word? Should you place your faith in the science of textual criticism to restore the New Testament text, bit by bit? Or, should you simply believe, by faith, that God has already preserved His Word in the manuscript tradition which has been preserved and used by the church down through the centuries?

KJVOism, Fanatacism, and Epistemology

By TylerR on Wed, 05/31/17
Body

Mark Ward: I can’t seem to find a single person in all of KJV-Onlyism who has ever publicly asked the question, “How do we know when English has changed so much that the KJV will need to be revised or updated?” They don’t seem interested in imagining circumstances in which their viewpoint is overturned.

A Vow Regarding the KJV

By TylerR on Tue, 08/30/16
Body

Mark Ward: “[H]enceforth and forevermore, God helping me, I will not discuss textual criticism with people who insist on the exclusive use of the KJV … [v]ernacular translation is the only issue I’ll debate. Resolved: the KJV is not—or rather, is no longer—a vernacular translation. Let’s talk English.”

KJVO advocate, Peter Ruckman dead at 94

By Jim on Thu, 04/21/16
Body

Bible Baptist Bookstore site

Peter Ruckman Has Passed

Christian Soldier And Bible Teacher Peter S. Ruckman Gets Orders To Return Home

Steven Anderson & James White conversation

By sifilings on Wed, 08/20/14
Body
Steven Anderson posted our 2.5 hour conversation on Bible translations and, well, a whole lot more

"Pastor Sexton’s college has actually backed away from its strict KJO position as stated in its doctrinal statement."

By SharperIron on Sat, 05/10/14
Body

K. Bauder on Clarence Sexton’s participation in the 2014 FBFI conference. I’m OK With This

Book Review - The Doctrine of Scripture

By Bob Hayton on Thu, 05/16/13

Amazon Affiliate Link

The Preface, Part 5: Is it Really an Embarrassment to the KJVO Movement?

By wcombs on Fri, 06/01/12

Republished with permission from Theologically Driven. (See also: previous installments in this series.)

The Federalist Papers are a series of 85 essays supporting the ratification of the United States Constitution, written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. Madison himself is commonly known as the Father of the Constitution. Federal judges, when interpreting the Constitution, frequently appeal to the Federalist Papers as a contemporary account of the intentions of the authors.

In a recent Wall Street Journal article, Peter Berkowitz observes:

Most astonishing and most revealing is the neglect of The Federalist by graduate schools and law schools. The political science departments at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Berkeley—which set the tone for higher education throughout the nation and train many of the next generation’s professors—do not require candidates for the Ph.D. to study The Federalist.

I think there may be a parallel with the Preface to the King James Version, The Translators to the Reader. If one wishes to understand the KJV, the purposes and intents of the translators themselves, the Preface is the authoritative source. And what it reveals is the exact opposite of the claims made for the KJV by those in the KJV-only movement. The KJV-only position argues that only the KJV is the perfect Word of God without any error. It is no wonder, then, that KJV-only advocates purposely avoid the Preface since it is an embarrassment to their false claims.

The Preface, Part 4: Marginal Notes in the King James Version

By wcombs on Thu, 05/24/12

Republished with permission from Theologically Driven. (See also: previous installments in this series.)

The King James-only view argues that only the 1611 KJV is the Word of God in English. All other versions or translations are so corrupt that they are not to be used, nor be appealed to as the Word of God. Most KJV-only advocates contend that the printed Greek text from which the KJV was translated, commonly called the Textus Receptus (TR), is inspired and inerrant, and the KJV is the only translation that accurately translates the TR. But this is not true. The New King James Version (NKJV) is also translated from the TR. Being TR based, the NKJV cannot so easily be discounted by KJV-only proponents. Therefore, they seek to find other ways to disqualify the NKJV.

A common complaint against the NKJV by KJV-only advocates is the use of notes provided by the translators. For example, D. A. Waite says:

The diabolical nature of the New King James Version shows itself in their printing all the various readings of the Greek text in the footnotes. They print all sides and take their stand in favor of none of them. By so doing, they confuse the readers. The editors have made no decision as to what God’s Words really are (Defending the King James Bible, p. 125).

William P. Grady sounds a similar warning:

Pagination

  • First page
  • Previous page
  • Page 1
  • Page 2
  • Page 3
  • Page 4
  • Page 5
  • Current page 6
  • Page 7
  • Next page
  • Last page
Image
Image of file drawer

Footer

  • About
  • Contact
  • Search
  • Forum

Since 2005

Image
2005 SI Logo Image