Search results

Yes, I have read it. I consider it to be worth reading. There are two editions of this book: the longer one that I read and an abridged edition.

Charles Lantz wrote: "Most KJVO start with a little evidence (at least an ounce) and produce a pound of presumption" (p. 268).

Disagreeing with human KJV-only reasoning/teaching is not attacking the Bible as UGC seems to try to suggest incorrectly. UGC, you fail to prove your bogus allegations against me. I am a KJV reader. A believer can read only the KJV, and not be a KJV-only advocate. I am a fundamentalist...

Lantz, Charles. Why I am Not a King James Only Advocate: An Apologetic for the Faith. Ovid, MI: Sophia's House Publications, 2019. On the back cover, the following is the first sentence: "This book provides answers to those who claim that the King James Version is the only legitimate word...

The majority of the Church of England makers of the KJV were Calvinists. They used a Greek NT edition edited by Calvinist Theodore Beza. Along with having some examples of bias for episcopal church government, some believers also claimed that the KJV had a bias in favor of Calvinism in some...

Lucifer was the Latin name for the planet Venus when it appears as the morning star. The 1968 Cassell's New Latin Dictionary indicated that the Latin word "lucifer" comes from two root words meaning "light-bearing, light-bringing" and that it would be translated into English as "Lucifer, the...

What did the KJV translators themselves mean by the choice of the word "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12? The 1611 KJV gives in its margin the literal meaning or acceptable alternative translation for "Lucifer" as "daystar." The KJV translators were aware of the marginal note in the 1560 Geneva Bible...

You make your broad-sweeping generalization without providing any specifics that prove what your statement suggests. Do you attempt to smear specific evidence by throwing out bogus wrong conclusions? The fact that believers can wisely choose to disagree with inconsistent, erroneous, human...

Daniel Baxter asserted: "KJVOism definitely adds to the commands of the LORD" (p. 123).

So you seem to assume or think that you are entitled to command or dictate what I supposedly have to address. You fail to address matters that others think that you should address so again you do not practice what you preach. You have been encouraged to address the matter of the scriptural...

It is KJV-only reasoning that relies on circular reasoning. Thanks for your condemnation of circular KJV-only reasoning. You are contradicting your attempts to defend KJV-only reasoning.

You continue to jump to wrong conclusions. Your statements would condemn your own attempts to defend subjective, selective, erroneous KJV-only reasoning. Thanks for what could be regarded as a clear attack on typical, subjective, selective KJV-only reasoning and even on your own subjective...

That claim is what is made by the favorite textual critic to which KJV-only advocates appeal--John William Burgon, and it is repeated by a leading KJV-only author D. A. Waite. You have appealed to Burgon yourself.

You again demonstrate to readers that you do not practice what you preach. According to a consistent application of your assertion, you have not presented any sound response to my actual scripturally-based points. I wisely choose to stick with what God states and teaches in the Scriptures...

I already soundly informed you that I do not need to address your "likely" speculations since my position has nothing to do with the Critical Text. Perhaps you do not understand your own speculations as well as you may assume since they remain only "likely" speculations, and not proven facts...

Really? Your opinion is clearly wrong as your incorrect opinion would condemn the scriptural truths that are an essential part of my position.

I do, but your posts demonstrate that you don't. For one clear example, you still have not taken responsibility and corrected your undefined, false allegation of "anti-KJV."

In your negative, unsound responses, you did not state what I actually stated. Instead you improperly try to distort my statements into your straw man misrepresentations. For one example, you threw in terms such as "justice system" that is not at all in my statements. Instead I used the...

Why would you attempt to allege that advocating a consistent, just application of scriptural truths is supposedly "pseudo-intellectual babbling"? I am surprised that you attempt to attack the advocating of scriptural truths.

You did not respond accurately to what I stated. Instead you tried to twist and distort what I stated. Your attempts to distort my position and statements in some way in order to attack that distortion that you incorrectly attempt to create is a straw man. Your weak attempts to try to...