Thu Oct 31 01:23:28 1996

From owner-tc-list  Thu Oct 31 01:23:28 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id BAA26354; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 01:20:02 -0500
Message-Id: 
From: "Mark Arvid Johnson" 
To: 
Subject: TC and conservatives
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 00:15:40 -0600
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 899


>>I prefer not to be included in the same list with Hills, since he is a
KJV-Only defender.

How do you define KJV-Only? I have usually seen it refer to those that hold
that the KJV is correct in all readings, infallible, and perhaps directly
inspired as well. Edward F. Hills, though he did defend most minority
readings in the TR and KJV, DID acknowledge textual errors in the KJV. 
[ Believing Bible Study, pp.81-88, 214-228; The King James Version
Defended, p. 229-30. ] 

> I read a book by Gordon H Clarke called
> "Logical criticisms of TC". 

>>A terrible booklet in my opinion, which shows the author to fully
misunderstand the subject about which he presumes to pontificate.

Would you give an outline of your criticisms of this work? Superficially,
at least, Gordon Clark's position and yours are similar; both are Byzantine
Priority, specifically distanced from a KJVO or TR position.

Back