Subject: TC and conservatives

From: "Mark Arvid Johnson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 00:15:40 -0600

>>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.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 96 14:33:04

In <[email-masked]>, on 10/31/96 
   at 12:15 AM, "Mark Arvid Johnson" <[email-masked]> said:

Well time once again for that lurker to come out of hiding
and let Maurice know that I am still here!!!!
Before this thread goes any further I think it would behoove
many people to take some advice from B-Greek
Some threads just go on and on and on.....
due to their nature.....
I am very happy and satisfied with the threads that are coming in and do
not wish to be involved or have to wade thru this stuff once again.....
I will continue to declare that I am a Maurice Robinson supporter for the
simple reason ---- that I have not found anything else that is more
reasonable than his opinion.....
With all due respect to the other heavyweights on this newsgroup.....
<grin> Unfortunately I have neither the time or the material to 
keep up with the flow......
KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK GUYS AND GALS !!!!!

>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. ] 

>at least, Gordon Clark's position and yours are similar; both are
>Byzantine Priority, specifically distanced from a KJVO or TR position.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------
[email-masked]
-----------------------------------------------------------

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 96 14:33:04