Subject: KJ onlyism and NTTC :-(

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 04:46:40 -0500 (EST)

TCer's
My only lament about the world of NT textual criticism is that the KJ only
cult gives us a bad name, just as televangelists have given Christianity a
bad name.  
We as Christians and scholars can debate and argue about differing texts and
variants and interpretation all day long, but once this ignorant and cultic
aspect enters in, so along with it does fallacy, lies and darkness.  I should
know, I was a KJ only person for a short while (due to the teachings of my
pastor, Chuck Smith), but after I read the other side of the argument I knew
I (and Chuck) was wrong.  
So, I continue on my journey through the world (small as it may be, but
mightily needed) of NT textual criticism in hopes of educating this group and
erradicating it's teachings (I can dream can't I?). 
Anyway, don't mean to take up anymore precious space in this great forum.
 Continue on scholars!!!
In His Service
Rich Elliott
General Editor, ENTTC

---

From: ANDREW SMITH <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 09:17:06 -0500 (EST)

I was astounded when I first encountered the individuals who support the
odd claim known as "KJV onlyism." When I first heard of this, I wondered,
what would make someone support such a claim, for which there is very
little or no serious evidence of any kind.

Studying the matter further, I apply the axiom "when there's no
justificiation, look for a motivation." There being no academic or
scholarly motivation for this position, one must ask, what is the
motivation for defending this position? And here we can begin to
understand this odd movement.

The motivation seems to be a desire to defend the purity and integrity of
the teachings by defending the purity and integrity of the text. This
group sees later translations as "weakening" the message. This position
is, if not correct, at least understandable, because (from an "ad
hominem") standpoint, many scholars who produced later translations were
far from orthodox in their beliefs - and (from a "de facto" standpoint)
some later texts did indeed have the net effect of "weakening" the
evidence for various doctrinal dogmas, whatever the motivation for the
translation might have been.

So the KJV-onlyism movement represents an understandable emotion reaction
to the situation. Unfortunately, it is also an irrational and indefensible
reaction.

Andrew C. Smith

---

From: "L. Mark Bruffey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 10:54:57 -0800

Hello All!

> I was astounded when I first encountered the individuals who support the

Hello!

If you want an inside perspective on this issue, see the latest edition
of Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary Journal, Vol. 12 (1996) [to be
printed by end of Jan 97] and also Vol 1, nos. 1 and 2 of the Detroit
Baptist Seminary Journal (1996).  These publications deal with both
historical and textual issues.  They are from the perspective of those
of us who believe God's truth is absolute and must never be compromised,
but who also realize the KJV only position cannot be maintained, even
from the very text it purports to defend(!).

Mark Bruffey