Brother Tim and Bibleprotector are insisting on some sort of specificity in the following statements that distinguishes between attitudes toward the KJB that I've noticed in the discussion all along but don't accept:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Brother Tim
What does one NOT believe about the KJB is to me more definitive than what one believes. An example would be: A person says that he believes that the KJB is completely accurate. Another says that the KJB does not have any errors or mistakes. Are these two making the identical statement?
|
To my mind they are the identical statement.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bibleprotector
The argument is not whether or not the Scripture in English is sufficient for salvation, because very born again believer really will have to admit that. The issue is that God's full and utter truth, exact in words, full in sense, leaving nothing to be desired, having nothing added, is fully present in the King James Bible only".
|
I have no problem agreeing with this statement even though I believe the KJB should be updated from time to time, while I gather that others think updating is a form of "correction" or "alteration." To my mind properly-done updating is not correction, it's not change, it does not in any way undermine "God's full and utter truth, exact in words, full in sense, leaving nothing to be desired, having nothing added."