• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
Seeing most modern versions are indeed very modern one would have expected say the NIV to develop into the ONE new version for the church, even with some updating and not a multitude of even more newer versions? Ah, only those who hold to the KJV are 'divisive'-even though it is the ONE version proven and used continuously for 400 years prior! So we have new evangelicals and new calvinists tossing aside the NIV following a Dr James White preferring the NASB, others saying it is 'wooden' so prefer the ESV; some prefer the NKJV. Why such a division amongst these modern versionists, surely ONE MUST be is better than the rest, but they dare not critique other modern versions lest they are accused of a lack of charity? Strange that they all agree the KJV is now to be rejected and often attack it, but they can't agree on a replacement yet! Preference is not conviction. Biased study leads to confusion, don't read books attacking the KJV without also studying the Trinitarian Bible Society articles re: modern versions. Too many forget KJVONLISM only arrived on the planet in the 80's. What version did the church use by conviction from 1611 until the 1980's,...see if you grasp the point.
Why reject the KJV because of arminian errorists like Ripplinger's writings?  |
|
4/22/10 5:36 PM
