Monday, December 19, 2011

KJV Onlyism is Ridiculous

I have come to the conclusion that being King James Only is a ridiculous position.  I have been told this in past by several anti King James people and this position is asserted by those who don't have a stiff enough spine to actually say it.  But after much thinking and careful consideration (which included searching the scriptures), I have no doubt in my mind that I (and you if you are KJVO) hold a position that at the very least can rightly be called ridiculous.

I mean think about it: we believe that the King James is perfect, infallible, and THE final authority.  Some of us even believe that the AV is more authoritative than the Greek & Hebrew; which is even more ridiculous.  I have even heard it said by some KJV only people that the AV is the new Received Text; is that not ridiculous?  But then I started thinking (which is a dangerous thing sometimes):

  • I believe that a virgin gave birth to a baby
  • I believe that God spoke the heavens into existence
  • I believe that the Red Sea literally parted and a bunch of Jews walked through on dry ground
  • I believe that an ass spoke to a prophet
  • I believe that Jesus Christ is God manifest in the flesh
  • I believe that one day I'm going to walk on streets of gold
  • I believe that one day Jesus Christ is coming back to the earth and will reign from a throne in Jerusalem (according to the USA now, this belief may even make you a terrorist)
  • I believe that Jesus Christ died, was buried, and rose again bodily on the third day
This is just a sampling of the ridiculous things I believe.  So if being KJVO is ridiculous: I'm okay with that.  Just add it to the list of ridiculous things I already believe.

The funny thing is, most of the anti-kjvo people (if they are actually saved) believe all these same ridiculous things.  Is it more ridiculous to believe in the virgin birth or that a Book could actually be perfect?  I'd say believing a virgin had a baby and that baby was God in the flesh is much more ridiculous.  And to believe that it isn't would be, well...ridiculous


Wednesday, December 7, 2011

Epistle to the Laodiceans

There is always much conversation from non-christians and even some Christians about the development of the canon of Holy Writ.  Which books, why, missing books, etc.  One of these famous epistles is Paul's to the Laodiceans.  There is even a fake epistle floating around the internet that even some Bible believers think may be the actual epistle Paul wrote.  However, there is one problem with this: did Paul write an epistle to the Laodiceans?

I say he didn't.  But I bet you are thinking of a verse in the book of Colossians that says he did.  Let's look at this verse and read it closely.

Colossians 4:16 And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.

Did you see that?  Read it slowly...Paul says the epistle FROM Laodicea.  Paul does not say he wrote an epistle TO the Laodiceans and that he wants the Colossians to read as it is normally interpreted.  Paul tells those at Colosse to read an epistle that is from Laodicea.  What epistle could Paul be talking about?  Is there an epistle FROM Laodicea?  Yes there is; and it's already in the canon of scripture.

If you have a King James Bible that the publishers haven't taken the liberty to change words, you will notice the post script at the end of 1 Timothy:

The first to Timothy was written from Laodicea, which is the chiefest city of Phrygia Pacatiana.

There you go: Paul's epistle from Laodicea is what we call 1 Timothy.  Now; did Paul write an epistle to the Laodiceans?  As I previously stated, I don't think so.  But if he did, there is not one verse of scripture to suggest such a thing.



  © Blogger templates ProBlogger Template by 2008

Back to TOP