You claim that you are aware of the Granville Sharp Rule. OK, then. Why do you claim that modern versions undermine the Deity of Christ?
Let's look at the KJV of 2 Peter 1:1
"...through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ."

Now the same text in NASB (1995)"
"...by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ."

NIV:
"...through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ..."

Now which ones are the clearest on the Deity of Christ? Surely the latter two, precisely because of the application of the Granville Sharp Rule! This is just one illustration of many of how knowledge of Greek has improved since the days of the KJV translators, and why we should incorporate these insights into newer versions.

My remarks about "fools rush in..." were directed primarily to the issue of textual criticism, a study for those with knowledge of manuscripts and textual patterns and types. I do not claim to be any expert on these matters, but I continue my reading on the issue.

Meanwhile, what has appalled me has been the utter dogmatism by KJV-only people on this board when it comes to textual issues. Time and again there is the assertion that newer version are based on two (corrupt) manuscripts - Codices Aleph and B. This is emphatically NOT the case: there are over 100 papyrus manuscripts and fragments; there is a whole array of early codices besides Aleph and B; then there are the miniscules - literally thousands of them. And that is just the Greek manuscripts, let alone the ancient versions. And textual editors take into account ALL this evidence, not merely some part of it to suit a preconceived agenda.

On 1. In the words of our Lord, "Do you say this on your own initiative, or are you simply repeating what you have heard from others?" (John 18:34) How much do you know of textual criticism yourself? Or are you simply repeating what have read from sources such as the TBS? (a highly unreliable source on such matters).
Then on translational issues: for example, what do you know of the Granville Sharp rule as applied to Titus 2:13 or 2 Peter 1:2? If you did you would know that modern versions done by faithful scholarship is stronger on the Deity of Christ in these texts than is the KJV.

On 2. What do you make of Heb.7:18; Psa.68:13; Isa.43:13; 1 Cor.5:3-5, to mention a few? There is an exercise for you: do this WITHOUT consulting a dictionary!

The latter I find curious, to say the least, since almost all the KJV translators were staunch Calvinists (with the probable exception of Bancroft and Andrewes). Certainly Miles Smith, the author of the preface, "Translators to the Reader", was a strict Calvinist, as were Laurence Chaderton, George Abbott, and John Reynolds, to name a few others.

Mike wrote:
Wondered that myself. Some of the debate team banned, maybe? Who knows?

I have been called all sorts of names and epithets, and been subjected to nasty and sarcastic jibes on this board by advocates of the KJVO camp, many quite virulent, and why they were not removed I'm not sure, but the authors are quite unmoved when one quotes to them texts on forbearance, gentleness etc.

May God forgive them for their bile and fanaticism!

Elkin M. Kaufman wrote:
Neil
This is to inform you that the 1611 edition of the KJV has been published word for word by Hendrickson publishers

You also say, as a kind of allegation of demerit:
"We all think this generation is the last or close to it."
There's something bad about that, is there?
I don't believe that there is at all. The signs are given such that everyone in every age may legitimately hope for His coming in their lifetime.

Why oh why do not KJVO folks simply read and take on board what Miles Smith wrote in his "Translators to the Reader" on behalf of all the translators? They were not claiming any kind of finality or irreformability to their product. Quite the reverse! They were trying to make good translations better, and trying to rise above partisanship.

We thank God for the contribution that the KJV has made over the last three to four centuries (remember that its path to acceptance was far from immediate, but was slow and rocky).

Moreover, Chilton's book seems to be similar to others in the same vein by adopting a radical preterist view of prophecy, which to me is both plain wrong, and in some forms is sheer heresy.

Also, there is still the problem of Christ's present reign: that despite an acknowledgement of that present reign the tacit assumption is that it fails until the golden age arrives. Thus post- and pre-millennialism concur in using the argument, "Christ can't be in real control. Look at all the evil in the world!"

I firmly believe that good and evil develop simultaneously, until evil is finally banished at His glorious return. This a-mill view alone is both Biblical, and the historic faith of the church.

It's not enough to trot out the mantra, "quote Scripture". Logical fallacies are not defined for us in the Bible. It's purposes are otherwise (2 Tim.3:15).

JD wrote:
There has been no circular reasoning with me and if you think there has been, produce it and I will apologize.

How do I know this?
A couple of years ago, in a debate, as I recall, over the KJV, you challenged me to provide a definition. I did so, citing a standard textbook of logic (I.M. Copi. "Introduction to Logic"). You response was both to berate me because I did not quote Scripture for my definition, and then to appeal to the crowd, attempting to hold me up as a parade example of resorting to worldly literature rather than Scripture.

Well, listen here:
the Bible is NOT given to us as a textbook of logic.
If one needs information on "the laws of thought", as they are called, one goes to the relevant books which explain them. If I need information on English history in the Middle Ages, I don't go to the King James Version of thee Bible.

The word "evangelical" was first coined during the Reformation, in the English context in particular during the debates between More and Tyndale in the early 1530s. More used it as a term of opprobrium (just as "Methodist" was used two centuries later), but the Gospel men adopted it as their own.

The term came into its own during revival of the C18th, when the converts who stayed in the Anglican fold (and there were many) were called Evangelicals, who stood for the full authority of Scripture, justification by faith, regeneration, and opposition to all forms of "Popery". One can see their views well described in J.C. Ryle, "Christian Leaders of the Eighteenth Century".

Yes, yes. Very pious and high-minded. You take the theological high ground.
But we have heard it all before, and you know something? It doesn't wash! Because what you offer is yet another version of what God/the Bible says - through the JD spectacles.

I did make out a short presentation on a previous post, but because of the strict word limit (Grrrr!) I had to delete it.

Also, the immersion thing: I have a clearly worked out position, but space forbids me from presenting even a summary on this board for the same reason. Suffice it to say that the ritual washings in plain water (bathing the body) are the real background to NT baptism, not the sprinklings of blood and/or the ash-plus-water concoction which normally the priests performed. That these ritual bathings were immersion rites has been the standard interpretation of these passages (e.g. Num.19:8,19) by the Jews from well back into pre-Christian times at the very least, and that is the basis for their miqveh or ritual bath, an installation which was in every Jewish home in NT times.

The Ark was certainly sacramental, and yes, the Israelites "partook" of its benefits, e,g, in the wilderness by their arrangement around the tabernacle where it resided, and generally by its central location after settlement in the land. They "partook", if you like, of the presence, protection, glory of God. That remained the case until God withdrew His presence prior to the Exile, see Ezekiel 10-11.

As to the rest: OT and NT are related by promise and fulfilment; there is indeed one way of salvation in both testaments, but to infer from that to saying that the Old and New covenants are essentially the same is to ignore the "not like" of Jer.31:32 and Heb.8:9.

All you have done in your posts is to trot out the usual stock answers on the sacraments from that perspective, such that all we are doing is opposing one system to another.

I operate on a very different definition of a sacrament. The Reformed view of "sign and seal" is based on Rom.4:11, where they are predicated of circumcision, but to go from there to predicate them of baptism depends on the circumcision=baptism equation, and at that point the whole procedure gets rather circular.

Moreover, one does not see this type of theological construction regarding the sacraments ("covenant signs and seals" etc.) until Calvin. It is curious that the Reformers were most concerned (rightly) to parry the charge of novelty from the RCs regarding justification by faith (and did so successfully), but did not see the necessity of doing so in regard to covenant theology of the sacraments.

Hence Paul talks about "the circumcision of Christ", or "the true circumcision...who glory in Christ" (Phil.3:3). Circumcision is fulfilled in Christ; likewise Passover: "Christ our Passover".

However, unlike circumcision and Passover the Ark was sacramental: it symbolised, and conveyed by Divine appointment God's presence among His people. It carried with it the blessing and curse of the Old Covenant: blessing during the wilderness wanderings (Num.10:33-36); cursing when Israel abused it in any way (1 Sam.4; 2 Sam.6), and bringing disaster on Israel's enemies (1 Sam.5&6).

That, you see, is the essence of a sacrament: a Divinely appointed symbol, united with a blessing and/or curse, again by divine appointment. The Ark had these characteristics; circumcision and Passover did not.