BTWN Interview on KJV Onlyism

So I had the privilege of being interviewed by the hosts of one of my absolute favorite podcasts, The Bible Thumping Wingnut. We talked about a lot of fun stuff, but focused upon the issue of King James Onlyism.

BTWN Show 124, Fred on KJV Onlyism

We did a Google Hangout, and then it was posted up on You Tube. If you watch the You Tube version, you can see me waving my hands around a lot and hear me tell a funny John MacArthur factoid when Tim’s audio dropped.

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “BTWN Interview on KJV Onlyism

  1. Fred
    Congrats on being on a show. Serious 👍🏽
    I wish you all would have called me up and had me on it. I believe I could have answered a few objections you all had.
    Around 1:12 you start to bring me up and I couldn’t help but noticed you misrepresented what I said. What I really said is on your Jack McElroy Part 1. Also I never mentioned anything about a “hoax” or “John Smith.”
    By the way read what their “little charter,” said about King James.
    To be fair I don’t agree with Sam Gipp in most of his New videos. Most of it is careless. (I do like the one where he has all the young Christians read different bibles at the same time.)
    Both sides of the debate promote bad arguments. More so your side😁

  2. Congrats on being on a show. Serious

    Thanks.

    I wish you all would have called me up and had me on it. I believe I could have answered a few objections you all had.

    Contact Tim or Len. Maybe there can be a discussion arranged via Google Hangouts or something.

    Around 1:12 you start to bring me up and I couldn’t help but noticed you misrepresented what I said. What I really said is on your Jack McElroy Part 1. Also I never mentioned anything about a “hoax” or “John Smith.”

    Yep that is true. You specifically didn’t mention the Bradford Geneva Bible being a hoax, that was suggested by various other KJVOs who have seized upon Faust’s notion that the Plymouth pilgrims used the KJV along with the Geneva. Additionally, I meant John Alden, not John Smith.

    Again, I never stated that the KJV wasn’t on the Mayflower. What I have always maintained is that the Pilgrims exclusively used the Geneva Bible, which they did. Alden may have had a KJV, but Alden wasn’t a Separatist, but a hired shipmate who was allowed to stay with the colony and did so. The bulk of the Puritans were Separatists, like Bradford. You understand the distinction, correct?

    By the way read what their “little charter,” said about King James.

    Yes. You do understand the tradition of political flattery, right? Likewise, you have read the history of the Puritan’s emigration from England to the Netherlands and eventually New England, correct? The reason for why they did that?

  3. Pingback: Answering the Claims of KJV-Onlyism | hipandthigh

  4. Fred

    You did state the KJV was not on the Mayflower. “It was the Geneva Bible that was on the Mayflower, not the King James. :(“-Fred

    I am aware of the history and distinction of the Puritans and Separatist. I don’t believe just yet it was flattery. It could have been. I don’t approve of everything the Pilgrims did. I am thankful for their good things.
    If you know of a book that has primary source documentation on the Pilgrims and their relationship with the King let me know. There is a ton of hear say out there. I want to hear from Bradford what he thought of the King. I don’t recall finding anything in his history book. I know he does quote the King James Bible in it.
    You are welcome to pass my email along to Tim off Len. I’m always down for a good discussion not formal debate.

  5. Consider the context of what I wrote, specifically the claim that the KJV was there in use among the original Puritan settlers. It was not, IF Alden had a KJV with him, it would not matter, it was not the Bible translation of choice for a number of decades after the English Puritans arrived here. The Geneva was.

    Here is what I wrote originally,
    While every Christian I know recognizes the influence of the KJV in English history (It is really William Tyndale we need to thank, not the political playing Anglicans), that does not mean it is the Only Bible Christians have to read, nor that it is without serious need of revision. I appreciate the recounting of various factoids in that list, but the first one is wrong. It was the Geneva Bible that was on the Mayflower, not the King James. :(

    Remember your history. The Pilgrims were fleeing persecution from who? King James. Hence, they would never read the translation that was published by His crown printers. The Geneva was the main Bible translation used for decades by the English colonists. Even today, when you visit historical colonial sites, the reenactors will use the Geneva Bible in their history lessons for the visitors.

  6. Here is the context you were responding to my comment of me saying
    “1. It was on the Mayflower”

    Puritans used the KJB also.
    Bradford
    Winthrope
    The Purtians seemed more attached to the notes than to the Words of God when it came to the Geneva Bible. My opinion.

Leave me a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s