Kent Hovind on the King James Version: Reply Part 1

Continued from Part I In Conclusion…. It is not joyous to have to engage in the kind of task that requires you to dwell upon mistakes, errant conclusions, and mis-citations. I would much rather take my time to speak of the wonders of God’s providence in preserving His Word through the centuries, not in the way the KJV Only folks

The gentleman on the Puritanboard (since banned) that I replied to Tuesday on the DL–the one who referred me to Stauffer’s book–has informed me of his views of me and my replies to his statements. I post this to illustrate the spirit of KJV Onlyism and as evidence, since some seem to need it, in support of my statement that

First impression: absolutely nothing new here, nothing beyond what KJV Onlyism has been offering for forty years. Not a smidgeon of meaningful interaction with my own work. Same ol’ same ol’.     But, there are a few almost humorous things, and some completely absurd things. You will find this book filled with standard KJV Only “loaded language” throughout. In the