Why Literal?

booboo wrote: "The differences between the King James version and the rest is what's largely responsible for people claiming that the Bible can have 'seperate meanings.'"No, it's not. People believing what they want to believe no matter what the Bible says is why people claim it has different meanings. Most strict independendent Baptist churches believe in King James only, and so do most United Pentecostal Churches, but neither would accept the other as even Christian. The old-order Mennonites I've met are all King James only, too (if they're English-speaking), and they would reject both the former churches and be rejected by them.There are also some extremely difficult to reconcile passages. For example, Romans 3:28 says that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law, yet James 2:24 says that a man is justified by works and not by faith only. Martin Luther himself offered his doctorate cap to anyone who could legitimately reconcile those two passages. His reconciliation was to say that the epistle of James "had nothing of the nature of the Gospel about it."Now, do you still want to recommend Martin Luther's translation as the "Authorized Version" for German-speakers, like most other KJV only believers? It's Martin Luther's intro to the New Testament that says that James is an "epistle of straw" (or "a right strawy epistle" for those offended that he said that) and that one really need only read John, Romans, and Galatians, because these have the heart of the Gospel.

quote:

---

Hope This Helps

---

Well, really it doesn't. Your post was way off topic. I guess mine was a little bit, too, but at least it had some relation to the topic, which was Biblical literalism. Booboo said literalism is undermined by translation, and I disagreed, and used James 2:24 and Romans 3:28 as an example. I didn't ask for an interpretation of it, nor am I struggling with it. I'll bet everyone on the board knows that Biblical literalists, and certainly everyone who believes faith only, thinks that James 2:24 means "faith alone" when it says "not faith alone." We probably all also think that's as bizarre as the rejection of the evidence for evolution.So, no, it didn't help, and I wasn't looking for help, anyway, and I assure you it's been offered six or seven thousand times by those who wouldn't pay a lick of attention to anything I said in return. Now it's happened once more.I may seem irritated. Sorry, I am. After several hundred close-minded people tell me that "not faith alone" means "faith alone," all without me asking, I'm pretty tired of it. Thank you.

Apology accepted. Thank you. My apologies, too, that you had to be the one to get the complaint. If you were the first or even just the 40th to try to reconcile those two passages to me, I'd have said thank you and let it slide, so it's not you, anyway, it's the accumulation.