Some of you might find this one, from David Cloud, interesting.  I 
like to call myself a King James Mainly, person.

Text of forwarded message follows:
>~~~
>KING JAMES ONLY
>
>Republished October 11, 2006 (Updated and enlarged March 2, 2005; 
>first published January 20, 1996) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist 
>Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 
>866-295-4143, [log in to unmask]; for instructions about subscribing 
>and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information 
>paragraph at the end of the article) -
>
>There is a lot of debate and confusion surrounding the man-made term 
>"King James Onlyism." This term has been popularized in recent years 
>by men who claim they are concerned about an alleged dangerous and 
>cultic view of the King James Bible. Rarely do they carefully define 
>this term, though, and as a result a wide variety of Bible-believing 
>men are lumped together and labeled with a term the meaning of which 
>is nebulous.
>
>The term "King James Only" was invented by those who oppose the 
>defense of the King James Bible and its underlying Hebrew and Greek 
>texts. It was intended to be a term of approbation, and it is 
>usually defined in terms of the extremism.
>
>I have been labeled "King James Only" because of my writings on the 
>subject of Bible texts and versions and my defense of the King James 
>Bible. To set the record straight, let me explain what I believe. I 
>know from decades of experience and extensive travels that this is 
>also what a large number of other King James Bible defenders believe.
>
>I WILL ACCEPT THE LABEL OF "KING JAMES ONLY" IF IT MEANS THE FOLLOWING:
>
>If "King James Only" defines one who believes that God has given 
>infallible Scripture in the original Greek and Hebrew writings and 
>that He has preserved that in the Hebrew Masoretic and Greek 
>Received Text underlying the King James Bible and other Reformation 
>Bibles and that we have an accurate translation of it in the English 
>language in the Authorized Version, call me "King James Only."
>
>If "King James Only" defines one who believes modern textual 
>criticism is heresy, call me "King James Only." I have spent 
>hundreds of dollars to obtain the writings of the men who have been 
>at the forefront of developing the theories underlying modern 
>textual criticism, and I have read them. They are not dependable. 
>They refuse to approach the Bible text from a position of faith in 
>divine preservation. Most of them are unbelievers, and I refuse to 
>lean upon their scholarship. I am convinced they do not have the 
>spiritual discernment necessary to know where the inspired, 
>preserved Word of God is located today.
>
>If "King James Only" defines one who believes that God has preserved 
>the Scripture in its common use among apostolic churches through the 
>fulfillment of the Great Commission and that He guided the 
>Reformation editors and translators in their choice of the Received 
>Text and that we don't have to start all over today in an to attempt 
>to find the preserved text of Scripture, call me "King James Only." 
>The theories of modern textual criticism, on the other hand, all 
>revolve around the idea that the pure text of Scripture was not 
>preserved in the Reformation text but that the Reformation editors, 
>because of their alleged ignorance and or lack of resources, 
>rejected the pure text and chose, instead, an inferior text. In 
>fact, modern textual criticism is predicated upon the theory that 
>the best text of the New Testament (the Egyptian or Alexandrian) was 
>rejected in the earliest centuries and was replaced with a corrupt 
>recension that was created through the conflation of various 
>manuscript readings (the Byzantine or Traditional text) and that the 
>corrupt text became the dominant text throughout most of church 
>history (for 1,500 years) until the best text was rediscovered in 
>the 19th century. You are free to accept such views if it suits you. 
>I, for one, believe this is absolute nonsense, and if that is "King 
>James Only," count me in.
>
>Similarly, if "King James Only" defines one who rejects the theory 
>that the "preserved" Word of God was hidden away in the Pope's 
>library and in a weird Greek Orthodox monastery at the foot of Mt. 
>Sinai (a monastery which has a room full of the skulls of dead 
>monks) for hundreds of years, call me "King James Only."
>
>If "King James Only" defines one who believes it is important to 
>have one biblical standard in a language as important as English and 
>who believes that the multiplicity of competing versions has created 
>confusion and has weakened the authority of the Word of God in this 
>century, call me "King James Only."
>
>I WILL NOT ACCEPT THE LABEL OF "KING JAMES ONLY" IF IT MEANS THE FOLLOWING:
>
>If "King James Only" defines one who believes that the KJV was given 
>by inspiration, I am not "King James Only. The King James Bible is 
>the product of preservation, not inspiration. The term "inspiration" 
>refers to the original giving of the Scripture through holy men of 
>old (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:20-21). At the same time, I agree with 
>the Pulpit Commentary when it says, "We must guard against such 
>narrow, mechanical views of inspiration as would confine it to the 
>Hebrew and Greek words in which it was written, so that one who 
>reads a good translation would not have 'the words of the Lord.'" To 
>say that the King James Bible is the inspired Word of God in the 
>English language because it is an accurate translation of the 
>preserved Hebrew and Greek is not the same as saying that it was 
>given by inspiration.
>
>If "King James Only" defines one who believes the English KJV is 
>superior to the Hebrew and Greek texts upon which it was based, I am 
>not "King James Only." In fact, I believe such an idea is pure 
>nonsense, as it would mean the preserved Word of God did not exist before 1611.
>
>If "King James Only" defines one who believes the English Authorized 
>Version is advanced revelation over the Hebrew and Greek text that 
>God gave through inspiration to holy men of old, I am not "King James Only."
>
>If "King James Only" defines one who believes that we do not need to 
>study Greek and Hebrew today or that it is not proper to use 
>lexicons and dictionaries, I am not "King James Only." God's people 
>should learn Greek and Hebrew if possible and use (with much caution 
>and wisdom) study tools. When the Bible says that "holy men of God 
>spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," we know that the words 
>they spake were Hebrew and Greek words. I encouraged my youngest son 
>to begin studying Greek in high school, and he is scheduled to have 
>four years of Greek and two of Hebrew when he graduates from Bible 
>College. But foundational to the study of the biblical languages is 
>a thorough understanding of the textual issue. We must study the 
>right Greek and Hebrew, and we must also be careful of the original 
>language study tools, because many of them were produced from a 
>rationalistic perspective and with great bias against the Received Text.
>
>If "King James Only" defines one who believes the preserved Word of 
>God is available only in English, I am not "King James Only." The 
>Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament and Greek Received New Testament 
>translated properly into any language is the preserved Word of God 
>in that language, whether it is German, Spanish, French, Korean, or 
>Nepali. There is a list of Received-text based translations in the 
>"Directory of Foreign Language Literature" at the Way of Life web 
>site. (See the Apostasy Database.)
>
>If "King James Only" defines one who believes that translations in 
>other languages should be based on English rather than (when 
>possible) Greek and Hebrew, I am not "King James Only." (I also 
>believe that a good translation can be made directly from the King 
>James Bible when necessary if it is done by men who are capable in 
>the use of dictionaries so that they understand the somewhat 
>antiquated language of the KJV properly.)
>
>If "King James Only" defines one who believes that a person can only 
>be saved through the King James Bible, I am not "King James Only." 
>It is the Gospel that is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 
>1:16), and even a Bible that is textually corrupt contains the Gospel.
>
>If "King James Only" defines one who believes that the King James 
>Bible's antiquated language is holy or who believes the KJV could 
>never again be updated, I am not "King James Only." I doubt the KJV 
>will ever be replaced in this apostate age, but to say that it is 
>wrong to update the language again after the fashion of the several 
>updates it has undergone since 1611 is not reasonable, in my 
>estimation. Having dealt constantly with people who speak English as 
>a 2nd or 3rd language, I am very sympathetic to the very real 
>antiquation problem in the King James Bible. At the same time, I am 
>not going to trade an excellent Bible with a few problems due to old 
>language for a Bible filled with error due to a corrupt text and/or 
>a corrupt translation methodology.
>
>If "King James Only" defines one who believes he has the authority 
>to call those who disagree with him silly asses, morons, and 
>jacklegs, and to treat them as if they were the scum of the earth 
>because they refuse to follow his peculiar views, I am not "King James Only."
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.1/470 - Release Date: 10/10/2006
End of forwarded message text:

John


-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.1/470 - Release Date: 10/10/2006