Here is one snippet of the guy's comments about White's response:
Although much could be said about the later part of this statement, I wish only to concern myself with the former: namely, White's assertion that he believes the King James Bible.
Immediately before this, he sets the context of his belief in the KJV by stating that "it is the Word of God, just as the NASB or NIV is rightly called 'the Word of God.'"
Here we have a blatant contrast in the meaning of words.
No, that's not what we have here. Believing in the Bible is not the same as agreeing with what King James Onlyists believe about the Bible. Big difference.
This illustrates the differences in approach and strikes at the very heart of this issue. When I say that I believe the King James Bible, I mean that I have complete confidence in it as the very Word of God.
Yeah, and so does Mr. White.
I trust it without making exception.
Translation: due to a faulty understanding of inerrancy, he will proclaim any honest criticism of the KJV (that it, like any other version contains inaccuracies and imperfections) as being equivalent to
a.) "attacking"
b.) not trusting or
c.) not believing the KJV.
The 1975 Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines the word believe as "(to) accept trustfully and on faith" and to "consider (it) to be true."
Yeah, and I, like Mr. White, consider and accept the KJV trustfully and on faith, but also recognize that the KJV was put together by fallible scholars who themselves stated their own limitations in their preface to the KJV.
It means to "have a firm conviction as to the reality" of something or someone. My firm conviction is that the King James Bible is the Word of God. Since I do not believe the Word of God has error in it, I believe the KJV is inerrant.
...and here we have some of the same old, tired misrepresenations made by KJOs (that is, one who knows and believes and trusts in other Non-KJV Bibles is not a true "Bible Believer," and one who points out the inaccuracies and mistakes in the KJV, e.g., the KJV's use of words such as "unicorn," or its man-made additions to the text, by way of phrases that have NO Greek manuscript support), and we can see that the man is ignorant concerning textual transmisson and the history of the Bible, and his refusal (like yours, Warrior of the Sword!) to acknowledge that because the KJV is a revision of previous translations and is itself a translation, that it too is not immune from the errors that appear in other versions; only the Autographs, (which we no longer have, but which readings can be reconstructed through text. criticism, which is how we got the KJV among all the other versions, texts etc-- so spare me the KJO mantra of "but we don't have the Autographs!"), only the Autographs were 100% with out error of any sort.
Although much could be said about the later part of this statement, I wish only to concern myself with the former: namely, White's assertion that he believes the King James Bible.
Immediately before this, he sets the context of his belief in the KJV by stating that "it is the Word of God, just as the NASB or NIV is rightly called 'the Word of God.'"
Here we have a blatant contrast in the meaning of words.
No, that's not what we have here. Believing in the Bible is not the same as agreeing with what King James Onlyists believe about the Bible. Big difference.
This illustrates the differences in approach and strikes at the very heart of this issue. When I say that I believe the King James Bible, I mean that I have complete confidence in it as the very Word of God.
Yeah, and so does Mr. White.
I trust it without making exception.
Translation: due to a faulty understanding of inerrancy, he will proclaim any honest criticism of the KJV (that it, like any other version contains inaccuracies and imperfections) as being equivalent to
a.) "attacking"
b.) not trusting or
c.) not believing the KJV.
The 1975 Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines the word believe as "(to) accept trustfully and on faith" and to "consider (it) to be true."
Yeah, and I, like Mr. White, consider and accept the KJV trustfully and on faith, but also recognize that the KJV was put together by fallible scholars who themselves stated their own limitations in their preface to the KJV.
It means to "have a firm conviction as to the reality" of something or someone. My firm conviction is that the King James Bible is the Word of God. Since I do not believe the Word of God has error in it, I believe the KJV is inerrant.
...and here we have some of the same old, tired misrepresenations made by KJOs (that is, one who knows and believes and trusts in other Non-KJV Bibles is not a true "Bible Believer," and one who points out the inaccuracies and mistakes in the KJV, e.g., the KJV's use of words such as "unicorn," or its man-made additions to the text, by way of phrases that have NO Greek manuscript support), and we can see that the man is ignorant concerning textual transmisson and the history of the Bible, and his refusal (like yours, Warrior of the Sword!) to acknowledge that because the KJV is a revision of previous translations and is itself a translation, that it too is not immune from the errors that appear in other versions; only the Autographs, (which we no longer have, but which readings can be reconstructed through text. criticism, which is how we got the KJV among all the other versions, texts etc-- so spare me the KJO mantra of "but we don't have the Autographs!"), only the Autographs were 100% with out error of any sort.
