[PB1789]

[QUOTE=bibleprotector;15026]In March 2009 there will be another edition of James R. White’s anti-King James Bible only book, “The King James Only Controversy”.

I want to deal with some of the ideas which this book brings up.

SELECTIVE REPORTING

James White has concentrated (it seems) on what achieves the most shock value for the audience, rather than a fair representation of King James Onlyism. In fact, the King James Onlyism that James White describes is quite unlike the beliefs, attitudes and actions of most people who hold to a KJBO view.

The problem is that James White has selectively taken a few individuals, and has highlighted particularities of these individuals which represent an extreme rather than a broad view. If someone read the book, they would come away thinking that King James Bible only people have all kinds of strange ideas. There is very little to temper accusations such as that some KJBOs believe that Paul used the King James Bible or that the translators were inspired in 1604–1611, etc. If James White was really analysing or reporting on KJBO belief, he would have to show just how few KJBOs really hold these extravagant views.

---- ---- ---- ------ ------ ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

The first time I tried to read that book I had to put it back on the rack....{gotta watch the Blood Pressure }. As the "Injuns" used to say about the Government Indian Agents ..."White man speak with forked tongue."

He (and people that believe like he does) never seem to address things like the Nestle-Aland Greek Text is now in it's 27th revision/edition... the Greek Text used by most all modern New Testaments has been changed several times in less than a hundred years, yet White is trying to insult AV/KJ folks who want to use a Bible that has not changed with the wind.

---- ----- ------ ------- ------ ------ ----- ------ ---

FALSE LOGIC

James White points out how Catholics had the Vulgate as a standard version. Therefore, those who have the King James Bible as their standard must be as erroneous as Catholics... This syllogism is as faulty as claiming that all four-legged beasts are dogs because dogs have four legs.

---- ---- ------ -------- ------ ------ ------ ----- -----

Good points Bible Protector.