View Single Post
Old 03-01-2009, 08:23 AM
George's Avatar
George George is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Broken Arrow, Oklahoma
Posts: 891
Default Re: "King James Only Controversy"

Aloha brother Howard,

I have read most of your Posts (since you joined the Forum) and find myself in agreement with you - "most of the time".

I agree with your statement:
"If the KJV is not inspired Scripture, if there is NO inspired Scripture anywhere, I am not saved. The word of God is inspired. Is White saying there is an uninspired "word of God"?
Please check out this link on the AV1611 Bible Forums <> Bible Versions <> "Inspiration of Scripture": I cannot speak for everyone on this Forum, but I too believe that God's word (words) are as much "inspired" today as they were when the "Originals" were penned; and they can be found (without error) in the King James Bible. [John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.]

I also agree with your following statement:
"The solution to The Original Manuscript Fraud is simple: If only the original manuscripts are "inspired", there has been no salvation since these manuscripts deteriorated according to Romans 10:17."
But their is also another "fraud" (besides the "original manuscript fraud") taking place within believers ranks: "The Textus Receptus (TR) & Majority Text debate", which claims that there is no perfect "translation" of God's word (words), and never has been; and that God's word can only be found in the "original language" in the "manuscript tradition" - that is: "somewhere's" amongst the thousands of manuscripts (either in the TR or the Majority Text - NOT the "minority text") God's word can be found.

Since the "original manuscript" hoax has been proven to be a fraudulent "straw dog" (at least amongst those who have examined the issue) a new "straw dog" had to be erected to take its place - hence the "original language/manuscript tradition" argument.

Your quote:
"Many of you have spent years studying manuscript evidence, like me, like Fuller, Ruckman, Hills, and Burgon. But I've come full circle. Manuscript evidence didn't pursuad me that the KJV was the word of God, INSPIRED, the Scriptures themselves did. I mean no offense, but we need to guard ourselves and remember in fighting dragons we may become one. There are many Professional KJV Critics, we must watch and not become Professional KJV Defenders."
After 20 years of studying the "Which Bible" issue and studying: the History of the Old & New Testament Texts; the History of the transmission of the Scriptures during the church age; the manuscript evidence; and a thorough comparison of the "bible versions" with The King James Bible; it was the internal evidence (what does God say about His word) that finally convinced me, and I too came to the same conclusion that you reached (I'm a bit slow ); and was finally and fully convinced, from God's Holy word itself (The King James Bible), that the Book that I had held in my hands since October 1958 was truly God's Holy, word - inspired, perfect, infallible, and without error.

If you check out my Thread on the AV1611 Bible Forums <> Bible Versions <> "Why I Believe in the King James Bible" you will find a complete statement of my conviction:

I want to welcome you to the forum and encourage you to "relax" - your amongst friends. I too have grown "weary" of battling with the "brethren", and although we may disagree on some issues (as I have with some of the brethren here), we tolerate "disagreement" amongst friends - what we do not tolerate is clear, blatant heresy; academic "elitism"; cheap-shots; false accusations; or name-calling.