View Single Post
Old 02-28-2009, 10:38 PM
bibleprotector's Avatar
bibleprotector bibleprotector is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 587

Thank you, George.

You mentioned that the "Hebrew" is still used by the Jews. Of course, modern Hebrew is quite different to Bible Hebrew. We know that Bible Hebrew is only used by a minority (e.g. Rabbis). Even then, in many cases, they would probably be messing up the pronunciations.

* * * * *

I wanted to get a review of James White's book up pre-empting anything that might come up about the revised edition (due around the 13th of March 2009). I know that many KJB-loving people have already responded to "The King James Only Controversy", but I want to hold up some measure of account as to whether the new edition really is "improved".

Since 1995 (when White wrote his book), the King James Bible Only doctrine has been furthered and matured through the advent of widespread internet access, giving great exposure to the differences among the various types of KJBO believers.

James White cannot be taken as an authoritative expert on the KJBO movement since he presents his view as a polemic (and scornfully) rather than analytical (and fairly).

According to him, some KJBOs are TR-onlyists, and the next group after them is “The inspired KJV group”, where “Most King James Bible Only advocates fall into this group.” I do not think that most KJBOs believe that the translators were inspired from 1604–1611. Although I do not have any meaningful statistical data, I doubt James White has any either.

Several times, I have heard James White say (basically) that KJBOs need to lie to make the KJBO doctrine work, and recently, that all KJBOs are liars.

The Dividing Line (Audio), accessed 7 Feb 2009.

James White: “Now, of course, everybody recognises a lie when you see it, and unfortunately King James Only folks are willing to lie. That’s just a fact. We’ve documented it many times, and of course, since I’ve written a book on this subject ...” (Punctuation added.)