Unbroken pride

Pack attack from the James White followers.

"The matter of missing verses, variants, and the silly puddy nature of modern day translation is big but nothing compared to the unbroken pride that is sustained by the very approach of fallen man in using corrupt manuscripts needing man's authority and man's help to have Holy Writ's content determined and to even exist."

+ + +

">The Reformation is overrated. And the Received Text is even more overrated.

I give you credit, diglot, for your honesty. Critical Text teachers and followers would *not* have been on the side of the reformers in the 16th century. Critical text scholars want authority to be in man, not God, just as the Jesuits of the counter-Reformation did (and still do)."

+ + +

"It stings you when you learn of the counter-Reformation and how its main tactic was to destroy faith in the authority of the Word of God by introducing variants and various corrupted manuscripts. The goal was to make people amenable to putting their faith in the word and authority of man. The Pope. The magisterium.

That battle was won by the reformers. Often at the cost of their lives.

In the late 19th century it was all given away by sleeping Christians who didn't know any better. No shot fired. Even someone like B. B. Warfield falling for the devil's line and crossing over that line. Yet God's people, God's remnant, were still around then, as we are in all eras of the history of redemption, and they sounded the alarm. And do to this day.

The Romanists, like Muslims, have the 'long view' and could afford to wait until Christians were asleep to even such foundational issues that underlie the very Word of God, the foundation of the faith.

The ongoing battle between the devil and God's remnant. The devil can only play for time though. God's elect come into the truth eventually, one by one. And in the fullness of time all is consummated."

+ + +

"There is a difference between a *received* manuscript and a *constructed* manuscript. Your critical text masters won't tell you this. They'll tell you that the received manuscript needs an editor. It needs to be edited. That is not the same as needing to be *constructed.*

+ + +

"The devil fights hardest on the ground of the Word of God. Christians have been martyred in untold numbers defending the pure and whole received Word of God. Shallow scholars whether duped or consciously mischievous are playing the devil's part for the most part in our era. Scholars, who, in a different yet similar context, John Owen described as "a host of arrogant, wanton thinkers, puffed up with every fancy of science or yearning for the reputation of erudition..." Book 5, Chapter 12, Biblical Theology.

+ + +

">Looks like he backed off a little in his response to you

My experience is critical text followers are historically ignorant and rather shallow regarding things involved with language and literature.

You all seem to have memorized James White's little book and that's about it. You take its straw man [King James Only] then you call anything that doesn't conform to that straw man a concession.

I said I am not English preservationist (a term I first saw Kent Brandenburg use, don't know if he coined it, but it's a useful term). Neither is a Riplinger. When we talk of Luther's Bible and of the Dutch and French and Italian Bibles made from those languages during the Reformation (I mean see Riplinger's In Awe of thy Word, and I mention her because if *she* isn't a representative of the straw man who is?) it should be obvious that English preservation is not the issue. And when we talk about the underlying manuscripts it should be obvious that questions like: "So where was the AV in the 1400s?" are not exactly relevant."