@JD731 was asking if you believe in verbal plenary God breathed written word of God?
See:
KJVO is alive and well here at the BB
Who sent him?
All he needs to worry about is;
Critical View:
1. Scripture is like any text of human origin.
2. Approach Scripture like any other text.
3. The subjective judgment of the individual critic is
the ultimate criterion for determining the Scripture
text, to be applied through the methods of intrinsic and
transcriptional probability.
4. The older the manuscript, the better its text.
5. The quality of a manuscript is determined by its
genealogy.
6. The number of manuscripts is not a criterion for
determining the quality of a text.
7. The traditional majority text is the result of conflation
(the mixing of two or more texts).
8. The Traditional Text is the result of at least two
deliberate revisions.
9. Cureton’s Syriac is the only surviving specimen of the
unrevised version.
10. The critical minority text is the purest.
Traditional view:
1. Scripture is the unique Word of God.
2. Scripture requires its own special approach.
3. The Scripture text is to be established on the basis
of all the available textual evidence by applying all the
relevant textual principles, at least the ‘seven notes of
truth’ (defined by John Burgon in Burgon 1896a.
4. The age of a manuscript is a necessary but not
sufficient criterion for determining the quality of its
text, even less an absolute one.
For the New Testament text, age is also inadequate
in that some of its earliest manuscripts
are among the most corrupted ones, so
that an older witness is not necessarily better.
Moreover, the oldest uncials33 *
adduced to support the Critical Text
are not the oldest extant manuscripts.
5. Genealogy is an inadequate principle, insufficient in
and of itself.
Drawn as it is from familial relationships,
the textual analogy is flawed.
As the precise relationships between most extant New Testament
manuscripts are unknown, this principle is inapplicable.
6. Insufficient in and of itself, the number of
manuscripts is one of several textual criteria necessary
for determining the providentially preserved text.
The normal laws of evidence require it.
Hort is contradicting himself.
7. There is no sufficient and unambiguous historical
evidence to support any conflation, much less wholesale
conflation, of the Traditional Text.
Omission in the Critical Text is more plausible.
8. That there were the two revisions supposed by Hort
is pure conjecture.
This view is not supported either by
external evidence of the existence of church councils on
such revisions, or of any documents relating to major
Bible revisions produced by such councils.
9. This critical assumption is pure hypothesis,
unsupported by historical or textual evidence.
10. The traditional majority text is the purest.
* ‘Uncials’ are European manuscripts of the 4th-8th
centuries written in a majuscule script with rounded unjoined
letters, from which modern capital letters are derived.