Ambassador Baptist College: KJVO?

Here is typical look at what a Psuedo-King James Only Baptist College (or even fundamental churches since they just copy statement of faiths) says when they want to look King James Only, while still sounding intellectual so they can attract students and make money (didn't the Bible have something to say about the love of money?).

We believe…

• …that the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments were “God-breathed,” or given by the inspiration of God, resulting in a product that was inerrant and infallible in the original autographs. (This sounds great except it says nothing.  So what if the originals were inerrant and infallible, you can't get them and neither can I since they no longer are in existence.  Furthermore, we have no idea if they were actually inerrant: can you be sure Paul's scribe didn't spell one word wrong in the original epistle to the Romans? Sounds silly to say, but if you can't PROVE the opposite then you honestly have to admit the possibility.  Not to mention the Neo term "God-breathed."  I'm no Th.D and I don't have an honorary doctorate from Hyles-Anderson so this may automatically disqualify my opinion, but I think I read back there in the Old Testament that the original 10 Commandments were written on tables of stone by the finger of God.  Now, unless you think God breathes through his finger, you have a serious problem.  And if you do think God breathes through his finger, you have no business teaching in a "Bible" college.)
• …that God has fulfilled His promise to preserve His Word for every generation of human history, through copies and translations of those original writings. (Again, another say nothing statement: preserve His Word?  The Word (capital W) is Jesus Christ: of course, they would know that if they read just 5 verses their King James Bible.)
• …that inspiration applied only to the autographs, but that their words have been accurately retained through God’s preservation. (Typical statement made by silly fundamentalists and neos alike.  Of course if they'd bothered to look at the context of the passage one time the word inspiration appears in the New Testament, they would have noticed that Timothy is said to have known the "holy scriptures."  There's not a psuedo on the planet that believes Timothy had the originals in his possession at anytime so why would you ignore the clear context?  Furthermore the Book of Jeremiah that actually ended up in the canon of scripture is actually the third version of what was written by him and his scribe and the Book of Proverbs was put together partially from copies of Solomon's writing's copied out by Hezekiah's men.  Not to mention, if they were Bible believer's they would know what the law of first mention was; and knowing that they would know that the first mention of "inspiration" is in the Book of Job and has absolutely nothing to do with scripture, but rather how God imparts understanding to man.  But you'd only know this if you actually read your Bible; and who does that these days?)
• …that God has preserved His Word in the Masoretic Hebrew Text of the Old Testament and the Textus Receptus Greek Text of the New Testament. (Once again the capital W: seriously, can't they read 5 verses of scripture?  That's great that there are some Hebrew and Greek manuscripts left in world: too bad nobody at this college or any of their students are part of the less than 1% of the population of the world that actually speak these languages.  Not to mention, Koine Greek (of which nobody can actually prove was the original language of the NT) has been dead for over 1500 years).
• …that the King James Version of the Bible is the best English translation available, not only because it is an excellent translation, but because it is a translation of the best Hebrew and Greek texts. (Great statement with no conviction.  Who says the AV is the best translation?  You; ambassador college?  And you are who?  Fundamentalist founder C.I. Scofield didn't think so.  The "Captain" John R. Rice didn't think so.  Curtis Hutson didn't think so for a large part of his ministry. So why is your preference superior to their preference and opinion?  Any scripture to back up your preference? I thought not.)
• …that consistency in position demands that we use only the above-mentioned Hebrew and Greek texts and the KJV translation in our classrooms and chapel services. (What: did you just say your position is consistent?  What happens when the Hebrew and Greek conflicts with the AV?  And don't be fooled to think that they don't.  The "TR" used in most Bible colleges is Scrivener's text put out by the Trinitarian Bible Society.  This text was not in existence at the time the AV1611 was translated.  It was created by Scrivener by taking the AV New Testament and back translating it into Greek.  Yes you read that right: Ambassador's Greek authority over the KJV came from the KJV itself.  However, Scrivener was also on the committee of Wescott & Hort, so naturally being the "man of Gaaaaawd" that he was, he "corrected" the back translated Greek from the "errors" of the KJV translators.  So, as always was, there is no Greek text that has ever existed that reads exactly like the KJV.  So just what is their final authority and what are they teaching the next generation of preachers is their final authority?  Well, naturally it's whatever the baptist pope in their classroom says and therefore they should repeat in the pulpit.  This is why 99% of preachers HAVE to mention something about the meanings of Agape and Phileo when they preach from John 21.  But naturally, being the biblically illiterate amateur Greek scholars that they are, they forgot that God the Father has phileo love for Jesus Christ in John 5:20; they forgot that Jesus has only phileo love for the believer in John 16:27; and that Jesus only had phileo love for Lazarus in John 11:3.  But who wants to be a dumb King James Bible believer these days and actually believe what the text says: "Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me?"  "The third time" could only be the right rendering if all three questions actually meant the same thing.  But that's too simple and doesn't sound intellectual so it can't be right.  Plus, if you actually believe the text of the AV "as is" you might get labeled a "Ruckmanite" and you don't want to be grouped in with a divorced pastor do you (hide your Scofield Bible at this time as not to seem like a hypocrite)?)