Friday, February 06, 2009

Liar, Liar....James White and AOM

Until the latest fiasco of James White with Bart Ehrman, and then his actions right afterwards, I didn't know him. I had seen him in some video and heard some audio, but very little besides that. I don't see from where the loyalty to him comes. He's got a lot of followers, it seems. Or at least a few that make a lot of noise. Their connection with him doesn't speak well of them. He needs help. Real help. That's what they should be offering.

Shortly after he lost his debate to Bart Ehrman, he went to full court defense mode. His photo could be next to "defensive" in the dictionary, because he defines it by what he says and how he says it. He sounds like the kid you grow up with in school that tries to get done with his test first, and when he does, he slaps down his pencil and then looks around and exhales out loud so that everyone will know he's done and so he can see who is looking at him. He got started on this in the debate itself during his closing comments by blaming Ehrman's position on postmodernism. These are not the words of someone who has been able to defeat a man's arguments. It might be true that Ehrman was motivated by postmodernism, but in a debate that is supposed to be about textual evidence, it comes up lame. "He, he, he, he's a, a, a postmodernist. So there!" And then he blames everyone except himself. It's not his fault. It was Ehrman. Little did everyone know, but Ehrman changed the proposition two weeks before the debate. Ehrman didn't understand me. The moon was in my eyes. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Now I see this is what White does. He goes into all out spin as soon as a debate ends, at least one like this that he lost. He declares victory---in the words of McDurmon, "he steamrolled" Ehrman. "And I, ahem, read and listened to everything that Ehrman wrote or uttered since he came from the womb. Just letting you know, not to brag on myself." Then he judges motives. And finally attacks the person. Besides that, he spends an incredible amount of time praising himself, attempting to reconstruct what he said in the debate, to make it sound bigger and better than what it was. And he solicits pity for himself as if he is persecuted---with all the melodramatic sighs and voice inflections. I've heard people call him inimitable. I've seen people similar to him, so I don't think it's the case. He is a caricature of an apologist, so he's only inimitable in that way.

I wrote a review of the debate. I thought it might be nice for my readers. White had enough on his hands just in debating Ehrman. But isn't it nice that he also had time to spend two blogs and one internet webcast (his Dividing Line program) going after me, judging my motives and attacking my character? He called me a "bigot" and a "liar." Not once does he deal with my criticisms of him in the debate. That was the best he could do, go after me. And he actually does understand that this strategy will be good enough with the people who listen to him. It works. What does that say about them? They like that about him, that he goes immediately for motives ("bigot") and character ("liar"). Just the fact that he has so much spin control in play to spend this kind of time on my blog review tells you a little about his state of mind. I do not know what his followers see in him to exhibit so much allegiance.

He comes across like a snake oil salesman, a wandering minstrel. He's got his truck and products, just a little more hi-tech. He possesses the necessary hubris to shamelessly self-promote, it seems, without any compunction. Except he deals with Scripture and against deniers of the faith. It's an activity that we can applaud, but by a person who behaves with a smugness strangely contradictory to the task.

I'm going to do a couple of things with this post. First, I'm going to clear up the "bigot" and "liar" thing. Second, I'm going to list a few James White-isms to show you what I'm talking about above. I don't think I need to illustrate to anyone who has limited abilities of observation, but I'm not going to take it for granted.

Name-Calling

The term "bigot" or "bigotry" is a slander as applied to me. Even based on the dictionary definition it doesn't apply, but especially with the modern connotation of "bigotry." Do you think that White went into the Ehrman debate with any prejudice based upon reading his books and listening to his audio? Of course, he did. I might know what White's position is on the text, but I believe I had far less prejudice toward White than I did toward Ehrman. I've read two of Ehrman's books. I've never read White's. I wrote a short tease for my analysis of the debate, that Alan Kurschner went wild over. They would do well to look at the criticism and take it seriously. It's hard to defend against prejudice because it is a judgment of one's motives for giving a negative opinion. I can assure White that if I had any prejudice, it was toward Ehrman and I stated such in my announcement of the debate. Bigotry should not be a word that someone just throws around.

Lies

White calls me a liar twice, but he doesn't evidence one lie by me. I'm going to document and enumerate all the lies that Kurschner and White said about me. One, On his Dividing Line program he said that I evidenced my detestation of Calvinism. I wrote: "I think it is White's Calvinism---God wanted errors in the text because of the greater good there would be (something like that)." I said "White's Calvinism." I never said anywhere that I detested Calvinism. So that's a lie. After that, he says that I lied. That is lie number two by him. His example of lying was this paragraph:

As sad as it could get in the debate, White couldn't muster up a defense of the historic position on preservation as seen in the Westminster Confession and the London Baptist Confession. He couldn't explain a scriptural position on preservation, perhaps because he doesn't even know what one is. He hasn't given it enough thought. He has been so busy reading Bart Ehrman and Dan Wallace and Bruce Metzger and Kurt and Barbra Aland that he hasn't sorted through the passages in scripture on preservation and their historical understanding, reading Turretin and Owen and others.

What about that quote is a lie? He doesn't say. He just says I lied. I said "perhaps he doesn't know," etc. That isn't a lie. He didn't give any presentation at all on preservation. He doesn't mention it, even though he did bring up theology. Then he says that since he has written a book, the King James Version Controversy, that I should know that, especially since "I had printed lies about it." I've not read White's book. I've read several books on this issue, but not his. I've never printed one thing about his book. So that is lie number three.

I go to his blog on February 4, 2009 for lie number four. He says that KJV only people like me believe this: "We need a variantless text, no matter what the realities of history are." I believe there are variants. I don't believe that preservation means no variants. That also shows his ignorance of the historic position. He manifests it right there. The divines, Turretin and Owen, both believed there were variants as did all the other men who take the same position as I do.

Now let's go to Alan Kurschner's blog, titled "Kent Brandenburg's Myopic King James Onlyism," February 3, 2009. Before I get into his lies, I have a question? Why write a blog about me? How does that fit into this whole issue with Ehrman? No one really knows what my presuppositions are based upon his statement that I'm a "King James Version Only advocate." My presuppositions are what scripture teaches about its own preservation. I believe we have always had all of God's Words. Of course, these guys use the KJVO label as a pejorative---they know it as should everyone else. And then you know that based upon everything else he writes, so this false presupposition is lie number five.

He quotes me as saying "the skeptic [Ehrman]," then keeps talking as if I was talking about the debate. I wasn't referring to Ehrman or the debate there or I would have used a pronoun, not the generic singular noun. That is lie number six. When I write that "White reads Metzger to get his position," I am speaking of his presuppositions. They come from textual criticism, from evidentiary apologetics, not from scripture. Kurschner misses that. The reason I didn't cite any examples of White's scriptural presuppositions (which is what presuppositionalism is all about) was because I haven't heard any from him. I'd be glad to hear that he writes a presentation of the Bible teaching on preservation in his book. Does he? If he does, then it will be a first, because I've never read one by a critical text advocate.

Kurschner says that I believe in preservation in a "1611 Anglican translation." That is lie number seven. I believe it is in the Hebrew and Greek text. As a side note, many Puritans worked on the KJV as well. This is lie number eight: "what is ironic is that Kent Brandenburg would agree wholeheartedly with the agnostic, skeptic Bart Ehrman who both agree together that there cannot be any inspired, preserved text if there exists variants in a text." Lie number nine was his labeling me a fundamentalist. If he got out more, he would know that I'm not. He said several other nasty things, but they were all conclusions from these lies. The tenth lie is that I'm a bigot.

Those are the at least ten lies told about me by James White and AOM. I will be awaiting the repentance and retraction from White and Kurschner.

James White-Isms

In his latest video on his blog for February 5, 2009, he films himself explaining something about his debate with Ehrman (on conjectural emendations). So I'm not even cherry-picking. I'm looking at his last video. Let me break it down for you, so you have examples of White-isms. First, at about :24 he complains. That's the first thing he does in the video. "I had hoped for a more focused topic." Second, then sighs (at about :32), "Which is fine; it turned out very well." If it's fine, then why complain? Of course it wasn't fine to him. He has complained and whined about it, including in his monologue to McDurmon (it wasn't much of an interview). And it definitely didn't turn out very well. Third, at :42 he says, "One of the questions that I asked in cross-examination, that hasn't gotten any attention yet." Attention? White thinks he won that point, so he wants it to get attention, or at least he's sending out a notice to his followers that this is a point that they should be giving more attention. He's begging for kudos, White sycophants; give them to him. Now! Fourth, notice around :50 the tone in his voice when he talks about Ehrman not providing any contradictory argumentation to this point he made. This is classic White. Fifth, at about 1:00, consider the look, that dismissive glance that he makes, eyes pointing upward, in response to his own comment about something that Ehrman had said in the debate. He does this all the time. Then sixth, watch his expression of incredulity at 1:40 and, seventh, his mocking impersonation at 1:52. He does these seven things in a matter of less than two minutes.

Listen to the start of his Dividing Line where he calls me a liar and bigot---the tongue snapping, the long sighing, the condescension, the ridicule, mocking tones, the throat-clearing, and the laughter. "You've got to be kidding me," "like," "uhhhh, yes," "give me a break," "pleeaaase," and "I'm sorry, but...." He goes after Ehrman's marketing of his latest book, but what about the kind of schlock that White starts his own program with? He sighs and complains about all the money it cost to have Ehrman come over to debate him. Do people really enjoy this?

With a sinister voice, he says, "Alan Kurschner mentioned this Kent Brandenburg fellow." He laughs ridiculing. He says that the writing is rarely overly coherent (?), a "wild-eyed way of speaking" (??). I say it again, I would debate James White any time I'm free to do so on this topic.

Read this line that he ends his blog on 2/4/09 with: "one can only imagine what an encounter between one of these folks and Ehrman would look like, but that's another issue." How egotistical? He thinks so highly of himself. You could buy him for what he's worth and sell him for what he thinks he's worth, and you'd be a billionaire.

What topped this off was his conversation with Robert on Dividing Line. I don't know Robert. Robert phoned in. His credentials: he wrote a comment on the puritanboard forum. That is the perfect KJVO person for James White to talk with. Then when Robert proceeded to flub up in his defense, should anyone wonder? I have to remember this strategy if I ever do my own webcast. Hand-pick your opponents and then say that they represent the typical advocates for a position. There are plenty of others on the puritanboard that would be able to do a great job against White, like Jerusalem Blade or Thomas Weddle (Thomas2007) or Matthew Winzer (armourbearer). Ooooh, feel that disdain for Calvinism pouring out? I'd like to hear you talk to one of these guys on Dividing Line, James White, and you probably won't even have to pay for a speaking fee.

I don't mind debating White. However, why would anyone want to? As soon as the debate is over, he puts all his combined resources to creating a story of the debate to affect the perceptions of readers of what really happened. You would just have to learn to put up with it. I guess this is the "gentleness" of James White coming out that is part of the introduction to his Dividing Line program. After he laughs and hisses and feigns incredulity, then he poses as a victim. This is the exact kind of thing that Bart Ehrman rolled his eyes at during the debate, not expecting to encounter these kinds of melodramatics. What I would rather hear about my criticism of the debate is real analysis of the criticism. That would come across as credible.

17 comments:

The Puritan said...

I think Robert sounded like a student, granted, but at the same time I also thought Robert rattled White with his (Robert's) steady approach with White and his mature approach overall. I listened to the entire conversation and came away impressed with Robert.

Interestingly, in the thread Robert started that God White to challenge him to call Dividing Line one of the other posters suggested it would be more interesting if Thomas Weddle called in, but as you say, White never throws down the challenge to those guys.

One gets the feeling, like false teachers in other areas of theology, White lays low and constructs his lawyerly defenses, and he still hasn't done that to the point of confidence regarding the kind of defense of the Masoretic/Received Text that he reads on the PuritanBoard from Weddle and Winzer and Rafalsky, and also Robert and the others.

PS: I think White gets a strong allegiance from people for his general Calvinist/Reformed writings. He is a populist and generalist and easily understood and is often the first influence for some people who catch on to Calvinism. Then they just follow unthinkingly his writings on the manuscripts issues.

White definitely is immature though, as you describe. I don't like to slam him too much, but he really comes on like a mocking atheist at times. He giggles like a teenager at the wrong things as well. He is very self-absorbed.

Ironically, he is one of those Reformed cleric types who condemn you to hell if you say anything remotely 'disrespectful' to an ordained pastor, and gloats whenever someone at the PuritanBoard is rebuked for not showing him only total praise and respect, yet turns around and speaks of you the way he did.

And how long are these juvenile delinquents (Alan Kurschner and White are juvenile delinquents) going to get away with calling you and everybody who disagrees with them "King James Onlists"? At some point, for the sake of truth and good will in conversation and argument, one of their own has to call them on that and all similar sophistic lying they engage in despite being disabused of it over and over.

I use this example: imagine if Lorraine Boettner lived now and had a radio/internet show, and imagine just how much more mature he would sound. I don't know LB's stance on the manuscripts issues, that's not my point. I'm just saying if you step back and look at White's level of maturity it's quite striking how immature he is. And he also does the 'pouting' thing when you criticize him. He makes himself well-defended against having to see himself. Which is obviosly a mark of immaturity as well.

He's still got the highschool level personality. The 'champion debater' demonstrating he's smarter than everybody else, and making sure the teacher knows it, with a nice polished apple every day.

I sense though the easy days for Critical Text scholars are over. They are being challenged at a level they can't handle and a tipping point is near. Funny that White is now calling his Calvinist critics 'TR's (Truly Reformed). That is what liberal protestants like the iMonk call his more conservative critics. The Critical Text makes one a liberal theologian by default.

The Puritan said...

When I wrote my comment above I had just glanced at your post. After reading your post I see we were getting at some of the same traits in White, but you articulated them much better, I must say. The kid who takes the test then slams his pencil down so all can hear he finished first. This: "You could buy him for what he's worth and sell him for what he thinks he's worth, and you'd be a billionaire."

You also describe well all the melodrama he indulges in. One wonders where he learned that or why he needed to develop it.

The Reformed/Calvinist school is inherently vulnerable to being too much head and not enough heart. I don't blame Calvin, myself, because many modern Calvinists consider Calvin himself to have been too 'mystical' in this sense. But it shows in James White. He doesn't have a balanced development.

I think one thing that enables a person to value a received vs. a constructed text (other than facts of authority and fear of God vs. fear of man, etc.) is having some experience with literature prior to coming to faith and the Bible. Even classical music with its various manuscript and edition issues with various great composers. Just having discernment for what is real and what is academic cardboard or shallow. C. S. Lewis said it in his essay Fern-Seed and Elephants:

http://members.tripod.com/orthodox-web/papers/fern_seed.html

"The undermining of the old orthodoxy has been mainly the work of divines engaged in New Testament criticism. The authority of experts in that discipline is the authority in deference to whom we are asked to give up a huge mass of beliefs shared in common by the early Church, the Fathers, the Middle Ages, the Reformers, and even the nineteenth century. I want to explain what it is that makes me skeptical about this authority. Ignorantly skeptical, as you will all too easily see. But the scepticism is the father of the ignorance. It is hard to persevere in a close study when you can work up no prima facie confidence in your teachers.

First then, whatever these men may be as Biblical critics, I distrust them as critics. They seem to me to lack literary judgement, to be imperceptive about the very quality of the texts they are reading. It sounds a strange charge to bring against men who have been steeped in those books all their lives. But that might be just the trouble. A man who has spent his youth and manhood in the minute study of New Testament texts and of other people's studies of them, whose literary experience of those texts lacks any standard of comparison such as can only grow from a wide and deep and genial experience of literature in general, is, I should think, very likely to miss the obvious thing about them. If he tells me that something in a Gospel is legend or romance, I want to know how many legends and romances he has read, how well his palate is trained in detecting them by the flavour; not how many years he has spend on that Gospel."

Kent Brandenburg said...

Puritan,

You're a very interesting person and read and it would be nice to sit down and talk some time. Thanks for your writing here. I think you make very good observations.

The Puritan said...

Thanks for those kind words. They are very appreciated.

On the same subject I just read this essay Thomas Weddle posted at the PuritanBoard by Theodore Letus:

http://www.kuyper.org/main/uploads/volume_14_no_4.pdf

If you havn't read (or anyone else reading this thread) don't give up on it too soon, it is in full a clear and direct and devastating historical description of how Reformed Christians downgraded their view of Scripture.

Antonio G R said...

I'm hoping Alan Kurschner will soon give the reply to "Thou Shalt Keep Them" he mentioned at the bottom of the 2007 article here: http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=1938 . I think the Puritan's comment regarding where White receives his allegiance is a very accurate assessment. As somebody brought up as a Catholic, White's writings have had a big impact on the formation of my faith. His writings on Catholicism, the Trinity and the reformed faith pulled me out of a lot of a junk theology and I enjoyed (and learnt much from) watching him debate. When I first noticed the textual differences between my Bible and the Bible quoted in some of the older books I read, White's book was the first place I went. I also ordered and read a copy of 'Thou Shalt Keep Them', and thus began a frustrating search for any serious response to the scriptural exegesis and arguments for the TR-Only position. The Pastors and writers whom I looked to on other issues and respected greatly either shrugged off the issue or pointed me to White's book (which hardly deals with the scriptural arguments for the contrary position), despite the fact that I can hardly imagine a more central and important question than whether the Bible I hold in my hand is actually God's words. In retrospect I didn't want the KJV-only position to be true because, well, only the 'kooks' hold to that. The current remarks being made about your blog posts seem both abusive and an exercise in missing the point, it's not the sort of reaction I'd hoped for. I've now come to believe in perfect preservation out of the sheer force of the biblical arguments for it and indeed against a considerable desire not to.

Kent Brandenburg said...

Thanks again, Puritan. I have in common this defense of Scripture with those in Singapore to which you refer. They have ordered several copies of Thou Shalt Keep Them and posted a few of my posts on their blog.

Antonio,

That's a great testimony and I understand exactly where you are coming from. It is not convenient to take this position. It is the "kook" position, you're right. I agree with Puritan, however, that there is a growing, expanding defense of the doctrine of preservation in this day of apostacy.

The Puritan said...

Antonio's testimony reminds me of how important it is (I need to hear this and remember it more than you guys), how important it is to realize you are talking to people who just may begin to see the truth, and so you don't want to demonize your opponent or anyone (even a Critical Text scholar who may be in the habit of mocking you and so on).

For instance, I can see how Antonio values James White's books (I can too, though I've tended to learn doctrine using Ralph Waldo Emerson's rule for books: only read books that are more than a hundred years old, with of course necessary exceptions) and how he (Antonio) would be put off by a person like me saying White is this or that. Steve Rafalsky at the PuritanBoard is always counseling our side to be very, very careful with our language and approach, and he is, of course, right.

But I know how we all develop allegiance and gratitude to a writer we learn from, and White is a difficult case in this respect. But so are most all Reformed theologians (post-Warfield) who write wonderful books on doctrine and history yet then seem to be tone deaf or just indifferent to the manuscripts issues, even as the damage they wreak is happening all around them.

One quick example of what convicts me: a guy on the PuritanBoard writes in what I call a 'brutalist' style against the Received Text and all issues favorable to it. It's *easy* to dislike this guy. But then I see how he makes a statement where he is starting to prefer philosophically at least the Received Text, and then he lets on that he simply can't understand the English of the KJV. So now I know more, and I can see the reason for his extreme reaction to anyone saying his Bible version may be corrupt.

Kent Brandenburg said...

It is a tough balance, Puritan. Thanks for reminding us.

Kent Brandenburg said...

Puritan,

I deleted the "valley girl" line and the "embarrassment" line in honor of your comment.

Anonymous said...

Good day. This is Thomas Ross (http://thross7.googlepages.com/home)

This is a review of a part of White's book The King James Only Controversy. He does not exposit Scripture for his position. It is a poor book.












A Critique of Selected Portions of James R. White’s Book, The King James Only Controversy, with Selected General Observations
Thomas D. Ross
















Book Critique
Intermediate Greek
Mr. Armacost
May 11, 2001

Chapter Five Examined (pgs. 91-126) with some General Observations

White’s fifth chapter in his book against KJV-only doctrine supposedly provides a characteristic slice of the advocates of this view. Three purportedly representative individuals are selected; Edward F. Hills, Gail Riplinger, and Peter Ruckman. These three are intended to “familiarize the reader with the kind of literature produced by this group” (p. 91), and are then critiqued. After White spends three pages on Hills, thirteen pages on Riplinger, and eleven pages on Ruckman, the trusting reader who has not had exposure to the real issues in the Biblical defense of the AV is thoroughly inoculated against all that flies under the banner of King James Onlyism.
Opponents of the Received Text and the King James Version as the authoritative English Bible generally paint Traditional Text defenders with a broad brush that embraces two entirely divergent positions whose exponents also typically employ contrasting methodologies; the one a Edward Hills-type defense, and the other a Ruckman-type doctrine and methodology. Men who would exemplify the first view include Burgon, Scrivener, Hoskier, Edward Hills, Donald Waite, David Otis Fuller, and Thomas Strouse. These men would correctly see that the Bible teaches its own preservation for the use of God’s people (Psalm 12:6-7, Matthew 5:18, 24:35, etc.). Evaluation of historical data with this presupposition of faith inevitably leads to a position in favor of the TR and a rejection of the critical text. They would tend to make their arguments based upon the actual Biblical and historical data and forgo deliberate misrepresentation of their opponents and fact-twisting. After beginning with the truths of Biblical inspiration and preservation, these men would use facts such as the non-existence of the minority text for many centuries of Christian history, the faulty naturalistic assumptions that generally underlie the CT, and its heretical origin and propagation, to create a strong critique, and expound the genuine theological, historical, and manuscript-based evidence for the traditional text of Scripture. They would demonstrate that the KJV is the Bible based on the true original language texts of Scripture and generally received by God’s people and churches, and consequently must be, in accord with God’s promises, the Word of God for the English-speaking world today. This group of advocates for the Authorized Version oppose the doctrines and methods of Ruckmanism, as well as the modernistic text, with sound exegesis and scholarship.
The second type of KJV-only defense is that typified by Dr. Peter Ruckman. Advocates of this view would assign direct inspiration to the KJV (men of the first type of AV defense would either refrain from speaking of the English translation as inspired, or would term its text “derivatively inspired” as an accurate translation of the directly inspired Biblical documents), and would tend to give it an independent or superior authority to the original language texts. Argumentation would also tend to involve a good degree of bombast, fluff, and misrepresentation, buttressed with handfuls of possibly accurate but irrelevant matters. The first style of King James only advocate could, for example, explain that Isaiah 40:8 and 59:21 demonstrate God’s promises of preservation among His people, demonstrate that the true ending of Mark is found in all but three Greek manuscripts, and conclude that this Received Text and KJV reading, which has always been in use and has overwhelming textual support, is correct. The second-style advocate would, in contrast, argue that Elijah was “translated” and was more better, so we are more betterer with a translated Bible than with the original languages— and to top that baby out, KJV1611 has more letters than NASV, and in most fonts the number “1” looks like a soldier standing up, so the longer reading of Mark 16 is better for those who want to be soldiers of God— and if you think that doesn’t prove it, you are a slippery, slimy, slovenly, sophomoric, and simply stupid sinner with spelunked senses, and the Illuminati are controlling your mind through the computer chips in the ridges in your Ruffles. Exemplars of this style of advocacy include Ruckman, Riplinger, and Samuel Gipp. The critical text advocate who wishes to win debates and influence the unlearned for his position has a strong incentive to confuse these two positions, that he may demolish the latter and skirt the strong Biblical and historical evidences for the Authorized Version.
James White, throughout his book, mingles these two views together, essentially lumps the KJV-only movement into the Ruckmanite camp, demonstrates the errors of this man and his cronies, generally ignores or treats the actually important issues in the textual debate in passing, and then concludes in favor of the modern versions. His inclination in this direction is readily apparent in his Bibliography; while seven books by Ruckman are listed, alongside of three by Riplinger and two by Gipp, only one book by Edward Hills, the “featured” example of the first type of KJV-onlyism and a man with a PhD in Textual Criticism, is listed; his book, Believing Bible Study, which complements his The King James Version Defended, is explicitly referenced within its pages, and has material from this scholar on lower criticism, is not listed. Only one of Dean Burgon’s books appears, one of D. O. Fuller’s works, one book and pamphlet out of the multitude by D. A. Waite, while nothing by men such as Thomas Strouse, David Cloud, Jack Moorman, Peter VanKleek, Jacob VanBruggen, Ian Paisley, and so on, is listed—none of these men’s works were even consulted1 in the composition of a book which makes bold and confident assertions about “King James Onlyism” as if its author had actually made a detailed study of the subject. Despite the fact that in history and at the present time churches and organizations aligned with the defense of the KJV and TR, from the Dean Burgon society to the Trinitarian Bible Society, outnumber those of a Ruckmanite persuasion, White labels Ruckman “probably the most popular of the KJV Only advocates” (pg. 92). His division of time in chapter five is equally slanted; he spends a total of three pages on Hills and those who would argue as he does, while twenty-six pages, along with further pages footnoted comments of refutation (footnotes on Hills’ pages take up about one-eighth of a page), attack the second type of KJV advocacy. White avoids the central issues of the textual debate in favor of the juicier heterodox and often disingenuous spew of Riplinger and Ruckman, which, through guilt by association, poisons the cause of the AV among those new to the issue who cannot discern the distortions of his caricature.
White states a belief that “many of the great scholars of the past who have defended the Byzantine textual tradition cannot honestly be included in the ‘KJV Only’ camp… [m]en like Dean Burgon, F. H. A. Scrivener, [and] H. C. Hoskier— all of whom were true scholars of the first rank— were not [bold in original] KJV Only advocates” (p. 91). To drive these men from the defense of the KJV requires the dismissal of both historical evidences2 and White’s own definitions of KJV-only positions (pgs. 1-7); these men would generally fall within what he defines as position three, although parts of what he places in groups two and four are relevant to their militancy for the Received Text against both the CT and, were they alive today, a revision along the lines of the Hodges-Farstad text. One notes as well, in like manner to the studied use of the phrase “God’s truth” in reference to Scripture throughout his book instead of “God’s words,” that White never labels any of the modern day defenders of the KJV scholars, all scholarship, degrees, and other credentials on their part notwithstanding. The majority, anti-Ruckmanite defenders of the King James Bible today, in their defense of the doctrine of preservation, stand firmly within both the heritage of both post-Reformation Bibliological orthodoxy, which included such men as Burgon and Scrivener, and the heritage of TR-type Bibles preferred by God’s true Baptist churches from the days of Christ their founder;3 To portray the defenders of preserved Scripture as a recent crop of wild-eyed bumpkins ignores historical reality, and is a mischaracterization of the kind properly lambasted when employed by Riplinger and Ruckman.
White, in his critique of Edward Hills, spends under half a page on a quotation from The King James Version Defended which documents that scholar’s refusal to grant inspiration to the translation,4 and uses the other two and a half pages of chapter five he devotes to a legitimate AV defender waxing eloquent against the principle of “the logic of faith,” which he correctly recognizes is at the heart of the defense of the traditional Bible text-type of God’s churches and saints. He charges Hills with circular reasoning, compares the desire for a sure foundation in the unbreakable Scriptures today to the vain faith of Papists and other false religionists, and then asserts that we have no justifiable reason for a certain faith in a pure Biblical text. He asserts that “Protestants… should be quick [emphasis in original, here and below] to question any such notion of absolute religious certainty… Are [King James Only advocates] not, in reality, saying, ‘Well, I must have certainty, therefore, without any factual or logical or even scriptural reason for doing so, I will invest the KJV translators with ultimate authority.’ This is, truly, what KJV Only advocates are doing when they close their eyes to the historical realities regarding the biblical text.” (pgs. 94-95).
God declares that “whoso despiseth the word shall be destroyed” (Proverbs 13:13). Here, among countless other places in God’s Book, the Lord’s just demand for reverent, absolute, unquestioning and immediate submission to His every word and command is seen. When the dread King of the universe speaks, the creature must obey or face the awful consequences. Those who have been brought nigh to this glorious Majesty by the blood of His Only-Begotten, doubly bound to love and obey as both created and redeemed by Him, and graciously given an ability to comprehend the Scriptures (1 Cor 2:9-16), must all the more cheerfully trust the every Word that proceeds from the mouth of their Father. White criticizes Hills for “beg[inning] with the conclusion of his argument (‘the TR is the God-preserved text’) and [] not hesitat[ing] to utilize the conclusion in the course of his argument, charges of circularity notwithstanding” (pg. 92). The careful reader of The King James Version Defended will notice that Dr. Hills does not begin with his argument with the conclusion that the TR is the true text of Scripture, but with the presupposition that God has preserved His inspired Word, as He has promised. Since God has given His revelation to His people for their learning and obedience, Hills reasons that the text they have been directed to read, copy, and choose over offered variants must be the true text of Scripture. The Textus Receptus, as this Traditional Text, is the true Bible. Contrary to White’s allegation, Hills’ eminently Scriptural argumentation does not assume the TR is correct as a foundational premise; he believes that God is real and acts in the world, logically demonstrates that this means that the TR is the correct text, and only then uses this fact in the evaluation of the secondary evidence of the specific manuscripts and readings which the naturalistic critic idolizes to the rejection of God’s precepts. Hills bases his confidence in the TR upon the word of the Lord, and with the eye of faith looks upon the things that can be seen. Only if one assumes that God has nothing to do with the preservation of the Bible is Hills’ logic faulty— but if God has not kept His promises regarding preservation, we might as well accept the beliefs of modernists like Metzger5 and conclude that the God of the Bible, rather than the naturalistic theories of higher and lower textual critics, is a myth; and were only this god of the critics real, the reading of what was hopefully a decent translation of what might have been the original, or at least the redacted, edited, and altered Biblical text, would be a loss of time for the important things of life, such as mammon, lust, and self-exaltation, in the few hopeless days before the conclusion of a meaningless entropic existence.
The textual position of the Hills-type KJV advocate, unlike both the Ruckmanite and the naturalistic lower critic, is solidly based upon Scripture. The man who assents to the inspiration of the Bible could only, in light of the usage of the traditional Scripture text through the centuries, reject the KJV for the critical text and modern versions based upon it were he to demonstrate that no genuine promises for verbal preservation or the continued use of God’s revelation among His people were found in the Bible. This would constitute a tremendously effective device to lead those who tremble at the word of the Lord to lay down their arms wielded in the defense of the King James Bible, were it possible. One would naturally suppose that such a demonstration, especially from one like James White who mentally assents to the inerrancy of Scripture, would take a prominent place in his book against the King James only position. However, no such exegesis of relevant passages appears in White’s book.
Among other verses, Psalm 12:6-7, 33:11, 78:1-7, 100:5, 105:8, 111:7-8, 117:2, 119:89, 111, 152, 160, Isaiah 40:8, 59:21, Matthew 5:18, 24:35, Luke 16:17, 21:33, John 10:35, 12:47-48, and 1 Peter 1:23-25 teach the Biblical doctrine of preservation. The verbally, plenarily inspired Bible teaches its own verbal, plenary preservation. Furthermore, these words would be in use among God’s people (Is 59:21), so that they can live by them all (Mt 4:4). God lead His saints to accept true readings and reject the false (John 17:6-8, 17-20). In this age of grace, God’s church, the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim 3:15), has the Scriptures committed to her, that she may teach “all things whatsoever” until the end of the age (Matthew 28:18-20). All true Biblical doctrine is based upon sound exegesis of the Scriptures, and every jot and tittle of the inspired oracles affects Biblical interpretation; immediate context, book context, and the context of the whole Bible join in influence upon the correct hermeneutics which are foundationally necessary to build up Christians. Everything, from the fundamentals of grammar, greater syntactical relationships, and overall book structure, is essential. If the church is to teach all things, she must have all God’s words; otherwise, we cannot be sanctified (Ac 20:32), know what God will judge us by (John 12:48), or live by every word that God has breathed out for us (Matthew 4:4). Furthermore, it is not necessary to know Hebrew and Greek to be “perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works,” because an accurate translation is Scripture (1 Tim 5:18, 2 Tim 3:15-17).6 These Biblical facts lead to the conclusion that the texts God’s people in His churches use are the true texts. The only text that God has ever led His strongest true Baptist churches to declare perfect is the KJV, with the associated Hebrew and Greek texts underlying it. The conclusion that the KJV and the MT and TR underlying it are preserved is thoroughly Biblical, and discussions of the readings of particular uncials, papyri, or other manuscript evidence will not change the mind of the humble believer in God’s Word. White’s book is devoid of exegesis, 7 the only thing which could turn Hills or those who think Biblically like he from that God-honoring “logic of faith” that leads one to believe in the preservation of the King James Bible.
It is most unfortunate that James White, alongside the great body of his fellow advocates of the critical text, do not deem God’s declarations about preservation worthy of significant notice in their books which discuss lower criticism. Such omission is perfectly natural for modernists; one can expect those who share the devil as their father to think wickedly in this manner and accept the critical text, the work of fellow infidel and Papistic editors. Those who profess to believe in Christ and His inspired Word are guilty of sinful epistemological confusion when they reject His promises of preservation to trust in and accept the naturalistic methodology of the Lord’s enemies. The fact of the fulfillment of the promises of Jehovah, not errors in presses printing King James Bibles, a handful of archaisms, or the fustian of those who believe the canon closed fifteen hundred years late, is the heart of the King James Only controversy. Biblical and historical evidence in favor of the King James Only position is conclusive; the arguments of Hills, which White did not deal with expositionally in his critique of The King James Version Defended, alongside those of other legitimate defenders of the true text of Scripture, are compelling to the saint who seeks His God on this issue. One who wishes to keep a Bible-believing audience from the received texts of Scripture must divert the discussion to other channels; in chapter five, as elsewhere, White chooses the inanities of Ruckmanism as a prominent divergence. This may well lead those ignorant of the greater issues of the textual debate into support for the critical text, but it dishonors God, His Word, and true history and textual criticism, which support the preserved Scriptures we have today in the Received Old and New Testament texts and the King James Version.

Footnotes (from the text)

See the personal correspondence of the author with White attached at the end of this critique. White, when forced, admitted that books not in the Bibliography were not even consulted in the preparation of his volume on the subject. He only did this on my second question on the subject; the first time he equivocated and talked about what he had on his bookshelf.



White, as evidence for his supposition that Burgon was not properly classified as “KJV-only,” places one quote from The Revision Revised in his text. He neglects to mention that Burgon’s stated requirements for the conduct of a textual revision were beyond the ability of scholarship in his day as well as in ours, so the dean would today, as he did during his lifetime, stand for the defense of the King James Bible for all English speaking people. It was at his behest that Scrivener made the recension of the TR, currently published by the Trinitarian Bible Society, which underlies the KJV exactly; in Burgon’s day, no such edition of the Textus Receptus existed. Most KJV-only advocates of today would have seen, had they fought for the traditional text alongside Burgon, the importance of the completion of such a revision of the Received Text—they would also have supported a revision of the TR. Dr. Waite presents a detailed analysis of the textual position of Dean Burgon, and demonstrates its compatibility with the Dean Burgon Society, of which he is the president, in its various publications—including all the books in addition to The Revision Revised on the issue by the Dean— which White did not bother to use as sources for his book.

See Forever Settled, Jack Moorman, Which Bible? edited by David Otis Fuller, and Landmarks of Baptist History, vol. 1 +2, Robert Sargent.

White’s decision to deal only with Hills as a non-Ruckmanitish defender of the KJB is convenient for his argument. The position that the KJV is a perfectly accurate translation with its authority derived from its preserved underlying texts, the position that Waite, Fuller, Strouse, Cloud, and probably the majority of the Biblical class of KJV defenders in general hold to, is not voiced. Through the choice of Edward Hills, White makes it appear that one must either believe that at least minor errors exist in the TR and AV or follow Ruckmanism. This false dichotomy allows the true position on preservation to drop out and does not provide a spokesman for a tremendous percentage of those who would accept the term King James Only. While the sad fact of Ruckman’s following makes him a necessary choice in the selection of a representative number of KJV-only teachers, Riplinger is a comparatively recent amazon in the arena who, while she has written a book which has some circulation, should have given way for a man such as Dr. Waite or Fuller who has had far greater influence upon the textual debate in the past, has more strength in the fight today, and will, in all probability and with the Lord’s blessing, continue to do so in the future.

Bruce Metzger’s endorsement appears on the back of The King James Only Controversy. White has not given a satisfactory reason for choosing to have an infidel endorse his book; see the discussion about this in the correspondence attached to this paper. Another endorser is D. A. Carson, who adopts NT source criticism and comes to heretical conclusions—and has written his own book against the defense of the KJV. It is natural that those who oppose Biblical inspiration with its consequences deny the doctrine of preservation.

In 1 Timothy 5:18, Paul’s translation of Deuteronomy and his quotation of Luke in the original language are both termed “Scripture.” The fact that an accurate translation is the Word of God and consequently satisfies the necessities of verses such as Matthew 4:4 should not be taken to mean that knowledge of the original tongues is not desirable or valuable.

The closest White comes is a brief statement about Psalm 12:6-7 on page 243. Even here no real attempt at exegesis is found.


Below is some correspondance from White that took place these years ago when I wrote my critique.

Some of my correspondance with Mr. White:

At 11:46 AM 11/03/2000 -0800, you wrote:


1.) On page 153 of your book, there is a chart which looks like it asserts that there are no Received Text type manuscripts in the first four centuries. I would like to know the source of that chart. I have read the article in the Fundamentalist Digest, July/August 2000, Volume 9, #4, by George Shafer, assistant Pastor at Anchor Baptist Church in Salt Lake City, Utah, which discussed an interview between he and you on March 31st after a debate at Christ Presybterian church on Popery. The article leaves you looking quite bad, and I would like to see if you can justify yourself. It is there stated that there is no source for your chart, and that it is a hoax. Is that the case?

I would very much like to see this article. If you would like to send it to me I would enjoy discussing it on our radio program. I have tried to get D.A. Waite and others to appear on our program, but they do not even respond to my contacts. You may find the recent series of programs we did on the subject most useful:

http://www.straitgate.com/aom/#00aug

You will see the series starts, I believe, August 12th. I believe I commented on the anonymous questioner who came up to me while I was packing up my books in SLC. It is amazing to me that a man would come to a debate wherein I defended the gospel against Rome and attempt to trap me in the way this man did. An amazing thing. Speaks very much to the KJV Only movement, both his tactics, as well as the misrepresentations Dr. Waite included in the recent Southwest Radio Church programs.

But as to justifying myself, I have no interest.


2.) This question also relates to that article, where it is asserted that you declared that in the 1800's nobody could do research on the church "fathers," so Burgon and Miller don't amount to much. Pastor Shafer then states that he reminded you that Westcott and Hort said they only had patristic evidence to bring to the table to advocate their new text, and that you were unable to explain this and so said that we had "moved beyond" the W/H text.

We still have no critical text of the patristic sources. That may change over the next 50 years or so, as new discoveries are being made that may allow for a meaningful text. I would direct you to Part III, The Patristic Witnesses of the New Testament in _Studies & Documents: The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research_. There is much there concerning the topic. Mr. Schafer did not record our conversation, and given that he did not identify himself, his recollection is, well, suspect.

As to Burgon, I feel for anyone who remains enamored with him. Any fair reading of him would lead you to realize that given the greatly changed situation today (the papyri finds of the 30's being the prime issue) he would not take the same position he took in his day. It is a tremendous misuse of him to continue to quote him as if nothing has changed with the discovery of P46, P66, P72, P75, etc. I discussed this rather fully in the radio series as well.


Do you believe that Westcott and Hort were wrong and what they said undefendable in that time? And also, you are quoted (and I read it in your book) that no church "fathers" of that time quoted the TR, a claim which Shafer asserts was a reiteration of a false claim by Westcott and Hort.

Since the TR refers to a compilation formed no earlier than 1516, I am quite certain of the truth of the statement. :-) Since you provide no specifics, it is hard to respond to you, however.


Was it something acquired from them? And if so, why can we use them but not Burgon or Miller on the church "fathers"? If you can justify your statements, please do so, because otherwise I will use this chart as an example of misinformation which anti-TR/KJV advocates often impl

Take it as you wish, my friend. If you are like most KJV advocates, my responses will be irrelevant anyway. However, if on the small chance you are actually interested in the truth about the subject, you have not asked any specific questions. We don't use the WH text today. You have asked about no specific readings, hence, I cannot give you specific replies. When you ask specific questions, I will give specific answers. :-)


3.) What is your view of preservation?

I discussed this in my book, of course.


It looks to me that one's presuppositions about what God has done in preserving the Words He inspired will determine what side one will come out on in this issue. I don't recall seeing an exposition of the relevant passages in the Bible on this matter in your book.

I'm sorry you missed those sections. They are a bit hard to miss.


Have you written anything which defends whatever view you hold against those who hold that God has perserved every Word which He inspired, and that He has done this among His people, so that they through the ages could obey Christ's command to live by every Word that proceeds out of the mouth of God? If you have written such a work, and you can send it to me by e-mail, please do so, for I would be like to read it. Obviously you have read Hill's KJV Defended, for example; he concludes that the TR/KJV is the correct text because of his presuppositions about preservation, and then examines the evidence. The way to refute this is to show that he is wrong in his view on preservation, if this can be done.

The facts refuted Hills, actually, as wishful thinking does not create reality itself. I have written much in defense of the integrity, inspiration, and inerrancy of the Scriptures.


4.) In your Bibliography, a number of books are mentioned. For example, loads of things by Ruckman and Riplinger are there. However, there are some omissions I would like to ask you about. Only one book by Burgon is there. Is that the only one of his that you read?

Since it was his primary work on the subject, yes.


If so, why would something like his book on the ending of Mark, for example, be so unimportant that it would not deserve examination on a matter like this?

Do you have anything specific to say regarding what I actually wrote about Mark 16:9-20?


If you did read it and his other books, why is the Revision Revised the only one cited there? Also, have you read anything by David Cloud (way of life literature, http://wayoflife.org/~dcloud), such as his history of the defense of the Recived Text, 1800-present?

Yes, I have.


I am not aware of any other book which deals with this subject. I don't think I can fault you on not putting this in your Bibliography, however, for I am not sure it was yet in print. Also, only one of David Otis Fuller's books is listed. Is that the only one of his that you read? The same with Hills. Was the KJV only defe

I have many of Fuller's books....but since he has passed on, I did not focus upon him, as his view is now championed by others.


5.) Do you think that Bruce Metzger is a heretic? If not, then why was he the chairman for the Reader's Digest Condensed Bible, which rejected the Mosaic authorship of the Pentatuch for JEDP? If you think he is a heretic, then why did you have him endorse your book?

I reject the Wellhausen hypothesis, and I leave Dr. Metzger's soul in God's hands, where it belongs.

Dear Mr. White,

I have been busy and prior to this have not put aside time to respond to
your letter. (I am sure that you know that going to school is rather time
consuming, as is, no doubt, the work you are in.) Right now I would just
like to ask a few basic questions and give you some requested information.
Some of my questions are the same as the first time, because I did not see
the answer to them from your prior e-mail; it would not make much sense
to go over the other things mentioned in detail until I actually get them
answered in the first place, so that I can get a clear grasp of exactly
where you stand. Also, becuase I have spent some time writing to you and
seeing you reply, I have forwarded this e-mail (with your statement, etc.)
to myself so that I keep a copy, and to a friend of mine who wanted it.

1.) In regard to the article in the Fundamentalist Digest which you said
you wanted, the Maranatha Baptist Church, home of Maryland Baptist Bible
College and Dr. Don Jasmin who edits the periodical, is:
http://www.findchurch.com/maranathabc/index.html

If you want the article, please contact them.

2.)I am having trouble downloading the articles from your broadcast against
the KJV-only position which you mentioned in your previous e-mail, and cannot
seem to get them to simply appear on my browser. If you can tell me how
this can be done, if it can be, I would be much obliged. I would like to
read them. If this cannot be done, it would be great if you could send
them to me by e-mail.

3.) Now it is certainly possible that I am still overlooking something,
but I looked at the index of your book The KJV Controversy and examined
the book's text again, and I do not see a section which goes over passages
dealing with preservation in detail. If they are there, they are not referred
to in the index. All that referred to was a page which attempted to refute
the use of Ps 12:6-7, and then to another page which did not have exposition
of the numerous relevant passages, such as Mt 5:18, 24:35, etc. I would
like exposition of what God has had to say on the matter, not opinions of
what we may or may not like to think about God and what He has done, as
people who affirm inspiration and salvation by grace through faith (your
text said "Protestants," but Baptist churches are not (though you would,
no doubt, disagree) Protestant, but have existed from the days of Christ,
their founder). I also did not see a clear and precise statement of what
you believe exactly in reference to the preservation of Scripture. Have
readings been lost, for example? Has every letter been preserved out there
somewhere, buried in the sand, perhaps? What exactly do you believe on
preservation? If such a section in your book exists which clearly exposits
the passages which deal with preservation, please let me know where it is.
You said it was clear in the book; if so, I confess that I am blind, and
ask that you refer to the pages which contain this exposition. If it is
not there, please let me know if you have written one, and how I can get
it. No doubt if that is the case, there was a misunderstanding about the
original nature of my question. If it is available on computer, I would
appreciate it if you would e-mail it to me.

4.) Since you said that the church "fathers" cannot be used, and Westcott
and Hort said that their only new evidence was patristic, were they wrong
at that time in challenging the TR? This was a question which I asked the
first time which I really didn't see an answer to in your reply. I would
still like an answer.

5.) When I asked you about the various non-Ruckmanite/Riplingerite books
that were KJV only which were not listed in the bibliography, you implied
that you had read them. Instead of an implication, however, I would like
a clear statement. Have you read the books that were mentioned by Fuller,
Cloud, Burgon, Strouse, etc.? (If you don't remember what they are, our
entire correspondance is below). If so, why did you not include them in
your bibliography? It seems strange to me to leave out major works that
are very relevant and important to the topic in a bibliography. If you
did not actually read them, why did you think them not worth your time before
writing a book on the issue? Hopefully you are an honest man who does not
imply things he has not done, and the implication that you had read Fuller's,
etc. books was indeed legitimate. Then the question is simply why you did
not put them in the bibliography.

6.) You said that we are no longer following Westcott and Hort. Obviously
you would then disagree with an article such as that at:
http://wayoflife.org/~dcloud/fbns/aremodern.htm
(Please read this article).
If we are no longer following them, please tell me why the Nestle text is
so close to the W/H text, as was demonstrated from the article. Or, if
you believe the information therein is inaccurate, please tell me how this
is so, and what principles of criticism are employed by naturalistic textual
critics that are different from the naturalisic principles of Westcott and
Hort. If you take objection to my calling them naturalistic, please explain
how God's preservation of His text was involved in their choice of principles
(or in the new principles of Aland, Martini, Metzger, etc. which are supposedly
different; though I have a hard time believing that modernists and those
blindly committed to Popery would employ Biblical principles.)This would
also mean that the quotes in the article above, where naturalistic critics
say that they are following Westcott/Hort principles, are out of context.
Do you believe this?

7.) I would still like to know the source of the chart on pg. 153 on your
book. Since it has been asserted to be a hoax, it would obviously be beneficial
to your credibility if it had a source. I asked for it the first time,
but perhaps you simply forgot to give it to me. I have therefore asked
again.

8.) When I asked you if you thought Metzger was a heretic, you said that
his soul was in God's hands. You also stated your personal opposition to
JEDP. Of course, I am glad that you are personally opposed to higher criticism.
However, your response opens up other questions. Does it mean that you believe
that a modernist who believes in JEDP and consequently rejects inspiration
can be saved, and indeed, a godly beliver who is worthy of placing on the
back of your book as one who recommends it? (see, for example, http://wayoflife.org/~dcloud/fbns/ubstrans.htm
for a demonstration that Metzger is a heretic.) I am sure that you agree
that it is not good to have to guess what other people mean when they say
things. Unfortunately, I have had to do this a number of times in your
letter; perhaps this is because my questions were not phrased clearly, or
because you did not have time to answer, or for some other reason which
I do not know. Please let me know if you think he is a heretic, like I
asked, and if so, why you had him endorse your book. If he is a heretic,
does it matter if he has a lot of facts, so that we seek his approval, when
he does not even have the beginning of knowledge (Prov 1:7) or of wisdom,
and is, like all unbelivers, evil, foolish, and rebellious in God's eyes?
If you do not think he is a heretic, please let me know why the modernistic
JEDP theory is not monstrous, abominable, damnable heresy, or explain how
it can be that he seems to have clearly endorsed it when he really opposes
it.

Looking forward to your reply,

Thomas Ross

1.) On page 153 of your book, there
>is a chart which looks like it asserts that there are no Received Text
>type manuscripts in the first four centuries.  I would like to know
>the source of that chart.  I have read the article in the
>Fundamentalist Digest, July/August 2000, Volume 9, #4, by George Shafer,
>assistant Pastor at Anchor Baptist Church in Salt Lake City, Utah, which
>discussed an interview between he and you on March 31st after a debate
at
>Christ Presybterian church on Popery.  The article leaves you
>looking quite bad, and I would like to see if you can justify
>yourself.  It is there stated that there is no source for your
>chart, and that it is a hoax.  Is that the

>I would very much like to see this article.  If you would like to
>send it to me I would enjoy discussing it on our radio program.  I
>have tried to get D.A. Waite and others to appear on our program, but
>they do not even respond to my contacts.  You may find the recent
>series of programs we did on the subject most useful:

>

>http://www.straitgate.com/aom/#00aug

>

>You will see the series starts, I believe, August 12th.  I believe
I
>commented on the anonymous questioner who came up to me while I was
>packing up my books in SLC.  It is amazing to me that a man would
>come to a debate wherein I defended the gospel against Rome and attempt
>to trap me in the way this man did.  An amazing thing.  Speaks
>very much to the KJV Only movement, both his tactics, as well as the
>misrepresentations Dr. Waite included in the recent Southwest Radio
>Church programs. 

>

>But as to justifying myself, I have no interest. 
>

>

2.) This question also relates to
>that article, where it is asserted that you declared that in the 1800's
>nobody could do research on the church "fathers," so Burgon and
>Miller don't amount to much.  Pastor Shafer then states that he
>reminded you that Westcott and Hort said they only had patristic evidence
>to bring to the table to advocate their new text, and that you were
>unable to explain this and so said that we had "moved beyond"
>the W/H text.
>We still have no critical text of the patristic sources.  That may
>change over the next 50 years or so, as new discoveries are being made
>that may allow for a meaningful text.  I would direct you to Part
>III, The Patristic Witnesses of the New Testament in _Studies &
>Documents: The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research_. 
>There is much there concerning the topic.  Mr. Schafer did not
>record our conversation, and given that he did not identify himself, his
>recollection is, well, suspect.

>

>As to Burgon, I feel for anyone who remains enamored with him. Any fair
>reading of him would lead you to realize that given the greatly changed
>situation today (the papyri finds of the 30's being the prime issue) he
>would not take the same position he took in his day.  It is a
>tremendous misuse of him to continue to quote him as if nothing has
>changed with the discovery of P46, P66, P72, P75, etc.  I discussed
>this rather fully in the radio series as well.

>

Do you believe
>that Westcott and Hort were wrong and what they said undefendable in that
>time?
\And also, you are quoted (and I read it in your book) that
no
>church "fathers" of that time quoted the TR, a claim which
>Shafer asserts was a reiteration of a false claim by Westcott and
>Hort.
>Since the TR refers to a compilation formed no earlier than 1516, I am
>quite certain of the truth of the statement. :-)

Since you
>provide no specifics, it is hard to respond to you, however.

>  Was it
>something acquired from them?  And if so, why can we use them but
>not Burgon or Miller on the church "fathers"?  If you can
>justify your statements, please do so, because otherwise I will use this
>chart as an example of misinformation which anti-TR/KJV advocates often
>
>Take it as you wish, my friend.  If you are like most KJV advocates,
>my responses will be irrelevant anyway.  However, if on the small
>chance you are actually interested in the truth about the subject, you
>have not asked any specific questions.  We don't use the WH text
>today.  You have asked about no specific readings, hence, I cannot
>give you specific replies.  When you ask specific questions, I will
>give specific answers.  :-)

>

>3.) What is your view
>of preservation?
>I discussed this in my book, of course.

>

>> It looks to me
>that one's presuppositions about what God has done in preserving the
>Words He inspired will determine what side one will come out on in this
>issue.  I don't recall seeing an exposition of the relevant passages
>in the Bible on this matter in your book.>
>I'm sorry you missed those sections.  They are a bit hard to
>miss.

>

; Have you
>written anything which defends whatever view you hold against those who
>hold that God has perserved every Word which He inspired, and that He has
>done this among His people, so that they through the ages could obey
>Christ's command to live by every Word that proceeds out of the mouth of
>God?  If you have written such a work, and you can send it to me by
>e-mail, please do so, for I would be like to read it.  Obviously you
>have read Hill's KJV Defended, for example;  he concludes that the
>TR/KJV is the correct text because of his presuppositions about
>preservation, and then examines the evidence.  The way to refute
>this is to show that he is wrong in his view on preservation, if this can
>be done.<
>The facts refuted Hills, actually, as wishful thinking does not create
>reality itself.  I have written much in defense of the integrity,
>inspiration, and inerrancy of the Scriptures.&nbsp
4.) In your
>Bibliography, a number of books are mentioned.  For example, loads
>of things by Ruckman and Riplinger are there.  However, there are
>some omissions I would like to ask you about.  Only one book by
>Burgon is there.  Is that the only one of his that you
>read?<
>Since it was his primary work on the subject, yes.

If so, why
>would something like his book on the ending of Mark, for example, be so
>unimportant that it would not deserve examination on a matter like this?

>Do you have anything specific to say regarding what I actually wrote
>about Mark 16:9-20?

>

> If you did read
>it and his other books, why is the Revision Revised the only one cited
>there?  Also, have you read anything by David Cloud (way of life
>literature, http://wayoflife.org/~dcloud), such as his history of the
>defense of the Recived Text, 1800-present?r
>Yes, I have.

>; I am not aware
>of any other book which deals with this subject.  I don't think I
>can fault you on not putting this in your Bibliography, however, for I
am
>not sure it was yet in print.  Also, only one of David Otis Fuller's
>books is listed.  Is that the only one of his that you read? 
>The same with Hills.  Was the KJV only

>I have many of Fuller's books....but since he has passed on, I did not
>focus upon him, as his view is now championed by others.

>

5.) Do you think that
>Bruce Metzger is a heretic?  If not, then why was he the chairman
>for the Reader's Digest Condensed Bible, which rejected the Mosaic
>authorship of the Pentatuch for JEDP?  If you think he is a heretic,
>then why did you have him endorse your book?
>I reject the Wellhausen hypothesis, and I leave Dr. Metzger's soul in
>God's hands, where it belongs.

At 02:37 PM 01/08/2001 -0800, you wrote:

Dear Mr. White,



I sent this reply to your e-mail some time back, and have received no reply. I am wondering if it perhaps got lost somewhere. I would appreciate a reply. Have a good day.

No, I do not have time for correspondence that requires extensive time. I basically ignore all e-mails over 5K in length (yours is 19K).


1.) In regard to the article in the Fundamentalist Digest which you said you wanted, the Maranatha Baptist Church, home of Maryland Baptist Bible College and Dr. Don Jasmin who edits the periodical, is:
http://www.findchurch.com/maranathabc/index.html

If you want the article, please contact them.

I see. Well, unlike most of my opponents, I don't have time to track down such things. If the issue gains some level of relevance, I shall have to, but for now, I shall pass.


2.)I am having trouble downloading the articles from your broadcast against the KJV-only position which you mentioned in your previous e-mail, and cannot seem to get them to simply appear on my browser. If you can tell me how this can be done, if it can be, I would be much obliged. I would like to read them. If this cannot be done, it would be great if you could send them to me by e-mail.

They are not downloaded, they are listened to. They require Real Audio, the commonly used program on the Internet for listening to sound files.


3.) Now it is certainly possible that I am still overlooking something, but I looked at the index of your book The KJV Controversy and examined the book's text again, and I do not see a section which goes over passages dealing with preservation in detail. If they are there, they are not referred to in the index. All that referred to was a page which attempted to refute the use of Ps 12:6-7, and then to another page which did not have exposition of the numerous relevant passages, such as Mt 5:18, 24:35, etc. I would like exposition of what God has had to say on the matter, not opinions of what we may or may not like to think about God and what He has done, as people who affirm inspiration and salvation by grace through faith (your text said "Protestants," but Baptist churches are not (though you would, no doubt, disagree) Protestant, but have existed from the days of Christ, their founder). I also did not see a clear and precise statement of what you believe exactly in reference to the preservation of Scr

The book was clear, and history shows that Baptists *are* Protestants. If you believe such things as the Trail of Blood, I honestly doubt anything I have to say will be of any beneft to you.


4.) Since you said that the church "fathers" cannot be used, and Westcott and Hort said that their only new evidence was patristic, were they wrong at that time in challenging the TR? This was a question which I asked the first time which I really didn't see an answer to in your reply. I would still like an answer.

I'm sorry, you don't seem to understand the issue well enough to go into it. Nor did the person who approached me in Salt Lake.


5.) When I asked you about the various non-Ruckmanite/Riplingerite books that were KJV only which were not listed in the bibliography, you implied that you had read them. Instead of an implication, however, I would like a clear statement. Have you read the books that were mentioned by Fuller, Cloud, Burgon, Strouse, etc.? (If you don't remember what they are, our entire correspondance is below). If so, why did you not include them in your bibliography? It seems strange to me to leave out major works that are very relevant and important to the topic in a bibliography. If you did not actually read them, why did you think them not worth your time before writing a book on the issue? Hopefully you are an honest man who does not imply things he has not done, and the implication that you had read Fuller's, etc. books was indeed legitimate. Then the question is simply why you did not put them in the bibliography.

I put in what I used. If I did not use them, I did not reference them.


6.) You said that we are no longer following Westcott and Hort.

I never did, hence, the issue is irrelevant.


7.) I would still like to know the source of the chart on pg. 153 on your book. Since it has been asserted to be a hoax, it would obviously be beneficial to your credibility if it had a source. I asked for it the first time, but perhaps you simply forgot to give it to me. I have therefore asked again.

I have already answered that: Daniel Wallace's works in BibSac.


8.) When I asked you if you thought Metzger was a heretic, you said that his soul was in God's hands. You also stated your personal opposition to JEDP. Of course, I am glad that you are personally opposed to higher criticism. However, your response opens up other questions.

I'm sure it does, but I have no interest in wasting my time with twenty questions.

James>>>

Lamblion said...

You can easily see which camp I'm in, especially if you read the first footnote in this article --

http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/false_citations.htm

Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus said...

Hi Pastor Brandenburger,

I find it ironic that the faceplate on James White's apologetics website states, "The Gospel is ours to proclaim, not to edit!" yet White then proceeds to stump for the edits introduced into the text by gnostics, Arians, and other heretics (i.e. the Alexandrian text-type)

Bobby said...

Watching his blog video he struck me as effeminate in the way he rolled his eyes, sighed, drew out certain words, weird chuckles, etc. Honestly, so many of his mannerisms and intonations reminded me of Ann Coulter. I felt like I was watching a bald Ann.

I don't mean to imply that all women actually talk and move in such an annoying fashion, but certain soft men do.

I'm just saying . . .

Kent Brandenburg said...

Bobby,

Don't hold back now.

I can't disagree with you. I'm not going to say if I had any other reaction, because I don't want to be offensive.

Kent Brandenburg said...

Titus,

I missed that comment in the midst of everything else. And I agree on the "edit" comment. Very ironic.

KSJ said...

Bobby,

I have noticed that many people who reject the King James Bible are effeminate, or blatantly queer.

Anonymous said...

James White is a liar and deciever. He thinks he cannot be beaten in a debate, but he can. He backs out of debates that he cannot control with his tactics.