Friday, August 07, 2015

More on James White Coming Sooner than Normal

Hey everyone!  I don't know if you watched James White's dealing with my posts here, but he was absolutely struggling.  It was in the ballpark of former Texas Governor Rick Perry in the previous election cycle of Republican debates.  I'll point out where he gets stuck, and he does.  So much of what he says is false. I am sticking with what my title said:  he is either lying, doesn't know what he's talking about, or he's deceived.  It's very good that he's on record with this.  What he's doing is helpful to us.  I'll deal with it.  Everything.  I wish I could faster, but I have another life.

Now read Thomas Ross's Friday post from today.


Anonymous said...

Hi Kent,

I just listened/watched most of it. He comes off as extremely arrogant. He didn't really deal with your claims to any acceptable degree. Every time he tried to, he would distort what we actually believe, lump it in with the Steven Andersons (I'd almost rather be lumped in with Osteen) of the issue, and then begin the name calling and mocking. Whenever he seemed to recognize this, he would mention that he has been dealing with this for years, but yet he somehow wasn't able to give a clear answer on his show.

I think one place he really stumbled was on the "settled text" idea versus his idea of "preservation". With his view, if I open my Bible, close my eyes, and point to a word, I can't know if that word really belongs there...unless I'm really smart like him and can debate Ehrman. But, with our position, I know the word belongs, because God promised to preserve and make available every word.

The absence of scripture to back up (let alone hold up) his position was glaring. The main reason he can't be right is because his position doesn't match God's promises. When he says we need to deal with "reality", he says that because his "reality" is sight and ours is faith.

Mat Dvorachek

Matt Bailey said...

Yes, I saw the what you said about James White, and I listened To His response, after taking in all the fact, I have to agree with James White, you lie and you justify you own actions because of the traditions you live by, there is no honor or truth in you and you would attempt to slander Dr. White because you are of your father the devil. I challenge you to call Him on His Dividing Line Radio show as a man of God and bring these issues out for the Church to decide who is telling the truth.

Kent Brandenburg said...


I'd be glad to debate Dr. White with a moderator. There's definitely no fear. I'm not going to take the time to call in to his show, because it's not a good way to have this kind of a discussion. Dr. White debates all the time with moderators, so I'm sure you understand what I mean.

Regarding lying about him, I know that I didn't. Give me one example of a lie that I told. It should be easy for you since you say I'm of the devil, like the Pharisees said about Jesus. Dr. White's position is not a scriptural one, and mine is. Mine is zero tradition, 100% scriptural presuppositions. I will point the errors of Dr. White in his videos soon.

Thanks for dropping by.

Kent Brandenburg said...

Mat, Not Matt,

How could you agree with lies? Matt Bailey here, and Dr. White says I'm lying.

Thanks for your comment.

Farmer Brown said...

From the second broadcast, at 36:50 regarding the book of Revelations: "The point is that it is impossible to create that text without engaging in meaningful, consistent, textural criticism."

So these "scholars" are creating a text? He does not see this as inconstant with his preservation position. Is this preservation by creation? Where is the trust? It is clearly in the scholars that allegedly created this text, not in the promises of God. This is faith by evidence, not faith by faith, and therefore not faith at all.

He makes many statements just like this that make so apparent the unbridgeable divide between you (Kent) and this whole James White crowd is, well, unbridgeable. This is all exciting, but at some point, it becomes a waste of time to even engage in this any further.

Anonymous said...

Say, that WAS sooner than normal. Good show!

Peter England said...

At 38 mins. on Friday's show, James points out that what he really teaches [about text transmission, criticism] doesn't give you a meaningful basis to attack his position, so a strawmen is constructed. Christians know we can debate other religions, but when we debate each other, beliefs are often misrepresented. We need to study what our opponents believe before condemning them for anything. As Eric Holmberg said, "It isn't enough to wonder; we need to know, and we need the humility, and the courage, to submit to this knowledge, regardless of how we feel."

Kent Brandenburg said...

Hi Peter,

Thanks for coming by. I would have no interest in debating a James White strawman. I don't have it out for James White. Why would I create a strawman to hit? It doesn't even make any sense. If there were nothing there, there would be nothing there, but there is something there, which is why I'm writing. The strawman is from James White. He reads back into 1500-1800 and calls that textual criticism. That's not what you read from those men.

I've been careful to explain what isn't a strawman. I use the claim strawman at times too, but it's exasperating when it isn't a strawman. Their position was that the words were available for use then. James White doesn't believe that. He says they are all available today in papyri, etc. That isn't the same position. I'd be happy for an answer on that. This is an important part of this issue.

There are many untruths he tells, like saying that we don't deal with the LXX argument. I've written on it many times, and I was preparing to write on that issue next week before James White even said anything. Did you notice he provided no scriptural presuppositions, Peter, for his position? He played with his book and read nothing from it. Why?

Peter England said...

He said enough to show that whatever he believes about the text criticism, the the message that God inspired is still available in modern texts and collections of ancient writings. I know he often doesn't go deep, because he claims to have done so in his book(s). (He often goes too deep (into previously discussed topics) for some people to follow, including me at times) I've been listening to his show for a little over a year now, we differ on some subjects, but I know he isn't trying to shake anyone's faith, he just wants people to stand on solid ground so that they aren't shaken when unbelievers ask the hard questions.
(As a Creationist, I get accused of saying "Goddidit". That is the kind of indefensibleness that James claims KJVO'ists facing hard questions. There are real answers out there, but the blanket statements don't convince skeptics, or resolve anything in debates.)
I think at this point, an open face-to-face conversation between you two would be best, going back and forth on blogs doesn't ensure that both sides represent the other's position correctly.

Kent Brandenburg said...


You didn't answer what I said. Do you see that this is the strawman? You still didn't address the point that he didn't answer. Does James White believe every age has every Word preserved for them? That was the position of the confessions. I'm talking original language and he constantly, by the way, lumps in Ruckmanites, that really are closer to his position. They don't believe in original language preservation with almost identical reasons as White.

I ask about scriptural presuppositions, because faith comes from the Bible. The solid ground is on the Bible, not historical documentation. He isn't helping faith if he contradicts a biblical position. Did you hear any scriptural presuppositions? Do you believe that all the Words are out there somewhere in some manuscript to be the biblical (and confessional) position?

This seems pretty easy to answer and it doesn't get answered, and, yet, I am Kent the Strawmanner. Your thoughts.

Kent Brandenburg said...

One more thing, Peter. Believing they are somewhere out there today, but we don't know what they are, and believing they were there 300 years ago. Those are different. Do you understand? White doesn't believe that they had the words then, because they hadn't found the papyri yet. Do you get that? Tell me how I'm wrong on that. It would be easy to tell me. Please.

Farmer Brown said...

Kent Brandenburg said: "White doesn't believe that they had the words then, because they hadn't found the papyri yet."

This is exactly what he says. It seems so naive. He says 500 years ago all believers agreed because they did not have any choices, they did not have the manuscripts available to them that we have now (or something to that effect).

So these others readings were secretly preserved? How is it preservation if it was not available? Moses did not think like this. Deuteronomy 30:11-14 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.

This also logically creates the question (since he appeals so much to logic), what exists that will increase our understanding of the scripture that is hidden now? What if we find 10 new manuscript, the oldest group in existence, and they all include 1 John 5:7? Does that mean we add John 5:7 back in? What does that mean now?

Also, I do not understood the love for Calvin. Mr. White talks about Reformed theology frequently, but Biblical theology infrequently. Is he a Biblicist or a Calvinist?

If the scripture teaches irresistible grace and you believe it, you are a Biblicist, not a Calvinist. If it teaches you can lose your salvation and you believe it you are a Biblicist, not an Arminian. Of course, it teaches neither, but the point is if the doctrine is Biblical, why do you follow the man and not the Bible?

Terry Basham, II said...


I've listened to the show and I actually like both you and White, for different reasons...

Below are my thoughts:

White says in a sense "we have all the readings of the NT today." He and those on his side say "We are have them and are working diligently to winnow them out of the emendations, the copyist errors so that we have recovered the original text."

I think in Dan Wallace and Bart Ehrman's debate that it is said by both Erhman and Wallace that the difference between the two is that Wallace believes it can be recovered and Ehrman doesn't believe it can. I don't think that James White would disagree with Wallace on that. The recovery of the text... but the term recovery indicates that one has lost the text.

So with the advancements in discovery of new texts (I mean all the sorts they are finding, papryi, uncial, miniscual and the stuff Wallace is finding now in Greece.) their position is now, YO - we about have it all figured out now, in other words recovered...

A good question to pose is "was the accurate text of the NT around and in use before the 19th century?"

I think that TR people have to also answer a question "Which of the TR's is the perfectly preserved text before the 19th century?"


From the position of the KJV side - I listen to White and I think he makes good points. Here is a question that I have about it "If all copies (of ancient texts) we have vary one from another, how can we say that text criticism wrong and what they produce is wrong?"

If we interpret the Holy book as saying that God will preserve perfectly the text and then we find texts that have mistakes, doesn't that mean that we have to go back and rethink our interpretation?

I don't like to think of it this way but in a real sense aren't we talking about reasonable level's of accuracy, since all the copies we have vary to some degree? (Wallace, White and Ehrman have the actual serious textual variations down to what I think is a few hundred?)

George Calvas said...

Why not let me answer your questions, eh Kent? My thoughts are too much for you? Is it because my confidence in the scriptures as inspired today that I have in my hands and that are proven faithful by many throughout the world to difficult to handle?

" ask about scriptural presuppositions, because faith comes from the Bible...

gcalvas Yes, I read it this morning as I have for the past 33 years IN ENGLISH. It says "faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God". It says "when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe." I believe EVERY WORD FROM THE BIBLE and have FAITHFULLY believed it since the day the Lord God led me to the truth of his preserved scripture, the Holy King James Bible.

As the blind men whose site was restored asked the Pharisees:
"I have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear it again?"

...The solid ground is on the Bible, not historical documentation.

gcalvas Of course, of course. You keep making reference to historical documentation, while I keep pointing to the preserved and inspired words of God, yet you ignore me like the Pharisees ignored Jesus Christ and the apostles.

Why is it when one keeps answering your questions, you keep avoiding them? Just throw out your moniker, Ruckmanite and avoid the difficult debate! What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

How do you like it when White does that to you and keeps avoiding the questions?

... He isn't helping faith if he contradicts a biblical position. Did you hear any scriptural presuppositions? Do you believe that all the Words are out there somewhere in some manuscript to be the biblical (and confessional) position?

This seems pretty easy to answer and it doesn't get answered, and, yet, I am Kent the Strawmanner. Your thoughts.

gcalvas Going to post my scriptural points or keep avoiding them? YES, I believe all the words are "out there" in A BIBLICAL FORM of 66 books and it is found in the ENGLISH text of a Holy King James Bible. Is there any text you can PROVE to be of equal authority that is used by the body of Christ TODAY anywhere in the world that is believed, preached, taught, and evangelized with all authority no man forbidding?

We will be out in Allen Park, MI today as ambassadors and preachers preaching to thousands the inspired, preserved words of God with all authority in the name of Lord Jesus Christ. We will NOT use any Greek or Hebrew "historically preserved" text. We will preach with all authority the inspired holy Bible against sin, righteousness and judgment to come and then giving them the gospel of the grace of God. There will be at least eight men that believe EXACTLY as I concerning the Holy King James Bible!

So yes, for the umpteenth time in my life it was VERY EASY to answer your questions without one iota, jot or tittle of my faith weakened by all this "hot air" of historical preservation, TR vs. CT endless discussions that lead to nowhere except strife, contention and the like.

Anymore questions you would like to be answered that will help strengthen the faith of the body of Christ and give them extreme confidence in our English Holy Bible?

George Calvas said...

"If the scripture teaches irresistible grace and you believe it, you are a Biblicist, not a Calvinist. If it teaches you can lose your salvation and you believe it you are a Biblicist, not an Arminian. Of course, it teaches neither, but the point is if the doctrine is Biblical, why do you follow the man and not the Bible?"

Which bible?

Kent Brandenburg said...

Hi everyone,

Thanks for the comments, and don't be offended if I don't get to everything. I kind of wish I right now was up and running with a vlog (video blog) that I could sit and answer things on a pretty regular basis, like White. I'd like to give my impression of White too, and imitation of what he does. As I think about that, it's good I don't have that right now.

I'll be writing on this after I'm done with everything else I have to do. Thanks for the interest. There is only one God and there is only one truth, one way of looking at this. There are not two contradictory ways that are right.

KJB1611 said...

Dear brethren,

I would like to hear what you think are the best responses you would make to Mr. White. I am planning to put a response to White together myself.

KJB1611 said...

Terry, the idea that no two copies are identical is a myth spread by people who don't collate manuscripts. Please see the article on this at:

Here are the words of Wilbur Pickering, who has actually collated many Greek manuscripts, concerning the question of whether there are MSS that are exactly the same:

For example, of the 43 family members [of a group of Byzantine MSS] I have collated for the General Epistles, twenty-eight are identical (perfect) for 2 & 3 John, twenty-two are identical for Jude, five for 2 Peter, four each for James and 1 John, and three for 1 Peter."

The idea that no two Greek MSS are exactly the same may be true for the tiny corrupt minority of contradictory MSS that are erroneously called a single Alexandrian "family," but it is not true for the overwhelming majority of MSS that are erroneously reduced to a single, allegedly inferior "family" called "Byzantine."

Terry Basham, II said...

@kjb1611 is the last paragraph pickering or you?

KJB1611 said...

The last paragraph is me, though I think Pickering would agree in substance.

Peter England said...

I'm still somewhat new to the KJVO argument. I like KJV, and since Kent Hovind pointed out errors in NIV (which I grew up with and still have), I've been saying, "you can preach from any version (for modern grammar), just check with KJV first".
The first time I heard the KJV questioned was when Mr. White appeared on the show "Wretched" and made comments about the translators not actually having all of Revelation, which was something he asked you about on a recent program. There is a nice chart about KJV compilation in a Nat Geo, but I was told that chart isn't accurate.
On a previous program, while talking about Ehrman's book "misquoting Jesus", even accepting that changes were made, Ehrman said the original message has remained.
500 years ago, scripture had all knowledge for salvation, I'm not sure what James would say was unsure at the time, maybe he would suggest that people didn't have everything necessary to refute some false doctrines.
Do you want James to hold up a specific translation and say "this is the one with all the correct papryi quotes, read this one"? I see your point, but that isn't his point. I don't think he is against KJV, just the stance that KJV is superior in every way, especially with the questions that he has about it.

PS. to break an "Arminian" strawman; they don't believe you can lose your salvation, they believe that [foolish] people can choose to walk away from salvation. Eze 18:24 ...As John Bevere says, I'm not an Arminian, I'm a Christian.