# A Video Response to Dr. White



## CalvinandHodges (Jul 15, 2012)

Hi:

Below is a link to a video I made in partial response to Dr. White:

A Partial Answer to Dr. White - YouTube

I would like to know what your positive/negative thoughts.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jul 16, 2012)

Rob,

Nice job on the video. You make some great points that need to be made. The argument of most textual critics is that they are the experts and the rest of us should simply accept what they say without question. William Mounce said this regarding textual criticism, "My encouragement is, if you find yourself embroiled in this debate, unless you have committed your life to the Greek and have earned proficiency in the field, defer to the experts and walk away." (William Mounce, Greek for the Rest of Us, Pp. 266) This kind of thinking is not only incredibly condescending and elitist, but it is also dangerous. If we have learned anything from the Reformation, it is this: Never blindly accept the teaching of "experts" without examining the evidence for yourself. Keep up the good work.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jul 16, 2012)

The content and spirit of the video was great.


----------



## jogri17 (Jul 16, 2012)

Bill The Baptist said:


> This kind of thinking is not only incredibly condescending and elitist, but it is also dangerous.



Really? What is wrong with being Elitist? Would you have your next door neighbor who sells cars, for example, preform brain surgery on you? Presbyterians require licencing before being permitted to preach /exhort. Why is this, the nature of the transmission of the Word of God, an exception to the rule? Not being sarcastic here, but I think a bit of consistency is needed in such sentiment.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jul 16, 2012)

Greetings:

Thank you all for your responses. I appreciate them very much! 

Joseph: Elitism in the Christian Church is not a good thing. Even the Apostle Paul wrote good things of the noble Bereans who tested all things concerning what the Apostle taught. Would you not want to check the credentials of a man who was going to perform brain surgery on you? We should not blindly accept what a "scholar" or teacher says simply because that person is a scholar or teacher, but examine what they are saying in light of God's truth in His Word. Paul also says that if we or an angel comes down from heaven and teaches another Gospel we should not believe it. The Apostle John says that we should test the spirits to see if they are of God.

Elitism, pure and simple, is laziness.

I am simply answering your post here, and am not making an accusation against Dr. White or anyone else here.

Blessings in Jesus,

Rob

PS: Bill - I have always benefited from your posts and advice - except those on Baptism!  Are you saying that I do not come across as an "expert" on this issue? 

Blessings brother!

-Rob


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jul 16, 2012)

Rob,

I have frequently benefited from your posts as well, and one day we will all agree on baptism when we are in heaven. As far as "experts", clearly you have a great deal of knowledge on the subject, but by academic standards you are only an expert if you have a PhD in Greek and have spent years studying the relevant texts in their original format. I have no problem with this definition of "expert", but I do have a problem with the notion that only those who are such are allowed to have an opinion on the matter. The church once believed that only priests should be allowed to read the Word of God because they were the experts and the rest of us would not understand it. Such thinking led to much tyranny.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jul 16, 2012)

jogri17 said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > This kind of thinking is not only incredibly condescending and elitist, but it is also dangerous.
> ...



I am certainly not opposed to people being well trained in their field, and of course we should expect no less of those who deal with the Word of God. The problem is with the attitude that no one other than experts are allowed to have an opinion. The issues of textual criticism are far from settled, and yet many scholars such as Mounce simply dismiss anyone who thinks differently. As Rob pointed out, we should test everything, even if it comes from the mouths of experts.


----------



## Rufus (Jul 16, 2012)

At least your video is of better quality than most of Dr. White's responders .


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jul 16, 2012)

Hi:

I was smiling when I said that, brother! I do not consider myself an expert in the field. I have just studied it alot!

Blessings in King Jesus!

-Rob


----------



## J. Dean (Jul 16, 2012)

Have you sent this directly to Dr. White, Rob?


----------



## Marrow Man (Jul 16, 2012)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Even the Apostle Paul wrote good things of the noble Bereans who tested all things concerning what the Apostle taught.



I think you mean that Luke, not Paul, wrote about that.


----------



## JOwen (Jul 16, 2012)

I was enlightened by this post. I think you did a very good job of explaining a complicated subject. Love it!


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jul 17, 2012)

Greetings:

Thank you gentlemen for your comments.

J Dean: My intention was to post this video as a "Video Response to Dr. White" at Part 1 of his very well done response to Dr. Gipps. Unfortunately, the "Comments" section of his videos has been shut down (probably for very good reasons such as not wanting to provide a platform for KJO nuts). The only way I know of as to how to contact him would be through the "contact" section of his website. I plan on doing that shortly.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## JohnGill (Jul 17, 2012)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi:
> 
> Below is a link to a video I made in partial response to Dr. White:
> 
> ...



Listening to it now. Where's your hair?

Looking forward to part 2.


----------



## AThornquist (Jul 17, 2012)

I don't know enough on the subject to speak intelligently one way or another, but I appreciate the warmth and brotherliness of your video. It is a pleasant break from cold apologetics that the internet so often is home to!


----------



## JohnGill (Jul 17, 2012)

AThornquist said:


> I don't know enough on the subject to speak intelligently one way or another, but I appreciate the warmth and brotherliness of your video. It is a pleasant break from *cold* apologetics that the internet so often is home to!



HEY! I don't appreciate that not so subtle jab at Alaska!


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jul 17, 2012)

JohnGill said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> > Hi:
> ...



Hi:

 I performed a head shave several days ago on myself - the first time I ever cut my own hair. Age seems to be creeping up on me.

Any suggestions for improvement - the video not my hair! - will be greatly appreciated. Well, my hair also! 

Blessings in King Jesus,

Rob


----------



## KSon (Jul 17, 2012)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Greetings:
> 
> Thank you gentlemen for your comments.
> 
> ...



Dear brother,

Are you referring to James White's response to Samuel Gipp? I am unfamiliar with "Dr. Gibbs". Please forgive my ignorance if I am unaware of any such interaction.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jul 17, 2012)

Hi:

Kipp: Yes, I am. Here is the link for Dr. White's video:

What's the Big Deal with King James Onlyism? Part 1 - YouTube

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## KSon (Jul 17, 2012)

Got it. I would just note that in the the video I think you refer to "Gibbs" rather than "Gipp". Would hate for a simple oversight to detract from the scholarly nature of your presentation. If I misheard in the video, please accept my apologies and know that I am edified by your efforts.


----------



## rbcbob (Jul 17, 2012)

Thanks Rob. Well done! You navigate so carefully through the fog to get the viewer to one simple fact which is usually sailed past in the voyage.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jul 17, 2012)

Hi:

Thanks Bob and Kipp.

Kipp: You are right I both spell and say "Gibbs" rather than "Gipps." It may be that I am watching too many episodes of NCIS! 

Quite frankly, I am not very familiar with Dr. Gipps. After watching Dr. White's videos I looked up the video done by Dr. Gipps, and was not impressed at all. Since my video does not address Dr. Gipps' views - I do not see this as significant - except for the fact that I should get his name correct, and I certainly did not mean to offend him in that fashion.

Old age is *definately* creeping up on me!

Blessings brothers!

-Rob


----------



## KSon (Jul 17, 2012)

Samuel Gipp (note no "s" at the end) is a hero in the IFB movement, highly sought-after in rabid KJVO churches as a conference speaker.


----------



## JohnGill (Jul 17, 2012)

CalvinandHodges said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> > CalvinandHodges said:
> ...



I'd add a backlink to White's video and then to Gipp's (or whoever White is mentioning.)

Here's Gipp's infamous The Answer Book. It'll give you a better idea of what Gipp believes.


----------



## J. Dean (Jul 17, 2012)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi:
> 
> Kipp: Yes, I am. Here is the link for Dr. White's video:
> 
> ...


For the record, people like Gipp are one of the reasons why I bristle against the KJVO movement, or any implied advocation thereof.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jul 17, 2012)

J. Dean said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> > Hi:
> ...



Greetings:

Mr Dean: I greatly share your sentiments. Whenever I start talking about the KJV with people, and they get a sense that I am sympathetic to it, then I am instantly labelled a KJO'ist and I get an earful of good refutations on matters that I do not believe. As I mentioned above I have not even heard of Dr. Gipp (SP?) until these lectures by Dr. White. I have read next to nothing of D.A. Waite's writings, and I have never read anything by Ruckman. Once or twice I paged through a copy of Riplinger's book (because it was in a neglected shelf in my Seminary library). Their capacity to deceive themselves is only exceeded by their capacity to deceive themselves. I am extremely embarrassed to see D.A. Waite as the Chairman of the Dean Burgon society. I have read Jack Moorman's book, _Forever Settled_, and I think his _8,000 differences_ is an good tabulation of the differences between Nestle-Aland and the TR. That is about as far as I go with the KJO people. I think Moorman is the best of them, but that is not saying much.

My emphasis has been on Metzger, Westcott and Hort, Warfield, Royse, Kenyan, Aland, Scrivener, Letis, Comfort, Erasmus, Turretin, Calvin, Owen, Bagnall, Wegner, Jongkind, Comfort, Burgon, and VanBruggen to name a few.

It seems to me that the KJO types are doing more harm to the truth than help.

Blessings in King Jesus,

Rob


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jul 19, 2012)

Hi:

A small request to those who watched the video: If you liked it, then please click the "like," and, if you did not like it, then please click the "dislike" button.

Thanks,

Rob


----------



## J. Dean (Jul 19, 2012)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi:
> 
> A small request to those who watched the video: If you liked it, then please click the "like," and, if you did not like it, then please click the "dislike" button.
> 
> ...


Is there any pizza involved?


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Jul 19, 2012)

Just a note, I notice that you mentioned that Sam Gipp believe the KJV is inspired. I read his book "An Understandable History of the Bible" a few years ago and although I do not agree with some of his reasoning and his appoach on certain subject, I do not think he advocates "inspiration" of the KJV like Ruckman would, I'm pretty sure he advocates faithfull "preservation" of the inspired originals. Just want to make sure you don't have false representation of his position.

Also I had a question about the statement you made at the begining and wondering if you could clarify. You mentioned that you do not believe the KJV is inerrant nor infallible. Just wondering if you could clarify what you meant by that statment. Do you believe we have faithfull translation of the TR that would be considered inerrant? If you do not believe we have faithfull preservation of scripture in any translations would it not mean that we end up with the same results at those who accept modern textual criticism. If the original text is preserved but only the scholars in Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek would benefit from it and have an infallible and inerrant copy of scripture ultimately they are the ones holding the keys of the kingdom.

To clarify I do not believe the KJV is the only valid translation or that it's "THE" standard. I believe they are many translation in many language that have been faithfully translated from the Traditional Text. And I also believe that refering to the original language for clarification and context is beneficial (Just not to the extent we see today where many preacher, who do not have more knowledge of the the original language than I have, take freedom in correcting translations at almost every verse of scripture just by looking at a Greek lexicon). If you do not accept that translations can be inerrant you remove their authority therefore it would mean that Tyndale, Luther, the translators of the Geneva, the KJV and all the other translators, whose goal was to give the layman access to scriptures, labored in vain since these laymen cannot have "complete" trust in their bible and still have to rely on the scholars to be "sure" what scirptures says. 

The reason I'm pointing this out is that ultimately even if you hold to the position that the Traditional Text is more orthodox but you do not accept any translations as faithfull and inerrant you end up with the same results as those who hold the theory of an Eclectic Text since the "pure" text of scripture is only available to scholars and the debate looses it's validity since no matter where you stand the result is similar. 

But other than that I believe you made excellent points and the sources you use should be respected by those who accept modern textual criticism since they have similar views therefore it should help in this discussions.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Jul 19, 2012)

I also was wondering about this



CalvinandHodges said:


> I have read next to nothing of D.A. Waite's writings





CalvinandHodges said:


> I am extremely embarrassed to see D.A. Waite as the Chairman of the Dean Burgon society



Would that not be violating the 9th commandment? I disagree with Waite on certain things, but he still has some good things to say on this subject that most people who are ignorant about the controversy can learn from.


----------



## Afterthought (Jul 19, 2012)

After seeing the good reviews of this video, I finally got to watch it during my lunch. It definitely clarified some things I had seen in past Puritanboard threads on this issue, and I learned something new! I would have clicked the 'like' button, but I don't have a YouTube account. Maybe I should fix that?

With respect to the statement about the KJV not being inerrant or infallible and the above post asking for clarification, I wonder how such a statement could have been clarified in a short video? I've seen some refer to the difference between inspiration as a process (such as what occured with the inscripturation of the originals) and the quality of inspiration as a product of a faithful translation (which derives its authority from the original). But I'm not sure whether that would be easy to explain in a short video, and it might sidetrack from the topic. Since many people I know would associate language saying a Bible translation is inerrant or infallible (when no qualification is given) with a movement like the KJVO that you were distancing yourself from, perhaps it is best the way it was said for this particular video.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Jul 19, 2012)

Afterthought said:


> With respect to the statement about the KJV not being inerrant or infallible and the above post asking for clarification, I wonder how such a statement could have been clarified in a short video? I've seen some refer to the difference between inspiration as a process (such as what occured with the inscripturation of the originals) and the quality of inspiration as a product of a faithful translation (which derives its authority from the original). But I'm not sure whether that would be easy to explain in a short video, and it might sidetrack from the topic. Since many people I know would associate language saying a Bible translation is inerrant or infallible (when no qualification is given) with a movement like the KJVO that you were distancing yourself from, perhaps it is best the way it was said for this particular video.



I wasn't necessarily asking to explain this in the video but wondering what his view on it was (in this forum) depending on the meaning intended maybe clafiying that you do not believe that a translation can replace or hold the same authority (when it comes to translating into other laguages or to clarify difficult passages) as the original languages, instead of saying you do not believe a translation can be inerrant.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jul 19, 2012)

Hi:

Etienne and Raymond: These are all good questions and statements, and I will include answers to them on future videos - God willing. We have in our possession authentic copies of the inerrant and infallible autographs in the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts available to us today. I believe that the Reformers had the inerrant and infallible autographs in the copies they had during their day. The inerrant and infallible autographs are in the Greek and Hebrew copies.

As far as a translation goes - as long as that translation faithfully reproduces the Hebrew and Greek into the receptor language - then that translation can be considered the Word of God and infallible. This would include translations like the Segond, NIV, ESV, NASB, and the KJV. Now the caveat here is "faithfully reproducing the Hebrew/Greek into the receptor language." When such a translation does not faithfully reproduce the Hebrew/Greek, then it cannot be considered infallible at those points. Infallibility is in the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts not in a translation.

Anyone who has done any kind of work in translation knows that one cannot, with 100% accuracy, translate word for word from one language to another, which is what Inspiration would require. Because of this there are essentially two philosophies of translating the Bible 1) Formal or Literal, and, 2) Dynamic or figurative. A really good book on this subject is Robert Martin's, _Accuracy of Translation and the New International Version_ (Banner of Truth Trust). Formal Equivalence Translations seek to reproduce the Hebrew and Greek words as literally as possible into the receptor language (French, English, etc). While Dynamic Equivalence Translations are more fluid with the translation and seeks to convey the "meaning" of the Scriptures rather than the literal words. When it comes to actual translating, though, the translation philosophy is more of a guideline rather than a rule set in stone: Formal Equivalence Translations will have Dynamic elements to it, and Dynamic Equivalence Translations will have Formal elements to it. The NASB is an excellent example of a Formal Equivalence Translation, and the ESV as well. The NIV, TNIV, and the CEV are good examples of Dynamic Equivalence Translations.

If you went to the English Literature departments of any of the big universities and colleges, Harvard, Toronto, Yale, Princeton, Covenant College, etc, and asked the Department heads, "What is the greatest work in the English language," the answer would be the KJV. Part of the reason for this is that the KJV, remarkably, finds a balance between Formal and Dynamic translation with an emphasis on the Formal.

Like Raymond (Ray?) mentioned this would have been too long on the subject I wished to speak about in my first video. However, I think the topic raised by Etienne would make good videos on their own.

Blessings in King Jesus to you both!

-Rob

PS: Dr. White has represented Sam Gipp as believing that the KJV is perfect, pure and infallible. I have watched parts of the Ankerberg show where Sam Gipp is saying something very similar. I do not believe that Dr. White has misrepresented Dr. Gipp in this matter.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 19, 2012)

Hello Rob,

As others have said, the production quality of the video is quite good, a more professional work than many I have seen.

I do wonder, though, if your using terms like “KJO nuts” and “KJO types” are the beginning of a minor campaign of stereotyping – and while I won’t assign motives for this, this sort of distancing yourself from _any_ TR / King James defenders (Hills, myself, Letis, Holland, Crampton, etc) could have its benefits. Nor is it a very far remove from the Byzantine / Majority textform – or the “Traditional Text” of Burgon, Hoskier, Miller, Scrivener, which is pretty much the same – to that other edition of the Traditional Text, the TR and its translation into the King James. As I have said elsewhere,

Be it known that while I fully use what is of value in the Byz/MT labors, which are immense and of precious value, I go beyond what they allow. We of the TR and AV school stand on their shoulders – or to perfect the metaphor, we _leap_ from their shoulders to a high rock, upon which we take our stand.​ 
It is this leap of faith (which is not without evidences) in God’s providence bringing certain readings back into the Biblical text that had been taken out of the Byzantine textform so the Reformation Bible could be made intact, it is in this leap that many Byz folks cannot follow us. 

I was interested in seeing you reply to (Fogetaboutit) Etienne’s remark in post #30,
“The reason I'm pointing this out is that ultimately even if you hold to [the] position that the Traditional Text is more orthodox but you do not accept any translations as faithful and inerrant you end up with the same results as those who hold the theory of an Eclectic Text since the ‘pure’ text of scripture is only available to scholars and the debate looses it's validity since no matter where you stand the result is similar.”​ 
I think what Etienne is saying (and you may correct me if I’m wrong, Etienne), is that if the Greek of the Byz/MT/TT is not in an edition translated into English (or any other language, for that matter) then we do not have a Bible-in-hand, but only an “abstract” one which cannot be widely read. 

Of course we do have, _The NKJV Greek-English Interlinear New Testament_ (Nelson, 1994; ISBN: 0840783574), which uses a Hodges, Farstad, Moss, Picirilli, Pickering text of the Byzantine for the Greek, which doesn’t entirely match the English of the NKJV. Plus it’s out-of-print and very pricey where available.

In their (Hodges and Farstad), _The Greek New Testament According To The Majority Text_ (Nelson, 1982), it is said on page x, “The editors do not imagine that the text of this edition represents in all particulars the exact form of the originals…it should therefore be kept in mind that the present work…is both preliminary and provisional.” Is not the current state of Byz / MT studies the same . . . a “preliminary and provisional” text? Will it be finished before the Lord returns?

Now Rob, I don’t mean to rain on anybody’s parade – I think the work you have done in your video and elsewhere – is really good. It is important. What you say cannot be dismissed out-of-hand by CT/ET opponents, for you have some great scholars behind you. And as I said above, I stand on the work of those who have labored in the Byz / MT materials, and would indeed have a hard time without them.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jul 19, 2012)

Greetings:

Steve: In matters such as these I believe that you have more knowledge, and, I generally defer to your judgment. Thus, I find it a bit distressing that I am perceived to be "distancing yourself from _any_ TR/King James defenders (Hills, myself, Letis, Holland, Crampton, etc)." I have recently watched a new video by Dr. Gipp wherein he describes himself as a "King James Nut." Now such usage may be rhetorical on his part (though it seems like he is wearing it as a badge of pride), and thus to use the label in reference to Dr. Gipp does not seem completely out of the question. My definition of a King James Only Type is one who believes that the King James Version is Pure, Perfect, Infallible, and Inerrent. I am very sure that Hills did not believe this:



> Do we believing Bible Students "worship" the King James Version? Do we regard it as inspired, just as the ancient Jewish philosopher Philo (died AD 42) and many early Christians regarded the Septuagint as inspired? Or do we claim the same supremacy for the King James Version that Roman Catholics claim for the Latin Vulgate? Do we magnify its authority above that of the Hebrew and Greek Old and New Testament Scriptures? We have often been accused of such excessive veneration for the King James Version, but these accusations are false. In regard to Bible versions we follow the example of Christ's Apostles. We adopt the same attitude toward the King James Version that they maintained toward the Septuagint ... the Apostles recognized the Septuagint as the providentially approved translation of the Old Testament into Greek. Theu understood that this was the version that God desired to the gentile Church of their day to use as its Old Testament Scripture ... Hence we receive the King James Version as the providentially appointed English Bible. Admittedly this venerable version is not absolutely perfect, but it is trustworthy. No Bible-believing Christian who relies upon it will ever be led astray. But it is just the opposite with modern versions. They are untrustworthy, and they do lead Bible-believing Christians astray, Edward Hills, _The King James Version Defended,_ 299-300.


I do not disagree with this sentiment. The KJV is a trustworthy translation of the Greek and Hebrew. People reading it will get a sense of what the Apostles and Prophets taught. The Holy Spirit speaks freely though the KJV. The modern translations are not trustworthy. They are more clouded in their presentation of the Greek and Hebrew texts (mostly because they rely on inferior manuscripts, but for other reasons as well). Consequently, in my opinion, the Spirit of God does not speak as freely though the modern translations as He does in the KJV.

My view of Textual Criticism comes out of the WCF 1:8:



> The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the Native Language of the people of God of old,) and the New Testament in Greek, (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the Nations) being immediatly inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all Ages, are therefore Authenticall; so as, in all Controversies of Religion, the Chruch is finally to Appeale unto them. But, because these Originall Tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar Language of every Nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling pelntifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.


I do not see this as anything different than what Hills has said above: The authentic Greek and Hebrew copies of the original retain the Inspiration, Perfection, and Inerrancy of the originals. The Church has, and always had, access to the Original Autographs though the copies available. With this in mind I believe that Stephens 1550 is the closest Greek text that we have to the Original Autographs. Scrivener's 1894, 1902 (which is in essence Beza's text) comes in a very close second. These "collations" of the Greek manuscripts are trustworthy editions to translate into the vulgar languages.

So, I would defend the TR against the CT with the understanding that it is the Hebrew and Greek copies that are the ultimate rule of faith and life. This view of mine finds its rest, not on scholars or men, but upon the Holy Spirit speaking through the Scriptures into the heart (WCF 1:10). I believe the Comma, for example, not because of the testimony of men, but, because the Spirit of God confirms the Word of God in my heart. That would be the ultimate ground of my apologetic with those who hold to the Critical text. I may use the testimony of men simply to affirm the truth spoken by God.

Hope this helps answer the questions.

Blessings in King Jesus,

Rob


----------



## Afterthought (Jul 20, 2012)

Thanks, Rob!



Forgetaboutit said:


> I wasn't necessarily asking to explain this in the video but wondering what his view on it was (in this forum) depending on the meaning intended maybe clafiying that you do not believe that a translation can replace or hold the same authority (when it comes to translating into other laguages or to clarify difficult passages) as the original languages, instead of saying you do not believe a translation can be inerrant.


Ohhh, I see! Fair enough.


----------



## JohnGill (Jul 20, 2012)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Greetings:
> 
> Steve: In matters such as these I believe that you have more knowledge, and, I generally defer to your judgment. Thus, I find it a bit distressing that I am perceived to be "distancing yourself from _any_ TR/King James defenders (Hills, myself, Letis, Holland, Crampton, etc)." I have recently watched a new video by Dr. Gipp wherein he describes himself as a "King James Nut." Now such usage may be rhetorical on his part (though it seems like he is wearing it as a badge of pride), and thus to use the label in reference to Dr. Gipp does not seem completely out of the question. My definition of a King James Only Type is one who believes that the King James Version is Pure, Perfect, Infallible, and Inerrent. I am very sure that Hills did not believe this:



I think Steve may be addressing the pejorative associations that come with the term KJVO. Many who have been called KJVOs (Hill & Letis are in this camp and some even throw Beeke in) are more accurately called KJV-Preferred. They are only labelled KJVOs by some CT advocates because they consider the AV to be the pinnacle of English Bible translation, which it is. Calling them KJVO is a form of the ad hominem and is used to simply ignore their arguments against modern versions and the CT. Throwing Ruckman, Riplinger, et al in with Waite, Cloud, Hills, Letis, etc. is not just bad argumentation on the part of those CT advocates, but it is also deceitful. As Joel McDurmon has rightly pointed out, the use of such fallacious reasoning is a violation of the 9th commandment. I'm not saying you're doing this, just that Steve may have all of this in mind when he posted.

You cannot label someone automatically KJVO for holding to the view that the AV is "pure, perfect, infallible, inerrant" without first examining what they mean by such words. Depending upon which individual is saying it, he may mean something close to Ruckman's view or he may mean something close to Hills' & Letis' view. And that's the problem with using the term KJVO. Without first defining your usage of the term you may be saying something you had no intention of saying. Imagine if I were to call you a KJVOer because of your views. You would object to such a name because of all the negative connotations associated with it. But if all I meant by it was that you believed the AV should be the only English translation used in churches because it was from the best texts and most accurately reflected them, then in a sense your are KJVO. However, in calling you a KJVOer I am also associating you with Ruckman, Riplinger, et al. So while I may be calling you one thing with the term, almost everyone else who hears me use the term on you will be thinking of something else completely. In a video I saw with Gipp applying the term KJVO nut to himself, he is mocking the pejorative use of it.

I've been called a KJVOer just for showing up with an AV in one church. I asked them what they thought I believed and they thought I believed that anyone who didn't get saved from reading the AV was going to hell. I asked if they had heard me say any such thing since it was my first time there and they had to answer no. I've also been called a KJVOer for pointing out simple logical contradictions in modern versions when asked why I don't use one. I think that Steve may be referring to the inherent bias and prejudice that comes with using such a term.


----------



## J. Dean (Jul 20, 2012)

I thought it was the original manuscripts and not the translations which were truly the inspired Word of God, and that what we have are trustworthy translations?


----------



## J. Dean (Jul 20, 2012)

BTW, on topic, here is a good article of comparison between the Wescott-Hort Texts and the Textus Receptus (and I learned, btw, that the KJV translators borrowed from Erasmus in their work as well): WESTCOTT & HORT VS. TEXTUS RECEPTUS: WHICH IS SUPERIOR [PRINT VERSION]


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Jul 20, 2012)

Thanks for the clarification Rob, I too lean toward the same understanding as you specified in your quote of Hills.




CalvinandHodges said:


> PS: Dr. White has represented Sam Gipp as believing that the KJV is perfect, pure and infallible. I have watched parts of the Ankerberg show where Sam Gipp is saying something very similar. I do not believe that Dr. White has misrepresented Dr. Gipp in this matter.



To clarify I wasn't defending Gipp, I haven't read all of his material, I read one of his book a few years ago but that is it, I thought he was lacking wisdom in the way he approached the subject and he does make some claims that are speculative. All I was saying is that from what I remembered he didn't go as far as Ruckman and claim the AV could be used to correct the original languages. Just pointing out that if you only use what White said to build an opinion on anybody he considers a KJO it might not be wise since I have seen him become emotional as well and lack wisdom in his criticism of others. Just want to make sure that even if some people lack wisdom in their criticism (which I will admit I sometime do also) we should always make an effort to not return the favor. (Steve and Chris did explained this point very well in their post). 




Jerusalem Blade said:


> I was interested in seeing you reply to (Fogetaboutit) Etienne’s remark in post #30,
> 
> “The reason I'm pointing this out is that ultimately even if you hold to [the] position that the Traditional Text is more orthodox but you do not accept any translations as faithful and inerrant you end up with the same results as those who hold the theory of an Eclectic Text since the ‘pure’ text of scripture is only available to scholars and the debate looses it's validity since no matter where you stand the result is similar.”
> 
> I think what Etienne is saying (and you may correct me if I’m wrong, Etienne), is that if the Greek of the Byz/MT/TT is not in an edition translated into English (or any other language, for that matter) then we do not have a Bible-in-hand, but only an “abstract” one which cannot be widely read.



Yes that is the point I was trying to make, thanks for clarifying.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 20, 2012)

Rob, thanks for clarifying – I much appreciate it.

I do have a heart for the run-of-the-mill, simple-hearted IFBs; the King James is their Bible, the word of their God, that upon which they stake their lives and eternal souls – and which was their stay when undergoing horrific persecution here _in the states_ from other religious bodies back in the earlier years of this union. They, for the most part, are not highly educated – so as to academically refute the apostates such as Ehrman (very popular in bookstores generally), or even believers promoting the CT such as James White, among many others, who they see as attacking the word of their God, and seeking to invalidate that which they hold precious above all else in this world. The state of the rhetoric in the CT-KJV battles is pretty much all they know (and it is rough and two-fisted, so to speak); even their KJV defenders are not generally astute text critics, but those who boil down the issues to what Dr. White calls “simplistic” and inaccurate – and yet they are not inaccurate even though not nuanced. They go far more by their naked presuppositions than by the evidences others of us can bring up. That is, they go by sheer faith.

I realize there are some unsavory apples among them (and among us as well!), but men like Waite, Cloud, Moorman – and those like them – I am not offended by at all, and call them brethren (though we sharply differ on the doctrines of grace), and am protective of them. After all, the Lamb of God shed His precious blood for them as well as for us. And He loves and upholds them, as well as He does us.

Anyway, thanks again for your clarification. And like I said, the work you are doing – and in this video in particular – is good and important. Keep it up, and I look forward to seeing more.

--------

Jeremy (J. Dean), I think bringing in Kutilek (DK) is really off-topic for this thread, and just promoting another debate, as DK has been refuted many times. But that is not what this thread is about. Another thread would be better for that, and rather than just cut and paste his arguments (or links), you should yourself exhibit his argumentation.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jul 20, 2012)

J. Dean said:


> BTW, on topic, here is a good article of comparison between the Wescott-Hort Texts and the Textus Receptus (and I learned, btw, that the KJV translators borrowed from Erasmus in their work as well): WESTCOTT & HORT VS. TEXTUS RECEPTUS: WHICH IS SUPERIOR [PRINT VERSION]



I think most of us are aware of some of the issues in the TR, but honestly this is a bit of a straw man argument because most of us who are Byzantine Priority do not have any special affection for the TR, only the texts that underlie it.


----------



## JOwen (Jul 20, 2012)

Any news if Dr. White has responded?


----------



## Peairtach (Jul 20, 2012)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi:
> 
> Below is a link to a video I made in partial response to Dr. White:
> 
> ...



What are the most straightforward introductory books to read on the Byzantine text vs. other text types, and textual criticism generally?

Pardon my ignorance in this area, but are there any comparable issues with the OT text?


----------



## JohnGill (Jul 20, 2012)

Peairtach said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> > Hi:
> ...



Which side are you wanting? TR/Byz as superior or WH/CT as superior? Or did you want a list of both. I'll provide the latter:

Pro-CT Textual Criticism books:



_The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, And Restoration (1964). 2005 4th edition with Bart D. Ehrman, ISBN 0-19-516122-X - Bruce Metzger
_ 
_Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: An Introduction to Palaeography (1981) - Bruce Metzger
_ 
_The Text of the New Testament - Kurt Aland
_ 
_The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture - Bart Ehrman
_ 
_Misquoting Jesus - Bart Ehrman
_ 
_A Critical History of the Text of the New Testament; Wherein is Firmly Established the Truth of Those Acts on Which the Foundation of Christian Religion is Laid - Richard Simon 1689_ (Foundation for CT textual criticism) 
_Handbook to the textual criticism of the New Testament_ - Frederick Kenyon 1912 
_Westcott & Hort's Introduction to the Greek New Testament_ 

Pro-TR/Byz textual criticism books:



_The King James Version Defended: A Christian View of the New Testament Manuscripts - Edward Freer Hills
_
_ The Ecclesiastical Text - Theodore Letis
_
_ The Majority Text - Theodore Letis
_
_ The Identity of the New Testament Text II - Wilbur N. Pickering
_
_Codex B and Its Allies, a study and an indictment__ Vols 1 & 2 - Herman C. Hoskier
_
_ A Guide to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament - Edward Miller
_
_ The Revision Revised - Dean John William Burgon
_
_ The Traditional Text - Dean John William Burgon
_
_The Last Twelve Verses of Mark - __Dean John William Burgon_
_Causes of Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels__ - __Dean John William Burgon_
Dean Burgon's works refute Ehrman and those who agree with him in part or in whole.

Hoskier's book destroys the foundation of the Critical Text and the "oldest is best" argument. Hills & Letis give the traditional Reformed view of preservation over against the modern Warfieldian view. Pickering gives more of a majority text view. Miller gives a TR/Byz view of the practice of textual criticism against the Westcott/Hort view.


----------



## JohnGill (Jul 20, 2012)

Peairtach said:


> *Pardon my ignorance in this area, but are there any comparable issues with the OT text?*



Yes. Dr. Thomas Holland has some writings on the so-called errors of the OT text. There are others, but I will have to search for them.

A General Introduction to the Bible - Geisler & Nix (Contains some of the alleged scribal errors of the OT.)


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 20, 2012)

Rob, if you will permit me, I’d like to enter a very brief drop of antidote to J. Dean’s post of a link to Doug Kutilek’s (DK) article of bad information. If you’d like me to delete it as being off topic, I will. Jeremy, I don’t know if you realize what you seem to be sanctioning by using Kutilek as an “authority” on textual criticism (have you read the article?), but his position is not only against the TR, and the KJV, but also against Westcott and Hort (W&H), and all the editions of the critical text (CT) as well! After listing _all _these he says,

“we refuse to be enslaved to the textual criticism opinions of either Erasmus or Westcott and Hort or for that matter any other scholars, whether Nestle, Aland, Metzger, Burgon, Hodges and Farstad, or anyone else. Rather, it is better to evaluate all variants in the text of the Greek New Testament on a reading by reading basis, that is, in those places where there are divergences in the manuscripts and between printed texts, the evidence for and against each reading should be thoroughly and carefully examined and weighed, and the arguments of the various schools of thought considered, and only then a judgment made.”​ 
In other words, it’s every man for himself, use your own judgment to sort out what are the best readings from all the manuscripts and editions. Reminds me of Judges 21:25, “In those days _there was_ no king in Israel: every man did _that which was_ right in his own eyes.” When there is no genuine authority, this is what men do. Of course, one could become Kutilek's disciple.

Here is an antidote to this myth, Reformation Editors [including Erasmus] Lacked Sufficient Manuscript Evidence (Taken from this excellent resource: MYTHS ABOUT THE KJV)

And last but surely not least: Harvard Text Critic Dr. E.F. Hills on Erasmus and the Reformation editors (scroll down to #2, about 8 paragraphs). 

-------------


Richard, I think the best and most straightforward intro to this subject is Dr. Thomas Holland's, _Crowned With Glory: The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version_. He takes the side of the Authorized Version. You may also see something of his approach here (though I like to have the book!): Index for Dr. Hollands KJV Preservation Classes

Another strictly on the Byzantine Text (this is a great work): _Dr. Wilbur N. Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text III
_


----------



## JohnGill (Jul 20, 2012)

Crowned with Glory is also available here: Dr. Thomas Holland's Home Page


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 20, 2012)

Chris, with Holland's book online, it doesn't have all the material (extended footnotes and appendices), though it is a good sample.

Richard, Holland does an excellent job with the OT situation as well as the New.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jul 21, 2012)

Hi:

Peairtach: The one book I would recommend for those seeking to delve into Text Criticism is: R.B. Ouellette, _A More Sure Word: Which Bible Can You Trust._ This is one of the first books I would recommend to anyone seeking to begin a better understanding of the issues. Ouellette's kind tone and easy to understand style makes this book invaluable. After reading this book I would recommend Dean John Burgon's, _Revision Revised._ After these I would recommend you read some of the seminal Critical Text books such as: Aland's _The Text of the New Testament,_ White's, _The King James Only Controversy_. You may also want to pick up Westcott & Hort's, _Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek,_ or, B.B. Warfield's, _Textual Criticism of the New Testament_. One book I neglected to mention is William Whitaker's, _Disputation on Holy Scripture_ which is valuable as it is a Puritan-eye's view of the subject. Francis Turretin's, _Institutes of Elenctic Theology: Volume One_ gives some great insight into Reformed Textual Criticism, as well as Bavinck's, Reformed Dogmatics: Volume One. I really enjoyed reading Richard Muller's, _Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: Volume Two._ Though I do not hold to the Majority Text Pickering's, _The Identity of the New Testament Text II (Third Edition)_ is well worth the read.

If you read only one of these books, then Ouellette is the one I would highly recommend.

Hope this helps,

-Rob

PS: All of the books listed by JohnGil above are excellent suggestions, but they all are a bit technical. Once you get grounded in the issues by reading Ouellette and Burgon, then you will have a good grounding in the issues and will better appreciate JohnGil's list.

PPS: Steve: I hope this thread will be of use to people in discussing the topic of Text Criticism without rancor. Feel free to mention any topic related to TC on this thread. 

Blessings to you all in King Jesus,

-Rob


----------



## JohnGill (Jul 21, 2012)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi:
> 
> Peairtach: The one book I would recommend for those seeking to delve into Text Criticism is: R.B. Ouellette, _A More Sure Word: Which Bible Can You Trust._ This is one of the first books I would recommend to anyone seeking to begin a better understanding of the issues. Ouellette's kind tone and easy to understand style makes this book invaluable. After reading this book I would recommend Dean John Burgon's, _Revision Revised._ After these I would recommend you read some of the seminal Critical Text books such as: Aland's _The Text of the New Testament,_ White's, _The King James Only Controversy_. You may also want to pick up Westcott & Hort's, _Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek,_ or, B.B. Warfield's, _Textual Criticism of the New Testament_. One book I neglected to mention is William Whitaker's, _Disputation on Holy Scripture_ which is valuable as it is a Puritan-eye's view of the subject. Francis Turretin's, _Institutes of Elenctic Theology: Volume One_ gives some great insight into Reformed Textual Criticism, as well as Bavinck's, Reformed Dogmatics: Volume One. I really enjoyed reading Richard Muller's, _Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: Volume Two._ Though I do not hold to the Majority Text Pickering's, _The Identity of the New Testament Text II (Third Edition)_ is well worth the read.
> 
> ...



One other 19th century book I forgot in the TR/Byz camp is Theopneustia: the plenary inspiration of the holy scirptures - Louis Gaussen

Whitaker's Disputations and Turretin's Chapter On Holy Scriptures are both available online. 

In Bavinck's Vol I, The Rise of Critical Protestantism (p414-422) I think is the best part dealing with TC. It continues with coverage of inspiration.

Warfield's An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament is also available online. As are the works of Burgon, Hoskier, Pickering, Hills, Miller, Kenyon and another book I forgot to mention: A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament Vol I & Vol II by F. H. A. Scrivener (Pro TR)

I can recommend nothing from this site except for the listing of the classic reprints: Classic Reprints, Complete List

Many of the books can be found online for free at various locations. If you can't find one, let me know I may have already found it.

The list also includes a work defending the TR reading in John 1:18 and 1 Tim 3:16. I think they also list some books by unitarians who demonstrate in their writings why it was necessary to change 1 Tim 3:16 in order to support their heresy. You can read more of this in Vance Smith's works. He was the unitarian on the revision of 1881. 

You might also consider reading Beza's Greek NT editions for the notes.

Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus is a readable version of his Orthodox Corruption. But his Orthodox Corruption is useful to read side by side with all of Burgon's works. Burgon had already effectively dealt with the issues that Ehrman raises. Kenyon's book is an easy read.

Miller's is easy and Hills' is easy to read as well. I find Burgon easy to read, but also draining. But he was a Dean and wrote in a scholarly style. But out of the all I would recommend Miller's Guide to the TC of the NT and Kenyon's Handbook to the TC of the NT. They are easy books and will give you a good idea of both schools.


----------



## Peairtach (Jul 21, 2012)

Thanks for all the book recommendations.


----------



## rbcbob (Jul 21, 2012)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Another strictly on the Byzantine Text (this is a great work): Dr. Wilbur N. Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text III



Thanks Steve, I have his original work and did not realize that he had updated it.


----------



## caddy (Jul 21, 2012)

A good and gracious response.


----------



## JohnGill (Jul 21, 2012)

rbcbob said:


> Jerusalem Blade said:
> 
> 
> > Another strictly on the Byzantine Text (this is a great work): Dr. Wilbur N. Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text III
> ...



Here's a pdf copy of it:

Identity of the New Testament Text III


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jul 22, 2012)

Greetings:

On a technical note: Some people have said to me that they are having trouble with the audio sync. They found a solution by downloading the latest Adobe Flash Player.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jul 24, 2012)

Hi:

YouTube has an "Analytics" area for the video, and when I clicked on "Geography" it shows the countries where the video was watched. I was surprised to see that someone from Nepal saw the video. Nepal! The country on top of the world. I think that is incredible.

Thought I would share that with you all!

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Jeff Burns (Jul 24, 2012)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi:
> 
> YouTube has an "Analytics" area for the video, and when I clicked on "Geography" it shows the countries where the video was watched. I was surprised to see that someone from Nepal saw the video. Nepal! The country on top of the world. I think that is incredible.
> 
> ...



Has anyone in Pheonix, AZ watched it? )


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jul 24, 2012)

Jeff Burns said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> > Hi:
> ...



Greetings Jeff:

That would be interesting. YouTube distills the information from the United States into States only. There have been 7 unique views from Arizona. Where in Arizona YouTube does not specify.

Blessings,

Rob

PS: By the way, I am trying to figure out how to market this video to a larger audience. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

-RPW


----------

