# Debate Between James White and Jack Moorman



## Loopie (Oct 22, 2012)

Hi Everyone,

I just wanted to gather everyone's thoughts/comments regarding this debate that took place recently in London over the King James Bible. What are some of the weak arguments that you see from both debaters? What are some of the strong arguments? What sort of questions/issues would you have wanted to see brought up in the debate? I look forward to seeing what all of you think.

The Revelation TV KJV Debate in High Def


----------



## BibleCyst (Oct 23, 2012)

This debate is a great resource! I've actually watched it three times - just so I can soak in all the information.

I felt as though Jack Moorman was incredibly unprepared. James White clearly won this debate, and I'm sympathetic to the Majority Text side of things.

I do have one question that arose from the debate. At one point, James White makes the case that not a single manuscript reads exactly like the Textus Receptus. I found this to be an interesting statement, as I have often heard Majority Text advocates say the same thing about the Critical Text. How accurate are both of these assertions (TR doesn't read exactly like any one manuscript, CT doesn't read like any one manuscript)?


----------



## Jeff Burns (Oct 23, 2012)

> Moorman: You still haven't crossed Mt. Impassable.
> 
> White: Yes I have.



That pretty much sums up the debate. Like presidential debates, folks usually are swayed from a position they already held.

I rather enjoyed it though and thought James did a great job. I would've preferred a lot less audience questions merely being read w/o being responded to. I also woud've like a cross examination time.


----------



## JimmyH (Oct 23, 2012)

BibleCyst said:


> T
> 
> I do have one question that arose from the debate. At one point, James White makes the case that not a single manuscript reads exactly like the Textus Receptus. I found this to be an interesting statement, as I have often heard Majority Text advocates say the same thing about the Critical Text. How accurate are both of these assertions (TR doesn't read exactly like any one manuscript, CT doesn't read like any one manuscript)?


I recently watched a talk he gave on the 'Reliability of the New Testament'. The program was linked in another post on PB but I don't recall who posted it. Very interesting video and it is here He makes the same point as he did in the debate. The fact that individual scribes independently copied the manuscripts allowed for some variations. The plus side of that being that since, even with the variations, they are all presenting the same doctrine helps to prove there was no conspiracy to 'doctor' later manuscripts."]here[/URL] on youtube. He makes the same point as he did in the debate. The fact that individual scribes, from many geographical areas, independently copied the manuscripts was cause for some textual variations. The plus side of that being that since, even with the variations, they are all presenting the same doctrine helps to prove there was no conspiracy to 'doctor' later manuscripts.


----------



## Jesus is my friend (Oct 23, 2012)

I'm throwing in the PB's only,Rob,into the mix,not only does he have superb taste in webforums,he does a fantastic job dealing with Dr.White's take on textual criticism;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNArjGjsw9Q&feature=relmfu


----------

