# Debate on KJ Onlyism



## KaphLamedh (Feb 18, 2011)

Here a good debate about KJV-onlyism. James White Debates Jack Moorman On Exclusive KJVOnlyism


----------



## reformedminister (Feb 18, 2011)

Great Debate! I think James White did a better job to support his position. I only wish Jack Moorman was naturally more candid and prepared to defend his, although I think he did a great job. Just because someone is able to handle themselves and argue their points better does not make them right. I respect the critical text and have various translations myself but I think the basis of the critical text is flawed. Unless I have more proof, I will will go to the grave preferring the KJV/NKJV tradition. James White painted with some broad strokes when he raise the question about God's people being without God's Word for 1600 years. Church history does not support the critical text and there is a reason for it!


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Mar 16, 2011)

James White is a better speaker but I believe if one really take the time to analyse what he is saying and weight the evidence instead of just enjoying his charisma they will be able to see flaws and contradictions in his arguments. I have read his book and I have found that he uses the same deceptive technique that he acuses his opponent of using. He often accuse this opponent of using conspiriacy theories which he say have no historical evidence support and then will invent a hypothesis on how manuscripts were corrupted down through the years. He also invent a hypothesis that byzantine scribes added to the word of God by borrowing from other part of scripture and inserting then in parallel verses of the Gospels. Not only is this ridiculous it also lack any evidence. I agree that both side have theories and biases but you should not say your opponent are dishonest if you use the same tactics.

Also James Whites seems to focus on the few issues he has with the King James (ie: the "johannine comma" and "Revelation 16:5") while ignoring the hundreds of verses, words in the New Translation missing or differing from the Reformation era bible. He also does not note that the handfull of manuscripts which were given a greater weight by the revision committees greatly differ among one another. Plus there is no mention of early church father quotation and early version such as the "Italic" and the "Peshitto" when debating the "errors" in the various edition of the Textus Receptus or in the KJV. James Whites seem to assumed that Jeromes vulgate was the only bible used by the "faithfull" church during the Dark Ages in the Western Empire which is not the case.

I believe this is a good example of what Jesus said in Matthew 24:24 "Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel" 

He also said that it is ridiculous to suppose there was any conspiracy part of the revision and that all the scholars who participated on these revision comittee were "honest" and "conservative". As one of the member of the audience mentioned there was a Unitarian scholar on Wescott and Hort's comitte (Dr. G. Vance Smith) plus there was a Jesuit priest (and Roman Catholic Caridinal) named Carlo Maria Martini sitting on editorial committe of the Nestle-Aland/UBS texts.

Novum Testamentum Graece - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (check under history Carlo Maria Martini is mentioned as part of the editorial committee)

I don't know if it's just me but Jesuits and Unitarians would definitely not be in my choices to revised the texts of the holy scriptures, anybody who know about the history of the Jesuits should definitely have red flags going up when you have them in the editorial committee of a text that is used to translate "protestant" bibles. Even the dictionaries describe "Jesuit" and "Jesuitical" as being deceptive 

*Jes·u·it *(jzh-t, jz-, -y-)
n.
1. Roman Catholic Church A member of the Society of Jesus.
2. often jesuit One given to subtle *casuistry*.

*casuistry* [ˈkæzjʊɪstrɪ]
n pl -ries
1. (Philosophy) Philosophy the resolution of particular moral dilemmas, esp those arising from conflicting general moral rules, by careful distinction of the cases to which these rules apply
2. reasoning that is *specious, misleading*, or oversubtle

*casuistry*
1. the branch of ethics or theology that studies the relation of general ethical principles to particular cases of conduct or conscience.
2. a *dishonest or oversubtle *application of such principles

But maybe I'm just paranoid.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Mar 24, 2011)

To quote Francis Schaeffer "Wherever you look today, the new concept holds the field. The consensus about us is almost monolithic." Of course Schaeffer was referring to the humanistic worldview, but the same holds true for the view of manuscript traditions amongst academics. So convinced are the scholars to the superiority of the Alexandrian texts that no dissention is allowed at all. Regardless of the fact that there are so few good examples of the Alexandrian text and the fact that the ones we do have disagree with each other excessively. Biblical scholars decided along time ago that the only thing that mattered in determining the accuracy and quality of a text was the age of the text in question. Textual critics operate under the all encompassing belief that the older a text is the more true to the original it is. Nothing else is taken into consideration. Obviously this makes good sense and is logical, but it cannot be monolithic. We have to take other things into consideration. Just my opinion.


----------



## TimV (Mar 24, 2011)

> He often accuse this opponent of using conspiriacy theories



That's because those .0005% of Reformed folk who hold to the Baptist school of KJVOnlism are virtually all conspiracy theorists.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Mar 24, 2011)

Fogetaboutit said:


> I don't know if it's just me but Jesuits and Unitarians would definitely not be in my choices to revised the texts of the holy scriptures, anybody who know about the history of the Jesuits should definitely have red flags going up when you have them in the editorial committee of a text that is used to translate "protestant" bibles. Even the dictionaries describe "Jesuit" and "Jesuitical" as being deceptive
> 
> Jes·u·it (jzh-t, jz-, -y-)
> n.
> ...


Yikes! Those Jesuits sound downright diabolical. 

AMR


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Mar 28, 2011)

> That's because those .0005% of Reformed folk who hold to the Baptist school of KJVOnlism are virtually all conspiracy theorists.



What is the "Baptist school of KJVOnlism" ? As far as I know Mr.White is a Baptist. They are people from both side of the fence (and from various denominations) who have less than convincing arguments, but creating a straw man by pointing at Ruckman and Riplinger and casting it down does not resolve the issue. There's more than .0005% of refomed folks who hold to the position that the Traditional Text is superior to the Critical Text therefore holding to the position the the KJV is more trustworthy and new translations based on the Critical Texts. Many refomed Presbyterians and Baptists hold to this position, and there have been reformed men defending the Traditional Text ever since the Critical Text came out.

By default if you accept that the critical text is less accurate the the Traditional Text you believe in some sort of conspiracy. Most christian have no problem accepting a conspiracy when it comes to Jehovah's witness bible, are they all crazy conspiracy theorist? Believing in some sort of conspiracy does not make somebody crazy or wrong by default. I would say on the other hand that believing that no attempt will ever be made to corrupt the Word of God is very naive. I would also say that if you believe that all false doctrines only appeared by coincidence or by mistake made by men who were unskillfull to handle the word of God that would also be very naive.



> Yikes! Those Jesuits sound downright diabolical.



You can mock the concept that Jesuits or the Vatican would be involved in any conspiracy but you would go against opinions of most reformers and puritans since the time of the Reformation. If you believe they have changed their objectives and decided to play nice within the last 200 years or so and are ready to trust them with the oversight of your bibles fill your boots. I was only pointing it out.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 28, 2011)

Fogetaboutit said:


> James White is a better speaker but I believe if one really take the time to analyse what he is saying and weight the evidence instead of just enjoying his charisma they will be able to see flaws and contradictions in his arguments. I have read his book and I have found that he uses the same deceptive technique that he acuses his opponent of using. He often accuse this opponent of using conspiriacy theories which he say have no historical evidence support and then will invent a hypothesis on how manuscripts were corrupted down through the years. He also invent a hypothesis that byzantine scribes added to the word of God by borrowing from other part of scripture and inserting then in parallel verses of the Gospels. Not only is this ridiculous it also lack any evidence. I agree that both side have theories and biases but you should not say your opponent are dishonest if you use the same tactics.


 Call James White to accuse him directly of deception but do not use my board to violate the 9th Commandment.


Fogetaboutit said:


> But maybe I'm just paranoid.



I believe the word I would use of your reasoning is not "paranoid" but "specious".


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Mar 28, 2011)

I do not mean any disrespect but I do not believe I deserve to be accused of being "specious"

specious [ˈspiːʃəs]
adj
1. apparently correct or true, *but actually wrong or false*2. deceptively attractive in appearance
[C14 (originally: fair): from Latin speciōsus

As far as I know I have not lied about anything and what I have written can be verified if factual or not.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 28, 2011)

Fogetaboutit said:


> I do not mean any disrespect but I do not believe I deserve to be accused of being "specious"
> 
> specious [ˈspiːʃəs]
> adj
> ...


 
...though you are quick to accuse James of deception, I would point out that specious also has the connotation of being _superficial_.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Mar 28, 2011)

I only pointed out that Mr. White has used similar argument in his book as he accuses advocate of the KJV (also in his book) of using, whether he realized it or not. I gave an example of this logical contradiction. Whether he meant to be deceitfull or not I do not know, I sincerely hope it was unintentional, but the arguments themselves were in my opinion deceptive or at least superficial as you stated. I do agree with Mr. White that a lot of the defense of the KJV that we see today is causing more harm than good, but I don't believe these are grounds to justify the Critical Text. Mr. White has spent a lot of time refuting Ruckman and Riplinger but has not spent a lot of time analysing the works of men like John Burgon and Edward Hills, he mentioned them in his book but did not attempt a rebuttal of their work. That is why I said his argument can be deceitfull, not because I accuse him of being malicious but because whether he realized it or not he has created a straw man for the position of the TT/KJV.

I realize that some people might have a lot of esteemed for Mr. White and I will admit that he is a skilled apologist and I would agree with him on most of his doctinal belief but I do differ with him in my interpretation of infallibility of scripture.

I voiced my opinion about Mr. White position and arguments because I sincerely believe that the Traditional Text (or Ecclesiastical text) as represented in the TR and the KJV is the true text of the holy scriptures not because I wanted "bash" him. I just believe that if a position or argument is in error it should pointed out. Mr White himself has criticised Riplinger, Ruckman, etc. publically. 

If I have given false information please point them out to me since it was not my intention. I didn't go into all the details of Mr White books because I figured that most people have read his book since he is one the best known defender of the Critical Text today. I only gave one example that I remembered from his book that in my eyes was contradictory to point that even if some people are well spoken, as Mr White demontrated in this debate, does not necessarily means that they are correct.

I do admit that I have use as little bit of sarcasm I apologized if it offended anybody.


----------



## MW (Mar 28, 2011)

Fogetaboutit said:


> I do admit that I have use as little bit of sarcasm I apologized if it offended anybody.


 
Thankyou; apology accepted. I prefer the AV and also find James White's arguments against it to be weak. I think you have a valid point with regard to things he chooses to concentrate on; but it would be better to use the word "mistaken" instead of "deceptive." Let's not forget the good that he accomplishes in other fields. We would not want to undermine the service he performs on other important subjects. Blessings!


----------



## DMcFadden (Mar 29, 2011)

I would love to hear White deal with some of the more articulate defenders of the Majority Text (and/or the TR). White is one of my favorites, and I love that he is so strong an advocate of biblical orthodoxy (particularly given his seminary of origin!).

Using the KJV for my daily devotions with my wife (after almost four decades of dwelling in the land of modern translations) has made me reconsider the "understandability" argument which I accepted so blithely years ago.

A sane discussion would be welcome. Why can't Zondervan do one of their counterpoint books on the topic? After all, they have one on differing views of church growth and the Cananaaite "genocide" and even divorce. Come'on Zondervan. Give us a CT vs. MT counterpoint book.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 29, 2011)

DMcFadden said:


> I would love to hear White deal with some of the more articulate defenders of the Majority Text (and/or the TR). White is one of my favorites, and I love that he is so strong an advocate of biblical orthodoxy (particularly given his seminary of origin!).
> 
> Using the KJV for my daily devotions with my wife (after almost four decades of dwelling in the land of modern translations) has made me reconsider the "understandability" argument which I accepted so blithely years ago.
> 
> A sane discussion would be welcome. Why can't Zondervan do one of their counterpoint books on the topic? After all, they have one on differing views of church growth and the Cananaaite "genocide" and even divorce. Come'on Zondervan. Give us a CT vs. MT counterpoint book.


 
He's interacted on the phone with some who hold to this position but has admitted that his focus in this debate is not typically oriented in that direction. He's certainly aware of it from what I've heard. I, too, would like a long interaction on the subject where both sides are forced to be interrogated. One of our own PB members has interacted with him a few times and I found James to be respectful as he is with other strains of Reformed thought that he disagrees with.


----------

