# The King James Only Controversy by Dr James R. White



## MichaelNZ

I finally got a copy of Dr James White's definitive work on KJV Onlyism by ordering it online (it isn't available in any libraries that I know of here in New Zealand and interloan didn't work). I was not disappointed. Dr White has done a great job in countering the KJV Only argument. 

You can read my review here: Apologetica Christiana - Christian Apologetics: Book Review: The King James Only Controversy by Dr James R. White


----------



## One Little Nail

James White has an axe to grind. I read the Introduction of his book recently (1 to 2 weeks ago) and found inaccuracies in it, found insinuation, strawman arguments, use of emotion to sway an argument etc etc and that was just in the introduction, that is why I believe it to be a dangerous book, it is literally prejudicial. The fact he mentions Riplinger & Ruckman in the intro slants the argument from the start by biasing the reader from the beginning. 

you say james


> gives an accurate account of the discovery of Codex Sinaiticus (א) - it was NOT found in a waste basket, but was kept by an Eastern Orthodox monk wrapped up in his cell.


this is pure falsehood, a large portion of the Old Testament was missing cause it had been used as a fire starter!


----------



## Logan

Speaking of grinding axes...



One Little Nail said:


> The fact he mentions Riplinger & Ruckman in the intro slants the argument from the start by biasing the reader from the beginning.



Maybe this was because he initially got involved in this because he was asked to respond to Riplinger? And the target audience of the book is largely the Ruckmanites (and Gipp)? 

I've not read White's book but it sure does sound like you'd made up your mind not to like it before you even started.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

The book is a fair summation of the prevailing academic view of textual criticism. Obviously if you disagree with that view, you will disagree with the book.


----------



## KMK

How does White define KVO?


----------



## Conner

Dr. White defines KJVO several different ways (which would be known by anybody who had read more than the introduction) in the beginning of the book. The primary audience he is addressing in the book is indeed the more cult-like brand of KJVO advocated by Gipp and the Ruckmanites, but I think he also does a great job demonstrating that the modern translations are superior to the King James in light of textual variation, translation difficulties, and the open admission of the fact that better translations would exist in the future by the King James translators themselves.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I read the book a few decades ago and was not as impressed by it as some of you seem to be. Yes, the Ruckmanites are wacko as is Riplingerites. But when he grouped my old friend Jay P. Green Sr. in with those guys I was disturbed. To the novice of the arguments about history and manuscripts this book will seem good. I will stick with Burgon over White anyday.


----------



## JimmyH

There are some people who venerate the AV/KJV. They feel that if the AV/KJV is not 'inspired' by God's providential care in itself, certainly the TR the translators used for _most of it_ is. I've read Dr White's book more than once and I have to say that he offers a compelling argument. I was reading Scrivener just the other day where he noted that the two oldest copies of the original KJV, in the British Museum, do not agree with each other so that they do not know which of the two, printed by Barker in 1611, is the original. Variations in copies is not limited to the Greek texts as anyone who has studied this knows. 

I think a better way to approach James White's scholarship _objectively _is to watch the hour and a half youtube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuiayuxWwuI "The Reliability Of The New Testament Text". This dissertation will only peripherally address the KJVO controversy, but it lays out the history of the autographs/copies and textual criticism. What we know about the source of our Bibles. From participating in these PB debates on the topic it seems that some of our brothers and sisters are firmly entrenched in their views on this. For those who are, on either side, it doesn't seem any argument will move them.


----------



## Logan

PuritanCovenanter said:


> To the novice of the arguments about history and manuscripts this book will seem good.



I'd chalk it down to fundamentally different systems (and approaches) rather than any lack of education. Bill's statement above was spot on.


----------



## Romans922

Bill The Baptist said:


> The book is a fair summation of the prevailing academic view of textual criticism. Obviously if you disagree with that view, you will disagree with the book.



I disagree with that view but haven't read the book.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Romans922 said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The book is a fair summation of the prevailing academic view of textual criticism. Obviously if you disagree with that view, you will disagree with the book.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with that view but haven't read the book.
Click to expand...


And even if we disagree with Dr. White on this point, I'm sure most of us would agree that we have profited greatly from most of his other work. The only pastor/teacher that I would agree with 100% of the time is Jesus.


----------



## KMK

Conner said:


> Dr. White defines KJVO several different ways (which would be known by anybody who had read more than the introduction) in the beginning of the book. The primary audience he is addressing in the book is indeed the more cult-like brand of KJVO advocated by Gipp and the Ruckmanites, but I think he also does a great job demonstrating that the modern translations are superior to the King James in light of textual variation, translation difficulties, and the open admission of the fact that better translations would exist in the future by the King James translators themselves.



Can someone (on PB) explain the 'Gipp and Ruckman' position. I have often heard it referred to but never defined.


----------



## KMK

Conner said:


> Dr. White defines KJVO several different ways (which would be known by anybody who had read more than the introduction) in the beginning of the book. The primary audience he is addressing in the book is indeed the more cult-like brand of KJVO advocated by Gipp and the Ruckmanites, but I think he also does a great job demonstrating that the modern translations are superior to the King James in light of textual variation, translation difficulties, and the open admission of the fact that better translations would exist in the future by the King James translators themselves.



Can someone (on PB) explain the 'Gipp and Ruckman' position. I have often heard it referred to but never defined.


----------



## JimmyH

Spent the morning listening to a video (not audio only) of the debate between James White and Bart Ehrman. If you can stand to watch/listen to Ehrman I think White clearly refutes him in this long presentation. Two videos, parts one & two ;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moHInA9fAsI


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2Mp4v8VQwQ


----------



## Logan

KMK said:


> Can someone (on PB) explain the 'Gipp and Ruckman' position?



Gipp and Ruckman are typically representative of the KJVO camp (not the KJV preferred or TR-priority etc.). Generally KJVO folks don't care about Textus Receptus, they only care about the KJV, and believe it not only to be a good translation, but to be inspired and infallible.

Sam Gipp has put out some videos, but essentially he has stated that the KJV has _replaced_ the original languages of Hebrew and Greek: every language only gets one inspired version, and the KJV is the inspired version for English. His videos can be found here: What's the Big Deal About the KJV?. They are well made but contain lots of very poor logic (in one group setting he asks a bunch of students to read a few verses simultaneously from their various versions. After the predictable cacophany, he then claims multiple versions can't be from God because God is not the God of confusion.)

Ruckman is similar. He believes the KJV contains "advanced revelation" and is God's final preserved word (if even the Greek of the TR disagrees with the AV 1611, go with the AV 1611 since God inspired it and the Greek probably was tampered with). If memory serves, he basically says other cultures just need to learn English if they want the inspired Word of God. Ruckman uses very strong, condemning language for those who would follow anything other than a KJV reading.

It was these and Riplinger (who is even further out there) that White mainly addresses and targets. White is careful to not lump all KJV advocates together, and he says he has a respect for the KJV and uses it regularly. However, he doesn't see a strong case for TR-priority and doesn't seem to address Burgon, Hills, Letis so much, being more concerned with the real wackos (and by the way, the KJVO movement is rather larger than you might think).


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Logan said:


> It was these and Riplinger (who is even further out there) that White mainly addresses and targets. White is careful to not lump all KJV advocates together, and he says he has a respect for the KJV and uses it regularly. However, he doesn't see a strong case for TR-priority and doesn't seem to address Burgon, Hills, Letis so much, being more concerned with the real wackos (and by the way, the KJVO movement is rather larger than you might think).


Logan I partly agree with you. It is true that White does focus on the 'weirdos' but he also addresses the core TR priority arguments.

White does not do a particularly good job of responding to Dr Hills (though he does summaries the issue). James Price's "King James Onlyism" devotes a chapter response to Hills.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

PuritanCovenanter said:


> To the novice of the arguments about history and manuscripts this book will seem good. I will stick with Burgon over White anyday.


If you stick with Burgon you will be prey to the "novice of the arguments about history and manuscripts". Mss discoveries have moved a long way since Burgon's time.


----------



## MW

James White has written an apologetical work which deals with KJVO arguments. Nothing more, nothing less. If one is going to learn about textual criticism he should read works which deal with textual criticism. Or if one desires to know the issues related to translation, he should read works on translation. James White's presentation should be evaluated in the light of these broader fields. Praising the book simply because it helps you to deal with people with whom you disagree does no credit to your position on textual criticism or translation.


----------



## MichaelNZ

KMK said:


> Can someone (on PB) explain the 'Gipp and Ruckman' position. I have often heard it referred to but never defined.



Their position is the most extreme of the KJV Only folks. 

Dr Samuel Gipp wrote in his Answer Book (available for free here): "God has always given His word to *one* people in *one* language to do one job; convert the world. The supposition that there must be a perfect translation in every language is erroneous and inconsistent with God's proven practice" (The Answer Book, Question #7). 

White relates an incident where Gipp appeared on the John Ankerberg Show and affirmed that a Russian today who wanted to read God's Word would have to learn English and read the KJV.


----------



## DMcFadden

White typologizes the range of KJVO folks as follows:

•	"I Like the KJV Best" – my church uses it; my pastor prefers it; I grew up on it.
•	"The Textual Argument" – This group believes that the KJV's Hebrew and Greek textual base is more accurate than the alternate texts used by newer translations. (e.g., Zane Hodges).
•	"Received Text Only" – This group holds the position that the traditional Greek texts represented in the Textus Receptus are supernaturally (or providentially) preserved and that other Greek manuscripts not used in this compilation may be flawed. (e.g., Trinitarian Bible Society). 
•	“The Inspired KJV Group" – This group believes that the KJV itself was divinely inspired. These folks would insist that the KJV is superior to other translations that might be based upon the same manuscripts.
•	"The KJV As New Revelation" – This group claims that the KJV is a "new revelation" or "advanced revelation" from God, and it should be the standard from which all other translations originate. Ken, this is the view that people call “Ruckmanism” (after Peter Ruckman). Ruckman actually held that the KJB is able to correct the original languages of Greek and Hebrew! If the Greek is defective, the KJV may correct it! 

Grouping scholarly Majority Text advocates, TR proponents, and Trinitarian Bible Society types with Ruckman is just sort of slander. At this point, throwing the name of Ruckman into an argument about textual issues is like calling someone a Nazi. It stops the argument . . . cold.


----------



## JimmyH

DMcFadden said:


> White typologizes the range of KJVO folks as follows:
> 
> ï¿½	"I Like the KJV Best" ï¿½ my church uses it; my pastor prefers it; I grew up on it.
> ï¿½	"The Textual Argument" ï¿½ This group believes that the KJV's Hebrew and Greek textual base is more accurate than the alternate texts used by newer translations. (e.g., Zane Hodges).
> ï¿½	"Received Text Only" ï¿½ This group holds the position that the traditional Greek texts represented in the Textus Receptus are supernaturally (or providentially) preserved and that other Greek manuscripts not used in this compilation may be flawed. (e.g., Trinitarian Bible Society).
> ï¿½	ï¿½The Inspired KJV Group" ï¿½ This group believes that the KJV itself was divinely inspired. These folks would insist that the KJV is superior to other translations that might be based upon the same manuscripts.
> ï¿½	"The KJV As New Revelation" ï¿½ This group claims that the KJV is a "new revelation" or "advanced revelation" from God, and it should be the standard from which all other translations originate. Ken, this is the view that people call ï¿½Ruckmanismï¿½ (after Peter Ruckman). Ruckman actually held that the KJB is able to correct the original languages of Greek and Hebrew! If the Greek is defective, the KJV may correct it!
> 
> Grouping scholarly Majority Text advocates, TR proponents, and Trinitarian Bible Society types with Ruckman is just sort of slander. At this point, throwing the name of Ruckman into an argument about textual issues is like calling someone a Nazi. It stops the argument . . . cold.



Brother McFadden. in my copy of the book I see his list of five distinctive groups, within the KJV camp in chapter one, on page 23 in a 5 page description ending on page 29. I see no mention of the Trinitarian Bible Society within those descriptions, nor on any of the pages in the main text or footnotes. 

To my eye each of the five designations are characterized as distinct from one another. Certainly he is not 'grouping' them together with Ruckman, unless we are not on the same page ?
.


----------



## DMcFadden

The categories are White's. Obviously, some of the references, such as a specific answer to "Ken," are my own. I appreciate White but am more sympathetic to the Majority Text than he is. Therefore, my reason for citing White's categories was not to endorse him carte blanche, merely to show that even those who oppose the KJVO position draw distinctions between the mild "I like my KJV" and the Ruckman position. 

My guess is that most of the PB support for the KJV may be classed as "Textual" (e.g., Zane Hodges) or "Received Text Only" (those arguing that divine preservation was involved in the particular texts that were utilized in the translation of the KJV). I am not particularly "schooled" in the intricacies of this debate. However, I am guessing that those who prefer the Byzantine/Majority Text types generally rather than the TR specifically, would fall in the "Textual" group.


----------



## KMK

Logan said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone (on PB) explain the 'Gipp and Ruckman' position?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gipp and Ruckman are typically representative of the KJVO camp (not the KJV preferred or TR-priority etc.). Generally KJVO folks don't care about Textus Receptus, they only care about the KJV, and believe it not only to be a good translation, but to be inspired and infallible.
> 
> Sam Gipp has put out some videos, but essentially he has stated that the KJV has _replaced_ the original languages of Hebrew and Greek: every language only gets one inspired version, and the KJV is the inspired version for English. His videos can be found here: What's the Big Deal About the KJV?. They are well made but contain lots of very poor logic (in one group setting he asks a bunch of students to read a few verses simultaneously from their various versions. After the predictable cacophany, he then claims multiple versions can't be from God because God is not the God of confusion.)
> 
> Ruckman is similar. He believes the KJV contains "advanced revelation" and is God's final preserved word (if even the Greek of the TR disagrees with the AV 1611, go with the AV 1611 since God inspired it and the Greek probably was tampered with). If memory serves, he basically says other cultures just need to learn English if they want the inspired Word of God. Ruckman uses very strong, condemning language for those who would follow anything other than a KJV reading.
> 
> It was these and Riplinger (who is even further out there) that White mainly addresses and targets. White is careful to not lump all KJV advocates together, and he says he has a respect for the KJV and uses it regularly. However, he doesn't see a strong case for TR-priority and doesn't seem to address Burgon, Hills, Letis so much, being more concerned with the real wackos (and by the way, the KJVO movement is rather larger than you might think).
Click to expand...


Thank you, that was very helpful. Who are these guys and why are they the subject of a book by White? Are they professors at a seminary? Are they pastors? Do they have followers? I have never met anyone who holds views like these men. That's why I find it strange that White would dedicate so much time and energy against their position. Maybe, the have a bigger presence in other parts.


----------



## JimmyH

KMK said:


> Logan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone (on PB) explain the 'Gipp and Ruckman' position?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gipp and Ruckman are typically representative of the KJVO camp (not the KJV preferred or TR-priority etc.). Generally KJVO folks don't care about Textus Receptus, they only care about the KJV, and believe it not only to be a good translation, but to be inspired and infallible.
> 
> Sam Gipp has put out some videos, but essentially he has stated that the KJV has _replaced_ the original languages of Hebrew and Greek: every language only gets one inspired version, and the KJV is the inspired version for English. His videos can be found here: What's the Big Deal About the KJV?. They are well made but contain lots of very poor logic (in one group setting he asks a bunch of students to read a few verses simultaneously from their various versions. After the predictable cacophany, he then claims multiple versions can't be from God because God is not the God of confusion.)
> 
> Ruckman is similar. He believes the KJV contains "advanced revelation" and is God's final preserved word (if even the Greek of the TR disagrees with the AV 1611, go with the AV 1611 since God inspired it and the Greek probably was tampered with). If memory serves, he basically says other cultures just need to learn English if they want the inspired Word of God. Ruckman uses very strong, condemning language for those who would follow anything other than a KJV reading.
> 
> It was these and Riplinger (who is even further out there) that White mainly addresses and targets. White is careful to not lump all KJV advocates together, and he says he has a respect for the KJV and uses it regularly. However, he doesn't see a strong case for TR-priority and doesn't seem to address Burgon, Hills, Letis so much, being more concerned with the real wackos (and by the way, the KJVO movement is rather larger than you might think).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you, that was very helpful. Who are these guys and why are they the subject of a book by White? Are they professors at a seminary? Are they pastors? Do they have followers? I have never met anyone who holds views like these men. That's why I find it strange that White would dedicate so much time and energy against their position. Maybe, the have a bigger presence in other parts.
Click to expand...


I think James White was responding to a need for someone with an authoritative background to respond to these KJVO people in 'group 5' who were beginning to get more press and through character assassination, misquoting, and distortion, beating a drum loudly enough to merit attention. D.A. Carson had written 'The King James Version Debate, A Plea For Realism', in 1979, but there hadn't been a champion of that viewpoint to come to the fore until White published his book in 1995. In the meanwhile Peter Ruckman was becoming more and more well known and Gail Riplinger's "New Age Bible Versions" had recently been published, among other things. While these voices probably weren't heard in reformed seminaries, they were becoming well known amongst some believers. Maybe the type that find the "left behind" series the source of their theology ? I think White was attempting to cover all of the viewpoints in his rebuttal. The aforementioned extremists, as well as the respectable advocates of the KJV who depended on scholarship to state their case. Just my opinion obviously.


----------



## MichaelNZ

KMK said:


> Logan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone (on PB) explain the 'Gipp and Ruckman' position?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gipp and Ruckman are typically representative of the KJVO camp (not the KJV preferred or TR-priority etc.). Generally KJVO folks don't care about Textus Receptus, they only care about the KJV, and believe it not only to be a good translation, but to be inspired and infallible.
> 
> Sam Gipp has put out some videos, but essentially he has stated that the KJV has _replaced_ the original languages of Hebrew and Greek: every language only gets one inspired version, and the KJV is the inspired version for English. His videos can be found here: What's the Big Deal About the KJV?. They are well made but contain lots of very poor logic (in one group setting he asks a bunch of students to read a few verses simultaneously from their various versions. After the predictable cacophany, he then claims multiple versions can't be from God because God is not the God of confusion.)
> 
> Ruckman is similar. He believes the KJV contains "advanced revelation" and is God's final preserved word (if even the Greek of the TR disagrees with the AV 1611, go with the AV 1611 since God inspired it and the Greek probably was tampered with). If memory serves, he basically says other cultures just need to learn English if they want the inspired Word of God. Ruckman uses very strong, condemning language for those who would follow anything other than a KJV reading.
> 
> It was these and Riplinger (who is even further out there) that White mainly addresses and targets. White is careful to not lump all KJV advocates together, and he says he has a respect for the KJV and uses it regularly. However, he doesn't see a strong case for TR-priority and doesn't seem to address Burgon, Hills, Letis so much, being more concerned with the real wackos (and by the way, the KJVO movement is rather larger than you might think).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you, that was very helpful. Who are these guys and why are they the subject of a book by White? Are they professors at a seminary? Are they pastors? Do they have followers? I have never met anyone who holds views like these men. That's why I find it strange that White would dedicate so much time and energy against their position. Maybe, the have a bigger presence in other parts.
Click to expand...


They have a presence in my small hometown of Dunedin (2 churches, one of about 20 or so people) and there is a guy at my church who is Byzantine Priority. There is a lot of material by KJV Only folk on the web - Jack Chick has a historically inaccurate tract called "The Attack" which, among other things, accuses Westcott and Hort of being "closet Catholics". The badly-designed website Jesus-is-Lord.com goes so far as to affirm only the "Pure Cambridge" version of the KJV as accurate, and includes a link to it and instructions on how to print it out and bind it yourself.


----------



## One Little Nail

Logan said:


> Speaking of grinding axes...
> 
> 
> 
> One Little Nail said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact he mentions Riplinger & Ruckman in the intro slants the argument from the start by biasing the reader from the beginning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe this was because he initially got involved in this because he was asked to respond to Riplinger? And the target audience of the book is largely the Ruckmanites (and Gipp)?
> 
> I've not read White's book but it sure does sound like you'd made up your mind not to like it before you even started.
Click to expand...




I've read that Peter Ruckman has stated that after Riplinger published her New Age Bible Versions that the New Versions particularly the NIV took a big sales hit, and that White was writing to address this, I'm not saying that is the truth or what I believe.
Makes Ruckman sound very cynical about the whole thing, New Age Bible Versions has problems as David Cloud here attests. 





Logan said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone (on PB) explain the 'Gipp and Ruckman' position?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gipp and Ruckman are typically representative of the KJVO camp (not the KJV preferred or TR-priority etc.). Generally KJVO folks don't care about Textus Receptus, they only care about the KJV, and believe it not only to be a good translation, but to be inspired and infallible.
> 
> Sam Gipp has put out some videos, but essentially he has stated that the KJV has _replaced_ the original languages of Hebrew and Greek: every language only gets one inspired version, and the KJV is the inspired version for English. His videos can be found here: What's the Big Deal About the KJV?. They are well made but contain lots of very poor logic (in one group setting he asks a bunch of students to read a few verses simultaneously from their various versions. After the predictable cacophany, he then claims multiple versions can't be from God because God is not the God of confusion.)
> 
> Ruckman is similar. He believes the KJV contains "advanced revelation" and is God's final preserved word (if even the Greek of the TR disagrees with the AV 1611, go with the AV 1611 since God inspired it and the Greek probably was tampered with). If memory serves, he basically says other cultures just need to learn English if they want the inspired Word of God. Ruckman uses very strong, condemning language for those who would follow anything other than a KJV reading.
> 
> It was these and Riplinger (who is even further out there) that White mainly addresses and targets. White is careful to not lump all KJV advocates together, and he says he has a respect for the KJV and uses it regularly. However, he doesn't see a strong case for TR-priority and doesn't seem to address Burgon, Hills, Letis so much, being more concerned with the real wackos (and by the way, the KJVO movement is rather larger than you might think).
Click to expand...




That's a pretty good summation, apart from


> Gipp and Ruckman are typically representative of the KJVO camp



you would have been more accurate had you said that they were on the extreme end of the KJBO movement, no need to tar & feather all us KJB folk, obviously a tactic you learn't from White


----------



## Logan

One Little Nail said:


> you would have been more accurate had you said that they were on the extreme end of the KJBO movement, no need to tar & feather all us KJB folk, obviously a tactic you learn't from White



Given that I was particularly careful to distance that view from the KJV-preferred or TR-priority, etc., it seems quite dishonest to say I've "tarred and feathered all us KJB folk" and call it a "tactic".


----------



## JimmyH

One Little Nail said:


> you would have been more accurate had you said that they were on the extreme end of the KJBO movement, no need to tar & feather all us KJB folk, *obviously a tactic you learn't from White*


 Were you to read the book, you would realize how inaccurate that accusation is. James White, page 17,


> It is important to understand the motivation behind this book. It is not intended to push one particular translation of the Bible over another. I have no desire to get everyone to read the NASB, or the NIV, or the NKJV, or the RSV, or any modern translation. On the other hand, I am not in anyway seeking to stop those who use the KJV from reading that venerable translation._ This book is not against the King James Version_. I know many fine Christian people who use the KJV and for whom the translation works just fine. However I do oppose those who would force others to use the KJV or risk God's wrath for allegedly questioning His Word,_ I oppose KJV Onlyism, not the King James Version itself_. (italics by the author)


James White page 23 ;


> The King James Only movement likewise defies precise definition. One will find a range of beliefs within the broad category of KJV Only. We run the risk of offending individuals within the movement when we make broad generalizations, but such cannot be avoided cmopletely. Hopefully by defining the various postions found within the movement, we can help to focus attention upon the important issues at stake.



He then goes on to list the 5 categories of believer's views/positions ;



> Group # 1; I Like the KJV Best
> # 2; The Textual Argument
> #3; Received Text Only
> #4. The Inspired KJV Group
> #5; The KJV as New Revelation



James White page 29;


> I firmly believe that if people wish to use the KJV, they should feel free to do so. If they find its poetic form, its rhythmic beauty, to be preferable to "modern language," let no one be critical. God made us all differently, for which we should be very grateful. But while we are to be quick in granting freedom to others, we cannot expect that it will be given by those who have joined the KJV Only movement. For them it is not an issue of freedom but of doctrine, belief, and faith. They often make the use of anything but the KJV an impediment to relationship with others. That sharing in the gospel of Christ can be disrupted by such an issue should cause anyone a moment's reflection, and more than passing concern.


 Amen.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

One Little Nail said:


> You would have been more accurate had you said that they were on the extreme end of the KJBO movement, no need to tar & feather all us KJB folk, obviously a tactic you learn't from White


What color is the sky in your world?


----------



## KMK

So, White defines KJO as a 'movement'. I guess my question is whether or not it is a 'movement' or not. Maybe I need to get out more.


----------



## DMcFadden

Yeah, movement describes it as far as KJVO, which in practice, tends to draw the most fire to the Ruckmanite end of the continuum.

Personally I dismiss #1 as sentimental preference and irrelevant to the issue of texts. #2 and #3 advance arguments that are substantial and deserve real argumentation. There are several folks on the PB who fall into one or the other of those two categories. It is a shame that the extreme statements by Ruckman have tilted the conversation away from reasoned exchange of ideas between brethren.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Bill The Baptist said:


> The book is a fair summation of the prevailing academic view of textual criticism. Obviously if you disagree with that view, you will disagree with the book.






PuritanCovenanter said:


> To the novice of the arguments about history and manuscripts this book will seem good.





Bill The Baptist said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The book is a fair summation of the prevailing academic view of textual criticism. Obviously if you disagree with that view, you will disagree with the book.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with that view but haven't read the book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And even if we disagree with Dr. White on this point, I'm sure most of us would agree that we have profited greatly from most of his other work. The only pastor/teacher that I would agree with 100% of the time is Jesus.
Click to expand...


I was a Reformed Baptist for 30 years and I don't think I ever profitted from him except in a few blogs. And I mean very few. I usually found him quite lacking. There were other places to go to get better material. Just my humble opinion. Check the archives here. I am not sure I ever posted a link to one. 



armourbearer said:


> James White has written an apologetical work which deals with KJVO arguments. Nothing more, nothing less. If one is going to learn about textual criticism he should read works which deal with textual criticism. Or if one desires to know the issues related to translation, he should read works on translation. James White's presentation should be evaluated in the light of these broader fields. Praising the book simply because it helps you to deal with people with whom you disagree does no credit to your position on textual criticism or translation.




I agree with Reverend Winzer. My pain was that White didn't distinguish KJVO as KJVO and lumped others who differed from him into that category which was dishonest in my estimation as a scholar. If this book was meant to be scholarly it wasn't. Especially if one wants to discuss Textual Criticism.

I didn't agree with Theodore Letis on some things but I know he and White had their understandings and Letis and White went back and forth. I preferred Letis after listening and reading more. But I would first refer others to Burgon.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

DMcFadden said:


> It is a shame that the extreme statements by Ruckman have tilted the conversation away from reasoned exchange of ideas between brethren.


My Pastor Kimber Kauffman gave me a Commentary by Ruckman years ago on Exodus. It wasn't a commentary on the text at all. (Hyperbole) It was an assault on what others believed. It was the worst commentary I ever glanced at. It got round filed. I know that was Kimber's intention. Someone gave it to him.


----------



## JimmyH

KMK said:


> So, White defines KJO as a 'movement'. I guess my question is whether or not it is a 'movement' or not. Maybe I need to get out more.


Here are the results of a quick google search ;

http://www.kjvonly.org/

The King James Bible Defended!

King James Bible Believers (S.B.G.) Grace Believing - KJV Only - Pauline Doctrine

King James Bible Page: Information on Bible versions

DEFENDING THE KJV

Why I Am King James Only

Welcome to Use KJV Only Ministries

Folks who have gone back to the King James Bible

Believers Beware of Counterfeit King James Bibles

Wholesome Words Baptist Ministries Standing for Authorized King James Version

Bible Believers SBG - King James Only Directory

The last link above gives about 50 links within their site, some of which duplicate links google provided. The link below is a site that offers a rebuttal to KJVO viewpoints, though the name of the website would lead one to think otherwise. A bibliography of published books and articles by KJVO advocates would be immense. So I think it could be defined as a movement in some circles. 

The KJV-only Issue Page


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

As far as Translation goes I think Robert P. Martin's work was done well. It identifies issues in translation. Not manuscript problems. 

Accuracy Of Translation - Banner of Truth

That should be the start of a study in my estimation. It leads to other places where some dare not go.

http://www.amazon.com/Accuracy-Translation-Criterion-Evaluating-International/dp/0851517358

For those in the UK

http://www.tabernaclebookshop.org/accuracy-of-translation-9780851517353.html


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

JimmyH said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, White defines KJO as a 'movement'. I guess my question is whether or not it is a 'movement' or not. Maybe I need to get out more.
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the results of a quick google search ;
> 
> http://www.kjvonly.org/
> 
> The King James Bible Defended!
> 
> King James Bible Believers (S.B.G.) Grace Believing - KJV Only - Pauline Doctrine
> 
> King James Bible Page: Information on Bible versions
> 
> DEFENDING THE KJV
> 
> Why I Am King James Only
> 
> Welcome to Use KJV Only Ministries
> 
> Folks who have gone back to the King James Bible
> 
> Believers Beware of Counterfeit King James Bibles
> 
> Wholesome Words Baptist Ministries Standing for Authorized King James Version
> 
> Bible Believers SBG - King James Only Directory
> 
> The last link above gives about 50 links within their site, some of which duplicate links google provided. The link below is a site that offers a rebuttal to KJVO viewpoints, though the name of the website would lead one to think otherwise. A bibliography of published books and articles by KJVO advocates would be immense. So I think it could be defined as a movement in some circles.
> 
> The KJV-only Issue Page
Click to expand...


Jim,

I am not sure this is helpful. I can link to a thousand nut case sites on many topics to prove a point.


----------



## MW

JimmyH said:


> James White page 29;
> 
> 
> 
> I firmly believe that if people wish to use the KJV, they should feel free to do so. If they find its poetic form, its rhythmic beauty, to be preferable to "modern language," let no one be critical. God made us all differently, for which we should be very grateful. But while we are to be quick in granting freedom to others, we cannot expect that it will be given by those who have joined the KJV Only movement. For them it is not an issue of freedom but of doctrine, belief, and faith. They often make the use of anything but the KJV an impediment to relationship with others. That sharing in the gospel of Christ can be disrupted by such an issue should cause anyone a moment's reflection, and more than passing concern.
> 
> 
> 
> Amen.
Click to expand...


Dr. White only allows freedom to choose the AV on aesthetic grounds, and denies the AV reader the possibility of a choice which has been genuinely determined by conclusions relating to the study of textual criticism and translation issues. At the same time, Dr White takes the liberty in his book of presenting a case for other versions based on issues relating to textual criticism and translation. By so doing he removes it from being a matter of freedom, and makes it a point "of doctrine, belief, and faith." He has essentially adopted the same method he alleges against the KJVO movement.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Matthew has flagged the specific citation which gave me pause. Does Dr. White allow anyone to believe the KJV is the best text on the grounds of views #2 or #3 of the five views he identifies, while not classing them with the wackos of views #4-5?


----------



## DMcFadden

I'm pretty sure that James White learned CTO (Critical Text Only) in his M.A. at Fuller. From the standpoint of the classes I had there a few years before him, any challenge to the obvious superiority of the CT would be taken as about as sensible as believing in the Tooth Fairy, the flat earth, or that the moon was made out of green cheese. When you are THAT confident in your position, it would be easy to lump just about anyone who disagreed with in the lunatic fringe.


----------



## KMK

DMcFadden said:


> any challenge to the obvious superiority of the CT would be taken as about as sensible as believing in the Tooth Fairy, the flat earth, or that the moon was made out of green cheese.



Is Fuller more adamant about the CT or 'Old Earth'?


----------



## KMK

DMcFadden said:


> any challenge to the obvious superiority of the CT would be taken as about as sensible as believing in the Tooth Fairy, the flat earth, or that the moon was made out of green cheese.



Is Fuller more adamant about the CT or 'Old Earth'?


----------



## Logan

DMcFadden said:


> I'm pretty sure that James White learned CTO (Critical Text Only) in his M.A. at Fuller. From the standpoint of the classes I had there a few years before him, any challenge to the obvious superiority of the CT would be taken as about as sensible as believing in the Tooth Fairy, the flat earth, or that the moon was made out of green cheese. When you are THAT confident in your position, it would be easy to lump just about anyone who disagreed with in the lunatic fringe.



To be fair though, I'm quite sure White wouldn't think of himself as "CTO" but "evidence only". It's not so much confidence in the CT (which he has examined closely), but more that when your position is fundamentally evidence-based, you're going to see the TR as lacking the best evidence and therefore inferior. And when the only people you debate with who aren't on the fringe, are folks like Moorman (reminding one of Luther clutching the tablecloth and repeating "this is my body, this is my body"), it's easy to think the "other side" has no good arguments. I don't know if he's really ever dealt with a presuppositional or "preservation" approach, but if he did, he would indeed most likely dismiss it as wishful thinking.


----------



## DMcFadden

KMK said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> any challenge to the obvious superiority of the CT would be taken as about as sensible as believing in the Tooth Fairy, the flat earth, or that the moon was made out of green cheese.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is Fuller more adamant about the CT or 'Old Earth'?
Click to expand...




A friend of mine recounted the vignette of raising the flood of Noah as an argument in a class a few years ago only to be told that such a comment was a residue of having previously studied under J.I. Packer before transferring to Pasadena (i.e., it was waaay too conservative). I am not personally aware of ANYone at the school who would hold to a young earth or think that it was a reasonable exegetical option for a person in 2014. Most of the OT profs tend in a pretty progressive direction for evangelicals, including advocating Open Theism (e.g., Goldingay).

I don't mean to say that reasoned arguments against the TR or an old earth take up time in class. It isn't so much that you are given reasons against some things, merely that the exasperated prof might dismiss something with a quip as hardly worth considering. As one OT prof noted, "10% of what I say is wrong, the trouble is I don’t know which 10%."


----------



## DMcFadden

Logan said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure that James White learned CTO (Critical Text Only) in his M.A. at Fuller. From the standpoint of the classes I had there a few years before him, any challenge to the obvious superiority of the CT would be taken as about as sensible as believing in the Tooth Fairy, the flat earth, or that the moon was made out of green cheese. When you are THAT confident in your position, it would be easy to lump just about anyone who disagreed with in the lunatic fringe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be fair though, I'm quite sure White wouldn't think of himself as "CTO" but "evidence only". It's not so much confidence in the CT (which he has examined closely), but more that when your position is fundamentally evidence-based, you're going to see the TR as lacking the best evidence and therefore inferior. And when the only people you debate with who aren't on the fringe, are folks like Moorman (reminding one of Luther clutching the tablecloth and repeating "this is my body, this is my body"), it's easy to think the "other side" has no good arguments. I don't know if he's really ever dealt with a presuppositional or "preservation" approach, but if he did, he would indeed most likely dismiss it as wishful thinking.
Click to expand...


Fine, Logan. You may be correct. I do not know White personally, and have benefited greatly from his writings (probably own all of his works). But, after having conducted multiple-hour interviews with several hundred FTS grads for ordination over more than three decades (and being an alum myself from the "olden days"), I would say that on any number of issues that consume the time of the PB, the average FTS grad would not have a clue about "arguments" against many of their positions. The tendency is to be present a strong "case" for a progressive view while brushing off other ideas as hopelessly muddled remnants of fundamentalist thinking. So, while you may know a great deal about Rob Bell or Brian McLaren and their critique of traditional evangelicalism, don't expect to know much about why anyone would dissent from this brilliant critique. Even in the olden days (just a few years after Piper and a couple of years before White), I can remember Carl F.H. Henry (one of the founders of the school), Francis Schaeffer, and the (then) rising star R.C. Sproul being dismissed as irrelevant and "rationalistic." Why bother reading them? They represent cul de sacs. Of course, when I went there, the expert on the Westminster Confession was a guy who did his doctorate on it under Berkouwer arguing that the Westminster divines did not hold to inerrancy (he now writes books arguing for the marriage/ordination of homosexuals).

Wherever you go to school, if the prof does not think that something is worth discussing, the tendency is to dismiss it with a joke. Students who grow up under that regime will remember what they are "against," even if they have no clue why anyone would have ever believed contrariwise. In researching a book, a writer will be careful, of course. However, we all tend to retain the prejudices of our old profs and will often cut corners in being thorough and fair to those with whom we disagree. Honestly, after nearly 40 years of theological study, my first serious exposure to anyone who would dissent from the CT came on the PB. I just assumed it was all a bunch of crazies, possessing an ignorant zeal not unlike the Westborough Baptist folks.

[BTW, I believe in most versions of the tale it was a table, not a tablecloth at the Marburg Colloquy where Luther insisted on "hoc est corpus meum" against Zwingli]


----------



## NaphtaliPress

What is White's understanding of what the framers meant in WCF/LBCF 1.8?


Logan said:


> I don't know if he's really ever dealt with a presuppositional or *"preservation"* approach, but if he did, he would indeed most likely dismiss it as wishful thinking.


----------



## Logan

NaphtaliPress said:


> What is White's understanding of what the framers meant in WCF/LBCF 1.8?



He would probably agree with what Warfield (and others) wrote on it.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

This is not something I've put considerable time into so I don't recall what Warfield wrote. I think it was Lane that said (can't find the post; maybe it was on GB) that the view of preservation would differ from the framers and so obviously CT folk read 1.8 differently than what the framers had in mind. It is just not satisfactory (to me) that a new view is imposed on words of a constitutional document without any constitutional process at all apparently in the PCUSA/PCUS as discussed on the other thread. When Woodrow "read" evolution into WCF 4.1 it created a stir and complaint and a paper trail (with the PCUS GA eventually in essence saying "we don't do science"), but not a word on what would require a new understanding of preservation? I guess it was the age; a declining church and conservatives had things like evolution to worry about. Nowadays folks with strong conscience take exception to "psalms" at 21.7 because of original intent; dispute when someone wants to understand day as something other than 24 hour; but do they treat 1.8 with the same carefulness? On the other hand I guess a less than consistent treatment of intent (not to even discuss subscription) may explain why we are now seeing evolution again as an issue. 


Logan said:


> He would probably agree with what Warfield (and others) wrote on it.


----------



## One Little Nail

Logan said:


> One Little Nail said:
> 
> 
> 
> you would have been more accurate had you said that they were on the extreme end of the KJBO movement, no need to tar & feather all us KJB folk, obviously a tactic you learn't from White
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given that I was particularly careful to distance that view from the KJV-preferred or TR-priority, etc., it seems quite dishonest to say I've "tarred and feathered all us KJB folk" and call it a "tactic".
Click to expand...



We'll given you're remark about


Logan said:


> Speaking of grinding axes...


 I'll say I'm justified, less so had you said that they belong to the *Extreme* end I'd have not said that.


You basically comfirmed the point I was making, which was


One Little Nail said:


> The fact he mentions Riplinger & Ruckman in the intro slants the argument from the start by biasing the reader from the beginning.



here



Logan said:


> Maybe this was because he initially got involved in this because he was asked to respond to Riplinger? And the target audience of the book is largely the Ruckmanites (and Gipp)?



as has 



Stephen L Smith said:


> Logan I partly agree with you. It is true that White does focus on the 'weirdos' but he also addresses the core TR priority arguments.White does not do a particularly good job of responding to Dr Hills (though he does summaries the issue).



and regarding White, tar & feathering all & sundry



PuritanCovenanter said:


> I read the book a few decades ago and was not as impressed by it as some of you seem to be. Yes, the Ruckmanites are wacko as is Riplingerites. But when he grouped my old friend Jay P. Green Sr. in with those guys I was disturbed.


 


PuritanCovenanter said:


> I agree with Reverend Winzer. My pain was that White didn't distinguish KJVO as KJVO and lumped others who differed from him into that category which was dishonest in my estimation as a scholar.If this book was meant to be scholarly it wasn't.




thats what my original post basically said!




Semper Fidelis said:


> What color is the sky in your world?


 
I take it was a famous line from Cheers! no


> That was one of the funniest lines I’d heard in the TV sitcom Cheers, when Psychologist Frasier Crane leans over to Cliff after some of his ever flowing rhetoric and says,“Hello in there, Cliff. Tell me, what color is the sky in your world?”




Can I quote Louis Armstrong


> I see skies of blue, And clouds of white.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Yes; speaking of grinding axes was pejorative; on the other hand, whatever White has done, Logan has tried to distinguish views and your treatment of him was not just unfair but untrue. You maligned him. And now you are doubling down. STOP IT.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

We are giving this topic a rest; contact a moderator to reopen if anyone thinks they have something substantive to say and just have to say it. I would also suggest a respite from the whole CT TR topic to let things return to a simmer.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Just to speak to some of the things said about James White:

1. I find him very profitable. Do I agree with him on all things and do I find him to have the depth in every discipline as specialists? No. He, himself, will note where he does very little study. I have seen some arguments made by him where I take issue with his understanding of some topics but, by and large, he is very thorough when he tries to speak to a topic. On Islam, as one example, I've found nobody else who has spent so much time digesting Hadith literature and trying to break it down to the relevant issues that a person with a Reformed view of the Scriptures would find relevant from an apologetic perspective. The fact that he is respected by those who engage in apologetic issues speaks to his work there. With respect to textual critical issues, is he a specialist? No. Is he respected enough to have been a critical consultant to the NASB? Yes. He's not a slacker who just spouts on the issues but actually takes a lot of time explaining things to an audience to help them understand what the issues are.

2. With respect to James' approach, I admit I have not read the book but I've been listening to his program for several years now and he has touched on this subject quite a bit. It is fascinating that there are many accusations leveled against him but very few, of the TR variety, that will actually directly interact with him to bring forward the accusations and dialog with him. I've seen it a few times but, sadly, most will not simply call him up so we can see how those issues will survive contact. 

My own perspective (having some Seminary training in the processes of textual criticism and reading a few books) is that James White adopts the CT position not so much out of some slavish "that's the only thing I was taught by my Seminary" but by a conviction that he believes in preservation in such a way that he does not believe that he cannot imagine the loss of any Greek manuscript that attests to certain readings that TR folks accept. It's a conviction. TR folks like to say they accept certain things by faith. Well, that's James' conviction. Is he aware of and distinguishes the TR view from the superstitious KJVO crowd? Absolutely. I've seen it a number of times.

The accusation that James somehow does not permit a view contrary to his own cuts both ways. While I respect the TR position, it cannot accept a Critical Text. One of the difficulties in even ascertaining what the textual critical approach used by TR is that it is defined more by negation than what it actually states positively. By that I mean that its advocates very often tell us what is wrong with certain manuscripts accepted by the CT crowd or what is wrong with the approach but many of those criticisms can be turned around at the process that was used to form the "received text". That said, the TR position makes itself immune to the criticism because special care and providence is defined by what they have received as the textual platform. They are no more open to a position that additional manuscripts that may challenge TR readings than a person who accepts a CT approach is to the notion that special care and providence is co-extensive with the TR view. The fact that James does not embrace the TR view by definition means he rejects an approach but that's like criticizing him for being Baptist and not allowing for the Presbyterian view on the Sacraments. It goes without saying.

3. With respect to James being enslaved to anything because he attended Fuller, one only has to listen to him for a short time to realize that is surely not the case.

4. With respect to how prevelant the KJVO is and whether it is a "movement", let me note this: How prevalent is the TR position? Experientially, I've run into many IFB congregations and persons who hold to the KJVO position. Outside of the Puritanboard, I've never met (in person) a Reformed person who holds to the TR view. Again, I have respect and friendship with people here that do but I'm saying that I think that experience on this board notwithstanding, it's not very prevalent. For those who don't listen to the Dividing Line, I think you'd have to see how often James ends up having to take it up over the years to get a sense of the attacks he's under from that rabid crowd. Over several years, I think he's only had to deal with the TR view a couple of times because they just don't contact him that much.

The bottom line for me is that I've been trained to use the Critical Text. One can lament the situation but I don't know of too many Reformed seminaries that accept the TR approach to textual criticism. The only reason I know about the TR position as well as I do is interactions here. Does my training, then, make me slavish to agreeing with the TR position? Well, if I was truly a slave to my training then I guess I wouldn't be able to give you a "free" answer but I think I have evaluated the claims and find the very few positive affirmations that TR proponents make to be unconvincing. I haven't been persuaded. That doesn't mean that they aren't making some arguments that are logically sound but, when it boils right down to it, I see it as resting on a very few premises that cannot be investigated one way or the other because they rest on faith. That's not a bad thing but I just don't accept them because I don't believe the GNC of textual preservation requires that I conclude that this was the only way it could have happened. I think that's where James is but I would encourage his detractors to call him up and make the same charges to him that you are here and see what he says.


----------

