# James White's King James Only Controversy



## Joe Keysor (Jan 6, 2005)

*James White\'s King James Only Controversy*

I have the following questions about James White's book, which has been praised a number of times on this board.

If someone can give me some answers on these points I will be most interested to read them. 

1)He pointed to a major doctrinal mistake in the KJV and said no defenders of the KJV had been able to answer it. This was in Acts 19:2 where Paul asks "Have you received the Holy Spirit since you believed?" He made quite an issue of this, asserting that it was bad translating and bad doctrine - people receive the Holy Spirit the instant they believe, according to him. But what does Paul say in Ephesians? "...in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise" (1:13). Another mistake in the bible? Also in Acts we read that the people of Samaria believed and were baptized, but received the Holy Spirit later. White's preferred rendering is in my mind definitely related to a false gospel which says "Just agree to some basic doctrines intellectually and you are guaranteed of a place in heaven no matter what you do" - not that White said this himself. As to the grammar, the Greek (in the TR at least) uses the aorist participle (pisteusantes), which refers to actions that were completed prior. His argument that the aorist participle can refer to simultaneous actions was extremely weak and contrary to basic grammar.

2) He criticized a KJV rendering where Jesus said "Let these sayings sink down into your ears," and asked "What father would speak to his child that way?" But what father would say to his child "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father through sanctification of the Spirit"? The bible is not a children's book and Jesus was not talking to children. 

3)He repeatedly said that the KJV was inaccurate and what the Greek "really" meant was.... In EVERY case but one I looked in my Liddell-Scott Greek Lexicon and found the KJV's rendering included in the possible definitions. It seems that White looked at some bible dictionary and just picked out the very first definition out of many, or the one that he liked, and thought this is what the Greek "really" means. I also think James White and many other critics of the KJV could not read a page of Plato or Xenophon in the original to save their lives, and know much less about Greek than did the men whose work they criticize so freely. This does not apply to the rare occasions where the meaning of a word (such as "lust") has changed over time.

[Edited on 1-6-2005 by Joe Keysor]


----------



## doulosChristou (Jan 6, 2005)

You make a few good points, Joe. I agree that denigrating the AV is not a helpful way to explore the controversy. The real issue has little to do with whether the AV is a solid translation but whether it is the *only* translation the church should honor. I must say I prefer Carson's book to White's.


----------



## Joe Keysor (Jan 6, 2005)

> Those who hold to KJV only need to read the excellent book by Dr. James White titled "The KJV Controversy".
> 
> He proves that the KJV is not the best translation available.
> 
> ...


----------



## blhowes (Jan 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Joe Keysor_
> 2) He criticized a KJV rendering where Jesus said "Let these sayings sink down into your ears," and asked "What father would speak to his child that way?" But what father would say to his child "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father through sanctification of the Spirit"? The bible is not a children's book and Jesus was not talking to children.


Other than the KJV and the ESV, I don't have any other Bibles handy right now. The ESV renders the verse:

Luk 9:44 "Let these words sink into your ears: The Son of Man is about to be delivered into the hands of men."

I was wondering if anybody knew how this verse is translated in other versions?


----------



## Joe Keysor (Jan 6, 2005)

> The real issue has little to do with whether the AV is a solid translation but whether it is the only translation the church should honor. I must say I prefer Carson's book to White's.



Could you refer me to that book of Carson's? I am not familiar with it. If you have time you might give three or four examples as to why you think it is better than White's.

I don't object when someone says the KJV is out of date, which is true, but when someone says the KJV is wrong, and I look in the Liddell-Scott Lexicon and find the KJV's rendering among the possible definitions, I wonder just how much do these people know. 

To me the real issues are these: am I to believe that the bible used by Bunyan and Owen and Edwards and Whitefield and Wesley was full of verses that did not belong there (meaning mistakes, not from God), while the REAL bibles were lying concealed somewhere?

That a gospel account of the ending of Mark is not authentic?
To me, someone who says a gospel account of the resurrection is not authentic is not a Puritan.

That the KJV is wrong when it translates I Corinthians 4:9 as "appointed" when the word appointed is in the lexicon and also makes good sense?

A good solid bible in modern English would be a great blessing to the church. I do not believe such a bible exists.

I do agree that many KJV Only arguments are wrong. The problem is not with changing the KJV, it can be changed. The problems are which manuscripts do you use and how free are you to alter the original?


----------



## Joe Keysor (Jan 6, 2005)

> Other than the KJV and the ESV, I don't have any other Bibles handy right now. The ESV renders the verse:
> 
> Luk 9:44 "Let these words sink into your ears: The Son of Man is about to be delivered into the hands of men."



I have no problem with changing "sayings" to "words," and think is possible to have different wordings from the KJV. Many KJV people are out to lunch. They try to protect against bad changes by forbidding all change, which is a mistake.

Sorry I couldn't respond to your comments on the other thread (blhowes), it was prematurely closed (in my opinion).

I would like to focus if possible on the question of to what extent White's criticisms are accurate. If anyone who likes his book can confine themselves to these simple points I will be interested.


----------



## blhowes (Jan 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Joe Keysor_
> I have no problem with changing "sayings" to "words," and think is possible to have different wordings from the KJV. Many KJV people are out to lunch. They try to protect against bad changes by forbidding all change, which is a mistake.


I found some other translations of the verse online. Apparently, he likes the NIV translation?

The KJV, ESV, RSV, and NASB basically translate it the same way: "Let these words (or sayings) sink into your ears".

The NIV is the only one I've found so far that translates it a bit differently:

(Luke 9:44 NIV) Listen carefully to what I am about to tell you: The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men."


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Jan 7, 2005)

I don't believe the TR is 'the' only right set of manuscripts. I believe it is a branch of manuscripts in the Byz/Maj Text tradition that has some correct readings and some incorrect ones.

I *do* believe that the Byz/Majority Text most closely represents the original text of the New Testament. The arguments of Pierpont and Robinson are very convincing to me. Like them, however, I don't believe any major harm can come from using an ecclectic text, since 88% of the text of the NT is settled.

I personally believe that most KJV-Onlyism is simply nonsense. The entire premise that this ONE translation is the only 'right' one truly is built on a house of sand. Someone found a hobby-horse doctrine and got a few hundred people to ride it.

[Edited on 7-1-2005 by OS_X]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Joe Keysor_
> 
> 
> > The real issue has little to do with whether the AV is a solid translation but whether it is the only translation the church should honor. I must say I prefer Carson's book to White's.
> ...



I believe it is called 'The Kings James Version Debate'. I found it lacking. Most of these guys are illuminating the craziness of the KJV only guys. They truly don't deal with the manuscript stuff.

[Edited on 1-7-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## Joe Keysor (Jan 7, 2005)

> I believe it is called 'The Kings James Version Debate'. I found it lacking. Most of these guys are illuminating the craziness of the KJV only guys. They truly don't deal with the manuscript stuff.



I have found that to be true time and time again. Defeating the KJV extremists is like shooting fish in a barrel, quite easy and fun to do. But when it gets to more serious questions, such as the incredibly poor quality of Codex Sinaticus, with its numerous glaring blunders, that is best swept under the rug.

Burgon's powerful argument's against Hort and Westcott's textual fantasies are never dealt with either. They cannot be, they are unanswerable (if excessive, Burgon would have been more effective if he had cut his book in half, it is far too scholarly).

I will be surprised if there is a substantive response to the questions I have asked about White.

There are many other flaws in his book but I only listed a few to keep it simple.


----------



## Joe Keysor (Jan 7, 2005)

> I don't believe the TR is 'the' only right set of manuscripts. I believe it is a branch of manuscripts in the Byz/Maj Text tradition that has some correct readings and some incorrect ones.



That is an interesting topic. Why not start a thread on it? What is your response to my objections to White in the first post?



> I don't believe any major harm can come from using an ecclectic text, since 88% of the text of the NT is settled.



So now the bible is 88% reliable? People like Edwards and Bunyan and Whitefield and Owen used to believe it was 100% true, but they were mistaken I guess. 



> I personally believe that most KJV-Onlyism is simply nonsense. The entire premise that this ONE translation is the only 'right' one truly is built on a house of sand. Someone found a hobby-horse doctrine and got a few hundred people to ride it.



KJV Onlyism is one thing. Criticism of the KJV is another.


----------



## Joe Keysor (Jan 7, 2005)

> The KJV, ESV, RSV, and NASB basically translate it the same way: "Let these words (or sayings) sink into your ears".
> 
> The NIV is the only one I've found so far that translates it a bit differently:
> 
> (Luke 9:44 NIV) Listen carefully to what I am about to tell you: The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men."



What benefit is derived by changing "sayings" to "words" or "den of thieves" to "den of robbers"? I don't say these changes are sinful or bad, but what is the benefit of these constant changes?

Secondly, James White objected that the KJV was insufficiently childish. So, the NIV as cited above has something that a father might say to a ten year old.
Shall we bring the whole bible down to a child's level, then it will be easier to understand and more people will get saved? This sort of thing done not once but over and over again dilutes the scripture.

Pastorway has some insightful comments here:




> I never use the NIV. Never. And I never recommend it. Too many words need to be changed to explain the meaning of the text when preaching. Too many important theological words are neglected or mis-translated. It "sounds" watered down to me.
> Pastorway
> http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=62



The KJV uses paraphrase on rare occasions. For example, it translates "en gastri exousa" (lit. "having in the womb") as "with child." It does this only when really necessary, it doe not constantly do its best to make the bible simpler for the modern reader.

White's criticism is foolish.


----------



## blhowes (Jan 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Joe Keysor_
> [What benefit is derived by changing "sayings" to "words" or "den of thieves" to "den of robbers"? I don't say these changes are sinful or bad, but what is the benefit of these constant changes?


I don't see any benefit or harm in making the changes. They both convey pretty much the same thing, but to me the KJV, ESV, etc paint a much better word picture than simply saying listen carefully. I picture something similar to water sinking into the ground. It conveys to me more of the idea of really letting Jesus' words sink down into you're inner being.

That may not be an accurate word picture, since one source I found didn't seem to like the word "sink"



> Sink into your ears (Thesthe humeis eis ta oÌ„ta humoÌ„n). Second aorist imperative middle of titheÌ„mi, common verb. "œDo you (note emphatic position) yourselves (whatever others do) put into your ears." No word like "œsink" here.



Regardless, it seems to convey more of an idea (to me, anyway) that we need to internalize the word. "Listen carefully" I guess says the same thing, but I don't get the feel that its any more than head knowledge.

I wish I could interact with you more on your other two questions, but I have the disadvantage of not knowing Greek. I do know "The Alpha and Omega", but beyond that...


----------



## alwaysreforming (Jan 7, 2005)

*No Response From James White*

It surprises me that James White has not (or will not) respond to your points, Joe. That seems very much unlike him. 
Perhaps someone on this Board knows James White and can contact him and ask him if he would take the time to respond. We would all be very interested in hearing your specific points dealt with.

So... who knows Mr. White?


----------



## doulosChristou (Jan 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Joe Keysor_
> ...



The full title is _The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism_. I prefer this work to White's precisely because Carson does *not* waste his time on the extreme KJV-only kooks, but directly engages KJV-only's most articulate and respected scholars. He ignores the crazies like Ruckman and Riplinger while carefully and patiently engaging the reasoned KJV-only apologetics of men like Fuller, Hills, Hodges, Ray and Pickering. He also focusses more on historical and methodoligical issues than White takes the time to go into. Carson also has a mastery of the Greek which far surpasses White (who, though he teaches NT Greek, recently admitted on his blog that he is still tackling the Greek participle). An added bonus is the book is written with the respectful and irenic quality becoming all ambassadors of Jesus Christ but sadly lacking in much of Church debate today.


----------



## doulosChristou (Jan 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> They truly don't deal with the manuscript stuff.



The book is divided into two sections. The first section deals exclusively with the manuscript stuff. I found chapter seven particularly compelling. For an understanding of the non-KJV-only position, I recommend this book.


----------

