# The King James Only Controversy by James White



## Authorised (Sep 7, 2004)

So I read his book and I'm rather unimpressed. He labels the entire KJVO crowd as bumbling idiots, likening them to heretics; namely, Texe Marrs, Ruckman, Riplinger, etc. This is a complete misrepresentation of the whole position. Labeling all KJVers as people who divide churches and denigrate scholarship, James White's verse charts give us the conclusive evidence that  

The KJV is different from other versions!

Gee, thanks for clearing that up. I'm not sure if it was the endorsements by Hank Hanegraaff, Norman Geisler, or Bruce Metzger that attracted me more, or perhaps the obnoxious manner in which he denigrates all the scholarship of legitimate scholars in favor of the Byzantine text type. Using Ruckman to refute King James Onlyism is just as dirty as trying to use Karl Barth or NT Wright to refute reformed theology. 

Richard Baxter said part of lying was "Speaking falsely through culpable ignorance, error, or inconsiderateness." 

All three are present in this book.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Sep 7, 2004)

Well, I for one have had the unfortunate experience of finding myself dab smack in the middle of one of those KJV-only types of churches. White described them to the "T"! 
Of course, however, he is dealing with a stereotype... but as in all things... stereotypes often have a basis in reality.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 7, 2004)

Unfortunately I have not read the book yet, but what is his main point in writing the book? Is it to show that everyone who reads the KJV is a moron, or is it to show that the KJV-[i:8d3014c892]only[/i:8d3014c892] position is untenable? I do not think that James would be pronouncing anathemas on those who prefer to read the Authorised Versionm, whatever their reasons for doing so (and I can sympathize with a few of their reasons). But I believe that God has raised up White (and his debating skills) to show to Christians who read another translation that they are not sinful. 

Granted he may have painted with a broad brush...


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 7, 2004)

I have not read the book, but as one who prefers the King James/New King James versions and who is a very staunch Majority Text/Byzantine Text advocate, and at the same time who has had personal experience with KJV only types, and I can vouch for the danger they pose.

Ruckman is truly a heretical nut. While he condemns everyone who will not use the "inspired" KJV, he holds many, many heretical doctrines regarding the Trinity and soteriology. Riplinger is along the same lines.

Here is but one personal example:

When I was younger I was in a small SBC church that used the KJV in its servcies. The only problem was, that like many SBC churches (heck, many churches), whatthe pastor used to read from was the New Scofield KJV. So in that text a few (and I mean a VERY few - like maybe a dozen) words were changed. "Wherefore" to "Because of," "wherein" to "in which" and the like. [b:d22e84ee45]I am serious[/b:d22e84ee45]. The pastor was castigated by a new attender (who was a VERY intelligent physician that was also KJV only) because we did not use the KJV, and instead used the New Scofield. Not mind you, because of the theology - the man was also a died in the wool Dispensationalist. It was solely because of the slight modifications to the KJV.

Of course the funniest thing was that he (like almost every KJV-only advocate) has absolutely no knowledge of Greek, Hebrew, text bases, etc.

I don't agree with White on everything in his book, but don't kid yourself; KJV onlyites are nuts.


----------



## Learner (Sep 7, 2004)

Aaron , James White did not label everyone as moronic . He did not paint with a broad brush . Did you really read the book ? I do not have it with me . I loaned it to a friend . However , he draws distinctions . Some people prefer that translation . He doesn't cast aspersions on them . I think he breaks it into 7 categories or so . The real focus of the book is aimed at clarification -- not emotionalism or sentiment passing for Christian conviction . KJV Only-types are those who believe that using any other version is wicked . Only the KJV is inspired etc .
I think he did a masterful job of explaining his position which is most reasonable . I live in South Korea . There are a number of King James Only folks here , Western and Korean ! Can you imagine someone whose native language is not English arguing for the KJV stance ? The Koreans I know who take this position use broken English . How can they convince others that the English usage of several centuries ago is to be mandated to be in the good graces of God ?
It's a pity that in some secular bookstores here Ruckman's books are overflowing the shelves of the religious section . Good , sound material is lacking . I know that many who are King James Only or are leaning in that direction do not care for Ruckman and some of the other more extreme types . But the " Moderates ? " are influenced by their writings .
The so-called 1611 is really the 1769 version . A comparison will reveal that .
This whole issue is a diversion away from the vital things Christian should be doing to extend the kingdom of God . But Dr. White and others of his persuasion had to write about it to straighten-out the terrible distortions that are being vomited forth by some cultic men and women . New believers are easily led astray . If KJV-types would only preach the whole counsel of God from their translation I would be happy . But their people are getting short-changed with the kind of messages being presented in those circles . I know first- hand , in America , as well as S. Korea .


----------



## Authorised (Sep 7, 2004)

I read the book. 

Just like Erasmus, he defines one term and then supports a different idea under that same term. Yes, he named five different positions, then debunked the abominably heretical viewpoint belonging to pieces of human garbage like Ruckman and Riplinger. I will agree, that is not sinful to use another translation. The argument is NOT over English. 

Good Grief!! Will you NIV/NASB users admit that the whole debate is over Greek, not English. So what if the King James was revised in 1769? Do you think I'm that dense? I DO have the original 1611 King James version, parallel with Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Rheims, and Geneva and the Greek of the Alexandrian text type. Have YOU looked at the original 1611? There's not really much difference relative to the 1769, except in spelling, etc. 

To me, KJVO is merely the belief that the textus receptus (a text type which always existed, yet named "Textus Receptus" in 1633) is the proper text for translation and exegesis. I don't see why we even need to debate English.


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 7, 2004)

[quote:50957406c7="Authorised"]I read the book. 

Just like Erasmus, he defines one term and then supports a different idea under that same term. Yes, he named seven different positions, then debunked the abominably heretical viewpoint belonging to pieces of human garbage like Ruckman and Riplinger. I will agree, that is not sinful to use another translation. The argument is NOT over English. 

Good Grief!! Will you NIV/NASB users admit that the whole debate is over Greek, not English. So what if the King James was revised in 1769? Do you think I'm that dense? I DO have the original 1611 King James version, parallel with Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Rheims, and Geneva and the Greek of the Alexandrian text type. Have YOU looked at the original 1611? There's not really much difference relative to the 1769, except in spelling, etc. 

To me, KJVO is merely the belief that the textus receptus (a text type which always existed, yet named "Textus Receptus" in 1633) is the proper text for translation and exegesis. I don't see why we even need to debate English.[/quote:50957406c7]

Aaron,

I am neither an NIV or NASB user. You may look through my posts and see in the Translations and Manuscripts Forum to see how little I think of the NIV. I also have no love for the Critical Text. But the issue with KJV only is over English, not Greek. The New King James uses the Majority Text, and the KJV only-ites despise it. So much so that it is gospel in those circles that the symbol that often was used to represent the Trinity that is on the cover of many NKJV Bibles is devil worship.

KJVO is actually nothing at all about the Greek text debate. In fact, KJVO advocates hurt the MT/TR cause by giving an easy target for CT folks. Every good MT/TR advocate should disdain KJVO.


----------



## Authorised (Sep 7, 2004)

I suppose I was misinformed then...

If that's what KJVO means then I'll have no part in that.

The problem is, I learned about the whole controversy from a moderate who uses the KJV and prefers the TR. I had no idea most KJVO people were really like that. 

Really?
Really? :flaming:  

I think it was on Dave Hocking's website www.hopefortoday.org . I listened to his Bible History/Authenticity class right after God was pleased to save me...and it certainly helped when I was dealing with a lot of apologetical questions. 

and before everyone shoots me...
Yes, I know he isn't exactly reformed...but hey, they were still good lectures.


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 7, 2004)

That's OK Aaron. I am with you on the MT/TR. It is a different (and far better) discussion.


----------



## Scot (Sep 8, 2004)

Are the people in the Free Presbyterian Churches this extreme? I know they only use the KJV (my personal preference) but do they consider everyone who uses another translation heretics? I hope not, I really like alot of the Free Presbyterian preachers. 

Does anyone know where they stand on this?


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 8, 2004)

[quote:01f8d675e3="Scot"]Are the people in the Free Presbyterian Churches this extreme? I know they only use the KJV (my personal preference) but do they consider everyone who uses another translation heretics? I hope not, I really like alot of the Free Presbyterian preachers. 

Does anyone know where they stand on this?[/quote:01f8d675e3]

As far as I know they are not. They believe the KJV is better, not inspired, for a variety of reasons.


----------



## Authorised (Sep 8, 2004)

the Free Presbyterians, and especially their preachers, are all rather bold men, zealous for truth. I think they still believe in the original Westminster confession of faith (including the part about the pope being the antichrist), yet they also disallow any drinking or smoking. Ian Paisley, their moderator, tends to be a little eccentric, at one point holding signs saying "Pope John Paul II: Antichrist," disrupting a parliament meeting as the pope began to address them. 

All Free Presbyterian sermons I've ever heard which extol the virtues of the KJV never go as far to say it is inspired and in fact vehemently attack that view as well. They most certainly believe in the TR text type, and the KJV as the best and most suitable English translation to date. They see modern textual criticism as the fruit of unbelieving scholars who seek to change the word of God. While they are quite vehement about the KJV, I wouldn't put them even CLOSE to Ruckman, Marrs, Riplinger.


----------



## Scot (Sep 8, 2004)

Thanks Fred & Aaron. That's a relief.

[quote:551003ad89]the Free Presbyterians, and especially their preachers, are all rather bold men, zealous for truth. [/quote:551003ad89]

That's why I love to hear them preach.


----------



## Bryan (Sep 8, 2004)

If you want to see the danger KJVO people persent spend some time reading the threads in the Bible Version/Translation forum of Baptist Board

It's like banging your head against the wall trying to discuss anything with them  

I'm not really sure why many Baptists have decidedthe KJV as the only inspired English version. If Prince Charles commissioned a new version and outlawed every version but the his would Baptists be jumping on it as the only inspired version?  

Bryan
SDG


----------



## Authorised (Sep 8, 2004)

Be sure to look at the thread which says "IF CALVINISM IS TRUE, WHY AREN'T ALL BELIEVERS CALVINISTIC?" 

Fundamental Baptists have to be some of the most goofy people I've ever met. Rather unfortunate they've stolen the term "fundamentalist."


----------



## blhowes (Sep 8, 2004)

I've seen some of the negatives of taking the KJV-only stance and some of the divisions it can cause. I've seen some saints who I've really admired leave the church over the issue when the pastor stated from the pulpit that this was his belief and its what he would teach. I guess they had seen the fruits of this stance in their past and didn't want any part of it.

I've heard KJV-only folks speak flippantly of the other versions as Bible perversions, instead of Bible versions. I cringed when I heard these kinds of statements. Statements like this, if made at all, should only be made by those who at least have the 'credentials' (knowledge of Greek, Hebrew, manuscripts, etc) to know what they're talking about. Many don't.

I've listened to the concern of a father whose son attended a reformed baptist church (an awesome church, BTW). He didn't seem to know anything about the beliefs of the church, but was concerned because the church didn't use the KJV.

I was wondering if anybody has had any success getting KJV-only folks to 'expand their horizons' a bit. Not so much to get them to change which Bible they use, as to allow them to listen to the wisdom of other saints outside of their local church who use a different Bible? So often, their mind seems to put up barriers when somebody quotes from anything other than the KJV.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 8, 2004)

[quote:e20e9ffed4]the Free Presbyterians, and especially their preachers, are all rather bold men, zealous for truth. [/quote:e20e9ffed4]

Where can I hear them preach? (Iknowthat this is slightly off subject, but I didn't want to start a new thread)

Thanks,


----------



## blhowes (Sep 8, 2004)

[quote:fb9f4527cd="Finn McCool"][quote:fb9f4527cd]the Free Presbyterians, and especially their preachers, are all rather bold men, zealous for truth. [/quote:fb9f4527cd]

Where can I hear them preach? (Iknowthat this is slightly off subject, but I didn't want to start a new thread)

Thanks,[/quote:fb9f4527cd]
You might try www.sermonaudio.com. I've listened to sermons by Ian Paisley, others may be there as well.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Sep 8, 2004)

[quote:1048c1b60a="blhowes"][quote:1048c1b60a="Finn McCool"][quote:1048c1b60a]the Free Presbyterians, and especially their preachers, are all rather bold men, zealous for truth. [/quote:1048c1b60a]

Where can I hear them preach? (Iknowthat this is slightly off subject, but I didn't want to start a new thread)

Thanks,[/quote:1048c1b60a]
You might try www.sermonaudio.com. I've listened to sermons by Ian Paisley, others may be there as well.[/quote:1048c1b60a]

Look for sermons by John Greer. He used to pastor the local Free Presbyterian Church in our area, but has returned to Ireland. He and his family were homeschoolers, and we got to know them a bit before they moved.


----------



## Scot (Sep 8, 2004)

http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.a...=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Rev.^Stephen^Hamilton

You can order tapes from Stephen Hamilton at this site:

http://www.lehighfree.org/


----------



## Learner (Sep 13, 2004)

Two more books on the KJV issue : " From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man " . The general editor is James B. Williams . There has been a sequel called : " God's Word in Our Hands " . Both are published by Ambasador - Emerald . I have the first one and reread it several times . It is very helpful . I do not yet own the second one but skimmed it some time ago . It is even longer and quite good i'm sure .


----------

