It seems to me that James White's position is best explained by his own words in the opening section of his book,
The King James Only Controversy:
"Finally, this leads to one more observation. In the nearly decade and a half since I first wrote this book, I have engaged in defense of the Christian faith against a wide variety of critics and opponents. I have debated leading scholars like John Dominic Crossan, cofounder of the Jesus Seminar, and Bart Ehrman. And in recent years I have engaged leading Islamic apologists. In May 2006 I debated Shabir Ally before an audience of twenty-five hundred at Biola University in Los Angeles on this very topic. And in the midst of all this study and apologetic engagement I have been reminded over and over again of one fact: Those who hold to the King James Only position could never, ever provide this kind of consistent defense of Scripture. King James Onlyism is, by its nature, anti-apologetic. Its leaders have not only declined one debate challenge after another from me, but they also are not the ones giving any kind of meaningful response to the likes of John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, John Shelby Spong, Shabir Ally, Zulfigar Ali Shah, or Bart Ehrman. In other words, King James Onlyisnt cripples its adherents apologetically in a day when such can have devastating results. This has only convinced me again of the need to warn against this unbiblical, ahistorical, and illogical abuse of a fine seventeenth-century Anglican translation of the Bible in English."
{emphasis mine}
I realize that White's position is one against
KJVOnlyism, but I have to wonder how he draws his apologetic line between those in the
KJVOnlyism camp and those that view the Received Text as the underlying basis of the WCF. I realize that in his book he often waxes eloquent about the KJV and tips his hat at those that find it a "fine translation", yet those junctures in the book are often followed by the word "but" as he proceeds to make his case. Given his concerns over the debate in 2006 with Shabir Ally I also wonder if James was not quite prepared to respond to the KJV textual issues that arose which he later became at least more knowlegeable about in the writing of his KJVOnlyism book some three years later.
As Rev. Winzer notes, the fact that the Muslim's holy book declares authority to the Bible, one need only observe the many cases wherein their book contradicts itself, not the least of which when Islam declares non-Trinitarianism, e.g., the caricature of "Father, Son, and Mother" in
Surah 5:116. Given that Gabriel presumably revealed God to Muhammad one would think that this presumed corrective from God through Gabriel to Muhammad, several centuries after the close of the Biblical canon, would at least have its facts straight about the Christianity described in the Bible, God's special revelation, being denounced therein. It seems to me, the fact that it does not is
prima facie evidence of the questionable origins of the Muslim's holy book, textual traditions notwithstanding.
). I had no idea how controversial deleting 40 verses from the Bible could be; though, studying this issue has raised way more questions than answers. For example, I had no idea that modern versions use a different OT text variant, this is not near as controversial; though, for some reason it has been swapped out. 
