The King James Only Controversy by Dr James R. White

Status
Not open for further replies.
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!
 
Speaking of grinding axes...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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. :)

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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).
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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 ?
.
 
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.
 
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).

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.
 
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).

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.

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.
 
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).

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.

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.
 
Speaking of grinding axes...

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.



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.



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).



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 ;)
 
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".
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top