A helpful article

KJV-Only Archive from Jan. 1/2001 to June 30/2001.
Registered User
Joined: 14 May 2001, 20:50

14 May 2001, 13:50 #1

The article posted below, along with the book "The King James Only Controversy" and the modern Bible defenders on another forum all helped me to see that the King James Bible is in fact the very word of God for today and that the modern ones, while containing parts of Gods word, should all be chucked into the garbage disposal.
I recently read James Whites book and all I can say after ereading it is this... Doesn't anyone else realize just how much of an idiot this man is? James White is a mega-liar. How can anyone recommend his book?
Now, for the article that clinched it for me and led to me to go out any buy a King James and trash my NIV.

A Treatise of an "Anti-King James-Only" Website
Copyright 1999 Bradon Staggs
(Note: this is being written on September 23, 1999. It is possible that links and quotes may become outdated after this is written.)
After I moved the King James Bible Page to a new server, I had to go through my referral logs and notify anyone linking to the KJBP of the new address. While searching the list I came across Joseph Ng's "The Heresy of KJB-ONLYISM Page." After reading through his work I figured that I should make some mention of it and deal with some of the issues presented. Joseph's site is not really one which deals with many of the facts on the site (but most anti-KJV sites don't), but it does display a clear attitude toward Bible Believer's (meaning those who do not have a need for multiple authorities or the "original Greek") and links
to several documents supposedly giving a more "Biblical" (!) view of the subject.
1.Where are God's words preserved?
Psalms 119:89 reads, "For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." (KJV). As is typical of anti-KJV writings, this verse is proposed to mean that yes, God's words are perfectly preserved, but in HEAVEN, not anywhere on earth. To quote Joseph Ng, "Note where the Psalmist says Yahweh's Word is eternally preserved: 'in heaven.'" Well, note, that Psalms 119:89 doesn't actually say anything about preservation. It says God's words are SETTLED in heaven. To suggest that this represents God's only ability or will of preservation is nonsense. These guys can't leave anything alone, can they? To borrow a tactic, Strong's definition for this word (settled) is "a prim root; to station, in various applications (literally or figuratively):--appointed, deputy, erect, establish" This doesn't have
anything to do with preservation, does it?
Let's take this a bit further. Examine a few more passages, and assume that Mr. Ng is correct in his
belief that God's words are preserved only in heaven.
Mt 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word
that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Clearly this commandment is telling us to listen to God's word that is given to us and live by it. But,
Christ gave us a commandment that even people at the time could not obey. We must go to heaven
to obey this commandment, right?
2Ti 3:16,17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for
correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished
unto all good works.
If God only preserved his words in Heaven, what good is it for doctrine, reproof, correction, and
instruction here? How then can the man of God be perfect and throughly furnished unto all good
Psalm 12:6-7 reads, "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth,
purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation
for ever." Admittedly, the anti-KJV crowd says this translation in the KJV is an inaccurate one.
(Naturally they are wrong, it is a correct rendering.) However, if Joseph Ng can use the KJV as a
source of verses to try to argue his position, so can we. It is clear from this verse that God gave a
promise to preserve his words. And it does not say "Thou shalt keep them in heaven," does it? Just
ask yourself one question: What are God's words for? The answer is "for doctrine, for reproof, for
correction, for instruction in righteousness." Why would God lock up his word from us, and preserve
it exclusively in a realm the "man of God" has no physical access to?
Deuteronomy 30:11,12 reads, For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not
hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for
us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
It is necessary for the non-Bible Believer to explain God's promise of preserving his words in a way
that permits the loss of them on earth. The key verse for them is Psalm 119:89, but as we can see,
that verse doesn't have anything to do with preservation. Furthermore, if it did, then we have some
serious problems when it comes to the numerous commandments to actually use and believe God's
words. Believe this: if God can use sinful men to write his words in the first place, he can certainly use
sinful men to accurately copy and translate them for us to use.
2.What is heresy?
Quoting, "both the false teaching's going beyond or against the Bible's, and its effect of tearing apart
the fellowships it afflicts." Mr. Ng's assertion is that the belief in a trustworthy Bible is beyond or
against the Bible. Chapter and verse, please? There is simply no scriptural basis for that. If you
believe that the KJV is God's unadulterated word in English, then you are a heretic, and people like
you are responsible for "tearing apart the fellowships!" This is clear nonsense in light of the fact that
Churches were not being "torn apart" by the Bible version issue until VERY RECENTLY, for the
simple fact that just about everybody used the King James Version! If we are to judge a heresy
based on how it "tears apart" our Churches, then aren't the modern Bible proponents at fault?
Doesn't adhering to a single standard help prevent this kind of division? Besides, Churches are split
for many reasons (I have heard of Churches splitting over financial issues, and even what color the
hymnals should be!). Certainly something is not automatically heretical because people part from each
other over it.
Again, what is heresy? How can it be heresy to believe that God inspired and then preserved his
word? Obviously it is not heresy to believe that God inspired his words. Equally obvious is his
promise to preserve them. Again obvious is God's ability to have his words translated into other
languages (simply observe the inspired translations from Hebrew into Greek found throughout the
New Testament). What, then, is heretical? I suppose it is believing that we can have God's words in
English. Well, if you are going to call someone a heretic, you need a verse or two to support that
position. In all the ranting I have seen about us "King James Onlyists" I have yet to see a single verse
that indicates my position is heretical.
Perhaps we can look at their position: God did NOT preserve his words for us to use. (Notice
carefully that they will never argue that God did not preserve his words. Review above where another
verse is mutilated to say that God preserves his words in heaven, in an attempt to show that we have
no right to expect them here on earth.) At least to me, Scripture is quite clear that God did preserve
his words for us to use. Who's position is heretical here? Or they may claim they believe all versions
are God's word. Logically that is impossible because they are different in thousands of places.
They also believe that you simply cannot have a completely accurate Bible to read. Therefor they
clearly teach that it is necessary to rely on scholars for the correct (or at least the latest) interpretation
of God's word. This is called the fear of man, and is patently against scripture. Proverbs 29:25: "The
fear of man bringeth a snare: but whoso putteth his trust in the LORD shall be safe." God does not
want you to rely on someone else for his words. That's why he gave you a Bible! And if they argue
that they believe no such thing, then what is the alternative? If you don't believe that you can use the
Bible as your ultimate and final authority from God, then what do you use? There is no answer except
man, whether it be yourself or another. And we are heritical?
It is necessary for the non-Bible Believer to brand his opponents as heretics in order to prevent you
from learning from them. In the link on Mr. Ng's page to the definition of heresy, we read: "those
adhering to heresy are assumed to be lost, although Christians are unable to make definitive
judgments on this matter." While Mr. Ng may not be able to make a "definitive judgement" as to your
salvation, the "assumption" is that you are lost and in need of salvation if you believe that the KJV
is God's pure and accurate word in English, and that the plethora of modern versions we have today
are not from God. Further, as a heretic, you must be ejected from Church and not associated with.
Who is splitting Churches here? The Bible Believer will never assert that salvation is impossible
without the King James Bible. I know this because I was saved when I was being taught to with an
NIV. But the modern Bible proponents like Mr. Ng will assert that if you have complete faith in the
accuracy of your Bible, and try to share your conviction with other believers, then you may be in
need of salvation! What nonsense. Who's the heretic again?
3.The "Big Goliath" of King James Only sites, blasphemous.
In some sort of twisted way a compliment is paid to the King James Bible Page by calling it "Big
Goliath Bibliography of a Skewed Bibliology" Mr. Ng goes on to say that "Many of the articles
actually blaspheme the Holy Spirit-inspired Word of God in other translations." It is unclear to me
what Mr. Ng means here (and the fact that no examples are given doesn't make it any eaiser), but it
appears that Mr. Ng is referring to articles which expose incorrect and corrupt translations in modern
versions. It is his position that this is blasphemous, probably due to his belief that the Alexandrian
(minority) text-type is superior to the Majority and Received texts, and any claim that an Alexandrian
reading is a corruption of God's word is somehow blasphemous to the Holy Spirit (an unforgivable
sin). It is statements like these where anti-KJVers show their true colors of hatred of the King James
Bible. To him it is heresy to believe that the King James Bible is God's accurately preserved and
translated word in the English language, but it is blasphemous to say that certain translation choices in
modern versions are corruptions of God's word. Go figure.
Under the same heading Mr. Ng calls Sam Gipp a heretic and proceeds to link to some supposed
examples of this heresy. Dr. Gipp can defend himself, and my only recommendation is to actually
read what he says. One thing bears mentioning, though. Mr. Ng says Dr. Gipp "Dares to contradict
the KJV translators themselves" This is a very common straw man that anti-KJVers bring up. They
assume that since we believe the KJV is God's word that we must also believe that the KJV
translators were perfect or something. They then go to say that we must also agree with everything
they wrote in their Letter to the Reader (the preface to the KJV). This is simply not true. The Letter
to the Reader is not scripture. It is an important document. When one compares the KJV
translators' preface to those of modern translators you will find a vastly different attitude. Modern
translators view their work as a simple process of translation, while the KJV translators believed they
were translating God's words, and that it was a spiritual matter. Were the KJV translator's "King
James Version Onlyites?" No, and if they were, I probably wouldn't trust their work. But that has
little bearing on the facts of the issue, which are the accuracy of their work and the inaccuracy of the
work (and poor choices of manuscripts) of modern translators. Also found in the preface is the
acknowledgement of the existence of the Alexandrian texts (which anti-KJVers claim were not
available to them at the time) and their worthlessness. Modern translators, on the other hand, rely
almost exclusively on these manuscripts, whose variants make up the vast minority of the texts.
In wrapping up his link to my site and "explanation" of Dr. Gipp's heresy, Mr. Ng says that Dr. Gipp
made a statement that "We don't need a perfect Bible in heaven. I don't need a Bible I can't get a
hold on!" Well, AMEN! If God really did lock his word up in heaven, what good is it to us? Again, it
is Mr. Ng's position that "settled in heaven" (Ps 119:89) means that God only preserves his words
away from us in heaven. We have already debunked that mutilation of Scripture above. The reader
should carefully think about Dr. Gipp's statement. He is right.
4.More ranting
The remainder of Mr. Ng's website are links to several different sites and documents purporting to be
"Honest and Biblical Pointers" (how Mr. Ng can determine what is Biblical when God's word is
hidden from him in heaven I do not know. Perhaps Mr. Ng has some sort of personal inspiration?).
I'll briefly touch on a few of these but I leave it to the reader to do the rest of the homework. There is
a vast amount of anti-KJV material available but it is all pretty redundant.
Westcott and Hort were mighty fine gentlemen. You will find a lot of material defending these
mutilators of the Bible (W&H). They insist several things about them -- they really weren't that bad,
they weren't involved in the occult, etc., and then go on to call it "irrelevant" anyhow. Well it most
certainly is relevant. W&H speak for themselves. They were darwinists who believed that the Bible
was not inspired by God. How these "fundamentalists" can trust W&H to handle God's words
without bias is beyond me. Besides, anyone who does not believe in the finished work of Christ is
simply unqualified to handle God's words. More on these two can be found in my Introduction to the
Bible Version Controversy. Even more material is available from Dean John Burgeon's The Last
Twelve Verses of Mark and The Revision Revised, dealing with W&H and their notion that the
chopped-up Aleph and B mss. were superior to the vast majority of Biblical mss. available.
The Bible's a jar of Prego. You will find that almost no anti-KJVer can resist saying that the NIV,
NASB, etc, have all the important doctrines in them so there really is no problem. I guess these guys
don't cook, because anyone who does knows how much leaven it takes to leaven a lump (1Co 5:6,
Ga 5:9). The problem is that until someone yanks out every reference to Mary's virginity, it's still
"good enough" because it's "still there." The believer should understand that for what it is: nonsense.
They are right in one respect: The NIV and NASB do have the Gospel in them. But they are wrong
when they say that is "good enough." Hands off my Bible, please, I like it the way God inspired it.
For details on what doctrines get dumbed down and harder to find in the modern Bibles, check out
this. The reader should bear in mind that the justification for these alterations comes from W&H's
teaching that the Aleph and B mss. and their kind are superior to the texts used in the KJV. These
texts (and their kind) represent the vast minority of variants and one was even pulled from a trash can
in a monastery.
The 1611 edition of the KJV is different from the 1769. Yes it is. But not to the tune of chopping
out verses, robbing Christ of his diety, etc. You could call this straining at a gnat. They say that the
correction of typographical errors and the updating of spelling and grammar represent a complete
revision of the KJV. Let me clarify my position: The King James Bible is God's word in the English
language without error. If Mr. Ng and his friends want to say that "error" includes spelling, grammar,
and typography, then they really are a bunch of gnat-strainers. I do not believe that spelling or typo
problems make the KJV any less trustworthy, or that repairing those problems represent a revision.
These guys will also try to wow the reader with scans of original 1611 editions of the KJV. Don't be
wowed, you can get your own reprint of it from the bookstore section of this site.
King James the Fool. Another common tactic is to throw out references to King James I's
supposed homosexuality, deceitfulness, etc. Kind of funny since the same people would have you
believe that homosexuals involved in the translation of the NIV, darwinists like Westcott and Hort,
humanists like Origen, etc, all can be trusted with God's word, but King James I is to be mocked.
Firstly, claims of King James' homosexuality are unfounded. A single second-hand account has been
continually repeated, but the bottom line is that the claim does not meet any Biblical or legal
requirements of conviction. Dr. Gipp deals with this. But it is irrelevant because James did not have
anything to do with the translation process. The fact that the KJV bears his name is simply due to
publishing decisions (it was called the Authorized version for years before the name was changed to
make it easier for newer versions to compete on the bookstore shelves). But it also is important that
"Where the word of a king is, there is power:" (Ec 8:4) and the King James Bible is the only English
translation I know of that has this power. A key point to remember when considering the whole "ad
hominim" thing of King James and Westcott and Hort is that King James I did not have a say in
the translation or the manuscripts used when the KJV was made. Wescott and Hort were the
fathers of modern textual criticism, the idea that Biblical manuscripts should be treated like any
other writings one might find buried in the sand. W&H have had a far more profound impact on
modern Bible versions than King James I could ever have had on the A.V.
Education is god. You will also find that education is almost worshipped like Jesus Christ (and most
certainly more important than the Bible) to these folks. One of Mr. Ng's links leads to a paper which
actually mentions me scoffing at a "scholarly" discussion. I make no apology for my position that
scholarship is not as important as sincerity. I cannot engage in a scholarly discussion because I am
unwilling to fear man and be non-committal. The fact is that a great deal of "King James Only" men
are well-educated, and so are "Non-King James Only" men. It is simply irrelevant. The Bible is about
spirit, not how many letters you have after your name. The Bible knows of no educational
requirements for salvation or for any office in the church. To require these things of people when
discussing the Bible is unBiblical. Besides, we all know how Christ treated the scholars of his time.
(Mt 23)
Ruckmanitis. If you are a King James Bible Believer then you follow a man named Peter Ruckman
(whether or not you know it). It is almost as if it is a disease to be cured. View Mr. Ng's KJBO
Anonymous page. The "twelve step" section is especially enlightening. More straw men for your corn
fields. Anti-KJV activists constantly rant about men like Ruckman and his female counterpart
Riplinger. They say we follow a man when we teach the infallibility of God's word. (Just try to have a
lengthy conversation on this issue with one of these guys and see who brings up Ruckman first.) I can
see doctrinal position of the perfection of God's word, but I can not find any Scripture supporting the
belief that God hides his words from us in heaven. Who follows a man? I don't need a man to give
me God's words because I have them written in a book. Where does the non-Bible Believer go for
God's words? Scholarship, his mind, his teachers, etc. Who follows a man? Another interesting tidbit
is that men like Ruckman and Gipp are to be slandered for their beliefs in a perfect Bible, but men
like Henry Morris are to be pitied. Henry Morris wrote such books as Scientific Creationism,
co-authored the Genesis Flood, and founded the Institute for Creation Research, which has an
excellent museum in San Diego, California. He also happens to believe that the King James Bible is a
superior translation. Somehow he is forgivable while Ruckman is not.
Not a "real issue." Mr. Ng finalizes his website by implying that this issue is not a "real" one.
Ps 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for
thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.
Apparently Mr. Ng doesn't realize how important God's words are. This is not an issue that can be
made so light. It is also interesting that Mr. Ng says we "suppress knowledge of the Word by using a
theological or linguistic padlock." How he can reconcile this with his mutilation of Psalm 119:89 only
he knows. While he insists that God's words exist in unadulterated form only in Heaven, we teach that
God's words are available to you in a language you can read and understand. Even the less-fanatical
anti-KJVers who believe that God's words are perfect in their Hebrew and Greek form are more
guilty of "padlocking" the word, because they insist that it is only available in languages hardly anyone
knows today.
In concluding this article I want to state that I do not question Mr. Ng's salvation, or anyone else on his side
of the camp. I believe this essay needed to be written to answer the attitude, not just arguments, of those
who slander Bible Believers. I urge the reader to carefully examine both sides of the issue, Mr. Ng's
branding of me as a heretic notwithstanding. The reader should realize that both sides of the camp have
spokesman who should probably keep their mouths shut. A careful examination of the facts is what is
needed, not a condescending "twelve-step" program for those of us with a conviction that God wants us to
trust his words.

Scott McClare
Registered User
Joined: 16 Apr 1999, 13:27

14 May 2001, 18:21 #2

ELD said:
James White is a mega-liar.
. . . of course, he gave no examples of his mega-lies, as is typical of the KJV-only crowd that doesn't want to commit itself to specifics (it's much easier to make other people sound bad when you cast vague aspersions).
As for the "helpful article," since Joseph wrote the Web site that Staggs is "rebutting," I'll let him speak for himself. It should be noted that Staggs himself showed up here for a short time about a year and a half ago and didn't stick around long.Take care,Scott
Power-hungry Self-serving Moderator,
Bible Versions Discussion Board
The Postfundamentalist Forum
Scott A. McClare, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
[url=mailto:[email protected]][email protected][/url] * ICQ #24034503ImageFor thinking Christians . . .
Putting the Fun back into Fundamentalism
Take care,


Ottawa, Ontario, Canada


The Crusty Curmudgeon

On Twitter: RansomOttawa

Registered User
Joined: 28 Jul 2000, 14:47

14 May 2001, 21:06 #3

Talk about lies...well, I won't accuse Mr. Staggs of lying, but I don't think he fully researched his paper. I haven't read Joseph's website, but I have an idea that he totally misinterprets Joseph's use of the verse.
What is interesting is that he brings up Psalm 12, and misinterprets that to be talking about God preserving His words, when it is really talking about God preserving His people. If someone had not taken out the translators margin notes, it would be clear. It clearly states that the Hebrew word is him, but the KJV translators chose to use the word "them" so that people would understand that God will preserve all of His people who are being oppressed.

Registered User
Joined: 03 Jul 1999, 00:56

17 May 2001, 14:31 #4

if Staggs can't tell the diff between anti-KJV and anti-KJBO, perhaps he needs new glasses. but i suspect the problem's deeper than that.
and if anyone can choose Staggs after reading both him and James White, i guess i can't help much either.
the problem (actually just one of many) with KJBOism is that it works its way back from a conclusion and doesn't mind trampling on anything (even God's Word) along the way. God's Word says of itself that it's "settled" forever in heaven. but that rubs against the KJBO's desire to have it settled in ONE particular way -- in an earthly KJB 1769 edition (yep, the 7th edition of the 7th version, what have u :-) in his hand at any particular moment in time.
and so, "settled" doesn't REALLY mean "settled," but "to station, in various applications (literally or figuratively):--appointed, deputy, erect, establish."
oh well, enjoy the rest of Staggs' "careful examination of the facts." Image :

Joseph Ng"For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven."Ps 119:89 KJB
"For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven."
Ps 119:89 KJB

Registered User
Joined: 14 May 2001, 20:50

18 Jun 2001, 21:35 #5

From the small amount of time I have spent looking into the debate, the problem seems to be with those who hold to the view I have recently left. And it is because of those, people like James White, Brice Metzger and so forth, that helped lead me away from the confusion of multiversions to the unity of one version.
One of the things that helped me see how wrong I was in using the NIV and NKJV was when I saw others who use and defend those versions, claim they were attacking King James Onlyism, but all I saw them attack was the King James Bible. Seeing this caused many many red flags to go up, and caused me to ask, "if the problem is with the belief and not the Bible version, then why is the Bible version what is always attacked?" The only answer though, is because the problem is with the version not the belief, and until I see the belief attacked instead of the version, none of you will prove to me that you are right.
Now, before you go and cry about the attacks on the modern versions, at least those who attack them are direct and honest about it. This lends them credibility, it also strengthens their points.
And no I don't think you can help one who wabelieves Staggs over a proven liar like James White. It is the one who believes Whites lies that bothers me.

Avalanche Rule
Registered User
Joined: 26 Jan 2001, 06:27

18 Jun 2001, 22:04 #6

Excuse me, were you not an NIV user who had no clue just a few months ago? Now you seem to think you have all the answers, while being silent the last few months.
Do the Only's pad their numbers by making up people to "switch" bibles? I think ELD here is your answer.

Registered User
Joined: 23 Apr 1999, 07:38

18 Jun 2001, 23:25 #7

Hello ELD [and Avalanche added for Warrior of the Sword's benefit; don't know why he was asking about this anyway]. Just curious... Would you please tell me how you found our forum? Was it by a search engine, a link in one of my posts made at another EZ board (if so would you please let me know which one), or what? Thanks.

Registered User
Joined: 23 Apr 1999, 07:38

18 Jun 2001, 23:30 #8

Scott quoting ELD:
ELD said:
James White is a mega-liar.
. . . of course, he gave no examples of his mega-lies, as is typical of the KJV-only crowd that doesn't want to commit itself to specifics (it's much easier to make other people sound bad when you cast vague aspersions).
If you're still collecting logical fallacies by KJOs for the paper and/or web page you're making, wouldn't this be a perfect one for 'poisoning the well'?

Warrior of the Sword
Registered User
Joined: 01 May 2001, 03:50

18 Jun 2001, 23:53 #9

Question For "ELD" and "Avalanche"
So far so good.
Hello ELD. Just curious... Would you please tell me how you found our forum? Was it by a
search engine, a link in one of my posts made at another EZ board (if so would you please
let me know which one), or what? Thanks.

What happened to Avalanche?

Warrior of the Sword
Registered User
Joined: 01 May 2001, 03:50

19 Jun 2001, 00:03 #10

ELD28, I have to agree with the doubters here. You didn't offer any proof regarding the liar James White. granted Dr. Thomas Holland has done a wonderful job exposing White's man made myths, fables and fallacies, as have Dr. Ruckman (who could have handled it differently) and David Cloud. Below is my little offering on Whites bogus book. It is a work in progress and will hopefully be added to in time.


Another Look At James White's "King James Only Controversy"
James White wrote a book in 1995 called: "The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust The Modern Version" and published by Bethany House Publishers. There have been a few works done exposing the myths and fables that Dr. White brings forth, it is this authors intention to expose some of the fallacies of Dr. White's position that the others have not dealt with, from what I have been able to tell. I have read the articles and books by Dr. Peter Ruckman, Dr. Thomas Holland and David Cloud that expose the man following myth that are prevalent among those in the Bible version debate that defend the modern English Bibles. One of the things I hope to make clear, is the inconsistency and double-standards employed by James White in The King James Only Controversy, that are also the norm among those who are in his camp as far as the Bible version debate goes.
On Page V in his introduction, Dr. White states: "This book is written because of a desire for peace in the church of Jesus Christ. We are not speaking of a peace that is purchased by the price of compromise, but a peace that comes from single-minded devotion to the things of God." It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the errors in these two sentences. You cannot have true peace in the Church of the Lord, when you promoting and using Bible versions that contradict each other. This does not bring Godly peace, but confusion. But then, from reading James White's book, Godly peace is not his goal, but rather the very type of peace he says his book is not for is shown to be the reason his book was written. This will be brought out as we go through this expose.
On page VI, also in the introduction, on page VI Dr. White makes the comment " I oppose KJV Onlyism, not the King James Version itself." If this statement were true, then we would not have over 270 pages attacking the KJV. In so doing, Dr. White shows himself to be a double-minded and highly inconsistent in his claims. It is standard among those who promote and defend the modern Bibles to make this same claim, yet every single one of them then goes into an attack the KJV mindset, thereby nullifying their claim. You cannot be against King James Onlyism (or as it could properly be called, Gods word onlyism), and not also be against Gods word.
Next I want to look at page 3 where Dr. White lists the fourth of the five groups he lists as being KJV Only. He calls this fourth group, "The Inspired KJV Group" and goes to refute this view by saying: "Most King James Only advocates would fall into this group. They believe that the KJV itself, as an English language translation, is inspired and inerrant. Many of these folks believe the TR is inspired and inerrant as well (it would seem logical that the text from which the KJV was translated would have to be inerrant if the resulting translation is to be considered inerrant), but in practice the importance of the TR begins to fade when the direct claim of inspiration of the KJV is put forward." Evidently James White is not aware that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" (2 Timothy 3:16). What's logical here, is that if God gave the Scripture by inspiration, AND then preserved them as the inspired writer said He would "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." (Psalm 12:6-7), then it is logical that the Bible based on the inspired and preserved word of God, would also be inspired, otherwise it would not be Scripture in the Biblical sense. It is because of inconsistency regarding his view of inspiration and preservation, that causes James White to make his above comment. Now please do not misunderstand, I am not saying the Bible was re-inspired in 1611, I am saying that Gods word as it was given to the original writers and speakers, was providentially preserved by God in accordance with Psalm 12:6-7, and is today, for those of us who read and speak English, found in the KJV. Inspired, because God preserved that word which he Himself inspired to begin with.
On page 33, dealing with Codex Sinaiticus, we read from Dr. White: "A handwritten text that is used for 1,500 years is going to collect a few corrections along the way." If this text was "used" for 1,500 years as White claims, then why was it found in a trash basket in a Catholic monastery? And how does Dr. White explain the usage of through the years of the manuscripts that make up the KJV that were passed down the generations, by Gods people? Clearly, Codex Sinaiticus was not used for 1,500 years by Gods people, but by the apostate Roman Catholic Church.
On page 45, Dr. White states: "As we noted before, it is important to emphasize that the differences between the Alexandrian and Byzantine text-types do not result in two different New Testaments." I am not sure what White would consider as two different New testaments after reading this? Evidently, he thinks that Matthew 18:11 in the KJV and the NIV are not different even though a simple look at will show otherwise. Lets look at this verse.
"For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost" (KJV)
" " (NIV)
You are reading that correctly, verse 11 is NOT in the text of the NIV. But down in the footnotes it reads "Some manuscripts, heaven. 11 The son of man came to save what was lost. And James White has the arrogance to say the Alexandrian and Byzantine text-types do not result in two different New testaments. Other examples that could be used are John 3:16; 1 Corinthians 1:18 and 1 John 5:7 among numerous others, all that do show the two different text-types do in fact, produce two different New Testaments.
On page 58, James makes another of the false accusations that are the standard procedure among those who defend the modern versions. He says, "Anyone who believes the TR to be infallible must believe that Erasmus, and the other men who later edited the same text in their own editions )Stephanus and Beza), were somehow "inspired" or at the very least "providentially guided" in their work. " The reason White can say this, is because the mindset of the modern version defenders is geared towards the following of man and the words of man, which they prove constantly in their writings. With this being their mindset, they naturally think that everyone else thinks that same way, even though for the Bible believer, who's faith rests in God and God alone, this is not the case, but this doesn't stop White and his gang from making false accusations such as the one above. Now granted, there are some on the outer extremes who may believe what White states above, but by and far the Bible believers believe that the inspiration and preservation rests in God's hands, and with or without those who copied the inspired texts and passed them down, God would have found a way to honour his word and preserved those texts among the generations forever. In fact, the truthful Bible believer will readily admit that it was not the writers and speakers of the Bible that were inspired, but it was the words which God gave them that were inspired, and then preserved among the generations, even down to our day.
On page 60, Dr. White makes another of the ridiculous claims that are normal for those who have taken his position. White and his co-horts seem to think they can speak for the dead, when he writes: "I can say with all confidence that if Desiderius Erasmus were alive today he would not be an advocate of the AV 1611.". I wonder what it is about the Alexandrian mindset that makes one think he can speak for the dead, whom he has never spoken with. White can no more state this as fact then the Bible believer can say that Erasmus would be an advocate of the AV 1611 if he were alive. In fact, with as often as the modern versionists rail on the KJV defenders for this very thing, it shows how inconsistent and contradictory the Alexandrians really are.
On pages 70 - 71 (covered by Dr. Thomas Holland in his critique of Whites book) White says: "Secondly, the KJV translators were not infallible human beings. Some, in fact, may have harbored less then perfect motivations for their work. Some hoped to gain favor with the king and advancement in their positions through their work on the translation itself." As usual, there is no solid evidence offered for this claim, but clearly he is hoping that people will be blind enough to his claims to not notice the lack of verification. As he says on page 106 of his book: "People will continue to get away with this kind of activity as long as Christians remain unwilling to adopt a critical stance and allow anything to masquerade under the title "Christian"." Nothing like an honest statement to shoot your own theology in the foot as White does here. I am sure if I was to make a comment about Westcott and Hort being two egotistical men who were only concerned with having their names go down in history, and not the word of God, and had no solid verification, White and his gang would be all over that, showing their desire for double-standards and contradictions.
Also on page 71 James says: "It is very common for KJV Only advocates to attack such men as Westcott and Hort for being "baby sprinklers," yet the KJV was born in the heart of such a system of theology. The inconsistency of attacking modern translations due to the alleged theological irregularities of those associated with them while overlooking the very same problems with the KJV is striking." I don't know of any Bible believer who does not admit that Angelican and Puritan theology of the KJV translators. But once again Dr. White wants to make another false accusation and show the man-following mindset of the Alexandrian cult, and how they think everyone else should do the same thing. It would be one thing if the translators of the KJV were Christ denying Unitarians as were Vance Smith, Ezra Abbot and Joseph Henry Thayer who were 3 of the English Revised Version and the American Standard version. Neither did any of the KJV translators deny the authority and infallibility of the Scriptures as did Westcott and Hort. So again we see another of the false accusations of White and his gang.
On page 88 in an endnote #62 White states: "We note the irony of the strongly anti-Calvinistic bent of such KJV Only writers as Gail Riplinger in light of the fact that Rainolds, as a Puritan, was very much a Calvinist. The inconsistency of the KJV Only position is again seen with clarity." The truth is, what is seen here with clarity is Whites Calvinistic bias against Mrs. Riplinger who is not of the same belief. This is just more of the inconsistency and self-contradictory nature of the modern version defender, who has more faith and trust in the words of men, then the words and power of Almighty God.
What's funny at this point is that looking at the misrepresentations that White has in his book for those he feels are in error, is his comment on page 95. Here he says: "Christians are to be lovers of truth, and as such, should hold to the highest standards thereof. Misrepresenting others-even those we strongly feel are in error-is not an option for one who follows Jesus." As we can see, White has been guilty of this very thing that he says is not an option for Christians. Also, as one reads the books and various writings and postings on the internet one can clearly see that the Alexandrian cult are not lovers of truth, nor do they hold to the highest standards thereof. One of Whites biggest misrepresentations in his book is to paint all KJV defenders under the brush of those who are out on the extreme edges. Time and space will keep me from posting a lot on this, but when it comes to defending the man made myth of the modern versions, Paul Karrick offers nothing, even though he has chosen to involve himself in the dabe, and he makes it clear that the standard he uses for rejecting the KJV as the inspired and preserved word of God, he will not use on the modern versions, proving nonetheless, the total and complete inconsistency of the Alexandrian cult.
On page 108, we again have White painting ALL Bible Believers under the brush of Gail Riplinger. In a remark about Riplinger's comment that she only reluctantly fixed the names of Longenecker and Carson in her book "Which Bible Is God's Word", James says: "Yet she makes the following comment in regard to this, which I feel is extremely important for anyone wishing to understand the thinking of KJV Onlyism:". Clearly we can see, that White has no desire to present his readers with the honest facts, but instead wants to give them his own warped view of them. Trying to paint all Bible believers, and Bible defenders in the way he does is highly misleading, and is in FACT, the bearing of false witness. Now I am sure that White knows that Riplinger is out on the fringes of KJV Onlyism, and that several KJV defenders have written exposes in regards to her works and where she has misrepresented the facts. Or we have the possibility that he has refused to see this information so that he can continue his lies and misrepresentations. A passage of Scripture that comes to mind right now is Proverbs 6:16-19 where it mentions the 6 things that the Lord hates, the 7 things that are an abomination to Him. Included in this list is "a lying tongue.. An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among the brethren". These are 4 of the 7 things mentioned, and each one of these as we have seen James White is 100% guilty of. Now notice how in verse 19 it says "A false witness that speaketh lies", What's clear here, is that this is talking about a person, and because White is just such a person, it means that God does in fact hate him. Harsh? Yes it is. True? Yes it also is. Does it matter to James White? Obviously not, as through his book he makes his false accusations and bears false witness in a very consistent manner.
Another of Whites lies is found on page #112 in regard to Peter Ruckman and Churches that he calls "Ruckmanite churches". White makes the following comment which contains a partial truth: "Ruckmanite churches will have "AV 1611" in their names, and the KJV will figure prominently in their preaching and teaching". Now, while it is true that in Bible believing Churches (not Ruckman churches) that the KJV will figure prominently in their teaching and preaching, what is not true is the claim that they will have AV 1611 in their names. I know personally of a Church here in Denver that is Pastored by a graduate of PBI, and AV 1611 is not in the name. The same is true with another Church I know of up in Washington. So again we see that james White has no problem with lying in order to try to prove his man made fables as being correct.
One of Whites comical statements and lies can be found on page 134 where he writes; "We dare not allow our theology to determine our translation, which, sadly is what we have in many KJV Only presentations". Sadly for James, the opposite is true in regard to the Bible believer. The KJV has determined our theology as we have been led and instructed by, and followed the Holy Spirit as He guides us into all truth. With the plethora of Bible versions that keep coming out, it is far to easy to allow the theology to determine the translation, such as was done by the IcoC with their choice to make the NIV their translation. Whites blindness to the truth keeps him from seeing this truth, while making another of his false statements. In fact, I have found that with those who use and defend the modern versions, that it is the theology that determines the translation.