Yuku free message boards

Have you read James White's The King James Only Controversy ? He had an excellent chapter on the deity of Christ ("The Son of God, the Lord of Glory") in the modern versions. I highly recommend this book to anyone beginning a thorough study of this subject.

I wouldn't recommend that particular book at all. His research isn't thorough, and a lot of his conclusions and statements are inaccurate.

His treatment of John 1:18 and Mark 10:24 are largely unfair. Had he diligently researched the topic, he'd realize that the modern reading of John 1:18 was not the reading of the Orthodox, but rather the Arians--which can be found in the Arian creed as recorded by Athanasius ( De Synodis, II) whereby they justify "begotten God" as "God from God," i.e., created God from eternal God. Even moreso, it came from a region with no less than 8 significant variants, whereas the rest of the Orthodox world read "begotten Son." BrianT and I discussed this somewhere in the archives ( pub1.ezboard.com/fbibleve...c&index=39 ).

In Mark 10:24, he chooses to use the harder reading (omitting "for those who trust in riches") from the text--making it read, "How hard it is [] to enter into the kingdom of God." Not only does the sense of the verse require it, but the external evidence for it is overwhelming. "Mark 10:25," he writes, "in all manuscripts, record the Lord saying, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God (NIV). The appearance of the rich man in verse 25 called for a smoother transition into this topic than provided by verse 24 in the form found in Aleph [Sinaiticus] and B [Vaticanus]. What is more, the words of verse 24, without the added limitation, seemed too harsh to many readers. Again we see that it is easier to understand how the phrase could be added than to understand why it would have been deleted (White, The King James Only Controversy, p. 169). This is careless. Writers as far back as the second century, retain this reading--which ought to make it clear that 2 fourth century manuscripts are little more than anomilies. To add to this, the bulk of the versions relative here read in conformity with the majority, the TR, and the KJV.

In regards to Acts 12:4, White still uses the faulty "Ishtar/Astarte" argument (pp. 233-234) propounded by Hislop--which I've addressed elsewhere as unfounded ( pub1.ezboard.com/fbibleve...ic&index=6 ).

Another passage he calls into question is 2:7, where he calls "corrupting" an error and "peddling" the precise definition. Additionally, he speaks for the dead by stating, Surely if the KJV translators were alive today they would gladly admit that peddle is a better translation than corrupt, and would adopt it themselves. (p. 114). However, Join Bois, one of the KJV translators who assisted in the final stages of revision to the KJV New Testament, notes concerning 2 Corinthians 2:17, kapeleuontes] [being a retail dealer, playing tricks, corrupting] i.e. notheuonetes [adultering]. kapelos is derived apo tou kallunein ton pelon [from glossing over lees] by corrupting and adultering wine. (For King James, translated and edited by Ward Allen. The note is found in Greek and Latin [Vanderbilt University Press, 1969], p. 51) to which there remains no question as to their knowledge and intent in translation.

If I had his book onhand, I could probably address more issues--unfortunately I don't at this time. So I apologize if this is rather short on information--perhaps at a later time I can address more.

b.w.

1. I did not say White was thorough. I said "I highly recommend this book to anyone beginning a thorough study of this subject."

To be generous, while White may have some valid points, I find enough of the book downright irresponsible in research. For instance, he argues that, "Early church fathers such as Origen did not use the Textus Receptus." This is an incredibly misleading statement. While they may not have used the TR, their writings nevertheless remain in remarkable conformity with it and the "Byzantine" tradition as a whole.

For added consideration, in areas outside of Alexandria, Egypt, the "Byzantine" text type is preferred more than 2:1 from the earliest recorded period of Christendom. With Alexandria, it drops to around 1.33:1. And of courese Origen quoted the Alexandrian text, he was from the city of Alexandria, and was head of the Catechetical school whose critical labors spawned the proto-Alexandrian texts. Anyone wishing to examine the trend will note that, to the East and West, the "Byzantine" quotations favor the "Alexandrian" texts more than 2:1. In Alexandria and Caesarea, it's nearly 1.1:1. What is the logical conclusion, therefore?

He also notes, "The TR is based on the Byzantine Text Type which is much [younger] than the manuscripts used to prepare modern translations. The great 19th century Biblical scholars, Westcott and Hort, proved that the Byzantine Text Type was invented in the 4th century by a group of scholars living in Antioch. These scholars are reputed to have combined selections of existing text types to create the Byzantine." However, Westcott & Hort didn't prove anything of the sort. Rather, Hort conjected that there was an authoritative revision under Lucian in Syria sometime in the 4th century--without a single shred of evidence! There is no historic evidence to support their argument, which was intended to foister to status of Aleph and B and discard the bulk of the "Byzantine" MSS.

He continues to argue that, "Most Biblical scholars see the Alexandrian Text Type as representing an earlier and therefore more accurate, form of the Bible than the TR." This statement is terribly irresponsible--deeming that because they are "earlier" they are "more accurate." The problem is that they abound with scribal errors, which has been shown and admitted time and again even by their supporters, and in the gospels alone they contradict each other over 3,000 times. This doesn't include regional substitutions, obvious scribal errors, misspellings, etc.

He also states, "At no point in history has a single person or a single group had the power to make wholesale changes in Christian doctrine or in the Bibles text." This again stems from irresponsible scholarship. He's obviously not read the important testimony of Gaius on the subject, nor Irenaeus, nor Origen, nor Tertullian, nor anyone of several writers who painstakingly noted and complained of the rampant scriptural corruptionin Alexandria, and also by heretical groups. Marcion, the Valentianians, the Marcionites, the Ebionites, etc.

He also notes that, "Early translations of the New Testament were done on the basis of Alexandrian type manuscripts." He seems to have overlooked the fact that the Syriac versions, the Slavonic, the Gothic, the Arabic, etc. reflect the Byzantine tradition. The Syriacs also show a slight "Western" affinity. The Old Latins generally tend towards Western. The Vulgate is between 60 and 70% Byzantine, siding less infrequently with Aleph or B. The Armenian and Georgian versions reflects the Caesarean family. In fact, the versions that can be showed as predominantly Alexandrian are the Coptic versions, which comes as no surprisethe Alexandrian texts and these versions share the same small geographic region: North Africa, in Egyptand it can also be shown in several places where Aleph and B have been altered in favor of the Coptic influence. The Ethiopic, also from North Africa, shares some influence with the Alexandrian, but it is early Byzantine in the gospels.

Now these are not trivial issues! These are the very same points used by Westcott & Hort when they claimed the "Byzantine" as a recension, without proof, and invented an unprovable theory of manuscript genealogy. I don't believe that these issues ought to be treated so lightly and irresponsibly.

His book is certainly thorough enough for someone beginning to study the subject. It was also thorough enough to accomplish its intended goal and scope: "to provide a broad response to the general claims [of KJV Onlyism], providing a reasoned response to the concept that there is any particular translation of the Bible in English that God requires the faithful Christian to use." (p.vi, vii)

I think its a very tasteless approach.

2. You may or may not be right about the verses you site, but does mandieanne not have the right to see evidence from both sides and make up her own mind?

I certainly do believe that she does! But I certainly think it would be far more valuable to do so on at least accurate research and good solid information. There will always be a margin of error in any writing of this pursuitcertainly mine included. One error is acceptable. Perhaps even 2 or 3but when they present themselves over and over again in a particular work, it soon becomes intolerable and unacceptable.

The specific chapter which I gave the title to addresses the issue of the deity of Christ. Only one of your references (John 1:18 was from that chapter. Even if he is wrong about that verse, the rest of the chapter well substantiates the fact that there is no "conspiracy to ... denegrate our Lord Jesus" and His deity.

He argues on faulty grammatical premise on 2 Peter 1:1 (KJV), accuses it of being mistranslated (when it ought to have meant "|God and our Saviour| Jesus Christ," and not |God[,] and our Savour Jesus Christ." He similarly treats Titus 2:13. He argues against the text of 1 John 5:7 by using an argument that's been refuted for quite some time--that is, the Erasmian Promise myth, an argument which even Metzger has retracted.

Now I dont believe that there is a conspiracy by modern translators, but I certainly know that Aleph and B, and many other Egyptian copies besides (papyrus and Coptic) where written or translated in a very turbulent period of Egyptian history where the Arians held infinite sway over the churchand in those codices, the bias is readily apparent. While there is no systematic and thorough corruption (which is incredibly difficult) to denegrate the deity of Christ, several readings (even when compared with earlier papyri fragments) nevertheless indicate a conscious effort to do so.

3. I would say that "a lot of" the "conclusions and statements" made by White in his book are much more accurate than we find in much of the KJVO literature out there. Or do you place White's book on the same plane as Riplinger and Ruckman? I hope not.

Why do you think Im being biased here? Thats certainly not my intentionI wouldnt recommend Riplinger, Ruckman, or Fuller either. As a whole, Im disgusted with the inaccuracy of arguments on both sides.

b.w.