Yuku free message boards

Letis is simply pointing out the similarity in doctrine and backround of White & Riplinger, i.e. Baptist, separatist, and fundamentalist.

Sorry, I don't think that was the case. It really does come across that Letis is trying to broad brush White into the same category as GAR.

How about if I begin an article saying, "Letis and Ruckman, both proponents of the KJV Only position, have each written many articles and tracts on the versions debate..."

Also, I don't think that White is a "separatist and fundamentalist" Baptist; I know that he's a Reformed Baptist, but I don't think he's a separatist and fundy sort of Baptist. (This is a minor point, though.)

The NKJV and the NASB are from different text bases which conflict with each other.

And White explains that in his book.

The NIV and NASB differ in the OT in upwards of thirty-five places where the NIV opted to insert the LXX reading and the NASB chose the Hebrew MT. They both can't be right. A canon of TC is only one reading can be original.

And etc.

First of all, White DOES explain the textual differences. He gets into Alexandrian vs. Byzantine mss, and TR vs. CT etc.

You are unhappy with White's conclusions of the matter or that his book is not meant for professional textual critics, but I fail to see where White's book is shoddy, as you seem to be saying it is.

Curits, in those short paragraphs above, you are doing nothing more than re-stating the old KJVO arguments that "things that are different are not the same!," and pointing out that the mss families differ from each other.

No two Byz mss agree with each other 100%, so we can't trust the TR(s) and consequently the KJV either, if we go by the "things that are different are not the same" motto.

Of course, some KJV editions don't read like other KJV editions, and all or most of the TRs differ from other TRs as well.

We already know all that.

White also explains it in his book and shows how the existence of differences among versions or mss etc. does not equal being "bible-less," "final authority-less" or not being able to trust a version (whether it's an older or newer one).

It also still comes down to opinion: you think that the Byz mss and TR are the way to go, while others say, no the reasoned eclectic approach is the way to go. (Some folks these days are saying we should have a MT and base versions on that.)

After readings White's book, I got that message, as he pretty much summarized those views in his book, too.

I've also heard (mostly) KJVOs get upset by White's comments that no doctrines have been affected by the changes.

I happen to agree . . . the points of the NKJV, KJV, NASB, and NIV all teach the same things: Jesus is God and is the only way to reconciliatio between God and fallen mankind.

I did read somewhere a commentary by a Non-KJVO who disagrees with White a little bit, who says that there can be doctrinal changes introduced by way of different translational practices.

I think it was in the book "One Bible Only?" If I can ever find that quote, I'll place it here on the board.

I've read that the KJV changed doctrines because of the translational (and maybe textual) choices the KJV's scholars made.

Some of the doctrinal changes introduced into the KJV had to do with King James wanting to get away from the anti-monarchy sort of notes in the Geneva, and someone involved wanted some of the Greek terms in the NT changed to reflect a pro-Anglican bias.

KJV Onlyism is a False Teaching

Christians For Biblical Gender Equality: Resources