In the James White / Thomas Ross Preservation / King James Only debate, James White claimed that the marginal notes in the 1611 edition of the King James Bible were the same as the textual notes in modern Bible versions. Supposedly the marginal notes in the KJV justified textual notes in modern versions attacking the Deity of Christ (1 Timothy 3:16), the Trinity (1 John 5:7), the resurrection (Mark 16:9-20), justification by faith alone (Romans 5:1), and other crucial Biblical truths. Thus, James White had stated that he believed “very, very firmly” that the KJV translators would be “completely” on his side in the debate. James White used what he called the “many, many, many, many marginal notes the King James translators themselves provided” as justification for the marginal notes in modern Bible versions like the LSB (Legacy Standard Bible) and as an argument against the King James Only position. Dr. White made the same argument in his book The King James Only Controversy.
Do the marginal notes in the 1611 King James Bible justify notes such as the Legacy Standard Bible’s marginal note in Matthew 27:49, which teaches that Christ did not die by crucifixion, but by a spear thrust before He was crucified?:
Some early mss add And another took a spear and pierced His side, and there came out water and blood
The answer is a resounding “No!” Not one of the 1611 KJV’s marginal notes attack any doctrine of the Christian faith. Not one teaches the heresy that Christ died by a spear thrust before His crucifixion. Not one questions the resurrection or the resurrection appearances of the Lord. Not one attacks the Deity or true humanity of the Savior. Indeed, the KJV translators were following the following rule:
“No marginal notes at all be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot, without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text.”
Around 99.5% of the KJV marginal notes are not even arguably related to textual variation, and not one marginal note in the King James Version teaches anything like the heresy that fills the footnotes of many inferior modern Bible versions.
Learn more in 1611 KJV Marginal Notes = Modern Version Textual Footnotes? James White Thomas Ross Debate Review #9 by watching the embedded video below:
or by watching the video on FaithSaves.net, Rumble or YouTube.
–TDR
Thank you, Bro. Ross for taking the time to walk us through your debate with James White. I really appreciate your careful elaboration of the “Translators to the Reader.” I will soon be viewing video #9. I have learned a lot from you, and again, I praise God for your expertise, observations, and above all your love for God’s Holy Word properly translated for us in the KJV. I am convinced that the KJV Translators would certainly reject a Greek New Testament with such textual editors like Wescott and Hort, and a host of many other unbelieving editors (especially, Cardinal-Priest, Carlo M. Martini, who served in the UBS’ 3rd edition in 1975, and many years thereafter).
Thanks, brother!
Lord willing, I will continue to review the rest of the debate as I have time to do it. So stay tuned for more!
Bro. Ross,
When you say, that there are no extant Greek Mss. attesting a reading in the NA/UBS text, does that mean that there are no extant Greek Mss. attesting a reading in the critical texts? If that seems redundant, it’s because my ears did a double-take on that. Sooooo, they criticize the TR for zero to 1 witness in certain passages (or even elements like a word, or a phrase, etc.) BUT they do the very same thing? AND, is it truly so that the critical texts contains entries that have zero (none) (nada) Greek documents whatsoever (on the face of the earth)? ? ? ? (I need to look at Robinson’s book – yikes).
Dear Bro Bill,
Thanks for asking. Lord willing, I will give some examples of this phenomenon in debate review part 14, when that gets recorded and goes live. What I mean is that there are many, many, many places in the critical texts where no manuscript reads like what is in their printed text over even short sequences. It is a devastating problem for them. See slides #87-96 in my slide presentation from the debate here:
https://faithsaves.net/james-white-debate-bible-versions-kjv-lsb/
for numbers of examples. Again, Lord willing, I will supply more in debate review part 14.
Thanks for asking!