Home » Search results for 'king james version' (Page 4)

Search Results for: king james version

The KJV’s “Translators to the Reader” King James Onlyism Refuted?

In the James White / Thomas Ross debate “The Legacy Standard Bible, as a representative of modern English translations based upon the UBS/NA text, is superior to the KJV, as a representative of TR-based Bible translations” James R. White made the astonishing claim that the “Translators to the Reader” refutes King James Onlyism. I touched on the main points of Dr. White’s claim in previous review videos, and in my twelfth debate review video I examine James White’s final arguments to this end, both from our debate and his book The King James Only Controversy.

 

James White quotes the preface to prove “the need for translations into other languages.” Of course, White provides no written documentation at all from any pro-Received Text, pro-KJV, or pro-confessional Bibliology source that is against translating the Bible into other languages.

 

He quotes the Translators to the Reader to prove that the KJV translators “use[d] … many English translations that preceded their work.” Who denies this?

 

He points out that the preface supports “study of the Bible in Greek and Hebrew.” Of course! The large majority of King James Only advocates would agree.

 

White points out, concerning the KJV translators, that: “Their view that the Word of God is translatable from language to language is plainly spelled out.” Again, White provides no documentation at all of any KJV-Only group who denies that Scripture can be translated from one language to another.

 

 White claims that the KJV translators were “looking into the translations in other languages, consulting commentaries and the like.” Who is denying one should look at commentaries?

 

White argues: “[T]he KJV translators were not infallible human beings.” Of course, no advocate of perfect preservation is cited who has ever claimed that the KJV translators were “infallible human beings,” just like when White’s King James Only Controversy on page 106 talks about people who think that Beza was inspired, and on page 180-181 about people who think Jerome was inspired, and on page 96 about people who think Erasmus and Stephanus were inspired, no KJV-Only sources are provided who make these ridiculous claims, since, of course, there are no such sources.

 

Dr. White makes other unsubstantiated and absurd claims.  Learn more in the twelfth debate review video at faithsaves.net, or watch the debate review on YouTube or Rumble, or use the embedded link below:

 

TDR

The Hand of God on the KJV Translators: James White Debate 8

The King James Version translators did not claim that they wrote under the same kind of supernatural control that the apostles and prophets received to infallibly record Scripture in the original languages.  But did they claim that God’s special providence, His good hand, was with them?  Yes!

 

Continuing the debate review videos on the James White on the King James Version / Textus Receptus vs. the Legacy Standard Bible / Nestle-Aland text, review video #8 looks at the fact that the KJV translators claimed that the “good hand of the Lord” was “upon” them in their translating work, referring to this language in Ezra and Nehemiah for the special providence of God.

 

In other words, the KJV translators referred their translation work neither to merely the general providence of God—they are stronger than that—nor to a series of continual miracles—that is more than they affirm—but to the special providence of God, so that the Word is by “his singular care and Providence kept pure in all Ages” (London Baptist Confession of 1689).

 

Furthermore, Scripture teaches that God’s providence is by no means imperfect; He can preserve a “pure Word … in all ages” through special providence without the active intervention of one or more miracles after the miracle of dictating the original manuscripts, as the book of Esther, for example, makes very clear.

 

Learn more by watching the video below:

You can also watch debate review video #8 in the embedded link above, or see it on Faithsaves.net, YouTube or Rumble.

 

Please subscribe to the KJB1611 YouTube and the KJBIBLE1611 Rumble channel if you would like to know when more reviews are posted.  Thank you.

 

TDR

 

Making Sin Justifiable and Permanent By Diagnosing It As A Psychological Disorder

Part One

“Mad” and “Madness”

As you read through the King James Version, you will read the related English words “mad” and “madness.”  People in general don’t use these words any more or they use them in a completely different way than both the King James Version and historic Christianity.  In 1863, William Smith in his Bible Dictionary writes:

[M]adness is recognised as a derangement proceeding either from weakness and misdirection of intellect or from ungovernable violence of passion; and in both cases it is spoken of, sometimes as arising from the will and action of man himself, some times as inflicted judicially by the hand of God.  In one passage alone, John 10:20, is madness expressly connected with demoniacal possession by the Jews in their cavil against our Lord; in none is it referred to any physical causes.

It will easily be seen how entirely this usage of the word is accordant to the general spirit and object of Scripture, in passing by physical causes and dwelling on the moral and spiritual influences, by which men’s hearts may be affected, either from within or from without.

Smith’s assessment of madness, as you can read, sees it as a spiritual problem and not a physical one.  In other words, that’s not “mental illness,” to which it would be referred today by Darwinistic or Freudian psychology.

From the Will and Action of Man Himself

When you delve further into Christian (and societal) thinking from an earlier era in the United States, as does Smith above, you see a distinction between “demoniacal possession” and “insanity,” “deprivation of reason,” and his “derangement proceeding . . . from weakness or from ungovernable violence of passion.”  Furthermore, Smith says that it arises “from the will and action of man himself,” if not “inflicted judicially by the hand of God.”  Calmut’s Dictionary of the Holy Bible by Augustin Calmut (1823), reads concerning “madness”:

The epithet mad is applied to several of persons in Scripture as 1. to one deprived of reason, Acts 26:24, 1 Cor 14:23.

2. one whose reason is depraved and over-ruled by the fury of his angry passions, Acts 26:11.

3. To one whose mind is perplexed and bewildered, so disturbed that he acts in an uncertain, extravagant, irregular manner, Deut 28:34, Eccl 7:7.

4. To one who is infatuated by the vehemence of his desires after idols, and vanities, Jer 1:38.–  or

5. after deceit and falsehood. Hosea 9:7.

None of the Calmut’s definition includes mental illness or psychological disorders.  Has society, science, and theology come upon something true and helpful that these previous generations did not?  Or, are the modern and postmodern view apostate or heretical?  I believe the latter.  Premoderns told the truth about the troubles and the true conditions of men.

Four Occurrences

Christopher Rufo

Four occurrences intersected to direct my thoughts to write this essay.  First, I recently watched the following youtube presentation by Christopher Rufo of the Manhattan Institute on “The Cluster B Society.”

Sermon on the Mount

Second, I’ve started preaching the Sermon on the Mount and this came to my attention in this focus of Matthew 5:3-4:

3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

Ultimate fulfillment comes from poverty of spirit and mourning.  Society goes opposite of these and others following in Jesus’ sermon, that cause the insanity, derangement, and deprivation of reason.  The absence of the comfort promised equates to madness and what our culture calls “mental illness” and psychological disorder.

Adams and the Bobgans

Third, I read many years ago the work of Jay Adams and then Martin and Deidre Bobgan.  They unmask the depravity of modern psychiatry and psychology.  This seems like a major tool of Satan that has infiltrated in a major way and taken over the thinking of churches.

Ryan Strouse

Fourth, in reading reports from Bible Baptist Theological Seminary it sends out through email, I read work from Dr. M. Ryan Strouse on this subject (here and here).  Apparently, coming soon is a 350 page Primer on Biblical Madness.  I think it will be good.  His father, Thomas Strouse, the dean of the seminary and pastor of the church, was my main seminary professor.  This got on my radar, because I hear more overuse of the psychological terms than ever.

The Sinfulness of Sin

Everyone sins.  The psychological disorders eliminate the sinfulness of sin.  Sin becomes no longer sinful.  It becomes permanent, even an imbedded trait and elevating sin as a useful trait.  This is what Paul calls in Philippians 3:19, those who “glory in their shame.”  This also hardens and then destroys the conscience, making souls beyond salvation, speeding them to their eternal destruction.

David wrote (Psalm 51:4):  “Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight.”  Sin is against God.  It falls short of His glory.  Sin damns people to Hell.

Today churches cooperate with justification and making permanent sin by diagnosing it a psychological disorder.  This undermines the sufficiency of scripture, which is far above an earthly so-called wisdom.  May we return to a biblical understanding of these important doctrines.

Were the KJV Translators KJV Only? James White KJVO debate 7

Continuing the debate review videos on the James White on the King James Version / Textus Receptus vs. the Legacy Standard Bible / Nestle-Aland text, review video #7 examines whether the KJV translators were KJV Only. (Note that to avoid the historical fallacy discussed in review video #2 obout whether the KJV translators would have been KJV Only today or supported modern versions–as James White claims–I am dealing in review video #7 with actual historical facts, based on actual information, not speculating on what woulda coulda shoulda happened if people who are not alive today were alive in a counterfactual world in my own imagination.) What does the “Translators to the Reader” says about the Authorized Version in comparison to earlier English Bibles?

 

The KJV translators were thankful for the earlier Textus Receptus-based English Bibles, but, building upon their foundation, they view the KJV as “better.” Variations from the Textus Receptus, even the relatively minor ones in the Latin Vulgate, were viewed as inferior to any Textus Receptus based Bible.  How much worse, then, would a modern version that varies far more from the Received Text have been viewed?  Find out in the video below!

You can also watch debate review video #7 in the embedded link above, or see it on Faithsaves.net, YouTube or Rumble.

 

Please subscribe to the KJB1611 YouTube and the KJBIBLE1611 Rumble channel if you would like to know when more reviews are posted.  Thank you.

 

TDR

James White-Thomas Ross Debate Review 6: LXX & Latin Vulgate

It was a blessing to debate James White on the King James Version / Textus Receptus vs. the Legacy Standard Bible / Nestle-Aland textThe debate when well.  I have been continuing to add additional debate review videos.  Dr. White claimed that the KJV translators, had they been alive today, would have been completely against their own translation and in favor of modern versions based on the minority Greek text.  His claim is astonishingly inaccurate, as the new debate review videos demonstrate.  The video below, #6, examines the KJV’s “Translators to the Reader” and what it claims about the LXX and the Latin Vulgate.  What the KJV translators say is exactly what I argued for in the debate with Dr. White, and exactly the opposite of what James White argued.  His claim about the KJV translators is invalid, and painfully so.

You can watch debate review video #6 in the embedded link above, or see it on Faithsaves.net, YouTube or Rumble. Please subscribe to the KJB1611 YouTube and the KJBIBLE1611 Rumble channel if you would like to know when more reviews are posted.  Thank you.

 

TDR

Creationism & KJV: James White / Thomas Ross Debate Review 5

Should creationists, advocates of young-earth creationism, use the King James Version? Dr. Henry Morris certainly thought so. When I recently debated James White on the preservation of Scripture, Dr. White claimed that the KJV translators, had they been alive today, would have been “completely” on his side in our debate, standing for modern Bible versions based on the Nestle-Aland Textus Rejectus and opposing the Received Text and their own translation.  His claim is astonishingly inaccurate, as the new debate review videos demonstrate.  The video below, #5, examines the KJV’s “Translators to the Reader,” where evidence is provided that the KJV translators were young earth creationists–something that a very high percentage of modern Bible version translators are not, and something that positively impacts the translation of the King James Bible.

 

You can watch debate review video #5 in the embedded link above, or see it on Faithsaves.net, Rumble, or YouTube. Please subscribe to the KJB1611 YouTube and the KJBIBLE1611 Rumble channel if you would like to know when more reviews are posted.  Thank you.

 

TDR

James R. White, The King James Only Controversy: Inaccuracies

As many blog readers are aware, God gave me the privilege of debating Dr. James R. White, author of The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2009, orig. pub. 1995) on King James Onlyism a few months ago (if you have not seen the debate, you can watch it here.).  Our specific debate topic was:

 

“The Legacy Standard Bible, as a representative of modern English translations based upon the UBS/NA text, is superior to the KJV, as a representative of TR-based Bible translations.”

James White Thomas Ross King James Bible Legacy Standard Bible debate Textus Receptus Nestle Aland

I believe that the debate went well, to the glory of the God who has perfectly preserved His Word and in answer to the prayers of many of His saints.  Since the debate, I have been working on a series of debate review videos, a few of which are now live, and many more of which should go live relatively shortly (I would have some new ones live already, but had some issues with audio quality).  I must confess that in reviewing the arguments made by Dr. White I have been impressed with their weakness.  During the debate itself I was delighted that he did not bring up anything that I was not expecting or that there were not readily available answers, but post-debate review has revealed even further weaknesses with his case.  What kind of weaknesses?  Subscribe to my Rumble or YouTube channel (or both) to find out when I discuss them there.  (I probably will comment on them here at What is Truth? as well, so you can also just keep your eyes on this blog.)

 

James White has on numbers of occasions indicated that he wrote The King James Only Controversy in merely a handful of months, and, unfortunately, the evidences for his rapid composition are most numerous.  One example that we discussed here at What is Truth? before the debate was his astonishing affirmation–backed with no written sources or any evidence of any kind–that some King James Only people think Abraham, Moses, and the Old Testament prophets all actually spoke English, not Hebrew.  While these people do appear to exist in Dr. White’s imagination, there does not appear to be any documentation of their existence in the real world.  Even if one is not King James Only, creating straw-men, inaccurate arguments is not what one would want in a treatment of the issue under discussion.

 

Another example of the many astonishing and inaccurate claims of nutty radicalism by King James Only advocates appears in Dr. White’s discussion of people who allegedly think various people outside of the original writers of Scripture were inspired.  (Biblically speaking, even the original writers were not inspired–their writings, not their persons, were authored by the Holy Spirit without any error; but saying “Peter was inspired” or “Moses was inspired,” while not accurate, is not as nuts as what James White is claiming.)  What am I talking about? Consider the following arguments James White employs against King James Onlyism:

 

Anyone who believes the TR [Textus Receptus] 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 … [y]et none of these men ever claimed such inspiration. (pg. 96)

We pause only long enough to note that the KJV Only advocate … has to believe that Theodore Beza … was divinely inspired” (pg. 105)

“The KJV translators were not infallible human beings” (pg. 115)

Yet a person who stops for a moment of calm reflection might ask, “Why should I believe Jerome was inspired[?] …  Do I have a good reason for believing this?” (pg. 181)

 

No citation of any King James Only advocate who believes in the inspiration of Jerome, or Erasmus, or Beza, or Stephanus, or the entire group of King James Version translators, appears.  James White does quote Edward F. Hills on page 96–specifically denying that the Textus Receptus was produced under inspiration or through a Divine miracle.  Quotations by any prominent (or obscure!) advocate of King James Onlyism, or any KJV Only school, or church, or even a kid in the third grade in a KJV Only Sunday School affirming that Jerome, Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus, or the entire group of King James Version translators were inspired does not appear.  They do not seem to exist in the real world, but only in the imaginary world that contains King James Only advocates who think that Abraham, Moses, and the prophets spoke Hebrew.

 

James White’s The King James Only Controversy, unfortunately, has many such inaccuracies and misrepresentations.  It does not fairly and accurately present the positions of the belief system it seeks to refute.  Consequently, while it may convince people who do not know anything about the King James Only movement that being KJVO is crazy, it will not be very effective convincing those who believe in the superiority of the preserved Word in the Textus Receptus and Authorized, King James Version.  Rather than being silenced by the power of James White’s critique, they are likely to be disgusted by the inaccurate straw-manning of their belief system.

 

TDR

Creationist testimony to the King James Bible: Henry Morris

Henry Morris was the founder of the Institute for Creation Research and has been called the “father of the modern creation science movement.”  Did you know that he wrote a work explaining why the King James Bible was the version to use for creationists? If you have never read his argument, please consider and read it by clicking here. If you are a creationist who has given up on the King James Bible, please consider if the father of modern creationism has given some good reasons why you should return back to the KJV.

 

TDR

James White / Thomas Ross Debate Review Videos

There have been a number of debate reviews of the James White vs. Thomas Ross debate on the topic:

“The Legacy Standard Bible, as a representative of modern English translations based upon the UBS/NA text, is superior to the KJV, as a representative of TR-based Bible translations.”

James White Thomas Ross King James Bible Legacy Standard Bible debate Textus Receptus Nestle Aland

You can watch the debate itself here on the What is Truth? blog, on my website, on Rumble, or on YouTube.  If you did watch it, you can also examine some of the review videos.  I intend to produce, Lord willing, a series of videos that carefully examine the entire debate.  To this point, I have two debate review videos live (one made before the debate was live, and a second one, just produced, that begins to examine James White’s opening presentation).

Thomas Ross: Debate Review and Analysis part #1:

Pre-debate Review Video of James White & His Claims

 


Watch the debate review part #1 on Rumble

Watch the debate review part #1 on YouTube

In this initial debate review, I provide my thoughts on how the debate went and respond to James White’s claims about the debate in his Dividing Line program of February 21, 2023, c. minutes 5-18, entitled “Road Trip Dividing Line: Gay Mirage, Mass, Biblicism.”

 

Debate Review and Analysis part #2: James White & His Opening Presentation, part 1: Would the King James Version Translators have Preferred the Legacy Standard Bible and the Nestle-Aland Greek Text to the KJV and the Textus Receptus?

Watch the debate review part #2 on Rumble

Watch the debate review part #2 on YouTube

I now have twelve of these debate review videos.  You can watch them all at faithsaves.net, on YouTube, or on Rumble.  At least at this point I have not added the ten after the first two to this post to prevent the post from getting overwhelming.  Please think about subscribing to my YouTube and Rumble channels to find out when new video reviews come out, as I intend to record some more debate review videos, Lord willing.

 

James White (Apologia Church): His Own Debate Comments in the Dividing Line

If you would like to hear what James White said about the debate afterwards, watch minutes 5-18 of his February 21, 2023 Dividing Line program.

 

Jeff Riddle: Reformed Baptist and Confessional Bibliology Advocate’s Debate Review

 

Dr. Jeff Riddle has produced some helpful post-debate reviews. You can watch part 1, part 2, part 3, and part 4 on YouTube, or watch them on the embedded links below.  I appreciate what Dr. Riddle has written on what he calls Confessional Bibliology.  Dr. Riddle rightly wants to distance himself (as do most people who are happy to call themselves King James Only) from extremists like Peter Ruckman and Gail Riplinger while recognizing the difference between the way the original language text is inspired as to its words and translations are God’s Word as to their substance (what he calls the principle of Authoritas Divina Duplex, if you want a little Latin).  Whatever you wish to call it, I appreciate his perspective on this issue of Bibliology, although Scripture does not teach TULIP Calvinism (and it also certainly does not teach Arminianism).

Jeff Riddle Debate Review Part 1:

 

Jeff Riddle debate review part 2:

Jeff Riddle debate review part 3:

Jeff Riddle debate review part 4:

 

There is a written debate review here on What is Truth? by Dr. Kent Brandenburg: “The White-Ross Debate: Who Won?” as well as some follow-up posts by Dr. Brandenburg (follow-up part 1; part 2; part 3).

There are also some debate reviews by a gentleman named Nick Sayers, who has a website called Textus Receptus.  I know less about his doctrinal position than I do about Dr. Riddle.  Mr. Sayers belongs to a religious organization called “Revolution Church.” He made seven extremely long debate review videos (part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6, part 7).  A large percentage of what he points out is useful, although I would disagree with him at a minority of points.  Everyone should repent and believe the gospel, and then be immersed into a Baptist Church, not a Revolution church.

 

I am not aware of any of the disciples of James White making any review videos dealing in detail with the substance of the debate.  The best I could locate was a five-minute review by one of James White’s disciples named “Polite Leader.” Polite Leader completely ignored the fact that the Nestle-Aland text is a patchwork and many of the other extreme problems with the text White is defending, but I suppose one can only say so much in a video that short, and so putting in what he believed were James’ best points would be important, from his viewpoint.

 

Thanks again for your prayers for God’s truth and for me during the debate.  To Him alone be the glory for the good for His kingdom that was accomplished by it, and to me alone be the blame for what I should have done better.

 

TDR

James White / Thomas Ross Debate Transcript: Can You Help?

Can you help with a debate transcript? Some of my previous debates, such as my first one with Dan Barker of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, have been transcrbed so people can read them or reference certain arguments in them.  Having this material available was very helpful to me in my making of a review of the Barker Ross debates.

I would like to make available a transcript of my recent debate with James White on the preserved Word in the Textus Receptus and KJV versus the lost and supposedly partially restored Word in the Nestle-Aland Greek text and modern versions such as the Legacy Standard Bible (which, sadly, is neither a legacy, nor standard, nor 100% a Bible).  If someone is able to help me with this I would greatly appreciate it. I have been able to get a computer-generated audio text of the debate.  All one would need to do is listen to the debate, compare it to the audio generated by the computer, and make sure that the two are the same (and correct the computer-generated audio when it is incorrect) as well as doing some other rather simple improvements.  Then the debate will be available in a written format that can help readers and advance the cause of Biblical, faith-based, perfect preservation.  It also would be helpful to me as I seek to produce some review videos on the debate.  I am thankful for the written review of the debate here on What is Truth? as well.

I do not believe this would be an overly difficult project. If you are able to help with this project and so contribute to God’s kingdom and glory by helping spread the truth of perfect preservation, please either contact me via my website or by my church.  Thank you.

TDR

AUTHORS OF THE BLOG

  • Kent Brandenburg
  • Thomas Ross

Archives