Watch the Debate

White and Ross Arguments

White’s Presentation

In mid-February, James White debated Thomas Ross about which was better, the Legacy Standard Bible (LSB) or the King James Version (KJV).  White argues with an entirely naturalistic presupposition, saying that only manuscript evidence shows the underlying text of the KJV, the Textus Receptus (TR), is worse than that of the LSB, the Nestles Aland critical text (NA).  Furthermore, he says the KJV uses archaic words and has less information for an accurate translation of certain technical words.  He also tries to demonstrate some translation errors in the KJV, not in the LSB.

Ross’s Scriptural Presuppositions

Ross argues with a scriptural presupposition.  The TR is superior to the NA based on the doctrine of preservation. The TR meets God’s promises of preservation in His Word.  Ross asserts and then proves that scripture teaches verbal plenary original language preservation by means of true churches for every generation of believers.  He also shows this identical teaching is the historical position clearly believed by the church, relying on the same passages.  The NA is absent from its confessions or published materials.  The TR only fits a scriptural and historical presupposition.

On the other hand, Ross shows that we know that the NA text was not in use for at least 1000 years.  That isn’t preservation.  Founders and proponents of the critical text, such as Wescott and Hort, deny the scriptural and historical doctrine of preservation.  Like White, they take an only naturalistic presupposition and method.  This alone is enough to say the TR/KJV is superior to the NA/LSB, because the latter does not proceed from biblical presuppositions or methods.

Naturalistic, Manuscript Evidence

Conjectural Emendations

In addition, even using naturalistic means, the sole criteria of White, Ross shows the NA is inferior to the TR.  Ross gives evidence that the editors of the NA 27th edition, the underlying text for the LSB, used over 100 “explicit conjectural emendations.”  He provides two examples of this in Acts 16:12 and 2 Peter 3:10.  This debunks the one apparent example of conjectural emendation in the TR in Revelation 16:5.

Over 100 conjectural emendations is worse than the one example of White.  Reader, do you understand the truth here?  It’s a hypocritical argument that doesn’t work.  Please do not give a blind eye to this out of sheer loyalty to White and his winning a debate.  This is the truth.  It shouldn’t matter how fast Thomas Ross said it.  Speaking fast is a red herring as an argument.

No Manuscript Evidence

White asserts no manuscript evidence for one NT reading, the one in Revelation 16:5.  He says there is light evidence for one word in Ephesians 3:9 and the Comma Johanneum in 1 John 5:7.  Ross shows there is no manuscript evidence for at least 41 separate lines of text in the NA, evidenced by Swanson in his New Testament Greek Manuscripts:  Variant Readings Arranged in Horizontal Lines against Codex Vaticanus.  None of this occurs in the TR.  Based on the ratio of Matthew and Mark text to the rest of the New Testament, that would result in 191 total for the NT.

How could textual critics publish a text like described?  Even as a so-called science, textual critics don’t see their work as a science at all.  Ross quotes this from Metzger and Ehrman in their foremost book on textual criticism.  They don’t see anyone able to refer to the text as an original text.  This strongly contradicts the position of the church based on biblical presuppositions.  Ross quotes White himself in his debate with Douglas Wilson, that we will never have a certain text.

On the issue of the text alone, Ross blows away White.  The TR is by far a superior text.  When White mentions the papyri, Ross shows him the earliest, P52, a piece of the gospel of John that is identical to the TR.  After praising the papyri, White changes tunes and says that it was a very small fragment, attempting to have it both ways.  Relying on Pickering and Hoskier, Ross shows how that there are long sections of identical readings of the TR in the manuscripts.  He includes photos of these.

White Attacks on Ross

White tries to attack the KJV by bringing up one possible conjectural emendation, one for which apparently Beza says he had a manuscript.  One word in Ephesians 3:9 has limited manuscript support.  He attacks the TR reading in 1 John 5:7.  White doesn’t rely on scriptural presuppositions.  Counting manuscripts and their age, that’s what he’s got.  This is not how believers approached this issue.  White himself says that the NA wasn’t available for hundreds of years.  He speaks like this is a good thing.  It is an obvious admittance, that Ross pointed out, that God did not preserve his text.

To be honest, White should accede to the Ross argument about no manuscript evidence for NA readings in 41 places in Matthew and Mark.  Instead, he starts talking like they don’t matter for the translation.  This shows a double standard.  He attacks the TR in Revelation 16:5, one place, and excuses 41 places.  He even apologizes for the NA27, the basis of the LSB, what he’s trying to defend in the debate.  White says he doesn’t trust the editors, but he does his own textual criticism.

The Translation Issue

White spends some time on the translation issue.  Ross answered him.  The Granville Sharp rule doesn’t hurt the translation of the KJV in Titus 2:13.  The LSB is fine there.  Ross makes the point that Jude 1:4 fits the Granville Sharp in the KJV, while in the LSB, it does not.  That point received crickets from White.  Relating to the lexical issue of technical terms, Ross says that they’re still difficult to understand for identifying what those animals and minerals were.  The lexical aids can help in understanding, but they do not resolve this issue in either the KJV and LSB.

Ross and White spent time discussing the translation of the Hebrew of Yawheh or Jehovah (or LORD) in the Old Testament.  Ross referred to the pronunciation of the vowel points, a fine argument.  Ross also gave a good answer on “servant” or “slave.”  The Hebrew word is not always our modern understanding of “slave.”

Other Problems for White

White said he believed we have all the words in all of the manuscript evidence, and yet he contradicts himself in 1 Samuel 13:1, pointed out by Ross.  White doesn’t believe there is a manuscript with the wording of that verse.  I guess people don’t care about that contradiction.  He doesn’t believe in preservation, we know that from his Douglas Wilson answer, exposed by Ross in the debate.

As well, White referred to a Hebrews reference to the prophet Jeremiah.  He said the author quoted the Greek Septuagint, essentially arguing that the author of Hebrews and then Jesus in the Gospels used a corrupt text.  Modern critical text advocates use this Septuagint argument as a kind of scriptural presupposition.

Ross gave White a good answer on the Septuagint question, referring to the theology of John Owen.  Owen answered this point in his writings.  He also quoted the introduction of a standard academic text on the Septuagint by Jobes and Silva, taking the same position as Owen espoused.  This debunks the false view that Jesus and other NT authors would have quoted a terribly corrupted text and translation of the Old Testament.

Style Points?

In the end, White had to attack Thomas Ross for his style, reading too fast and having too many slides.  Come on.  Keep it to the subject at hand.  Easily, someone could attack White for style.  White broad brushes TR and King James supporters with inflammatory language all the time.  When Ross shook his hand at the end and gave him a book, White sat there looking disdainful.  White attacked his character after the debate, saying he was showing off.  He almost always name-drops and mentions his debate of Bart Ehrman and his 180 debates as automatic winning credentials.

In the comment section of the videos, people attack Ross for mentioning winning the debate.  They are debating.  If White won, his followers would say this again and again.  It’s a picky criticism.  There is criteria for a debate.  Ross negates the affirmative of White and puts him on the defensive.  That’s the definition of winning a debate.

Answering Questions

Some people have said that Ross didn’t answer White’s questions.  I ask them, which did he not answer?  They are silent.  White, attacking Ross for perfect preservation, something the debate wasn’t about, tries to catch Ross in a gotcha moment by asking about Revelation 16:5.  Ross says that he sympathizes with Beza’s having a manuscript with the word there.  That is an answer.

White asks Ross if the King James translators could have done a better job in Acts 5:30.  Ross said they were both fine, but KJV wasn’t wrong.  That is an answer too.  Like Ross, I believe the KJV is an accurate translation.  That doesn’t mean I or he wouldn’t translate it differently.

On sheer content alone, Ross crushed White in this debate.  He wins because of his scriptural presuppositions.  The Bible is the truth.  Where the Bible speaks, that is reality.  Anything that contradicts it is false.  Even on the evidence, Ross won, because based on White criteria, he showed the NA had weak to no manuscript evidence.  White tried to avoid this, just by saying that Ross misrepresented the evidence.  Ross didn’t.  White was not prepared for this argument. It’s not going to change either, because that evidence is still true.