Home » Posts tagged 'doctrine' (Page 2)

Tag Archives: doctrine

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 White / Thomas Ross Debate: KJV Translators & KJVO (4)

When I recently debated James White on the preservation of Scripture, Dr. White claimed that the KJV translators would have been “completely” on his side in the debate, were they alive today.  I have produced a number of review videos examining this claim, as part of a video series which will, Lord willing, go through the entire debate.  In video review #4 we begin to examine the “Translators to the Reader,” KJV prefatory material, and compare what the translators actually believed to what James White claimed for them.  This examination uncovers that the KJV translators believed things about the inspiration and preservation of Scripture that are consistent with the Bibliology of verbal, plenary inspiration and preservation of the KJV-only and Confessional Bibliology movements, but are not consistent with the anti-inspiration and anti-preservation views that brought us the Nestle-Aland Greek text. Believing Scripture on its own inspiration and preservation leads by good and necessary consequence to the superiority of the Textus Receptus to the modern Nestle-Aland text. The “Translators to the Reader” also favors English translational choices in passages such as John 5:39 that are supported by the context and are found in other Reformation-era Bibles but are rejected by modern English versions. Thus, the KJV translators would favor their own translational choices, also found in other Reformation-era Bibles, to translational choices found in modern English versions. The KJV translators would view their original language base and translational choices as superior to those of modern versions.

 

The weakness of James White’s arguments explain why debate reviewers generally claimed that the perfect preservationist side came out ahead in the debate.

 

You can watch debate review video #4 in the embedded link above, or see it on Faithsaves.net, YouTube or Rumble. If you like the content, please “like” the videos, and consider subscribing 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

Changes in Personal Belief and the Effects on Relationships (part one)

Growth and Change

No one comes into this world knowing every doctrine of scripture.  For someone to grow in grace and knowledge, he will change in his personal belief.  He could go either way, better or worse.  A person won’t remain static.  Growth requires making good changes and avoiding bad ones.

Like anyone else, I have a story of change in personal belief.  I have often told people that I changed on eight to ten biblical doctrines or issues of various significance through the years.  No one should change from something right to something wrong.  I always believed I was moving from wrong to right, but not everyone agreed with that.

Adding and Subtracting

God says, don’t take away from or add to scripture.  Both directions are bad, subtracting and adding.  Furthermore, someone doesn’t do better if he takes every doctrine or issue to the most strict or extreme place that he could.

In the Garden of Eden, Eve said the following in Genesis 3:2-3 to the serpent:

We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:  But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

God had said the following in Genesis 2:17:

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

When you read the two statements, you can see that Eve added to what God said.  God said nothing about touching the fruit of the tree.  Yet, Eve did.  She took an even more extreme position than God, which was wrong.

Almost every change I ever made in belief or practice, I moved in a stronger, more strict or conservative direction.  Certain other Christians opposed some of those changes.  In a most recent change, that developed over a number of years, I loosened in my belief or practice.  I see liberty on something where I once saw regulation.  Those accustomed to my rightward movement saw this as inconsistent.

Precipitating Change

In every instance I changed, some event precipitated the change.  Very often I changed while preaching or teaching a series through a particular book.  Sometimes I was faced with a situation that I had never encountered.  I had to make a decision.

In all my years of pastoring, that I know, I have never believed and practiced in an identical way with any other church.  I know of no Baptist church that is identical to another in its belief and practice.   Beliefs and practices might be close to the same, but with slight variation.

Here at this blog, Thomas Ross and I don’t believe or practice exactly the same.  We have differences.  We’re very close, but not the same.  Some of you readers have read our debates here and elsewhere.  Nonetheless, we still partner on this blog.

Through the years, our church still fellowshipped with other churches even with the differences we had.  It’s usually not easy to clash with another church on doctrinal and practical differences.  Even interpretational differences might bring conflict between believers or churches.  Almost everyone thinks they’re right.

Reasons for Change and Differences

When I change, why believe or practice different than before?  Why do Bible believing and practicing churches still have some differences with each other in doctrine and practice?

Direct Statements, Plain Inferences

Differences in belief and practice start with variated understanding of either direct statements of scripture or of the plain inferences from direct statements in the Bible.  Not every teaching of the Bible comes from a direct statement.  Some comes from a combination of direct statements and plain inferences.  In general I haven’t changed in my adult life on anything in a category of direct statements or plain inferences from scripture.

When I say direct statements and plain inferences, I also say that these proceed from only a grammatical, historical interpretation of scripture.  Direct statements and plain inferences come from the actual meaning of the words of scripture in their context.  I also consider the laws for the usage of those words, their syntax, and their meaning in their textual and historical context.

I take a stronger position on repentance and Lordship than I did forty years ago.  In the past, I never denied that teaching.  However, like every other doctrine and practice proceeding from direct statement and plain inference from direct statements, I grew in my grasp and conviction.

A Series of Overlapping Statements and Inferences

Some doctrines and practices proceed from a series of overlapping statements and inferences in the Bible.  When you read all of the passages combined, you will come to certain conclusions that are also your beliefs and practices.  The nation Israel, one third of its total number of people according to Zechariah, will receive Christ as the Messiah during the seven year tribulation period.  Nations will surround her and at this juncture, Israel will repent with a confession such as Isaiah 53.  God will save Israel.

I get my belief about the event of the salvation of Israel from conclusions arising from a series of overlapping statements and inferences in scripture.  Furthermore, almost every belief and practice, comes from both the interpretation and the application of scripture.  Application almost always depends on the reality of certain self-evident truths, assumed by God.  God expects us to apply what He said.  Man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.

Separating Differences

Many professing believers take what I call, unscriptural positions.  Differences occur between believers and churches when one or more veer away from the teaching of the Bible.  They might do that for many reasons.  Some of them are just personal.  An individual believer or a church leader may have a personal issue with someone.  People might not like the way someone treated them or others with whom they fellowship.

Differences between churches may not be doctrinal or practical, but personal or political.  They fellowship with others with different doctrine or practice, even with the same differences as someone with whom they won’t.  Their decisions about relationship relate to hurt feelings or bruised egos.  They won’t reconcile, forgive, or seek mediation because of pride.  They wait for the other party to initiate reconciliation, and even if it does, they reject reconciliation or mediation.  True churches separate, but scripture teaches constructive reasons, not personal or political ones.

More to Come

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

James White / Thomas Ross Bible Version Debate (KJV vs LSB) is Now Live!

I am happy to report that you can now watch the James White / Thomas Ross debate on Bible versions (the King James Version Only debate)!  The 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 was in the affirmative.

Thomas Ross was in the negative.

 

The debate can now be viewed on the following sites (click for your choice): FaithSaves   Rumble   YouTube

 

It can also be watched using the embedded video below:

Please “like” the video on YouTube and Rumble and share comments about it on those websites as well as on the blog here.

 

I am thankful for the work put in by the follower of James White who edited the video.  I would like to have a somewhat improved version where one can see both the debaters and the slides at the same time, instead of only one or the other, and if that project gets completed, we will definitely plan to inform the blog readership about it.

 

May the truth of the perfect preservation of His infallible Word be more widely received as a result of this debate.  Soli Deo Gloria!

 

Please also read the James White / Thomas Ross Bible Version debate review, part 1, here (with more to come) or watch the video on FaithSaves, Rumble or YouTube.  Lord willing, there are more parts to come reviewing the debate and its arguments.

TDR

James White / Thomas Ross Debate Review Video #1

After my debate with James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries, James posted his post-debate thoughts. (I have also written a few thoughts.)  I was quite surprised to hear him make affirmations about my character such as that he “knew” I was “not intending to” bring the audience along with me, that I had a “really, really deep disrespect for the audience,” that “Ross didn’t care. He wasn’t debating for us,” that I did not understand what a text type was, or even “anything like that at all,” and so on, rather than expositing Scripture on its own preservation or demonstrating that even one quotation in my presentation, or one fact I pointed out, was inaccurate.  I believe that the fact that he spent his post-debate analysis attacking me instead of dealing with my arguments may tell you something about how the debate went–I was very thankful for the blessing of the Lord in the debate itself for the cause of God’s truth.  (Let me just add that not one of the thoughts James claims that he “knew” about my motives and so on, to my recollection, even entered my mind one time before I heard him make them in his post-debate analysis.)

 

The debate video itself, Lord willing, will be live soon; it takes a lot more work to get a video like that done than it does to create a video where I am just ruminating about the debate.  Feel free to subscribe to my Rumble and YouTube channels to get notified as soon as the video becomes available.

 

You can watch my initial post-debate response, giving my thoughts on how it went, as well as responding to James White’s allegations, with the embedded video below, at faithsaves.net, on Rumble, or on YouTube.

 

My sincere thanks again to those who prayed for me and for those who helped in many other ways.

TDR

 

My Initial Thoughts on The James White Debate (KJV/TR vs. LSB/NA/UBS)

I am thankful for everyone who prayed for me in the debate with James White over 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.”

 

Thank you!

 

I believe that, for His glory and by His grace, the Lord answered the prayers of His people and the debate went well.  God is concerned that His pure Word be in use among His people, and I believe He blessed the debate towards the furtherance of that cause.

 

Thank you as well to everyone who helped with all kinds of details, small and great, with the debate.  Without you it would the case for the truth of the perfect preservation of Scripture would have been much less effectively presented.  Thank you very much!

 

We arrived in Tennessee the day before the debate.  Our flights were fine on the way out, and on the way back (although THE PLANE WENT DOWN!!!   -but only when it got to the runway at the airport).  My wife and I had dinner with James White the night before the debate and had a cordial conversation.

 

We are thankful for the help of a godly KJVO Baptist in the area who helped us with things from making sure that we would be able to project slides (something was worked out with the pastor at the Reformed Baptist congregation where the debate was being held) to a way to print our notes (the church had no printer available, nor any WiFi there for me to even have my notes on an IPad–that is why it was not livestreamed.) It was recorded by a professional videographer, so it should be high quality once it comes out, Lord willing.  Please pray for the production of the video, as there have been some issues there that are quite important and could seriously impact its effectiveness.

 

The people at Covenant Reformed Baptist Church of Tullahoma, TN were kind to us.  The pastor, who makes a living rebinding Bibles, presented us with a beautifully bound KJV Bible (he gave a similarly beautifully bound LSB to James White).  So if you need you need a Bible rebound, he may be worth considering for you.

 

James White was not quite as cordial in the debate as he had been at dinner the night before, in my opinion, but I suppose I will let you decide that when you watch the debate video.  I was particularly struck by the fact that, despite pressing him on it, and the obvious fact that Biblical promises of perfect preservation, and the recognition of the canonical words of Scripture by the church were crucial to my case, he still did very little to dispute my case from Scripture, nor to present a Biblical basis for his own position.  I am still not sure if he thinks there are any promises from the Bible that indicate that God would preserve every Word He inspired, or if he just thinks that we have them, or almost all of them, somewhere, because of what textual critics like Kurt Aland say, or at least according to him they say, although his view of Kurt Aland may not be Kurt Aland’s view of Kurt Aland.

 

Overall, I think that the debate went well, and that the case for perfect preservation, and its necessary consequence of the superiority of the TR/KJV to the UBS/LSB, was clear. However, I am also well aware that I am biased in favor of my position, so you will have to watch the debate yourself to see if you agree.

 

The slides we had prepared–many of which were used in the debate, while others were not–are available at the main debate page here if you want to get a sense of what my argument was or what is going to be on the debate video, Lord willing.  I asked Dr. White if he wished to put his slides up there as well so that both of our presentations had an equal representation, but he has not responded to me as of now, whether because he is very busy or for some other reason.

 

There is much more that can be said about the debate, but that will be enough for now.  Thank you again for your prayers, and all the glory to the one God, the Father who gave the canonical words of Scripture to the Son, so that He could give them to the assembly of His saints by His Spirit.

 

TDR

The Servant Song of Isaiah 53 (Isaiah 52:13-53:12)

How is your grasp of the glorious servant song of Isaiah 53 (specifically Isaiah 52:13-53:12)? As part of the series on how to teach an evangelistic Bible study, I have taught through the passage verse-by-verse.  Knowledge of Isaiah 53 is not only edifying, but it is helpful for Jews, for Muslims (who say Christ never died a substitutionary death and rose again, but this was added into the New Testament–so why is it in the Old Testament?), for atheists and agnostics who deny the reality of predictive prophecy in the Bible, and for anyone else who simply needs the truth in this passage, the “Gospel according to Isaiah.”  The series through Isaiah 53 is now complete.  If you would like to listen to the series–or watch the entire series on how to teach an evangelistic Bible study here–see an example of how to lead these here and get copies of the studies here (or get a Word doc here to personalize for use in your church), please watch the embedded videos below or click on the link here.  If they are edifying, please “like” the videos and feel free to share a comment.

 

Note–the first video completes the discussion of a different topic before getting into Isaiah 52:13-53:12.

Video #1:

Video #2:

Video #3:

Video #4:

Video #5:

Video #6:

Video #7:

Video #8:

Video #9:

Video #10:

Video #11:

TDR

AUTHORS OF THE BLOG

  • Kent Brandenburg
  • Thomas Ross

Archives