Part One     Part Two     Part Three     Part Four     Part Five

I am calling this post a part of my discussion on critical text versus textus receptus.  So much air time, so much ink is spilt for style and tone in debate, that it becomes an argument to be addressed.

You want to determine the preservation of scripture.  You weigh textus receptus versus critical text.  What is your criteria?  Just by sheer mention from notable critical text supporters, such as James White and Mark Ward, the following is a major argument.  You want to come to the right decision about the text, have the correct thinking?  Ask this question.  Which advocates are either nicer or meaner?  From the sheer volume of talk about who-is-nicer or who-is-meaner, it must be the critical text is right.  In almost every presentation, at some point James White or Mark Ward will talk about how mean the other side is, implying that James White and Mark Ward are nice, so the critical text position must be right.

I wonder of ecclesiastical text, standard sacred text, confessional text, or traditional text men, who thinks that James White and Mark Ward are nice?  Perhaps you’ve seen a child come running to his mother, saying, “He wasn’t nice to me.”  Or, “She wasn’t nice to me.”  If you are a dad, and your little boy does that, you really, really don’t want to hear it.  Maybe you just ignore him or you say, “Just go back and play.”  Maybe when the little girl says it, you weigh it, and maybe you say, not really believing it, “Children, be nice.”  I wouldn’t be convinced that the one protesting is the nice one.

We live in an era, where “he wasn’t nice” is an argument. It isn’t, but you would think it is by the sheer number of times critical text proponents mention it.  I say, “Stop already.  Both sides say mean things.”  James White and Mark Ward are at least as mean or at least as not nice.  Fun, isn’t it?

Condescension, eye rolling, sarcasm, and a certain kind of smarmy tone someone might consider to be mean or not nice.  Even the constant mention of “you’re-not-nice” isn’t nice.  When two men are having a discussion, they might get a little rough.  Neither side should call the “whaaaambulance” and claim injury, as if they are a strip mall defense lawyer.  “You’ve been injured in a biblical text discussion, call Mark Ward or James White, and they’ll represent you.”

When you were a child and you played games with friends, did you think it was nice when someone just rose, walked off, and stopped playing, because he didn’t like how it was going?  Or did you think that was in itself, a mean or not nice act?  Adults do this pulling the game board, taking the toys and going home.

A hard discussion, where the other side isn’t as nice as we want or doesn’t follow our preferred rules of decorum, will often occur.  Very often both sides, when in disagreement, don’t like how the other side disagrees.  That isn’t persecution though.  Entering a boisterous give and take with someone, where we feel the other side hurt our feelings, is not persecution.  We don’t deserve sympathy for a rugged debate.

Maybe 35-40 years ago, I remember reading letters written to one of my professors, Thomas Strouse, from Peter Ruckman.  No one said things as harsh as Peter Ruckman.  Dr. Strouse never said anything about the Ruckman style in the argument.  Ruckman would straight out insult and call derogatory names.  Ruckman was so nasty, that he was funny.  No one had hurt feelings.  They just laughed.  I think this was just a different generation of men.  They were less touchy feely.  I wonder if you agree.

White and Ward both imply some spiritual problem or lack of sanctification in their opponents.  They are the judge, jury, and executioner.  They are nasty and harsh too.  They weaponize the criticism though.

I think I could have better style or tone.  I could speak to my opponents in a more sensitive way.  When I argue, I could take more consideration of the opposition’s feelings.  When two people disagree, it’s better if they try to get along too.  I agree with that assessment.

What I wish is that the two sides could also take the meanness or niceness criteria out of the debate, especially the one side that nearly always brings it up.  I don’t think Jeff Riddle wants to be mean.  He’s nicer than me.  And yet Mark Ward says he’s not nice either.  He’s nicer than others, but he’s also too mean.  Mark Ward might pull the game board on him.  We’ll see.

What really happened is that Riddle exposed Ward and Ward didn’t like it, so Ward pulled from a contributor for Riddle’s most recent book, “Satan’s Bible,” or something like that, speaking of the critical text (see comment section).  This is the meanness or niceness argument being utilized.  Riddle had already taken a preemptive strike with “toxic review,” speaking of Ward’s use of toxic to describe the book.

Can we just debate and stop bringing up who is nice and who is mean?  Both sides will say things the other does not like.  In my recent writing, I mentioned that Ward made a mocking argument, using tone and facial expressions and giggling type glee.  He did.  It’s easy to see in the video.  He won’t admit it, because he can’t cede that high ground he believes he has based on his own judgment of himself.  Then I came out and called him on that and I said he put his foot in his mouth.  I said it was a dumb argument for a PhD.  I am debating on an equal rhetorical plane as Mark Ward.  James White and Mark Ward won’t admit it, but it’s just true.

Ward often mentions how gracious he is.  He does that at least as much as he says how mean the other side is.  People on our side have not talked about this (that I know of), but Ward uses straw men.  He misrepresents positions.  He employs ad hominem.  When his position is answered, he talks his way out of admitting it.  He very often won’t concede when he gets it wrong or the other side is right.  When he does concede, it’s difficult to tell.  It doesn’t sound like he conceded on important points.

At one point, Ward said that the NKJV came from an identical text as the text behind the KJV.  I showed him five places.  He tried to explain them away.  I gave him five more.  He did the same.  I gave him five more.  He did the same.  He finally conceded, but not to the point that he made originally.  When I gave the first five, that should have ended the discussion, and for sure after the second five.  Why didn’t it?  I think he thought I would shortly run out of examples and he could explain it away.  However, he just couldn’t concede.  He changed the rules right in the middle of the discussion.  This is Mark Ward, ladies and gentleman, the very, very nice man by his own admission.  If I told him he wasn’t nice, I know we would have started a not-niceathon, trying to top the other in who was less or more nice.  You could picture two jr. high girls.

Living in Utah right now, a normal, every occasion argument from LDS is the sameness between historical, biblical Christians and LDS.  They try to take that posture right away.  They will treat me like we’re the same.  Half of them get offended by refuting the sameness.  I find critical text the same.  Critical text men want the other side to say that they too believe in the preservation of scripture.  They too hold an orthodox position.  Both sides should agree to disagree.  Can we instead say that we don’t agree and that both positions are not the same?  We really do believe they are attacking a true doctrine of scripture that is important.  That doesn’t mean we don’t like them.  We just disagree with them and believe that for God we need to oppose what they’re saying.

When I bring up the style and tone of Ward, I don’t do it for the same reason as White and Ward do.  I do it, because I wish they would stop bringing it up.  We both use tone and style in disagreement that the other side doesn’t like.  I wish there was a moratorium on mentioning it.  Just leave it alone and continue the debate.  I don’t expect it though.  It works well to their audience.  Maybe it’s a replacement for real persecution for men who don’t face actual persecution.

I have an opinion about the criticism of meanness or lack of niceness.  It is in the realm of ‘gird up your loins, like a man,’ something God said to Job twice.  This is a battle and both sides just should put on their big boy pads and expect contact.