Home » Posts tagged 'language'
Tag Archives: language
Acts 5:30 & James White: King James Version Only Debate
As many blog readers know, I had the privilege of debating James White-who utilized Acts 5:30 as a key part of his argument–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.
You can watch the debate here at What is Truth? at Faithsaves.net, on YouTube, or on Rumble. A number of Christians posted debate reviews, some of which are discussed in a What is Truth? post here. I also produced a series of debate review videos accessible on my website, on YouTube, and on Rumble. It had been a while since I had made a new one, but I (finally) got around to getting out my thoughts on James White’s argument from this verse:
The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. (Acts 5:30, KJV)
The God of our fathers braised up Jesus, whom you put to death by hanging Him on a tree. (LSB)
James White’s Argument on Acts 5:30
White argued:
1.) The King James Version in Acts 5:30 teaches that the ungodly first slew Christ, and after He was slain, they hanged Him on a tree or cross. This would destroy the gospel by denying that the Lord Jesus died on the cross for our sins; rather, the KJV (supposedly) teaches the heresy that Christ was first killed and then His dead body was hanged on a tree or cross.
2.) The LSB is a superior translation to the KJV because in Acts 5:30 it states that His enemies killed Christ “by hanging Him on a tree,” that is, by crucifying Him.
3.) The Greek of Acts 5:30 contains the participle kremasantes, which must indicate means and be translated as affirming that Christ was slain “by hanging.” It cannot be translated “and hanged.”
4.) The KJV translators simply “missed” that kremasantes was a participle, and not realizing that kremasantes was a participle, they translated it like a finite verb.
5.) “Every English translation” translates kremasantes as a participle of means (that is, “by hanging”). The KJV “is the only one” that translates the Greek as “and hanged.”
6.) There is no Greek word “and” in Acts 5:30. The KJV therefore mistranslates the verse by adding words not found in the Greek text.
7.) Because the KJV (allegedly) teaches the heresy that Christ was killed before He was crucified in Acts 5:30, because the translators were sloppy and missed that the verse had a participle and so disagreed with every other English translation, and because the KJV adds in the word “and” that is not contained in the text, the KJV is an inferior translation in Acts 5:30, and, so, presumably is an inferior translation overall. The LSB (and every other English translation, all of which unite to oppose the KJV in Acts 5:30) are superior, not just in Acts 5:30, but in the entire Bible.
James White has been making his claims against the King James Version’s translation of Acts 5:30 for around 30 years in the several editions of his The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2009), and he made them again the debate.
The Truth on Acts 5:30 and James White’s Argument
In my review video, I demonstrate:
1.) James White’ argument from Acts 5:30 does not get him even close to proving the proposition in the debate.
2.) Dr. White’s criticisms of the King James Version in Acts 5:30 are astonishingly uninformed and inaccurate.
3.) White’s claim that the KJV translators simply “missed” that Acts 5:30 contained a participle is painfully unserious.
4.) White claimed that the KJV contains a mistranslation because it supplies the word “and” before “hanged,” when the syntactical category of the attendant circumstance participle (found in Acts 5:30) requires the insertion of an “and.”
5.) To attack the KJV in Acts 5:30, White’s King James Only Controversy invents a fictional Greek grammatical category called “instrumental circumstantial modal” and makes claims about the Greek grammar of Dana and Mantey that have no connection to the actual text of their book.
6.) Failing to account for the Old Testament allusion to Deuteronomy 21:22 in Acts 5:30 is another of many examples of what is lost on account of White’s writing the King James Only Controversy in only a few months and never improving it.
7.) The favorite manuscripts of the Textus Rejectus teach the heresy that the Lord Jesus was murdered by a spear thrust before His crucifixion in Matthew 27:49. To be consistent with White’s line of reasoning, we must recognize the unambiguous superiority of the Textus Receptus because of the egregious error in the Textus Rejectus in Matthew 27:49.
Why? Watch the embedded video below, or watch the debate review video on Acts 5:30 (#15) at faithsaves.net, on Rumble, or on YouTube.
–TDR
New Testament Greek, Bill Mounce, 1st Semester Videos Online
I am thankful to announce that all the videos teaching the first semester of Biblical Greek are now online! The main textbook used is William Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek. Either the 3rd or the 4th edition of that text works well. (I prefer some features of the 3rd and some other features of the 4th edition; overall, they are similar enough that either one will work with the class.) The entire playlist is on YouTube, and the videos are also being put up at Faithsaves.net and on Rumble. We thank God for the work that has been done. Lord willing, the second semester videos will also all be made available. If you are interested in helping to edit videos and so help train spiritual leaders for the kingdom of God, or you know someone who can help with this ministry, please contact me. You can also pray for us. Learning the Biblical languages is very valuable, and it is our prayer and hope that these videos will not only help those who have physical teachers, but also enable God’s people to learn Greek all around the world, even when they who do not have the privilege of a physical teacher. A physical teacher is very helpful–and, Lord willing, I will offer the class personally again in the future, as I have offered it in the past–but I believe a dedicated student can teach himself Greek with the textbooks and answer keys here, although it is not as easy to do as it is if one has a professor to help. I also want these videos to help people learn Biblical Greek from a Biblical, separatist, militant Baptist position, instead of from the point of non-separatist evangelicalism–the doctrinal position of Bill Mounce, who is a great Greek teacher, but not so great in his doctrine and practice. Furthermore, we use the Textus Receptus and support the King James Version in the class, rather than utilizing modern Bible versions and their inferior Greek text, the Nestle-Aland.
If you want to help people get Biblical, Baptist, separatist training in the Biblical languages and theology, please feel free to recommend and send links about my class to the various websites where online Greek classes are compared and offered. I don’t have time to look into all of those, but the more places that link to it, the better. I would be fine if evangelicals learn Greek from someone with Biblical Baptist convictions and get moved towards that position. Thanks!
–TDR
Hebrew Shema / Deuteronomy 6:4-6 Chant / Trope / Cantillated
Deuteronomy 6:4, the Shema, is the most famous verse of the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible for Jews. The Hebrew text has a complex system of accent marks that provide exegetically significant information; in addition to the accents providing one of four levels of disjunction in the text (that is, providing pauses that divide words with four levels of strength), or emphasizing conjunction (that words are to be read together). The Lord Jesus affirmed that God would preserve the Hebrew vowels and accent marks until heaven and earth pass away-the words of the Old Testament themselves, not merely the consonants, are inspired:
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Matthew 5:18)
Historically, the inspiration of the vowels has been affirmed, and receiving the Biblical testimony to the inspiration of the words, not the consonants only, of the Old Testament is apologetically and intellectually defensible.
So what does the Shema and the following two verses sound like when sung or chanted following the Hebrew accent marks? You can hear the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) in a synagogue, but if you do not want to go to one, and want to hear the following passage of the Torah chanted:
Deut. 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
Deut. 6:5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
Deut. 6:6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:
Then please watch or listen to the following brief video:
or watch the video on Rumble by clicking here or on YouTube by clicking here.
Whether or not one learns to fluently sing or chant, students of the Hebrew Bible should learn to identify the Hebrew accent marks, just like they can identify English periods, commas, and semicolons. Courses in Hebrew should teach the people of the God of Israel and those who trust in Israel’s Messiah the accents, rather than ignoring them and teaching only the consonants and vowels.
This blog has pointed out in the past that the Authorized, King James Version does a good job representing the Hebrew accents in English (although the punctuation system in English is different and simpler than that of Hebrew).
You might be able to have more doors open in witnessing to Jews if you memorize at least the Shema, Deuteronomy 6:4, in Hebrew. If Then share with them the truth in the “Truth from the Torah” pamphlet. If you have one of the Jewish evangelistic shirts here, by memorizing the Shema you will be able to chant the Hebrew text on the front of your shirt.
If you can at least read the Hebrew alphabet it should not be that hard to memorize this passage–the greatest commandment of all, according to the resurrected Messiah, Son of God and Son of Man, the Lord Jesus (Matthew 22:37-38). Just copy the audio of the video to your phone or other electronic device and get your device to play the Hebrew over and over again, and before you know it you will have the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) and the greatest commandment (Deuteronomy 6:5) memorized in Hebrew. Put these glorious words in your heart (Deuteronomy 6:6), where you can savor them, love them, and ever the more obey them.
–TDR
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
Is the King James Version Too Hard to Understand? (White 11)
The James White / Thomas Ross Preservation / King James Version Only debate examined 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.”
In our debate, James White claimed that the Authorized, King James Version was too hard to understand. He also made this claim in his book The King James Only Controversy. Dr. James White’s argument has been employed by others as well, such as the Bob Jones University graduate Mark Ward. In my eleventh review video of the James White / Thomas Ross debate, I examine the KJV’s “Translators to the Reader” and point out that Dr. White confuses the KJV preface’s claim that their version would be understood by the common man with White’s own claim that the Bible must be in the language of the common man. To my knowledge, James White never acknowledges this important distinction.
The King James Version is Modern English
I also point out that the King James Bible is not in Old English, nor in Middle English, but in Modern English, and that scholars of the English language have dated the rise of modern English from the translation of the KJV:
Old English or Anglo-Saxon -1100
Transition Old English, or “Semi-Saxon” 1100-1200
Early Middle English, or “Early English” 1200-1300
Late Middle English 1300-1400
Early Modern English, “Tudor English” 1485-1611
Modern English 1611-onward
The English Of the King James Version
Is Easier than the Hebrew and Greek of the Inspired Old and New Testament
I then deal with the crucial question-which I have not seen addressed elsewhere by opponents of perfect preservation and the Textus Receptus, and which I wish defenders of preservation would address more frequently and with more completeness–of the objective standard of what “too hard” is for a translation, namely, the level of difficulty of the original Hebrew and Greek texts themselves. Is the King James Version harder English than the Hebrew of the Old Testament or the Greek of the New Testament? This crucial question is answered “no!”
The crucial question: Is the English of the King James Version significantly more complex and harder to understand English than the Greek of the New Testament was to the New Testament people of God or the Hebrew of the Old Testament was to Israel? The answer: No! The New Testament contains challenging Greek (Hebrews, Luke, Acts) as well as simple Greek (John, 1-3 John). Sometimes the New Testament contains really long sentences, such as Ephesians 1:3-14, which is all just one sentence in Greek. The Holy Ghost did not just dictate very short Greek sentences like “Jesus wept” (John 11:35) but also very long sentences, like Ephesians 1:3-14. God did not believe such sentences were too hard to understand, and both God and the Apostle Paul were happy for inspired epistles with such complex syntax to be sent to churches like that at Ephesus–congregations that were filled, not with highbrow urban elites, but with slaves, with poorly educated day laborers, with farmers, and with simple peasants who had believed on the Lord Jesus Christ.
Similarly, parts of the Hebrew prophetic and poetical books are much more challenging Hebrew than are many of the narrative sections of the Hebrew Bible. The Old Testament also contains some very long sentences. The whole chapter, Proverbs 2, is one sentence in Hebrew, for example.
There are also more rare or hard-to-recall words in the original language texts than there are in the English of the KJV.
Thus, evaluated by the objective standard of the literary level of the inspired Hebrew and Greek texts of Scripture, the King James Version is NOT too hard to understand. If you encounter people who argue that the KJV is too hard to understand, I would encourage you to challenge them to consider whether their claim is true based on the linguistic level of the original language texts of the Old and New Testaments.
Learn more by watching debate review video #11 at faithsaves.net, or watch the debate review on YouTube or Rumble, or use the embedded link below:
Please also check out the previous debate review blog posts here at What is Truth?
–TDR
Remarriage After Divorce: Continual Adultery? Christ’s View
According to Jesus Christ and the New Testament, is remarriage after divorce continual adultery? Christ is clear that putting away or divorcing one’s spouse and marrying someone else when one’s spouse is still alive is a wicked sin, and the consummation of that second marriage is an act of adultery, making the people who commit that sin adulterers:
2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. 3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? 4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. 5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. 11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. 12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. (Mark 10:2-12)
A (very) small minority of people in Christendom teach not only that the act of remarriage is an act of adultery, but that one is living in continual adultery with a second spouse, and, therefore, needs to abandon that second spouse and go back to his or her first husband or wife. Some Amish groups that are confused on the gospel adopt this false teaching, as do some Mennonites (who also very largely are confused on the gospel by denying eternal security and confused on the church by denying the necessity of immersion in baptism). There are very few groups that get the gospel and the church correct that adopt this false teaching on leaving one’s spouse to go back to a former husband or wife.
The Lord Jesus Christ does NOT teach that someone should go back to his former husband or wife if he or she commits the sin of remarriage. The remarriage was a sin, one that should be repented of with sorrow. However, some sins, once they are committed, do not allow one to go back to what would have been right formerly. After Israel sinned by faithlessly refusing to enter the Promised Land (Numbers 14), God punished them by swearing that they would have to dwell in the wilderness for forty years. After they decided not to go up, it was too late for them to change their mind and go into the land. Some of them tried, and God was not with them:
39 And Moses told these sayings unto all the children of Israel: and the people mourned greatly. 40 And they rose up early in the morning, and gat them up into the top of the mountain, saying, Lo, we be here, and will go up unto the place which the LORD hath promised: for we have sinned. 41 And Moses said, Wherefore now do ye transgress the commandment of the LORD? but it shall not prosper. 42 Go not up, for the LORD is not among you; that ye be not smitten before your enemies. 43 For the Amalekites and the Canaanites are there before you, and ye shall fall by the sword: because ye are turned away from the LORD, therefore the LORD will not be with you. 44 But they presumed to go up unto the hill top: nevertheless the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and Moses, departed not out of the camp. 45 Then the Amalekites came down, and the Canaanites which dwelt in that hill, and smote them, and discomfited them, even unto Hormah. (Numbers 14:39-45)
The same situation takes place after a remarriage. The sin of divorce should not have been committed (Malachi 2:16), and the sin of remarriage should not have been committed (Mark 10:2-12), but once these grave sins have been committed, there is no going back. It is an abomination to divorce a second time and go back to a former husband and wife, according to the Lord Jesus Christ. How do we know this?
Remarriage-Go Back To the First Spouse?
Jesus Christ Did Not Teach One Should Go Back to a Former Spouse
Because The Old Testament Taught It Is An Abomination To Do So
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 reads:
1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. 2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. 3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; 4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
As explained elsewhere on this blog by both Dr. Brandenburg and in my article “Divorce, Deuteronomy 24:1-4, Remarriage, and New Testament teaching,” Scripture is clear that going back to a former spouse after a remarriage is an abomination before Jehovah, something that God Himself hates. What is an abomination to Jehovah is not just a sin for Israel, but for all people at all times; as the Gentiles had defiled the land by abominations, so Israel must not defile the land by committing this abomination. Thus, it is clear that someone who has sinned by entering a second marriage should not sin again by leaving his current spouse to go back to a former one.
Remarriage-Go Back To the First Spouse?
Jesus Christ Did Not Teach One Should Go Back to a Former Spouse
Because The Passages In the New Testament Misused to Claim This Do Not Teach It
Luke 16:18 reads:
Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ γάμων ἑτέραν μοιχεύει· καὶ πᾶς ὁ ἀπολελυμένην ἀπὸ ἀνδρὸς γαμῶν μοιχεύει.
pas ho apolyōn tēn gynaika autou kai gamōn heteran moicheuei; kai pas ho apolelymenēn apo andros gamōn moicheuei.
The verb “committeth adultery” (μοιχεύει, moicheuei) is in the Greek present tense (cf. also Mark 10:11-12; Matthew 5:31-32). People with a surface-level understanding of Greek have concluded from this fact that one who has remarried is committing continual adultery every time the act of marriage takes place. However, the verbs “putteth away” and “marrieth” are also in the present tense, yet are clearly not continual and ongoing actions. As someone with a deeper knowledge of Greek will recognize, the present tense forms in Luke 16:18 clearly fit the syntactical category of the gnomic or timeless present—continual marriage ceremonies, continual divorces, and continual adultery are not at all in view, any more than the present tense verbs in Galatians 5:3; 6:13 specify continually getting circumcised or the present tense verb in Hebrews 5:1 specifies being ordained to the priesthood over and over again. An examination of pages 523-524 of Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996) illustrates that the syntactical features requisite for identifying a gnomic present appear in this context. Luke 16:18 does not teach that those who have committed the grievous sins of divorce and remarriage should commit another abomination (Deuteronomy 24:4) by leaving their current spouses for the previous ones. Rather, in this passage the “present … [specifies] [a] class … of those who … once do the act the single doing of which is the mark of … the class … [as in] Luke 16:18” (Ernest De Witt Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek, 3rd ed. [Edinburg: T&T Clark, 1898], 56-57). The destruction of one family unit through remarriage, the physical consummation of which is an act of adultery, is bad enough; it must not be compounded with a further abomination. Please see my study Reasons Christians Should and Can Learn Greek and Hebrew for more information on both Deuteronomy 24 and Luke 16:18.
Thus, Scripture is clear that one who has committed the sin of remarriage should not go back to his or her former spouse. God teaches that it is an abomination to do so. The Lord Jesus Christ, who revealed the Old Testament by His Spirit in His prophets, taught that it is an abomination in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Christ did not contradict what He affirmed in the Old Testament in the Gospels. Remarriage while a spouse is alive is the wicked sin of adultery, but those who have committed that sin are now bound to remain with their new spouses until death do them part.
–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.”
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
Peter Ruckman, KJV Only Blasphemer
Peter Ruckman, the notorious King James Only advocate, is a blasphemer.
Why do I say this? I have never read a book by Peter Ruckman from cover to cover. I tried reading one years ago but it was too vitriolic for me; I felt defiled reading it, so I stopped. Now recently I had the privilege of debating evangelical apologist James White on the topic of whether the King James Version and the Textus Receptus are superior to the Legacy Standard Bible and the Textus Rejectus. In James White’s King James Only Controversy he painted the moderate mainstream of KJV-Onlyism with such astonishing inaccuracy. James White makes arguments such as (speaking about the translation Lucifer for Satan in Isaiah 14:12): “The term Lucifer, which came into the biblical tradition through the translation of Jerome’s Vulgate, has become … entrenched … [y]et a person who stops for a moment of calm reflection might ask, ‘Why should I believe Jerome was inspired to insert this term at this point? Do I have a good reason for believing this?’”[1] Dr. White argues: “Anyone who believes the TR 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.’”[2] Of course, White provides no sources at all for any King James Only advocate who has ever claimed that Jerome, Stephanus, Beza, or Erasmus were inspired, since no such sources exist. As I pointed out in the debate, Dr. White makes bonkers claims like that KJV-only people think Abraham and Moses actually spoke English (again, of course, totally without any documentation of such people even existing).
Thus, James White’s astonishing inaccuracies made me wonder if he is even representing Peter Ruckman accurately. I have no sympathy for Peter Ruckman’s peculiar doctrines—as the godly, non-nutty, serious thinker and KJV Only advocate David Cloud has explained in his good book What About Ruckman?, Peter Ruckman is a heretic. I am 100% opposed to Ruckman’s heretical, gospel-corrupting teaching that salvation was by works in the Old Testament and will be by works in the Millennium. It makes me wonder if Ruckman was truly converted, or if he was an example of what was often warned about in the First Great Awakening by George Whitfield and others, namely, “The Dangers of an Unconverted Ministry.” I am 100% opposed to Ruckman’s disgraceful lifestyle that led him to be disqualified to pastor. I am 100% opposed to his ungodly language, to his wicked racism, to his wacky conspiracy theories, and to his unbiblical extremism on the English of the KJV. At the same time, however opposed I am to him, as a Christian I am still duty-bound to attempt to represent his position accurately. The way Dr. White badly misrepresented the large moderate majority of KJV-Onlyism made me wonder if James also misrepresented Dr. Ruckman.
As a result, I acquired a copy of Ruckman’s response to James White’s King James Only Controversy, a book called The Scholarship Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Professional Liars? (Pensacola, FL: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 2000). The title page claims: “This book exposes the most cockeyed piece of amateur scholarship that ever came out of Howash University.” Based on the title, it was already evident that I would be in for a quite painful and dreary time going through the book, but God is a God of truth, and nobody, not even Peter Ruckman, should be misrepresented by a Christian. Christians must be truthful like their God, who cannot lie (Titus 1:2).
While Christians should not misrepresent anyone, I found it hard to cut through the slander and hyperbole and bloviations in Ruckman’s book as I attempted to get to something substantial. Ruckman can say things such as: “Irenaeus quotes the AV one time and the NASV one time. … Eusebius (later) quotes the King James Bible four times and the NASV once” (pg. 117). Peter Ruckman has an earned Ph. D. from Bob Jones University. He knows that the NASV and the KJV/AV did not exist when Irenaeus and Eusebius lived. He knows that the English language did not yet exist. (I wonder if James White’s completely undocumented affirmation in his King James Only Controversy—which he also declined to prove any support for at all in our debate—that some KJV-only advocates believe that Abraham and Moses spoke English derives from a misunderstanding some Nestle-Aland advocate had with a Ruckmanite who followed his leader in making outlandish verbal statements, and those outlandish verbal statements became, in James White’s mind, a real group of people who actually thought that the Old Testament prophets spoke English, although he has no evidence such a group ever existed, somewhat comparable to Ruckman saying that Irenaeus and Eusebius quoted the Authorized Version and the New American Standard Version.) Of course, at this point I am speculating on something that I should not have to speculate upon, since James White has had decades to provide real documentation of these KJV-only groups who allegedly think English was the language spoken in ancient Israel, but he has not done so.
I did discover something that made me wonder if the statement White quotes about Ruckman and advanced revelation in English were similar exaggerations. Note the following from Ruckman’s book, on the first two pages:
“Scholarship Onlyism” is much easier to define than the mysterious “King James Onlyism.” For example, while “using” (a standard Alexandrian cliche) the Authorized Version (1611), I recommend Tyndale’s version (1534), The Great Bible (1539), The Geneva Bible (1560), Valera’s Spanish version (1596), Martin Luther’s German version (1534), and a number of others. Here at Pensacola Bible Institute, our students “use” (the old Alexandrian cliche) from twenty-eight to thirty- two English versions, including the RV, RSV, NRSV, ASV, NASV, Today’s English Version [TEV], New English Bible [NEB], New World Translation, [NWT], NIV, and NKJV. Our brand of “King James Onlyism” is not the kind that it is reported to be. We believe that the Authorized Version of the English Protestant Reformation is the “Scriptures” in English, and as such, it is inerrant until the alleged “errors” in it have been proved “beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt” to be errors. Until such a time, we assume that it is a perfect translation. No sane person, who was not criminally minded, would take any other position. In a court of law, the “accused” is “innocent until proven guilty” (i.e., O. J. Simpson) … Since not one apostate Fundamentalist (or Conservative) in one hundred and fifty years has yet been able to prove one error in the Book we hold in our hands (which happens to be written in the universal language of the end time), we assume it is the last Bible God intends to give mankind before the Second Advent. God has graciously preserved its authority and infallibility in spite of “godly, qualified, recognized scholars” in the Laodicean period of apostasy (1900-1990), so we consider it to be the final authority in “all matters of faith and practice.” We go a little beyond this, and believe it to be the final authority in all matters of Scholarship. That is what “bugs the tar” (Koine, American) and “beats the fire” (Koine, American) out of the Scholarship Only advocates who are in love with their own intellects.[3]
Notice that Ruckman himself “recommends” Bibles other than the KJV, such as the Tyndale, Geneva, and Textus Receptus based foreign language Bibles. At least in this quotation, he does not say God re-inspired the Bible in 1611, but he says that the translation should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, as is proper in a court of law. That is a much more moderate position than James White attributes to him.
So is it possible that the extreme statements James White quotes on pg. 27 of The King James Only Controversy are hyperbole on Ruckman’s part? (Ruckman has plenty of hyperbole—even in the quotation above, I cut out a weird statement he made about David Koresh.) I cannot prove that James White was deliberately misrepresenting Ruckman—Ruckman’s style is too bizarre for one to easily determine what he actually means (another of many, many reasons why I cannot and do not recommend that you read any of his books). However, from this statement we can see that if one wishes to prove that Ruckman actually believes something it is important to be very careful, as he not only makes large numbers of uncharitable and nutty attacks on others, but many hyperbolic statements.
Unfortunately, as years ago I was not able to finish a Ruckman book because it was bursting with carnality, so this time I was not able to finish Ruckman’s critique of James White’s King James Only Controversy because it was not just carnal, but blasphemous. On page 81 Ruckman takes God’s name in vain, reprinting the common curse phrase “Oh my G—” in his book. A search of its electronic text uncovers that Ruckman blasphemes again on page 269, 308, 312, 452 & 460. He could do so elsewhere as well, but those statements are enough, and I am not excited about searching for and discovering blasphemy. The Bible says: “I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the work of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me. A froward heart shall depart from me: I will not know a wicked person.” (Psalm 101:3-4). If we were living in the Old Testament theocracy, Peter Ruckman would be stoned to death for blasphemy. We are not in the Old Testament theocracy, but His blasphemous language is still disgusting, abominable, and wicked in the sight of the holy God. That someone who claimed to be a Christian preacher would write such wickedness is even more disgusting. Ruckman was a “Baptist” the way Judas or Diotrephes or Jezebel was a Baptist. He would be subject to church discipline if he snuck in unawares and became a member of our church.
So did James White misrepresent Peter Ruckman? White’s representation of the non-wacko large majority of KJV-onlyism was far from accurate, so I wondered if he even got Ruckman right. From what I read of Ruckman’s book before Ruckman started to blaspheme, I thought it was possible that James White did not even get Ruckman right, although with Ruckman’s pages bursting with carnality and total weirdness I could see why getting Ruckman wrong would be easy to do. I am unable to determine definitively one way or the other whether James White was accurate on Peter Ruckman’s position (or if Ruckman himself was even consistent in explaining himself) since I am not going to read a book by someone who breaks the Third Commandment while claiming to be a Baptist preacher. That is disgusting to me, and ineffably more disgusting to the holy, holy, holy God. Ruckman’s critique of James White’s book deserves to go in the trash, where its filthy language belongs.
I do not recommend James White’s King James Only Controversy because it does not base itself on God’s revealed promises of preservation and because of its many inaccuracies. I do not recommend Peter Ruckman’s critique of James White’s King James Only Controvesy because it is not only weird and carnal, but repeatedly blasphemous. Certainly for a new Christian, and possibly for a mature one, the recycle bin could well be the best place for both volumes.
–TDR
[1] James R. White, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2009), 180–181.
[2] James R. White, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2009), 96.
[3] Peter Ruckman, The Scholarship Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Professional Liars? (Pensacola, FL: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 2000), 1-2.
Biblical Languages Summer / Christian School Teacher Course
Do you have more time in the summer? A Christian school teacher (and other school teachers, support staff, and others who work in school settings) may often have more time during the summer. Interest has been expressed in having classes in both the Biblical languages, and it has also been asked if there is a way that a faster pace could be pursued during the summer with a slower pace during the Fall and Spring school semesters. I am exploring this as an option, and knowing how much interest there is, and what the specific needs are of prospective students are, would be a significant fact in evaluating how to move forward for the glory of God.
If this is something that you or a Christian school teacher, or other people at your church would be interested in, please contact me, either reaching out to me on my website or contacting my church. Also, please read the study Reasons Christians Should and Can Learn Greek and Hebrew on my website here. (There is a seven part summary of that work on the blog here, starting with part 1 here, and then with part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6, and part 7 here.) That study may also prove edifying to you even if you do not intend to learn the languages yourself, as it provides a balanced view from a perfect-preservationist, pro-KJV perspective on both the wonderful value of vernacular translation and the enduring importance of the Biblical languages, especially for Christian leaders or prospective leaders.
As I believe is demonstrated in Reasons Christians Should and Can Learn Greek and Hebrew, the Biblical languages are very valuable for understanding, obeying, preaching, and teaching God’s infallible Word, and they are also accessible and learnable. If you are fluent in English, you have already achieved a level of linguistic achievement that is significantly harder than learning the Greek of the New Testament or the Hebrew of the Old Testament. That is not to say that one can learn the languages without work and dedication, but learning them is a reasonable and attainable for a very high percentage of the people of God if they, by grace, have the Spirit-produced diligence at learning them.
We would intend to follow the curriculum set forth here for Greek, one that has worked, not just for lingusitic geniuses, but for people who have families and full-time jobs. I am in the process of redoing the Hebrew curriculum before the next time, God willing, I get to teach that language, as I am adjusting the methodology towards one that recognizes the insights of second language acquisition theory and therefore teaches Biblical Hebrew more like (although not completely like) the way one would learn Spanish or French or German. This should both help students with learning the language and with retaining it once classroom work is over. With both languages the goal is to help students reach the point where they can read the inspired Old or New Testament text on their own and develop their sermons and other teaching messages directly from the text revealed to the apostles and prophets and preserved by God for our instruction and delight today.
Tuition should be $190 / credit hour for a 4 credit hour course. Auditors can audit for $100 / credit hour, but for most people actually taking the class for credit is better. Churches with numbers of interested students can reach out to me as well. Students who genuinely cannot afford the class, especially those in countries outside of the United States with a much higher poverty rate, can also have their pastors reach out and explain their situation and we can evaluate what options are available.
–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.”
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
Recent Comments