If there is no perfect Bible (like James White suggests) than God is a liar (in these passages Ps. 12:6-7, Isa. 40:8, Matt. 5:18, Matt. 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33, 1 Pet. 1:23-25, and 2 Tim. 3:15-17) and we have no final authority. Every manuscript containing those verses listed it could be proven that there is a perfect and infallible Bible at least somewhere out there. I could prove from any translation of the Bible that there is a perfect and infallible Bible at least somewhere out there as well. James White does not follow his own translations and manuscripts in that regard, which is how he wants it. As long as the Bible is a non existent thing and we must look to him and his "knowledge" to get information about God and His word than James White is perfectly happy. James White is not against the AV because it is the AV, he is against it because it is the final authority. Nobody is "NIV Only", "NASB Only", or "ESV Only". Nobody would consider those a final authority, the Received Text and the AV are the only things people consider to be the inspired word of God.
So knowing that James White's book is a dead end in not telling us where the inspired scripture is, I will now critique the relevant portions of his book.
First up in this critique, James White has in his introduction on page 6, "It is very important to understand the motivation behind this book. This book is not being written to push one particular translation of the Bible over another.....This book is not against the King James Version.....I oppose King James Onlyism, not the King James Version itself." So you write a 271 page book on why the AV cannot possibly be the word of God and that it has errors in it, but some how you are not trying to "push" anything? Somehow you are "not against the King James Version"? Ah, there it is. You are against the belief that one Bible is perfect ("King James Onlyism") and all other "bibles" are perversions. You are against final authority.
In chapter 1 of The King James Only Controversy is just James White describing different brands of "King James Onlysim". I would say I was somewhere between groups 4-5. Chapter 2 is not really anything to address, it is pretty much just talk about Jerome and Erasmus.
Chapter 3 gets a little more interesting. On page 20 White says, "But I also recognize that most Christians who are reading this book have not had the same opportunity to learn the languages in which God originally inspired the Scriptures." The original languages do not mean anything, they are dead languages and the Bible is a living Book (1 Peter 1:23). "The word of God is not bound" according to 2 Timothy 2:9, White seems to think that it is bound to the "original languages". Isaiah 55:11 says, "So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it." God is through with the original languages, they do not fit the description of His word. The original languages do return void and they do not prosper. Christ's church (the body of Christ) are mainly composed of English speaking people and they are the ones getting the gospel out. What James White believes about the Bible and what the Bible says about itself do not line up.
Now look at page 22 of chapter 3. Here James White tries to defend these verse changes in the NASB by saying it is a "translational dispute".
AV: John 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
NASB: John 6:47 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.
As you can see the NASB deletes "on me" and just says "he who believes". All in the name of "translational disputes". So far James White is only proving my point that the AV exalts Christ more. Now look at John 3:36.
AV: John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
NASB: John 3:36 He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him
Here the NASB changes "he that believeth on" to "he who does not obey". Judas Iscariot obeyed Christ and he was said to be a devil. The AV, again, out shines the modern version.
In this same chapter of White's book on pages 36-42 is all about how scribes make errors when writing and therefore there are thousands of variants (he is saying that we do not have perfect scripture, but some of our copies are accurate). However, James White seems to not realize that the scribes are not the ones doing the preserving but rather it is God preserving His word.
Psalms 12:
[6] The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
[7] Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
God does not care if scribes make errors or not, He is the one doing the preserving and making sure His word gets copied and translated as it He wants it. The word of God "liveth and abideth forever" (1 Peter 1:23), but James White says it does neither. I will stick to the AV over James White.
Next is chapter 4. Pages 53-77 are just general discussion about Greek, history, Erasmus, etc. and nothing really to critique. Page 78 is where it gets good. On page 78 White pretends like there are textual differences between the different editions of the AV. I have a reproduction of the original 1611 and I have a modern edition. The only differences are changes in font, text size, spellings, and the printers errors were removed. White also brings up the modern differences in AV's. such as......
Cambridge AV
Jeremiah 34:16 But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom ye had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection, to be unto you for servants and for handmaids.
Oxford AV
Jeremiah 34:16 But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom he had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection, to be unto you for servants and for handmaids.
1611 AV
Ruth 3:15 Also he said, Bring the vail that thou hast upon thee, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her: and she went into the city.
1769 Cambridge Edition AV
Ruth 3:15 Also he said, Bring the vail that thou hast upon thee, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her: and he went into the city.
As you can see the variants do not contradict and all are true. However, Jeremiah 34:16 was a printers error where the printer had an upside down "h" making it "y". A printers error is not an error in the text of what the AV translators translated though. For James White to say that both editions of the AV must match is unbiblical, for God often changes His word when a NT writer quotes an OT scripture. God's word is not bound (2 Tim. 2:9) and He does what He wants with it. White is also using a double standard. Back in chapter 3 he talked about how there were so many differences and variants among the manuscripts in the original languages but he still accepts them, why can't AV believers do the same with the AV? James White and Scholarship Onlysim are the kings of double standard rationale.
On page 82 of chapter 4 White says in regards to the AV, "But as we have seen, it was a human process, and as in all human life and endeavor, it did not partake of infallibility." Proof? James White never proves that there is an error/contradiction in the AV. He does not believe the Holy Spirit nor Satan guides in Bible translation. He believes that all translations are from good, godly scholars that want everyone to have an accurate Bible. However, 2 Corinthians 2:17 proves otherwise.
Chapter 5 contains no relevant information on disproving the AV to be the inspired word of God.
Chapter 6 is the first significant chapter in White's book. White says on page 127, "Over and over again KJV Only advocates accuse the new translations of "changing" this or "altering" that. They say that the NIV "deletes" this or "adds" that. KJV Only books, articles, and tracts share a common feature: circular argumentation. What is the bottom-line assumption of the writer? That the KJV is the only true English Bible..., the standard by which all others are to be judged....Why is the KJV the standard?" One word Mr. White, LOL. AV believers did not invent the "making the KJV the standard", it was actually the modern version committees. I have an ESV, NKJV, etc. and they all compare themselves to the AV. We did not start that. Read some of the prefaces and stuff to your modern versions and see how they compare themselves to the AV.
On page 135 James White approves of an omission.
AV
Ephesians 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
NASB, NIV
Ephesians 2:1 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins,
On page 137 James White pulls the standard "Hell vs Hades" trick, something I have already dealt with here http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2014/05/hell-turn-or-burn-as-they-say.html
Pages 138-139 are quite interesting. James White attempts to defend the NIV giving one of the names of Jesus Christ to Satan.
AV
Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
NIV
Isaiah 14:12 How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!
The problem with that is.....Revelations 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
James White's defense, "The person under discussion in Isaiah 14 is obviously not the Lord Jesus,and how anyone could possibly confuse the person who is obviously under the wrath of God in that passage (note verse 15) with the Lord Jesus is hard to imagine." Yes Mr. White, that is why we laugh at you and your modern versions reading. The issue is that you give Christ's title to Satan. Again, the AV is clearly more exalting Christ.
Pages 139-144 are just general complaints White has against the AV. For example, White does not like 1 Timothy 6:10 in the AV.
1 Timothy 6:
[9] But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.
[10] For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
White says that the love of money is not the root of all evil. However, I believe that "they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition."
Next White complains about 2 Timothy 2:15 in the AV telling us to "study" rather than to "be diligent".
2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
White likes the NASB better.
2 Timothy 2:15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.
The less studying of the AV you do the happier White is. Hmm. I wander why White did not address the modern versions changing "rightly divide" to "accurately handling" when all Greek manuscripts say "rightly divide"?
There is not much to address in the rest of chapter 6. The whole chapter is pretty much White's opinions, he does not produce any errors or contradictions in the AV. However, we do see on page 146-147 that James White does not believe that there are any purposeful errors made in modern versions and that there are no conspiracies or satanic activity to attack God's word. He says in regards to modern scholars, "Their goal is not to corrupt God's Word but to preserve it and accurately pass it on to future generations." Meanwhile Paul said that people were trying to corrupt the word of God.....
2 Corinthians 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your questions or comments welcome.