Archive for July, 2013

One of the many issues that I have with Calvinism is that the Calvinist’s view of the character of God is grossly misrepresented through man-made creeds and confessions that paint a picture of God that emphasizes His justice over His love.  The Westminster Confession states that God has ordained all things whatsoever that comes to pass (ch 3, art 1), which when reduced to its most logical conclusion, makes God the author of sin.* Now of course, no Calvinist will readily admit this, but it is an obvious problem that Calvinists are aware of when it comes to explaining their deterministic view of God.

One of the questions frequently raised by Non Calvinists is: does God love everybody? One noted Calvinist theologian, Arthur Pink, unambiguously states, “no”. I conclude that Pink was simply being honest about the real implications of Calvinism. If God COULD HAVE determined that all persons freely love him, but instead, determined that only some be saved, and others predestinated to hell**, then not only does that say that God gets more glory out of damning unbelievers then He would from decreeing that everyone freely worship Him, but that if God COULD HAVE saved everyone, but only chose to save certain people, then He had to have done so because that’s what He WANTED and DESIRED.***

So that then prompted to ask a question to members on the Baptist Board forum: Does God want children to be molested, women to be raped, and murder to occur? It’s a reasonable question. If God WANTS all things that He determines to happen, and all things are determined by Him, then it logically follows that not only does God WANT all who are “non elect” to spend eternity in hell, but He must also WANT the rape, murder, torture of women and children. And of course, to question this is to “question God’s sovereignty” instead of determining how this proves God’s love.

The responses to this question on the forum were astounding to say the least. Many simply danced around the question for a while until I pressed them to simply be honest with their theology. I don’t believe a believer should tell sinners that God loves them if they don’t believe that themselves. I don’t believe it’s being an honest Christian to tell hurting people that things will be OK when you really believe that God wanted them to suffer and wanted their child to be molested and wanted their wives and daughters to be raped or murdered. But read some of the responses from the “Baptist Board”

It’s a hard truth, but it is true. God does not ordain evil, but He does allow it for His glory. Hard as it may be for us to grasp, God is even glorified when people are sentenced to Hell.  Hard truth, but true. -John Deere Fan

Your question implies that God may be either pleased or displeased with such consequences of sin. The answer is God’s good pleasure has NOTHING to do with it but God’s JUSTICE does. Is “rape” and “abuse” consequences of sin? Yes! Are the consequences of sin consistent with God’s Justice? Yes! Is God’s Justice holy and righteous altogether? yes!-Biblicist

So you asked about women and children. No matter. God is no respecter of persons. The violation of them is no more heinous than the violation of adult men.Did God want Joseph sold into slavery? Did He want him in prison. Does God delight in the persecution of His people?The answer is no. But He wills it.-Aaron

Did God want to Job and his children to be abused?????Job concluded that he received both good and evil at the hand of the Lord, and in his conclusion he did not sin with his lips. Yet, we have those today (and within this thread) that would slander him and say he did sin with his lips. Go figure. -“Preacher4Truth”

Sad that folks confuse the true “Gospel” with the man-made “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life” trash of Oral Roberts and his clan. -Dr Bob Griffin, Baptist Board Administrator

Now I must admit, Dr. Bob accusing me, an fundamental Baptist, of preaching something derived from Oral Roberts was amusing, not to mention that in this thread, he also accused me of hating the sovereignty of God for asking this question. Of course, being the good, godly scholar that Dr. Bob is, he has now censored virtually every post I have made on that forum, and even attempted to accuse me of financially defrauding the forum by posting a link to an article I’d written on this website without paying him to post that link (although he had no problem with permitting an anti King James author to post advertisements for his book).

I’ll save this vent for another article, but these responses were atrocious.  Anyway…

Before God was ruling over anything, He was loving somebody within the Trinity for all eternity. It is no wonder that John Calvin had no compassion and had several of his detractors murdered (as did his “mentor” Augustine). It is disturbing to me that well meaning believers would accept that God revealed the “truth” about the gospel through a man who had no conscience in murdering who he deemed heretics. 1 John 3:15 is clear that such a person has no eternal life abiding in them and to think as God would use an unsaved person to bestow “truths” about the “real” gospel that can not be found in church history before Augustine (a Roman Catholic heretic who based his views of election and predestination from the Manicheans, who were themselves followers of Buddhism and Gnosticism) is utterly baffling.

It is also well known that Calvinism played a large role in the Apartheid in Africa. Freemasons who were part of the Dutch Reformed Church, and the Dutch East Indie Company, exploited African slavery, and even bragged how God had prospered them as slavery was merely an act of God’s providence and determinism. Calvinist theologians Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield were notorious slave owners and did not oppose the slavery practices of the South in the US.

Would a God of love WANT the abuses of women and children? That would seem to be a matter of common sense, but it is no wonder why so many abuses have been propagated in the name of “religion” when the core of ones theology maintains such a distorted view of the character of God.


* Although the Westminster Confession follows this statement by “So as He is not the author of sin”, this is merely a preemptive clause to give the creed plausible deniability to avoid the logical implications of that statement.

** “III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death” Westminster Confession, Chapter 3, Article III.

*** Now before some gloating fool writes us and says “all you want is the lovey-dovey God who overlooks sin”, read our article on HELL: Would A Loving God Send Anyone There? We do not believe that everyone WILL be saved, and believe that man has a libertarian free will that can resist the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51), and many do. But we also believe that God WANTS all to be saved and WANTS the true flourishing of humans, and that God’s love is expressed to ALL, not SOME, in the death and resurrection of Christ, and that God’s love is not merely shown to the unsaved in the form of “rain on the just and the unjust” and that God viewed in terms of what a loving God WOULD do, as opposed to merely what He CAN do would serve to prove that God does not WANT and/or DESIRE predetermined destruction, abuse, mutilation and damnation of humanity. Those who choose to reject Christ seal their own fate, not because God WANTED it that way. We will be covering this topic at length in the near future.

Cynthia McClaskey is among the antifundamentalist ‘do-righter’ crowds that maintains a blog against Baptists, particularly IFB. Part of her stated mission is proving that Baptists deliberately subjugate women by altering the Bible to fit their misogynist agenda.

In support of this ludicrous accusation, among her many diatribes written on this subject is an article entitled “English Bible Translations: Are They Really The Inspired Words of God” and siting a TALMUDIST, Rabbi Joseph Talushkin’s view of Genesis 25:21 as evidence that the English Bibles have been purposely altered to subjugate women. McClaskey contends that Talushkin’s view that the Hebrew word “le-nokhach ishto” is mistranslated and should be “opposite his wife” and as such,Cynthia cites this as evidence of intentional subjugation of woman.

Genesis 25:21 reads:

And Isaac intreated the Lord for his wife, because she was barren: and the Lord was intreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived.

First of all, I take issue with Taluskin’s translation as such of this verse. נכח or nokach does not mean AGAINST as McClaskey is implying that this translation would be rendered.  The nokach is used in a prepositional phrase that means “on behalf of”.  Although nakoch is translated as “against” in 10 places in the Bible, it is in relation to location, not SUPERIORITY between sexes. This kind of presumptuous interpretation is asinine for in the very next verse Genesis 25:22-23 read:

And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to enquire of the Lord. And the Lord said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

God heard Rebekah’s prayer just the same as He heard Isaac’s, and God answered Rebekah’s prayer TO REBEKAH.

Secondly, McClaskey’s accusation against the KJV is actually non existent. McClaskey opines that”

Every time I delve into one of Telushkin’s books, I discover true meanings of passages that Chrisitian leaders twist in order to subjugate and control women and point them into positions of servitude. The above passage is one such passage

Now you would think that if the KJV tranlsators had the subjugation of women in mind then the ENGLISH TEXT WOULD READ AS THE TRANSLATION BY TALUSHKIN RENDERS IT. It doesn’t. How on earth could anyone with a rational mind think that Baptists are applying the HEBREW reading as rendered by a Jewish Talmudist to subjugate women, when the accusation by McClaskey is that this is based on an ENGLISH PERVERSION of the text? It would only fit McClaskey’s argument if the English text actually read as Talushkin accuses, but instead, the KJV and even the 1917 and 1936 JEWISH TRANSLATIONS have this rendered correctly.

Furthermore, the KJV in 1 Peter 3:7 demands that husbands dwell with their wives according to knowledge, and as being heirs TOGETHER of the grace of God, and indicates that a hindrance to prayer is the neglect of BOTH parties failing to honor one another. Ephesians 5:25,28, 33 reads,

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it…. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself….Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

Thus not only is McClaskey’s accusation unfounded, the Bible in numerous places commands men to treat their wives exactly the opposite of what she has accused men of. Now there are no doubt men who misapply the Bible, and abuse the texts, and in that summation, McClaskey would be right about men who purposely mis-translate the Bible to control a woman, but that is certainly an exceptional circumstance of a selfish man, it is most certainly not because there is evidence of the Bible itself being a faulty translation.

This is a perfect example of a fundamentalist critic building a straw man and then tearing down their own caricature as if it was a view held by Baptists. As a natural born Jew, I know of no Messianic Jews that hold to the view that McClaskey has espoused here, let alone any fundamental Baptists. Rabbi Talushkin well known in Israel as being openly hostile to Christianity, and yet he is considered a valid and trusted source by McClaskey, a professing Christian, on matters of Biblical interpretation.

My advice to McClaskey would be if you are attempting to attack the English Bible based on Hebrew, learn Hebrew first. And if you are a professing Christian, consider that your source for your bias article and straw man argument is a Christ rejecting Talmudist that relies on some of the most Kabbalistic readings of the Torah found in the Gemara.

It never ceases to amaze me the lengths that critics go to in slandering Bible believers with inaccurate and blatantly false information about the Bible.

J/A and Dr. Elisha Weismann

Seek ye the Lord while he may be foundcall ye upon him while he is near: 7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. 8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.” Isaiah 55:6-9

There is a clear distinction between the mind of God and the mind of man. The struggle to define the boundaries of accountability and free choice is drawn between definitions of freedom. Free will is the ability to choose A or to not choose A without any compelling force that causes the choice, as opposed to determinism which is the view that God from eternity past has determined all things whatsoever comes to pass. Yet if determinism (viz, compatibilist freedom/soft determinism) is true, and our minds are simply following predetermined responses, then ultimately God is having a universal chess match with Himself.

Free will is important in distinguishing the difference between an infallible creator, and fallible humans. Permitting free will demonstrates that man makes choices that God would not make, and thoughts that God would not think, actions that God would not take. Free will shows that God’s thoughts and actions are infinitely superior to humans. By God allowing man to think and act independently without any external or internal compulsion, man proves that he is incapable of making the best and wisest choices. When man is given the choice to decide between A and B, and chooses B where God would have chosen A, man’s free will shows that he can not possibly be like God.

Free will proves the sovereignty of God far more than a deterministic system. If God determines that man chooses A, then ultimately man has not actually had the ability to make a decision that is independent from God, and if God controls the response as well as the decision, then there is no way to prove that man is not just as equally as intelligent as God.

In a compatibilist form of free will, compatibilists deny that man has the ability to refrain from choosing A or B, but only the freedom to incline and such inclinations being programmed into the man’s will. Thus man is still doing what he wants to do out of the will that he has been programmed with.

Thus, if a computer prints out the letters “ABCDEFG”, it does so not because it chooses to but because that is the manner in which the software has been designed to produce the sequence of letters. The computer is in effect printing what it wants to print based on the software that has given it its available options. However, if a glitch is introduced into the system that causes the computer to print “AXYZEFG” can the computer itself be blamed for its production?

The actions of the computer reflect the programming of the software designer. When a computer fails to produce what it was designed to produce, the creator of the software is held accountable because there is no distinction between the results produced by the computer, and the actions of the programmer. Thus ultimately, man who is pre-programmed to act out of a determined inclination can not be responsible or accountable for what he produces because his own actions and inclinations were not the cause or the ultimate origin of the glitches, but that of the programming.

For God to be the cause of man’s sinful actions and poor choices, deprives God of the ability to claim that His thoughts are higher than our thoughts because inevitably, our thoughts ARE His thoughts if our thoughts are the result of His determining. Compatibilist freedom is no more than a human philosophical attempt to be God. It turns our frailties into God’s attributes by proxy and extension.

Let God be true, and every man a liar (Rom 3:4). Albeit, man can not be said to be a liar if his thoughts and actions are concurrently dictated by that which God determines them to be predisposed to. Ultimately, God would be the cause of the lie, and could not consistently maintain His own truthfulness. The Bible shows an obvious distinction between choice and causation, yet determinism would opine that the 2 are equal:

“Then there shall be a place which the LORD your God shall choose to cause his name to dwell there; thither shall ye bring all that I command you; your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, your tithes, and the heave offering of your hand, and all your choice vows which ye vow unto the LORD” Deuteronomy 12:11

Only libertarian free will provides the distinction between God and humans. Only the permissive will of God that allows humans to act independently and autonomously proves that man is a complete failure in comparison to God. God proves nothing of Himself by determining men to fail. There is a way that seems right unto man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. Prov 14:12. We see this concept often in our own families with our children. We often permit children to do things that we don’t always approve of, only for them to return later and say “Dad, you were right”. If we force them to do precisely what we desire, we can make no distinction between their reasons, will, and choices from ours. Thus we demonstrate that we are wiser than our children by allowing them to freely fail.

The concept of free will and accountability for choices is ingrained not only into our morals but also our governments. In the legal system, duress is a defense against actions that compelled the defendant to act otherwise than he would have chosen to. Likewise those who compel another to commit a crime are charged with conspiracy.The Bible is replete with examples of free will and accountability:

“And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the Lord be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him.” 1 Kings 18:21

“But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king’s meat, nor with the wine which he drank: therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself.” Daniel 1:8

“There is none greater in this house than I; neither hath he kept back any thing from me but thee, because thou art his wife: how then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?” Genesis 39:9

” Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season” Hebrews 11:25

“For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?” Luke 14:28

“Go and say unto David, Thus saith the Lord, I offer thee three things; choose thee one of them, that I may do it unto thee.” 2 Samuel 24:12

” And thine ears shall hear a word behind thee, saying, This is the way, walk ye in it, when ye turn to the right hand, and when ye turn to the left.” Isaiah 30:21

” But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them….I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:” Deut 30:17,19.

Furthermore, the Old Testament is full of moments where God shows anger for rebellion against Him. Isaiah 65:2, 2 Sam 4:21, Exodus 4:14, 2 Kings 13:3, Numbers 12:9, Joshua 7:1-13, 2 Sam 24:1, Isaiah 5:25, Judges 2:14. That fact that God reacts negatively to decisions that are made against His will show that God did not determine their actions. It would be absurd to imply that God is angry over actions that He determined and caused.

” And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech;which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.” Jeremiah 32:35

“Therefore will I number you to the sword, and ye shall all bow down to the slaughter: because when I called, ye did not answer; when I spake, ye did not hear; but did evil before mine eyes, and did choose that wherein I delighted not.” Isaiah 65:12

The fact that the Bible itself proscribes against compelling others to sin and choose to act negatively is telling of the character of God. Mark 9:42, Romans 14:21.

There are clear Biblical and logical reasons to reject any form of determinism and compatibilist freedom. Divine determinism is an affront to the sovereignty of God because it not only makes the human will and mind equal to God and provides no distinction between His thoughts and our thoughts as it only claims to limit capacity but not origin, it fails to prove that God always chooses that which is ultimately the best and wisest choices by eliminating any standard of comparison to that which is autonomously inferior, thus obscuring God’s own will as well as turning options themselves into a deity equally rivaling God’s omnipotence.

When determinism is compared to Scripture, and reduced to its logical denouement it fails miserably as a legitimate explanation of our relationship to God, our accountability and responsibility for decisions, the very existence of choices, and God’s own autonomy and omnipotence. No Christian should ever be a compatibilist. Only free will rightly provides the distinction that demonstrates the holiness and sovereignty of God.


See also short excerpts from Dr. Elisha Weismann’s debate on secondary causation on our forum

The following are excerpts from the Bible Believers Bulletin in response to the so-called “7 Errors” that James White claimed he would debate with Peter Ruckman. The debate failed to occur as White would not concede to certain conditions for the debate that would not skew the timing among other issues in his favor. White published correspondence between himself and Dr. Ruckman, but did not publish Ruckman’s final response to him.
Dr. Ruckman wrote a book of @ 500 pages addressing James White’s errors titled “The Scholarship Only Controversy: Can You Trust The Professional Liars” in response to White’s “The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust The Modern Versions?”
[Copyright belongs to Bible Baptist Bookstore]
James White’s Seven Errors in the King James Bible – Error 1 By Dr. Peter S. RuckmanIn a recent publication by a member of the “Alexandrian Cult,” the author pointed out what he considered to be either errors or “misleading” and “awkward” translations (or “inferior” translations) in the AV as compared with the two most corrupt Laodicean products on the market: the NIV and the NASV.

Both of these “Bibles” teach the two gods of The Watchtower Society (Jehovah’s Witnesses) by listing a begotten god and an unbegotten God in John 1:18.

Last spring, White challenged me to a debate, saying he could prove there were errors in the Authorized Version. I named a time and place (April 1, 1996, here at the Bible Baptist Church). He backed out. The most interesting thing about it was when I suggested that he prove ten errors giving him five minutes to prove each error he backed down to proving SEVEN. Why he didn’t insist on twenty or thirty I have no idea, but seven was all he could drum up.

Since he backed out, I thought our readers would like to know what Jimmy would have run into if he had gone through with his rash and stupid decision.

You see, what no nut like White (or his buddies, Ankerberg, MacRae, Kenneth Barker, Palmer, Bruce Metzger, John MacArthur, etc.) realizes is the BASIC FOUNDATION upon which they have to build the moment they reject ANY BIBLE as their final authority.

The poor fools don’t realize that this leaves all of them standing on the shifting sands of humanism and relativity. Thus, anyone (including their adversaries) can quote anything to prove anything.
Since liars have to have good memories, none of these characters (plus Doug Kutilek, Robert Sumner, Bob Jones III, Stewart Custer, etc.) can see what they are doing, even when they are doing it.

They are stating that everything must be tested by the Bible with no Bible in mind. Or everything must be tested by Scripture, when none of them have ever seen a copy. Or, as White puts it, “The standard is GOD’S TRUTH” meaning nothing.

In White’s case, “God’s Truth” turns out to be 271 pages of rehashed Hort, who was proved to be a liar on a dozen occasions more than one hundred years ago (by Scrivener, Hoskier, Burgon, and Miller).

The STANDARDS for criticizing the AV and finding “error” in it are NOT applied to the NASV or the NIV or the NRSV. So all we have to do to prove that any “error” in the AV is not an error is to use the same methods the Alexandrians use for proving the NIV and NASV are not in error; “even-Stephen, six of one, half a dozen of another.”

Gary Hudson stumbled into this trap, and now Jimmy White follows him.

Error No. 1 (Luke 2:22): Here, “Her purification” is an “error” according to all Alexandrians for the Greek texts say “their purification”. Thus the NIV and NASV are correct in saying “THEIR purification.” The only thing wrong with this is that it is a lie. Joseph didn’t need any purification according to the Biblical source for the Biblical quotation (Leviticus 12). Only the WOMAN needed to be purified; look at it.

Now, here is a perfect test case. If you “corrected the Greek with the English,” you would have preserved the INTEGRITY OF MOSES (John 5:45-47) and the SCRIPTURE (John 10:35). However, if you had translated “the Greek” literally (“THEIR”), you would have denied every Hebrew text extant of Leviticus 12, and you would have made a LIAR out of the Holy Spirit. What to do?

All Alexandrians are programmed clones; you know EXACTLY what they will do. They are more predictable than sunrise and sunset. They made a liar out of God.

Now White’s reasoning is as follows: “If there are no variants then we have ‘INDEED THE ORIGINAL’ ” (see The King James Only Controversy, pp. 118,124). Since he has found no “variant” against (“their purification”) then “her purification” is not even a possibility. This is the Alexandrian mentality. ON the surface it looks logical. Look a little deeper.

White just approved changing more than three thousand words in the King James text (NIV and NASV) on the basis of “variants” that showed up AFTER the AV text was printed.

These came from Mill, Fell, Walton, Bentley, Griesbach, Tischendorf, Hort, Nestle, and Metzger AFTER only “one variant” in three thousand cases was extant.

Problem: what happens when “her purification” shows up later in a Greek manuscript? You say, “It couldn’t happen.” It did. Erasmus filled in the last six verses in Revelation from the Latin Vulgate (1520) with NO GREEK MANUSCRIPTS, and later (1800-1900) up showed more than sixty percent of his “fill-in” in Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus, the Syriac, and the Sahidic.

You say, “It couldn’t happen.” It did. In 1 John 2:23, the AV translators put half the verse in italics (1611), going by NO Greek manuscripts. Nestle PRINTED THE GREEK TEXT (1979) THAT MATCHES THE ITALICS IN THE KING JAMES RE-CEPTUS. He printed it more than 270 years (1898) after the AV supplied him the words in ENGLISH: not Greek.

So White, instead of rushing in like a mad fool, should have been more “scholarly” and checked the facts. He was operating on an emotional level.

Now watch the birdie! In Nestle’s twenty-sixth edition the footnote omits a note found in ALL the editions preceding it by eighty years. It says latsyrs, an=auth “for HER purification”. A question mark follows this; in 1979 Nestle removed that entire piece of evidence. There was SOME evidence for “HER” purification; it just wasn’t in Greek. Note that the verse said “according to the LAW of Moses.” The Law of Moses (Leviticus 12) had no offering for the purification of any woman’s husband; it is only for the woman. Joseph had no purification to offer.

So here is a case where the AV translators saw a Biblical problem that White didn’t see, or didn’t want to see, because he was dead set on FORCING THE BIBLE TO CONTRADICT ITSELF. If he could use the Greek to do this with he would do it; he did it.

If the AV is in “error,” then the NIV and NASV have ten times as bad an error, for they made a false document out of the “Law of Moses.”

White’s job is to prove that “HER PURIFICATION” (AV) is an “error” because the AV chose it instead of “their.” He limited his proof to a Greek text that was extant, which might be, at any moment, replaced (see above). In doing so, he proved HE was in error, and the NIV was in error, and the NASV was in error; “according to the law of Moses,” only Mary needed a purification: “Her purification.”

The “mistake” in the AV was another advanced revelation carefully obscured in “the Greek” (see Acts 19:37 and Acts 12:4), as we have said many times before.

Furthermore, it told the truth: “their purification” would be a lie.

White proved nothing except he didn’t agree with how a pronoun was translated.

“Their purification” is a possible translation if it is interpreted to mean that, as “one flesh” Joseph would bring the offering for Mary (vs. 24), but it would be a very misleading translation for it would plainly IMPLY that Joseph was impure; he wasn’t. “Her purification” is “according to the Law of Moses.”
Still shaky? All right!

Note: White approves of inserting the word “PRIEST” and “PRIESTLY” into Romans 15:16 (NIV and NASV). THE WORD DOESN’T APPEAR IN ONE SINGLE GREEK MANUSCRIPT EXTANT.

Note: White approves of “sorts” and “kinds” added to 1 Timothy 6:10. Neither word appears in any Greek manuscript extant.

Note: White approves of translating PLURALS (“Their purification”) as SINGULARS (“HER”), for in the NIV and NASV, one man (Singular) is given credit for two different quotations from two different (Plural) men: Mark 1:2.

Note: According to White it is perfectly proper to make a SINGULAR out of a plural in Matthew 28:1 and Matthew 13:31,33.

To say, then, first of all, that Luke 2:22 is an error on the grounds that there is no Greek manuscript evidence for it is hypocrisy, and, secondly, to say that it is in error because a plural has been converted to a singular is hypocrisy. The error is in the hypocrite.

There are no Greek readings in any manuscript for “on whom his” and “with whom He” which will be found in Luke 2:14 (NIV and NASV). Absence of Greek words means nothing to White or his buddies, except where it occurs in a King James Bible.

At this point I would have ended my defense of Luke 2:22 if the debate had taken place, and poor Jimmy would have thought I was through. But in the rebuttal, I would have put the “quietus” on him.

You see I was only playing playing by THEIR rules. You see, all along I had “the” Greek” text with “her purification” in it. Jimmy just never found that Greek text. I have had it for more than thirty years.

“HER PURIFICATION” was in the “original Greek”; Jimmy just had the wrong “original Greek.” On page 108 of The New Testament The Greek Text Underlying the English Authorized Versions of 1611 (“the Greek text followed by the translators of the English Authorized Version of the Bible”), printed by the Trinitarian Bible Society, London, England, you will find it. You will find it on line 15 from the top of the page.

It was in “The Greek text.” Jimmy just was either too stupid or too lazy to look up the text. So he lied like a Persian rug. Lying in the Alexandrian Cult is a “lifestyle.”

If he had debated Luke 2:22, he would have lost his eye teeth and his suspenders.

James White’s Seven Errors in the King James Bible – Error 2 By Dr. Peter S. RuckmanWe are studying seven “errors” in the AV which James White was going to prove, publicly, before he backed down from a debate which he had instigated himself. He didn’t like the terms given him by the “challengee.” We gave him April 1, 1996 at the Bible Baptist Church. He dropped the debate like a hot rock.

Acts 5:30The idea here is the AV translators were too stupid to see that Jesus was slain AFTER he was hung on the tree. The word order proves there is an “error” in the AV. “It is difficult to see where the KJV derived its translation, as there is no ‘and’ in the text” (King James Only Controversy, White, p. 226).

Now this is the Alexandrian mentality; it is a weird sort of dementia that always infects an egotist as soon as he begins to mess with the AV text. Observe!

1. There is no “came” in 1 Thessalonians 2:5 (NASV). There is no article “the” in 1 Corinthians 2:16 (NIV). There is no “was after flesh” in 1 Timothy 3:16 (NASV). There is no “who had been” in Matthew 1:6 in the NASV. So? There is no “GOD” found in Acts 7:59 in the NKJV. So?

2. Jimmy added the word “BY” to the text under discussion (Acts 5:30), for the plural participle (Greek kremasantes) is in the Nominative case. By, in, to, with, for, etc. refer to the Genitive, Locative, Ablative, or Instrumental cases. White’s grammar screwed up on him.

How did he miss 2 Samuel 10:12 and 1 Samuel 17:51 and 2 Samuel 3:27?

Peter, James, and John were Sabbath-observing, temple worshipping, bearded, pork-abstaining, Old Testament Jews in Acts, Chapter 5.

They knew all about David SLAYING Goliath with a sword AFTER he “slew” him with a sling. They knew all about Abishai being guilty of Abner’s death, although he was not even in the vicinity when Joab “slew” him.

Being three times as intelligent as White or the NASV committee, they knew that Amasa “wallowed in blood in the midst of the highway” AFTER Joab “slew him.”

Every Hebrew manuscript extant reads THE SAME WAY in all three of those passages. That is the Hebrew way of stating it. But the roaring lion of the English Protestant Reformation is not through with silly Jimmy yet!

No Jew “SLEW” Christ and no Jew “CRUCIFIED” Christ.
It was Roman soldiers who mocked Him, whipped Him, and nailed Him.
That isn’t the worst of it. No Roman soldier could have “SLAIN” Christ if he had stayed up twenty centuries.

In his zeal to make a liar out of the Holy Spirit, White forgot that Jesus Christ laid down His life (John 10:15) because NO MAN (Roman or Jew) could “slay” Him (John 10:18). How did White miss the basic theological nature of the Crucifixion? Every Jew in Peter’s audience knew exactly what he was talking about.

The Jews murdered Christ (Acts 7:52, Stephen), and crucified Him (Luke 24:20) in the sense that they put Him in a position where He could be crucified (John 19:11). This precrucifixion act (John 19:11) is described as “killing” (1 Thess. 2:15), crucifying (Luke 24:20), and SLAYING Him (Acts 5:30).

It was certainly committed BEFORE the Romans took Him into custody. It took place in Mark 14:64. For all practical purposes, they SLEW him the moment they passed the death sentence on Him, and they did do that.

Abishai slew Abner because Abishai was in “kahoots” with his brother. He, himself, never touched Abner. David killed Uriah with the sword of the children of Ammon. Who didn’t know THAT but Jimmy White?

James White missed the entire point of all the verses in both testaments in his haste to destroy your faith in the AV text. And this pitiful whining child now stands before this array of Biblical facts and Biblical truth and complains “It is difficult to see where the AV derived its translation….”

Well, stupid, it derived it from the words of the Holy Ghost recorded in the Holy Bible. The error was YOURS from start to finish, and you erred “not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God.”

Typical Alexandrian scholarship: just as clumsy and as stupid as blind Bartimaeus on an all-night drunk. Didn’t he know that Joseph hung the chief baker (Gen. 41:13)? He hung him before PHARAOH hung him (Gen. 40:22).

White’s “scholarship” above (believe it or not!) was recommended by John MacArthur, John Ankerberg, Bruce Metzger, and D. A. Carson as “superb, accurate, valuable, conclusive, clear, and balanced.”

What on God’s earth could be more pitiful or more ridiculous? Total ignorance of Jewish idioms, total ignorance of “accessories before the fact,” total ignorance of shared guilt, total ignorance of Scriptural example, and Scriptural revelation, total ignorance of WHO actually was involved in the crucifixion, plus total ignorance of why the blame was placed on the Jews.

And the jack rabbit thinks he is an intellectual who can find “errors” in the Holy Bible. He is Bugs Bunny in Star Trek. “Beam him up, Scotty!”

 James White’s Seven Errors in the King James Bible – Error 3

By Dr. Peter S. Ruckman

We are on “error” No. 3 as located by James White, who was going to debate seven errors in the AV, but decided that “discretion was the better part of valor” in view of the fact that the man he challenged set the time and place as April 1, 1996 at the Bible Baptist Church.
In spite of the fact that Jimmy said he had many people in the Pensacola area that would be interested in such a debate (which he instigated), he decided to retire.

Well, here is this terrible error in Hebrews 10:23. The word “faith” here should have been “hope” (Greek elpidos, from elpis). (This is the kind of thing you get into when you get with the gnat-strainers. We point out errors like two Jehovah’s Witness “gods” in John 1:18 in the NASV and NIV, or giving one of Christ’s titles to Satan in Isaiah 14:12 and their comeback is “faith should have been hope.” Typical. Absolutely typical.)

White’s typical comments are that the AV reading “is difficult to understand” and “leaves most people wondering as well” (The King James Only Controversy, p. 226).

Who these “most people” are, of course, is a mystery Sherlock Holmes and the Shadow couldn’t figure out. I never met any Christian who was “left wondering” at the “faith” of Hebrews 10:23, especially since the immediate context (vs. 22) and the nearest context are dealing with FAITH (Heb. 11:1-30, 10:22, and 10:38).

I assume “most people” are some elite group of Nicolaitan nuts who “want the preeminent place,” and spend their time picking at Greek words with Greek lexicons. They never have numbered more than one percent of the Body of Christ.

Hebrews 10:23 is a simple, case where a word that normally has been translated one way is now translated another way. Instances in the corrupt Bibles that White recommends are so numerous, no one could list them on five pages.

For example in the NIV, the word for “fornication” (Greek pornei) is translated as “marital unfaithfulness” in Matthew 5:32, “sexual immorality” in Matthew 19:9, “illegitimate children” in John 8:41, “evil” in Romans 1:29, and “sexual sin” in 2 Corinthians 12:21.

This was the NIV: six different ways to translate one word, and White says TWO different ways of translating “elpidos” is an ERROR.

The NIV, that White recommends to high heaven, says that porneias is “sexual immorality” twelve times and then says it’s “adultery” in Revelation 2:22.
Jimmy? Yoo, hoo! Jimbo! Hey deah, Jiiimmmeee!

“The Greek term (elpidos) appears thirteen times in the Textus Receptus and each time it is translated as hope’ with this one exception” (White, p. 226). But the AV is in error, is it? And the NIV is the best version of the Bible you can get, is it (White, p. 247, 186)? Scooby-dooby doo!

The word “hope” in the New Testament, for the child of God, is a word used many times for the Rapture of the Body of Christ, where the Christian will receive a new body (Rom. 5:2, 8:24 note the context Col. 1:5,27; 1 Thess. 1:3, 5:8; Titus 1:2, 2:13; 1 John 3:1-3. Our HOPE is a person. Note this in Hebrews 6:19. Even in the Jewish Old Testament, hope was in a resurrection (Acts 23:6, 24:15, 26:6), and in the New Testament, the Christian’s reward as a soul winner takes place when Christ comes for him (1 Thess. 2:19).

The passage in Hebrews 10:16-25 is NOT Christ coming for any Christian on this earth. The “day” spoken of in 10:25 is a day where Israel is judged (vs. 30), and the Lord’s coming is in judgment (vs. 37) as found in Malachi 4:1-4. Hebrews is aimed at Hebrews. (White never could figure that one out, either.)

Note the citation in Hebrews 10:30-31 is from the “Song of Moses” in Deuteronomy, Chapter 32, that will be sung by 144,000 Tribulation Jews, who are virgins (Rev., Chapters 7 and 14). White doesn’t know enough about the Bible (any Bible translated from any set of manuscripts, by anybody, to even locate himself in Hebrews, Chap. 10).

Nobody ever held fast to a “profession of hope.” Timothy’s “good profession” (1 Tim. 6:12) before “many witnesses” was his profession of FAITH in Jesus Christ. Notice the identical profession in Hebrews 4:14. Our FAITH in Someone is our profession which we must “hold fast.”

You don’t go around declaring “I hope I’m saved, I hope I’m saved, I hope I’m saved.” That profession is worthless. The faith in Christ that the Hebrew is exhorted to “hold fast” in Hebrews 10:23 (“our faith”) is defined in verses 16-22: it is immediate access to Jesus Christ in the third heaven because of His blood atonement.

That is what left White’s buddies “wondering” and made it “difficult” (see above) to find out what was going on: the context of the same chapter.

Perhaps Gerhard Kittel can help White out with his lack of intelligence and scholarship.
“The definition of PISTIS (Faith, more than ninety times in the New Testament) as … in Hebrews 11:1 is quite in keeping with the Old Testament inter-relating of PISTUEIN (to believe) and ELPIZEIN … as well as ELPIS (“hope”)” (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, p. 531).

Hebrews, Chapter 11 is a review of the Old Testament. How did White fail to find such basic, fundamental precepts? “FAITH” is not only a possible translation in such a context, but it is recognized as such, and documented as such. But it is an “error,” is it, girls?

“With PISTIS (faith), ELPIS (hope), this constitutes Christian existence … what is denoted by ELPIS (hope) can be included in PISTIS (faith)” (White, p. 532).

So the AV has the correct word since it included BOTH words, and White’s doll babies (NIV and NASV) were just sorry displays of Beginner’s Greek Grammar.

And White was going to debate me on that verse as an “error”! Can you imagine the nerve of that greenhorn? Correct White’s Greek (elpidos) with the English (“faith”) in Hebrews 10:23. He never knew what he was talking about when he sat down to write: according to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, p. 532 (Vol. 111).

James White’s Seven Errors in the King James Bible – Error 4

By Dr. Peter S. Ruckman

We have been examining “errors” in the King James Bible according to the author of The King James Only Controversy. This is the fourth one, Jimmy having already “bombed out” on three. Gary Hudson bombed out on eight (see King James Onlyism versus Scholarship Onlyism, 1992, pp. 60-78).

In The Christian’s Handbook of Biblical Scholarship (1988) I listed forty-eight “errors” in the AV (chap. 9) to help the apostates out, but James White didn’t dare try more than two of them (Acts 12 and 19).
(I try to help the brethren out, but they don’t seem to appreciate it!)

This “error” in the AV, is found in Jeremiah 34:16. According to the protocols of the Alexandrian Cult, the “errors” in the AV always are either connected with magnifying Jesus Christ (see the NIV and NASV in John 1:18; 1 Timothy 3:16; Luke 2:33; John 3:13; Acts 4:27; et al.) or have to do with “he” should be “she,” or “ye” should be “they,” or “her” should have been “their” (Luke 2:22), and so forth.

It is either altering a verse that deals doctrinally with the person and work of Jesus Christ or altering a verse that a gnat strainer would not waste time with.

Westcott and Hort, after assenting to the rules laid down by the Westminster Convocation (1870) for revising the AV, figured that changes that were “absolutely necessary” amounted to an annihilation of the entire Greek text for the AV, and the substitution of 3,000 “alternate readings.” (The NIV decided that 64,000 were “absolutely necessary,” if you translated both Testaments.)

This was done while Jimmy White was swearing on a stack of slop by Warfield, A. T. Robertson, and Hort that only “one variant out of a thousand” was of any “concern” (White, pp. 39 40).

Liars reproduce liars; it is inherent in their nature: “after their kind.”

Well, here is this terrible “error” in Jeremiah 34:16. Here, White is worried about the fact that the Cambridge and Oxford editions of the AV don’t match word for word. To calm Jimmy’s shattered nerves, I sent him the copy of the AV that I believe and defend, with the notification that THAT was the one he was to prove error in. This was unacceptable to Jimmy. He insisted I defend some edition that I did not use or preach.

However, he should have stuck with the Book I mailed him, for it was a Gideon Bible that read “…and every man HIS handmaid whom HE had set at liberty….”

Jimmy had insisted that was an error. It should have read “…every man HIS handmaid whom YE had set at liberty….” (Cambridge edition). Jimmy considered this error to be of such a monstrous nature that he devoted two pages to discussing it and even consulted Dr. James Price (on the NKJV committee with Harold Ockenga, the founder of Neo-Evangelicalism) to get back to the “original text.”

They both agreed the text should say “ye” instead of “he.” The error got in “somehow” during the “final editing process and into print.”
P.S. “Future editions of the NKJV” (which denies that anyone corrupts the Bible, 2 Cor. 2:17; attacks the Deity of Christ, Acts 4:27; and forbids you to rightly divide the word of truth, 2 Tim. 2:15!) “will change the pronoun back to you” (White, p. 89).

Now analyze this Ding-bat Dementia.

1. Both apostates (Price and White) insisted that the plural “ye” should be maintained because “he,” being singular, was false. Whereupon they changed the “ye” (of the Cambridge edition) to “you.” But “you,” in English, is not plural, necessarily, as anyone knows who studied Greek or Hebrew. These languages both have a plural form for “you.” When more than one person is being addressed, it is printed as “ye” in the Oxford King James Bible.

“You” is a reference to a singular person. Modern English does not preserve this distinction. Then what was all the fuss about?

James Price and James White don’t know first grade Hebrew grammar. If they did, they “sacrificed something by translating the Hebrew into English.” (Ever hear THAT “gasser” before?)

2. The fuss was futile. The text said “every man” (sometimes “each man” in Hebrew interlinears: I have three of them) in the second clause. Not once did any Hebrew text say, “their servant” (plural) or “their handmaid’ (plural) before saying “whom HE had set at liberty” (AV). It said “HIS servant” and “HIS handmaid” (singular), as in “whom HE [singular] had set at liberty” (AV).

So, from the standpoint of an English text, either AV reading would have been absolutely correct (Cambridge or Oxford). From the standpoint of English and that is the standpoint Price and White took in the NKJV their correction of the “error” (“he” to “you”) means nothing. It doesn’t indicate a plural.

3. Now, following our usual standard of fixed, infallible, absolute TRUTH (John 17:17, 6:63, 8:47, etc.) (oh, my God, how apostates hate those last three words!) we will judge the “good, godly scholars” by the Holy Bible instead of their own, man-made, humanistic excursions into Tinker Bell’s Never-Never Land.

“Lest there should be among you man, or woman [singular], or family [plural], or tribe [plural], whose HEART [singular] … when HE [singular] heareth the words of this curse, that HE bless HIMSELF…” (Deut. 29:18 19).

The “he” is a reference to “tribes” and “families.” Did you get that? White and Price couldn’t. They don’t ever read the Bible; they analyze “variants.”

Well, BOTH variants in the AV (Jer. 34:16) were correct grammatically, if one deals with the English text or the Hebrew text. They (“ye” in the Cambridge) were being addressed as a group (plural, Jer. 34:13; as in Deut. 29), but the address was aimed at individual men (“he” in the Oxford edition), within the group. Either word would have been absolutely correct according to that great critic of critics, the word of God (Heb. 4:12-13).

It only failed to pass the test of hyper-critical, white-washed Pharisees whose spiritual lives (and power) are deader than a hammer on the beach.

For the correctness of “he” (AV) see the context: “every man … HIS manservant, and every man HIS maidservant … none should serve HIMSELF … HIS manservant, and every one HIS maidservant…” (vss. 9-10): seven singulars.

No “editor’ let anything slip by. White and Price think they are careful “editors.” The translators chose two different ways of saying the same thing, and both of them accorded with the context of the verse, and both of them told the TRUTH. But because they weren’t identical (Cambridge “ye,” Oxford “he”) the old self-righteous, practical atheists (no Alexandrian has any higher authority than his opinions or the opinions of his friends) claimed “error.”

Well, Campfire girls, Paul didn’t translate “his” in “his faith” from Habakkuk 2:4 when he quoted it in Romans 1:17. The words are NOT identical. Error? Come, come, you little Campfire Brownies, how did you overlook that monstrous “error” if you were careful “editors”? Isn’t that omitted “his” worse than Jeremiah’s “he,” especially in view of the fact that using “he” and “his” when speaking to a multitude (Deut. 29:18 20) is a common thing in the Old Testament?

“Therefore hear YE the word of the LORD, all Judah … my name shall no more be named in the MOUTH [singular] of any MAN [singular] … in all the land of Egypt … I will watch over, THEM [plural] for evil … and all the MEN [plural] of Judah that are in the land … until there be an end of THEM” (Jer. 44:26-27).

Note that White’s (and Price’s) final court of appeals is the “number” of one Hebrew pronoun. That is how desperate they were to find “error” in an English text.

Did you know that every modern version they recommend (the NKJV, the NIV, and the NASV, mainly) refused to translate a plural Greek word as a “plural” more than thirty times in the Gospels? Check ” “.

Why would any sane person let alone a sane Christian take these jokers seriously when they talked about one Hebrew pronoun being translated as a singular instead of a plural?

Both readings of the AV editions are correct, as in Ruth 3:15: “he” (Boaz) went into the city, and “she” (Ruth) went into the city.

You say, “The words don’t match”; neither do the inscriptions on the cross in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. “The words don’t match”; neither do they in the Lord’s prayer found in Luke 11:2 4 and Matthew 6:9 13. “The words don’t match”; neither do they in Isaiah 53:4 and Matthew 8:17.

If they don’t match in the “inspired originals” a famous Alexandrian Cult cliche why do they have to match in the English as long as both words are true to the text, and neither one is a lie?

They don’t. White and Price were simply mentally unbalanced. They can’t THINK. It is as common among apostate Conservative and Fundamentalist scholars as weeds in a garden.

So much for Jimmy’s fourth “error.”

James White’s Seven Errors in the King James Bible – Error 5 By Dr. Peter S. RuckmanShortly (Lord willing) we will have ready for the Bible believers a work called The Scholarship Only Controversy: — Are Professional Liars Trustworthy? In it we will point out forty-two errors that James White made trying to revive that fatuitous theory of Hort from the nineteenth century.

He said he would be content to prove seven in the Authorized Version (AV) of the Holy Bible. This is his fifth time “to bats.” The last four times he fanned out.

This time the “error” is in Revelation 16:5. Here the “mistake” is the expression “and shalt be.” Again, the alibi is that there is no manuscript evidence, in Greek, for the addition. But there was a problem with a “kai” after “Ho hen”: (“and wast”). This “kai” (meaning “and”) was thrown into the footnote of Nestle’s Apparatus even though it was found in an “early papyrus (to cite an Alexandrian cliche). This papyrus (P47) was 150 years older than any other Greek manuscript used by Nestle for the text (Rev. 16:5). His “goddess” (B, Vaticanus) wasn’t present. (B omits the whole book of Revelation; it also omits Gen. 1:1-4!)

White’s thinking is obvious. Who inserted “shall be” without Greek attestation? Obviously, an “error.” You see, when you deal with half-baked egotists like White, and the Cult, you can never take their professions or assertions seriously about anything, because all of their”facts” and “evidences” are produced by switching multiple standards.

White has TEN of them for discovering “the intent of the original author when he was inspired (White, p. 124, 48).

They include: taking the shorter reading over the longer one (but not always), trusting “godly scholars” (without naming them), going by the “best modern versions (without naming them), assuming that no one in church history intentionally perverted scripture (without citing one Bible verse for such a cock-eyed theory), etc. “Profession” (see White’s professions on pp. vii, viii, 13, 223, and 113) from a practical atheist means NOTHING.

Who inserted “priest” and “priestly” into Romans 15:16 (NIV and NASV) without manuscript attestation? Who inserted “committed in ignorance” into Hebrews 9:7 (NASV) without any Greek attestation? Who inserted a question mark into Hebrews 3:16, thereby denying the entire history of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy? The NIV and NASV did.

Who inserted “He” into the verse on the Incarnation of Deity (1 Tim.3:16) when no Greek manuscript said He.” The NIV, which did this, said in a footnote: “Some manuscripts read ‘God’.” Yeah, they sure do, you vile rascal: 289 of them do; 289 to ZERO.

Now, since White wrote his book to justify the sins of the NIV and NASV committees, do you think he was actually worried about “shalt be” in Revelation 16:5? You see the “and” in the verse was found in an early papyrus (P 47): “and…” what?

The NIV and the NASV and Nestle and Aland and Hort had to get rid of the earliest papyrus this time. It was an embarrassment because it messed up their sentence. If they had followed their profession (“the oldest and best,” etc.) they would have had to give you this: “Righteous art Thou, the Being One, AND the One who was, AND the Holy One.”

That is one awkward, cockeyed clause, so the “and” (“kai” in the papyrus) had to be dropped. Something originally followed that last “and,”and it certainly was not “the Holy One.”

Undoubtedly, “in the original” (a famous, worn-out, Alexandrian cliche) it read “the One being, and the One who was, AND the One who shall be.”

Now, that is a conjecture, but it is a conjecture in the light of early Greek manuscript evidence that was discarded by Mr. Nestle and Mr. White. He and his buddies had to violate their own standards to get rid of the AV reading. Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) in the Cult.

Furthermore, if the AV had just put “shalt be” in italics they would have passed the Alexandrians with flying colors, for the “and” should have been retained, according to Alexandrian standards. The Alexandrians couldn’t tolerate it for it bore witness to the possible authenticity of an AV reading; and those are what all Alexandrians want to get rid of.

They never waste their time on any text like they waste it on the English text of 1611. That is the one they hate. They can even tolerate the Textus Receptus and the Majority Text, to some extent, but AAHHH! that Roaring Lion of the English Protestant Reformation!

For those of you who think I am “overstepping” myself:
Who inserted “nailed” into Acts 2:23 without being able to find one nail within one hundred verses of the verse (NASV)? There is not one Greek manuscript extant that says “nail” or “nails” or “nailing” or “nailed.”
But it doesn’t bother any Alexandrian except in Revelation 16:5 in an AV. Remarkable, isn’t it? What is “nothing” doing in the NASV in Acts 7:18? The text in ANY Greek manuscript extant (except D and E) said “Who not he knew the Joseph.” Manuscripts D and E said which doesn’t mean “nothing” at all; it doesn’t even mean “knew.” It means “remembered.”

How is any translated text in error when it inserts words not found in “the original Greek” because the words are either needed to make sense or should be added to complete the meaning of the Greek words that are extant?

White believes nothing of the kind, where it deals with his own income (selling NIVs and NASVs). His “baby dolls” do it to the tune of 400 pages “at a lick.”

Unlike the AV translators of Revelation 16:5, the translators of the NIV did not even put any of their additions in italics, in any verse, and White never squeaked. They made up scores of unique readings, with no manuscript evidence behind them, and none of them were put in italics. At least the AV translators made a “stab at it,” even in Revelation, chapter 16. Look at the italics in verses 3, 13, 14, 18, and 21.

Our position is clear, but then again, it always has been. We would judge White’s extant Greek texts on Revelation 16:5 to be defective, in regards to “shalt be,” and this is apparent from the rejected “kai” in Papyrus 47.
Why trade in absolute truth for a defective Greek manuscript? The truth is the Lord (vs. 5) had THREE lives (confirmed in Rev. 1:8, 8:8) and the “kai” (and) is found in both of those passages.
Someone messed with Revelation 16:5 in the Greek texts. It wasn’t the AV translators.

But you see, up to this point I have been teasing Jimbo. If James White had been stupid enough to take me on in a debate I would have ended my arguments at the paragraph above. Then, at the end, in the rebuttal, I would have produced the Greek text for the AV reading and placed it up before the TV camera where all of James White’s “comrades in arms” (Nestle, Metzger, MacRae, Archer, Aland, MacArthur, Ankerberg, et al.) could have seen it.

I have a Greek New Testament with “shall be” in the Greek (or as the Alexandrians say, the “original Greek” or the “Greek original” or “indeed the original” (White’s cliche, p. 48, 124).

My Greek New Testament (not his) says … (p. 469, 8th line from the bottom, Rev.16:5) the One being, and the One who was, and the One who will be.” Jimmy just didn’t have access to my Greek New Testament. Neither did Nestle or Aland, according to their own publications. My Greek New Testament is published by the Trinitarian Bible Society of London, it follows primarily Beza’s 1598 edition and corresponds to the Greek text edited by F. H. A. Scrivener in 1894 and 1902.

Jimmy lied again. It is as natural to an Alexandrian as breathing air. In a debate, James White would have lost his shirt and his britches.

James White’s Seven Errors in the King James Bible – Errors 6 & 7 By Dr. Peter S. RuckmanIn the last issues of the Bulletin we have been listing the seven nonexistent “errors” to be found in the Authorized Version of the Holy Bible, according to James White, the author of The King James Only Controversy (1995).

If you have been collecting these, and storing them back for future reference, you will now have five A-1 examples of the Alexandrian mentality behind all of the dead, orthodox apostates who worry about “Ruckmanism” or “King James Onlyism.”

If you will bother to obtain a copy of Scholarship Onlyism vs. King James Onlyism, 1992, pp.60-78, you will find eight more examples exactly like these: these were given by Gary Hudson back in 1991. Every Bible-believing preacher should start collecting these “test cases..” You have had thirteen discussed, and now, these last two “errors” will give you fifteen samples of the mental processes behind the apostates who produced the RV, NEB, RSV, NRSV, TEV, CEV, ASV, NWT, NASV, and NIV.

Bugs Bunny in Wonderland.

Acts 19:37 Our first “problem text” is Acts 19:37. Here, the Greek word for “temples,” found in all “text-types” and “families,” has been “mistranslated” by the king’s men (1611) as “churches,” instead of “temples.” This is an error, according to Jimbo.

However! Such translation is not an error in the NIV, that Jimbo recommends. Scores of times, in the NIV, this type of “dynamic equivalence” is used; as a matter of fact, it is used so many times that many Bible students think the NIV is more of a paraphrase than a translation.(As usual, when “Ruckman” says “as a matter of fact,” the FACT immediately appears. The passages are Matthew 6:22; Acts 26:20; Romans 1:3, 2:17, 6:4, 8:10, 1 Corinthians 2:4, 5:5, 7:17, 11:19, 12:6, Galatians 2:17, 3:3, 10, 4:21; Ephesians 1:23, 2:3, 4:2, 7, 17, 5:3; Colossians 2:2, 3:14; John 1:16, 14:30, 6:27; 1 Corinthians 7:4, etc.

These “dynamic equivalents” are so loose they might adequately qualify as paraphrases.)

Now, for the uneducated “laymen,” here is what is going on. No translating committee on earth (for 400 years) has ever translated every Greek word (from any text) exactly according to its lexicography (dictionary meaning) as given in a Greek lexicon. All translators “take liberties” in order to get across what they think the meaning should be in their language.

The NIV takes so many “liberties” that one would think its committee was made up of Gay Libbers, Women’s Libbers, and French revolutionists. But James White’s entire book was written to prove the NASV and the NIV were superior to the AV.

Why did he allow the NIV “affirmative action liberties” which he denied to the AV? I will tell you why: a vicious, irrational, Satanic prejudice against the greatest Book that ever showed up on this planet.


1. When the king’s men substituted “churches” for “temples,” they had just translated the “hieron” of “hierosulos” as “temple” more than fifty times in Matthew-Acts. They knew the root of the word was “temples.” No ignorance was involved. James White pretended they erred through ignorance. He erred through ignorance.

2. You see, poor Jimbo’s NIV had just committed this same dastardly “error” in the same chapter, for right at verses 39 and 41 we read”assembly” (NIV) for “church”. But this word was “ekklesia.” The NIV had just translated it as “church”(or “churches”) twenty-two times in Matthew and Acts! Why? If “ecclesia” means” assembly”–and so the NIV and NASV translate it in Acts 19:32, 39, and 41–what is this same word doing standing as “church” in the rest of the book of Acts and the Pauline Epistles?

C’mon, Buster, tell us. You got the balloons.

“Church” is a dynamic equivalent for “ecclesia.” It is not “formal correspondence.” The AV translators WISELY chose–intentionally, with full knowledge–“churches” at Acts 19:37 to show you that the heathen who worship female goddesses (see the context!) not only have “temples,” but “churches,” as in St. Peter, St. Michael’s, St. Jude’s, The Lateran, etc. They simply gave you an advanced revelation “not found in the original Greek”!

Poor old Jim White will die declaring the NIV can do things like that, but if the AV does it it is an “error.” He is so screwed up he doesn’t know whether he is standing on his left hind leg or his front right paw.

1 John 5:7-8. This is the most “dearly beloved” verse in the New Testament for all dead, orthodox apostates and apostate Fundamentalists in the Alexandrian Cult; one may truly say, “it is their life-verse.” It is the greatest alibi for these Nicolaitans to sin against the Holy Spirit that they can find in the entire Bible. They “harp” on 1 John 5:7-8 morning, noon, and night (just like they thought they had good sense), and harp on it till their harp needs strings replaced on it twice a month.

You know the fictitious fables and scholarly mythology behind the Cult’s rejection of this portion of the Holy Scriptures: “Erasmus said that if he could find……”There is no Greek manuscript evidence for… ” “Only one late Greek manuscript contains…,” “It is not part of the original text…,” “It is not in the Majority Text of…… etc.

When I went to BJU, in 1950 (Greenville, S.C.), I got the “full load” from Dr. Brokenshire and Dr. Brunner (graduates of Princeton and Louisville Southern Baptist Seminary). It went like this:

1.”There is no Greek manuscript evidence for the reading.”

He lied. One showed up.

2. “But only one Greek manuscript has it.”

He lied again. I found two more that had it.

3. “But there is no evidence that it existed before 1520.”

He lied again. That is three in a row. I found evidence the reading existed in A.D. 200 and A.D. 415.
Question: When a good, “godly,” dedicated Fundamentalist in a “fortress of faith” (or “bastion of orthodoxy”) lies to a young man, three times in a row, in an effort to destroy his faith in the King James Bible, what is any Bible believer supposed to think?
You tell me, teller; you got the cash.

Now James White–an absolutely typical Alexandrian clone–was programmed by the same “good, godly, Conservative JACKASSES” that tried to program me. I don’t “program” too well. So when old Jimmy wrote his book, he made a vain attempt to handle the “gender” problem of Nestle, Aland, Metzger, Fee, Palmer, Barker, Bob Jones III, Custer, Afman, Panosian, Wisdom, Ross, Sandlin, Kutilek, Brunner, and Brokenshire, et al., on three neuter words taking a masculine article as masculine witnesses he stumbled, stuttered, and then bluffed his way through the passage without explaining anything.

Dr. Edward Hills had already nailed Jimbo to the wall way back in 1956: that was thirty-nine years before Jimbo wrote The King James Only Controversy (see Hills, The King James Version Defended, 1956, pp. 209-213).

But here is what Jimbo omitted. (Alexandria is noted for omissions [see Eve: Gen.3:2]. Alexandrians can not live without omitting facts.)

1. According to Prof. Michaelis (cited in Armin Panning’s New Testament Criticism), Manuscript 61 (which has the “Johannine Comma”) has chapters in Mark that posses “coincidences” with the Old Syriac (A.D. 150-180), which was extant more than 200 year before the Greek manuscripts (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, etc.) showed up.

2. Although Manuscript 61 was supposed to have been written around 1519, the question comes up,”From WHAT Greek text?”Jimmy was too stupid to ask the question: he didn’t even know why the question should be asked!

Ditto R. A.Torrey, John Broadus, Bob Jones Jr., Chuck Swindoll, Zane Hodges, Bob Jones III, John Ankerberg, and John MacArthur.

The text of Manuscript 61 did not come from Ximene’s Polyglott: it wasn’t published yet. It did not come from Erasmus for it doesn’t match his Greek text in scores of places. “The literal affinities of Manuscript 61 are with the Syriac (see Acts 11:26), and the Syriac Version was not even known in Europe until AFTER 1552 (Moses Mardin).

The Old Syriac (take Taitian’s Diatesseron for example) has the King James reading for Luke 2:33; Matthew 6:13; Luke 23:42; and John 9:35, against the ASV, NASV, RSV, CEV, NRSV, and NIV.

And Jimbo was going to prove there was no evidence for 1 John 5:7, 8? He would have lost his underwear, along with his shirt. He would have fallen flatter than Andy “the Panda” Sandlin trying to prove Post-millennialism.

3. Here is the evidence for retaining 1 John 5:7-8. In line with God promising to preserve His words (Ps. 12), we have this material which Jimbo slyly “swept under the rug.”

a. John Gill says that Fulgentius cited the AV reading in A.D. 510. Do you think he got it from an Irish manuscript written in A.D. 1519?

b. Jerome cites the verse from Eustochium A.D. 450, and then puts it into the Vulgate where it is preserved (Ps. 12) for 900 years.

c. But Athanasius quotes 1 John 5:7-8 before Jerome was born (A.D. 350). “Irish1519 manuscript” is it, kiddies? You silly smart-aleck little Twinkies!

d. But why stop here? In A.D. 415, at the Council of Carthage, we find the “fathers” cite (in Latin) the text of 1 John 5:7-8 (PATER,VERBUM ET SPIRITUS SANCTUS”).

e. But why stop here? “The wealth of information” and “embarrassment of riches” (two Alexandrian hackneyed cliches meaning “no evidence we can quote”), which Jimmy didn’t want you to find, says that Tertullian quoted the King James Version of 1 John, chapter 5 in A.D. 200 (Gill, An Exposition of the New Testament, Vol.2, pp. 907-908).

f. That isn’t all. If I had debated Flimsy-Jimmy , I would have pulled Which Bible? on him (by David Otis Fuller) and put pages 211 and 212 before the video camera. You see, the King James translators had four Waldensian Bibles on their writing tables in 1611. These Waldensian Bibles had 1 John 5:7-8 in them. The trouble with Biblical illiterates like Andy Sandlin, Doug Kutilek, James White, F. F. Bruce, Bobby Ross, and John Ankerberg is not just that they have not “done their homework.” No one gave them any homework to do. Their teachers were bankrupt.

Watch God Almighty preserving His words, in spite of the negative, critical, destructive work of “godly” Conservative and Evangelical “scholars.”

A.D. 170: Old Syriac and Old Latin.
A.D. 180: Tatian and Old Syriac.
A.D. 200: Tertullian and Old Latin.
A.D. 250: Cyprian and Old Latin.
A.D. 350: Priscillian and Athanasius.
A.D. 415: Council of Carthage.
A.D. 450: Jerome’s Vulgate.
A.D. 510: Fulgentius.
A.D. 750: Wianburgensis.
A.D. 1150: Miniscule manuscript 88.
A.D. 1200-1500: Four Waldensen Bibles.
A.D. 1519: Greek Manuscript 61.
A.D. 1520-1611: Erasmus TR.
A.D. 1611: King James Authorized Version of the Holy Bible.

God had to work a miracle to get the truth of 1 John 5:7-8 preserved; He preserved it. You have it; but not in an RV, RSV, NRSV, CEV, ASV, NASV, or NIV.

And there are Jimmy White’s “Seven Errors” he wanted to debate, but (like Andy the Panda) he backed off when he was told where and when he would debate them. He would have bombed out seven out of seven; 100% error–on HIS part. Andy would have fared the same way.

So, the Bible believer now has fifteen of the most “scholarly,” highly intellectual, godly, Conservative criticisms of the AV ever laid out in print: seven from Jimbo and eight from Gary Hudson. They batted 1000, if by that you mean they didn’t contact the ball one time in fifteen times across the middle of the plate, waist high. That is fifteen strikeouts in a row; the equivalent of five men “fanning” out in succession.

I’ll let you in on a little secret: if their mentors, peers, associates, and role models had posited 1,500 “errors” in the AV, they too would have struck out–1,500 times in a row.

“Let God be true, but every man a liar.”

The liar always convinces his own kind that he has proved errors in the AV conclusively–“beyond the reasonable shadow of a doubt”–when all he did was REJECT the evidence against his own unbelief.

If poor old bankrupt Jimmy had showed up he would have been called upon to explain a phenomenon about 1 John 5:7-8 that he had never even considered, for the simple reason that his TEACHERS were too stupid to think.

Any man who had read the New Testament through, even ten times, would have seen, immediately, that 1 John 5:7-8 could not have been inserted by a heretic or deceiver, because the wording would have betrayed his intent. Any man intent on proving some doctrinal point (theological) by adding to the Scripture (note that is the theme of Jimmy White’s book), would not have dared to invent a new formula. He would have written:”the Father the Son the Holy Ghost” to “harmonize” (see White’s book) it with Matthew 28:19.

According to White’s own approach to “conflations, additions, and copyists’ harmonizing tendencies” (which he devoted more than forty pages to in his book), he wrote himself off as a commentator on 1 John 5:7-8; so did every jack rabbit who followed him. His own thesis cut his throat. No one added 1 John 5:7-8 to the “original Greek text.” It was subtracted from the “original Greek” text at an early date, the omission was preserved in the two most corrupt and “barbarously mutilated manuscripts” (Dean Burgon’s opinion) known to Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (ASV, NASV, and NIV).God preserved it through many other channels until He produced His final and finished work: the Authorized Version of the Holy Bible in the universal language of the end time.

“When in doubt, always correct ‘THE’ Greek text with THE English text.”

“This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation.”

***All rights reserved by the Bible Baptist Bookstore. Reproduction or use of their name, products, literature, pictures, or illustrations, in whole or in part, in any form or medium, without express written permission of Bible Baptist Bookstore, is prohibited.

Yesterday we posted an article titled, “Where Was James White” in which we asked where was James White on the issues of the sex scandals at Sovereign Grace Ministries while he was eager to attack Ergun Caner. We also noted his sister’s blog where she implicated him in intimidating her over sexual abuse allegations she has made against their parents. White offered an audio response to this article, although he did not address the issues regarding his sister’s blog. Since James White read directly from the article on his show, we are reluctant to give him the benefit of the doubt that he did not see this.

White begins his audio broadcast by making fun of my name (“Doc Ach” as he laughed), and of course, making fun of my grammar as being “not good English” which as anyone that knows me knows that English is not my first language. But this is typical of many Calvinists who make a habit of ad hominem attacks against their opponents. And while I strive to correct spelling or grammatical errors, I do not make a habit of equating the meaning of an article with the “divine accuracy onlyism” of which White seems to be a proponent of (see his critique of Norman Geislers “Chosen But Free” rebuttal to White’s book for a list of all of Geisler’s spelling and grammatical errors).

At 4:20, White notes that this website makes no mention of his book “The King James Only Controversy” and states that he “almost fainted” in that this is the first website that is KJVO that didn’t mention his book. Well contrary to White’s inflated ego, we don’t think White’s book deserves a highlight on the front page of our website. However, we do have a section on the top of the site that is labeled “King James Defense Sites” as well as a category below that is labeled “King James Only Debate”. As superior and intelligent as White appears to be (just ask him) I almost fainted when he missed both of those obvious clues. We do however, have a section of Will Kinney’s articles of which Kinney has refuted several of White’s contentions about the KJV. (And ironically, Kinney is a Calvinist of whom even though we disagree shows more grace than James White could spell with a thousand word processors.)

We began this article with a clear statement that it may be speculation, and ended the article with “can anyone answer this?”. You would think considering the certainty in which we post the rest of our articles, that such a statement admitting that it could be speculation would be seen as an honest attempt to gather answers instead of an attack on our intelligence from the APOLOGIST (as White critiqued our term “apologeticist” as “not good English” although such a term is commonly used by others, here, here, and here.). White conceded that our assertion that he is popular “is probably true [laughing]”.

We conceded to those who left comments that there actually was no debate between White and Caner as alleged on our article, and stated that the reason we assumed there was a debate was because the You Tube link had erroneously labeled the video “Ergun Caner vs James White on Calvinism”. Nevertheless, our article was never about Ergun Caner or defending Caner. White spent much of his radio show explaining something we really don’t care about, and actually-which may come as a surprise to White-AGREE with James White on this issue that if Caner misrepresented himself as a Muslim to gain credibility among Muslims, he should “come clean”.

At 6:30, White states we should have been aware of this because we “spent hours searching the internet” for it. What we spent hours looking for was White’s response to the SGM scandal, not the Ergun Caner issue. I could almost faint that a man who often accuses KJVO adherents of having “problems with categories” that James White got this wrong and miscategorized that statement.

At 7:00, White states that our explanation of Geisler’s response to White about Caner explains why we are King James Onlyists. Again, another fallacious pejorative jab by White as there have been many King James Onlyists who did not become King James Onlyists because of their assessment of Norman Geisler’s response to White on the Caner issue. Furthermore, we did not contend that White did NOT refute Geisler, we merely contended that both parties IN OUR OPINION presented compelling responses for each of their arguments. White assumes we should have drawn a conclusion in favor of his “thorough refutation” and because we did not, that is what caused us to be King James Onlyists! With logic like this, I am surprised that White has made it as far as he has as an APOLOGIST.

No we don’t believe that White should be involved in EVERY controversy within the church, but the reason that he justified his expose of Caner was ultimately “for the greater good of the testimony of the church”. I would contend that scandals involving sex crimes in the churches present a far greater obstacle to the gospel than one person’s dishonesty about being a Muslim. I have spent countless hours on this website addressing claims of “Do Right” groups, Stuff Fundies Like, Jeri Massi’s “Blog On The Way”, “Baptist Deception” et al, over issues that have led thousands to reject Christ, embrace progressive Christianity, Process Theology, Agnosticism, Atheism, most of which revolved around the treatment of their own children or others involving sexual abuse. So you mean to tell me that Atheism is not an apologetics issue? That when thousands have claimed to have left fundamentalist Christianity because of sexual abuse in the churches, that does not merit some type of response from an apologist? I would submit that far more people have avoided Christianity as well as left Christianity over the issue of sexual abuse in the church, than the issue of Ergun Caner lying about where he was born and who he has debated.

It should also be noted that James White has devoted several hours to the issue of homosexuality on his radio show, and has taped debates with homosexual activists. So James White does appear to believe that sexual dysfunctions are relevant to apologetics, just not ones that reflect issues in his own household?

What is ironic is that in dismissing our question about White’s silence on this, not once did White state that it was an important issue that should be addressed. You would think that since such an issue was raised, White could have at least said something like “As much as I think churches should be more compassionate about this issue, and commit to greater accountability, I am really not qualified to speak on this issue”.  He simply brushed it off as “I’m not qualified to address sexual abuse” and yet James contends that he is not an expert on Islam. If you are not an expert on Islam, and yet engage in debates and write books about it, then why do you have to be an expert in sexual abuse in order to stand up and tell your Calvinist brothers that it’s wrong  and is damaging the cause of Christ?

White contends that he became involved in the Caner issue because he HAD TO, and yet White offered no evidence that Caner’s actions affected his ability to debate or witness to Muslims, nor has White shown that his credibility was affected by anything Caner did. Now White could contend that common sense would lead one to believe that such actions by Caner COULD have that effect, but certainly not enough for White to conclude that he HAD TO respond. But, that’s White’s prerogative and we won’t belabor on this issue since it wasn’t our primary concern.

White states that this is a black eye to the apologetics community who remain silent on such issues as if this is a pattern in the apologetics world when he cites only one example, Caner, of this massive cover up conspiracy that is so prevalent in the apologetics community. Again, I could almost faint at such a sweeping generalization from such a seasoned apologist. And yet the cover ups of NUMEROUS churches regarding sexual abuse which is tearing apart churches all over the world isn’t worth mentioning?

White claims that just because he is a Calvinist doesn’t mean he SHOULD have knowledge about the events at SGM, and then tells me to ‘prove it’. Well at @ the 22 minute mark of the video, White admits that he has received several emails asking him why he hasn’t gotten involved and his claim that it is “utter stupidity” that anyone should assume he has a responsibility to get involved in ministries he is not involved in. If White admits to having received emails asking the same question, then I guess we just proved it!


While we’re at it in talking about dishonesty in apologetics, one blogger,  Peter Lumpkins, noted that James White listed in several places, or at least allowed to be listed, a credential that he was teacher at Golden State Baptist Theological Seminary. First let us state that Lumpkin on one site, attributed these postings to Scott Oakland, but a comment posted as James White to us yesterday, one of which White himself referred to on his radio show as his posting, had a return email address of “droakley” so we are not sure if Oakland, Oakley are different people, or one and the same with James White.

Indeed, on the website for Columbia Evangelical Seminary, the following description is given of James White:

James R. White, D.Min.,Th.D.
Faculty Mentor

(Apologetics, Biblical Studies, Comparative Religions, Cults, Exegesis, Theology) Dr. White, an ordained Baptist minister, is Adjunct Professor teaching New Testament Greek, Systematic Theology, Christology, and Hebrew for Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary at their Arizona Campus. Here

We do note that James has a Doctorate of Ministry which would be highly irregular for there not to be some course on pastoral counseling or some type of Biblical counseling, and thus it is ironic that James would claim that he is not qualified to speak about sexual abuse. He is also  an apologist that doesn’t have a PhD which is the degree that most apologists have. Nevertheless, Lumpkins asked White to answer some questions about this issue since there appears to be no apparent record of White being a professor at said college as stated in the many references cited by Lumpkins here. Perhaps White will do another show on this issue.


White denies that he ever had a debate with Dave Hunt. But here, is a YouTube video hosted by James White titled, “Is Calvinism Biblical?” in which White is on the phone with a person named Dave Hunt (or perhaps in studio), the man sounds like the same Dave Hunt that I have seen in many other videos, and is the only Dave Hunt I know that has publicly argued against White’s views of Calvinism. Sounds like a debate between White and Hunt to me . This is the debate that White often refers to in claiming that Hunt admitted he was ignorant of the Reformers. Apparently, being an ANTI King James Onlyist affects people’s memory!

White himself admits that Reformers are not necessarily all Calvinists, but yet when Hunt said he was ignorant of the REFORMERS, White was quick to point out that Hunt was inconsistent when he stated he probably knew more about CALVINISM than most Calvinists. Although White claims that it would be unlikely that Hunt learned as much about the Reformers as he should have to have the proper understanding of Calvinism (a claim often leveled against Non Calvinists that we don’t truly understand Calvinism unless we have a thorough knowledge of the Reformers, even though many of them disagree with each other and White never points out just WHICH Reformers we should adhere to properly understand CALVINISM), White can not claim as a certainty that Hunt did not learn as much in six months. Just because White thinks it is unlikely doesn’t mean it is impossible (although White actually made an argument for impossibility).


And finally, we were given a link to a blog of a woman who claimed to be James White’s sister, which was then confirmed by White’s response to her blog in regards to Catholicism (an article in which James posts an email from supporters of his sister in which he used the term “Fr.” (Father) to refer to a Catholic priest by the name of Mitchell Pacwa.).

In these two blogs (here and here) his sister, to whom White refers to as “Mrs Bonds”, Patty (we will be courteous enough to use her first name where her own brother will not) paints a dismal picture of several years of child molestation within her home. She states in part:

I was born into the same family as my brother, James R. White. Our parents were both victims of abuse as young people. They carried those scars as people in those days did: silently. Silently, and without resolution, because no one talked about those things. You just toughed it out and did the best you could.

After spending a lengthy time working through the sexual abuse that my father subjected me to for years, I had to confront my brother with the truth.

“my brother James was hostile, defensive, and threatening. He warned me to “watch what I said” about my parents. He also made a very feeble comment about hoping he could “help me” someday”

If James White would take this kind of attitude toward his own sister about sexual abuse (perhaps because he’s “not an expert” on the subject) then in my opinion that speaks volumes about why he would be unwilling to speak out about the issues at SGM.  Now we agree with much of what White said regarding Roman Catholicism, but just because ones family member is a Roman Catholic doesn’t mean you have to throw her under the bus if in fact she was sexually abused by your father. But of course, we understand coming from a religion where God doesn’t love anybody but the elect and of whose founder enjoyed burning heretics for disagreeing with him (both Augustine and Calvin), but would you say that your response to your own sister should have at least included a little rain on the unjust?

And no Mr. White, I have never been to any of your “big conferences” because I am not willing to PAY to see a minister give a message about the Bible.

Now that we’ve corrected our minor errors from the last article, let’s see if James White corrects his!

DISCLAIMER: No vowels or consonants were harmed in the making of this article. And by the way James, is “COVENTAL” Apologetics still on sale? 


Please someone tell me, that I’m not hearing things, and that at the 9:05-9:30 mark on the audio clip, White does not sound just like Barack Obama!

The latter half of James White’s show was critiquing Michael Brown on Calvinism issues. We are going to go through this thoroughly later this week, but wanted to address one point here. White criticized Brown and agreed with Brown’s opponent about “Praying like a Calvinist” which presumes that Brown is conceding that God saves people against their will (of course, we understand that since God instills a compatibilist form of freedom within the believer according to Calvinism, White would disagree that it was actually against their will). However, on Whites’ Facebook page, he states that prayers should be offered for Dave Hunt’s wife.

If God determines all things whatsoever come to pass (according to the Baptist Confession of Faith ch 3, )then what does White expect to accomplish by asking for prayer? Now I agree that Ruth Hunt should have prayers, but not for the same reasons White’s theology would suggest. Has White now become Arminian in demonstrating that God may possibly alter an event that was predetermined!

For the Calvinist, offering prayers or telling a sinner God loves them is just a convenient lie to maintain credibility within the community so Calvinism doesn’t appear as harsh as it really is.

James White responded to this article on the Dividing Line and our response to *that* response is here which replaces this. White never replied to our rebuttal but we are leaving this mess of an article up for now as a point of reference since it is referred to in White’s response as well as ours.

UPDATE 9/7 This article will be AMENDED but not RETRACTED IN FULL due to the response offered by James White. There will be issues deleted, and issues added that James did not respond to, and of course, we will TRY (no promises 🙂 to be more gracious in our response to James White’s video than he was with ours. We promise to use a spell checker this time before publishing the edit so that Mr. White doesn’t have a heart attack over KJVOs that misspell words.

We do note that James White repeatedly and erroneously attributed our grammatical errors and citations what we admitted in the very beginning of the article that we could be wrong about to our being King James Onlyist. As if being a King James Onlyist determines the outcome of how an article is written grammatically. 

James also neglected to respond to the comments from his sister.

We will also be adding or rather asking James White to answer the question that was posed to him by Peter Lumpkins regarding his teaching at Golden State.

We also note that James White failed to notice the articles we have hosted on here from Will Kinney that address some of White’s errors cited against the KJV since bragged that this is the first KJVO site that never mentioned his book “The King James Only Debate”. As much as we digress in catering to his ego here, we actually do have references.

White’s response to this article is here. It takes a few minutes to get passed all of his self aggrandizement before you actually get to the response so be patient. 

UPDATED: We have updated this article with new information at the bottom, and comments that give a defense of the Caner issues. We could really give 2 flipped pickled eggs about Ergun Caner’s issue, what we are concerned about is James White’s hypocrisy, and now statements made from his own sister about intimidation regarding her sexual abuse allegations against their parents.

The following may be total speculation on my part, and may be refuted at some later time, of which I will gladly retract what I am about to write, but a pattern I have noticed from James White, popularly apologeticist and debater, has become quite disturbing.

*James White debated Ergun Caner, a teacher and president at Liberty University, over the issue of Calvinism [Accordingly, this information will be amended as there has been no evidence of an actual debate. A supporter of James White erroneously labeled a video link as “Ergun Caner vs. James White On Calvinism” but it is merely excerpts of a sermon by Caner. James White claims that Caner changed the rules for the debate 12 days prior to the debate, so White canceled from fear that Caner would again change the rules hours before the debate was scheduled. I have not heard the other side of this excuse but seems to be the second or third time we have heard such excuses, ie. Peter Ruckman where White did not post the final letter sent to him by Ruckman]. In 2010, James White later went on a personal witch hunt to dig up dirt on Caner which led to a large controversy over the veracity of Caner’s testimony that he was actually raised in Turkey as a Muslim as he has claimed for several years, a matter of which 3 years later, White is still addressing [1]I have watch White’s videos on this, I have also read Dr. Norman Geisler’s exhaustive response [2] . Both sides have compelling arguments.

But what concerns me most is James White’s MOTIVE for searching out this information? James White has an extensive history of debating Muslims, and thus should have been (and likely was) aware for quite some time that Caner was also among the noted scholars that debated Muslims. Yet White’s attack on Caner seems to have come only AFTER his debate with White on Calvinism. [3]

White published a book titled “The Potter’s Freedom”, a response to Norman Geisler’s book, “Chosen But Free”, Geisler’s refutation of Calvinism. Geisler then published a video response to White’s book titled “Why I Am Not A Five-Point Calvinist” . White is now accusing Norman Geisler of covering up for Ergun Caner and demanding that Geisler remove Caner from his position in Geisler’s ministry.

White also had a debate with Dave Hunt over Calvinism, and White later accuses Dave Hunt of misrepresenting Calvinism and being dishonest about his knowledge of the Reformers. One James White support even goes so far as to accuse Dave Hunt (now deceased) of refuting Calvinism due to a Jesuit conspiracy. [4]

Now here is my question for James White.

With all the controversy that he stirred over Ergun Caner, and the amount of evidence that he amassed to argue his case, enough to demand that he resign his position, how is it that James White remains SILENT about the lawsuit and allegations against C.J. Mahaney and Sovereign Grace Ministries (“SGM”) involving the cover ups of dozens of sex crimes and abuse cases?? SGM is undoubtedly one of the most popular Calvinist movements in the United States, and several of C.J. Mahaney’s cohorts are also collegues of James White (Mark Dever, Albert Mohler, Ligon Duncan). Some of SGM’s own staff published accusations against C.J. Mahaney. [5] .

With such a high-profile lawsuit and accusations against one of the most popular Calvinist groups extant, it would be foolish to think that James White was/is not privy to these matters. And yet from what I have been able to find (or rather unable to find) is any response from James White whatsoever about the abuse at Sovereign Grace Ministries. I have spent hours upon hours scouring the internet for a response from White and have found none.

James White was eager (3 years in the running now) to oust Ergun Caner for being dishonest about where he was born and demanding that those whom he serves with in ministry denounce him, but when it comes to his own camp about SEXUAL ABUSE, James White is SILENT.

Can anyone explain this??

UPDATE: We have also learned from other sources that James White’s sister has called him out intimidating her for her allegations of sexual abuse at the hands of their parents. She states in part:

I was born into the same family as my brother, James R. White. Our parents were both victims of abuse as young people. They carried those scars as people in those days did: silently. Silently, and without resolution, because no one talked about those things. You just toughed it out and did the best you could.

After spending a lengthy time working through the sexual abuse that my father subjected me to for years, I had to confront my brother with the truth.

“my brother James was hostile, defensive, and threatening. He warned me to “watch what I said” about my parents. He also made a very feeble comment about hoping he could “help me” someday”

And her follow up story here:

We have found at least one response from James White but does not appear to address his sisters sexual abuse allegations. What is odd though is White repeatedly refers to his sister by her married name, and as “Mrs Bonds” instead of “Patty” or “My sister” and refers to the Catholic priests he mentions as “FR” (for “Father”).



Those reading this should also consider reading the following:


While much is touted by the homosexual community about “tolerance” and “hatred” toward the “gay” community, posted below is a recent video of gay supporters attacking Christians at a “gay-pride” rally, and beating a man who is merely holding up a sign.

Full story here.  CAUTION: There is quite a bit of disturbing language in the video.