Argument That Destroys White’s KJVO Cultist Accusation

Posted: March 25, 2016 in King James Only Debate, Uncategorized
Tags: , ,


On March 8, 2016, in a blatantly dishonest diatribe against me, James White labeled King James Only advocates as “cultists”. What was his premise? That the King James doesn’t follow the erroneous Granville Sharp rule (“GSR”), which even Dan Wallace admitted is inconsistently applied throughout the NT, and can really be narrowed down to 2 passages (Titus 2:13, and 2 Peter 1:1). Essentially, James White accused the KJV of diminishing the deity of Christ based on these two passages (which he is wrong about anyway even IF he was right about the GSR, which he’s not) Now I have a ton of arguments against this view alone, but only one is necessary to completely blow White’s theory out of the water, and expose him for the dishonest hypocrite that he is.

Here is the most simple, common sense rebuttal to White’s blathering. In numerous responses to KJV advocates who point out that modern versions alter dozens of passages that eliminate the deity of Christ (John 1:18, 1 Tim 3:16, Rom 9:5, 1 Cor 10:9, 1 John 5:7-8, Dan 3:25, etc…), modern versionists like White claim we are mistaken to allege modern versions attack the deity of Christ IF THE DEITY OF CHRIST CAN BE ESTABLISHED BY OTHER PASSAGES. In other words, to White, it is irrelevant that even if KJVO advocates were right about those verses, it doesn’t matter because the charge can not be substantiated that modern versions alter the deity of Christ if His deity can be shown elsewhere.

Now here’s the kicker for that kind of defense against someone who in the same breath accuses KJVO advocates of being “cultists”. Let’s assume for argument’s sake White is right about the GSR in the KJV. IF THE KJV CAN SHOW THE DEITY OF CHRIST CAN BE PROVEN FROM OTHER PASSAGES, THEN WHITE CAN’T REALLY CRITICIZE KJVOS FOR BEING “CULTISTS” NOW CAN HE!! White always claims “inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument”, but he refuses to apply his own rules consistently. If the ability to show the deity of Christ in other places among modern versions vindicates THOSE versions, then how is it that the same analysis doesn’t vindicate the KJV if the deity of Christ can be shown in other passages if White is right about 2 passages where he [erroneously] contends the GSR proves it diminishes the deity of Christ? The deity of Christ in the KJV can be established in John 1:1, John 1:18, Romans 9:5, Matt 1:23, Isaiah 7:4, 9:6, Mark 2:7-10, John 8:58, John 10:31-35, Phil 2:6, Matt 19:6, Col 2:9-10, Heb 1:8, John 20:28, John 8:24, 1 John 5:7-8, 1 Tim 3:16 and a plethora of other OT and NT passages.

White uses equivocation and a special pleading fallacy of applying a rule to vindicate his modern version onlyism on the same grounds that he labels KJVO advocates cultists for. If the existence of the deity of Christ can be found outside of the verses that KJVOs attack modern versions over, then why doesn’t that same rule apply to White’s attacks against the KJV even if he was right about the GSR rule? The answer to that is simple, White knows that KJVOs have a better case against him, and to keep listeners from fairly judging both sides of the issue, he tries to put Bible believing Christians in the same category as other cultists like the Watchtower (in spite of the fact that some of the most aggressive defenders of the King James Bible are 1689 LBC Calvinists, like him). Ironically, the men behind White’s modern version onlyism were avid occultists and rationalists who did not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture (See, Heretics Behind Modern Bible Versions Supported By James White).

Regarding White’s charge about Titus 2:13, the result of White’s absurd assessment is that God permitted the Roman Catholic church to have the accurate readings (stored on library shelves, no less) while the rest of the church “erroneously” relied on these verses to support the Trinity for 1800 years. White claims that it “wasn’t the King James translators faults”, which means that not only were the King James translators ignorant of a 19th century Greek grammar rule in the 17th century, but so, too, was every Bible believing Christian that was martyred over these texts who translated it the same way until a bunch of rationalists decided it should be interpreted differently, rationalists that now include James White and his ilk. Anti King James Only advocates frequently ask us the dumbest question ever, “Where was the Bible before 1611?”, but if you look at their position, NONE OF US HAD IT BEFORE THE “BEST” and “OLDEST” MANUSCRIPTS WERE FOUND BETWEEN 1840-1881.

Dr. James A., PhD
Member Dean Burgon Society


  1. Caleb says:

    I find it interesting how James White accuses us of the very thing he champions (inconsistency). Great article.

  2. Henry Laurel says:

    Thank God for men like James White who exposes the hypocrisy and double standards of the KJV only cult. It is a cult no scripture supports this man made tradition. Gail Riplinger, Sam Gipp, Will Kinney Steven Anderson, Gene Kim, all KJV only cultists. All incapable of rational thought, all who represent the lunatic fringe of the insane KJV only cult. Peter Ruckman among the worst. Strange none of these deceivers can answer the question ‘Where was the word of God before 1611? Yet they call it the dumbest question ever, probably because it exposes the fact that KJV onlyism is one of the dumbest teachings ever. These modern day Pharisees work have accused the Lord Jesus Christ of casting out demons by the prince of demons.

    • James A, PhD says:

      It’s amazing that while you’re calling KJVO advocates “cultists” and “lunatics”, you didn’t answer a single point I made in an article that addresses that very question: are KJVO advocates cultists. So I guess that tells us about YOUR competence.
      Speaking of double standards, you call KJVO a “man made tradition” which is a really stupid argument because it would equally apply to your modern version onlyism. In fact, it would apply moreso because the mss underlying the KJV, and the standard Greek texts used were the standard until Westcott & Hort invented a Greek text out of thin air.

      You claim asking that it’s stupid to challenge the question “where was the Bible before 1611?”. I explained why it was a stupid question, you didn’t explain why it wasn’t. You simply dismissed it “that’s dumb to ask because it exposes your dumb teachings”. That’s not actually an argument, and dismissing an argument by just claiming ipse dixit it’s just silly is called the Appeal to the Stone fallacy. If you consider it a legitimate question, can you answer the same question for your views? Where was the Bible before 1881 when Westcort & Hort published their GNT? According to your theory, there was no credible Scriptures until the “discovery” of the “oldest & best” manuscripts, which weren’t “discovered” until 1859 (where Tischendorf claimed to have found Sinaiticus which was actually a RECENT creation made by Constantine Simonides, not an “ancient” manuscript). Thus, your god left the church without any reliable scriptures for 1800 years all the while telling them to “preach the word” which they didn’t have, according to idiots like you. So can you answer the same question? Where was the Bible before Westcort & Hort?

      And while you call us Pharisees, it is you who demands that we follow YOUR do’s and don’ts about how to be saved and how to judge mss history, and if we don’t, we’re cultists. You sound like the Pharisee.

      Now you can quit spamming my inbox because this is the only response you’re going to get since you don’t actually know how to debate or how to use logic

Leave Godly Comments

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s