Posts Tagged ‘King James Only Controversy’


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


I have quite a few debates over the issue of whether or not James White, author of the King James Only Controversy, actually shares the same sentiment as his heroes Westcott & Hort, who proclaimed that the Textus Receptus underlying the King James Bible was vile.

James White and his defenders claims that White only hates King James Only exclusivism, not the King James Bible itself. Although we beg to differ, there’s picture perfect proof of this now with James White’s recent reply on Twitter to a person asking if White would sign his KJV’s.

White KJV Burn - Copy

White did try to “clean up” a little after realizing it was probably too late to delete the comment because there were too many responses to it already, and he does so by this crazy reply:

BTW, my comment had nothing to do with the KJV…it had to do with FREEZING TO DEATH. 🙂

OK. Considering that James White lives in ARIZONA, I highly doubt he is ever concerned about “freezing to death”, and the weather had absolutely nothing to do with the context of the initial question nor his initial response. If he’s referring to Norway, well it’s 77 degrees there. He can’t blame it on being a “Jack Hyles” version either, remember, his clean up statement was about “freezing to death” not about the edition of the KJV. James White has always been a good professional liar, but I expected a little better of him in his clean up attempt because *that* one was pathetic.

Now even though James White’s hand has been caught in the cookie jar, he will likely figure out additional ways to spin this, the number one being that he will call us dooky faces for being King James Only advocates, and utter something along the lines of how incapable we are of reason and rational thinking, the usual pejoratives…

…but it’s James White’s own words that clearly demonstrate that he would prefer to burn the KJV “for warmth”.  Do you think he would have said that about the NASB or ESV? I’m sure Muslim ‘scholar’ Shabir Ally just texted White, “that’s right, burn em.. burn em..”



Waiting to see how many people catch the “January” reference. Averages about 30-35 degrees F for U.S. citizens (we use C in the east) Better bring LOTS of KJVs for that freezing 35 degree weather. And of course, White’s rebuttal will be he’s so used to Arizona that anything below 70 is a freeze advisory. Anything to burn them KJVs I tell you 🙂