Alive in Christ - Rebuttal of James White

Rebuttal of James White

This is a rebuttal of the ideas presented in IS YOUR MODERN TRANSLATION CORRUPT?: Answering the Allegations of KJV Only Advocates by James R. White. I was sent this article by a KJV critic. Since this is not posted at White's web site, you can read it here.

Note that White never used scripture to back up his position; he only used the teachings of men. He claims that the papists didn't corrupt the Alexandrian manuscripts, but claims that the Roman church had a hand in the editing of the pure texus recepticus.

He admits that there are corruptions in the NT text, but he claims that these were made by orthodox scribes who were trying to "help out" the text. Now, why would anyone want to change a text that they held sacred? "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." (Prov. 30:5,6) Why would any true Christian want to add to God's words?

"In 1516 a Roman Catholic scholar and priest, Desiderius Erasmus, published the first printed edition of the Greek New Testament." (White) In saying this, he is making the TR and all the Bibles based on it look like they support Roman Catholicism. But wait, Erasmus may have been ordained as a priest, but he chose never to function as one. He criticized the "church" and the pope. He attacked the over indulgences of the monks, and advised the church to "get rid of the Roman See." He even saved a man from the Inquisition. The pope tried to bribe him to shut him up, but he rejected the bribe. To show the "church's" appreciation for his work (the Greek New Testament), Pope Paul IV put it on the "Index" of books forbidden to be read by Catholics.

James White loves Alexandrian manuscripts, Westcot-Hort fantasies.

"The TR was the "standard" text for more than 200 years in most of Europe. While more manuscripts came to light during this time, it was not until the middle of the nineteenth century that a serious challenge to the preeminence of the TR was mounted through the work of Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort. Westcott and Hort recognized the existence of text types or "text families" in the growing number of manuscripts available to scholars, and they asserted that the most common form of the NT text, found predominately in later manuscripts, was the result of an earlier revision. This meant that the TR, in their view, represented a later, secondary form of the text. The earlier, more primitive (and hence more pure) form of the text was to be found in those manuscripts that predated this revision." (White)

White here states Westcott and Hort's "Conflate Theory." It has never been proven correct. They claimed that since the Alexandrian text was the oldest, it had to be closer to the original. They claim that the "neutral text" (as they called the Alexandrian text) was then revised into what became known as the Majority Text. This revised text, they claim, was then forced upon the people by church order. This is how they explain why 95% of all manuscripts agree with the Majority Text. This theory is not supported by any recorded historical happening. Actually, history disproves it because when the Catholic Church tried to force their "Vulgate" on the believers, they rejected it. (They eventually had to burn all other Bibles, along with their owners.) Unfortunately this theory is taught as fact in Bible schools just like evolution is taught as fact in secular schools.

White also praises heretics Westcott and Hort for mounting a "serious challenge to the preeminence of the TR."

White admits that the Byzantine text is represented by the vast majority of manuscripts, ("The Byzantine text type is by far the majority text type and is to be found in the vast majority of later NT manuscripts"), but in his next statement, he declares that the Alexandrian [corrupt] text type to be the "most important."

White goes on to attack the view of a perfect Bible by declaring "If KJV Only advocates wish to say that all the decisions made by Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and the KJV translators were perfect, they need to explain why. Simply assuming this won't do." It is impossible to prove that all the decisions made by these editors and translators were perfect. I would like to ask Mr. White if he believes that all the decisions made by the NIV, NASB, NKJV translators were perfect. He would most likely say no, because he does not believe that God has preserved His Word. God promised in His word that He would preserve HIs Word. James Whit and others believe that this didn't happen, that the manuscripts eventually accumulated more and more errors as they accumulated over time. They claim that there is no evidence that God has kept His Word free from errors caused by men. I would like them to explain why over 90% of all Greek manuscripts generally agree with each other if God has not divilely preserved His Word from errors.

Home


	Rebuttal of James White This is a rebuttal of the ideas presented in IS YOUR MODERN TRANSLATION CORRUPT?: Answering the Allegations of KJV Only Advocates by James R. White. I was sent this article by a KJV critic. Since this is not posted at White's web site, you can read it here. Note that White never used scripture to back up his position; he only used the teachings of men. He claims that the papists didn't corrupt the Alexandrian manuscripts, but claims that the Roman church had a hand in the editing of the pure texus recepticus. He admits that there are corruptions in the NT text, but he claims that these were made by orthodox scribes who were trying to "help out" the text. Now, why would anyone want to change a text that they held sacred? "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." (Prov. 30:5,6) Why would any true Christian want to add to God's words? "In 1516 a Roman Catholic scholar and priest, Desiderius Erasmus, published the first printed edition of the Greek New Testament." (White) In saying this, he is making the TR and all the Bibles based on it look like they support Roman Catholicism. But wait, Erasmus may have been ordained as a priest, but he chose never to function as one. He criticized the "church" and the pope. He attacked the over indulgences of the monks, and advised the church to "get rid of the Roman See." He even saved a man from the Inquisition. The pope tried to bribe him to shut him up, but he rejected the bribe. To show the "church's" appreciation for his work (the Greek New Testament), Pope Paul IV put it on the "Index" of books forbidden to be read by Catholics. James White loves Alexandrian manuscripts, Westcot-Hort fantasies. "The TR was the "standard" text for more than 200 years in most of Europe. While more manuscripts came to light during this time, it was not until the middle of the nineteenth century that a serious challenge to the preeminence of the TR was mounted through the work of Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort. Westcott and Hort recognized the existence of text types or "text families" in the growing number of manuscripts available to scholars, and they asserted that the most common form of the NT text, found predominately in later manuscripts, was the result of an earlier revision. This meant that the TR, in their view, represented a later, secondary form of the text. The earlier, more primitive (and hence more pure) form of the text was to be found in those manuscripts that predated this revision." (White) White here states Westcott and Hort's "Conflate Theory." It has never been proven correct. They claimed that since the Alexandrian text was the oldest, it had to be closer to the original. They claim that the "neutral text" (as they called the Alexandrian text) was then revised into what became known as the Majority Text. This revised text, they claim, was then forced upon the people by church order. This is how they explain why 95% of all manuscripts agree with the Majority Text. This theory is not supported by any recorded historical happening. Actually, history disproves it because when the Catholic Church tried to force their "Vulgate" on the believers, they rejected it. (They eventually had to burn all other Bibles, along with their owners.) Unfortunately this theory is taught as fact in Bible schools just like evolution is taught as fact in secular schools. White also praises heretics Westcott and Hort for mounting a "serious challenge to the preeminence of the TR." White admits that the Byzantine text is represented by the vast majority of manuscripts, ("The Byzantine text type is by far the majority text type and is to be found in the vast majority of later NT manuscripts"), but in his next statement, he declares that the Alexandrian [corrupt] text type to be the "most important." White goes on to attack the view of a perfect Bible by declaring "If KJV Only advocates wish to say that all the decisions made by Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and the KJV translators were perfect, they need to explain why. Simply assuming this won't do." It is impossible to prove that all the decisions made by these editors and translators were perfect. I would like to ask Mr. White if he believes that all the decisions made by the NIV, NASB, NKJV translators were perfect. He would most likely say no, because he does not believe that God has preserved His Word. God promised in His word that He would preserve HIs Word. James Whit and others believe that this didn't happen, that the manuscripts eventually accumulated more and more errors as they accumulated over time. They claim that there is no evidence that God has kept His Word free from errors caused by men. I would like them to explain why over 90% of all Greek manuscripts generally agree with each other if God has not divilely preserved His Word from errors. Home