The Niv Challenge

[drdeutsch]

If I remember correctly, Riplinger's book was about 800 pages long (or was it 700?). Anyway, James White had to read the whole thing in less than a week so that he could debate her on the radio. He found over 600 (or was it 700?) errors in her book, including misquotes, quotes taken out of context, and other information obviously twisted to her side of the argument. I have the debate - which took place on radio - in MP3 format if you want to hear it.

Dr. Deutsch

[EdJones]

The Anti King James Version Conspiracy

A PUBLIC SPANKING FOR JAMES WHITE! By Cecil J. Carter

[Faramir]

02-25-2003 @ 11:08 AM
drdeutsch:

If I remember correctly, Riplinger's book was about 800 pages long (or was it 700?). Anyway, James White had to read the whole thing in less than a week so that he could debate her on the radio. He found over 600 (or was it 700?) errors in her book, including misquotes, quotes taken out of context, and other information obviously twisted to her side of the argument. I have the debate - which took place on radio - in MP3 format if you want to hear it.

Dr. Deutsch

Here is a detailed critique White made of Riblinger's book.

If it were not such a devisive subject, it would be funny.

[Socrates]

EdJones

• One hundred years ago John Burgon wrote:
  

  
  "If you and I believe that the original writings of the Scriptures were verbally inspired by God, then of necessity they must have been providentially preserved through the ages."

Gray Pilgrim responded:

• Your use of the logical fallacy of appeal to authority on both of these posts fails to make an argument. I have never heard of this Burgon guy, but I am sorry it is silly to say that there are no text-critical errors in the Bible.

Dean John Burgon was a textual scholar of the 19th century who strongly opposed Westcott and Hort. But I strongly question the accuracy of EdJones' citings. First of all, KJVO literature is notoriously unreliable, and second, Burgon was by no means as stupid as that. But Burgon was not KJV-only, and did not believe the TR was infallible, since it actually a poor compilation of a few Byzantine MSS, and got the last few verses of Revelation by back-translating from the Vulgate. He noted a textual variant at Mt. 10:8 —

‘For, in not a few particulars, the “Textus Receptus” does call for revision, certainly …’

GP continues:

• The majority texts which KJVO appeal to happen to be text families and not one individual text itself, but is a family of texts that has differances in it.'

That's a good point. The KJVO appeal to perfect divine preservation begs the question of how this alleged preservation occurred. They simply assert that the TR is how God preserved the NT, but overlook that it was compiled from a number of different manuscripts, none of which was identical to the TR. So evidently, under their "reasoning", God had not preserved a text for over a millennium until Erasmus produced the TR. Actually, Erasmus was a Roman Catholic who opposed Luther (a little ad hominem to show the KJVOs that their favorite tactic can rebound), and used textual criticism to produce the TR!

DrDeutsch:

• If I remember correctly, Riplinger's book was about 800 pages long (or was it 700?). Anyway, James White had to read the whole thing in less than a week so that he could debate her on the radio. He found over 600 (or was it 700?) errors in her book, including misquotes, quotes taken out of context, and other information obviously twisted to her side of the argument. I have the debate - which took place on radio - in MP3 format if you want to hear it.

Sounds interesting. Also, White's detailed rebuttal of Riplinger's trash is on his website at http://www.aomin.org/NABVR.html (long!).

[EdJones]

Scholarship Only Controversy by Dr. Peter S. Ruckman

This critique of James White's book The King James Only Controversy exposes him for the liar that he is, proving he lied 79 times in his book.

[Socrates]

EdJones shows his true colors:

• Scholarship Only Controversy by Dr. Peter S. Ruckman

In case some people on TW aren't aware, Ruckman believes that God re-inspired the KJV (and I guess the 1769 revision which Ed undoubtedly uses), so that it supersedes the original languages. Yes, Ruckman declares that the KJV English should be used to correct the Hebrew and Greek :dunce:! More moderate KJVOs like David Waite even call Ruckmanism a "heresy".

• This critique of James White's book The King James Only Controversy exposes him for the liar that he is, proving he lied 79 times in his book.

I wonder how many times Ruckman resorted to argumentum ad hominem, his favorite tactic (and anti-intellectual demagoguery comes a close second ). See White's Response to Peter Ruckman's earlier critique and their long(!) correspondence.

PS: Oh Ed, stop hiding those KJV arguments in that juvenile graphic in Post# 24024 — lay them out so we can see them properly! Or else I'll assume that you don't think they are worthy of being clear.

[Faramir]

02-25-2003 @ 11:35 AM
EdJones:

Scholarship Only Controversy by Dr. Peter S. Ruckman

This critique of James White's book The King James Only Controversy exposes him for the liar that he is, proving he lied 79 times in his book.

So what? Assuming Dr. Ruckman's comments are factual (I would love to see some "examples" of these so called lies), all you are doing is poisoning the well.

It would be nice if you could provide some actual reasons for your KJVO position. Question begging, ad hominem, and well poisoning IMHO seem to be the forte of KJVO arguments. So far, you have done nothing to convince me otherwise.

[GrayPilgrim]

I noticed in your scrolling list on post #24024 that you say in the NIV & NAS omited "but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.'" to finsih the quotation of Deuteronomy 8:3. But here is where a little textual criticism comes into play:

NA27 (no relation to W&H) says look at the parallel passages (Mt 4:1-11 & Mark 1:12), it also says that some mss ADD this longer quotation, those being

A (d) Θ Ψ (0102) f (=1, 118, 131, 209, 1582 et al and 13, 69, 124, 174, 230, 346, 543, 788, 826, 828, 983, 1689, 1709 et al) 33 Maj the entire Latin tradition, Syriac (Pe[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]a & Harklensis) bohairic (5 or more)

These fall within the Byzantine or Western Families which are known for their harmonization and expanding of the text. Although Θ is Caesarean.

However these text follow the text in NA27, NIV, ESV, NAS...

א B L W 1241 a few syriac (Sinaticus [it and Curetonianus are the earliest Syriac translations), Sahidic (2 or MSS more supoprt this reading) bohairic (5 or more)

This is squarely in the Alexandrian tradition.

So it appears that it is a toss up wether it belongs or not. I would follow NA27 , NIV, NAS, ESV for the fact that it is the shorter reading and the words are still in Matthew so it is not lost. Parallel passages often have differences, so that the author can make their point, it is in these differences that we can understand the point, whereas it appears you would rather us go back to a Diatesseron approach.

Jaltus, If you can look over this for me I'd appreciate it.

GP

[Jaltus]

Dean Burgon did not believe in the TR, he believed in the MT.

This can be found in his book The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels Vindicated and Established, p. 5, where he makes the break with the TR and says he is advocating the MT.

Hence, he is NOT a backer of the KJV as it is based on the TR and not on the MT. He thought the TR was invalid!

He also disavows the TR in The Revision Revised, p. 21 n.2.

It sure seems like someone needs to check their sources.

Dean Burgon was a backer of the Majority Text Type, not the KJV. In fact, he would not even be allowed to be a member of the "dean Burgon Society" since he disallows the TR.

Sorry, Ed old boy, but you need to get your facts straight.

[Jaltus]

Θ is not Caesarean since there is no such thing, it is actually a sub-family of the Byzantine tradition, closely related to family 13 and less closely related to family 1 (though they are probably "proto-Byzantine" rather than just Byzantine).

The first option has only Western and Byzantine backing, whereas the 2nd option has all three traditions (W is a strange mix of Western and Byzantine, though generally considered Western in the gospels).

To be honest, this is a closely balanced issue, and I would err on the side of leaving it out, for it was likely left out and the scribes put it in to harmonize.

[GrayPilgrim]

02-25-2003 @ 04:02 PM
Jaltus:

Θ is not Caesarean since there is no such thing, it is actually a sub-family of the Byzantine tradition, closely related to family 13 and less closely related to family 1 (though they are probably "proto-Byzantine" rather than just Byzantine).

The first option has only Western and Byzantine backing, whereas the 2nd option has all three traditions (W is a strange mix of Western and Byzantine, though generally considered Western in the gospels).

To be honest, this is a closely balanced issue, and I would err on the side of leaving it out, for it was likely left out and the scribes put it in to harmonize.

I figured I would goof somewhere. I was using this photocopy that Grudem left in his Bible that he gave me, it has the Qoren OT and UBS2 in it, which listed a Caesarean family.

GP

[Jaltus]

Yeah, I could tell you were going on old info. Most "C" family were either Western or Byzantine, but so early or exceptional that they did not seem to fit either text type.

[studyhound]

You know these Kjvo make it hard for me to just pick up a Kjv and take it to church read it with out some one thinking I one.

I read it thropugh and enjoyed it but I also read throught the niv and saw the same GOD, and saw the same Jesus, though I like other verisions better than the Niv I stil have it on my self and refer to it when I am studying.

[John Reece]

I was using this photocopy that Grudem left in his Bible that he gave me

Grudem must like to give away books to special friends.

I have a pre-publication copy of his doctoral dissertation (submitted to the University of Cambridge for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 9 November 1976) that is bound in a plain brown cover (looks like an old-fashioned grocery bag) on the spine of which he hand-printed:

THE GIFT OF PROPHECY
WAYNE GRUDEM

Inside the cover there is this hand-written inscription:

To Jerry from Wayne
July, 1978

το πνευμα μη σβενντε,
προφητειας μη εξουθενειτε
παντα δε δοκιμαζετε, το καλον κατεχετε,
απο παντος ειδους πονηρον απεχεσθε.



'Reminds one of how special friends can be. The "Jerry" [Daley] who gave me the book is rather special, and not just as a friend.

Edited re "doctrinal" thesis -

One of the fringe benefits of old age is having an excuse for mental lapses.

[djconklin]

02-24-2003 @ 07:40 PM
EdJones:
Thanks, I have his book and have read it. Here is info on The James White Controversy

If White's book really was "LEGALLY ACTIONABLE LIES" then why doesn't she take him to court. As they say: "Put up or shut up."

She could even get help from Ruckman: "This critique of James White's book The King James Only Controversy exposes him for the liar that he is, proving he lied 79 times in his book."