Anti-KJV crusader James White strikes out again...
I was reading James "anti-KJV" White's blog and came across this passage:
"A person with money becomes a little god, shaping and making his own reality, his own future, or so he thinks. It is that kind of love of money that is a root, (not the root as the KJV puts it) of all sorts of evil."
The little swipe at the KJV. The passage in question is 1 Timothy 6:10. So I did some research to see if the KJV truly is a mistranslation here. (Because frankly on the surface it's one of those that makes you think it would be hard to defend the KJV.) I found this page:
The guy even uses James White as a foil for explaining the KJV rendering of that verse. It turns out there is no article ('the' or 'a') before root in that verse, and the putting there of one is not only wholly legitimate but the one the KJV put there was not without precedent and legitimacy as a rendering. Read a little bit of the guy's explanation and you see how much deception comes out of the anti-KJV camp...
They seem to have adopted the Muslim's approach that lying to Christians is OK if it is done to further their cause...
These self-identified Calvinists who push the corrupt, new age, Alexandrian, Roman Catholic, devil manuscripts are solely in the Reformed camp to do just that. The devil knows, and his followers know, that they can do a thousand times more damage to the Kingdom of God by pushing the corrupt manuscripts onto unknowing Christians than they can by attacking sound doctrine (it just buys them time, though, until their inevitable destruction in eternal hellfire). So they have no problem espousing Calvinist doctrine. It's their cover to do what they are really in the camp of believers to do: insert the devil's manuscripts. Scratch these types and you find Roman Catholics under the surface. When they get 'heated' they can't help themselves but to sound like Roman devil-priests, which has been documented in James White's case ("People who aren't specialists shouldn't have opinions about the manuscripts")...
29 Comments:
I'd like to see that documented too. I've been reading and following most of your KJV related comments since way before I was a Calvinist and I've never heard you say anything like that.
I agree with Dr. White and blackcalvinist. Please give a reference for the quote in question.
Given that I grew up KJVO (20 years), it is these KJVO sites that remind me of my previous enslaved Tradition.
I look foward to hearing you defend your KJV tradition on the Dividing Line Radio Show tomorrow, as well as your explanation for libel against an elder of God's people.
Alan
I can't believe how slanderous this guy is! Want to disagree with James White? Cool! But if you are going to disagree, then PLEASE do so in accordance with 2 Tim. 2:23-26. There's no use in name calling. Be nice. Be respectful. Disagree firmly. And please leave your personal attacks at the door! Oh, and i'll be listening to the DL and awaiting your apology.
Godbless
ApologistX
c.t.,
I don't understand what the use is of having an infallible, final, and inviolable translation of the Bible if you aren't going to bother following what it says.
I could not disagree with your KJVO position more. But let's assume it is true for a moment:
In the AV, does not Ephesians 4:15 command you to speak the truth in love?
What about your comments above is either truthful or loving? It looks to me that you're parroting well-worn KJVO assertions that have been proven wrong again and again, not for the edification of the man you disagree with but simply (and sinfully) to either excite the KJVO cheering section or to try to get a notch in your apostate hunting knife.
It is possible to refute error without being hateful. If apologetics (even in the service of a flawed cause!) is what you see as your calling, I suggest you go back to the AV and read it again.
You owe James White a retraction and an apology. You don't have to change your views to do that -- but if you persist in slandering others in this manner, I wonder what the point is of believing the KJV is the Word of God at all, if you don't plan to follow it.
Oh, little Westscott and Hort followers, aren't we sensitive on this subject?
Look at this post on White's blog:
http://www.aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1294&catid=6
I was writing as mdries. Now look at this sentence in the midst of the email he quotes:
"By the way, your recent statement that only specialists should have opinions regarding manuscript issues was very Roman Catholic of you, hence my opening above [I had called him devil-priest]."
Notice White didn't take exception to me saying that in the real time of the exchange. That's because he knew he stated it. Whether it was on the Puritan Board or his own site I don't recall, but he did state it. Since time has passed now he thinks he can get away with denying saying such a thing. He's a dishonest boy.
Ah, you've all been exposed! You hold to the devil's manuscripts. And since this shows your lack of discernment and since you are as vain and prideful as the devil you won't ever back down! You'll defend the devil's corrupt manuscripts to the grave. You desperately demonize anybody who exposes your precious Roman Catholic manuscripts (kind of like Counter-Reformation Jesuits used to demonize the Reformers -- "Calvin confessed to a priest he was a bugger! yes, and that he had a demon in him! The priest wrote a book about it!")
I said it before, if any of you devil's water-boys had tried to push your corrupt manuscripts on a Calvin back in the day he'd have pinned a note on your collar (figuring you were somewhat challenged mentally) and buy you safe passage home...to the Vatican. Where your corrupt manuscripts come from.
Sorry, boys and girls, this is just too serious and foundational a matter. The devil has been corrupting the Word of God from the Garden. His greatest triumphant was springing Satanicus/Vaticanus on a sleeping Christendom in the 19th century -- no shots fired. The only problem is: you can't fool God's elect. We know the voice of the Shepherd. And we know God's Word is preserved supernaturally. Yeah, we're innocents like that. We actually believe what the Bible says. And when you push 'bibles' that delete the Word of God and change it and corrupt it a thousand different ways (ongoing corruption, by the way) we kind of take exception to it. Yeah, I know it's difficult to take when you are being out-flanked on your right. But that's going to happen when you're carrying water for the devil, no matter what you self-identify as...
"Notice White didn't take exception to me saying that in the real time of the exchange. That's because he knew he stated it. Whether it was on the Puritan Board or his own site I don't recall, but he did state it. Since time has passed now he thinks he can get away with denying saying such a thing. He's a dishonest boy. "
Translation: "Because Dr. White didn't respond to every single Ad Hominem that I threw at him, this means that he must have said everything I accused him of saying."
Incredible! Is is possible that you have absolutely no evidence to document your citation? And does calling us the "Devil's water boys" have anything to do with 1 Tim. 6:10? Why not deal with the issue at hand?
Oh, and one more thing. You said,
"You desperately demonize anybody who exposes your precious Roman Catholic manuscripts
Ok. Maybe i'm way off on this here. But....wasn't the TR collated by a Roman Catholic priest? Just a thought.
History is also a problem with the champions of the devil's manuscripts. Erasmus lived prior to the Reformation. So with that little fact in our possession we can then look to see what his views were in the context of his times: and he was rather more godly in his views (regarding the corruption of Rome and regarding the Word of God and so on) than the run of priests of his day. Look it up. If you have any interest in truth.
You have to fear only God to get wisdom. Don't fear man, and the opinions of man. Be bold in finding the truth. Wisdom loves those who seek her. Seek her.
>Defend your accusation, or apologise
Wet little boys are always demanding an apology. And Muslims...
By the way, you have to accuse me of editing White's blog. A conspiracy claim that wouldn't be beyond you corrupt manuscript championers, in my experience. The post is there today. I wrote: "By the way, your recent statement that only specialists should have opinions regarding manuscript issues was very Roman Catholic of you,"
By the way - your recent statement.
Now, writing that back then it is kind of obvious he had made the recent statement? To anyone with good will towards truth. And he knew it too. Which is why he was silent...
Do you know your history at all?
"Erasmus lived prior to the Reformation."
I did look it up, like you said. You should have followed your own advice. Erasmus was contemporary with the Reformation. This is the same Erasmus who defended the Roman position on the freedom of the will against Luther! Or who did you think Luther wrote "Bondage of the Will" against? Erasmus stayed in the Catholic fold despite his misgivings, and fought against Luther's stress on sola gratia. In his dedication to a new edition of the treatise of Algerus, he reaffirmed his belief in the Catholic view of the presence of Christ in the elements of the Mass. So whether his views were a product of his time or not, he stayed on the Catholic side when he clearly had a choice - and defended it. To say he was Catholic is historically and theologically accurate.
And while the first edition of the TR was published in 1516 - the year before the 95 Theses - I don't believe that the KJV is based on that edition. It's a later edition, if I recall correctly, that was published during the Reformation (yes, if this is new to you, there were several editions and corrections to the TR; Erasmus didn't see it as perfect, either).
So Mike-e is right - Erasmus was a Catholic priest.
So now you owe him an apology as well, given the vitriol in your response to him based on that error.
The point in contention was not was Erasmus a Roman Catholic priest (sheesh).
Erasmus was 51 when Luther picked up the hammer. In those days that was like being 91.
Erasmus was a child of the 15th century. He was not 'contempory' with the Reformation. Not even geographically.
But that the early reformers sought to recruit him and use his stature, and felt that they could, tells you something about him anyway. And certainly it doesn't tell you that he was a typical corrupt Romanist priest of his day.
The Holy Spirit was using Erasmus for a rather important task, as well. He didn't need to jump into the Reformation battles. He was already playing a foundational role in bringing back light to a world submerged in Romanist darkness...
Steve, how can you write such a dumb litany? I know you've been set straight on each of these canards and dumb statements in the past (if you've debated these issues at all). Yet you keep spewing it out. That's a sign of hardening.
And who cares what you used to be? You sound like former charismatics who feel burned by their experience who now state "God doesn't communicate with believers except through his Word and anybody who says different is a dumb Benny Hinn charismatic!!"
And why do you judge spiritual things by the behaviour of humans? If you're a Calvinist, how would you react to the statement: "Calvinists I've encountered are mean, therefore TULIP is false."
Also, look how dishonest it is when White (and his followers) continue to say it is KJV-onlyism they are being confronted with and not an accusation that the manuscripts that underlie their modern versions are corrupt. White CAN'T admit this is what is in contention, because he then has to defend the devil rather than enable himself to attack a strawman. He's wicked soul. He knows exactly what he's doing, and the fact that he continues it over and over after having been publically confronted on it over and over shows he's hardened on the issue.
Genetic logical fallacy.
It doesn't matter who collated the manuscripts.
Dead serious. One of the sure marks of regeneration is not 'good language' and 'not angering people.' It is a high valuation for and instinctive defending of the Word of God. When your Westcott and Hort defile the Word of God you're damn well right I will confront, if not their dead souls, their followers who continue their evil work. The pure and whole Word of God is the most precious possession of fallen humanity. When it is attacked and defiled so blatantly God's elect WILL confront the evil, whether the lukewarm man-fearers like it or not.
>>When your Westcott and Hort defile the Word of God you're damn well right I will confront, if not their dead souls, their followers who continue their evil work. >>
Is there something in the KJV that gives the "elect" of God the right to sin with impunity? Do you not fear that your repeated lack of gentleness, meekness, kindness and love is a sign of your own "hardening"? Tread lightly, CT, on how you "defend" your mere opinion...you also will one day have to give an account to Christ the King.
Right. Christ the King whom you defile and spit on by championing the defilement and mutilation of His Word.
God's name in any of your mouths is disingenuous mocking of God. Defend His Word before you invoke His name against those who defend His Word.
Admit that you've been taken in by devils, first of all.
>You were rebuked on the PB and were banned from it.
I was ultimately banned from that forum for confronting Federal Visionists and theonomists, of which that forum is crawling with, including many of the moderators. They were looking for any reason to ban me, and taking on the corrupt manuscripts in non-lukewarm language just provided them that excuse.
Listen, devil. You accuse like a cleric of the Roman Beast. Language is relative. Any language I use against your devil manuscript will come across as 'filthy communication' to you. The truth itself is like a knife.
You currently have no discernment to know what is filthy language and what isn't. The language in the modern versions is filthy, perverted language because it pretends to be the Word of God and is the words of the devil.
Again, when you don't know when the devil has you by the throat you won't know what the apostle Paul means when he talks of bad language.
I'm accused of 'bad language' by all Village of Morality Christians all across the web. It's your first and only defense when you're being exposed, and it's hollow. Do you really think God cares more if you say fuck than if you mutilate his Word? If that's a hard call for you you have problems...
Actually, we were playing bad cop, good cop over there. I opened up the field for the good cop pro-traditional text types over there. I take the fall, I don't mind. They later had a poll - anonymous voting - on what people on the forum considered their favorite translation, and the King James Version won. When people get the facts their conscience awakens. They may not become hardcore like me, but they no longer are the easy victims of sophistry and propaganda...
I need, though, to extricate myself from this current melee. The internet is crazy. If people want to read mutilated Bibles, then so be it. It's not a hellfire issue...
I engage in hyperbole on this issue... I don't really think you're all devils. Really... Dishonest, in some cases, yes; sophistic, sure... Duped, yeah... But bound for hellfire because you read the NIV/NASB/ESV et al? No... Just at some point find out what is missing or changed. Do yourself a favor...
supraman, this topic was gone over with 600 people vs. me when Mark Driscoll was accused of using 'bad language' and I defended it on a popular internet site (I don't know about Driscol re emerging church and all that, I just defended one thing he's written and was being taken to tast over). I know all the verses regarding language. I also know there is empty bad language and there is meaningful bad language. There is also language that will always be considered negative because it is saying something people don't want to hear. There are many possibilities. But the moralists take such things in a formalistic way, and there's no disuading them, so be it.
I'll give you this: I'd feel better physically if I didn't use such language. I do get conscience-stricken regarding it and have remorse, even though it's for dramatic purposes and all that. I can make the same points using more diplomatic language, but people do need shocks adminstered to them on this subject. I'll post some useful links to sites where people use more diplomatic language.
supraman, you're making the assumption my language isn't intentional, or is out-of-control. I use the language I do to shock. People need to be shocked. And there is truth in the langauge I use as well. Else it wouldn't shock. The reaction happens because the shock, or sting, is real. Whited sepulchre or lukewarm language doesn't do anything but allow people to remain comfortable in their conceits. People don't like being called a devil, but you know what? when you champion the devil's manuscripts you're being a devil. And the word stings because they know there is truth in what is being said. Their conscience stings them as much as the words. They're vulnerable on the issue, and they know it, so when you zing them where their vulnerable they react with a massive outrage. Too bad. Stop being vulnerable maybe. Give up your championing of corrupt manuscripts.
You don't understand what shock means. Shock value is not a shock. Shock value is empty. A shock can only shock if it has truth in it and it convicts, against one's best defenses and self-justifications.
>These are your brothers and sisters in Christ. Nowhere does God say that we should use such language toward one another...
There is no Christ if His Word is defiled beyond recognition, which is happening currently with versions based on the corrupt and ever-changing and becoming more and more corrupt manuscripts. We learn of Christ from His Word. The devil has wanted to do something about this since the Garden. He began to have real success in the 19th century, and his followers have been gleefully carrying on the work ever since. No, you can't hide behind language like 'brothers and sisters in Christ' while you at the same time defile and mutilate His Word...
>So those who do not utilize Bible versions based on the TR are not saved?
You made exactly zero progress in your time here. But when you are in the position of defending cartoonishly corrupt manuscripts you really have to hold on to these ridiculous strawmen, don't you?
It really is a 'stench of hell on your very being' thing to be playing with the defiling of the Word of God. You can always come away from it. You certainly know enough to know better...
Has c.t. chosen to bear false witness against James White? Why, by his own logic, that just proves c.t. is motivated by his sinful love of money. :)
What's confused you all from the beginning is White has proven himself in past exchanges to not rate any kind of serious treatment. Whether email, blog, or forum, at this point I merely do satire on him. He's a juvenile personality to begin with, but on the manuscripts issue he's the exact equivalent of a Roman Catholic apologist: no sophistry, no propaganda, no pure mendacity is off-limits. So when he says "Only specialists should have opinions about the manuscripts" and I paraphase "Only ordained clerics should have opinions about the manuscripts" both represent his Roman priest-like stated view.
It's interesting that White can be turned into a small pile of burning carbon by his opponents, and shown to be mendacious and sophistic to the nth degree, and his admirers just have no problem with any of that, because the campaign in your minds is sound. Pushing the corrupt manuscripts is a cause that transcends all standards of truth and behaviour. It is, as I stated, exactly like the Muslim approach that says it is OK to lie to 'infidels' if it furthers the progress of Islam.
CT is either joking or mentally ill.
I'll fight in the foxhole with c.t. any day. The rest of you, stay out of the army. The enemy would have you running to his arms.
It is refreshing to see a man so passionate for the Word of God today!
Post a Comment
<< Home