James White busted

A couple of weeks ago *liberal theologian and anti-traditional text, anti-King James Version debater James White threw a fit saying I'd misquoted him when I'd said he said, in so many words, "only ordained clerics should have opinions about manuscript issues"... He demanded a retraction (he's very, very sensitive and defensive about being exposed as a Romanist-like cleric, but then again when you defend the devil and the Vatican's favorite manuscripts, and the [per]versions based on them one would be a bit defensive on that point, most likely). My retraction was to point to an email I'd written at the time which he'd posted on his own website where I alluded to his statement (it turned out he'd said, in so many words, only 'specialists' should have opinions about manuscript issues).

I couldn't find the actual statement(s) when they were demanded by his followers. So here it is. Of course he'd written it on his very own site (which he knew and silently kept to himself.)

But once again, as I explained on the Dividing Line, none of these men [he refers to the Westminster divines (of the 1600s variety)] are overly relevant witnesses today for the simple reason that any argument they would have made was not based upon any meaningful textual foundation in comparison to what is available to us today [i.e. Christians didn't have the Word of God until the spiritualists/atheists of the 19th century 'discovered' it and declared what the Word of God is to be]. Further, I have to wonder: is there something wrong in noting that textual criticism is a specialized field and that those who have never prepared to discuss it might not be in a real good position to offer weighty opinions on it?

Note the last sentence. (As if, by the way, as was pointed out to this 'Dr.' on the Puritan Board, he has never met a specialist who disagreed with him regarding his precious devil/Vatican manuscripts (Dr. Theodore Letis, for one example, but Edward Hills, Burgon, etc., as well). For a person who crows about logic and critical thinking and non-fallacious rhetoric as much as this boy does you'd think he'd be a little bit sharper in these areas. But he defends the devil, so he's an idiot foundationally to begin with.)

He goes on to say:

If we recognize that it would be better to be John Owen than Dave Hunt on theology, why is it that everybody's opinion on textual critical matters, even if they are not particularly trained in that area, are "equal"? Isn't this the reverse of giving particular theological weight to a theological statement made by a textual critic?

Simply because it is a gift of the Holy Spirit to be able to discern the true, whole, and pure voice of the Shepherd. It is not a gift of scholarship. And when default Romanist priests like you defile the Word of God, redact, excise, re-write and generally mutilate it, God's own - who have the Spirit of discernment and a rather strong inclination (also given by the Spirit) to defend God's Word - kind of take exception to it. But you grasp this, don't you? This is why you don't care if God's own know what you're up to and you only work to deceive those who you are able to deceive (if they are God's own they won't be deceived forever). This is why, for instance, you continue to say your opponents on this issue are arguing solely for the King James Version rather than the traditional text, from which all the great and godly Reformation translations of the Word of God were made and that changed the world. You can't give up this strawman (nor can your hapless followers) because then you'd be seen to be what you are: a default Roman Beast priest (maybe you even fantasize about being a Jesuit?) defending the devil and his (and the Vatican's) poisonous manuscripts against the whole and pure Word of God as it is only found in the traditional text and from which the Authorized Version of 1611 (which you hate like a Jesuit hates the very Word of God itself) is the culmination and crown in the line of inspired English translation...

Notice also these anti-traditional text, anti-KJV 'scholars' don't have, and have never had, the talent or inspiration to translate the Word of God in any way that isn't a total parasitic, plagiaristic clown act on the King James Version itself. They, like Muslims with their Koran that draws from the Old and New Testaments while denying all the truth of the Old and New Testaments, want the reflected light of the sun to illuminate their moon, so that you will think their moon (NASB, NIV, ESV, et al) is generating its own light.

*Other than his liberal approach in disdaining the traditional text of the Word of God and his vain and prideful demand to tell God what His Word is rather than accept the traditional text preserved by the Holy Spirit Himself, and his liberal tolerance for and desire to effect the continual editing and 'changing' of the Word of god, he plays the liberal theologian's game of claiming to respect something then proceeding to undermine that very same thing elsewhere. I.e., in so many words: "I have great admiration for the King James Version and its place in the history of English speaking peoples in general and Christians in particular..." - then - "The fact is, the KJV is full of mistakes [their filthiest lie, and the main piece of devil's propaganda they want to instill in any who come under their influence] and bizarre renderings [bizarre if you're too shallow to learn to read anything of greater depth than the latest Christian Bookstore bestseller] and is - and this is just a fact - based on manuscripts that are of poor quality to say the least [the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts the KJV is based on are the traditional text, the very text preserved by the Holy Spirit for God's elect]. And did you know, by the way, that King James himself, who called for the Authorized Version to be made, was a homosexual pedophile and sodomized little boys? Oh, yes, this is a fact of history... [if your source for this history is modern day anti-KJV propagandists who smear anything to do with God's whole and pure Word the very same way Jesuits smeared and lied about the heroic Reformers]" This is similar to a Norman Shepherd or N. T. Wright saying "I fully hold to justification by faith alone." Then, 200 pages later in the same book: "Of course it is naive to think that a faith that justifies is not accompanied by..." or some such qualification. This is the long-standing practice of liberal theologians. They are sophistical and dishonest because basically they have no standard of truth to hold to because they ultimately don't recognize any standard for truth when they deny the ultimate standard: the pure and whole Word of God. To them, the Word of God doesn't exist pure and whole. It is something they determine the content of. Quite a standard...