KING JAMES BIBLE "ONLY" DEBATE: IS THE KJV THE ONLY REAL TRANSLATION? JAMES WHITE VS D.A. WAITE

Larry Wessels, director of Christian Answers of Austin, Texas/ Christian Debater (YouTube channel CANSWERSTV; websites: BIBLEQUERY.ORG, HISTORYCART.COM, & MUSLIMHOPE.COM) presents this radio debate between Dr James White, director of "Alpha & Omega" Ministries (website: AOMIN.ORG) & Dr. D.A. Waite, director of "Bible for Today Ministries" (website: BIBLEFORTODAY.ORG). Larry Wessels, besides his own ministry's radio show called "Christian Answers Live!" also participated in the weekly radio broadcast called "In Defense of the Faith" which is the broadcast in which this "KJV Only" debate took place.

"King James Onlyites" & "Ruckmanites" (of Peter S. Ruckman) make a big deal about how other Bible translations are inferior or in some cases "Satanic" (as per Gail Riplinger's "New Age Bible Versions" & her supporters such as Texe Marrs - see our video response to this, copy & paste "New Age Bible Versions" & the "King James Only" Controversy - A Refutation" in the YOUTUBE search box). But why hasn't this controversy been going on in the Christian church over the last 400 years since the KJV came out in 1611? Why does this controversy seem to be restricted only to the middle 1900s & beyond? There is a reason for this. The "King James Only" theory was started by a Seventh-Day Adventist & others then bought into it (much like any new cultic movement).

BENJAMIN WILKINSON. In the investigation of King-James-Version-Onlyism, (KJVO) just such a genealogy of error can be easily traced. All writers who embrace the KJV-only position have derived their views ultimately from Seventh-day Adventist missionary, theology professor and college president, Benjamin G. Wilkinson (d.1968), and then through one of two or three of his spiritual descendants. In 1930, he wrote "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated," a book of several hundred pages which attracted almost no attention in its day (no doubt because it was awash in a vast ocean of unmitigated error). In that book, Wilkinson attacked the Westcott Hort Greek text, in large measure by attacking Westcott and Hort personally (the common but fallacious ad Hominem method). He also expresses a strong opposition to the English Revised Version New Testament (1881), in particular objecting to it because it robbed Adventism of two favorite proof-texts, one allegedly teaching Gentile Sabbath keeping (Acts 13:42), the other misused by the Adventists to teach soul sleep (Hebrews 9:27). Wilkinson was the first to misapply Psalm 12:6,7 specifically to the KJV as though the passage were a promise to preserve the words of verse six (when in fact the promise is the preservation of the persecuted saints of verse five). Wilkinson also manufactured the erroneous idea that the medieval Waldensian Bible was based on the Old Latin version and not the Vulgate, and that the Old Latin version was Byzantine in its text-type (all of which is demonstrably false). Thus Wilkinson, is the first generation of KJV Onlyism.

J.J. RAY. Wilkinson's book lay unused and unknown (and how good it would have been had its errors died with him!), until 1955 when J.J. Ray, who is self-described as a "business manager, missionary, and Bible teacher" published a little volume, "God Wrote Only One Bible" (Ray is apparently still living, but we can find out nothing about him, and he refuses to reply to certified letters; if anyone can supply specific information about this man, we would greatly appreciate it). In his book, Ray heavily plagiarized, without note or acknowledgement, Wilkinson's book, repeating and propagating wholesale Wilkinson's errors and misstatements.

DAVID OTIS FULLER. The other chief disseminator of Wilkinson's misinformation was David Otis Fuller, a Regular Baptist pastor. Fuller must be counted as part of the third generation, since, according to Fuller's own words in the dedication of Counterfeit of Genuine (1975), Ray's book "God Wrote Only One Bible" were also repeatedly noted on pp. 2-4 of "Which Bible?" Fuller reads Ray; Fuller writes Ray for more information; Ray directs Fuller to Wilkinson; Fuller reads Wilkinson, is lead astray, then reprints Wilkinson in "Which Bible?" In 1970, Fuller issued "Which Bible?", which was in its 5th edition by 1975 and contained 350 pages. Of those pages, almost half were taken from Wilkinson's "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated," with some editing, first to conceal from view Wilkinson's cult affiliation, and second, to correct some of the worst of his errors. According to D.A. Waite, long associated with Fuller in KJVO matters, Fuller knew full-well that Wilkinson was an Adventist and deliberately concealed that fact from the reader, and even from the publisher [see note at end of article], because the Baptist brethren "wouldn't understand."

Go to BIBLEQUERY.ORG, click "Experience" on homepage & scroll down to our KJV Only newsletter.

John 14:6

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Power of Prophecy
• Westcott
• Hort
• bruce metzger
• edwin palmer
• RC sproul
• DA Carson
• Peter Ruckman
• acrostic algebra
• pelagianism
• calvinist
• new testament
• greek
• text
• manuscript
• evidence
• inerrancy
• Dr Oakley
• Texe Marrs
• Doug Kutilek
• Authorized King James Version
• BIBLE TRANSLATIONS

[athb4hu]

I have just discovered your channel and appreciate the scholarly approach to many interesting issues. This was an informative debate, but I was irritated somewhat by the KJV guy constantly refusing to deal with the issues he was presented with. Anyway, thanks for lots of great material.

[CAnswersTV]

@athb4hu Thank you for your very kind comments!

[CAnswersTV]

@IshMelamaid Excellent apologetics job here! You've shown that people listening to this debate should really pay more attention to the fine details of the discussion. Isaiah 40:8.

[IshMelamaid]

@calvinclemons030

If you are concerned about scribes perverting the scriptures, wouldn't you want to do all you could to determine what variations in the Greek mss can be demonstrated as the words of the biblical authors. Yet, you rail against White for doing that very thing above. @ 40:00, White explains how the TR/KJB uses the term "Christ" in 2 Tim. 2:19 in a place where no prior mss do. Thus, there is vitually no chance the TR/KJB reading here is original. Seems you should support that.

[IshMelamaid]

@calvinclemons030

Respectfully, White does not say what you suggest at all. He questions the KJB's use of the word "Christ" (not "Lord" as you say) in 2 Tim. 2:19. This is not a translation issue. This is a textual issue. White is saying that the Greek TR (and therefore the KJB) has the Greek for "Christ" at this point when all prior Greek mss actually read "Lord." White's question is why should we follow the TR here (as the KJB does) when it has no Greek mss support.

[calvinclemons030]

@ 40:00 White says the translation in the KJB is rendered Lord, and that this is a wrong translation. Let me ask a simple and common sense question. Is Jesus Christ not The Lord come in flesh? It seems as though James White is straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel! In my opinion James White is a heretic, plain and simple. He'll defend Westcott and Hort,who were blatant Jesuit occultist. He cant find the truth for the same reason a thief cannot find a cop. He's an hireling pure and simple.

[calvinclemons030]

Jesus Christ said in Luke 20:46 "Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets,and the highest seats in the synagogues,and the chief rooms at feasts;" These so-called scribes that perverted the scriptures were warned about by Paul too. Even while the Gospels and Epistles were being penned, there were those who were perverting Scipture.Galatians 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

[nomesbirdy]

It is good and healthy to openly debate these things - there is nothing wrong with KJ however it was not translated from the original languages of the bible. When it was translated the only sauce available was the Latin vulgate (catholic bible from when Latin was considered the holy language) but today newer translation (some better then others) are translated from really old scrolls and parchment, thanks to archaeology and are translated from the original languages unlike the King James - not

[onii1chan]

@CAnswersTV Chariots range from the amount of horses they use, To keep it simple, let's say it raged from 2-4 horses per chariot. Then, I would agree that 2.85 horses per chariot makes sense. But, when a chariot loses some of it's horses, and men, it would pull back to replace them with 'new' rested horses and men. In this case, they would use more then the 2-4 horses they need to operate, in which case 2.85 would seem rather low. I do really appreciate your thoughtful replies though. Thanks.

[CAnswersTV]

@onii1chan You might not have a problem with it but most people will, particularly since they're not going to read into it what you're reading into it with your "AND" presupposition. 2 Chronicles 1:14 says Solomon had "a thousand & four hundred chariots, & twelve thousand horsemen." Do you need 40,000 horses for only 1400 chariots? That's 28.57 horses per chariot. However 4000 horses for 1400 chariots gives you 2.85 per chariot. The second number is much more reasonable. You must be careful.

[onii1chan]

@CAnswersTV "forty thousand stalls of /horses FOR his chariots/, and twelve thousand horseman" 1 Kings 4:26. "Four thousand stalls for /horses AND chariots/, and twelve thousand horsemen" 2 Chronicles 9:25. Both KJV. Both sentences mean two different things. The first says that he has forty thousand stalls for just horses (horses that are used for the chariots), and the second says that there he has four thousand for horses AND their chariots. I don't see much of a problem.

[CAnswersTV]

@TheChristcrucified This is undoubtedly a copyist error. Compare 1 Kings 4:26 to 2 Chronicles 9:25 which verifies 4000 stalls for horses. The NIV wins on this verse. In Hebrew, the visual difference between the 2 numbers is very slight. The consonants for the number 40 are "rbym." while the consonants for the number 4 are "rbh" (the vowels were not written into the text). The manuscripts from which the scribe worked may have been smudged or damaged & appeared to be 40,000 rather than 4000.

[CAnswersTV]

@KJVWordofGod Try reading the KJV Song of Solomon 5:4 ("my bowels were moved for him") to a junior or senior high school group. And what shall we say of "ass" and "asses"? How much better to use in translation the contemporary equivalent, "donkey" which will not distract the immature reader. And who ever read I Kings 21:21 "him that pisseth against the wall" in public? What's wrong with the translation of "mute donkey" for "dumb ass" in 2 Peter 2:16? What about "prevent" in 1 Thess 4:15 KJV?

[KJVWordofGod]

@CAnswersTV To which I say Bull ! The best translation is one without error....not one that reads like a kindergarten book. Nevertheless, the KJV is the easiest to read according to professional English studies (Fleishman-Kincaid). You may prefer lies mixed in with your truth but I prefer absolute and PURE truth...and shame on you for spreading lies....God will deal with you.....WOLF!

[TheChristcrucified]

Solomon had four thousand stalls for chariot horses, and twelve thousand horses. 1 kings 4:26 niv. And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen 1 Kings 4:26 KJV. Who is right?

[CAnswersTV]

@SAUNDERSacts2618 Please see our 2 part series titled, "Bible Translation Issue #1 & #2" here on YOUTUBE. Please see Doug Kutilek's "The King James Only Resource Center" website: KJVONLY ORG for more on defending against KJV Only falsehoods. Dr. Ron Rhodes has an excellent book entitled, "The Complete Guide to Bible Translations" published by Harvest House Publishers. A handy pamphlet called "Bible Translations Comparison" put out by Rose Publishing (website: ROSE-PUBLISHING COM) is available.

[SAUNDERSacts2618]

I want the Truth!!! Trying to figure this out??

[DinoDude65]

@CAnswersTV

That sounds pluralist. Things that are different are not the same. That's all I have to say.

[CAnswersTV]

@DinoDude65 The Bible translation that is best for you may not necessarily be the translation that is best for someone else. If you are an adult, fluent in English & your primary purpose is detailed study of the Scriptures, then a more literal translation (formal equivalence) would be an excellent choice. Two very good options here would be the New American Standard Bible & the more recent English Standard Version. The poetic KJV although archaic is good but the NKJV is easier to understand.

[DinoDude65]

The King James Bible is the most reliable by far. Many new translations consider and use the manuscripts Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, the former a Gnostic and the latter a Catholic.

There's no doubt in my mind that God can use a NIV or a NLT to bring someone to Christ and grow them as a devout Christian: no doubt. But The KJV is probably the best text-wise.

[TheotherPrometheus]

I love how Tex Marrs refuses to debate Dr. White, but was the FIRST caller to the program, and addressed Dr. Waite only.

[CAnswersTV]

@candice4God Very good. Your attitude is the same as ours on this issue. "King James Onlyites" bring discord to the body on Christ by their many bogus arguments against other translations & their own poor defenses of the KJV (using Peter Ruckman as an example for instance). Please see our 2 hour mini-series called "Bible Translation Issue #1: Origins & Impact of the "King James Bible Onlyism" Heresy" & "Bible Translation Issue #2: Does the 1611 King James Correct the Original Greek & Hebrew?"

[candice4God]

I believe that God gave us a sense of knowledge to know which translation is good or not good. For me I not only use KJV, but NKJV,NASB, and yes the NIV if I have to. For me if i have a bible sitting there and it was the ONLY one around and not a KJV, God can still use that to teach someone, God is a powerful God and can go over man made errors(though they should be noted and corrected) my main one I use is NASB looseleaf bible.

[CAnswersTV]

@slavicmissions If you say "Well Done" do you mean that you believe that the King James Bible is an absolutely "infallible" translation that "perfectly preserves the Word of God in English" from 1611 to the present like the Ruckmanites do? Are you a Ruckmanite? How do you explain the differences in the texts from the 1611 & modern day KJV bibles? Explain why the following verses have been changed from the 1611 to something different in modern KJVs: Genesis 19:21, 39:16; Exodus 15:25, 21:32, etc.

[slavicmissions]

Well done Dr. Waite!!!